bob_sauve28

Wow, he is good on the rush, it would appear

Hope they are ready

I'm excited to see this team play!

Wow

Bob Sauve!!! Twin shut outs!

That would be nice! Who do you think plays on his line opposite Tuch?

I'm really looking forward to Quinn and Peterka having full seasons this year. Super talented players ready to move the needle. Cozens started coming around again towards the end of the season so hopefully these three not just score a lot, but score when it matters. I could see those three being the driving offensive force on the team surpassing the "top line" of Tage, Tuch and whoever. This could cause a serious reevaluation of who and how the PP is structured, and lets face it, there needs to be a debate in the organization about that. Benson is a big wild card here. Does he simply get even better and cash in more on his opportunities? The sky is the limit with this kid. The question is when will we see that? next season might be too soon, or maybe not. He has already surprised everyone. No one should be too surprised if he scores 25-30 goals next year. Or maybe a sophomore slump is in the offing for the kid. Krebs can also take step forward. If injuries happen, who gets called up will be interesting to see. Can any of our young forwards come up from Rochester and not just play, but contribute? Of Rosen, Östlund, Kulich, Savoie or someone else, who gets called up, and can they help out with goal scoring?

It gets better with maturity. Brandon Montour is an example of a guy who just saw the game better as he matured

He did really stand out. No idea if that means he will be good, but hard not to notice him

He pushed someone else into him

Kleber about killed him!

Zeimer looks good! Snipe and good hands

I’m here now, nice brisk pace, saw the assistant coaches, Paul Hamilton is here has a cute blond assistant

Tage?

“I felt that he's very competitive," Trotz said. "He’s got a good hockey IQ, he's driven, he brings a lot of life and he can play any kind of game that you want to. He fits the skill game. He has lots of skill to play that game, but when it gets dirty and nasty and into the trenches, he can do that as well. So that fits right into our game." https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/nashville-predators/latest-news/jason-zucker-fits-right-in-with-predators-on-and-off-the-ice

Colton Orr

The court just gave presidents freedom to do anything. This is so bad it is hard to get my head around. They just destroyed the Constitution https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immunity-supreme-court/ Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here: The immunity is absolute There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified,” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts. Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear. Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity. And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office. Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires. There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn’t as bad as all that. These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” and so they will say that everything is fine. But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says “unofficial” acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially”? Take the now-classic example of a president ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival. According to the logic of the Republicans on the Supreme Court, that would likely be an official act. According to their logic, there is also no way to prove it’s “unofficial,” because any conversation the president has with their military advisers (where, for instance, the president tells them why they want a particular person assassinated) is official and cannot be used against them. There will doubtless be people still wondering if Trump can somehow be prosecuted: The answer is “no.” Special counsel Jack Smith will surely argue that presenting fake electors in connection with his cadre of campaign sycophants was not an “official act.” Lower-court judges may well agree. But when that appeal gets back to the Supreme Court next year, the same justices who just ruled that Trump is entitled to absolute immunity will surely rule that submitting fake electors was also part of Trump’s “official” responsibilities.

I don't see us as a serious cup team next year, but point taken

It would be nice, of course, but the top six we have now, a little older, a step closer to their prime, and undeniably talented, could get the job done, imo

If you are happy with the top six (seven if you include Zucker) then I have to think you are happy with how this has gone. If you think Tage, Tuch, Benson, JJP, Quinn and Cozens are not good enough, then we are not better.

They look harder to play against, perhaps more mature and from what some posters are saying, faster. It's up to the core group we have to do their job

I wonder if these signings move us off the spot of youngest team in the league?