u/mbkontrol

With young talented cetermen very hard to find, I wonder who would be a good target for the Flames. There are two guys that interest me, both coincidentally we're drafted directly after Simon Nemec in the draft. Logan Cooley in Tampa, and Shane Wright with Seattle. Cooley is interesting, but I want to focus on Wright, as there have been rumors he may be available.

First, the scouting report. High IQ with a very strong 200' game. He has a deadly shot and likes to use it. Can play in all special teams scenarios and is not afraid to play physical. He's not an explosive skater but uses good positio ing and puck protection to mitigate this drawback.

I feel like this would be a gamble much in the same way Nemec is. You are getting an NHL player who could become a top line centerman. This is a player that could get a huge boost with a change of scenery. Projected as a first overall, he then slid to 4th, then was not treated all that well in Seattle, getting less than 5 minutes per game in a bottom six role, once he was eventually brought up to the NHL club, then sent back down after that. He has never really had the opportunity (or earned it) to shine.

In Calgary, he will get a new start with a team that has an identity that fits his game, a need for centermen in a top 6 role.

A player with his pedigree has generally always been the best player on their team at every level. They have not dealt with a lot of adversity career wise and are only 17 or 18 years old when drafted. I think that messed with his confidence and ego, and every day in Seattle is probably somewhat of a reminder of that struggle. He is older now, likely matured, and is still the hickey player that was touted as the pick of the draft for most of his draft year.

If we need to gamble a little bit and hope we hit on a future star, I think he might be a solid opportunity.

Do you agree, and if so, what would you be willing to give up to acquire this type of player.

I have noticed that one of the favourite catch phrases in political or other serious discourse is "common sense". A little while ago, a politician knocked on my door to introduce himself and make his pitch. One of the first phrases he uttered immediatley turned me off. It wasn't an offensive term or anything untoword, he simply referred to his politics as "a common sense approach". For a long time now, I have had a bad relationship with the concept of common sense. Not because it's overtly bad exactly, but rather how the concept has been mis-used, or used to mis-lead and dog whistle. I worked in an industrial environment about 6 years ago and safety was an extremely high priority. One of the first things you learn about site safety is that common sense isn't common, which opened my mind to think more on this. In this context it simply means that we have procedures and practices because what's a common assumption to one person isn't always what's common to another. So a standarized system developed by safety experts is the most effective way to diminish work place accidents. We're all operating under the same facts. Common sense is not a consistent factor. It is shaped by life experience and esposure to information with various degrees of accuracy, however I believe it's become far more insidious that simply the differences in these factors.

When this politician told me that his approach was common sense politics, he is saying many things. First of all, it implies others running in the race are incapable or unwilling to apply common sense. Now, I guess it's fine to have that opinion, but it's more likely their common sense is simply different than his. It also implies that he has common sense, and therefore if you don't agree with him, than you don't have basic common sense. It is a way to otherize one group from another. Don't you wan't you want to be a part the team that has common sense? It's not about the facts, it's about how you feel and how you feel about the world around you. It's in the word, sense. Sense in this context refers to beliefs and feelings, not measurable data.

And for some reason we are to believe that common sense is not only equal to expert knowledge, but somehow greater than expert knowledge. The politician that approached had no prior experience in government. He was a self proclaimed small business owner. That's all well and good, if he had followed that up by saying that he had looked deeply into matters of tax policy, social services and a number of other issues, and this is what he has found. In other words he had thought about the issues, and didn't just rely on what he believed was common sense. When it comes to serious issues I don't want common sense, I want expert knowledge. I want my tax policy to be built by experts in econonomics, not someone that (for example) runs an personal wellness shop, the same way I would go to a mechnic to fix my car, not a lawyer.

At the end of the day, I really think that the concept of common sense is to actually mean, don't think about it. What ever you feel is right, must be right. You see this on display all the time with the "do your own research" crowd. They aren't doing any research, they're parrotting the thing they heard that confirms their own world view. It makes me feel like I'm right, so it must be right, it's simply common sense. Powerful people want us to rely on common sense, because it bypasses the need to learn or question anything. Why take any action to educate yourself on something you already "know"? To me this is the most dangerous manipulation. I think it's conditioning us to not only stop seeking facts, truth or even nuance, but to actively dismiss any opposing stance off-hand.

If you want to see this on display with embarrassing frequency, watch any political debate that includes non-practiced participants on social media. Someone will state their premise, the other person will ask them to cite their sources or give an specific example to support their claim, and the amount of times that the response is "it's just common sense" will stagger you. Of course this usually means, I can't do that, because I didn't actually look into it, I just heard it somewhere and I agreed with it. Or, I just made it up to support my viewpoint, but if I just claim it to be common sense, you must be wrong to disagree with me.

I am a person with his own biases and "common sense" for sure, and I have a lot more to say about this in regard to technology and religions and many other of lifes issues, so I have purposefully kept this little essay as non-partisan as possible. Everything I have stated above can apply to any group of people from any background, becasue I want us all to look at this with a new lens.

Please, base your deepest stances on expert knowledge, to the best of your ability, and be prepared to change your mind. Seriously question and doubt anyone you urges you to simply use common sense instead. They might as well say "just trust me bro" and they likely don't have your best interest at heart.