carpandean

It means that their market research showed that people were buying them without any affiliation with the team to wear out and look cool (or something like that.)

I would have said that Larsson has a good 15-20 lbs on Pominville. Looking on their respective NHL pages, Jason is listed at 187 lbs, while Johan is listed at 206 lbs.

Maybe, but he implied that it was in big fashion, non-hockey areas, and the type of volume that he was talking about wasn't just due to displaced Buffalo fans.

I'd go with the toilet water. Why the toilet water? 'Cause f**k him, that's why.

You would think so, but as I have mentioned before, when talking with one of the big three from the last ownership group (TG/LQ/DD), I was surprised to learn that the slug jersey was one of the best sellers outside of the Buffalo market. He said that it was a fashion item. :huh:

I would say that it looks a little better than that jersey. The biggest (weirdest) problem is this: Besides that, a lighter blue would be a little better (though Patty's looks darker than I remember), reversing the waist striping would be a little better (too much gold) and replacing the two-piece blue-silver stripes with solid blue would be a little better. The silver ... whatever you would call those curved things on the side of the torso ... are less noticeable on the whites, but those could go. I know that others hate the silver-lined logo, but it has never bothered me. All (pits and yellow center waist stripe, aside) small things that would improve the jersey marginally. The blue is a much bigger problem on the home jerseys. I prefer a couple of things on the current one: the laces (always a fan), the contrasting collar and the fact that the stripes are stitched on rather than sublimated (at least, I believe both of those are true, respectively.)

Or, at least, something a little closer to them. The thirds in 2006-07 looked a little plain/dated, but that could be fixed with less dramatic changes than the current set has. Royal blue (or, again, something closer to it; certainly, less black looking on TV) would be a must, as would removing the silver/gray. The Winter Classic jerseys seemed like a darker royal than the originals, but not nearly as dark as the current set:

Ah, yes, I believe that's called Szczechura syndrome.

I haven't read this whole thread, but is it safe to say that there was plenty of attention given to how sloppy and out of synch the Leafs were? They looked terrible for most of the game.

A little early to say that he has made it. Not saying that he won't, but it's a small sample after going to a new team. Lots of such stories that have reverted back to their pre-trade play after the initial high.

There's a big difference between telling the coach that, at this point, you want to focus on developing players or that you want to see a certain goalie get some starts to see if there is anything there, and flat out telling him that you want to tank the rest of the season.

I don't quite buy this. It is true that you cannot tell the players to go lose on purpose and you can't pull some scrub from the AHL to play ahead of your NHL goaltenders, but that doesn't mean that your coach should have winning as his top priority whether or not it benefits the franchise. Many teams who find themselves out of the playoffs say that the rest of the season is about player development. That means that younger players, who might not be as good now but are more important to the future of the franchise, get played ahead of vets. Obviously, that's not the case here with the goaltenders (neither is likely a big part of the future), but it is an example of the franchise directing the coach to do something other than win at all cost, because it is better for the franchise. A more comparable example, here, would be giving young defensemen more minutes than Zach Bogosian, even though playing Zach more would give them the best chance to win. Not that Zach isn't part of the future, but he is already more developed. For the goaltenders, though, Nolan said (before Johnson went down) that if one of them got hot, then he would continue to play him. That idea should absolutely have been squashed by GMTM in favor of "I want to see them both get games" plan, instead. Even more, I would absolutely expect GMTM to tell Ted that he needs to start whichever one is playing worse against Arizona, especially on the road.

I posted something like that (swap the blue and gold) around the time when the thirds were coming out (can't remember if it was before or after.)

I don't know, but I think that I would like the SR-71 of third jerseys. Though, it does make me think of these:

And most of these are examples of a political party acting in direct opposition to the ideals on which it was supposed to be built. It's part of the reason that, on at least a fundamental level, I appreciate the Libertarian party. Some times they take things to an unrealistic extreme and their candidates have often been unsupportable, but I do admire where they are coming from.

I'm sure the left-leaning here would argue (rightly or wrongly, as you say) that the politicians on the right use their power to create policy that helps them become even richer at the expense of the less fortunate. Unfortunately, these days, both parties act in their own best interests, often in direct contradiction to the ideals on which they were supposed to be built. It's getting harder to tell them apart.

To a degree, yes. Politicians need to realize two things: 1) Those who voted against them are "the people" too. It should matter to them whether they won by a landslide or by a narrow margin. For example, Bush (GW) should have taken the tightness of his victory (basically a coin toss) as a sign that his views were basically no more or less popular than his opponent's, and thus should have been very willing to compromise. Likewise, the huge swing toward the republican party in this last election should be a sign to Obama that his policies are not as popular as he thought. I wouldn't say that either president saw/sees it that way, but they should (have). 2) A victory for a candidate is not universal support for that candidate's whole platform. Voters are usually faced with two (real) options in an election and have to choose the best -- for lack of better term -- portfolio of stances. For example, I tend to be economically conservative (e.g., wanting smaller government), but socially progressive (e.g., supporting gay marriage.) When I take one of those "who is your best candidate" tests, there are usually 2-3 candidates just above 50%, but none higher. Elected officials should want the most accurate and representative polls that they can get (not just ones that support their beliefs) in order to gauge the will of the people on individual issues. Politicians should serve only as a mechanism to best balance the often heterogeneous will of the population within the confines of internal (e.g., budgetary) and external (e.g., other nations and groups) constraints that they face. Unfortunately, that is why a straight polling democracy could not work, even with advanced technology. Issue-by-issue stances could not all be executed; some compromises and tradeoffs need to be made.

The term "low intelligence" voter is not correct. It would be insulting, as well as inappropriate. The idea is better described as "low information", "uniformed" or "willfully ignorant" voters. These voters exist at all levels of raw intelligence, political bias, education level, affluence, etc. Blind allegiance to either party (often initially due to parental bias or later due to some appealing ideals accepting without personal critical thought) or deciding based on a single, seemingly self-serving issue (without consideration of the consequences of it or any other policies supported by the corresponding candidate) are common examples. In general, though, any voter who exercises their right to vote without making an effort to inform themselves first is a danger to the process and even, potentially, themselves. As Ben Franklin said, "A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” Now, part of the problem is complacency/disinterest/laziness, but it is also a practical one. There is so much information out there, mostly with unspecified underlying bias (in either direction) that one could spend every waking hour sifting through it, attempting to discern the "truth" and still not be successful. So, even those that do choose to inform themselves will still end up with just a version of the truth. Of course, information (or lack thereof) is not the only problem with the system. Ben Franklin also saw the other one: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Voters and politicians, alike, on both sides have not only discovered this, but blatantly and unapologetically exploited it. In fact, its the greatest (largest) commonality that the sides have. I love this country and the ideals on which and systems with which it was founded, but too many citizens within do not appreciate what it is or what it would mean to lose it.

If you mean Buffalo and Arizona, then at best they will have a combined 33.5% chance at him, so smart bet would be that you are correct. If you include Edmonton (they haven't done as much obvious tanking, plus "neither" wouldn't really fit for three teams, but ...), then it's closer to a coin flip (45/55).

Bright sides, man. Actually, since they can't catch 9 teams in the West, they've locked up at least a 2% chance at McDavid (17th only has a 1% chance.)

Boston is going to make it a moot point shortly (up 5-3 in the third), but you are correct. Two head-to-head and Boston can't win either (or even lose one in OT/SO, since the Sabres can't reach 30 ROW), which means that the Panthers would pick up 4 points, enough to put them out of reach. They are officially out.

Buffalo should do it ... for a chance to start a game. #tankcommanderforaday

NHL.com with a weird glitch. Shows Arizona winning 3-2, but has the Canucks going 1 for 4 in the shootout and Coyotes going 0 for 2. Then, in the Box Score, it has Zack Kassian scoring on the first attempt for Arizona (though, both columns say Canucks at the top.)

The problem is that Ovechkin can get away with that precisely because he is so "talented ... at achieving it." It leaves your teammates basically short-handed, so you need to be able to cash in at a relatively high rate to justify it. In gym class, we called that cherry-picking. It was fun every once in while, but wasn't generally effective.

It wasn't just for Schoop and Jeremy. I'm sure GMTM was sweating in a bit, too (not that you'd know it.) I know I'll sleep better having made that move. Heck, even after making it, I'm not confident. If we hadn't made it, I would have all-but-guaranteed drafting 3-4 this year.