shrader

I can't imagine seeing any more of the present day world than what we have already. At most, you wind up with a final scene where Jimmy (have they told us what his Cinnabun name is?) kills himself due to the boredom/depression. So you get sort of a rise and fall feel to the whole series, just like Walter White. I'm sure they'll come up with something more creative than suicide, but there's going to need to be something to take it a bit further than just working there.

You also expect to get Doughty in return straight up.

The NFL route is to sit out one year then re-enter. The NHL rule is to sit out two years then re-enter (CHL) or sit out four years then become a free agent (NCAA). I fail to see how the NFL route is somehow tougher on the player.

So you're questioning his decision to leave? That's fine. The discussion was originally about questioning the rule allowing him to become a free agent. So that explains my confusion, completely different topic.

He was drafted in 2013, four years ago. Miller and St. Louis were drafted under previous CBAs and different rules applied to them. I'm not completely sure what point you are trying to make with them. St. Louis went undrafted and signed as a free agent.at the age of 22 (or 21 depending on the calendar date). Petersen is the same age. Ryan Miller decided to sign with Buffalo 3 years after being drafted. He did not have the option of leaving at that point.

Or they went to RIT

I was actually thinking the other day about who has the most appropriate avatar. There really is no contest here.

To paraphrase a show you used to quote all the time: have you met marvelo?

Petersen has waited FOUR years.

To the team that just traded for and signed Ben Bishop?

Every single person on the face of the earth is no longer eligible for the NHL draft once they reach the age of 21. What you're suggesting is a punishment to college players, forcing them to go back into the draft while other people their age are free agents. Yes, CHL players do have to re-enter the draft after 2 years. But if they remain unsigned after the four years, they are in the same exact boat as the college player, an unrestricted free agent. If anything, the college kid already has his options limited and now you are suggesting further limiting those. It will never fly and is completely unfair to the player. What we are complaining about here is such a rarity. Sure we've seen more guys go this route recently (a collectively bargained route, by the way), but for every one of them, there are probably at least 15 college guys who do sign with the team who drafted them. Obviously I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but I hope the point is clear, so many more go the more traditional route. If a player of Eichel's status wants to go that route and throw away at least $15 million in salary and countless other dollars made from endorsements, more power to him.

You're 30 days away from being able to shop around a bit and really figure out what you think would be the best fit. Maybe that best fit does wind up being the team that drafted you*, but there's only one way to find out. You'd be crazy not to take advantage of that. *I'm not holding my breath on that one.

It probably serves a team better to take that late round stab at a college guy over a CHL guy. You control the player for 4 years, giving you more time to figure out whether or not they're worth anything. Compare that to having to make your mind up after two years when the player is still a teenager, very early in their development curve. I think that was a big part of Murray's approach to the draft. There was a good number of USHL/NCAA and europeans taken with the later picks.

No. Doug Whaley did in fact park next to me. I guess I should put the name in quotes, but I'm too lazy.

That's some crazy rounding on display right there.

When I saw this thread, my immediate thought was that if I were to use Vanek to replace anyone, it would be Moulson. Looking up their stats, I'm shocked to see that they're both the same age, It feels like Moulson is about ten years older at this point.

I missed it all, but I bet I can guess who went off on that little rant. Dude's been crusading lately.

Doug Whaley parked next to me today.

And they need to turn it upside down so that the cartoon devil is on full display. That's all I can ever see when I look at that logo.

Nope, just Italians

Let's be honest, we're not having this discussion if his name was George Stevens.

But hey, if you really like being called an N word over and over, first person shooters are the place for you. Given my penchant for pointing out people's similarities to Doug Whaley, I fit right in.

Now change the name to the Swords and get rid of that Carolina Hurricane looking logo.

The FPS games wind up falling into the same trap for me. They ultimately wind up being the same thing over and over, only good with multiple people in the room. If I can get my hands on 5 or 6 story based games, I'm covered for a couple years at that point. By the time I finish that 6th one, I've forgotten most of that 1st one and can replay it. I just recently started Final Fantasy XII, which came out 11 years ago. At this point I remember very little and at my rate, will probably take care of me into the fall. To each his own. I'm mostly curious about what draws people to specific games.

Is there a movie that guy won't sign on for? Wait, now I'm not sure if I'm talking about the Rock or Nick Cage.