shrader

Can I take a different stance and say that no one will surprise and make the team out of camp? The kids are going to be given ample time to develop in Rochester and the bubble spots on the roster are going to wind up going to the journeymen like Carlo (yeah, I'm not trying to spell that).

I don't know. If the numbers really pop off the jersey like that on the right one, that would be great. They'd have to create a new penalty kind of like elbowing if you lead with your number.

I think there was definitely a bit of a "hey, he just spurned Toronto and chose us instead" attitude which inflated his status here. You don't see that too often.

My new job has us participating in a lot of group interviews lately. All the company hands to us is the person's resume and I wish we had a cover letter too. It's pretty much kids straight out of college so the resumes all look the same. At least we could get an idea of their character/personality with a letter and know a few things to ask before walking into that room mostly blind.

It may have been the area of least concern here, but that really was a tallest midget situation (so what's the new PC friendly version of that saying?). That team had absolutely nothing and depending on what they can do in the trade market, this blue line still looks very thin. I'm sure most expect it to be and Islanders-style Boychuk/Leddy fix once camp rolls around.

Nobody's better than him.

So how long until those shows reach Omicron Persei 8?

It's also going to miss the occasions where a cop looks the other way because it's a football player. Still, the idea that things are far worse in the NFL is not holding water at this point.

I was hoping for Battista.

Three years does sound just about right for a guy his age (and I hate that I'm now saying that about guys younger than me).

I've never viewed hockey as the industry, but professional sports as a whole. So the NHL does not have a monopoly and their main competitor is bounceyball. Obviously I'm no lawyer though. I'm assuming that's not how it works in the eyes of the law. edit: and from that point of view, skittles competitor is not a knock off, but instead starburst or M&Ms.

We can many other events that are far more recent to support this as well. Go look through some of the stuff talked about in the politics thread and see how stories evolved after the initial witch hunt from the media. We're in such a ratings driven rush nowadays that we just immediately report these stories without actually digging up any info on them. You'd think that people would learn from this stuff and actually let a story play out a bit before casting judgement. I know that I want to hear more of this story before casting him aside or keeping him with the team, but unfortunately that's a rare opinion today.

The police report says that he threatened to "kill his family", not his parents. So let's not leap to judgement based solely off of a misreading of that report.

I always wondered how the complaint even stood a chance in court. How can we require a business to sell a specific product. If you really like yellow skittles but none of the other ones, should they be forced to sell you only the 7 or 8 that are in a bag for a lower price? I see that they settled and it didn't actually come down to being forced to sell a specific product, but the whole thing seemed a bit strange to me.

That's got wedding written all over it.

That's too bad. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during that arbitration hearing. Varone: I want a one way deal because I've played 34 games in the NHL and have put up 7 points Sabres: You've played 34 games in the NHL and put up 7 points

Aren't they public documents?

I missed some details as I really haven't read anything other than that police report. What is this detail about "you don't leave your child behind"? I'm kind of curious about what that means. A quick google search tells me the kid is 21, so I'm not really sure how leaving your child behind would factor in here.

The story is actually kind of funny in that report. It lays out exactly like this: 1. Hey you, you stole my chairs! 2. Grab rod and throw it in the water 3. Push. 4. Punch 5. Threat There's a whole hell of a lot left out between #1 and #2. I have no idea what to think of this whole thing, but there really isn't much to be learned from that report.

I have absolutely zero evidence to back this up, but it's just a hunch. I'd imagine that the hit rate of second round picks has increased over recent years. The scouting is far more in tune and has so much more access to these kids now. They know far more than they did 20 or so years ago. They'll never be able to cancel out the question marks involved with scouting kids not all that far removed from puberty, but they do have a much better idea of how they can play than they ever did before.

Yeah, I realize that I made one hell of a blanket statement there. It's going to differ from person to person, but I do think that the typical response in his spot would be the money grab. It's basic human nature to want more, no matter how much you have already.

A slight tangent here, but I've always been confused by the thought of buying a drink for someone who has far more money than you do.

I was a multiple year subscriber through Comcast but now am on DirectTV. I didn't receive any letter since the only thing tied into Comcast was an email address I never actually used. I wonder how they'll handle me for this one. I assume I just talk to customer service and they'll wind up working it out.

The best part about the way they typically handle these trailers? Everything we just saw will all take place within the first episode. They give away next to nothing about the season as a whole. I bet the same will apply with Fear the Walking Dead.

Does that then make him a little nervous?