MattPie

First part: 3 through 8 years aren't a spectrum where 5 is the middle. I'm not sure why I'm trying to explain this further but, with the pros for each "side": - 3 year deal: The Sabres aren't locked in if it all goes to hell; Risto has the chance to get paid a ton more per year if he continues developing. - 8 year deal: The Sabres are locked in but have a cost-controlled player that'll look like a bargain in years 6-8 if all goes well; Risto has the security that he gets paid a bunch of money if he gets injured or is terrible tomorrow. - 5 year deal: The only advantage to the Sabres is if he does turn to garbage they get out a couple years earlier (but that's what a 3-yr is for); Risto gets all the advantage; he becomes a UFA in the prime of his career and can command a metric ton of money. Again, if the Sabres think he'll progress, go 8. If they think there's a decent chance he'll be terrible, go 3. There is no good reason to go 5. +/- discussion: this is why advanced stats exist. Even within a team +/- doesn't mean anything for players unless everyone gets the same ice time and a random distribution of opponents. As soon as you get to "We try to match Risto with Crosby whenever possible", Franson's numbers are going to look better.

Evan's best chance, being 5'11" and 174 may be in Ennis can't come back. I'm not sure there will be room for him on LW otherwise. (I may be wrong though, is Ennis playing RW lately?)

What if I were to make my own sauce, but then "can" it in Mason jars?

I always took that to not advertise it's the extra-expensive version and not be quite as enticing to thieves, but it could be about appearances too.

Check out the link I posted, specifically the Hall of Shame. There's a whole culture of people trying to make their base-model car look like the sportier version. Or whole conversions, if you prefer, like putting Ferrari badges on a Fiero (I've seen one in the flesh!) Or, in an amazing bout of chutzpah, I saw a Ford Escort wagon (mid-90s body) with BMW badges on it. In teal no less, the least German color I can think of.

I put Nylander in since he meets the question (through training camp and starts the season in Buffalo), but I highly doubt he's in Buffalo past 9 games.

On a related note, I can't believe this site still exists: http://riceboypage.com/ Unfortunately, poseur.4x4.org is only around in archive.org and a lot of the picture links are broken.

And in the end, Buffalo wasn't saddled with Myers until the end of his "optimistic" contract. Residents of the Bogo Bunker and Conference Center may argue they just exchanged bad contracts (and maybe that's even true), but it's not like an 8yr $6M contract is necessarily going to hamstring the team forever.

You mean the Prius Type-R I saw the other day may be fake?

You never know, it could be something totally legit like this:

Nothing is easier than changing the plugs on a modern I4 (like almost every small car and SUV that's FWD). :) They're lined up right on the top of the engine! For all the lament of how expensive cars are to fix, I bet if you look at inflation ($100/wk is probably more like $500/wk now) and how little maintenance modern cars require, you're probably way ahead. You can easily drive 20k in a modern car and not even think about it other than gas and if you're fancy, an oil change or two. No points, no tune ups, no plugs, nothing.

Come now, the franchises were in the toilet long before the Pegulas bought them, but you know that. The Bills far more than the Sabres, of course, but neither had any playoff success in 4 (in the Sabres case) and what, 15 years (in the Bills case) before Pegula came by.

I gotta trot this one out:

That was my thought when I saw the preview.

http://www.emwfootballandcheerleading.org/

It's not me, it's you, Buffalo Bills.

Salt, duh.

Bills WIN! BILLS WIN! (the can vote)

Probably more intolerance than ignorance. FWIW, I probably see more "stupid liberals" stuff on FB that the other way around. Someone actually posted something like, "Thanks for all the birthday wishes, if I have one birthday wish it's that all the stupid people that are going to vote for Hillary Clinton don't." No party has a monopoly on being condescending.

So do you really agree with everything Hillary does and every policy she'll push? I never figured you for pro-Big Banks and a hawk.

I'm surprised at how... candid... people are in email. I'm just a guy with no political aspirations but even then I know better than to write anything in a email that'll come back to haunt me.

I don't believe that. If so, no one could vote other than true believers. I'm not going to find a viable candidate that I fully agree with, so I have to take the good with the bad and accept that I'm not going to agree with everything. Given the other discussions here, you should probably substitute "white racists" in there. There are certainly black, latino, asian, and other enthnicities that are racists and not voting for Trump.

Unfortunately, there are enough people that'll say something borderline, and then when called on it say, "Well, I didn't mean it THAT way. [Exaggerated wink]". For all the complaining about Clinton parsing of language, Trump seems to be the master. "Oh, I didn't *MEAN* to suggest someone shoot Hillary." Did he? I hope not. Would someone read that into it? Maybe. And that's the scary part. There's a point there, but it might be a bit too far. I believe you can support Trump without personally being a racist if you're a single-issue voter, but it's a fine distinction. If I say, "I like IBM and BMW", does that mean I support Nazis because they both have links in their past? I hope not. That being said, voting for Clinton doesn't mean the person agrees with the gun-rights policies she may support (that remains to be seen, I don't think it's really a fight she's interested in). The problem with Trump, though, is he seems to bring it to the forefront a lot so it makes it harder for someone to make that distinction.

Unfortunately, I think the Republican primary this election is indicative of what you'd get from a "TV reality show" approach to candidates. You'd end up with a field of reasonable people (for values of reasonable relating to politicians) and a couple whackos that people flock to because they're whackos. It might work, but it might end up being, "who can say the most inflammatory thing this week?"

In a heated discussion, you probably need to be more explicit than normal. "BLM Extremists" can be misunderstood as "BLM, a group of extremists," vs. "the extremists in BLM". I believe you that you mean the latter, but it's easy to read it the other way. The same may apply to people saying "racist Trump supporters"; that can be read both ways and see how upset that gets people.