MattPie

Get thee to a Blockbuster, young man! (I think that one is on Netflix VOD, but I'm not sure). Of the Jay and Silent Bob movies, I think it's one of the top-2.

I'm not sure the average audience would sit through 4-6 hours of Matt Damon talking to himself, but maybe you're right. I just looked at the box office for it, and it did way better than I thought it would. When I went to see it (granted, a late show several weeks after it premièred) there were less than 10 people in the theatre with me.

I think I may have to go watch Dogma too.

Ah. I don't disagree with you that the book was better, maybe I've just come to accept the limitations of the 2-3 hour movie format in my old age. :)

I'm not sure Crosby belongs on that list any more. Even before this year, he doesn't seem to have "it" like he did early in his career.

I agree, reading from body language and actions is valuable insight in some cases. But making the determination of innocence and guilt is NOT one of those cases.

This is the kind of stuff that leads to, "we know this guy is guilty, we just have to figure out how make the evidence point that way".

:w00t:

?? I thought it was awesome. I don't put a lot of stock in the Academy Awards, but it was nominated for Best Picture and Best Actor, so at least someone agrees with me.

Which one? :) In all seriousness, Ullmark will go down, it's the only play that makes sense from an assets standpoint. The team can't carry 3 GT on the roster (either because you just can't or we have to be at the 23-man limit with Pysyk coming back). Sending Johnson down means waivers, Ullmark doesn't.

I haven't watched that movie in forever, now may be the time.

You may be underplaying the advantage of D: financial stability. Hockey is a rough game, and Jamie McGinn is one check to the head or leg bending the wrong way from being retired. Elite talents like Crosby will get second and third chances, but not as many teams are going to take a chance on McGinn coming back from major injury. Sign now, for a modest deal and you can live out life in relative comfort.

GMTM, get on it!

Not really, since the bounces average out. But that's point, I think, going into each game thinking "I hope the lucky deflection through a screen goes our way tonight" sucks compared to "I hope our guys can out-skate and out-shoot the opponent".

Hire a good accountant before making financial decisions. :) In all seriousness, I think there are pros and cons for both methods. You don't receive as much money taking the lump sum, but you control it. I think there are issues with annuity if you die or the lottery goes bankrupt.

Speaking of which, I noticed the NHL app has the ability to stream audio now. The Chicago game on NHLN was blacked out for GameCenter, but had a link on the blackout page for audio, which ran fine on my phone via Wifi for the entire game.

I'm fairly sure the buyout would last longer. If traded, he'd cost the Sabres $2.5M for three seasons after this. From this, it looks like buying out would cost the Sabres more years and more cap hit than trade retaining 50%. http://www.silversevensens.com/2015/6/10/8737195/nhl-buyout-rules-refresher-guide EDIT: Oops, that's the cost (as in paycheck). The cap hit is different, but difficult to explain. There's an example in the linked article. It sounds like he'd be on the book for 6 years with a cap hit of $1.8M for years 4-6. No thanks, we need to worry about Ristolainen, Eichel, Reinhart, etc. by then.

Same, it's entertainment.

The like the Sharks team-mates sticking up for their player.

It's not theirs to fix, unless you mean that they're going to convince the NHL to change the rules again.

Quoting for effect. People said how my peers weren't going to amount to anything, then we all got jobs, bought houses, and (mostly) had kids.

I don't think you follow the Steelers and Ravens (and Bengals), those teams and fan bases really seem to hate each other.

Amendments *are* the constitution. Every pill has a BB in it with a serial number that you need to fetch "after processing". If you can't provide every one, you're ineligible for medication for one year and are fined. The counter argument is that all violent crime has been decreasing in that period, even in areas where gun ownership hasn't increased. The nation 20 years ago was coming down off the crack epidemic 80s and the crazy crime rates that entailed. You have to be careful drawing conclusions like that, otherwise the cause for the slowing rate of gun deaths is the Bills haven't won a playoff game in those same 20 years. And as for the "gun deaths happen more in areas that have stricter gun regulations"; the total number of murders in New York State has decreased every year of the last 5, even though the SAFE act created more restrictive gun laws.

That's a lot of stuff to take care of, even if you pay people to do it for you.

Ssssh, I'm seeing how outlandish the suggestions will get.