...

You're welcome to your opinion of the parent, but all I have read is people trying to tell you that your opinion is short-sighted. No one has tried to tell you you can't hold that opinion, and, to add, if someone on the internet did try and tell you can't have that opinion, what does that matter? Do you think the people opining on your opinion are trying to bitch-slap you because they think you're an annoying troll? Or do you think they perceive you and Josie as our internet brother and sister, couple-in-waiting, and are just trying to help you out, educate you a little? I'm telling you straight up that your opinion on the matter is flawed, because it lacks the experience necessary to really appreciate the situation. That's not a put-down, I'm saying that because I'm trying to pass along what I have learned in life. Before I was married and had kids, I would have had the exact same response as you, and now I see how, frankly, immature that response is. I think in this instance, really, the older, experienced crowd is trying to "straighten you out" in a respectful manner, and you handled it poorly IMHO. But, even the latter is understandable, because you simply have no idea...yet. When you have kids, especially that young, every waking moment is devoted to that child/those kids. Everything, every thought, every action. If there's something as innocuous as an open practice where you know you can take the kids, sit there and watch for a half-hour, and split when you want, you might take that opportunity thinking "what can go wrong?" With the "what can go wrong" approach, you have to be realistic. Something can go wrong at any time. What can go wrong walking your kids around the loop at Delaware Park? What can go wrong crossing Main Street at a red light in the University District during a weekday afternoon? How about taking a plane trip to Florida to visit your relatives? One can't live life afraid of the variables, what does that teach the kids? The very notion that these people shouldn't have been at the open practice plays into the helicopter parent mentality. Like the rest, I'm sharing my philosophy here, not trying to put you down.

Dude, your argument STARTED firmly against the parents, and now has evolved into some sort of social commentary on how society caters to kids. I don't find the arguments to be in the same ballpark. Social commentary on over-protection of children = okay, less to no flak for d4rk Criticizing the parents (especially when you don't have the full story) = lots of flak for d4rk from people who have actually had children So, what is it, exactly, are the parents still idiots for taking a kid to the open practice, or are we supposed to forget you went down that path and just happily philosophize over what may or may not be happening with society relative to protecting kids?

Dude, he's totally talking about the clones. There's nothing about clones in the rule book.

Good to see you again, buff, you should stick around a while.

Good, as in I think that's a good prediction. A very possible trade IMHO.

That's a good one, right there.

Color me surprised the sexist police haven't invaded this conversation yet. Yup.

You're not the first PhD I know (well, you know) who likes the voluptuousness.

I would call her voluptuous, which, of course, can be appealing, but her look doesn't do anything for me, either.

...what? From the NY POST: "As defenseman P.K. Subban tossed pucks into the crowd during an open practice Sunday at the Bell Centre, one of the souvenirs accidentally hit a 1-month-old infant after an older fan lost his grip on the prize. Taken to Montreal Children’s Hospital and diagnosed with a concussion, the Habs’ youngest (and toughest) admirer is set to make a full recovery." Assuming you want kids, let us know when the baby shower is, so a group of us parents on the board can send you guys a big roll of bubble wrap and a straw.

With respect to Ennis, this is not true for me. He actually has exceeded my expectations for him in most respects. Except for this recent concussion, which, unfortunately, I expect nearly every under-sized NHL'er to suffer these days. He's a good player; more tenacious and physical then I had expected, and more fearless. His point production when adjusted for time-off is about where I expected it to be. The problem I have with Ennis is that no matter what version Sabres team, he seems out of place. For Bylsma's dump and chase system, he will really be out of place, and/or, maybe worse, likely to suffer yet another serious injury. We have the tricky right-place-at-the-right time centers who, I think, are (way) better at it, and (knock on wood) have better vision and IQ enough to avoid a serious injury, to go with their sizes. We have at least one winger with jets who can win battles on the board and wing the puck across the slot willy-nilly. We need more of that kind of guy who has better vision, and isn't likely to get beat to a pulp trying to accomplish their mission. Ennis is not any of that. He's like Kane without the size or the ability to drop a guy when necessary. I'm not saying we need all muscle, of course, but Ennis is a "skill guy" and that's all he really brings. When he's out, we're missing a "skill guy", plain and simple, and Ennis, again, is likely to be more out than not in today's NHL, playing Bylsma's system, on a team that is trying to become "tough to play against".

I don't follow the league as closely as some of you whack-a-doos, so I will keep mine general: A) GMTM clears out the cupboard, which leads to the media and certain GMs in the league accusing the Sabres of Tank 2.0 (although, we know it's already at 3.0). B) P.K. Subban is part of a package where Montreal attempts to upgrade their forward ranks.

Not sure what I think of this yet. I suppose a third is okay. Good for him he goes to a contender, as far as we're concerned, but I wonder what he thinks. It's no secret his heart was/is with the Sabres.

Am I the only one who would prefer we don't have Ennis next season?

That's my evening entertainment, catching up on the BBGs.

That's the stuff that I'm talking about. Well, that added to the other interviews and other data we have on him. He seems like a social creature. I bet he doesn't concern himself with the money, because he knows the money will always be there. He has a mouth, if you've ever watched the mic'd up stuff with him; the more he can be "with his boys", the more comfortable he is. Give him a bud who he's tight with to grow and compete with. I think that is critical to his development right now. Let him deal with the hard truths of the league when he's older and wiser. Reinhart has done nothing to deserve being traded away - if he had Moulson's overhead, okay, I think that would be easy to process for him, but Reinhart? Totally different story. This is team-building, you have to consider everything. It's not like we're talking about a career 4th liner.

He has?

I'm not suggesting he would jump off a bridge, but it could jade him. Someone getting all jaded about the life they've chosen could take a year to get through the valley. I get the sense that Eichel is all about the social aspect of what he is doing, and that as his social environment stabilizes, he performs better because he's more loose.

Trade Reinhart and you set back the team's development. Reinhart has been/is a huge factor in the team's development. I think the trade-off between keeping Reinhart and trading him to keep the Matthews pick (obviously, assuming we get that pick) is too great. Not only that, he's Eichel's bud, now. It's not like Moulson who is too old to be a close bud. You could emotionally affect Eichel in a negative way trading away Reinhart "for no reason".

Pull the goalie!

He's not Bruce Banner. He probably has more control over his inclinations than most people, being a disciplined professional athlete. When his team is up 3 or 4 goals and there are only a few minutes left in the game, he probably believed risking his shutout is worth wandering into a scrum to defend a team mate. We need guys like that.

I heckle him for his broken bones and enjoy doing so.

I just want to chime in with a thought regarding something ducky asked of Kane up the thread. Why can't he be a role model off the ice when he clearly works hard on the ice? I think the answer is maturity, and that, perhaps, considering the commitment a player has to make to be a player in the NHL...things like time spent with the various activities a player is required to do, and the self-care, combined with the effort in game...Kane may feel he does his share but needs, and believes he's earned, a break once in a while. Going to the NBA all star game is his kind of break, but he mismanaged the turn around time on that activity. That's just immaturity, which has obviously bit him in the ass in the past. The consensus on his presser seems to be that he responded differently this time to getting in trouble. So, maybe this episode may be the one that "breaks him", the one that kicks his maturity level up a notch.