nfreeman

Well, if you read my posts, you'd see that I agreed that the refs are human and might, once in a great while, inadvertently make a mistake to the Pats' benefit due to some kind of subconscious belief that the Pats are so good that they don't commit penalties, but that the NFL system is designed to monitor and correct those mistakes -- and that what I was really pushing back against were the nonsensical, whiny loser claims that "the refs favor the Pats" and "the NFL wants the Pats to win." As for the NBA, I think it's pretty widely accepted that as a league it promotes and relies on its stars and that as a related point the stars get more leeway from the refs. Since you seem dug in on this, though, if I see a good article analyzing this phenomenon, I will post it.

What's your point here? Yes -- excellent (like a lot of the stuff in Players' Tribune, btw). Thanks.

Here's an in-depth article on the "Patriots get all the calls" theory: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/2/1/16958718/super-bowl-new-england-patriots-bill-belichick-rules-penalties-study

I didn't like it either. I did, however, like Bowie quite a bit.

Mike Rodak says not to expect the Bills to take a shot at Cousins: http://www.espn.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/31066/bills-fans-shouldnt-get-hopes-up-for-kirk-cousins-after-alex-smith-trade There were those of us who predicted huge contracts for Smith and Cousins...

They looked pretty good in the 1st and I thought we might get a really good game, but they didn’t produce any offense in the 2nd. I thought the GWG was another Lehner choke. (I didn’t think so initially but one of the replays from behind Lehner showed it kinda going through him.) Reino, KO and ROR are all much livelier than earlier in the season, and the D is much more sound. Eichel looks dangerous all the time. OTOH, Pommer and Kane are invisible.

That is good data, and the Zemgus and Larsson contracts do kinda support your position (not Beaulieu, which I think is inapplicable), but only to a point IMHO. The Zemgus and Larsson contracts were cheap, short-term "prove it" deals that a team gives a guy with some upside who can be counted on to fill a role in the bottom six if the upside isn't realized -- which is exactly what's happened with those 2. Most likely one or both of them will be moved out as their contracts expire and replaced by younger, cheaper guys with upside. A 3MM x 3 years deal, though, is a different kettle of fish. The team would essentially be committing to Reino as a top-6 forward for 3 years on the hope -- which is utterly unsupported by his play this year -- that he can magically re-assume his career arc as it was at the end of his rookie year. And I expect that JBott knows that just because everyone wants that to happen -- it doesn't mean that it will happen. Having said that, if he has a good 2nd half, I can see a 2-year deal for him as you propose.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

This is pretty obnoxious.

I've been pondering this myself. I certainly want the Sabres to keep winning/playing well, and I want to believe that doing so will be a meaningful indicator of rejoining the respectable part of the NHL, but I feel like we've seen this movie before and it didn't end well. And I think the reason for that is that when a team is really crappy in the 1st half of the season, their 2nd-half opponents don't bring their A games, so when the crappy team wins some games, it's somewhat of a mirage. The opponents either look past the previously-crappy team, or they are tanking, or they are fatigued or injured or otherwise not inclined to dig deep for a game against a lousy team in the dead of winter. So while I agree that the 2nd half will be useful for determining which guys can handle Howie's system and which guys the team should move on from, I am pretty reluctant to draw confident positive conclusions.

One of my all-time favorites. Season 2 is fantastic. Seconded.

Vanek in the HOF? Is this a joke?

Why?

Right on. Especially given JBott's stated preference to let prospects learn the ropes in the AHL, it's highly unlikely that Pu, Olofsson, next year's #1 or Casey for that matter will be on the Sabres.

Yes -- I really liked it. Solid A-minus.

I can't speak as to the first one, but Fargo seasons 1 and 2 were freaking fantastic. (Season 3 was pretty good but IMHO a step down.)

More #Hammymath. I am willing to pay him 4 for ONE year in the theoretical and highly unlikely offer sheet scenario as opposed to losing him for nothing. That is a far cry from an unforced $3MM x 3 years. And, your "if he proves it" is an assumption that swallows the whole issue -- of course if he kills it in a contract year he's going to be more expensive to keep. But he's in a contract year now and his play has been atrocious (and in decline for 2 years in a row now). The Sabres control his rights for another 4 years. There is no reason in the world to give him a fat contract after this abomination of a season.

No team that tanks "benefits" from a situation in which it is 80% likely that it will NOT get the prize. This is the point, and one of several important reasons why it was an idiotic plan. Having said that, I did not intend to reopen the tanking discussion, which I think has been well and thoroughly aired multiple times. I just couldn't let Robvy's assertion pass unremarked on, especially with the irrefutable contrary evidence staring us in the face year after dreary year.

As Matt points out, offer sheets are quite rare, so this is pretty unlikely. And if someone offered 1 year x $4MM, I would expect (and want) the Sabres to match. (BTW, I would like offer sheets to become commonplace, as they are in the NBA.)

Abso-freakin'-lutely. For the record: it's a terrible strategy.

I think both of these are true -- Foligno is faster than Reino, and Reino has significantly more skill. It's important to remember, though, that Foligno brings other qualities that Reino lacks: toughness, winning board battles, fighting when needed, etc. He also has only 5 fewer pts, and one fewer even-strength goal, than Reino has this year, in 3 fewer games. And mindlessly following the "$100K per point" rule is the kind of move that fills a roster with mediocrities, gets a GM fired and puts a team in the basement with the Sabres. E.g. a young RFA who produced 13 pts might get $1.3MM, but he also might get sent down to the AHL. Are the people here calling for $3MM x 3 years for Reino the same ones who were calling for $4MM x 4 years for Lehner last year? Unless he sets the team on fire in the remainder of the season, Reino should get a 1- or 2-year "prove it" deal for $2MM per year at the most.

What could go wrong?

Reino has 19 pts in 48 games. He has NINE even-strength points in 48 games. He has ONE even-strength goal in his last 26 games. There is NFW he is getting $3MM per year.

I'd be hesitant to read much into last night's defeat of Edmonton, which is a terrible team -- just as, if I were a Dallas fan, I'd be hesitant to read much into their butt-whuppin' of the Sabres the other day.

The idea of giving Reino 3 years x $3MM makes me sick. A real team does not give that kind of reward to a player after a season like this.