nfreeman

I didn't have time to get into it when it came up, but that last Woody Allen post was pretty whacked-out.

I think GMTM is a ZFG kinda guy, but I don't think he's going to buck the unwritten "no offer sheets" rule.

Except that (i) Team Stormcloud (Bills Edition) has objectively valid reasons for pessimism while Qwk does not and (ii) recent posts by Qwk have demonstrated a warped view of reality not present in TSBE's trenchant analyses of the Bills. Now there is a nasty case of genital warts ready to happen. Speaking only for myself, my pessimism about the Bills is not due to fear of misfortune, but a strong suspicion that there are incompetents running the organization. As for the 2nd bolded part: the team president has been here since 1997; the GM since 2010. They have collectively been part and parcel of Micky Mouse suckitude for most of the lost generation.

If you have a feeling in the pit of your stomach that this season is going to be an epic debacle, resulting in RR and DW getting canned and TP being forced to do a reset like he did with the Sabres -- yesterday's news fits right in.

IF the Sabres were to trade Bogo in a deal for Barrie, couldn't they keep some of Bogo's salary in the deal? Or have they already used up their allotment?

Not on my watch. It was indeed excellent.

I'd expect most agents do that kind of thing for their upcoming UFA clients. As for this quote: I take that to mean they made him an offer after the end of the season -- which went well into May that year, because they were in the ECF -- and before July 1. Whoop-de-damn-do. They waited too long and then made him a (presumably) well-below-market offer when the Brinks truck had already arrived and was idling at the curb in front of his house. As for the no-extensions-during-the-season policy -- I'd bet that was TG/TQ's brainchild as well. Yes, I'm still bitter.

Everything your wrote is true...BUT the critical omission from your post is that the Sabres, like they did with just about all of their FAs in the 2005-07 era of contract infamy, let a player get to FA instead of signing him to an extension early -- with the predictable, and repeated result that the player got a huge offer in FA and left (or, in Vanek's case, forced the Sabres into an over-long, overpriced extension). We don't know how much they could've gotten McKee extended for a year before his UFA date, but I'd guess you would agree that it was well below $16MM.

But what if you really like the mountains? Or the ocean, the woods, the desert, etc.? Is that superficial? If not, is there much of a difference between caring about the topography and caring about the weather? I don't think those reasons are superficial.

The bolded is probably unfair, but it does invite some enjoyable speculation about what we could swindle them with for Barrie. Is Grigorenko plus Zadorov plus Compher comparable to Zemgus plus Pysyk plus Fasching?

Perhaps my favorite string of posts in the last 2 years.

No. They're getting dumped on for not honoring the deal made by the prior administration. A new administration doesn't get to walk away from its predecessors' agreements, unless that type of option is built into the agreement. Similarly, if the team were sold to a new owner, the new owner couldn't just decide to break the lease and move to Vegas/Quebec/anywhere else that wanted to throw money at him/her.

Sticking up for the greedy, heartless corporations, eh? The worm has turned...

I personally prefer "semifinals" and really "semis." "Conference finals" is a marketing gimmick. Carry on.

Outstanding. McKee was one of my all-time favorite Sabres. Losing him (along with Grier) after 2005-06 was, IMHO, an under-the-radar loss that chipped away at the foundation of a great team more than we realized at the time. Thanks again Larry and Tom!

Well, I did say that Woody Allen has plenty of issues, and the Soon-Yi relationship is one of them. But that does not mean the accusations of child molesting are true. It just doesn't. That accusation needs to be evaluated on its own merit, which is the bulk of the article I posted (and which you didn't respond to). As for PC media types -- I didn't say there was a conspiracy to smear him. The point is that there are a ton of media publications that skew liberal/PC -- and the liberal/PC stance on sexual assault allegations is generally to believe the accuser and to disregard the notion of due process for the accused. Do you disagree with that?

Here's the one I used: http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/turkey-meatloaf ...with the following changes, based mostly on what we had in the kitchen: - beef instead of turkey - baked beans instead of canneloni beans - 2 eggs instead of 1 - a bit more tomato sauce and barbecue sauce, plus a bit of hot sauce, instead of worcestershire It was pretty moist.

IMHO, what is killing the game is the fact that defense has outpaced offense, and the league hasn't tweaked the rules recently (or effectively) to restore the advantage to offense.

Woody Allen has plenty of issues, but it's highly likely that he did not assault his daughter, and that the accusations were fabricated by his PO'd ex, Mia Farrow, in the middle of a nasty custody battle. He was cleared by police, by a judge and by professional sexual assault therapists from Yale who investigated the accusations. Frankly, although the episode has been spun by PC media types as "powerful man gets away with assault on defenseless female," it is a much better example of "false sexual assault allegations given undue credibility by PC medial who automatically believe all such allegations." Here is a article with a good factual breakdown: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

At my son's request, I made meatloaf for the first time last night. It was also, I think, the first time I'd eaten meatloaf since I was a kid. Served it with baked beans, broccoli and those buttered rolls from a can that you bake in the oven for 15 min. Pretty simple and pretty tasty.

I don't feel any moral entitlement to a free ticket to the draft. I also don't think the Sabres are morally wrong for charging admission. Being the first host city to do so, though, puts the Sabres in an unfavorable light. They are now the first ones to extract money from the public for something that everyone who came before them gave away for free. It just feels like they are gouging here -- and for what will end up being a pretty small amount of cash, relatively speaking. Also, like others have noted, your comment about not wanting to sit with someone that couldn't spring for the ticket was not your finest hour here. I think he's done a world of good for the city and the fans of the teams too. I just don't like the vibe of being the first ones to charge for something that has previously been free.

Well, the facts appear to be that prior host cities have generally not charged admission. Assuming that is correct -- this is a bush league move by the Sabres.

At Stamkos? Interesting.

I think the question can't be answered without knowing whether prior host cities have charged admission, and if so, how many years that has been the case.

Yes, and educational. I learned something about SFiNS' homeland from those photos and feel am glad to have done so. Me too, and the execution by those posting photos. Very nice contribution by JJ.