nfreeman

Yes -- she knew (or, more accurately, she believed) he did it. That is what I meant about her being compromised. OTOH, it's a serious accusation -- presumably a felony -- and as a lawyer she knows that Jimmy can't, and shouldn't, be convicted without evidence. Once again Jimmy has put her in a bad position. If she resigns from the Mesa Verde representation and Chuck pursues legal action against Jimmy, she looks guilty by association. If she doesn't resign, she's swallowed a big unethical poop sandwich.

Yes indeedly -- for both Jimmy and Mike (with the good Samaritan getting killed after the truck hijacking). This was maybe the central theme of BB. What conniving and manipulation? I'm with Robvy on this. Chuck hasn't screwed Jimmy. Chuck built up a great firm and knows that Jimmy is a corner-cutting agent of destruction, so he didn't want Jimmy in a position where he could harm the firm (which, let's remember, employs a lot of people other than Chuck). Chuck was willing to pay Jimmy a referral fee for bringing the nursing home case to HHM, but he didn't want Jimmy working for HHM as a lawyer. That's not screwing Jimmy -- it's just Chuck protecting HHM from Jimmy. For example, Chuck guessed, correctly, that Jimmy was probably breaking the client solicitation rules in signing up the individual nursing home clients, and he didn't want HHM to be associated with that kind of rule-breaking. More broadly, Chuck also didn't think that Jimmy was suited for practicing law. In retrospect it's hard to argue with that assessment. As for the scene with Chuck's wife/girlfriend -- yes, Chuck clearly resents Jimmy's easy charm. But that doesn't mean that Chuck trying to protect his firm from Jimmy is tantamount to Chuck screwing Jimmy. Regarding Kim, I agree that she's somewhat compromised albeit still walking a fine line. I think if Chuck had any solid evidence of Jimmy's forgery, Kim would've capitulated.

That GD meddling earth rapist buffoon.

I think it was Mike Harrington last year. Has anyone ever seen PAFan in the same room as Mike Harrington?

TB -- I do not think Hillary would be getting the level of superdelegates she is getting if she were losing. I also think it's fair to say that she'll probably win the nomination, and when she does that it will be the correct democratic result. (I also think neither Sanders nor his supporters have any idea how the world works, but that's another conversation.) However, I think the fact that she is getting *this* many superdelegates, and that they are all that is standing between her and a brokered convention at the same time she under an intense FBI investigation and possibly an indictment, smells unavoidably like the Clintons. Dissatisfaction and suspicion are inevitable.

Panarin could be a Zetterberg/Datsyuk level find for Chicago.

That sounds awfully confident in light of how ineffective he was for pretty much the entire season. Still, I appreciate the team support.

I agree that the superdelegate mass defection is not going to happen. However, the fact that the superdelegates are needed to close it out for her makes the griping about party elders determining the outcome understandable IMHO. EDIT: the fact that superdelegates are needed to close it out for her, AND that a highly disproportionate share of the superdelegates are supporting her, makes it understandable IMHO.

But isn't it true that if all of Clinton's superdelegates switched to Bernie, Bernie would have more delegates?

I just think 2 Canadian sports radio yobs speculating about PK being traded is not credible. More directly: there is NFW the Habs are trading PK. But if they were, and if the Sabres ended up with #3 overall, I would trade that pick for PK in a heartbeat, and there aren't many assets that the Sabres have that I would refuse to include as sweeteners.

The 2nd trade is pretty interesting, but the first is at least as...optimistic as my proposal for Lindholm was.

No question that injury risk is a real concern. I'd like to see another season of him starting to evaluate whether he's a guy who can't stay healthy. But I saw him throw quite a few great passes last year, and when he scrambled, I saw things I haven't seen from anyone since pre-incarceration Michael Vick. I'm not throwing that away in favor of another rookie or journeyman until there's another season of data to evaluate.

Great stuff, WC. These GDTs are another reason the future looks bright. And 19-13-7 in their last 39 games means that if they win out, they will finish the 2nd half of the season above DeLuca .500. Yes please.

I like TT and think he has a ton of potential.

I found out earlier this week that a good friend from high school, with whom I'd lost touch many years ago, died suddenly of a heart attack last week. Taken at age 48, leaving his wife and 3 kids. I haven't seen or spoken with him in 20+ years, but I still feel a sense of loss.

Burning a year of his ELC seems highly ill-considered.

Got any fancystats to support this? If so, other GMs may have the same opinion you have.

You are quite likely right, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised. I kinda think though that they won't deal Fowler, as he is locked up for 2 more years at a very reasonable $4MM per year. If that's correct, then it comes down to trading Vatanen or Lindholm. Their production is pretty similar, but I think they'd likely get more for Lindholm. You could be right, but he plays a GMTM kinda game. He's also young with pretty good upside on both ends. I don't think they'll trade him unless, as I said above, it's part of a package for a really high-end player coming back.

I know. I felt dirty posting it. (I originally had Foligno instead of Zemgus and then I upgraded to Zemgus -- but it's still too skinny.) I couldn't figure out what else to include. The most obvious pieces are this year's #1 and McCabe, but I don't think GMTM would trade either of those for anything less than a no-BS established star. Lindholm is good but he's not yet at that level. Maybe their #1 in 2017 -- but that isn't that appealing to Anaheim. As for the comparison with the ROR trade -- I think Zemgus and Pysyk is a better package than Griggy and Zadorov.

First, thanks to TW for another awesome contest. These are perennially great threads. This year's winner: - Sabres do not move up in the lottery and end up drafting 10th. They take a defenseman. - Matt Moulson is not traded due to utter lack of demand, nor is he bought out due to cap repercussions. However, the Sabres put him on waivers, which he clears, and send him down to Rochester. - Sabres trade Zemgus, Pysyk and a #2 pick for Hampus Lindholm and give Lindholm the fat contract that Anaheim was unwilling to give him. - Sabres re-sign Risto to a 3-year extension (which ends with him still being an RFA). - Sabres re-sign Ocho to a 2-year extension. - None of Legwand, Coliaicovo, or Ruhwedel is re-signed. Sabres speak with McGinn but don't get him as someone else overpays for him. - Sabres do not make offers to any other team's RFAs. - And the big one: Sabres sign Stamkos to a 7-year, $77MM contract. Game on!

I don't think Chuck trying to keep the client can be characterized as screwing Jimmy. Any business would do the same in that situation. I agree that the document caper will inevitably blow up and create issues with Kim. Separately, I'm going to predict that Mike's plan puts Tuco's uncle in the wheelchair that we saw him in in BB.

This is hard to say definitively though IMHO. We sure didn't see much effect from Gionta last year.

DeLuca .500 is where wins = losses + OTL + SOL.

Awesome.

NHL .500 or DeLuca .500? Only the latter is interesting. Very nice. There has been quite a bit to enjoy. Aside from the obvious names, IMHO the McCabe-Bogo pair hasn't gotten much attention but has been very solid lately.