TrueBlueGED

No, it's not. Utterly mediocre.

Yup, and the Bills unis are now among the best in all of football. Well, other than when they do that nauseating blue-on-blue.

Dude, I can't compete with Drunkard's last post.

I didn't feel great about it before, but I'm less confident than ever now that Minnesota is a landing spot for Kane.

I still think they need to stop catering the game day presentation to children. I have zero hope of it happening, but it should.

The Rock was awesome and ConAir was okay.

If you're so set on solid wood, I'd just make something. Can't be that bad if all you need is an armoir. I like IKEA! :( Unless you're going with master chef quality stuff (which no offense, but after meeting you, would surprise me :p) or need enough stuff to feed a family of 8, the kitchen stuff shouldn't be bad at all. Furniture? Well, yea. If you're prone to sticker shock, I'd recommend just starting with what you really need, and add on slowly over several months.

Just be a proper millennial and furnish everything with IKEA.

I humbly offer to surrender my bad movie opinion championship belt to you, so long as Qwk approves.

Way to nuke all of your fan cred in a single post.

Eh, he was named first team all-star in the league. I wouldn't be even remotely excited about a run of the mill KHLer, but he was one of the best players in the league. I don't have huge expectations or anything, but if he simply holds down a solid 3rd pairing role, he's a nice addition.

If I had to do it over again, my confirmation name would be smug. Sure, there may not be a Saint Smug, but there is a Saint Maximus and I'm 99% sure the bishop thought I made it up. I think I could've pulled it off.

I would love to have him at his current cap hit (which, of course, he wouldn't have left Tampa for). I remain incredibly happy we don't have him at the $10M+ cap hit the majority of voters would have given him.

This is too reasonable for me to argue with. Which is a shame, cuz I'm kinda bored.

It's damning regarding team building, but does't do much in terms of his amateur talent evaluation. Needs way more information and parsing to get to the point of inferring poor talent evaluation from a poor AHL record. How many of those picks were traded? How many games did they play in the A before moving to the NHL? How much freedom did he have to add AHL vets? And most importantly, how does his draft record compare to every other GM in the league during his tenure as AGM/head of scouting for the Ducks and Sens? After all, we know that a huge cloud of variance makes it difficult to truly identify good/bad drafters, and it takes a lot of picks to be able to pull things apart. My theory is that he is a good evaluator of talent insofar as identifying skills and tools, which is why he has largely drafted well, but gets hung up on those things, which is often detrimental to his pro evaluations and team building. Like when he acquired Kane and Bogo, he talked about how much he liked both players in junior. How much should that really matter when they've had 5+ years in the league? I don't think it should mean much of anything, but I think it meant quite a bit to Murray.

Only a fool would keep Kane for anything short of a huge underpayment. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I don't think it's that simple, because I think that pucks were going in the net exerts a strong influence on the degree to which it's viewed he changed his game. And I don't want you to think I'm singling you out or anything--I think it's widely viewed he transformed himself this year. I just can't help but wonder if people would think the same if he shot 9% over those three months instead of 15. Anyway, I'm in a real weird spot with Kane. I want to move on because I don't love his fit at the price I think he'll demand in both term and dollars, but I also fully expect to be underwhelmed by any return in a trade. I'd rather keep him than get a lackluster return, but I'd rather trade him than overpay. So basically, I'm in no-man's land here :lol:

Or nobody has the puck. I really think you're stretching here, and don't think too many people would include forechecking when they're placing a value on a player's defensive contributions. He was better than he was for part of the year, but the first few months he was same old Kane. Which makes me ask, did he drastically improve, or did he improve a more moderate amount and benefit from some puck luck distorting our views? His shooting percentage was three and a half points higher this season than last, and 1.8 points above his career average. In 7 more minutes of even strength time, he had 43 fewer shot attempts than last season (1096 to 1053), so a bit more selective, but not a ton. I think there's some chicken-egg here: some improvement, some luck. Kane's hot streak was what, December-February? November he played like poop after returning from injury too soon, I think we all acknowledge this. In any event, his shooting percentage by month: November: 0 December: 15.4 January: 12.5 February: 17 March: 5.9 April: 10 Prior to this season, he hadn't shot over 10.5% for a whole month since April 2014. I'm really not comfortable with saying he permanently transformed his game to any huge degree. Then you want to trade him, because I have a really hard time seeing him get less than $6M.

Perhaps I'm misremembering, but hasn't he been considerably better this season than he was last season?

I can only assume you're confusing forechecking with backchecking?

False. He's atrocious defensively, not a great fit with our best players, and not especially useful on special teams. There are legitimate on-ice reasons to want to move him. How these are weighted against his even strength scoring, skating, and forechecking, is of course up to you. But let's not pretend he's some superstar player here.

:lol: Point is, Reinhart was one of our best three forwards in every meaningful measure we have to assess performance. Yet for reasons unknown, Hamilton has zeroed in on him for criticism. It's utterly perplexing. If I were the conspiracy type, I'd buy into the notion that Hamilton heard Sam in the locker room making a weight joke or something.

As written, I don't think this is fair. In his career he has enough home runs in drafts he's run to support his amateur scouting cred. Now pro scouting and team building? That's a different ball game.

There is nothing we can measure that supports Hamilton's argument.