TrueBlueGED

I would argue he's a good 3rd pairing defenseman. He crushes that role. And the goal shouldn't be to get faster, it should be to get better. Speed may be part of that, but it's not the whole package, and it doesn't have to be upgraded with every single roster decision.

Cody Franson team ranks among defensemen: CF%: 1st xG%: 1st GF%: 3rd He's ugly, but he's not bad.

I stand corrected. For whatever reason, I thought he was at $2.3M, not $3.3M. I'm comfortable with low 2s, up to maybe the mythical 2.3 figure I thought he was at.

You honestly think he'd get a raise from his current contract? I don't.

We have a new mission for the Sabrespace meetup: find WildCard better friends.

I'd very much like for Franson to return on a 1 year deal to play the bottom pair. His shortcomings are about as aesthetically displeasing as they come, but he's effective in that role.

I have zero interest in drafting a backup. That's what the Siemians of the world are for. I don't think he'll be there, nor do I think we'd draft him now. It's gonna be position players rounds 1-3, I think.

I wouldn't say I'm good with it, because I'm not, but I understand it. With respect to Cardale, I'm about 99% certain he'll never be an NFL starter. His accuracy is just not good enough--it's in EJ territory.

I think safety and linebacker are bigger needs than WR.

Yes, and given they're keeping Taylor, I think they're out of the market for an immediate starter at QB. That's my point.

Sure, I just don't think it's happening. To me, the decision to keep Taylor means a push for the playoffs rather than a mini-rebuild year. Given that, it's hard for me to see them not going for an immediate starter at another position.

I don't think it's a bad decision, but it probably kills my dreams of Kizer/Mahomes/Watson at 10, which is what I think would have been the best decision.

I don't think we've opened it up more at all, we're just having more frequent coverage breakdowns, and those pucks are ending up in the back of our net.

For Christmas this year, let's all chip in to get yse a new sarcasm detector :p

Per ESPN, since his return this year, Eichel has as many points as McDavid.

Though I think he deserved to be fired by now, I don't think it's insane to give him the full year to try to correct some of the struggles. Why do you consider it a big problem? After all, you think an owner's one job is to hire people.

I stand by my earlier season assessment: he's utterly unspectacular in every way, unless you consider his thorough averageness to be spectacular. Though there have been more breakdowns the past couple of weeks, despite getting shelled with volume, the team has done a really good job this season of limiting dangerous chances to a minimum. Currently 7th fewest scoring chances allowed per game.

Sign me up.

I'm honestly at the point where if Murray sticks with Bylsma heading into next season, then I want him fired too. It would render null any other good he has done and will do.

Which one? There's so many! The professionally modified desk you can sleep under? The you never got hired and showed up like you did? The trying (and failing) to get fired? The sex with the cleaning lady?

The Church of Costanza.

I think it's also worth noting that drafting for need is hardly easier than cleanly separating players for BPA. How do we define need? Current roster? Current pipeline? Projected future roster? Projected future pipeline? Doing this requires projecting not just the draftable prospects in question, but those already drafted, and some prognosis about shifting roster composition. Talk about compounding forecast error. Assuming static needs such that "what we need now is what we'll need in the future" is hugely problematic, to say nothing of trying to inject dynamism into the model.

There can be only one, and that one is Seven.

You give me hope where all was lost. I salute you, sir.

Yea, I mean, you have to be able to have enough time before the deadline to make an informed decision, to say nothing of scheduling interviews. Are any of those you have heard back from among your top choices? As for me, I'm still waiting on one response (which is ironic, as it's the worst program I applied to and only did it as a fallback...), but I'm like 70% decided. What was initially my second choice vaulted to my top choice with a tremendous financial offer (higher paying stipend and the tuition waiver includes the out of state surcharge, which I did not know when I applied). I should be getting the total financial package from my other top choice this week, but I'll be pretty surprised if it can match what I've been offered. The firm offer I have also has an assistantship doing exactly what I want to be doing, and the program itself is more established (which was noticeable during their respective interview weekends). Of my boxes to check off (program quality, financial package, GA position), it comes in first on the three most important ones. Barring a surprise, gonna be hard to turn it down for the sake of location/culture.