#freejame

I think the target should be around 1.5 per draft or 3 every 2. Should be able to draft another AHL player each year as well. That should be enough to refresh the pipeline, replace ELC on the big club, and allow the new ELC to age into big kid contracts while the elders retire/leave the team. 6 players with the potential to reach the big club every three years is a great deal of competition as no real team should have that much youth. I would think the ideal roster make-up would be something like 2-3 ELCs (approx $3m), 2-3 bridge deals (approx $11m), 5-6 long term deals (approx $50m), and then fill out the rest in FA with 2-4 year deals (approx $20). That would put right at ~$85m for next seasons cap with 2/3s being drafted. You’ll lose a long term deal every year or two being replaced by an ELC or bridge and the cycle just continues. in no particular configuration: Long term deal - Long term deal - bridge ELC - long term deal - FA ELC- Bridge - FA ELC - FA - FA long term deal - bridge long term deal - FA ELC - FA long term ELC/bridge

Ron Meyer is Toby MacGuires former father in law. Or so I just learned.

If they aren’t wearing the goathead I won’t be watching. It was the only reason for me to tune in for the first time since November.

Yeah I don’t know what he’s talking about. Montreal is a top five city in North America.

That’s where we finished last season too, which is the problem.

A lot of hockey players like chew, I never got why this is brought up over and over

Sam Reinhart is not the problem. If he were available, every team in the league would call on him. Literally nothing you described about him is true. He’s had the occasional off game, but he’s been very consistent. Your trade would have all the makings of a ROR part two. Let’s not forget there were plenty calling for him to be traded around here.

i thought the same as you until I looked at Brawndo’s profile and Casey’s birthday

No, but Mitts just 21 around Thanksgiving and I would be really impressed if Brawndo has been posting since he was 12

I think he means Mitts.

Perhaps you had her once in an airplane bathroom?

The numbers say pull the goalie early, especially on the power play.

Top five in the Atlantic is pretty easy: 1. Matthews 2. Tavares 3. Marner 4. Reilly 5. Mats Sundin not sure where Eichel would fit in there

I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure he’ll still be making the rookie max down in Rochester.

Yes!

Conspiracy: Kyle told the entire team that he’s retiring after the season due to his concussions. The team all rallied for a KO swan song, with his line mates doing so most.

I wasn’t even thinking of Lehner, but he’s been good as a UFA signing, though he’s lacked term. I had thought of Bob as well, but then I thought he was having a lot of trouble in FLA this season. And I couldn’t remember what kind of term he was under in CBJ when he got traded there. Now backups on the other hand I feel like it matters much less.

As long as the Leafs are above the Sabres I can sleep easy

I could be way off here, but isn’t the track record for UFA goalie signings pretty poor throughout the last 15 years or so? I feel like goalie is probably the most important position to develop within just because it can be such a fluky position.

Who calls the games when they’re on ESPN+?

This is up there on my list of biggest pet peeves as a hockey coach. It drives me insane when my players do it and it drives me even more insane when professionals do it.

Did you watch the game yesterday? What made you think the Bills has two more scoring drives in them? The fact that they didn’t even had one should be enough of an argument. This wasn’t some shootout yesterday. It was a hard nose defensive game against the best team in the league. Don’t put yourself in a position to be down two scores instead of one in the fourth quarter in that scenario.

Scenario 1A: Bills are down 9, go for two, make it to be down 7 (one possession game) 48.2% conversion rate NFL wide Scenario 1B: Bills are down 9, go for two, miss and are still down 9 (two possession game) 51.8% probability Scenario 2A: Bills are down 9, kick PAT, make it to be down 8 (one possession game) 94.4% conversion rate NFL wide Scenario 2B: Bills are down 9, kick PAT, miss and are still down 9 (two possession game) 5.6% probability Which scenario gives the higher probability that it will be a one possession game with 8 minutes remaining? Who watching that game thought the Bills had two more scoring drives in them? I didn’t, but maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the underlying analytics of our performance . Why risk effectively taking yourself out of a game with 8 minutes left?

How to decide when to go for 2 AFTER TD +1 +2 (VS. +1) BETTER OPTION MARGIN AFTER TD +1 +2 (VS. +1) BETTER OPTION -15 0.5 1.0 Two 0 8.4 1.8 One -14 1.0 0.4 One 1 1.8 6.5 Two -13 0.4 1.1 Two 2 6.5 5.0 One -12 1.1 1.3 Same 3 5.0 2.9 One -11 1.3 2.2 Two 4 2.9 3.1 Same -10 2.2 2.9 Two 5 3.1 5.2 Two -9 2.9 3.3 Same 6 5.2 3.3 One -8 3.3 5.2 Two 7 3.3 2.9 Same -7 5.2 3.1 One 8 2.9 2.2 One -6 3.1 2.9 Same 9 2.2 1.3 One -5 2.9 5.0 Two 10 1.3 1.1 Same -4 5.0 6.5 Two 11 1.1 0.4 One -3 6.5 1.8 One 12 0.4 1.0 Two -2 1.8 8.4 Two 13 1.0 0.5 One -1 8.4 8.4 Same 14 0.5 0.7 Same The chart that literally shows it’s the same. You asked upthread the Randal what happens if the Bills miss the two point attempt in his scenario. That’s easy, they lose on the last play of the game. Had they missed the two during actual game play, we would have lost anyway, but what we would have double the amount of scoring drives we needed to win. Keep telling me I can’t read though when your own link shows there’s no benefit and thinking things through with basic math shows it doesn’t make much sense. I’m sure you watched the game, did you see a team that was going to drive down the field twice after scoring late because that’s not the game I watched. Sometimes context actually does matter in sports.

The case to be made to go for two (just in case someone doesn’t want to click through the 538 article): https://mobile.twitter.com/bburkeESPN/status/820784936236019712 transcribed: Go for 2 now, you'll likely have to eventually. You'll know the outcome sooner rather than later and have time to restrategize. restrategize meaning oh *****, we missed the two and now we need two stops and probably an onside to win this game now. Such a fantastic argument, thank Christ there was an expert to tell me that.