That Aud Smell

May God forgive me.

he was waived.

I would not have replied as I did if pi had posted: "They only reason he's playing is because Phil is too nice and wants favors to give veterans players a chance to play."

He can take faceoffs when playing wing. Also: That seems like an unsubstantiated take.

really? i am thankful for that. if it happened, it is bizarre that the internet doesn't have evidence of this.

among my very favourite memories of watching the tee-vee when i was younger: seeing/hearing Mr. Food close his segment on doing perfect blueberry (??) muffins by declaring: "You ain't seen nothin, 'til you're down on the muffin! ... Ooooo it's so good." However, a quick internet search has me wondering whether that's an imagined memory.

Yeah - and anyway, I talk past people as I often talk to them.

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't think that qualifier -- "on paper" -- insulates what you're saying from the critiques I'm offering. I also continue to fail to grasp what point is actually being made hereby.

They generally require the slightest bit of imagination to interpret.

cold gotsta be.

God love ya.

I can't? They have a better winning percentage, fwiw. And anyway, I probably can't say much on the subject because I don't know enough about the Leafs roster and I simply don't watch enough hockey. But this analysis is overly simplistic; affectedly so, it seems. Would a panel of 5 neutral hockey personnel experts take the Leafs team (including coaches) over the Sabres team (same inclusion)? That's one other way to look at the matter. I am sure there are others. Are the Sabres precisely as far along in building a winning franchise as the Islanders? The Blue Jackets? The Stars? The Jets? All of those teams that have played 3 games and have 4 points to show for it.

You seems to be equating where teams are in the standings after a few games with where teams are in a rebuild. Looking at a stand of trees and making a judgment on the forest. It continues to be an odd take.

I also just realized he's got a year left on his deal, after this one.

That was a weird take. The balance of the post makes sense to me. It's an enviable problem to have, though -- to be bombing other teams out and have a need for improvement on D.

I am somewhat surprised to find myself at a tipping point with this as well. Typically, I'd be all for moving a player on an expiring contract under these kinds of circumstances (i.e., the Bills are almost certainly going nowhere because, to date, they have one of the worst offences in modern NFL history). But ... man. The message such a trade would send to the team. That's a lot of players. Many of them are gonna be around for a while. I know that arm chair asset managers feel like they know what's best as an abstract matter. But I really get the sense that this sort of thing matters to the players. And this seems a sight different than Watkins and Darby.

Good catch. What a circus that was. The crowd loved it (although I'm not sure how ... efficacious or even well-advised all of it was). He was positively Afinogenov-like on that shift.

Remember when Tooth used to repel? Hey - that’s a bit like what Jochen’s home German squad would do after a win. (Or, Euro teams generally.) I like it. Cripes - the guy might score 70.

Baldness is a normal physical characteristic. Samesies with being fat (at least insofar as athletes are concerned).

FA is such an uncertain venture. OTOH, so is the draft a lot of the time. Good lord, they're gonna have money to spend. Also: Am I right to think that, in the NFL, players go where the dollars are more so than, say, the NHL? It seems to me that you hear about a market like Buffalo having difficulty approaching big fish UFAs. Not so much the case in the NFL. Maybe it's a function of the brevity of their careers, non-guaranteed contracts, and the need for guaranteed money?

You catch on quick. If we're looking for more guidance, maybe think along the lines of differentiating between medical conditions or similar infirmities, on the one hand, and more generalized, normal physical features, on the other. It's more art than science, though. I mean, I still laugh at this scene.

no, not really.

Well, sure. I suspect that people do get sued for unfavourable online reviews. People get sued for all sorts of things, after all. I'm not a first amendment lawyer, but, for starters, there are differing standards for matters of private concern and matters of public concern or even criticisms of public figures. In any case, and without looking into it, I'll guess that online reviewers get sued when the object of the criticism thinks that the reviewer has said something factually untrue. (E.g., "Don't go to this doctor -- she tried to treat my broken ankle with nothing more than an ace bandage!" when the doctor's notes reflect that the patient was prescribed a casting up to the knee) Because simply saying something to the effect of "the wait in line took forever, the hot dog tasted like refried a.ss and was overpriced to boot" is in the nature of opinion. No one's getting sued for an opinion. But if someone were to say "I went to the Lexus Club after the 1st period and saw them swapping out the top sirloin with chuck roast" and that statement were false, well, then, maybe that reviewer would have some answering to do. As a practical matter: Can you even imagine PSE or Delaware North chasing down people on Twitter or message boards for harsh reviews? NFW.