Eleven

I needed the two-way player. Can make a Manhattan, can drink on rocks. Four Roses did the trick at the right price.

We crossed each other--see above.

Also I know of a cognac that is $250 for a 1.5 oz pour at a place I used to frequent. No, I never did. No, it wouldn't be worth it to me. I remember texting with you about just this last fall--I was looking for bargain good bourbons. I'm just not a fan of either. Settled on Four Roses, right?

Cask strength is probably not right for me anyway, so no big deal... Ok then. Still, you're not getting anything of quality in those, are you? I mean, some utility vodka or whisky that you're just going to mix with something is fine, but I don't think I've ever seen anything in a bottle that big that I'd want to drink straight or over ice. Except like milk or lemonade or something.

@Weave what do you think? My thought is that they were lucky enough to have it in stock, if they ever did.

It's been the standard liquor size in the US for about forever--one fifth of a gallon, today approximated at 750 ml. In my experience, most of the good stuff isn't available in "handles" (1.5L).

Your friends are only getting "hooked up" because those prices are insane to begin with. At my neighborhood liquor store, Buffalo Trace is $32, Eagle Rare is $45 (but is out of stock, so price is probably jacked), and Wild Turkey 101 is $27, all for standard fifths. https://gatescircleliquor.com/shop/special-Bourbon/

Part of that is suggested by the sentence represented by @nfreeman's second ellipsis (freeman couldn't have quoted the entire answer and been within the bounds of what this board considers fair use of paywalled stuff): "That should help Botterill get a sense of how liberated Beane must've felt when the Bills gutted the roster Doug Whaley built." The key difference, though, is that Beane has proved himself to be capable, and Botterill has not.

That would explain why my response is not included.

This conversation SO belongs on barstools, but this is the best we can do for now. More to come...

It's $32 for a twelve-pack of soda? They have it at Wegmans. I didn't find it to be anything special. But yes, very very sugary.

They're playing this over and over tonight again.

I don't hate those, but I like a so-called "traditional" veggie burger, like a black bean burger or something, better. Lots of flavor there if it's done right. It's just not beef flavor.

I'm glad to have something to do, because my brain won't shut down... 1. Miller was MVP of the tournament, not the gold medal game. He started six games. Not too far from how many Crozier started in the playoffs in 1966. 2. I don't care if it came at the age of 95. No star's rookie year is their best, whether it be Roger Crozier or Ryan Miller. 3. Miller would have won Vezinas in the 60s and 70s. There's no way Crozier would have done the same in Miller's era (to use a comparison that you proposed) and certainly Crozier didn't back then. 4. Yeah, when it took four wins to get there, not twelve. 5. Crozier led his team to the finals once, not twice, and it only took four wins to get there. Miller won more games in that Olympics that you discount than it took Crozier to get the Red Wings to the finals. The other time Crozier went to the finals was in Buffalo, and he played roughly 28% of the available minutes in the playoffs. Desjardins led that team in that playoffs. Crozier was a heck of a goalie. Miller was better. There's no way I can look at a Miller highlight reel and even imagine Crozier doing the things Miller did. Anyway. I'm probably up for a little while longer if you want to go another round!

That's why I'm leaving it up.

Oh! I thought you meant the last question about O'Reilly. If you mean Crozier's Conn Smythe on the losing side, well, can't help you if you want to get back into that. Miller was a better goalie, and also managed to win two playoff series as a starter in two different seasons, something Crozier never did. A Calder is immaterial if we're talking about a player in his prime, and Crozier's losing-side Smythe is equalled by Miller's losing-side MVP in the Olympics. Crozier also never managed to win a Vezina, even in a six team league. And Miller would win that trophy ELEVENTY million times in Crozier's day. So yeah, it seems like nostalgia to me.

Well, it was a different question last time, but I still voted O'Reilly:

I don't know how I did this, but I nailed one of them. Even checked my work. Must have been burned into my brain long ago or something.

Question 1: Foligno is such a nice sentimental favorite, and Briere was magic so many times, and O'Reilly was a Conn Smythe winner in his prime, if he's even peaked yet. Tough calls there. And Peca could crush people and still score 20+ regularly, too. It's probably going to be O'Reilly because he is/was a Conn Smythe winner in his prime. That's kind of a big deal. Question 2: Dumont and Vaive is another tough choice. Leaning Vaive; will sleep on it whenever my body decides to actually let me sleep tonight. Question 3 is the only easy one. It's going to be Kozlov.

That's a nice tandem.

What a complete idiot.

Here's one: https://www.buffalobills.com/video/highlight-john-brown-makes-one-handed-grab He threw a good ball in the playoffs too!

Miller would have won about ninety million Vezinas in Crozier's era. Maybe even a hundred million.

If saying that everyone should be working together for a cure has become unacceptably political, well, we (as people, not as SabreSpace) have really crossed a line. But thank you for the explanation; I do not share the same view, but thank you nevertheless.