Eleven

I would have given the MVP to Rendon, but ultimately it doesn't really matter to me.

Sorry, Josie. D4rk is aroused now and you have to deal with it.

The Sabres will get more out of Ristolainen than they ever did out of John Tucker (if they haven't already). IIRC, the Sabres actually traded John Tucker and cash for...John Tucker.

All my life, I've never seen my favorite pro team win a championship. I guess I have now. It's not as exhilarating as I thought it would be. Maybe I'll feel differently when the other 50th anniversary team I favor wins one in June.

Horrible strike. Buck was right, the plate was four feet wide. I don't mind last night's mistake as much as I mind the Game 4 (I think it was four) ump who admitted that he called a ball because the catcher, who knew it was a strike, upstaged the ump by starting for the dugout. Baseball has a real problem with umpire egos.

Ok. Here's the trouble I have with speaking meme. What does this woman eating something (is it a chip?) have anything to do with "it's true tho"? There is no connection there!

You? You definitely would get day drunk every day if you had kids, and not just at Disney.

Don't screw up the pattern.

I don't see that play working in front of the net with NHL-level goaltending.

Really a good point here. I'll bet this is the largest effect we see (absent a change in the draft rules).

Not quite as bad as the 2012 infield fly call (see the first page of this thread, I believe). But bad, yeah. It won't be remembered because it didn't harm the Nats.

Yeah, that call in the seventh was pretty bad.

Absolutely, but way less than rookie rate dollars in the NHL. What are your thoughts on whether non-NHL-ready players at BU or BC would make some money here?

I hope you're right.

Do we remember when sleep was a thing? I think that's Van Morrison. Sha la la la la or something.

That's the point. Only that elite level of player is going to make money off of his likeness. Certainly in Boston (which has four pro sports that tend to win things) and very likely in Minnesota (which has four pro sports that tend to lose things). And how is our hypothetical hockey player going to compete with Pastrnak or that wad Marchand in Boston, for hockey image dollars?

Here's the thing: Is an Eichel or Makar going to make enough off of a Bauer sponsorship or a car dealership appearance to forego an NHL contract? (And it would take that level of college player to gain anything at all, because college hockey is obscure.) Even if it's Connor McDavid, and he sells his rights in Canada while he plays for Whatever State, he's not going to clear anything close to what he makes on a rookie NHL deal.

Yeah, they weren't going to win that battle. Smart of them to concede. As for the consequences for hockey: We now have the pathway for a Jack Eichel to possibly stay in school, but I question by how much a hockey player actually will profit from selling the rights to his name and likeness. Some prospects might choose NCAA over CHL for this, but I don't know that this is going to be much of a motivator for hockey. There just aren't enough people out there who care about college hockey. There are a bunch on this board, to be sure, but I don't think we reflect the general population. I see the NCAA's new rule as benefitting football and basketball players, with the occasional olympian (maybe a gymnast, skier, or swimmer or something) in there.

The Bills' moon is (possibly) just beginning to wax (that's assuming that Josh Allen can become "the guy," which he isn't yet). No need to overspend on Bell or on anyone else this year. "Discounted sale options" at OL or DL sounds just fine to me, as long as it's a player who will be here next season.

More to the point, if Daboll called more screens and runs, he might find that his current running backs are adequate or better.

Well, you all are either considerably more pessimistic than I am regarding Dahlin's development, or more optimistic regarding what he will command as a salary.

This is not good for the Sabres.

That may be, but that's not really uncommon in life, in my experience. I can direct you to thousands of volumes of bad interpretations of statutes and regulations. If that's how the league is interpreting it at present, well, that's that. Other blown calls on the ice don't mean that this one was bad. And I'm not even sure that it's a bad interpretation; it's been this way for a long time, and there's a good reason for it. It's more a case of the rulebook not keeping up with current practices. I can agree that the ref at the net should have primary responsibility for policing that area, though.

Yes, that is what the rulebook states. And, as I wrote, the rule is subject to interpretation, as all rules are. According to a current NHL analyst who actually played the game, the current interpretation is what I wrote above. I'm going to go ahead and trust his opinion. Best of luck to you. I'm afraid I didn't see what you had written on the topic.

You know, I'm trying to not swear as much, but ***** Brad Park.