nfreeman

Huh? I'm referring to the data that I linked to regarding current (i.e. last 7 days) Covid death rates. That data shows that NY is currently doing much worse than Florida, i.e. 60% higher deaths per capita. Aud and LGR questioned the reliability of the Florida data, which is reasonable enough, and my point is that the NYS data should be viewed with similar skepticism.

I'm certainly on board with viewing the data with a gimlet eye, but that should apply to NYS' data as well. I'd also point out that if you discard the data, I'm not sure what is left to support any kind of conclusion about one state's approach vs others'.

I certainly agree that the issues are complicated. My point was simply that certain propositions seem to have become articles of faith in this discussion, including that NYS is some kind of superior place filled with smart people who comply with COVID protocols, unlike the dumb rednecks in other parts of the country, and as a result our COVID results are better — when the data doesn’t remotely support that conclusion. Did you see his jab at me? In any case you are right that these jabs, including mine, don’t improve the quality of conversation. One interesting item about the data I linked to is that NYC is doing better currently than the rest of NYS.

Since we could all grow old waiting for @SwampD to introduce any data in support of his hunches, here's some: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsper100klast7days It's only the last 7 days, which isn't as meaningful as last 30 days, but I wasn't able to find last 30 days on a quick search. NY has 60% more covid deaths per capita in the last 7 days than Florida, which has the 7th-fewest out of the continental 48 states.

Got any data to support this?

It’s worth noting that Florida has more people than NY, and more old people, and much less “better COVID practices” — and NY has 75% more COVID deaths than Florida.

Please do not post links to illegal streams. Thanks.

Here's something I hadn't realized: each team will play only the teams in its division. The Sabres' season will consist of 8 games against each of Boston New Jersey New York Islanders New York Rangers Philadelphia Pittsburgh Washington

BTW: Diggs IMHO is unquestionably already in the top tier of all-time Bills WRs with Reed, Moulds and Jerry Butler.

Let’s chill out a bit in here please.

Well, I thought he made a jump too, but only to "bottom 10 NHL starter" status. I will say though that he has improved every year and it's not impossible that he makes as big a jump this coming season as he did last season, and if he does, he will be in "good enough to be the starter on a real NHL playoff team" status.

I think you guys are probably right, and that this isn't a change in the deal reached in the MOU. The TSN article was a bit misleading: But that next 10%/diluted 8% is just a deferral, right? It's not escrow and thus not subject to forfeiture? I think this is right, which is why I am surprised that the owners agreed to reduce escrow to 10% in year 2 from now and 6% thereafter, and haven't insisted on reopening those #s.

Something else I found interesting from the TSN article: I'm interpreting this to mean that the owners got a major economic concession from the players -- i.e. effectively a 20% across-the-board pay cut to get the split for the 2019-20 season back to 50/50. It's not clear from the TSN article, but I would guess that the 72% is before escrow -- i.e. that 20% of the 72% will go into escrow to preserve the 50/50 split for 2020-21.

Here's TSN today: https://www.tsn.ca/nhl-nhlpa-reach-tentative-deal-on-new-season-but-big-hurdle-remains-1.1566391 So I think this means AZ can keep 3 goalies on their 23-man roster, but if they want to put one of them on the taxi squad, that one needs to clear waivers -- which means AZ will likely want to trade one of them. Am I missing something?

Speedy recovery, @GASabresIUFAN, and thanks for telling us about your experience.

Do the taxi squad players have to clear waivers? I.e. does AZ have to expose a goalie?

This should probably go in the random thread: I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they couldn't attend something "because I'm flying back from Albania that day." Well done, @Wyldnwoody44.

If you want to get into a discussion of perceived government incompetence/dishonesty/corruption, as well as each side's excuses/narratives -- that's what the politics club is for.

Except that if you scroll up on this very page, you'll see 2 posts providing specifics as to what the posters think the government's response should've included. Again: if anyone wants to debate the pros and cons of specific methods of combating the virus -- e.g. "closing schools works/doesn't work and here is data supporting that approach" -- that is fine. If you can't converse on this without including "and the president/governor/prime minister/others who don't agree with me are idiots/corrupt/liars" -- take it to the politics club.

We're at over a foot and counting in upstate NY. It's still coming down.

@inkman-- now that is an interesting ethical question. You are not being asked to leave a positive review, right? Just to delete the negative review and stay silent? Assuming it's to delete your negative review and stay silent, and assuming that you can ensure that you get the $50 (which, as @Eleven points out, is pretty uncertain, as a seller that would make that offer is the kind of person who wouldn't honor the deal) -- you are still being asked to help a sleazy seller sell crappy merchandise to an unsuspecting public. It's only a few clicks, so it's kinda quick and painless, but that is nevertheless what is going on here. Inevitably, part of the way most people would think about this is the matter of how badly you need the cash. Could you maybe decline the offer, skip booze for a week or something else that costs $50 and end up financially even and feeling glad to have done the right thing?

Great win.

Good question. I suppose one major factor is whether the owners think that the economic and operational upheaval should effectively give the teams the right to protect assets that they would've been required to expose in an ordinary-course season -- AND whether the players agree, since giving this point to the owners would mean less player freedom. I can definitely see the owners trying to get this, and the players refusing, or negotiating it away in exchange for an economic concession.

Yes -- the next 3 years, while Eichel is at his peak, Dahlin is approaching his, either Hall or Reino is here and contributing a lot, and Cozens and hopefully at least 2 of Quinn, TT, Ruotsy and Mitts (and maybe Peterka) are cheap but valuable contributors, probably comprise the window in which they have the best chance to become a real contender. Holy mackerel I hope the goaltending doesn't pull them down.

Plus another 1st rounder and a high 2nd-rounder also playing in the tournament in Ryan Johnson and JJ Peterka.