nfreeman

Very sorry iTlnSn. God bless you and your family.

Sabres79 -- is there another way you could bring in some additional cash? uber driver, teach, bartend, work OT hours, something? I would try something like that before switching between the jobs as you've described them. Your wife may not be hung up on the extra $$ so much as PO'd because she thinks you're putting your happiness first and blowing off her concerns.

What are your day-to-day responsibilities now, and what would they be in the new job?

A bit more on Briere vs Vanek: If you take the 10-season period for each of them that starts with their respective 2nd full NHL seasons, Briere had 603 pts in 701 regular-season games for 0.86 PPG, while Vanek had 601 pts in 736 RS games for 0.82 PPG. In the playoffs, Briere had 116 pts in 124 games, while Vanek has 34 pts in 63 games. So Briere was slightly more productive in the RS and much, much better in the playoffs. Not to mention Briere's undeniable superiority based on eye test, leadership, clutchness and the fact that since leaving Buffalo, no NHL team -- or his Olympic team -- has been happy with Vanek.

Briere was an underachiever before Lindy got him. I haven't run the numbers but I'm confident they're substantially better than Vanek's if you start in 2005. And let's not forget playoff scoring.

Briere had more skill -- by a mile. Gare had a better shot, better speed (although every now and then Vanek showed a shocking burst -- but that was kinda the problem with him -- he only skated like that once in a while), better decision-making and equivalent hands. Soupy was a better skater and had a better slapper. If Rick Vaive counts as a Sabre, he was more skilled too. I missed most of the Hawerchuk era in Buffalo, but he was more skilled too.

I agree with the bolded (not so much the first sentence, as I think he had plenty of fans while he was here). But in any case I think if a team snags him for, say, $2.5MM on a 1-year deal, he'll deliver good value. I don't think he'll get more than a 2-year deal (and if I were a GM I wouldn't give him more than 1 year).

So I took a long plane trip over the weekend and binge-watched season 1 of "Fargo." Outstanding.

I think the trailer indicates North.

Great show. "The Pacific," which was the follow up series, was also excellent.

There's a reason Vanek has bounced around the league since leaving here.

Be well SFiNS. There will be a lot to discuss when you return.

Maybe Kevin Dineen? But your point is correct.

2 dedicated threads on Antipin. We are starving.

Does anyone know whether he's an RFA (vs UFA) at the end of the one year?

It might be the worst idea that anyone has ever had about anything.

Good news: going to California for the weekend with my wife for an old friend's wedding. Bad news: I'm in row 37 the flight looks full, scheduled flight time is 6.5 hours, and on my most recent long flight a couple of months ago, I felt like I was in a straitjacket for 5 hours. My knees were touching the seat back in front of me, and that was before the excellent dude sitting there reclined his seat. Air travel gets about 5% more unpleasant every year.

I think each category (willing to trade a young D for Kane; willing to give Kane a big contract) includes several GMs. In other words, I fully expect that if Kane is traded, there will be a respectable young D coming back. However, it's important to remember that no GM is going to trade a good, young D with potential for Kane unless that GM has a deal in place with Kane for an extension -- and that factor reduces the number of possible trade partners (and, as I've mentioned previously, eliminates Anaheim). So the number of GMs who are willing to give Kaner a big contract as a FA will be higher -- probably much higher -- than the number of GMs who are willing and able to give the Sabres a good young D for Kaner AND give Kaner a big contract.

I believe it was pants-less, actually. Another great Whaley move.

Whoa. That is really going to be a major binge. Enjoy. It's a great show. One suggestion: if you like the first season, I'd recommend reading the books so that you're more or less caught up to the show (but not ahead of the show).

Respectfully, there is NFW that Anaheim would do this, and your presentation is filled with #Hammymath. Stoner is entering the last year of his deal, while Vatanen has 2 more years after this coming year. Kaner will command a 6- or 7-year deal -- which will start after this coming year -- so the commitment will be 4 or 5 years more than what Anaheim has now with Stoner and Vatanen. Also, Anaheim is a budget team -- so although a Bieksa buyout saves them some cap space, it doesn't save them actual cash, which is their real concern. Anaheim isn't trading for Kane.

I agree with the "huge cloud of variance," but with the 2nd bolded you are assuming away the issue that you correctly identified in the 1st bolded (although again it isn't actually stated correctly, since the context was your response to my #mythofGMTM post, which questioned his overall talent evaluation, not just amateur talent evaluation). Until we have the data (with appropriate adjustments for the variables you identified, and likely others), all we have to go on is either the unsupported "he's a good talent evaluator" #mythofGMTM or the hard data of the results produced by his teams. I'm going with the latter.

I'm sure he's hit on a few draft picks, but GA's data about his record as GM of Ottawa's AHL team is pretty damning. If he's really all that as a talent evaluator (and NB I didn't limit it to amateur talent), he should've been able to produce better results, especially at the AHL level.

I continue to feel that: - Unless there are reasons the public doesn't know, the Sabres would be crazy to trade Kane. - There is a reasonable likelihood that those non-public reasons exist, e.g.: - he may have told the team that he wants to explore FA - he could be a huge problem in the locker room or at practice - he could have a pathological issue with assaulting women - I wouldn't be surprised if the first possible reason were in fact true; I would be fairly surprised if either of the other 2 possible reasons were true. Still, there is some possibility of truth in each of them. - Anaheim isn't going to trade for Kane. He doesn't fit their budget. - Kane isn't going to sign here for less than what KO got. - Assuming none of the disqualifying factors exists, I would gladly extend Kane for a KO-level contract.

Ooooooooooohhhhhh. GA caught again indulging in #HammyMath.