nfreeman

She's not from NY.

Very nice.

This is a very good point. I would like be interested in fundamental changes, such as restrictions on shotblocking and/or having the "long change" in the first and third periods. However, I think calling more penalties and reducing the size of goalie equipment would be a good start.

Well, there's a lot of room below $1.6B. For example, $1B is 37.5% below $1.6B (which is what the new Giants stadium, which is open-air, cost), but is still a huge freaking number. As for the poll reliability question: if Rasmussen was the only poll using likely voters before the mid-August swap, then doesn't that mean that it was superior to the other polls? It's a fine idea in the abstract, but it still requires an owner to accept a less attractive economic proposal than he would get elsewhere, and is thus an unlikely scenario.

It didn't make any sense at all. I'll say it again: Brooksie is a bozo.

I liked the Revenant, but my wife did not. She inflicted some payback last weekend when we saw "The Lobster." As for the bolded -- I thought that scene was incredible, especially the part when the Indians (and it was great to see Lizzie Warren's grandpa in his glory days, innit?) were all around him. I felt like I was in the scene.

Leaving aside your questionable, and frequent, reliance on a 4-year old series of my posts as a rejoinder to a much more recent series of your posts regarding stadium costs -- just for the record, is it your position that polls of likely voters are NOT more reliable than polls of registered voters? As I posted multiple times, that was the reason for my preference for Rasmussen -- and by November 2012, most of the polls had shifted to likely voters, and none of them had Romney winning (and the country has reaped the "fruits" of that decision, but that's another conversation).

Good post. I think the NHL has done a lot of smart things since the 2004 lockout, but I continue to be dismayed by its unwillingness and/or inability to adjust the rules to enhance offense.

Good post. It really does come down to whether a city is willing to pay what it costs to keep a team in town. I agree with the bolded, although I hope it takes a long GD time to get there. OK. If the result is that the team leaves for greener pastures, are you OK with that? I think you're right, especially in corrupt, union-run NYS. But there's someone on this board who thinks you can get one for $200MM and a "pretty please."

Yes -- these smaller arenas (including Hamilton -- IIRC, it would need to undergo a substantial expansion to be NHL-ready) are entirely different animals than an NHL/NBA arena, which start at $300MM or an NFL stadium, which start at $600MM. And if they aren't interested in doing so, and your team is ready to move to another city that will build them a stadium -- are you OK with that?

I recall this too. Kinda interesting how it worked out -- DR said no on this deal, which meant the Sabres ended up with Risto at #8, and not Elias Lindholm (a 6'1" center whom Carolina picked at #5 and who has had 2 respectable 39-point seasons) or Sean Monahan (a 6'3" center whom Calgary picked at #7 and who has had a 62-point season and a 63-point season). But DR, later that day, said yes to a different Carolina offer of #35 overall (which the Sabres used to pick JT Compher, who was, in 2015, included in the ROR trade) plus Jamie McBain for Sekera. If one was so inclined, one could read this as a microcosm of the DR era -- he avoided splashy moves like the plague and was terrible at drafting forwards, but he loved to collect 2nd-tier assets like, say 2nd-round picks. So he decided to trade a pretty decent defenseman in Sekera (who's averaged 22 min per game in the 3 seasons since the Sabres traded him), but instead of using the return on a potential star center in Monahan, he took a good defense prospect and a forward who was at least 3 years away from being an NHL player (and projects as a 3rd-liner in any case). Back to the original point, though, I would also point out that Sekera was substantially better than Pysyk.

What's the purpose of identifying the hypothetical investor's race here? Would it be OK to substitute a different race in this sentence?

Interesting. Without knowing anything about who would likely be there at #4 relative to #8, I think I would do it.

What city has built a football stadium without a team? What city other than KC has built a hockey/basketball arena without a team? What city has spent large amounts of public money on either a stadium or an arena without increasing the taxes I cited? I am neither "speculating that" nor "speculating whether." I am simply pointing out that the question is pretty much meaningless without considering the consequences of a "no" response. FWIW, I don't think TP will hold the city/state hostage for a fat public contribution to a stadium project, although I expect that there will be some public money as part of it (and for the record I think the Ralph is great and I would greatly prefer no new stadium).

I think the "it depends" option might fairly be rephrased as "if the team is going to leave unless the public pays for a new stadium, then yes I will go along with it, but otherwise no." Because that's really the question here, right? Without that threat, no one would support spending public money on stadiums. So the question should be "are you OK with an increase in your property, sales and income taxes -- or would you rather lose your team?" If your position is "no public funding for stadiums, but I don't want to lose my team," you haven't taken a position. It's the same as saying "I want the Sabres to sign Stamkos but I don't want them to give him more than $5MM per year."

Well, I interpreted your post as you proposing it as a realistic trade possibility. Since you didn't mean it that way (although you might've said something like "I wouldn't give Edmonton any more than XYZ for #4, and I wouldn't expect them to agree"), then I withdraw my gibe.

And just like that, years of painstaking, steady progress is wiped away.

Now that one was a crowd-pleaser.

Congrats WC!

Outstanding.

Ribs?

Post - exile Ali would've certainly respected peak Tyson's power and rudimentary skill, and would've game-planned appropriately, waited for the right moment and put Tyson down (much like he did against Foreman). Pre-exile Ali, like pre-baseball Jordan, would've just done whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. As a side note, Foreman, Frazier and Norton would've been great opponents for Tyson.

For those interested, "When We Were Kings," which is a documentary about the Ali-Foreman Rumble in the Jungle, is excellent, and "Ali" with Will Smith was also quite good IMHO. He was really something, both in and out of the ring. I have some issues with some things he did, but he was certainly an inspiration to millions and was the boxing equivalent of Michael Jordan. He would've taken Mike Tyson apart.

I wouldn't trade #8 for Barrie and I don't think GMTM will either.

If TB really is capped at $9MM x 6 years, he is gone.