shrader

Kane cleared his previous personal best by 18 points. Panarin more than likely played a big part in that. Panarin had a better season than any other rookie this year and is the clear choice for the award. It will be fun though to see where McDavid and Eichel are once they hit 24. The ceiling is certainly much higher for them, but 2015-16 was Panarin's year.

Sure, she picks up the $140 bill and you paid for the two happy meals.

Seriously though, what are they spending on? I suppose I'm living in the wrong market where I don't see buildings and billboards plastered with the stuff, but I can't think of any other ways where they are going to run up the tab that much. What type of marketing is so costly (other than maybe a superbowl ad) where they're going to be spending that much?

And then they changed the rule. They'll never be able to prevent someone from winning based on playing in a league like the KHL because they don't want to acknowledge those leagues as being on the same level as the NHL. Any idea to disqualify anyone with prior pro experience screws over the guy who puts in his work at the AHL level.

How is it even possible to spend over a billion making and marketing a movie? The better be implanting trailers into our brains at that price tag.

If you're not first, you're last. Panarin should run away with the Calder voting, so I don't care one bit who the other two finalists are. I know some might say that he's too old, but rules are rules and Panarin should be the clear winner of the award.

Some piranhas would be nice.

It's nice to finally be at a point where we are looking for complementary players instead of the ones who are going to be your top guys. They probably need a high end d-man (good luck finding that), but other than that, it feels like the first time in ages where there is a solid core in place. I'll be very curious to see what he has up his plans, but at the same time, I'm hoping he doesn't ship too many prospects off. That feeder system needs to remain in place to retain the kind of cheap depth that wins championships. I'm left with the same exact question I had before.

I can't picture a guy like him getting anything more than a 2 year deal. That kind of player is never going to spark up a bidding war. I'm surprised every time I see him mentioned as any kind of priority.

People seem so quick to label these trolls as sexist. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of these people are serial line crossers with their comments. If you're throwing these comments out there at just about anything, you've gone well beyond sexist and you're just a horrible person as a whole (give that whatever label you want).

What does that even mean?

How many people actually bothered to watch those episodes on the plane? I DVRed most of the season, so I fastforwarded right through them after the first 2 or 3. I had no interest spreading out a 1 or 2 hour story over the course of 8 weeks.

Many of you will be shocked to learn this, but there is actually someone holding a sign in that first picture.

So in other words he pretty much losing nothing by missing the games, at least in the eyes of the court. Why would they care if he actually gets to play in a game or not? He's not some 20-something playing for his next contract so it doesn't matter one bit to his bank account if he misses games or not. A stay seems kind of pointless. If by some chance down the line he actually wins on an appeal, they could just give him back his game checks and he hasn't really lost anything at all.

Someone covered the stick figure man and woman on the restrooms here in my office with the artist symbol. I have no idea if it's a statement about the law here in NC, but it seems odd.

It's going to be odd when the Islanders win a division they're not even in.

The full list of most popular names is great... Usain Boat

Clearly you weren't paying attention earlier in the thread. Luthor knew Kent is Superman because Jimmy Kimmel told him.

After reading through that list, I can't wait for this month to be over.

It's probably going to have to be the Joker, isn't it? I hope it's from before all the Superman stuff and explores the Jason Todd stuff they hinted at in the trailer and movie. If they're serious about this R rating stuff, it could be a good one for that.

I'd have to go back and watch Breaking Bad, but did Mike ever kill a so called "innocent"? The only time I even remember him killing was when he had to save the asian guy who was being held in a warehouse (I forget what that guy's role was). I always think of him more as the cleaner when he was first introduced as opposed to a killer. It's been a while though, so I don't remember many specifics. The first thing that comes to mind with the whole good samaritan thing though was the kid at the train robbery. He comes across as the kind of guy who will do whatever he has to, but still has that honor code of not involving "civilians" (or whatever you want to call them). That much is retained up until the end.

I now have this on display at my desk.

I kind of want to dig up that topic from last week about Greg Norman.

I've always wondered how people know all these character's names.

And he's still only 26, even though it feels like he's been here since the Reagan administration. If his head is ok, he's a highly skilled player who should be right near his prime.