Fan in Chicago

Why would any team want to trade for a player who will be unhappy to be a backup ? If a deal happens, it has to be a win-win for all parties concerned - the Bills, the new team and JP. This year, I am sure JP would rather be a backup in Buffalo than on any other team.

Yep. In other words, big government getting bigger. Goes against free market theory.

No, it is from next year.

Reading through your posts you seem to have a good handle on your cash flow. Pat yourself and your SO on the back for that. I think you should pay off the student loan while making sure you make at least a 20% down payment. Get a pre-approval on your mortgage that will allow you to bargain hard on the house.

I partly agree with what you are saying. However, I do think there is ample scope to have two excellent receivers on the team. From that perspective, the front office should not be gun-shy with respect to signing Lee now. BTW, he is under contract for the next two years (not just this year as you mentioned). I have to disagree with others who said that the front office is busy with draft preps. But the ones responsible for draft boards and those in charge of contracts should be different, no ? Even if they need to have the others' input, it seems logical to me that getting a contract done for one player while the scouts and coaches are strategizing for the draft, should be do-able. And I don't know where the 'one, two day' comment originates from but it has been a fairly long time since the season ended and a few weeks since we made the quick FA moves. There have been plenty of days to negotiate a contract. For all we know, both sides are working on the negotiations.

Weird. I am pretty sure Evans is a UFA after next year.

I really do wonder how we got free agents on defense but are trying to rationalize not getting anyone (significant) on offense. You say getting Bryant Johnson for a year would not be preferable. I make the argument that he would be insurance in case our rookie WR does not immediately contribute. Yes, we did not get Wilford even though the contract he did sign was not too expensive. Which meant we did not think of him much for that money or he did not want to come here. Either way, we did not make it happen. Crumpler would be an upgrade (IMHO) compared to the current set of TE. Again, expecting a rookie TE to make a difference is not a given. We may have been better with a known devil. I am not advocating against patience. All I am saying is that there is no positive changes to date that indicate the O will be better in 2008 than in 2007.

I happen to agree with the point of the OP. I will qualify that the assessment is true as of this minute and things can change prior to the start of the season. But we have too many question marks and no solid positive changes. We don't know if a rookie OC will be better than Fairchild, we don't know if the improvement over the off-season will be adequate for Trent and Lynch. It is questionable how much rookie WR and TE can add to last year's offense. Given how we our off-season hopes have been repeatedly dashed over the last few off-seasons, esp. on O, I cannot feel optimistic about the O compared to last year. I still have a hard time understanding why 2007 was so much below the level of our second half 2006 performance on O. Also, a point has been made regarding the negativity of the OP. I just cannot see the grounds for optimism right now.

Not sure the conclusions will stand up to the scrutiny of a statistical evaluation, but a fun read anyway. Premise is that schools that do well in sports see applications for admission increase. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_...s/flutie_effect

Well, you are correct. I have been in a particularly pissy mood lately. And I contradict myself when I say you made the correct observation without sufficient data.

Actually, I did not not know that. It just upsets me when anyone makes conclusions without backing it up with (factual) data, especially in a discussion which relies so heavily on quantitative reality.

If he also plays CB, I want him on the Bills too

Does this article have any numbers to back up such broad conclusions ? While I disagree with the Feds actions lately, I cannot discount the need for their existence. Largely, they have done well especially under Greenspan. Bernanke appears to be a bit trigger-happy but that is not a commentary on the Fed itself. The National debt/deficits are based on long term monetary (interest rates) and political policy (spending, tax rebates/cuts, wars) and I would like to see which specific actions of the Fed (quantified) does he refer to that allegedly have such a significant impact on the debt. My guess is if there is any backing to that statement, it will be just philosophical bs without any basis on firm facts.

Seeing how Oneonta Buffalo has already overtaken you ...

The Onion ?

Please PM me your information so I can PayPal some money over.

I think these rates and those for the mortgage/refinance markets don't always move in the same direction. It is perhaps because they are sorta different markets with their own supply-demand balance creating the interest rates. But what do I know ? I am in the market for a refi also and have asked a friend who is a broker to tell me when I should pull the trigger. He called me today to ask me to be reachable on Wednesday.

Does it mean the effort to recover the data is less than your effort to recreate the site design and such ? If yes, then I am all for saving you work and will pitch in as necessary.

First of all let me say I am very happy we all are having this discussion. I get to learn more. The highlighted portion is so key in this discussion as it points to severely flawed fundamentals in such companies. I have to wonder how many others out there are on such a precipice. A company that has operated for ~ 80 years goes under in a matter of days. I am happy to have my average-paying, steady, no-bonus job.

I don't have any knowledge about the 1929 crash but I would guess the Fed's role would be to set policy that allows institutions to function, for the country to grow and to set monetary policy that is forward looking. If true, I do not agree that their role is to support a failing enterprise. That is the essence of a free market economy. For lack of a better cliche - the fittest survive. If the risk is of the sector collapsing, then there are so many underlying problems with that sector that it may be worth it in the long run for it to collapse and rebuild itself with the lessons learned. And GG, I don't think Becker is entirely contradicting himself. This action will not help the economy recover quickly - it simply prevents a panic-driven collapse of the financial sector. I partially agree with you that the result of such a collapse means that the credit crunch will trickle down to smaller companies essentially bringing investment to a grinding halt thus causing or accelerating a recession. But I question this morbid fear of recession. For the long term good of the economy it may be worth having a recession if it means better lending practices, stronger focus towards fee-based financial services and less focus on lopsided leverage by investment banks.

I read that the JPM deal came with an option to buy BS's Manhattan property @ 1.1 B when its value is $1.4 billion. So even in the worst case if the $236 million came to naught, the real estate will compensate JPM. Sweet deal if I have ever seen one. Wonder what the folks at the Fed get in return for their largess. Some good reads: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/17/magazines/...sion=2008031718 http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/ Nobel prize winning economist Becker," Still it is difficult to see the merits in the Fed's efforts to help the sale of Bears Stearns to JPMorgan Chase by guaranteeing many billions of mortgage and other assets of the company."

And I don't agree with most of it. Basic problem I have is with the explanation for the Fed action citing the impending crisis that may have doomed the financial markets. What I see from the little financial knowledge that I have is that this network of credit between banks appears to not be founded on real assets. The risks associated with the lending practices appear to not have factored enough risk. Maybe the combined risk of all credit for a particular bank is too overwhelming even though individual deals are sound. Whatever the reason, I still think there are large fundamental problems in the banking system right now and propping up one major institution continues to encourage such bad behavior. If a major shake-out is to happen, it is better to get it done and over with rather than prolong and compound the problem. In the BS deal, JPM seems to be the sole winner having taken on the upside with Fed protection on the downside.

This concept of D winning games is true as long as that team has a semblance of an offense. We were pathetic last year. A lot of things have to come together for us to do better on O, than last year - Schonert's schemes have to be better than Fairchild's, Edwards progresses, our rookie WR & TE (assuming we draft both positions) have to pan out & contribute. Frankly, any of these parts go wrong and we are doomed to another mediocre season. The D can only do so much without the O scoring points (Dallas game last season). I realize that the FA pick-ups for WR and TE were slim to none (BTW, I am not convinced Bryant Johnson is no better than what we have now). But that does not take away from the high probability that we are likely to suck again on offense.

GG, what I am trying to come to grips with is the who part of it. Who are the ones in such imminent danger ? Who deserve to be saved and why ? What specifically are these ripple effects that are so frequently mentioned ? Sounds like a bogeyman concept thrown around here. If the 'who' are these esteemed financial companies and their respective employees, scre* them and their bloated lifestyles. I do not want my money spent to rescue these high and mighty. I rather save the entrepreneur who opened a cute coffee shop down the street and faces closure cos Starbucks invaded her territory.

Threat ? To who and with what consequences ? I say they should file for chapter 11 now, let the other institutions that did business with BS react or go down as the case may be. This is a prime opportunity for the financial industry to get cleaned out. For once they are on the receiving end and I don't see why any body should alleviate their pain. Aren't these the companies that paid out several millions to their top management in bonuses ? Aren't their employees the onces who flaunt their 100%+ bonuses in their friends' face ? Wear Boss suits and act holier than thou ? If they deserved their payout then, they deserve to take the fall today. Their industry is the one that ruthlessly implements the risk model in lending. I see no reason why they should reap the benefits on the upside and be protected on the downside. Dwight, my rant is not directed at you. I was incredibly ticked off with the Fed 'bail out' last week and today's developments pushed my anger over the edge. I simply cannot see why any company is too large to fail in a free market economy.