Jets just look desperate trading for Tebow. Everybody knows Ryan loves the attention, did anybody think the Jets need more distractions? They said a guy like Tebow can unite their blown up locker room, but if they felt the need to extend Sanchez to protect his confidence after taking a shot at Manning, how do they expect him to play with Tebowmania breathing down his neck?

I'm no fan of either quarterback, and I don't think the Jets D is what it was a few years ago. Still a lot of time to make moves and have cleverer men than me strategize but right now I think the Jets are looking like a team that's more likely to miss the playoffs, fire their coach, and lose their QB than they are to win 10 games.

Bills signed Mark Anderson, and suddenly go from having one of the worst D-lines and pass rushes to arguably one of the best. Chris Kelsay and Alex Carrington are good depth options on the outside to insure for injuries. The team's secondary will look a lot better with this improved pass rush. Fitzpatrick might not be great, but I'd take him over Sanchez, Alex Smith, and even Joe Flacco, who have all taken teams to the conference championship game. For a team that hasn't made the playoffs since Bruce Smith was on the team, that type of potential is enough. They need a deep threat before a they need to improve at QB.

Bills landing Mario Williams is a huge step forward for the franchise. Hard to understate how important that signing is for a market that's been NFL purgatory for a decade. There's been debates my whole life in Buffalo and across the country about whether or not the Bills care about winning (rumors swirl every year of Ralph Wilson and the management having parties to celebrate a top-10 finish in profit even as the team extends its AFC leading streak of missing the playoffs). This signing, with the deal for Stevie Johnson, and last season's deals for Fitzpatrick and Kyle Williams, shows that they want to win.

Williams also changes that defense entirely. The Bills were atrocious on D last year, but it all stemmed from a non-existent pass rush. Even sending 5 or more guys, we never got a hand on the QB unless he was a Redskin. But Kyle Williams is a pro-bowl nosetackle (injured most of last year), and Dareus still projects as an all-pro and showed signs of greatness as a rookie last year. Their impact as dominant interior linemen was diminished by the 3-4 scheme, now with the switch to 4-3 and the addition of Mario Williams, suddenly the Bills have the best D-line in the AFC East and maybe the conference. Last year the secondary looked horrible, but the safeties are good players, and the corners aren't as bad as they look - again, the pass rush is at fault. Williams will make them better too.

With a good draft and luck with injuries next year, the Bills should be fighting for a playoff spot in December for the first time since 2003.

Sabres made some noise at the deadline. It's been a strange year for Buffalo, to say the least. Paul Gaustad is NOT worth a 1st round pick, even a late one. He's a frequent underperformer whose lack of speed oftentimes nullifies his physical play. He wins faceoffs, kills penalties, and can sometimes shut down scorers 5-on-5, but he isn't worth such a high pick. Glad the Sabres took that deal.

Then trading Kassian for Hodgson is the question mark. I tend to like it because I think the Sabres absolutely need a new center, and while Kassian also fills a much-needed vacancy of physicality, Hodgson is a known talent with huge upside while Kassian is a prospect with potential. The Sabres can move Roy in the offseason now, which they have to do. This season isn't doing anything, but Darcy managed to find a strong center-of-the-future candidate and a first round pick for just the price of an expiring Gaustad and a 7-points-in-23-games Kassian

Axlin, take a serious look at yourself. I'm not going after your politics, but the way you behave in these threads is insulting. You say I'm wrong and that people who are on "my side" of this issue actively ignore objective analysis. You don't cite your objective sources, you don't bring your information to the table, you don't engage in a serious discourse. You're completely close-minded, and worse, rude.

You seem like an intelligent guy, so I assume you recognize the immense difficulty in measuring the impacts of large social policies objectively. Even CBO projections are usually way off. It's disingenuous to claim objective scientific calculation rests on your side and yours alone. And it's really fucking disrespectful to assume I'm not interested in the information that you have. Your refusal to engage in debate doesn't make you "above" us or more enlightened, it just shows how close-minded and afraid to risk yourself you are.

As for misterID, that info doesn't cause me any stress. You can't blame the free market for the problems in health care because we don't have a free market in health care. Look at what I posted again - that sort of system, which I'm deriding, would absolutely give you higher health care spending per capita. It's grossly inefficient by tying medical progress to the financial giants capable of getting through the FDA process. So yeah there's mountains of waste. Scaling back the government's role would drastically cut our health care costs. Socialized systems sometimes look more cost-effective but they inevitably have to restrict people's right to eat what they want or smoke what they want. I want lower health care costs without sacrificing innovation or the right to use my body as I see fit.

Think about the issue in the article I posted - isn't that a problem in our system? Why has our knowledge of biology doubled multiple times in the last few decades, but the rate of new drugs being released is slowing down? It's not the free market slowing that down. Why has such a huge percentage of the innovation in medical technology been in testing for relatively rare conditions and not better care techniques for common ills? The Medicare system has a "you invent a treatment for it, we'll cover it" policy that leaves us with all this expensive stuff we don't need instead of better drugs and cheaper therapies for common illnesses. THIS is the impact of government involvement in medicine - some people get a temporarily better service than they otherwise could've had, but overall progress in the field is retarded while prices rise and rise. The CBO says PPACA will "save" money, but much like the claims that GM has repaid or is repaying the taxpayers, it relies on a lot of financial trickery that would make Wall Street envious (maybe because Wall Street's best people run the government). I'll be happy to cite either of those, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that the CBO's projections are always cost-conservative given Congress' mandates about what they're allowed to predict (spending cuts! Bush tax cuts expiring!) and what they know will actually happen (neither of those!).

If socialism is pro-capitalist I want no part of either. I want free markets, free minds, and free people. I recognize the practical limitations on all 3 things, but they're worth pursuing.