In Tambellini's Boots

Jonathan Willis
December 01 2009 07:27AM

Yesterday, Robin Brownlee mentioned briefly the moves he’d be working on in the G.M.’s boots (pictured above). The following is my list.  If I've had one rule in making up my list, it's this one: don't sell low.

Forwards

There are four forwards on the team who can be relied upon to keep their heads above water against almost anybody. They are Ales Hemsky, Shawn Horcoff, Dustin Penner, and Sam Gagner. Those four will constitute the core of next season’s forward corps, and will be retained.

There are too many small, one-dimensional forwards in this group. Pick two of Cogliano, O'Sullivan, Nilsson, Comrie and Eberle who will be on the team next year. Given the relative trade values, at this point I'd lean towards keeping Comrie and O'Sullivan and sticking Eberle in the AHL, but there’s still plenty of time to make a decision, and the rest of the season should focus on which of these players to keep and which to move. For now though, I’d move out Nilsson and Cogliano.

This team has too many players who bring a physical edge but not much else; in reality there aren’t that many spots for these sort of players on a winning team (as none of the Oilers listed here can really handle a regular role checking top players). My list includes Ethan Moreau, J-F Jacques, Zack Stortini and Ryan Stone. Colin McDonald and Ryan O’Marra would also fit into this category, although I imagine both would clear waivers; I’d plan to store them as minor-league depth unless someone expresses interest in either of them or they impress as the season continues. Otherwise, I’d keep Stone and Stortini and move out Moreau and Jacques.

As for Gilbert Brule and Ryan Potulny, I think both can be useful NHL players. Again, part of the season would focus on evaluating Potulny, but I see him as a very good 13th forward for a playoff team. As for Brule, I’d test the market. He’s played very well, and frankly I like him a lot, but I don’t think he’s as good as we’ve seen to date. Right now he has a 20.0% shooting percentage mark; his career average is 8.9%. His on-ice shooting percentage is 11.6%, and his linemates aren’t that good. I see him as a good third-liner who can score some when called upon, but if he can put up 40+ points (he’s on pace for 58) I think he’ll get a contract as a scorer. There’s nothing wrong with the player; I’m just a fan of selling high and I think he’s as hot as he’ll be for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, I continue to believe Marc Pouliot can get the job done on the fourth line, perhaps between Stone and Stortini. He’ll have to use the stretch run to prove he deserves a spot in the lineup over Potulny; if not he’s a cheap reserve forward. Lastly, if Fernando Pisani shows signs he can come back from his latest bout of colitis, I’d pencil him in as a reserve forward.

Despite the high volume of moves I’m suggesting (five), that would leave only three spots available up front, assuming that all of the prospects/AHL’ers (O’Marra, McDonald, Eberle, Paajarvi-Svensson, Omark, etc.) fail to make the jump to the big leagues. As G.M., I’d be having my professional scouts look at defensive specialists from this summer’s free agent class. I’d also suggest that bubble players on other teams who might be cheaply available be brought over for a test run towards the latter half of this season. If at all possible, I’d also try to swing a trade to bring in a genuine third liner or two. 

Defencemen and Goaltenders

On the defensive side of things, I’d entertain bids for Lubomir Visnovsky and Sheldon Souray, but only move them if the return was particularly compelling. Lubomir Visnovsky is the team’s best defenceman and a vital part of the team; his injury last year hurt the Oilers a lot. Meanwhile, Sheldon Souray brings a unique presence to the team and when healthy has been invaluable. While I can’t help but think that age and injuries could catch up to either of these players, winning in the near future will depend greatly on them, and they can only be moved if the return justifies it. It’s also important to remember that either of these defencemen can block a trade.

Assuming that both of those players are kept, the Oilers still have too much money invested in their defence, so one of Tom Gilbert or Denis Grebeshkov should be moved if the first two are kept. Gilbert is signed to a long-term contract, and his value has never been lower than it is right now. Grebeshkov is a pending free agent. I don’t believe teams should move players for pennies on the dollar, so that rules out trading Gilbert, meaning that Grebeshkov should be moved. If Grebeshkov is willing to sign a three-year (or thereabouts) deal for reasonable money ($3.25 million per year or thereabouts) I’d consider keeping him, but otherwise I’d try and move him at the deadline.

Steve Staios costs too much money for a third-pairing defenceman, and should be moved. Ladislav Smid is still signed to reasonable dollars and should be kept. Jason Strudwick doesn’t bring anything irreplaceable; if someone were interested I’d move him, otherwise he could be allowed to leave as a free agent.

That leaves three spots on the back end to be filled, and all should go to cheap and dependable types. I one of Taylor Chorney or Theo Peckham steps up in a big way down the stretch, one of them could take an NHL job next year (not both, because if both do that leaves the team without enough depth), which would leave only two spots to fill. Physical and defensively reliable are what we’re looking for here.

In net, I’d move Khabibulin if a trade presented itself. I know Tambellini won’t because he just signed him, but he’s locked up for too long given his age and injury track record. Some would argue I’m creating an unnecessary hole, but the fact is that Khabibulin has missed almost 20 games per season every season for the past four years, and I’m not comfortable with a part-time starter. I’d also make a decision on JDD and Dubnyk. I'd be leaning towards keeping Dubnyk, but use Khabibulin's absence to add to the data. I know that's too short a span, but the Oilers must make a decision this summer and they might as well decide now. Trade the lesser of the two. 

Transactions

  • Move two of Cogliano, Comrie, Nilsson and O’Sullivan – probably Cogliano and Nilsson.
  • Move one of Jacques, Stone and Stortini – probably Jacques.
  • Move Moreau.
  • Move Brule, depending on return.
  • Move one of Visnovsky, Souray, Gilbert and Grebeshkov – probably Grebeshkov.
  • Move Staios.
  • Move Khabibulin, depending on return.
  • Move one of Deslauriers or Dubnyk – probably Deslauriers.
  • Aim to acquire two or three two-way forwards.
  • Aim to acquire a pair of solid defenceman, at least one of whom can play a shutdown role.
  • If necessary, take a goaltender back in exchange for Khabibulin, but preferably not. Acquire as many draft picks as possible.
  • Sign whatever of the above haven’t been added via trade when free agency starts.
  • Sign a starting goaltender to replace Khabibulin; by my count there are 11 possible starters hitting the market, not one of whom is older than 34.  As with last year, there are more goaltenders than there are teams.

I know this looks like a lot, but I’ve got the rest of this season and all next summer to make these moves, and that’s the list I’d be working from.  The important thing now is to use the time left to get firm reads on which players in each of the above groups to keep.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#351 David S
December 02 2009, 03:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:
As (I assume from your posts) an astute businessman who is eminently aware of pro sports franchise dealings, I'm sure you understand that there's more dimension to some contract signings than most fans understand.

Don't be obtuse. It is irritating. I was stating that I have some awareness and even some minor experience in sports related contracts.

dimensions may involve considerations for marketing, PR, customer retention worries and other organization plans that are not the privy of anybody outside of the organization

This is my point - are you then claiming that these possible variables you mention are a valid excuse for opening negotiations with a 4 year deal?

Of course there are considerations not publicly announced and, as you have shown,is is easy enough to guess what they could potentially be. The question is whether or not they are adequate to excuse the action. Nothing you have mentioned comes close.

Ha ha! You're funny.

Yes. I am suggesting that there were possible variables that (from the organization's perspective) provided justification for the deal. I'm also suggesting that those organizations are not run from a fan's perspective, much to those same fans' chagrin.

Lets take it for granted that the contract seems bad on the surface. From a fan's perspective, I'd totally agree. So I have to assume that if fans can see a bad contract coming a mile away, then there were other reasons for that contract to be signed, one possibility of which I've suggested. I must assume that Oilers management aren't complete idiots, so the only logical assumption is that they had enough justification to make that "bad" deal. That's their choice.

The real question is "Why did they do what they did?", which is not answerable to any degree of certainty by anybody here, except maybe Brownlee.

Simply put, to state that this contract is wrong without knowing the context of the decision and what was at stake is the height of arrogance. Your argument is no more valid than any other presented here because we're all dealing with the same incomplete set of knowledge. Thus any theory is equally as valid as yours, without the condescending undertones.

Sorry if that's irritating.

Avatar
#352 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 03:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

Read back through the entire thread, my arguments are strong and well supported. Even Gregor feels the same way I do. Please see post #295.

Right, because Gregor's opinion is what counts.

Your arguments are supported by what exactly? You have done nothing but repeat your assertion that 3.75 is not an overpay for this one year and that we cannot know what will happen.

On the first point - that would be fine if it were a one year deal.

On the second - That's not an argument. That is called hope. I too hope he is still useful in year four, but I wouldn't bet the cap space on a hope.

They essentially took what should have been a short term solution and tried to make it a long term one. How is that sound decision making and how can that make it a good contract?

Avatar
#353 Dan the Man
December 02 2009, 03:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

And your argument is that if you were GM you could have and would been able to sign him to a 1 year deal and that he's absolutely bound to be brutal in the next few years.

I really don't understand how you can be so closed minded as to assume there is only one possible outcome here.

I do respect Gregor's opinion as he has far greater access to the team than I do which is not to say he's always right but like I said I do respect his opinions.

Avatar
#354 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 03:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@David S

No what is irritating is that you keep talking about these extra factors as though they are some unknowable mystery.

It is easy to guess at what they could possibly be, as you have done so yourself. They are not so unfathomable as you suggest.

I keep asking you to give one example of any possible factor that could lead to an initial offer of fours years being a justifiable decision. Other than a suggestion from someone else of blackmail I can see none and apparently neither can you.

Even if we assume that every conceivable factor that has not been obvious to us were all lined up to tell us that he must be signed at all cost we cannot justify the organizations complete ignorance of the market conditions that would lead to such an initial offer.

Unless you are prepared to finally offer something other than mystery factors you have no argument because we can clearly guess what those factors are, they are not a mystery.

It is asinine to suggest that they are making decisions based on some strange factor that nobody could possibly conceive. To claim that we cannot extrapolate possible context for the decision is equally weak.

This isn't like they traded for somebody we don't want because they were planning to flip him and we didn't know it.

It isn't like they are generals asking us to take a hill we just gave up and we don't know there are support troops coming to save us.

This is the Edmonton Oilers making a terribly ignorant decision based on information available to the general public. (unless blackmail is the answer)

If you want to claim other factors you have to provide at least one example that could POSSIBLY excuse the decision.

Avatar
#355 Ogden Brother
December 02 2009, 03:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

"They essentially took what should have been a short term solution and tried to make it a long term one. How is that sound decision making and how can that make it a good contract?"

Because they may not have had confidence in the other options. And would prefer to take the contract risk vs the player risk.

Avatar
#358 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
December 02 2009, 03:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Where are these comments anyways about this contract from Tambo?

Avatar
#359 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 03:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

And your argument is that if you were GM you could have and would been able to sign him to a 1 year deal and that he's absolutely bound to be brutal in the next few years.

I really don't understand how you can be so closed minded as to assume there is only one possible outcome here.

I do respect Gregor's opinion as he has far greater access to the team than I do which is not to say he's always right but like I said I do respect his opinions.

I have repeatedly stated to you that I do not assume he will be terrible yet you repeat this ad nauseum. What am I supposed to do with that?

I would also love to know at what point I claimed he should have been signed for 1 year. It never happened.

What I have argued, and I will do so again one last time just in case you magically develop reading comprehension skills, is that the contract is bad because it is a long term deal to a player over 35, and that it was inexcusable to initiate negotiations with a 4 year offer.

You really do love fighting those straw men though don't you?

Avatar
#360 RossCreekNation
December 02 2009, 03:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ogden Brother

Right. It's fairly obvious that if we could see the risks from the beginning, Oilers management also could see these risks. Clearly they weighed their options and felt the risk was worth the reward (whether right or wrong). They knew what they were doing in signing him, so let us not pretend they didn't.

Bottom line - its not fair to criticize the deal as a whole just yet. This current injury definately gives the skeptics among us more ammo, but if he comes back in 5 games and plays the remainder of the season injury-free, all this talk is for nothin. Wait & see. It didn't look great at the time, it looks questionable right now, but you cannot condemn it quite yet IMO.

Avatar
#361 Dan the Man
December 02 2009, 03:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother wrote:

"They essentially took what should have been a short term solution and tried to make it a long term one. How is that sound decision making and how can that make it a good contract?"

Because they may not have had confidence in the other options. And would prefer to take the contract risk vs the player risk.

Exactly, they had missed the playoffs 3 years in a row and they wanted the guy that they believed gave them the best chance of getting there even if it meant an overpayment.

It may even have been done in part to entice Heatley to come here.

It may have been done with some pressure from Katz, he has clearly wanted star players here since he purchased this team.

Avatar
#362 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
December 02 2009, 03:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jonathan Willis

Do we actually not know that what other moves Tambo has tried to make? It's not like he is Brian Burke who has a press conference after every hotdog.

Where did you get the Neil number from? And if it's true what is wrong with 2mil? Apparently nothing because Ottawa gave him 4 years at that price.

It's funny all the experts realize that it's going to take time for us to lose these bad contracts such as Pisani, Moreau, and Staios but you think they can be dealt with very easily.

Avatar
#363 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 03:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

Exactly, they had missed the playoffs 3 years in a row and they wanted the guy that they believed gave them the best chance of getting there even if it meant an overpayment.

It may even have been done in part to entice Heatley to come here.

It may have been done with some pressure from Katz, he has clearly wanted star players here since he purchased this team.

So how are any of the three reasons you just mentioned a good enough excuse?

Sure they are possible considerations, nobody questions that, what we question is if they are good enough reasons to justify the move.

Avatar
#364 Dan the Man
December 02 2009, 03:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

The term alone does not make it bad, the only way this contract ends up as terrible as you think is if Khabibulin is terrible. If he plays well throughout the remainder of this contract is it still bad?

Avatar
#365 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 03:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

Do we actually not know that what other moves Tambo has tried to make? It's not like he is Brian Burke who has a press conference after every hotdog.

Where did you get the Neil number from? And if it's true what is wrong with 2mil? Apparently nothing because Ottawa gave him 4 years at that price.

It's funny all the experts realize that it's going to take time for us to lose these bad contracts such as Pisani, Moreau, and Staios but you think they can be dealt with very easily.

Actually he seems to be suggesting that adding more bad contracts to the mix will not help matters.

Avatar
#366 RossCreekNation
December 02 2009, 03:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach

I truly believe at this rate, Moreau & Satios (and perhaps Pisani if healthy) could all be moved at the deadline (for peanuts). Teams are always looking for gritty, character veterans to add to the mix. Also, I expect the Oil to send them off to a place they have a shot at winning a Cup "in honour" of years of "good service".

Avatar
#367 Dan the Man
December 02 2009, 03:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

So how are any of the three reasons you just mentioned a good enough excuse?

Sure they are possible considerations, nobody questions that, what we question is if they are good enough reasons to justify the move.

The prospect of making the playoffs is probably pretty enticing to the management group of this team.

The owner telling them to do it isn't necessarily a good reason but if your boss demands something your only other choice may be to find another job.

Avatar
#368 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
December 02 2009, 03:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

Then what is he to do? Sit and do nothing? People again are forgetting we need to pay a little more to get guys to sign here and it's not like signing Bulin is anywhere near the worse contract this team has.

Avatar
#369 BarryS
December 02 2009, 03:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jonathan Willis wrote:

@ Dan the Man:

I attribute the Islanders not scoring as much when Biron is in net to chance.

I'v never been a big believer in 'well, he just gave us more confidence'. I think I first made this argument around the time that Dwayne Roloson couldn't hang on to the starting job in Minnesota, with the Wild figuring he wasn't ever going to be better than Manny Fernandez. The fact that Roloson had a miserable win/loss record had Terry Jones all hot and bothered too.

Of course, it all turned out really good because a) even teams like Minny aren't perfect and b) win/loss record is pretty dependant on goal support.

Confidence plays a great deal in how teams play. Just notice the oilers did play different in front of Khabbi after they got used to him, took more chances etc. One of the problems when the back up comes in it that the team does play different in front of him, the defence tends to try to do to much in front of him. I know all the injuries/sickness had clouded this fact with the oilers, but I've been watching hockey since about 1960 and have seen the same team look completely different depending on who is in net.

Avatar
#370 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
December 02 2009, 03:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@RossCreekNation

I'm kinda thinking the same, but they will probably all end up injuried thus not being tradeable.

Avatar
#371 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

The term alone does not make it bad, the only way this contract ends up as terrible as you think is if Khabibulin is terrible. If he plays well throughout the remainder of this contract is it still bad?

I have already answered that question twice but here it is again.

The contract is bad right now because it handcuffs the team for a questionable player.

He could change that by staying effecting and healthy for all four years yes. Bad deals can be made good ie. Penner. It does not change the fact that at this point in time the contract is bad. If he justifies it eventually then great, but from the framework of this moment in time, it is not a good deal.

I'll give an example of the opposite to see if it makes it any clearer. Look at Cheechoo. When his deal was signed most people thought it was a pretty good deal. He did not continue to play well so it later because a terrible deal.

Bulins deal is a bad one, but it is not impossible for him to change that by exceeding expectations.

HOWEVER - the possibility of that happening does not make it a good contract in the present.

Avatar
#372 Dan the Man
December 02 2009, 03:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

How about we agree to disagree?

Avatar
#373 BarryS
December 02 2009, 03:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Apparently if you wish to continue ignoring logic then yes, I am.

Logic based on nothing but speculation and opionion is not logic at all. Anybody posting here been party to the negiotations when they occurred, or read the contracts in question.

If all you rely on is second hand information, then logic can not be involved, only opinion.

Avatar
#374 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 03:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

Then what is he to do? Sit and do nothing? People again are forgetting we need to pay a little more to get guys to sign here and it's not like signing Bulin is anywhere near the worse contract this team has.

Umm...maybe in a terrible market for goalies you could try STARTING with a lower offer than 4 times the length of any other offers.

There were only a couple starting spots available league wide, you can't tell me we didn't have leverage.

Besides, even if you are right, 4 years is more than "a little more" than the 1 year offers everyone else gave.

Avatar
#375 Ogden Brother
December 02 2009, 04:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ JW

"The fact that they didn't have confidence in other options is an indictment, not a defence."

Lets get realistic here though. Their were 3 proven tenders on the market. Biron/Rollie/Bulin

I don't like the contract, but I would say that Bulin is #1 on that list.

Like I said before, they may have off ice reasons as to why they didn't want to re-up Rollie. They also wouldn't be the only team with big ?? regarding Biron.

The top UFA's go fast every July 1. If the team would have dicked around with 1/2 or even 3 year offers...and then potentially lost him. They obviously didn't want to go into the year with Rollie/Biron or an inexperienced option so they made sure to get the player they wanted.

Avatar
#376 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
December 02 2009, 04:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

Thing is Tambo wanted a goalie early so that he wouldn't be stuck with nothing.

Sure 4 years is probably 1 year too much, but bitching about it isn't going to change the fact that we have him now.

Avatar
#377 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

Logic based on nothing but speculation and opionion is not logic at all. Anybody posting here been party to the negiotations when they occurred, or read the contracts in question.

If all you rely on is second hand information, then logic can not be involved, only opinion.

Right, you're the guy who thinks any attempt at any form of estimation is the equivalent of looking into a crystal ball.

Even when speculation is present your predicates still have to lead to a logical conclusion.

Your sweeping statements of "we can never know this" and "we weren't the so we cannot possibly guess a that" are completely ignorant.

People keep saying crap like "we don't know why they did it" but nobody can offer even one POSSIBLE explanation that can excuse it.

Avatar
#378 BarryS
December 02 2009, 04:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Lets hear one example of a possible reason. Do you seriously think that fear they might lose out on him qualifies? If that was their reasoning then I believe they are not qualified to manage an NHL team because if casual fans can read and predict a soft market for goaltenders then the GM of the Edmonton Oilers sure as hell better be able to do the same.

I've been involved in hundreds of contract negotiations, and actual even a few professional sports contracts. Not at the NHL level mind you, but I would say I believe have a decent grasp on how they work.

I would say it is even more laughable to suggest that there is some mystical unknowable reason for opening negotiations with a 4 year deal.

Did you negotiate this contract? Are you party to the inside workings of the Oilers? If no to either of these, then all you're doing is spewing your opinion and can claim no rightness or wrongness. If you laugh or cry, is of no matter to the rest of us and only arrogance would have you believe your ideas are more important than anybody elses here.

Arguments that dissolve into personal abuse are an admission of loss by the abuser.

Avatar
#379 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
December 02 2009, 04:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ogden Brother

In hindsight we should've waited and got Biron, but what happens if today we are looking back and we signed no one?

Avatar
#380 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

Thing is Tambo wanted a goalie early so that he wouldn't be stuck with nothing.

Sure 4 years is probably 1 year too much, but bitching about it isn't going to change the fact that we have him now.

I see. So if we cannot change things you are now suddenly above discussing it?

What are you even doing here then?

edit: I should add that if Tambo thought he might be stuck with nothing then I need to repeat my statement that his awareness of the market demonstrates inexcusable incompetence.

Avatar
#381 BarryS
December 02 2009, 04:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Right, you're the guy who thinks any attempt at any form of estimation is the equivalent of looking into a crystal ball.

Even when speculation is present your predicates still have to lead to a logical conclusion.

Your sweeping statements of "we can never know this" and "we weren't the so we cannot possibly guess a that" are completely ignorant.

People keep saying crap like "we don't know why they did it" but nobody can offer even one POSSIBLE explanation that can excuse it.

No, actually I consider it a waste of time. Neither you or I pay the contract. Neither your opinion nor mine will change a single thing in about how the oilers are run. In the end, Tambo's job hangs on his decisions, yours or mine are not affected at all. This is all vicarious experience. If being right turns your crank, so be it. I have my opinions on the team which affect me alone, your opinions, well valuable to you, are so much hot air to me. If mine are only hot air to you, I hope it warms you up a little.

Avatar
#382 RossCreekNation
December 02 2009, 04:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Man do we need a new blog post.

*Cheering*

"C'mon jeanshorts! C'mon Towel Boy!"

Avatar
#383 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

Did you negotiate this contract? Are you party to the inside workings of the Oilers? If no to either of these, then all you're doing is spewing your opinion and can claim no rightness or wrongness. If you laugh or cry, is of no matter to the rest of us and only arrogance would have you believe your ideas are more important than anybody elses here.

Arguments that dissolve into personal abuse are an admission of loss by the abuser.

How can you people possibly believe that you have to be personally involved in a negotiation to guess at what could have possibly come up?

I have agreed that they likely had some sort of reasons. I am questioning the validity of those reasons. Why is it so hard to grasp the difference between those statements?

Avatar
#384 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
December 02 2009, 04:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

I'm actually done with this topic, because it hasn't gone anywhere in the last 7 pages. There is two sides to the coin and it is apparent which side everyone is on.

Next debate Bryan Murray is just as stupid as Tambo.

Avatar
#385 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

No, actually I consider it a waste of time. Neither you or I pay the contract. Neither your opinion nor mine will change a single thing in about how the oilers are run. In the end, Tambo's job hangs on his decisions, yours or mine are not affected at all. This is all vicarious experience. If being right turns your crank, so be it. I have my opinions on the team which affect me alone, your opinions, well valuable to you, are so much hot air to me. If mine are only hot air to you, I hope it warms you up a little.

Why do you even bother posting this crap?

If you don't want to discuss the issue then go away but don't waste my time telling me how my opinion won't change anything because somehow I managed to figure that out on my own.

Avatar
#386 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

I'm actually done with this topic, because it hasn't gone anywhere in the last 7 pages. There is two sides to the coin and it is apparent which side everyone is on.

Next debate Bryan Murray is just as stupid as Tambo.

Yes, you're of the side that somehow think hindsight is necessary to realize that we could have gotten a decent goaltender in a buyers market without offering him a 4 year deal.

Avatar
#387 Dan the Man
December 02 2009, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

You really should let it go, not everyone has the same opinion as you. The topic has been beat to death.

Avatar
#388 Dan the Man
December 02 2009, 04:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

I'm actually done with this topic, because it hasn't gone anywhere in the last 7 pages. There is two sides to the coin and it is apparent which side everyone is on.

Next debate Bryan Murray is just as stupid as Tambo.

No, he just sounds that way.

Avatar
#389 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

You really should let it go, not everyone has the same opinion as you. The topic has been beat to death.

Yet you couldn't resist that parting shot. Thank you for informing me that people have different opinions. I was becoming very confused for a time but your courageous decision to inform me has changed everything.

If you are done discussing the issue then be done, don't post again just to throw in a pot shot and act like you have some sort of moral superiority because I enjoy a bit of discussion.

You have been right in the thick of the conversation he entire time, so don't try and act like it's my fault. I'm not the one initiating the conversation, I'm just responding to the posts of others.

Avatar
#390 BarryS
December 02 2009, 04:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jonathan Willis wrote:

@ Ogden Brother Jr.:

As I understand it, Tambellini worked his way up the media side before moving over to hockey operations.

The point I was trying to make is that when fans say things like "they had there reasons", if they're talking about Ken Holland there's some merit to that.

Given the track record of Lowe/Tambellini, however, there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure Lowe had his reasons for wanting Nylander at (IIRC) 5.5MM/yr.

They don't get any more slack until they start showing competence.

As for "overnight", Tambellini's been in this job since the summer of 2008. The roster he has now is essentially (with minor changes and Khabibulin) the roster he inherited. And people go on and on about how most of his problems were inherited, but who offered 2MM/yr to Chris Neil this summer? Who gave a 36-year old goalie with injury problems a four year contract worth 3.75MM? That was Steve Tambellini, and those contracts dovetail nicely with the ones currently being collected by Moreau, Pisani and Staios.

It's possible that the absence of moves to fix the Oilers' cap problem is a defence for Tambellini. But the continued efforts to worsen that cap problem tell us that this isn't a guy who knows how to make things better anyway.

Please, Willis, I like your articles, but your opinion means no more than anybody elses, even mine. Until you buy the Oilers, your opinion means no more than Tigerunderglasses, or mine. The only fan's who count, are the season ticket holders and last I looked, the seats were filled and there is a waiting list. The only reason most of the fans get to see games is the oilers purposely don't sell all the tickets as season tickets, good marketing, or we know someone to give/sell us tickets. Let the oilers management worry about next year, worrying about tomorrows game is enough.

Avatar
#391 Dan the Man
December 02 2009, 04:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

Good lord man, please feel free to cry about it....ooooh heaven forbid I get the last word.

Avatar
#392 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@BarryS

If you believe that we have no right to express our opinions because they have no effect on team decision making then why are you here at a site designed almost entirely as a forum for us to discuss our opinions?

Why don't you go back to taking your life one minute at a time, to avoid having to make predictions, and spare us the lecture on how little our opinions mean.

Avatar
#393 David S
December 02 2009, 04:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

How can you people possibly believe that you have to be personally involved in a negotiation to guess at what could have possibly come up?

I have agreed that they likely had some sort of reasons. I am questioning the validity of those reasons. Why is it so hard to grasp the difference between those statements?

Why is it so hard to grasp that you can't question the validity of those reasons without knowing them?

You don't know the reasons. None of us do, its all speculation. Nobody can hold a winning argument on speculation.

Avatar
#394 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

Good lord man, please feel free to cry about it....ooooh heaven forbid I get the last word.

Cry about it? Really? Are we in grade 3 now?

It isn't about the last word, it's about you claiming you want to end a conversation by taking shots. Grow up.

Avatar
#395 David S
December 02 2009, 04:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

If you believe that we have no right to express our opinions because they have no effect on team decision making then why are you here at a site designed almost entirely as a forum for us to discuss our opinions?

Why don't you go back to taking your life one minute at a time, to avoid having to make predictions, and spare us the lecture on how little our opinions mean.

Nobody has a problem with opinions. Expressing those opinions and dismissing everybody else ("thanks for coming") - that's something else. Pretty much destroys what might otherwise be a good point of view.

Avatar
#396 David S
December 02 2009, 04:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

(I'm just trying to push this b!tch to 400 posts)

Avatar
#397 Ogden Brother
December 02 2009, 04:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
David S wrote:

Why is it so hard to grasp that you can't question the validity of those reasons without knowing them?

You don't know the reasons. None of us do, its all speculation. Nobody can hold a winning argument on speculation.

How about the reason that management DIDN'T feel all the goalies on the market were equal.

And the didn't want to risk getting what they felt was an inferior goalie.

Avatar
#398 BarryS
December 02 2009, 04:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

If you believe that we have no right to express our opinions because they have no effect on team decision making then why are you here at a site designed almost entirely as a forum for us to discuss our opinions?

Why don't you go back to taking your life one minute at a time, to avoid having to make predictions, and spare us the lecture on how little our opinions mean.

Partly because I like to tease the animals.

Partly because I like the give and take of arguemnt.

Partly because guys like you are good for my ego, makes me feel intellectually superior.

Partly because there are some good people on this site.

Partly because this is more fun than writing letters to the editor nobody reads.

Partly because guys like you are such easy targets.

Partly because some of the posters make me laugh, alas, not you.

Partly because some of the posters have good ideas and make me think, alas, not you.

Partly because of the posters do not take all this over seriously, alas, not you.

~you sir, are a blow hard.~

Avatar
#399 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
David S wrote:

Why is it so hard to grasp that you can't question the validity of those reasons without knowing them?

You don't know the reasons. None of us do, its all speculation. Nobody can hold a winning argument on speculation.

Why is it so hard to grasp that any reasons they have are not some deep secret?

The idea that we can never determine the possible influences on a decision like this makes no sense. Why not? What reason could there be that is outside the realm of our ability to take it into account?

Not one person can come up with anything even remotely reasonable, yet people insistent on the existence of some unknowable factor. It's laughable.

Avatar
#400 TigerUnderGlass
December 02 2009, 04:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
David S wrote:

Nobody has a problem with opinions. Expressing those opinions and dismissing everybody else ("thanks for coming") - that's something else. Pretty much destroys what might otherwise be a good point of view.

way to take that out of context. That was a reply to a throwaway post.

Comments are closed for this article.