Bizarre Quote of The Day

Kevin Prendergast, on forward prospect Ryan O’Marra:

“He showed the type of player he was when we traded for him.”

Actually, that’s not entirely accurate.  A more accurate version of that quote would be as follows:

“We showed what kind of management team we were when we traded Ryan Smyth for Nilsson, O’Marra and a draft pick.  Ryan O’Marra showed what kind of player he is by scoring 3 goals in 93 AHL games after we acquired him.”

In fairness to O’Marra, he did by most accounts have a fine training camp.  That said, it’ll take more than a few weeks of practice and some exhibition games to erase two years of disappointing results.  On top of that, with Robert Nilsson barely hanging on to an NHL career and the revolving door on the top line’s LW, I would have thought the last thing Oilers management would want to do is bring back the memory of the Ryan Smyth trade.

  • Hippy

    Ender the Dragon wrote:

    Bottom line, Ryan Smyth was a bad risk.

    As is Horcoff. As is Souray. Visnovsky is aging… what if his play tails off before his contract? Khabibulin shouldn't have gotten four years… etc…etc…

    You can use risk analysis to criticise every one of these deals: But you're never going to win games without accepting some risk by signing older, experienced players. Time has proven that Smyth was worth the risk. Even with a couple poor, injury riddled seasons there was still a market for him… Hence my assertion that Lowe didn't correctly value his asset: and it's his job to get those values right.

  • Hippy

    Not standing up for O'marra, but Ryan, J.Johnson, B.Pouilot, Skille, and Lee were all drafted ahead of him. One of those guys made an impact last year and the others are still been given chances by their teams. Is it that far fetched that O'Marra may need some more time? There is even a handful of guys drafted after him in the 1st round that are just getting their feet wet.

    2-3 years down the road this trade could look good from and the Oil's point of view.

  • Hippy

    […] Willis threw down a plain ol’ quote yesterday, something that we didn’t know we could just throw out there like that. So for your consideration, we present a pair of equally entertaining quotes we have read recently. […]

  • Hippy

    Chris. wrote:

    At the time I was of the opinion that Lowe should have made the deal. Time has proven me right. Lowe made a mistake with Smyth…

    Again, it is to early to tell. Two years into it is to early to call a winner on a trade for a 5 year contract vs rookies. Smyth could easily average 60 games/18 goals over the length of that contract. We could easily get 12 years of "Matt Greene" type play out of plant.

  • Hippy

    I can't recall. Did Smytty want a no trade clause too? If we are talking about "winning" or "losing" such a trade we need to consider all of the variables. Yes he was a valuable commodity but he had a history of injuries and was never a point a game player at his peak. He didn't take draws or have the same kind of versatility as Horc (I'll leave the discussion about his contract for another day). The fact of the matter is that they did pretty well to get what they did for a 20 day rental. Hindsight is 20/20. If they signed him for big money and he had a NMC they could have been stuck with a big contract who didn't want to move or seriously limited who they could trade with.

    Management hasn't done a good job with identifying new assets but that is more on the scouting guys. I bet we could have had Getzlaf or Perry in lieu of Lupul when Pronger was traded. The problem is that the then managment couldn't identify who they should be targeting. Every team makes some bad choices but our issue is that they had a run of them. With Smyth would we have been much better? Maybe from a PR standpoint but hockey wise I doubt it.

  • Hippy

    For the record, it is and was my belief that Lowe made the right call. The question remains, did he make the right trade? If…
    RossCreek wrote:

    #2 RossCreek September 22 2009, 6:59 pm. If O’Marra can redefine himself as a shutdown 3/4 C (he’s already a good faceoff guy) and Plante can mature & develop into a physical shutdown D-man, that trade could turn out afterall. Who woulda thunk that Nilsson could turn out to be the crappy throw-in.

    2-3 years from now, the picture may be clearer.

    Also, IF Lowe was successful in getting Vanek, thus never signing Penner, and Vanek came in and scored 40, are we even having this conversation?

  • Hippy

    RossCreek wrote:

    For the record, it is and was my belief that Lowe made the right call. The question remains, did he make the right trade? If…
    RossCreek wrote:

    #2 RossCreek September 22 2009, 6:59 pm. If O’Marra can redefine himself as a shutdown 3/4 C (he’s already a good faceoff guy) and Plante can mature & develop into a physical shutdown D-man, that trade could turn out afterall. Who woulda thunk that Nilsson could turn out to be the crappy throw-in.
    2-3 years from now, the picture may be clearer.
    Also, IF Lowe was successful in getting Vanek, thus never signing Penner, and Vanek came in and scored 40, are we even having this conversation?

    Compared to other FA deals, he certainly got fair value.

  • Hippy

    @ Ogden Brother:
    Ogden Brother wrote:

    Has it though? The guy has scored 40 goals for 12.5 million dollars.

    Wow. Are you even reading what I'm writing?

    The asset is worth what the market will bear. Period.

    Lowe had exclusive bargaining rights with a player he could have signed UNDER market value. Who cares if you AGREE with what value the market places on Smyth? If there was an appetite for Smyth at thirty million plus… Lowe was insane not to sign Smyth for 26. Period. Smyth was, and still is, a marketable commoditiy; more marketable than the players he got in return. Lowe lost. After three painful years, I'm tired of pretending that the trade may still pan out in his favor… those seasons were worth something too.

  • Hippy

    Ogden Brother wrote:

    I believe he did, which would further cloud the picture.

    Source? I never heard a NMC was on the table. The Oilers don't give them out… something I DO think they get right.

  • Hippy

    @ Ogden Brother:

    I've made it very clear that the decision not to SIGN Smyth was the mistake.

    Whether or not Smyth should still be a part of this team at those dollars is a seperate and more debatable affair. Personally, I believe the market for Smyth is now erroding… and it was a good move by the Avs to move him this summer.

    Signing Smyth, and keeping him are two completely different threads… and I'm not arguing both. I'm only arguing the first point.

  • Hippy

    Chris. wrote:

    @ Ogden Brother:
    Ogden Brother wrote:
    Has it though? The guy has scored 40 goals for 12.5 million dollars.
    Wow. Are you even reading what I’m writing?
    The asset is worth what the market will bear. Period.
    Lowe had exclusive bargaining rights with a player he could have signed UNDER market value. Who cares if you AGREE with what value the market places on Smyth? If there was an appetite for Smyth at thirty million plus… Lowe was insane not to sign Smyth for 26. Period. Smyth was, and still is, a marketable commoditiy; more marketable than the players he got in return. Lowe lost. After three painful years, I’m tired of pretending that the trade may still pan out in his favor… those seasons were worth something too.

    Yes I am reading it, you said "time has proven Smy is worth the risk"

    How exactly has he been worth the risk? His perfomance has been exactly what the team was concerned about – missed time and sinking production.

  • Hippy

    Chris. wrote:

    @ Ogden Brother:
    I’ve made it very clear that the decision not to SIGN Smyth was the mistake.
    Whether or not Smyth should still be a part of this team at those dollars is a seperate and more debatable affair. Personally, I believe the market for Smyth is now erroding… and it was a good move by the Avs to move him this summer.
    Signing Smyth, and keeping him are two completely different threads… and I’m not arguing both. I’m only arguing the first point.

    That's where the NTC comes into play, we could have been forced to holding him through the contract.

  • Hippy

    Chris. wrote:

    …. and now I’m done.
    *wipes brow… and finally goes to work*

    Oops, just seen this. I'll let it die. Good, heated "non-personal" hockey debate.

  • Hippy

    RV Cover Class A wrote:

    Your site is very full of good information. Everyone can learn so many things by reading here.

    That sounds appealing. Lets see what you have to say about the Oilers RV Cover Class. What? Nothing? How dare you.

  • Hippy

    Chris. wrote:

    Who cares if you AGREE with what value the market places on Smyth? If there was an appetite for Smyth at thirty million plus… Lowe was insane not to sign Smyth for 26. Period.

    Chris. wrote:

    …. and now I’m done.
    *wipes brow… and finally goes to work*

    I need to pretend to get some work done today too, and I'm not trying to be an a$$hat just because I need to have the last word. Chances are, Chris, you and I are going to agree to disagree on this. A final tidbit to ponder, though;

    When playing the commodities market, certain commodities have a set value. Wheat, for example, may normally trade at $8 per bushel. But in recent months, let's pretend that drought in the Southern USA and increased demand from China have resulted in the price soaring to $12 a bushel. Your broker gets on the line and says he's got an inside tip for you; you can buy 100,000 bushels on a side deal for only $10.50, a savings of $1.50 from market price. You should jump all over that deal and make a quick $150,000, right? So you buy yourself a boatload of wheat. Trouble is, you only manage to unload a quarter of that before the price starts to fall; your broker failed to mention that the Russians were looking at a good harvest this year. By the time the price of wheat stabilizes at $7 a bushel, you realize that you are well and truly screwed.

    Why this economic analysis? Buying a 'deal' just because something is below current market value doesn't mean it's a good deal. The salary that looks good on a player one year may end up looking awfully scruffy a couple years down the line, depending on many factors such as how many players in the league decide to retire, how many free agents are available, which direction the salary cap goes, and how many players on your team are looking for new contracts. Lowe looked into his crystal ball, which admittedly was cloudy just like everyone else's, and decided he didn't like what he saw. I give him props for going with his head and not with his heart.

  • Hippy

    Ogden Brother wrote:

    To go off in another direction, maybe the error was the Vish trade… (ie have Smyth/Horc/Souray)

    Not at all, Vis is better than Souray and contributes more to our team than a 33 year old 6 million dollar Smyth would. Shoot, with the way Smytty plays thats a 40 years olds body.

  • Hippy

    rubbertrout wrote:

    @ Ender the Dragon:
    I agree with the wheat trader. Can’t we just all agree that the team that really got screweed in that deal was the Islanders?

    Ender the Dragon wrote:

    Chris. wrote:
    Who cares if you AGREE with what value the market places on Smyth? If there was an appetite for Smyth at thirty million plus… Lowe was insane not to sign Smyth for 26. Period.
    Chris. wrote:
    …. and now I’m done.
    *wipes brow… and finally goes to work*
    I need to pretend to get some work done today too, and I’m not trying to be an a$$hat just because I need to have the last word. Chances are, Chris, you and I are going to agree to disagree on this. A final tidbit to ponder, though;
    When playing the commodities market, certain commodities have a set value. Wheat, for example, may normally trade at $8 per bushel. But in recent months, let’s pretend that drought in the Southern USA and increased demand from China have resulted in the price soaring to $12 a bushel. Your broker gets on the line and says he’s got an inside tip for you; you can buy 100,000 bushels on a side deal for only $10.50, a savings of $1.50 from market price. You should jump all over that deal and make a quick $150,000, right? So you buy yourself a boatload of wheat. Trouble is, you only manage to unload a quarter of that before the price starts to fall; your broker failed to mention that the Russians were looking at a good harvest this year. By the time the price of wheat stabilizes at $7 a bushel, you realize that you are well and truly screwed.
    Why this economic analysis? Buying a ‘deal’ just because something is below current market value doesn’t mean it’s a good deal. The salary that looks good on a player one year may end up looking awfully scruffy a couple years down the line, depending on many factors such as how many players in the league decide to retire, how many free agents are available, which direction the salary cap goes, and how many players on your team are looking for new contracts. Lowe looked into his crystal ball, which admittedly was cloudy just like everyone else’s, and decided he didn’t like what he saw. I give him props for going with his head and not with his heart.

    Well said.

  • Hippy

    rubbertrout wrote:

    @ Ender the Dragon:
    I agree with the wheat trader. Can’t we just all agree that the team that really got screweed in that deal was the Islanders?

    That's the funny part of the whole Smyth situation. No one really "won".

    Islanders clearly got next to nothing out of the deal

    As it sits right now Edmonton has gotten not much more then nothing out of the deal

    Colorado didn't get much out of him either, the year they were decent he was on the IR for most of the year, and the year he actually played/produced the team was brutski.

  • Hippy

    rubbertrout wrote:

    Can’t we just all agree that the team that really got screweed in that deal was the Islanders?

    I don't think anyone can argue with that. But these days, let's face it – it's kind of expected and almost goes without saying. 🙂