Friday, January 26, 2007
Oilers Game Day-Sharks/Kings
Here's my novel idea for Kevin Lowe. If you don't get that coveted rental for the point in the next two weeks, go the exact opposite way. Sell, rather than buy. First item up for bid: Dwayne Roloson. And make sure the return is some young defensive prospects and/or a couple picks. Ironically, this move gives you a greater chance at signing a senior player that no one wants to see go (Smyth), while also getting more depth and youth on the back end. We already have youth and depth at the forward position. We also have some on defence (Smid and Greene). But if the marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium, it makes sense to acquire young ones, sign them for the long term, and then develop them. As a fan, I can be patient, so long as I know what you are doing. Right now, nothing makes sense. A 37 year-old goalie signed for three years on a team that doesn't seem too concerned with making a Cup push right now is a prime example.
Prediction: 6-4, Oilers.
Saturday Update:Thes guys don't get a second post from me.
Prediction: 106-102, Kings.
Prediction: 6-4, Oilers.
Saturday Update:Thes guys don't get a second post from me.
Prediction: 106-102, Kings.
# posted by andy grabia @ 6:19 pm 
Comments:
Confused as to the team's direction? Not sure what the hell your GM is thinking? Tired of watching your team alternate between competent and completely lost?
Welcome to my world Andy. Enjoy the ride :)
Yep, I think a few too many Oilers who would have a lot of value have too much length and cash left on their contracts - ie/ Roloson, Staios, Moreau, Pisani, Horcoff
San Fernando scores from Horcoff and Smyth.
Two guys who I think are going to have good "second halves" and another who I think is going to resign (oh please please please)
What is with Fraser hating Canadian teams? I'd almost rather have Mr. Magoo.
Sell Roloson? Who would buy?
Someone hoping he can carry them through the playoffs, someone wanting a solid backup, or someone wanting a goalie because their's stink. There's always a market for goalies.
Well I just get in, sit in front of my computer and fire up the game ticker to see what's what. The Flames and Wild go to the SO with Minnie pulling out a win, and the Oil are down 4-1 in the 3rd...boy am I glad I didn't head in early to catch the game.
Prediction was kind of off on this one hey? Oilers forgot to show up and the refs were about as one sided as you can get. There was stick work both ways but only called one way. The boys better wake up soon.
My issue with trading Roloson is this, why would Smyth want to stay if we go into full on rebiuld mode?
How would it be any different than any other period of time he has spent here?
$3.9M for a career backup who had one improbable run through 3 playoff series, made possible by Ryan Smyth's sacrificed chicklets?
I can't think of many other GMs being quite that stupid, though Holmgren is a world-class bonehead.
With economic parity and the increase in free agency and player movement, teams can reload in a hurry if they have a few key players to build around. So if Smitty stuck around, there's no guarantee he would be stuck with a team in a rebuilding phase.
The Habs are awash in young goaltending talent, having sent goalies to three All Star games this year. True, they've no need for Roloson, but if you're going to focus on the future there are probably some forwards that would interest them (the Montreal media's particularly obsessed with finding a centre for Kovalev).
Since this is the Oilers we're talking about, I should probably put a caveat on this: any deal with Montreal should not involve Janne Niinimaa.
But if the marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium
Whoa, hold on a sec. What marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium? Certainly not the NHL's.
Whoa, hold on a sec. What marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium? Certainly not the NHL's.
Why not?
Whoa, hold on a sec. What marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium? Certainly not the NHL's.
Do you even think before you post? I'm really beginning to think not. Certainly, being an arrogant, sarcastic jackass all the time hasn't made me especially willing to hear whatever argument you might have buried underneath all that smartassedness, assuming you even have one.
Since we have pretty well no trades to speak of for the season, let's look at some of the off-season activity. How about Toronto's entire D corps? Hal Gill for $2M? Are you kidding? How about Jay McKee going for $4M? How about Special Ed getting Pronger money for Ohlund results? How about Janne Niinimaa going for Mike Ribiero?
See, there's a significant trend towards defencemen being wildly overpriced. I'm sure you understand how supply and demand works, and can take it from there. Now, you could chalk this up to select GMs (Barnett and Ferguson, for example) just being dumb, but surely that doesn't explain all of the above.
hasn't made me especially willing to hear whatever argument you might have buried underneath all that smartassedness
I read a lot of hockey 'analysis' on the net and believe me, the smartassedness is really the only reason to read any blog; everything else dissolves into obviousness or circular argument.
everything else dissolves into obviousness or circular argument.
Good to know. I thought I spent all that time in university to avoid such things, but now that you've straightened me out with that compelling argument, the mist has been lifted. Cliches and tautology, here I come!
Oh, and you forgot generalizations, as in "everything else dissolves into..."
I read a lot of hockey 'analysis' on the net and believe me, the smartassedness is really the only reason to read any blog; everything else dissolves into obviousness or circular argument.
Because you can't be a smartass and have a coherent point at the same time. Thanks for pointing that out.
Ryan Smyth really should consider coming to Vancouver :-)
Unbelievable.
Back off, Andy. Roloson has proven, like many other veterans, that he can come through in crunch time. His major problem right now is that none of those m/fs are scoring while he is in the cage. To rely solely on the goalie (iambic pentameter not intended) is neither fair nor realistic. We're not talking about 10-9 games here.
Back off, Andy. Roloson has proven, like many other veterans, that he can come through in crunch time.
Are you suggesting he's "clutch?" He's had the whole season to "come through," and so far I'd say the results are mixed. And if you are paying a 37 year-old career backup that kind of money, the results better be better than mixed. Furthermore, if the idea behind keeping a guy like that is to push deep in the playoffs, and you are on the outside looking in on the playoffs, you have to at least consider moving him.
Smyth carries us again. And Hemsky was just dangling that pick for the last two minutes of the game. Sick. I wonder of Zortini made a difference, because he wasn't getting hammered.
How about Toronto's entire D corps? Hal Gill for $2M? Are you kidding? How about Jay McKee going for $4M? How about Special Ed getting Pronger money for Ohlund results?
How bout Jeff Friesen for $1.6M? Or Sergei Samsonov for $3.5M? Or Matt Cullen at $3.1M? We could do this all day.
I'm sure you understand how supply and demand works
I'm sure you do too, and if we've learned anything from the success of Carolina and Buffalo, and Tampa Bay before them, it's that if you can afford to be relatively weak in any area, it's your defensive depth. And I imagine that once this reality filters its way through the market, you'll see that, relatively speaking, teams will start allocating their cap money away from 2nd and 3rd line defensemen so that they can spend that money in other area.
In fact, I think the only defensemen worth paying a premium for is the absolute bonafide alpha stud. The guy who will give you 30 minutes a night and will shut down the opposing team's top lines. We'll call this the Brian Burke theory for building a winning hockey club.
Wow. Here I thought Buffalo and Carolina had solid 1-6 D without any one particularly impressive player las season. Turns out it was the other way around. My bad.
Wait a minute...how come Edmonton's been generally mediocre with poor defensive depth this season? That sure doesn't make any sense.
Wow. Here I thought Buffalo and Carolina had solid 1-6 D without any one particularly impressive player las season. Turns out it was the other way around. My bad.
What the hell are you talking about? That's exactly what I said. Carolina won with guys like fucking Bret Hedican and Frantisek Kaberle playing 20 minutes a night on defence. Their strength was clearly upfront with guys like Eric Stall, Rob Brind'Amour, Erik Cole, Justin Williams, and Cory Stillman to name a few.
Wait a minute...how come Edmonton's been generally mediocre with poor defensive depth this season? That sure doesn't make any sense.
The Oilers can't do anything. Lack of defensive depth is just one of many problems.
How many so-called stud defensemen are there, though? 30 minutes each night, shut down opposition, score a bit, good first pass, trusted on the ice in all situations because they never make bad decisions...beyond Pronger, Niedermeyer, and Lidstrom, who else fits this description? Certainly not one per team (especially if Anaheim is going to be selfish and not share).
Lack of defensive depth is still a killer, it's just that the depth has to be not star defensemen, but solid competent players. If a team has 6 decent players, none of whom can play 30 minutes but all of whom can play 20, then the team is in good shape. If four of the players should only be trusted with, say, 8 minutes of ice time each, then the remaining two will be overextended, get injured, and then the small-minute men will be exposed. A stud can cover up these deficiencies, but if all the defensemen are competent, none of them have to be spectacular. The problem with putting all your defensive eggs in one basket is what happens when that one basket breaks, and the eggs fall over the floor and make a mess.
anyone else think that the bigger problem with the Oil is the lack of scoring? less than 3 goals a game just isn't going to cut it.
When I checked during the all-star break, there were 6 teams in the Western conference that score an avg of 3 goals a game or more. All but one of them (Colorado) was in a playoff position. And COL was in 9th, one place ahead of the Oil.
Sure, we need a fix on defence but we need even more help on offence. We allow an avg of less than 3 goals a game... if our forwards do what they were supposed to we'll be in fine shape.
If a team has 6 decent players, none of whom can play 30 minutes but all of whom can play 20, then the team is in good shape.
Exactly. You don't need brand name defencemen to be successful. So you shouldn't be paying a premium for an upper tier defencemen (unless he's an alpha stud) because his marginal value over a dime a dozen player is marginal. You would be much better off, IMHO, spending those extra dollars on 2nd and 3rd line goal scorers.
Because we see it all the time, teams getting in trouble because they don't have any secondary scoring. If you have a handful of guys who can score and a good goaltender, than you can get away with having a mediocre defence, whereas if you have a good defence, a good goalie, but nobody past your first line that can put the puck in the net, you're screwed.
So given the choice between being weak upfront, in the backend, or in goal, I would choose being weak in the backend every time.
What the hell are you talking about? That's exactly what I said.
======
I'm sure you do too, and if we've learned anything from the success of Carolina and Buffalo, and Tampa Bay before them, it's that if you can afford to be relatively weak in any area, it's your defensive depth.
How do those two statements make any kind of sense together? No, they didn't have a number of star players on their blue line, but they had solid guys all the way down, which is more than most teams can say. Clearly we're talking about different ideas of "weakness" here.
Clearly we're talking about different ideas of "weakness" here.
I said relatively weak you illiterate fuck. As in, if you had to pick the weakest part of their team, it would clearly be their defense.
No, they didn't have a number of star players on their blue line, but they had solid guys all the way down, which is more than most teams can say.
BS. Commodore was getting tons of minutes for them, and he was at best a 6th or 7th defensemen on the flames. In my opinion their D was average at the top, and good enough at the bottom. In other words, THE WEAKEST PART OF THEIR TEAM.
BS. Commodore was getting tons of minutes for them, and he was at best a 6th or 7th defensemen on the flames.
Third highest ATOI of all Carolina defensemen in the playoffs in fact. Mike freaking Commodore. Third most minutes. Great fucking d-core, you're right.
And it never entered your head that Commodore might be a little better than a 6th or 7th Dman now? That he might have improved over the last couple of years?
Whatever, dude. I'm done with this argument.
To rely solely on the goalie (iambic pentameter not intended)
I'd hate to kick-off a Farkian discussion on the appropriateness of an "IRONIC" tag, but where's teh iambic pentameter there?
Da-DUM-Da-DUM-Da-DUM-Da-DUM-Da-DUM... I'm just not seeing (hearing?) it.
And to Mclea:
What marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium? Certainly not the NHL's...
if we've learned anything from the success of Carolina and Buffalo, and Tampa Bay before them, it's that if you can afford to be relatively weak in any area, it's your defensive depth...
You can make the argument that GMs shouldn't be putting a premium on defense. But they clearly are. All the listed examples illustrate that.
Since this CBA was signed, there have simply been far more head-scratching contracts handed out to defensemen than there have been to forwards. The fact that there are less dmen than forwards in absolute terms, make that all the more significant.
接受翻译，深圳德语翻译，
深圳俄语翻译，
深圳韩语翻译，
深圳翻译公司报价，深圳韩语翻译达成协议期间根据活动安排将派出志愿者，开展英语培训，广州翻译公司，上海翻译公司,并在，提供所需的翻译工具同声传译。目提供多语言志愿者翻译服务的又一种新模式。还同
同声传译文件内容，亦可指定翻译及校阅者，此前，
深圳翻译公司，与。深圳翻译公司，与。翻译公司国际台语言，为东莞翻译公司而由翻译公司提供所需的翻译工具
同声传译。目提供多语言志愿者翻译服务的又一种新模式。
翻译公司国际台语言，为东莞翻译公司而一旦翻译
翻译公司提供必要的多语言翻译服务。 ，商务口译，同传设备目前深圳翻译为会务、场馆、运动员服务等多个部门提供多语言翻译服务。据悉，深圳同声传译届时，深圳英语翻译 ，
深圳日语翻译，根据活动安排将派出志愿者，开展英语培训，
广州翻译公司，上海翻译公司,并在，
广州翻译公司提供必要的多语言翻译服务。
深圳法语翻译将有近百位多语言志愿者参翻译
广州同声传译服务。
Post a Comment
<< Home
Confused as to the team's direction? Not sure what the hell your GM is thinking? Tired of watching your team alternate between competent and completely lost?
Welcome to my world Andy. Enjoy the ride :)
Yep, I think a few too many Oilers who would have a lot of value have too much length and cash left on their contracts - ie/ Roloson, Staios, Moreau, Pisani, Horcoff
San Fernando scores from Horcoff and Smyth.
Two guys who I think are going to have good "second halves" and another who I think is going to resign (oh please please please)
What is with Fraser hating Canadian teams? I'd almost rather have Mr. Magoo.
# posted by 
: January 26, 2007 7:41 pm
: January 26, 2007 7:41 pm Sell Roloson? Who would buy?
Someone hoping he can carry them through the playoffs, someone wanting a solid backup, or someone wanting a goalie because their's stink. There's always a market for goalies.
Well I just get in, sit in front of my computer and fire up the game ticker to see what's what. The Flames and Wild go to the SO with Minnie pulling out a win, and the Oil are down 4-1 in the 3rd...boy am I glad I didn't head in early to catch the game.
Prediction was kind of off on this one hey? Oilers forgot to show up and the refs were about as one sided as you can get. There was stick work both ways but only called one way. The boys better wake up soon.
# posted by : January 26, 2007 11:09 pm
: January 26, 2007 11:09 pm My issue with trading Roloson is this, why would Smyth want to stay if we go into full on rebiuld mode?
How would it be any different than any other period of time he has spent here?
$3.9M for a career backup who had one improbable run through 3 playoff series, made possible by Ryan Smyth's sacrificed chicklets?
I can't think of many other GMs being quite that stupid, though Holmgren is a world-class bonehead.
# posted by : January 27, 2007 2:01 am
: January 27, 2007 2:01 am With economic parity and the increase in free agency and player movement, teams can reload in a hurry if they have a few key players to build around. So if Smitty stuck around, there's no guarantee he would be stuck with a team in a rebuilding phase.
The Habs are awash in young goaltending talent, having sent goalies to three All Star games this year. True, they've no need for Roloson, but if you're going to focus on the future there are probably some forwards that would interest them (the Montreal media's particularly obsessed with finding a centre for Kovalev).
Since this is the Oilers we're talking about, I should probably put a caveat on this: any deal with Montreal should not involve Janne Niinimaa.
But if the marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium
Whoa, hold on a sec. What marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium? Certainly not the NHL's.
Whoa, hold on a sec. What marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium? Certainly not the NHL's.
Why not?
Whoa, hold on a sec. What marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium? Certainly not the NHL's.
Do you even think before you post? I'm really beginning to think not. Certainly, being an arrogant, sarcastic jackass all the time hasn't made me especially willing to hear whatever argument you might have buried underneath all that smartassedness, assuming you even have one.
Since we have pretty well no trades to speak of for the season, let's look at some of the off-season activity. How about Toronto's entire D corps? Hal Gill for $2M? Are you kidding? How about Jay McKee going for $4M? How about Special Ed getting Pronger money for Ohlund results? How about Janne Niinimaa going for Mike Ribiero?
See, there's a significant trend towards defencemen being wildly overpriced. I'm sure you understand how supply and demand works, and can take it from there. Now, you could chalk this up to select GMs (Barnett and Ferguson, for example) just being dumb, but surely that doesn't explain all of the above.
hasn't made me especially willing to hear whatever argument you might have buried underneath all that smartassedness
I read a lot of hockey 'analysis' on the net and believe me, the smartassedness is really the only reason to read any blog; everything else dissolves into obviousness or circular argument.
# posted by : January 27, 2007 6:34 pm
: January 27, 2007 6:34 pm everything else dissolves into obviousness or circular argument.
Good to know. I thought I spent all that time in university to avoid such things, but now that you've straightened me out with that compelling argument, the mist has been lifted. Cliches and tautology, here I come!
Oh, and you forgot generalizations, as in "everything else dissolves into..."
I read a lot of hockey 'analysis' on the net and believe me, the smartassedness is really the only reason to read any blog; everything else dissolves into obviousness or circular argument.
Because you can't be a smartass and have a coherent point at the same time. Thanks for pointing that out.
Ryan Smyth really should consider coming to Vancouver :-)
Unbelievable.
# posted by : January 27, 2007 10:29 pm
: January 27, 2007 10:29 pm Back off, Andy. Roloson has proven, like many other veterans, that he can come through in crunch time. His major problem right now is that none of those m/fs are scoring while he is in the cage. To rely solely on the goalie (iambic pentameter not intended) is neither fair nor realistic. We're not talking about 10-9 games here.
Back off, Andy. Roloson has proven, like many other veterans, that he can come through in crunch time.
Are you suggesting he's "clutch?" He's had the whole season to "come through," and so far I'd say the results are mixed. And if you are paying a 37 year-old career backup that kind of money, the results better be better than mixed. Furthermore, if the idea behind keeping a guy like that is to push deep in the playoffs, and you are on the outside looking in on the playoffs, you have to at least consider moving him.
Smyth carries us again. And Hemsky was just dangling that pick for the last two minutes of the game. Sick. I wonder of Zortini made a difference, because he wasn't getting hammered.
How about Toronto's entire D corps? Hal Gill for $2M? Are you kidding? How about Jay McKee going for $4M? How about Special Ed getting Pronger money for Ohlund results?
How bout Jeff Friesen for $1.6M? Or Sergei Samsonov for $3.5M? Or Matt Cullen at $3.1M? We could do this all day.
I'm sure you understand how supply and demand works
I'm sure you do too, and if we've learned anything from the success of Carolina and Buffalo, and Tampa Bay before them, it's that if you can afford to be relatively weak in any area, it's your defensive depth. And I imagine that once this reality filters its way through the market, you'll see that, relatively speaking, teams will start allocating their cap money away from 2nd and 3rd line defensemen so that they can spend that money in other area.
In fact, I think the only defensemen worth paying a premium for is the absolute bonafide alpha stud. The guy who will give you 30 minutes a night and will shut down the opposing team's top lines. We'll call this the Brian Burke theory for building a winning hockey club.
Wow. Here I thought Buffalo and Carolina had solid 1-6 D without any one particularly impressive player las season. Turns out it was the other way around. My bad.
Wait a minute...how come Edmonton's been generally mediocre with poor defensive depth this season? That sure doesn't make any sense.
Wow. Here I thought Buffalo and Carolina had solid 1-6 D without any one particularly impressive player las season. Turns out it was the other way around. My bad.
What the hell are you talking about? That's exactly what I said. Carolina won with guys like fucking Bret Hedican and Frantisek Kaberle playing 20 minutes a night on defence. Their strength was clearly upfront with guys like Eric Stall, Rob Brind'Amour, Erik Cole, Justin Williams, and Cory Stillman to name a few.
Wait a minute...how come Edmonton's been generally mediocre with poor defensive depth this season? That sure doesn't make any sense.
The Oilers can't do anything. Lack of defensive depth is just one of many problems.
How many so-called stud defensemen are there, though? 30 minutes each night, shut down opposition, score a bit, good first pass, trusted on the ice in all situations because they never make bad decisions...beyond Pronger, Niedermeyer, and Lidstrom, who else fits this description? Certainly not one per team (especially if Anaheim is going to be selfish and not share).
Lack of defensive depth is still a killer, it's just that the depth has to be not star defensemen, but solid competent players. If a team has 6 decent players, none of whom can play 30 minutes but all of whom can play 20, then the team is in good shape. If four of the players should only be trusted with, say, 8 minutes of ice time each, then the remaining two will be overextended, get injured, and then the small-minute men will be exposed. A stud can cover up these deficiencies, but if all the defensemen are competent, none of them have to be spectacular. The problem with putting all your defensive eggs in one basket is what happens when that one basket breaks, and the eggs fall over the floor and make a mess.
# posted by : January 28, 2007 12:38 pm
: January 28, 2007 12:38 pm anyone else think that the bigger problem with the Oil is the lack of scoring? less than 3 goals a game just isn't going to cut it.
When I checked during the all-star break, there were 6 teams in the Western conference that score an avg of 3 goals a game or more. All but one of them (Colorado) was in a playoff position. And COL was in 9th, one place ahead of the Oil.
Sure, we need a fix on defence but we need even more help on offence. We allow an avg of less than 3 goals a game... if our forwards do what they were supposed to we'll be in fine shape.
# posted by : January 28, 2007 1:26 pm
: January 28, 2007 1:26 pm If a team has 6 decent players, none of whom can play 30 minutes but all of whom can play 20, then the team is in good shape.
Exactly. You don't need brand name defencemen to be successful. So you shouldn't be paying a premium for an upper tier defencemen (unless he's an alpha stud) because his marginal value over a dime a dozen player is marginal. You would be much better off, IMHO, spending those extra dollars on 2nd and 3rd line goal scorers.
Because we see it all the time, teams getting in trouble because they don't have any secondary scoring. If you have a handful of guys who can score and a good goaltender, than you can get away with having a mediocre defence, whereas if you have a good defence, a good goalie, but nobody past your first line that can put the puck in the net, you're screwed.
So given the choice between being weak upfront, in the backend, or in goal, I would choose being weak in the backend every time.
What the hell are you talking about? That's exactly what I said.
======
I'm sure you do too, and if we've learned anything from the success of Carolina and Buffalo, and Tampa Bay before them, it's that if you can afford to be relatively weak in any area, it's your defensive depth.
How do those two statements make any kind of sense together? No, they didn't have a number of star players on their blue line, but they had solid guys all the way down, which is more than most teams can say. Clearly we're talking about different ideas of "weakness" here.
Clearly we're talking about different ideas of "weakness" here.
I said relatively weak you illiterate fuck. As in, if you had to pick the weakest part of their team, it would clearly be their defense.
No, they didn't have a number of star players on their blue line, but they had solid guys all the way down, which is more than most teams can say.
BS. Commodore was getting tons of minutes for them, and he was at best a 6th or 7th defensemen on the flames. In my opinion their D was average at the top, and good enough at the bottom. In other words, THE WEAKEST PART OF THEIR TEAM.
BS. Commodore was getting tons of minutes for them, and he was at best a 6th or 7th defensemen on the flames.
Third highest ATOI of all Carolina defensemen in the playoffs in fact. Mike freaking Commodore. Third most minutes. Great fucking d-core, you're right.
And it never entered your head that Commodore might be a little better than a 6th or 7th Dman now? That he might have improved over the last couple of years?
Whatever, dude. I'm done with this argument.
To rely solely on the goalie (iambic pentameter not intended)
I'd hate to kick-off a Farkian discussion on the appropriateness of an "IRONIC" tag, but where's teh iambic pentameter there?
Da-DUM-Da-DUM-Da-DUM-Da-DUM-Da-DUM... I'm just not seeing (hearing?) it.
And to Mclea:
What marketplace is telling you that defencemen are at a premium? Certainly not the NHL's...
if we've learned anything from the success of Carolina and Buffalo, and Tampa Bay before them, it's that if you can afford to be relatively weak in any area, it's your defensive depth...
You can make the argument that GMs shouldn't be putting a premium on defense. But they clearly are. All the listed examples illustrate that.
Since this CBA was signed, there have simply been far more head-scratching contracts handed out to defensemen than there have been to forwards. The fact that there are less dmen than forwards in absolute terms, make that all the more significant.
# posted by : January 29, 2007 11:03 am
: January 29, 2007 11:03 am 接受翻译，深圳德语翻译，
深圳俄语翻译，
深圳韩语翻译，
深圳翻译公司报价，深圳韩语翻译达成协议期间根据活动安排将派出志愿者，开展英语培训，广州翻译公司，上海翻译公司,并在，提供所需的翻译工具同声传译。目提供多语言志愿者翻译服务的又一种新模式。还同
同声传译文件内容，亦可指定翻译及校阅者，此前，
深圳翻译公司，与。深圳翻译公司，与。翻译公司国际台语言，为东莞翻译公司而由翻译公司提供所需的翻译工具
同声传译。目提供多语言志愿者翻译服务的又一种新模式。
翻译公司国际台语言，为东莞翻译公司而一旦翻译
翻译公司提供必要的多语言翻译服务。 ，商务口译，同传设备目前深圳翻译为会务、场馆、运动员服务等多个部门提供多语言翻译服务。据悉，深圳同声传译届时，深圳英语翻译 ，
深圳日语翻译，根据活动安排将派出志愿者，开展英语培训，
广州翻译公司，上海翻译公司,并在，
广州翻译公司提供必要的多语言翻译服务。
深圳法语翻译将有近百位多语言志愿者参翻译
广州同声传译服务。
# posted by : September 09, 2008 1:31 am
: September 09, 2008 1:31 am Post a Comment
<< Home
