"The boys in the Oilogosphere spent much of the Ryan Smyth homecoming on Tuesday night rehashing the Kevin-Lowe-shoulda-signed-him-at-the-deadline argument.

Those whose attachment to Smyth is primarily an emotional one are beyond rational argument. But I respect their emotions."

-John Mackinnon

A couple of things:

1) The fact that MSM "blogs" like Mackinnon's don't link to non-MSM blogs speaks volumes about that industry. In his defence, I doubt Mackinnon has much say in the matter. He reads our blogs, as his usage of the term "Oilogosphere" indicates. My guess is that it's Edmonton Journal policy not to link to non-Journal sites. But whether it's Journal policy or his own refusal to link, it's another fine example of how elitist, protective, insecure and out of touch most traditional media outlets are with consumers.

In their book Wikinomics, Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams talk about the rise of "The Web 2.0", and an emerging, powerful economy they coin "Wikinomics." The consumers in this new economy share certain values, including speed, freedom, openness, innovation, mobility, authenticity, and playfulness. They want their products, and the delivery of those products, to reflect those norms. The response from some industries has been to adapt to the consumer, and the result has been phenomenal success. Other industries, in particular the entertainment and media industries, have decided they'd rather punch at the wind, even going as far as labeling consumers criminals and taking them to court. The result has been...well, we all know the result.

As Tyler noted in his post on blogs and the media, with blogs "there’s an accountability to the consumer that’s lacking in other forms of media." It's partly why blogs are becoming more and more popular. Here's a fine example of it. I just linked to a story by a writer at a newspaper, and I'll take direct heat for whatever I say in my comments section. Yet I doubt there will be a return reference for me, because that would be an acknowledgment that someone other than a professional writer working at a newspaper has a valid opinion. And most "blogs" on MSM sites put up unnecessary hurdles and barriers that make commenting a nuisance (as a non-exact but related example, CTVglobemedia asks readers to agree to Terms and Condition before they can have access to RSS feeds from any of their sites). It's much easier for media corporations and journalists to ignore bloggers and their blogs (or if they are really progressive, belittle or lamely imitate them) than it is for them to adapt, restructure, and embrace change. Which explains why those corporations, and their newspapers, will all be extinct in ten years.

2) Suggesting that those throughout the Oilogosphere who opposed the Ryan Smyth trade are being more emotional than rational is absolutely ludicrous. I'm sure Mackinnon is referencing (without actually linking to them or writing their names), posts that appeared yesterday on this site, Covered in Oil, Lowetide, and BDHS. Looking at only those posts, he's right. Most of us spent yesterday talking about what Ryan Smyth meant to us as fans of the game, and it was therefore full of emotion. It makes sense, considering it was Smyth's first time back to Edmonton (Mackinnon didn't criticize the Oilers for running the pre-game tribute video, or Oilers fans for giving Smyth an emotional standing ovation). But it is wrong to claim that the Oilogosphere has spent the days since February 27th, 2007 oozing emotion and nothing else. There are too many posts to link to, but anybody who reads the Oilogosphere regularly is fully aware of the myriad of rational arguments about the Ryan Smyth trade made by those who opposed it. To give but one example, Tyler Dellow provides an argument on the true value of Smyth that is far more rational and compelling than anything I've ever read in the sports section of any newspaper. There goes Mackinnon's argument that Smyth was "not a franchise player and certainly not an elite player at any time during his NHL career."

In fact, if we want to point out a lack of rational arguments, let's look at Mackinnon's post. He freely admits that Lowe's argument about not knowing that the salary cap was going to go up was "lame," yet spends no more time on it. He states that the Oilers options would have been limited in the future if they had paid Smyth $5.5 million for five years, then ignores the fact that Sheldon Souray (also aged 30) is making $5.4 million a year for the next five years. The argument that Souray is more valuable to the team than Smyth, and therefore deserving of that money? Non-existent. Mackinnon does make one argument, and I'll be blunt: it makes no sense.

"One factoid to ponder: If the Oilers had signed Smyth, it is entirely possible they don't plummet like a stone, losing all but two of their final 18 games. That tailspin left the Oilers picking sixth overall in the draft, a position they turned into Sam Gagner, their 18-year-old rookie sensation."

Even though Mackinnon notes that the outcome is one "no one could have planned, or forecast," it's his main argument for why the Ryan Smyth trade was a good decision. Because the Oilers were able to get Gagner with the sixth overall pick, because he had a fantastic tournament against the Russians, because he has played (exceedingly) well in the first eight games of his NHL career--because we know all of this now, eight full months after the Ryan Smyth trade was made--we are supposed to be in favor of the deal. In fact, Mackinnon wants us to decide, "Smytty or Gagner?"

This argument is either a red herring, a loaded question, or both. Others can correct me. I like comments. What I do know is that this argument doesn't wash. Why? Well, because there is no guarantee that the Ryan Smyth trade leads to, or "triggers" any of these things, just as there is no possible way that the Oilers could have known any of these things before they made the deal with the Islanders. They may have hoped that the entire defensive core would get injured, they may have hoped that the team would go in the tank, they may have hoped that they could get Gagner, and they may have hoped once they got him that he made the leap immediately, but there is no chance in hell they knew for sure. And any or all of those things could have happened with Smyth still on the roster. It's impossible to prove otherwise. It's unfair to say, "Smytty or Gagner?" In fact, it's irrational. You can't frame the merits of the Ryan Smyth trade within that context. Seeing as Mackinnon decided to discuss the Oilogosphere's irrationality today, I thought I'd take a moment to point out his.