Thursday, October 25, 2007
We Get Letters?
***Edmonton Journal sportswriter John Mackinnon kindly responded by e-mail to my post from yesterday, and gave me the go ahead to put it up on this site. It is below. I thank him for his response. Comments welcome.***
Andy:
I really enjoyed your comprehensive response. I especially enjoy the musings of you and your colleagues about supposed newspaper 'policy' decisions and the like. It's entirely misinformed conjecture — flat-out wrong, actually — but it sure is entertaining in a wacky, conspiracy-theory sort of way.
I also get a huge bang out of the way you and your bright, engaged audience over-intellectualize everything. It's wild. My points are more modest:
1. Ryan Smyth is not a franchise player. Never was. Never will be. I read the Thornton, Iginla, Smyth theorem when it was first posted some time ago. Statistical gymnastics signifying nothing. The fact is, over the last five seasons Iginla has averaged 80 points and 40 goals a season; Smyth, 27 goals and 61 points a season. The two players are not close in ability. In the '03-04 playoffs, Iginla produced 22 points and 13 goals. During the '05-06 playoffs, Smyth scored seven goals and produced 16 points. Throw in Iginla's force-of-nature physical presence and upper-end brilliance (52 goals and 96 points in '01-02; 94 points last season) and the issue seems hardly in doubt. In the best year he ever had, Smyth delivered 70 points. Iginla is a threat to score 50 goals and pile up 100 points any given year, including this one, the way he has come out of the gate like gangbusters. In short, if people believe the Oilers should have paid Smyth what he wanted on the theory that #94 delivers franchise-player value, I think that's grossly misguided. Smyth is a special player for a variety of reasons, but he's just not an elite player.
Last season, it became clear that, absent Pronger (not to mention Peca, Spacek et al), the Oilers needed to rebuild. Organizationally, they remain better off with the asset base they now possess, which would not have been possible had they kept Smyth. I'm not trying to retroactively suggest this was knowable at the time of the Smyth trade. Obviously, it was not. I'm just saying that, as things unfolded, they will be better able to rebuild in the current reality, with the current bundle of assets. And a key part of that rebuilding job will be the 18-year-old Sam Gagner, who almost certainly would not be here had the Oilers kept Smyth and not cannonballed the way they did. Or at least not that drastically.
Finally, while I agree, Andy, the analysis you and your pals regularly do is truly breathtaking, your attachment to Smyth is largely sentimental. It's all about love, which is what fandom really is, isn't it? I think it's downright touching there truly is a heart beating underneath all those craftily assembled decimal points. As I mentioned on my blog, I respect that passion.
Andy:
I really enjoyed your comprehensive response. I especially enjoy the musings of you and your colleagues about supposed newspaper 'policy' decisions and the like. It's entirely misinformed conjecture — flat-out wrong, actually — but it sure is entertaining in a wacky, conspiracy-theory sort of way.
I also get a huge bang out of the way you and your bright, engaged audience over-intellectualize everything. It's wild. My points are more modest:
1. Ryan Smyth is not a franchise player. Never was. Never will be. I read the Thornton, Iginla, Smyth theorem when it was first posted some time ago. Statistical gymnastics signifying nothing. The fact is, over the last five seasons Iginla has averaged 80 points and 40 goals a season; Smyth, 27 goals and 61 points a season. The two players are not close in ability. In the '03-04 playoffs, Iginla produced 22 points and 13 goals. During the '05-06 playoffs, Smyth scored seven goals and produced 16 points. Throw in Iginla's force-of-nature physical presence and upper-end brilliance (52 goals and 96 points in '01-02; 94 points last season) and the issue seems hardly in doubt. In the best year he ever had, Smyth delivered 70 points. Iginla is a threat to score 50 goals and pile up 100 points any given year, including this one, the way he has come out of the gate like gangbusters. In short, if people believe the Oilers should have paid Smyth what he wanted on the theory that #94 delivers franchise-player value, I think that's grossly misguided. Smyth is a special player for a variety of reasons, but he's just not an elite player.
Last season, it became clear that, absent Pronger (not to mention Peca, Spacek et al), the Oilers needed to rebuild. Organizationally, they remain better off with the asset base they now possess, which would not have been possible had they kept Smyth. I'm not trying to retroactively suggest this was knowable at the time of the Smyth trade. Obviously, it was not. I'm just saying that, as things unfolded, they will be better able to rebuild in the current reality, with the current bundle of assets. And a key part of that rebuilding job will be the 18-year-old Sam Gagner, who almost certainly would not be here had the Oilers kept Smyth and not cannonballed the way they did. Or at least not that drastically.
Finally, while I agree, Andy, the analysis you and your pals regularly do is truly breathtaking, your attachment to Smyth is largely sentimental. It's all about love, which is what fandom really is, isn't it? I think it's downright touching there truly is a heart beating underneath all those craftily assembled decimal points. As I mentioned on my blog, I respect that passion.
# posted by andy grabia @ 9:08 am 
Comments:
Was Smyth asking for Iginla/Thornton/ "franchise player" money? The details of this whole business are so hard to remember.
lol, respect but in a patronizing way. I still think it's funny that journalists pretend to have some sort of overarching unbiased perspective on these things!
And that's exactly my question, Matt. I can understand them letting him go if he was asking $8 mil a year. But if they were offering something like $2, you have to wonder at just how feasible the offer really was! I don't recall any real figured coming out, so it's a pretty tough call on which side is justified.
I'd just like to know how we can "over-intellectualize" with our "statistical gymnastics", and yet be "beyond rational argument" at the same time. I mean, I'm not an objective, detached and without bias journalist who can differentiate between such matters, but it does seem a tad confusing.
Nope. But I guess he must consider Souray elite, since he's making essentially the same amount Smyth asked for.
I was gonna say, I don't see this "rebuild" he claims is occurring. I mean, Lowe dumped 3 future assets for 40 point man Dustin Penner. To say nothing of the Souray contract.
1. Ryan Smyth is not a franchise player.
No one said that he was. That and $6.25 is no longer franchise player money.
$7 - 8 million is franchise player money.
In my correspondence with MacKinnon, he often undermines the objectivity of his argument with anti-player rhetoric, like how he resents a player crying "all the way to the bank" and other such irrational opinions based on what I can only charitably describe as knee-jerk emotional responses.
But hey, I respect that passion.
Just to show it's not just emotional reactions. I could care less about where Smyth plays and I think Edmonton was stupid to let him go. It's almost entertaining to read your media's attempt at rationalizing it.
As to Sam Gagner: I wouldn't want him. He's a scorer without defensive responsibility [Lupul II]. The media of course thinks he's great because he has X points. What they don't get is that you have to score goals and prevent them to win games.
And, it doesn't look like Souray will hit 20 goals this season...
Souray was obviously a reactionary signing to a horrible bust in the Ryan Smyth negotiation and last 20 game freefall. I don't think Lowe would have thrown $27million at Souray in February either - but there was a pretty drastic change in thinking between then and July. Would Lowe trade Souray for Smyth - one would like to think so....but in reality, would we be a whole lot better with Smyth in our lineup? Where does signing Smyth fit into a rebuild? Does this team have any direction at all? Will we have a goaltender when our young core really looks good or will we be screaming about Deslubnyk? How the hell did Bob Saget get another TV job?...so many questions
Translation: "Have fun, boys, but leave the heavy lifting to the professionals.
What a knob.
Wow
No wonder newspaper readership is dropping like a stone.
I especially like the part where he didn't respond to your Souray point.
No, I like the part where Smyth was going to get franchise-player money to stay here.
Or, maybe this, in reference to the asset base, "which would not have been possible had they kept Smyth." Huh?
My verification word is bozond.
Maybe a statistical analysis on what Saget actually contributes to a TV show would prove that he's much more valuable to a network than the average viewer would assume....I just hope he's not making Drew Carey money!
I'd just like to know how we can "over-intellectualize" with our "statistical gymnastics", and yet be "beyond rational argument" at the same time. I mean, I'm not an objective, detached and without bias journalist who can differentiate between such matters, but it does seem a tad confusing.
... ummm... search your recent memory banks there, Andy. ;-D
Yet... another fine example of how elitist, protective, insecure and out of touch... John Mackinnon is. He can't grasp the statistical analysis, so it must be manipulated, and therefore, meaningless. meh... The future is a threat to those who hold onto the past.
If I were young, and still got a kick out of getting angry, the condescension oozing thru every one of his lines might just be enough to spur me into putting an effort into making his journalistic life... uncomfortable.
Good stuff, Andy.
thanx
Louise
How does a guy like Smyth not fit into a rebuild? If I was running a team moving towards youth, I'd love to have a guy on my roster who is the face of the franchise, never quits, bleeds blue and copper, that kind of thing. I want all the kids in the room looking up to that guy and wanting to be that guy and wanting that guy's stall in the room.
Elite, schmaleet ... Smyth's number was plainly in the range of the market for a player of his calibre. Special players get special money. You can't grow a new face for your franchise in a day or a season.
Go Flames
I thought his points about Iginla were good.
That's all I have to say about that.
I should clear something up here. I have had several people working in the media contact me about the "policy of not-linking" aspect of my first post. All have told me that such a policy does not exist at media outlets across the country. My basis for that remark was an earlier conversation with one of those people, which lead me to believe that an unofficial policy like that did exist at a couple papers. I have since been told that I was wrong. I have no problem apologizing for that because, a) I was wrong and b) I don't think it takes away from the greater point, which is that whether it's Journal policy or Mackinnon's own refusal to link, the absence of links is another fine example of how elitist, protective, insecure and out of touch most traditional media outlets and journalists are with consumers. It's a failure to be open, accountable and collaborative in an economy that now demands it.
While his use of a strawman with regards to the Smyth signing is egregious, as is his failure to address the Souray thing, you did sort of have the conspiracy theory ridicule coming.
In fairness to MacKinnon, the action of letting go of Smyth is completely justifiable- if this team is in rebuild.
However, like many commenters, I think the real problem lies with the fact that Lowe went out and signed Sheldon Souray and Dustin Penner to big money, not even looking at the Vanek offer sheet.
In the context of a team trying to make the playoffs this year, Ryan Smyth clearly aids us more than any combination of Nilsson, O'Marra, and the Oilers entire 2007 draft selection.
If this team wants to rebuild, they shouldn't do such a half-assed job of it.
you did sort of have the conspiracy theory ridicule coming.
See above comment. I addressed it at the same time you were posting that comment.
why is nobody addressing the NYLANDER factor in this context ?!??? i realize that it's ultimately the same as the souray argument, but.... better.
I'd just like to know how we can "over-intellectualize" with our "statistical gymnastics", and yet be "beyond rational argument" at the same time.
Well, if you think about it Andy, all this over-intellectualizing is pretty irrational on our part.
That said, thank god the people who make their living analyzing sports don't think about it too much: just imagine what kind of sports journalism we'd be exposed to.
Agree about Souray, but why can't Penner be part of a rebuild? Are the picks automatically going to make our team better in 3 years than Penner?
Now it's clear this organization has no plan whatsoever, so I'm not arguing that the rebuild was likely botched (and if it isn't, it's through blind luck)...but I don't understand the venom at Penner. I fail to see why it's unfathomable that he will contribute more to this team in 3-5 years than the picks we gave up to get him. I might even suggest he's likely to cover that bet.
Not to over-intellectualize things, but:
"...a key part of that rebuilding job will be the 18-year-old Sam Gagner, who almost certainly would not be here had the Oilers kept Smyth and not cannonballed the way they did. Or at least not that drastically."
There's two problems with this. One is that even if the Oilers had 9 additional points after the Smyth deal (finishing with 80 instead of 71), they still would only have passed Columbus and Boston in the standings, and IIRC the Jackets would have taken Voracek anyway.
The second is that if a player (in this case Smyth) is worth 9 (or even 5) points to your team over a 19 game period, he is worth as much as you are allowed to pay him and more. Q.E.D.
The second is that if a player (in this case Smyth) is worth 9 (or even 5) points to your team over a 19 game period, he is worth as much as you are allowed to pay him and more. Q.E.D.
That's why I think Jussi Jokinen is such a steal, despite the fact that nobody's really ever going to call him "elite" outside of a shootout setting. Standings points are worth paying for.
I'm as guilty (or moreso) of sentimental attachement to the guy as anyone else here, but I'm still capable of seeing the rational arguments for keeping the guy, namely, that he WASN'T asking for Iginla/Thornton money, not even close. And surprise surprise, he was even asking for less than the market was willing to give him.
Mackinnon's just upset because he has no credebility amongst people who actually use there brains when discussing hockey. MC79's "Laforge Pens Article for the Journal" hit the nail on the head as for as Mackinnon's concerned; he's schlep who's resigned to becoming a mouth piece for the organization he's meant to write objectively on. He just throws a little vitriol in this direction because people here see him for the puppet he is and call him out for it.
I mean, you're threatening the livelihood of these guys if hockey discussion in the mainstream media is ever pushed beyond rhetoric.
Did anyone else see this? In my mind you can draw a straight line from guys like Lowetide/Ferrari to an article like Ryder's. No way MacKinnon EVER writes an article like that, but the intranet thingy is having an effect, yeah!
Quite simply, John MacKinnon is out of his league and out of his mind. Never before have I seen such a breathtaking example of smug media hubris and trite condescension from the Edmonton Journal's sports pages, no less.
It's no surprise that J.M. is so uncomfortable: Battle of Alberta, Lowetide, MC79 and (once in a while) Covered in Oil, provide better and deeper analysis than he does on a daily basis.
What's there to debate with someone who essentially thinks that the Oilers traded Smyth for Gagner? And if you're reading this John, I know, I know, you didn't say that, and your argument is much more "nuanced" than my one sentence summary. Just like Kevin Lowe didn't exactly say he'd traded Pronger for Pitkanen and Penner. I believe it's called spin.
But I wonder this. If unthinking support of everything Oiler management and EIG does is NOT the editorial policy of the Journal, then what explains the fact that virtually none of the Lowetomatons at the Journal ever utters a critical word and that their writing sounds like spin so much of the time? Only two possible explanations come to mind: (1) emotional love for the team, expressed in loving faith that its management is always correct; (2)thought is difficult.
So Andy, was the hard-on you had for Traktor Boy in preseason last year rational or emotional? Or was it due to his stunning good looks?
Between this and LT's interview invite from Staples you guys are really making a dent.
I know that Gandhi quote is overused, but you're at least on to step 2, if not 3 already. "Then you win" can't be too far behind.
Come on guys, tell us what you really think of John MacKinnon...
I think he's completely wrong about a lot of things (like when he suggested that the Oilers should tank the '04 season to get a high draft pick), but at least John is responding to some criticism, albeit in his own unique way.
So Andy, was the hard-on you had for Traktor Boy in preseason last year rational or emotional?
I'd call it having some fun. And your point is what, PJ? I don't remember making the claim that we were robots.
I like how he said that statistical gymnastics means nothing, and then he immediatley goes off listing a bunch of numbers in comparison to one another. I guess it's once you look at those numbers in context that they become statistics. Before that, they're just a way to describe a players aura.
And your point is what, PJ?
Just having some fun too. I don't think anyone gets paid to write (or pays to read) this blog, whether they are rational or emotional or both.
I don't think anyone gets paid to write (or pays to read) this blog, whether they are rational or emotional or both.
Actually, Matt gets my next three kids as a dowry for letting me write on here. The good news is he's gonna raise them to be closet Oilers fans, just like him.
HEY-OH!!!
Matt gets my next three kids as a dowry
I would like to say, "Make sure you knock up some really ugly women so that Matt can convincingly pass them off as his own"
But that would be rude, mean, and uncalled for, and moves us away from constructive discussion I've ruined. Sorry...
So if that Matt guy ever comes out of the closet it'll be like a 2 for 1 type of deal...ba dum ching!
So if Andy’s musings about newspaper policy are “flat out wrong,” can we thus deduce that MacKinnon’s decision to act as water-carrier for Lowe and the EIG is wholly his own decision? 'cause that wold go a long way to determining wheter he's a cunt by circumstances or by choice (though teh tone of his repsonse indicates the latter).
-lf
Looks like Pat Maclean (Black Dog) got the special post in his honour. No acknowledgment of anything written on here, however. It's good to know. Now I won't feel bad for not linking back to Mackinnon in the future. Not even when he starts his new blog, "Smytty or Gagner?"
Why exactly is Mckinnon comparing Smyth to Iginla in terms of value when Smyth was going to take $2million/year less than Iginla. Smyth acknowledged he was no Iginla, hell, he may not be worth $6.3.
But he was certainly worth $5.5-5.7 or whatever it was. Fuck, the Oilers signed Souray with the same money.
Why doesn't Mckinnon does a quick analysis of the return for Pronger and Smyth:
Smid
Nilsson
O'Marra
part of Joni Pitkanen/Geoff Sanderson, but more likely just Geoff Sanderson.
I would bet the moon that MacKinnon's most read blog post ever was the one that you linked to, Andy.
And number two on that hit parade will be MacKinnon's blog post tomorrow.
.
Besides that; what slipper said.
Is this argument not a moot point? Lowe himself said he would have done things differently knowing what he knows now. If the guy that made the move admits it was a mistake, I don't see how any can argue otherwise. The Vanek, Nylander, Souray, Penner moves were all attempts to address that mistake and field a competitive team, and clearly show that rebuilding was not the intent.
Now, if one were to argue that, yes, it was a mistake, but on the positive side the Oilers are now in a good position as far as young assets for the future, that would make more sense.
I don't think anyone, professional or amateur, can say more about it than Lowe already did.
From Mackinnon's latest:
The two management decisions were separate and distinct, as I see it. In fact, NHL GMs live in a fluid environment in which a decision taken at the deadline, however valid at the time, may look foolish or wrongheaded down the road.
This after having already stated that the Smyth trade was part of an organizational rebuild. Now, if the org is committed to a rebuild, then every move managment makes should be viewed in that context. You can't just pick and choose what's part of the rebuild and what's not.
Of course, I'll leave to others to figure out how signing a player who, though a different "package" than Smyth, is the same age as Smyth, with a worse track record in terms of GP and points and fewer "intangibles," fits into the rebuild.
If the guy that made the move admits it was a mistake, I don't see how any can argue otherwise.
Agreed. But that just makes too much sense. :)
As far as the Smyth thing goes, Pat's theory over at BDHS wins for me. And I've said it before, but the fact that the Oilers didn't exactly exert themselves to sign him pretty much qualifies as "writing on the wall".
As far as Mr. MacKinnon goes, I'll give him his opinions (however condescending they come across as), with reservations that have been well documented above.
However, I would add that the Mr. MacKinnon and his employer are equally guilty of being "overly sentimental" when it comes to how they portray the Oilers, their management group and the EIG.
"I also get a huge bang out of the way you and your bright, engaged audience over-intellectualize everything."
You fuck.
I'd rather us casual, unpaid commenters "over-intellectualize" rather than a professional writer by trade under-intellectualize.
Sorry guys. I just couldn't let it go.
"..NHL GMs live in a fluid environment..." -- what's this now? I was reliably informed by the Oilers prez a couple weeks ago (I forget who reported it) that Kevin Lowe has a PLAN, and the "read and react" types were self-evidently inferior. Am I on crazy pills?
I'd like to point out that Mackinnon's weblog does in fact link to non-Journal sites. It just doesn't link to any non-big-media sites. If there is an outbound linking policy here, it appears to be "Go ahead, read stuff from the Globe and CBS and the New York Times; but don't you dare expect me to link to any non-professional sites. Even if I happen to mention them explicitly as a collective from time to time."
Now of course I wouldn't know anything about how big corporate media works, but I don't think there is any chance that a policy directive from Mackinnon's local bosses or Fortress Winnipeg would include the Globe (for Christ's sake) and exclude BoA, MC79, Covered in Oil, et cetera. It's almost certainly John's own "policy." It would appear to indicate a sincere belief that amateur hockey analysis is useless, except insofar as it can be used as an nonspecific straw man when some space needs to be filled by John Mackinnon.
Like Andy I am pretty amazed that Mackinnon sees nothing anomalous or absurd in accusing the Oilogosphere, simultaneously, of "overintellectualizing" and succumbing to greasy raw sentiment. One wonders what organ he uses to test his ideas about hockey, having ruled out the heart and the brain.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Was Smyth asking for Iginla/Thornton/ "franchise player" money? The details of this whole business are so hard to remember.
# posted by 
: October 25, 2007 9:29 am
: October 25, 2007 9:29 am lol, respect but in a patronizing way. I still think it's funny that journalists pretend to have some sort of overarching unbiased perspective on these things!
And that's exactly my question, Matt. I can understand them letting him go if he was asking $8 mil a year. But if they were offering something like $2, you have to wonder at just how feasible the offer really was! I don't recall any real figured coming out, so it's a pretty tough call on which side is justified.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 9:32 am
: October 25, 2007 9:32 am I'd just like to know how we can "over-intellectualize" with our "statistical gymnastics", and yet be "beyond rational argument" at the same time. I mean, I'm not an objective, detached and without bias journalist who can differentiate between such matters, but it does seem a tad confusing.
Nope. But I guess he must consider Souray elite, since he's making essentially the same amount Smyth asked for.
I was gonna say, I don't see this "rebuild" he claims is occurring. I mean, Lowe dumped 3 future assets for 40 point man Dustin Penner. To say nothing of the Souray contract.
1. Ryan Smyth is not a franchise player.
No one said that he was. That and $6.25 is no longer franchise player money.
$7 - 8 million is franchise player money.
In my correspondence with MacKinnon, he often undermines the objectivity of his argument with anti-player rhetoric, like how he resents a player crying "all the way to the bank" and other such irrational opinions based on what I can only charitably describe as knee-jerk emotional responses.
But hey, I respect that passion.
Just to show it's not just emotional reactions. I could care less about where Smyth plays and I think Edmonton was stupid to let him go. It's almost entertaining to read your media's attempt at rationalizing it.
As to Sam Gagner: I wouldn't want him. He's a scorer without defensive responsibility [Lupul II]. The media of course thinks he's great because he has X points. What they don't get is that you have to score goals and prevent them to win games.
And, it doesn't look like Souray will hit 20 goals this season...
Souray was obviously a reactionary signing to a horrible bust in the Ryan Smyth negotiation and last 20 game freefall. I don't think Lowe would have thrown $27million at Souray in February either - but there was a pretty drastic change in thinking between then and July. Would Lowe trade Souray for Smyth - one would like to think so....but in reality, would we be a whole lot better with Smyth in our lineup? Where does signing Smyth fit into a rebuild? Does this team have any direction at all? Will we have a goaltender when our young core really looks good or will we be screaming about Deslubnyk? How the hell did Bob Saget get another TV job?...so many questions
Translation: "Have fun, boys, but leave the heavy lifting to the professionals.
What a knob.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 10:23 am
: October 25, 2007 10:23 am Wow
No wonder newspaper readership is dropping like a stone.
I especially like the part where he didn't respond to your Souray point.
No, I like the part where Smyth was going to get franchise-player money to stay here.
Or, maybe this, in reference to the asset base, "which would not have been possible had they kept Smyth." Huh?
My verification word is bozond.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 10:25 am
: October 25, 2007 10:25 am Maybe a statistical analysis on what Saget actually contributes to a TV show would prove that he's much more valuable to a network than the average viewer would assume....I just hope he's not making Drew Carey money!
I'd just like to know how we can "over-intellectualize" with our "statistical gymnastics", and yet be "beyond rational argument" at the same time. I mean, I'm not an objective, detached and without bias journalist who can differentiate between such matters, but it does seem a tad confusing.
... ummm... search your recent memory banks there, Andy. ;-D
Yet... another fine example of how elitist, protective, insecure and out of touch... John Mackinnon is. He can't grasp the statistical analysis, so it must be manipulated, and therefore, meaningless. meh... The future is a threat to those who hold onto the past.
If I were young, and still got a kick out of getting angry, the condescension oozing thru every one of his lines might just be enough to spur me into putting an effort into making his journalistic life... uncomfortable.
Good stuff, Andy.
thanx
Louise
How does a guy like Smyth not fit into a rebuild? If I was running a team moving towards youth, I'd love to have a guy on my roster who is the face of the franchise, never quits, bleeds blue and copper, that kind of thing. I want all the kids in the room looking up to that guy and wanting to be that guy and wanting that guy's stall in the room.
Elite, schmaleet ... Smyth's number was plainly in the range of the market for a player of his calibre. Special players get special money. You can't grow a new face for your franchise in a day or a season.
Go Flames
# posted by : October 25, 2007 10:41 am
: October 25, 2007 10:41 am I thought his points about Iginla were good.
That's all I have to say about that.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 10:52 am
: October 25, 2007 10:52 am I should clear something up here. I have had several people working in the media contact me about the "policy of not-linking" aspect of my first post. All have told me that such a policy does not exist at media outlets across the country. My basis for that remark was an earlier conversation with one of those people, which lead me to believe that an unofficial policy like that did exist at a couple papers. I have since been told that I was wrong. I have no problem apologizing for that because, a) I was wrong and b) I don't think it takes away from the greater point, which is that whether it's Journal policy or Mackinnon's own refusal to link, the absence of links is another fine example of how elitist, protective, insecure and out of touch most traditional media outlets and journalists are with consumers. It's a failure to be open, accountable and collaborative in an economy that now demands it.
While his use of a strawman with regards to the Smyth signing is egregious, as is his failure to address the Souray thing, you did sort of have the conspiracy theory ridicule coming.
In fairness to MacKinnon, the action of letting go of Smyth is completely justifiable- if this team is in rebuild.
However, like many commenters, I think the real problem lies with the fact that Lowe went out and signed Sheldon Souray and Dustin Penner to big money, not even looking at the Vanek offer sheet.
In the context of a team trying to make the playoffs this year, Ryan Smyth clearly aids us more than any combination of Nilsson, O'Marra, and the Oilers entire 2007 draft selection.
If this team wants to rebuild, they shouldn't do such a half-assed job of it.
you did sort of have the conspiracy theory ridicule coming.
See above comment. I addressed it at the same time you were posting that comment.
why is nobody addressing the NYLANDER factor in this context ?!??? i realize that it's ultimately the same as the souray argument, but.... better.
I'd just like to know how we can "over-intellectualize" with our "statistical gymnastics", and yet be "beyond rational argument" at the same time.
Well, if you think about it Andy, all this over-intellectualizing is pretty irrational on our part.
That said, thank god the people who make their living analyzing sports don't think about it too much: just imagine what kind of sports journalism we'd be exposed to.
Agree about Souray, but why can't Penner be part of a rebuild? Are the picks automatically going to make our team better in 3 years than Penner?
Now it's clear this organization has no plan whatsoever, so I'm not arguing that the rebuild was likely botched (and if it isn't, it's through blind luck)...but I don't understand the venom at Penner. I fail to see why it's unfathomable that he will contribute more to this team in 3-5 years than the picks we gave up to get him. I might even suggest he's likely to cover that bet.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 11:52 am
: October 25, 2007 11:52 am Not to over-intellectualize things, but:
"...a key part of that rebuilding job will be the 18-year-old Sam Gagner, who almost certainly would not be here had the Oilers kept Smyth and not cannonballed the way they did. Or at least not that drastically."
There's two problems with this. One is that even if the Oilers had 9 additional points after the Smyth deal (finishing with 80 instead of 71), they still would only have passed Columbus and Boston in the standings, and IIRC the Jackets would have taken Voracek anyway.
The second is that if a player (in this case Smyth) is worth 9 (or even 5) points to your team over a 19 game period, he is worth as much as you are allowed to pay him and more. Q.E.D.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 12:09 pm
: October 25, 2007 12:09 pm The second is that if a player (in this case Smyth) is worth 9 (or even 5) points to your team over a 19 game period, he is worth as much as you are allowed to pay him and more. Q.E.D.
That's why I think Jussi Jokinen is such a steal, despite the fact that nobody's really ever going to call him "elite" outside of a shootout setting. Standings points are worth paying for.
I'm as guilty (or moreso) of sentimental attachement to the guy as anyone else here, but I'm still capable of seeing the rational arguments for keeping the guy, namely, that he WASN'T asking for Iginla/Thornton money, not even close. And surprise surprise, he was even asking for less than the market was willing to give him.
Mackinnon's just upset because he has no credebility amongst people who actually use there brains when discussing hockey. MC79's "Laforge Pens Article for the Journal" hit the nail on the head as for as Mackinnon's concerned; he's schlep who's resigned to becoming a mouth piece for the organization he's meant to write objectively on. He just throws a little vitriol in this direction because people here see him for the puppet he is and call him out for it.
I mean, you're threatening the livelihood of these guys if hockey discussion in the mainstream media is ever pushed beyond rhetoric.
Did anyone else see this? In my mind you can draw a straight line from guys like Lowetide/Ferrari to an article like Ryder's. No way MacKinnon EVER writes an article like that, but the intranet thingy is having an effect, yeah!
# posted by : October 25, 2007 12:52 pm
: October 25, 2007 12:52 pm Quite simply, John MacKinnon is out of his league and out of his mind. Never before have I seen such a breathtaking example of smug media hubris and trite condescension from the Edmonton Journal's sports pages, no less.
It's no surprise that J.M. is so uncomfortable: Battle of Alberta, Lowetide, MC79 and (once in a while) Covered in Oil, provide better and deeper analysis than he does on a daily basis.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 12:56 pm
: October 25, 2007 12:56 pm What's there to debate with someone who essentially thinks that the Oilers traded Smyth for Gagner? And if you're reading this John, I know, I know, you didn't say that, and your argument is much more "nuanced" than my one sentence summary. Just like Kevin Lowe didn't exactly say he'd traded Pronger for Pitkanen and Penner. I believe it's called spin.
But I wonder this. If unthinking support of everything Oiler management and EIG does is NOT the editorial policy of the Journal, then what explains the fact that virtually none of the Lowetomatons at the Journal ever utters a critical word and that their writing sounds like spin so much of the time? Only two possible explanations come to mind: (1) emotional love for the team, expressed in loving faith that its management is always correct; (2)thought is difficult.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 1:03 pm
: October 25, 2007 1:03 pm So Andy, was the hard-on you had for Traktor Boy in preseason last year rational or emotional? Or was it due to his stunning good looks?
# posted by : October 25, 2007 1:09 pm
: October 25, 2007 1:09 pm Between this and LT's interview invite from Staples you guys are really making a dent.
I know that Gandhi quote is overused, but you're at least on to step 2, if not 3 already. "Then you win" can't be too far behind.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 1:19 pm
: October 25, 2007 1:19 pm Come on guys, tell us what you really think of John MacKinnon...
I think he's completely wrong about a lot of things (like when he suggested that the Oilers should tank the '04 season to get a high draft pick), but at least John is responding to some criticism, albeit in his own unique way.
So Andy, was the hard-on you had for Traktor Boy in preseason last year rational or emotional?
I'd call it having some fun. And your point is what, PJ? I don't remember making the claim that we were robots.
I like how he said that statistical gymnastics means nothing, and then he immediatley goes off listing a bunch of numbers in comparison to one another. I guess it's once you look at those numbers in context that they become statistics. Before that, they're just a way to describe a players aura.
And your point is what, PJ?
Just having some fun too. I don't think anyone gets paid to write (or pays to read) this blog, whether they are rational or emotional or both.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 1:32 pm
: October 25, 2007 1:32 pm I don't think anyone gets paid to write (or pays to read) this blog, whether they are rational or emotional or both.
Actually, Matt gets my next three kids as a dowry for letting me write on here. The good news is he's gonna raise them to be closet Oilers fans, just like him.
HEY-OH!!!
Matt gets my next three kids as a dowry
I would like to say, "Make sure you knock up some really ugly women so that Matt can convincingly pass them off as his own"
But that would be rude, mean, and uncalled for, and moves us away from constructive discussion I've ruined. Sorry...
# posted by : October 25, 2007 1:54 pm
: October 25, 2007 1:54 pm So if that Matt guy ever comes out of the closet it'll be like a 2 for 1 type of deal...ba dum ching!
So if Andy’s musings about newspaper policy are “flat out wrong,” can we thus deduce that MacKinnon’s decision to act as water-carrier for Lowe and the EIG is wholly his own decision? 'cause that wold go a long way to determining wheter he's a cunt by circumstances or by choice (though teh tone of his repsonse indicates the latter).
-lf
# posted by : October 25, 2007 2:20 pm
: October 25, 2007 2:20 pm Looks like Pat Maclean (Black Dog) got the special post in his honour. No acknowledgment of anything written on here, however. It's good to know. Now I won't feel bad for not linking back to Mackinnon in the future. Not even when he starts his new blog, "Smytty or Gagner?"
Why exactly is Mckinnon comparing Smyth to Iginla in terms of value when Smyth was going to take $2million/year less than Iginla. Smyth acknowledged he was no Iginla, hell, he may not be worth $6.3.
But he was certainly worth $5.5-5.7 or whatever it was. Fuck, the Oilers signed Souray with the same money.
Why doesn't Mckinnon does a quick analysis of the return for Pronger and Smyth:
Smid
Nilsson
O'Marra
part of Joni Pitkanen/Geoff Sanderson, but more likely just Geoff Sanderson.
I would bet the moon that MacKinnon's most read blog post ever was the one that you linked to, Andy.
And number two on that hit parade will be MacKinnon's blog post tomorrow.
.
Besides that; what slipper said.
Is this argument not a moot point? Lowe himself said he would have done things differently knowing what he knows now. If the guy that made the move admits it was a mistake, I don't see how any can argue otherwise. The Vanek, Nylander, Souray, Penner moves were all attempts to address that mistake and field a competitive team, and clearly show that rebuilding was not the intent.
Now, if one were to argue that, yes, it was a mistake, but on the positive side the Oilers are now in a good position as far as young assets for the future, that would make more sense.
I don't think anyone, professional or amateur, can say more about it than Lowe already did.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 7:20 pm
: October 25, 2007 7:20 pm From Mackinnon's latest:
The two management decisions were separate and distinct, as I see it. In fact, NHL GMs live in a fluid environment in which a decision taken at the deadline, however valid at the time, may look foolish or wrongheaded down the road.
This after having already stated that the Smyth trade was part of an organizational rebuild. Now, if the org is committed to a rebuild, then every move managment makes should be viewed in that context. You can't just pick and choose what's part of the rebuild and what's not.
Of course, I'll leave to others to figure out how signing a player who, though a different "package" than Smyth, is the same age as Smyth, with a worse track record in terms of GP and points and fewer "intangibles," fits into the rebuild.
If the guy that made the move admits it was a mistake, I don't see how any can argue otherwise.
Agreed. But that just makes too much sense. :)
As far as the Smyth thing goes, Pat's theory over at BDHS wins for me. And I've said it before, but the fact that the Oilers didn't exactly exert themselves to sign him pretty much qualifies as "writing on the wall".
As far as Mr. MacKinnon goes, I'll give him his opinions (however condescending they come across as), with reservations that have been well documented above.
However, I would add that the Mr. MacKinnon and his employer are equally guilty of being "overly sentimental" when it comes to how they portray the Oilers, their management group and the EIG.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 7:36 pm
: October 25, 2007 7:36 pm "I also get a huge bang out of the way you and your bright, engaged audience over-intellectualize everything."
You fuck.
I'd rather us casual, unpaid commenters "over-intellectualize" rather than a professional writer by trade under-intellectualize.
Sorry guys. I just couldn't let it go.
# posted by : October 25, 2007 7:46 pm
: October 25, 2007 7:46 pm "..NHL GMs live in a fluid environment..." -- what's this now? I was reliably informed by the Oilers prez a couple weeks ago (I forget who reported it) that Kevin Lowe has a PLAN, and the "read and react" types were self-evidently inferior. Am I on crazy pills?
# posted by : October 25, 2007 8:12 pm
: October 25, 2007 8:12 pm I'd like to point out that Mackinnon's weblog does in fact link to non-Journal sites. It just doesn't link to any non-big-media sites. If there is an outbound linking policy here, it appears to be "Go ahead, read stuff from the Globe and CBS and the New York Times; but don't you dare expect me to link to any non-professional sites. Even if I happen to mention them explicitly as a collective from time to time."
Now of course I wouldn't know anything about how big corporate media works, but I don't think there is any chance that a policy directive from Mackinnon's local bosses or Fortress Winnipeg would include the Globe (for Christ's sake) and exclude BoA, MC79, Covered in Oil, et cetera. It's almost certainly John's own "policy." It would appear to indicate a sincere belief that amateur hockey analysis is useless, except insofar as it can be used as an nonspecific straw man when some space needs to be filled by John Mackinnon.
Like Andy I am pretty amazed that Mackinnon sees nothing anomalous or absurd in accusing the Oilogosphere, simultaneously, of "overintellectualizing" and succumbing to greasy raw sentiment. One wonders what organ he uses to test his ideas about hockey, having ruled out the heart and the brain.
Post a Comment
<< Home
