The Battle of Alberta

Friday

2011-12-23T11:51:00.000-07:00

So having seen most of these teams a couple of times (on top of everything else we know, or think we know, about them), it looks a lot like there are five WC locks to make the playoffs: Canucks, Red Wings, Blackhawks, Blues, and Sharks.

I'm not about to put money down against the Preds, but they sure haven't looked like much against the Flames this season. Full respect to Daymond Langkow's Coyotes, and I think they have a fine chance, but it'll hardly be a smooth sail for them. And though I'm probably projecting the sins of last year's Stars on to this year's squad, it's still hard to love them much; a -7 differential, and -- c'mon -- 11 goals from Eric Nystrom.

On the Wild, I'm not sure I'd use Zona's inflammatory language, but they have not looked very good at all most times I've watched them. Part of that recently is them missing their best player (Koivu), but I didn't think much of them in their 3-0 win over the Flames last month either. Colorado, on the other hand, has actually looked not-too-bad, even though I've only watched them in losses to the Flames.

What it all adds up to is eight teams (I'll include the Oilers for karmic reasons) competing for three playoff spots. The Kings have the pedigree and the underlying numbers, so you probably have to like them for one of those spots, but really, the hockey gods could smile (or frown) on anyone.

*****

A propos of nothing -- really -- I'm enjoying being a Flames fan this season. It's too bad we're likely going to miss the playoffs for the 3rd straight season, and I'm not a big Feaster booster, and GAAAH have those losses to the Canucks been painful, but yeah. I'm having fun.

I'm a bit older, and our family has more things going on in the evenings, so I miss more games these days, and I certainly don't live & die with the team quite like I used to. This helps, I think! But really:

Jarome Iginla is about to score his 500th goal, which will formally confirm him as the Greatest Flame Ever. He's still an excellent guy, fun to watch, and fun to cheer for.
Kent Wilson and the folks at Flames Nation have created an absolute go-to blog that covers it all and provides a lot of insight.
Rookies! The Flames were running three rookie defensemen for a while, on top of Roman Horak, and it still didn't seem as painful as any Anders Eriksson pairing. It's fun to watch these guys (generally) succeed; here's hoping they throw Irving to the wolves tonight and see what happens.
Chris Butler has been a revelation, really, but it goes to show you just how good a player JayBo is. #4 is overpaid on account of the absence of O, but he is excellent. My least favorite thing right now is that he hasn't been to the playoffs, and has to bear the insinuations that this entails (not to mention that he's missing out on the excitement).
Kevin Weekes seems to have been punted from the late HNiC game, so we never have to hear from him ever. TSN still does a great job broadcasting midweek hockey. And I hold out hope that Charlie Simmer may pick up mono or cat AIDS or something this Christmas season, and need a few months to recover.
They still always beat the Oilers. You may laugh, but I now get excited to hear that Jordan Eberle has scored a slick goal; it signifies to me that things are still the same.

Merry Christmas, and Go Flames.

OPM

2011-10-27T17:49:00.002-06:00

All of economics is devoted to the proposition that there is no such thing as a free lunch. All of politics is devoted to the opposite conviction. All economics teaches that you can't get something for nothing. All politics supposes that you can -- or that you can at least persuade other people that you can. Economics is about scarcity, universal and inescapable. Politics is about limitless plenty.

Consider that 98% of all bad policy amounts to nothing more than ignoring opportunity costs: the simple axiom that the cost of something is measured not just by the actual sum of money used to produce it, but what the same funds might have purchased, diverted to another end...

Word.

Welcome Home Big Fella!

2011-06-24T17:25:00.003-06:00

In what is, without a doubt, the best sonnet I've ever written about a traded hockey player (from this March 5, 2007 thread on CinO), I predicted Smyth would be reborn in Oil. Nice to be right for a change.

Smytty Sonnet #94

So crude we drilled his heart, and crude distilled
Flowed from his eyes, tempered and dilute.
His labour deemed unskilled, instead rebuild
With cheaper lubricant that won't pollute.

The Oilers' Brass elected to go green
With virgin teen unsoiled by stinking oil
To cap the well that burst them on the scene
Return the heartland to its prairie soil

So riches of the north go down in flame
While southern Flames rise up like northern lights
Smyth's combustion heart enkindles shame,
Though primed and set, no broken hearts ignite.

But! Baptismal fonts flow with oil refined,
And so, with oil, is Smyth's rebirth entwined.

Goil!
4-2 Oil (Smytty with the hattrick, assisted on all three by D-vo)

Friday Baseball Standings

2011-03-18T16:30:00.000-06:00

**Whoops: that should say Thru Mar.17, but I'm too lazy to fix it.

**If the Canucks can beat Phoenix tonight, it'll still be a 2-game spread between 4th and 10th; five get in and two do not. I'm petrified about this California trip that could obviously sink the Flames' season for good, but most of the other teams have some challenges in their schedule as well. I think if the Flames can even go 3/6 in Cali plus a win in Edmonton, then they're in OK shape. More than one reg.L vs ANA/LA/SJ, or (god forbid) a loss to the Oil next week, and they're in pretty terrible shape.

**Rick Nash this season is the same age as Jarome Iginla was in 2004. It's a serious bloody waste that Howson & friends haven't been able to build a decent group around him (yet) to take a couple runs. I know the hockey gods have frowned on the BJs for a few years now, but at the same time, they've done some pretty indefensible things with their money.

**I'm not sure what the proper order is, but Ottawa, Colorado, and Edmonton are definitely the three worst teams in the league. I hope the Islanders win the lottery as a reward for resembling an NHL team the past 2-3 months.

Go Flames.

Face: red

2011-03-12T00:58:00.000-07:00

So one of these days, I have a rant I need to post reminding the statzis that what they don't know could fill a warehouse, but the fact remains that if you just looked at Corsi numbers to predict a particular player's performance next month, you'd win a lot more than you lost.

I tweeted on December 24th (@FenwickMatt btw) the following:

How bad are the #Devils? The *best* of 1000 'simulations of remainder of season' gives them 70 points (worst = 34). http://bit.ly/5LHWmc

That projection/simulation is at Hockey-Reference.com, and with due congratulations to the man behind it for winning the TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown in both 2007 and 2008, it's useless. Ultra-useless. Somehow, a mathematical(?) model of an NHL team produced a result saying that the best of 1000 scenarios for the upcoming 48 games is that they would be 4 games over .500.

This shouldn't even pass the smell test for this year's post-apocalyptic version of the Oilers, let alone mine or anyone's smell test for the team that had the lowest SA/gm in the league. And yet it's on a really good hockey website. Puck Daddy is the most indispensable hockey blog, period, and yet they run an article every 2nd Thursday recommending someone who had a good +/- the last two weeks as the possible solution to your fantasy hockey +/- problems.

You can ignore the shot differential stuff if you like, but if you're actually interested in who's going to help your team tomorrow, ignore it at your peril. Unrelated, I hope Tambellini agrees with Jim Matheson that the Oilers need to find money for Ryan Jones, because this is totally different than Brule at the end of last year. Just because it's easy to like a player who's scoring goals doesn't mean that you won't like him when he's scoring fewer goals.

Thursday Baseball Standings

2011-03-10T13:07:00.000-07:00

**It was with their win over Nashville on Sunday night that the Flames finally moved into a WC playoff spot by this measure. With a win tonight in Phoenix, they move into a tie for 4th. BONKERS. On the other hand, if they lose tonight and the Wild beat Nashville, they're back into 9th on tiebreakers.

**Would you say that the Toronto Maple Leafs are pretty close to being the best team in the league? No, not really? Me neither. I have nothing against the Maples per se, I just bring this up because they are 13 games behind the Canucks for best record in the NHL, and this 13 game spread is the same as the gulf between the Oilers and the Flames. So, naturally, the first random Oilers conversation I overheard after the Penner trade included the phrase, "Now we just need to get rid of Horcoff".

**Flames president Ken King is not perfect, and lord knows that the whole push for a new arena is headed to Calgary in short order, but I still like to think that he would die of shame before publishing a letter with an opening sentence like the one from Pat "Patrick" LaForge yesterday.

**Is someone going to stop Vancouver from winning the Stanley Cup? Please? This run the Flames have been on has been a lot of fun, but the stature of the Canucks is really casting a dark shadow over the season.

**"...Gordie Howe's professional career spanned 34 years, just 4 more than Hasek's to date." Wow.

**Go Flames. Watch out for Hanzal and Whitney.

Friday Baseball Standings

2011-02-18T21:53:00.000-07:00

**The Flames' standing continues to improve by this measure, even though they still haven't made it back into the top 8 at any point. They're closer to 4th place today than they were to 8th place on January 24th.

The bad news, such as it is, is that the schedule gets tougher when the calendar flips. It's not that bad opponent-wise, but they play 8 road games in March, and six of them are in back-to-backs -- and the Flames haven't played back-to-back on the road since before Christmas.

Fortunately, if they start to struggle, they have an ace-in-the-hole: the general manager can just head into the dressing room and ask the players to crank up the effort and intensity!

Homer: Um, are you guys working?
Programmer: Yes sir!
Homer: Can you, uh, work any harder?
Programmer: Sure thing boss! [keyboard clicking intensifies]

Darryl Katz is Hank Scorpio!

**I don't have much comment on today's trades, except that I'm becoming less and less impressed with Brian Burke all the time. It's not so much that I think he made a lot of bad moves the past week or so (he might well have made more good than bad), just that it's increasingly clear that he does not have a real overarching plan that informs his decisions day in and day out. These days I see him kind of like a long-time gambler at the track; he knows things about horses and horse racing that a casual fan or less experienced enthusiast doesn't even know there are to know, but has accumulated superstitions from ten thousand wins and losses too. In the end that gambler has to follow his gut -- there's no way to process all the information sensibly, and the results could be worse -- but there's sure no explaining his method to an onlooker.

**Also, Scott Reynolds nails the Avs-Sens goalie trade.

**I haven't loved Justin Bourne's stuff at Puck Daddy since he started, but man do I think he nailed "Why dealing players for picks is painful":

...if you ask me, when you're shivering in the cold, it makes a lot more sense to purchase a home with the foundation poured and the frame built than going out and buying a lot.

**I didn't get around to posting this until late, and tonight's out-of-town scoreboard was nice for a change! Minnesota and Anaheim are tied for 8th, 1/2 game up on the Flames. And the Hawks & BJs are T-11th, 1 game behind.

**As I recall the last Heritage Classic, Montreal won, and then the Alberta team's season went in the toilet. Let's not have history repeat itself, please. Go Flames.

Friday Baseball Standings

2011-02-11T13:16:00.001-07:00

With a win tonight over the Ducks, the Flames would move into a playoff spot even factoring in games-in-hand. I wouldn't have guessed it, though I was sure cheering for it. And I remain pretty pessimistic (in the superstitious sense), for now... I was sure they were going to lose to Chicago on Monday -- sure. I was pretty sure they were going to lose to Ottawa on Wednesday, especially after they went down 2-1. And right now I'm thinking Jeez, you could sure lose a ton of ground with back-to-back losses here, couldn't you!

They already miss Tanguay, and my God do they miss Daymond Langkow this season, but if the hockey gods are willing, they're certainly good enough to get into the playoffs and have some fun.

**I wouldn't bet a nickel of my own money on Dallas making the playoffs. Steinberg and Kent talked yesterday about the possibility of the bounces turning vicious on the Stars, but it's already happening. They're 1-5-1 in their last 7 (the W was vs. the Oilers, in a game where they were outshot 35-21, by the Oilers), and their cushion is pretty much gone. They host the 11th-place Blackhawks tonight, who they only lead by 3 games. If they lose, that's down to 2.

**So the distance between the 14th-place Avalanche and the top of the Western Conference is the same as the distance between the Oilers and the final playoff spot. The Oil has had some injuries this year but they've also had a lot go right, and some pleasant surprises.

I'm deeply disappointed and irritated that Taylor Hall looks like the real deal, and they have a lot of popcorn in the pot, but it can hardly be understated just how big a gap there is between where they are and where they hope to go.

**Haven't caught much Eastern Conference chatter lately -- are the Thrashers still in a slump, or are they just the same bad team that started the season 7-9-3 and then had one great month?

**Beating the Ducks would be the right result against the right opponent, and would be a hell of a relief before tomorrow evening's almost-certain L (I also wouldn't bet a nickel on holding off the Canucks PP again). Go Flames.

League at a Glance - All Star Break

2011-02-01T17:07:00.000-07:00

The Flames are this close to being right in the middle of the pack, with as good a chance as anyone for a 5-seed. But they aren't there.

**This Lowetide blurb from last week deserves a Word, or Amen:

The Memorial Cup, The CHL top prospects game and most of the Canadian NHL games are the only items Sportsnet has in their hockey arsenal at this point in time. Rogers must pay far less money, because the talent pool heavily favors tsn and whenever there's a raid it's SN talent headed to tsn not the other way around.

I'm okay with, don't care really. But I do wish Sportsnet at least tried to make their between period experts and their play by play men world class. The fact is that many of the American pbp guys are better than the current bunch who man the mics for RSN and that's a crying shame. No disrespect, these men worked hard to get where they are today and credit where due they made it. I do wish Rogers would at least respond to the challenge, though. Maybe upgrade here and there.

I'm not really OK with it. Yes, it pales next to the serious issues of the world, but the squads and the network want us watching 100+ hours a year of local team coverage, right? And not to put too fine a point on it, but the present on-air personnel makes me measurably less likely to do so.

Monday Baseball Standings

2011-01-24T16:02:00.001-07:00

Real talk: tanking is an idea that seems very poorly thought through by those who advocate it. And although I do oppose tanking on karmic grounds, I don’t think you need that mysticism in order to make the case against. In the specific case of the Flames, it seems all the more clear.

There is very little chance that the org still believes that they’re just a couple complementary pieces away from greatness.
There is very little chance that the org is happy with their “age profile”, or looking at trading away what little youth they have.
The benefit to finishing 26th rather than 21st is pretty difficult to quantify, let alone get excited about.
Watching a bad, overmatched team fighting for pride is a lot less fun than watching a mediocre team fighting for results.
They need people to keep buying tickets. This is irrelevant if you’re a fan in Maryland or wherever, but there’s a segment of the fan base, including season ticket holders, whose support of a rebuild amounts to, “OK! See you when it’s done then!” If there’s no great evidence that in order to be great you must first be shitty – and there isn’t – then why put your fans through that?

Look, a guy can advocate change as a way of moving forward. I’m not saying Status Quo or Bust. I think trading Kipper, if possible, is a great idea, and it wouldn’t take much to get the fans on board. I’m warming to the idea of trading Regehr, mainly because I think the Flames can fill in the D more easily than the forward ranks. But “blow it all to smithereens” or the like makes no sense, and it’s too easy, and the payoff might not be there.

I hope the lads make the playoffs this season, even if they finish 8th and get swept by the Canucks. Well, by the Wings. I don’t see the downside, and it would sure make the next 3 months a lot more fun. Go Flames.

Monday Baseball Standings

2011-01-17T16:15:00.000-07:00

**In the 20 games preceding the weekend in Ontario, over which the Flames put up a 9-8-3 record, they outshot their opponents 623-507 and were outscored 57-51.

450 saves on 507 shots is .888, which is a pretty bloody lousy SV%. My LOL of the weekend was Eric Francis suggesting on the Hot Stove that trading Kiprusoff would be a good idea as a means of tanking. Weird - Francis was better than anyone at setting aside the Cult of Sutter to judge Darryl on his merits; he ought to be able to do the same for the Cult of Kipper.

**Here's how I imagine the conversation between Katz and Tambellini in mid-April after season's end, if Katz weren't too busy trying to get even richer in the land development business.

Katz: Well Steve, since your 2nd hiring in spring 2009, you've shown me that you can assemble a shitty team accidentally, and that you can assemble a shitty team deliberately. What do you plan to show me next? And please don't say something like, you can assemble a shitty team, while on rollerskates.

Tambellini: [silence while he assesses Katz' question]

**Go Flames

Friday Baseball Standings

2011-01-07T16:05:00.001-07:00

**So on December 13th, the Flames were 4 games out, and I said:

Their schedule for the next 10 games is about as favourable as you could hope for. If they can't make up more than half the gap between them and 8th by the time they head into Vancouver on January 5th, then maybe they are as bad as their record.

I guess they pretty much are. One thing that just struck me today that reinforces this: the big wins they had in October, the ones that showed us that the Flames would be a good team if they played right etc. etc., were agains Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Jose. Here in January, needless to say, no one's oohing and aahing over smiting these particular enemies.

**Now that I've been doing this standings format for a few years, there's a bit of data for year-to-year comparisons. Through January 2 this year, the Canucks were 16 games over .500 to lead the league. Through January 2 two years ago, both the Sharks and the Bruins were 24 games over .500.

**More on that: memory is funny, both in the "interesting" and the "ridiculous" sense. Your average Oiler fan around here (and by average I explicitly mean "not just the really stupid ones"), not to mention the local media, really believes that (1) the previous three seasons were lousy and hopeless on a persistent, game-to-game basis, and (2) right now represents a unique moment of hope and promise.

I think Tyler, Jon Willis, and many others have done a fine job expounding on the fact that young & promising does not necessarily lead to prime & successful. The other fallacy, though, tends to go mostly unaddressed: most unsuccessful teams seem a lot worse in retrospect than they do in the moment. Do you realize that the Oilers were alone in 7th place, 1.5 games up on 9th, on March 20, 2009? Of course you do - it's what made Steve Tambellini decide that adding Quinn and Khabibulin was a good idea. For rebuilding.

**"I've sat quiet and I've worked my (butt) off all year. I haven't said anything, while Arniel has gone to the media and said, basically, that I can't play. It gets to the point where I have to have some personal pride and I have to stand up for myself." -- Mike Commodore

Given where Scott Howson learned the hockey ops trade, I assume he's now searching for an ECHL team with which to place Mike Commodore.

**Good piece by Tom Benjamin this week. Naturally, I hope his season as a fan ends in wrenching heartbreak, but he's really eloquent regarding what it's all about. Which is also to say, Go Flames.

Thursday Baseball Standings

2010-12-23T16:35:00.001-07:00

Well if Devils fans got an early Christmas present today, I suppose Flames fans are hoping for a Boxing Day Blowout. While I'm still afraid that the org would just install Jay Feaster as the new GM (let's have a proper search, please), I'm on the Darryl's Gotta Go bandwagon. Or rather, jogging behind it, seating's pretty cramped up there. Failure to achieve the objectives required by the position. I'm indifferent about Brent; even if he deserves to be replaced, he can't really do any harm if he sticks around until the end of the year (unlike Darryl, obviously).

For the record: the winner of the MSM employee most willing to criticize Darryl Sutter when things were going generally well is -- the eligible field was small -- Eric Francis! True story. If nonsense came out of the GM's mouth, E.F. was pretty much the only guy to call "Nonsense". Runner-up is Bruce Dowbiggin, although he really picked his spots, and also seemed more interested in shit-stirring than anything. (More interested in shit-stirring than Eric Francis? Yes.)

The Flames are better than their 15th-place standing, but they are not good. It looks like it's going to be a long season, with the possibility of The Greatest Flame being traded but a lot of turmoil regardless. (Obviously the guy they should be shopping hardest is Kipper.)

Today's other thought, that occurred to me watching the beginning of 24/7 last night: What would it take for Alexander Ovechkin's contract to become an anchor? I quite agree with everyone who says it's too early to panic, and the bounces aren't going his way, and whatnot. That said, we as sports fans and we as humans are incredibly biased to believe that the way things were yesterday and today are they way they'll be tomorrow, all historical evidence to the contrary.

We just naturally assume that Sidney Crosby will be a Hart Trophy nominee until he's 35, but how sure are you that on December 23, 2013, he'll be one of the top 3 players in the league? Things change! At age 24, Jeremy Roenick's offense dropped by 20% and never recovered. He was a nice player for quite a while, but when he was about 21, Don Cherry said he thought JR was the best player in the league. He never got glossed like that when he was 27.

Look, Ovechkin has been worth far more than he's been paid so far in his career; he's incredibly valuable to the Caps and to the league. But if your take is a blind, "Well of course he'll be an MVP-type 60-goal threat for the foreseeable future!", I would consider your extreme confidence to be misplaced.

Oh, and tonight in Dallas, Go Flames. I'm not a tanker.

Monday Baseball Standings

2010-12-13T15:51:00.002-07:00

**For the Flames, talk about hanging on by a thread. Their schedule for the next 10 games is about as favourable as you could hope for. If they can't make up more than half the gap between them and 8th by the time they head into Vancouver on January 5th, then maybe they are as bad as their record.

**I was in the building for Lightning-Flames this past Tuesday. For TeeBay, M. St. Louis was, as usual, the most noticeable player on a shift-by-shift basis. Stamkos didn't show too much, I didn't think. For the Flames, I left the ‘Dome more of a Jay Bouwmeester fan than I was when I entered. There seems to be a bit of consensus that he’s stepped up his game recently (approximately since getting hot(!) after the OTL in Detroit), but regardless: he’s very fast, he’s almost always in position, and he plays seemingly the whole game.

**I was sitting in the Avison Young Club, i.e. the premium lower bowl seats. Face value printed on my ticket: $252 + GST. A lot of fans are frustrated at the seemingly infinite patience of upper management for the fuckarounds of the Hockey Ops team, but I’m burstingly confident that this patience extends no further than the first day they seriously struggle to sell those puppies.

**George Johnson is getting lots of love for his blistering This Is Darryl’s Mess column yesterday. Yeah, I think he’s basically correct on most counts, but at the same time, it represents the two big problems with paid sports reporting (and columnizing). First: are all these problems actually new? If not, why didn’t you report on them before the team was in 15th place? And second is neatly captured by this paragraph:

As you'd expect, the tension around the Flames these days is thick and toxic. We've all heard the unsettling rumblings: Brent and Darryl aren't talking. Darryl and assistant GM Jay Feaster, a genial sort with an honest-to-goodness Stanley Cup ring who must wonder what on earth he's gotten himself into, aren't so much as making eye contact.

No, "we" have not all heard the unsettling rumblings. "We" are dependent on you to report unsettling rumblings, because we have no other way of knowing. Yet with very few exceptions, this stuff (i.e. stuff that would be of interest to readers/viewers, i.e. the only stuff that beat reporters can do better than bloggers) is only reported in the past tense, usually after (or right before) people are fired.

We're now doomed to constant speculation on Sutter job security until either Darryl is fired or the club rips off a long winning stretch. If someone out there in media-land is listening though, I think it'd be interesting to know whether the upper org sees Jay Feaster as an heir apparent, or as a straight assistant (and possibly interim) GM. The wisdom of firing Darryl mid-season hangs largely on the answer to this question, if you ask me, which you didn't, although you're still reading aren't you.

Go Flames.

Instant Update: from the Archives, here's another instance of George Johnson engaging in grave-dancing in lieu of something a bit more timely.

Monday Baseball Standings

2010-12-06T12:59:00.000-07:00

Been thinking about windows lately. Not the things my dog stares out of all day, or the juggernaut out of Redmond, but windows of Cup opportunity in the NHL.

Darryl Sutter's stewardship of the Flames franchise is becoming less and less forgivable by the month, but one of the things I quite liked about his reign was his aggressiveness about getting better now. The Lombardi+1st for Olli trade -- and far too many moves since -- was a poor way of executing that vision, but the fact is that when the NHL locked out the players in September 2004, Jarome Iginla was 27 years old and probably the finest all-around forward in the game. If Sutter looked at Jarome, and the also-27 Miikka Kiprusoff (who had just set a record for lowest GAA in a season), and said to himself

When this lockout is over, I think it makes sense to mortgage the future a bit to maximize our chances for the next 3-4 seasons

I would consider it eminently sensible. Now maybe that's what he did. Or, maybe he's just a chucklehead who likes having future cap space tied up in the replaceable likes of Wayne Primeau or Tom Kostopolous. But whatever -- I'm glad that the club wasn't half-hearted about "building for the present" while Jarome Iginla was a premier difference maker.

Flush with adrenaline from the Oilers' 4-game winning streak, I'm going to say this out loud: I think it's possible that the Oil's best opportunity to win the Stanley Cup in the foreseeable future is the 2011-2012 season. It's a basic two-step deduction:

1. What gives you the best chance of being at or near the top? Having a bunch of guys outplay their contracts.
2. In what future Oilers season is that most possible? Next one, IMO.

Hall, MPS, and Eberle may turn out as fantastically as the most rabid fan can imagine, but from 13/14 on, they're going to be paid ~ accordingly (with the possible exception of Hall, if he reaches the 1st All-Star level). Those same three will presumably be better in 12/13 than 11/12, but at least they'll still be on their entry-level contracts. Penner and Hemsky, on the other hand, are UFAs after 11/12, and I think most people fail to appreciate that it will be difficult for the Oilers to replace them for equivalent dollars. Also, Gagner's current deal is up after 11/12; if he continues to develop on a positive arc (and in accordance with his draft pedigree), he's going to be a lot more expensive thereafter.

Is this a prediction? Well, no. But if I was GM of this team (or one just like it in a parallel universe), I would be watching my rolling averages closely (e.g. goal and shot differential). If by the end of this season (or late in it) I feel like I'm approaching the top half of the conference, I take aim at the 2012 Stanley Cup, because I'm pretty sure a lot of my squad is going to continue to improve organically. That means:

Figuring out how to get some value out of Souray, one way or another
Ensuring that I'm not dependent on a old, broken down goalie as my #1.
Cutting out some of the "deadweight" youth that aren't going to be part of my shocking surge to the top. (That is, assessing with prejudice, as well as accepting the fact that someone I send away might go on to be a really good player with another team.)
Setting my sights on a few non-sexy veterans that fill needs up front.
Crossing my fingers and hoping for the best

I don't need to win the 2012 President's Trophy, but I need to be comfortably top 8 in the conference, standings-wise. And for the last 25-30 games of the 11/12 season, I want to feel like I'm as good as anyone.

Again, this isn't a prediction in the sense of, "I think the Oilers can challenge for the Stanley Cup next season", just a basic observation that they have certain things going for them in 11/12 that they don't have in 12/13 or 13/14. And if Taylor Hall = Eric Staal, then it really would be unwise to sacrifice his 2nd pro season to the gods of "building for the long term", wouldn't it.

Friday

2010-11-26T10:48:00.000-07:00

Baseball/graphical standings, for the first time this season:

The east is balls once again. The Central is absolutely vicious. And the NW... is more like the East than the Central, it would appear, though two of the three most smashing victories the Flames have achieved this season have been against the Central.

Anyway, has anyone noticed that there are a lot of parallels between the Flames right now and the Flames of three seasons ago? In late November & early December, things were grim. The Flames were losing, and going through that odd scenario where every time you thought they were losing the "right way" and about to break through, they would snap it not by actually winning, but by losing convincingly and depressingly.

At rock bottom, or thereabouts, I looked at their chances, and determined that (a) they were real but not great, and (b) the key was to stop losing so much (blinding insight, I know). Regulation losing streaks are season-killers. Shootout and OT losses feel bad, and are a missed opportunity, but you only lose a fraction of the ground on the pack.

The 07/08 Flames, after stopping the bleeding per the above with a W and a couple of OTLs, headed out on the road for some afternoon delight that saved their season. They still had some rough patches, but ended up playing their best playoff series since the lockout, and quite possibly would have upset the Sharks with some better goaltending.

Right now, the Flames need a few more bounces and a few more saves, and a dozen-or-so-game stretch with only a couple of regulation Ls. The pack is well within reach.

My motto's always been when it's right it's right, why wait until the middle of a cold dark night...

Go Flames.

Another instance of Colin Campbell becoming involved with Florida games?

2010-11-16T13:14:00.007-07:00

by Tyler Dellow

Well. That certainly got a little out of control. For all your hosting needs, I do not recommend Canadian Web Hosting. If you're tired of this Colin Campbell business, I recommend Mike Winters' fine cartoon below.

This all exploded so quickly that I didn't really have time to follow up on something that I wanted to follow up on with respect to the original post. While I was getting around to that, Dean Warren went on the Fan 590 today and was interviewed by Greg Brady. During the course of that conversation, he said, in part:

I'd called a penalty late in a game against Florida. Stephen Walkom was the director of officiating at the time and he called me the next day. He said "Mr. Campbell doesn't think it's a penalty." And I said, "Well, the guy ran him down from behind, the player got hit, went head first into the boards...I don't know how you can't call it a penalty...as a matter of fact, I kind of wondered 'Should I be giving a game misconduct as well as a penalty.?'"

I do know at the time, Stephen Walkom said 'Look, if I gotta listen to Colin Campbell anymore, I'm gonna slit my own wrists.' So, it kind of gives you an indication that Mr. Campbell was certainly ruling or making decisions on games involving Florida and his son's team.

The initial reaction to what Warren said has been guarded, in terms of people accepting what he's saying as true. That's understable given that the NHL has made its position clear - Colin Campbell does not get involved in this sort of stuff. Greg Wyshynski said that Warren's "...opinions and his recollections have to be taken within [the context of the dispute over his firing]. Elliotte Friedman, on Twitter, commented: "I don't believe it. Here's why I have trouble with Dean Warren claims: 1) in his own hearing vs NHL, judge did not believe Warren's testimony...and [t]oo many referees who are at odds with NHL/Campbell say there is no fire to favouritism issue."

Curiously, there was a comment that got slammed in the deluge of my website that pointed out a mistake I'd made in compiling a list of Dean Warren's games and what would appear to be a third instance of Campbell intervening in games involving his son. Strangely enough, if you read it with Warren's comment above in mind, the circumstances surrounding this instance fit perfectly with what Warren said.

This issue arose out of the email exchange referenced below, which the alternate chair prefaced with the following passage: "The first contact which occurred after Mr. Warren’s election to the OA executive was on October 23, 2006. The names of players, coaches, club officials and teams have been redacted. In the first email Mr. Walkom reports to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Murphy about the coaching he gave to Mr. Warren:"

Stephen Walkom to Colin Campbell, Mike Murphy 10/#/2006 12:32 PM

Just a few updates: spoke with [general manager] from [club] and general manager from [another club]. some concerns, different guys and different situations………. Spoke with Warren about the hit in [city] he felt he left his feet….told him all guys leave their feet but this player glided and took care in hitting the player legally…he understood and further was instructed to see the whole play and that players look for calls which is what happened on this play….in regard to [player] both officials have been spoken with and that open ice hits are generally allowed on one on one battles and for him to have two over called is the exception and not good….

Colin Campbell/NYC/NHL 10/#/2006 01:23PM
To “Stephen Walkom”
cc
Subject Warren

Are you trying to f____ with my head? Sending this guy back into …..after the …..call and others? Have you talked to him yet and have you seen the penalty he called on [player]? Should I call him? Talk to [another referee] he will tell you the horseshit game Warren had and how hard it was to work with him. This guy is in serious trouble. He will be in trouble as soon as [coach or general manager] sees him tonight…they will think you are shoving it up their ass. Maybe you should call [general manager] as a pre-emptive strike but talk to Warren first.

Stephen Walkom to: Colin Campbell 10/#/2006 01:26 PM

Spoke with [general manager] and spoke with dean ….

As "Qris", who writes "Pass it to Bulis" points out, when I did my piece of dot-connecting, I missed something:

It looks like there's another one. The first emails you posted regarding the incident in October have more details... while the dates have been hashed out, the correspondence is said in the ruling to have taken place on October 23: "The first contact which occurred after Mr. Warren’s election to the OA executive was on October 23, 2006."

This is big, because the email from Campbell says, "This guy is in serious trouble. He will be in trouble as soon as [coach or general manager] sees him tonight…they will think you are shoving it up their ass." That means it's referring to a game THAT NIGHT in which Dean Warren officiated. That would be this one, a game taking place in Florida. You omitted it in your schedule for Dean Warren.

This is pretty sexy because of this boxscore of the previous game, two days previously, between Atlanta and Florida.

As far as the timeline goes, we know the game that Campbell is referring to is the Oct. 23rd game, which means we know he's probably upset about a penalty in the previous game.

While Walkom's email says it's a "few updates," indicating it's not all on the same subject, the part mentioning Warren states: "Spoke with Warren about the hit in [city] he felt he left his feet….told him all guys leave their feet but this player glided and took care in hitting the player legally…he understood and further was instructed to see the whole play and that players look for calls which is what happened on this play"

Because he "felt he left his feet," the call was clearly one in which leaving one's feet would be a factor, yes? Thus, it's likely a boarding or roughing call. There were two such calls in the Oct. 21 game. One was a boarding call on Martin Gelinas.

The other was a roughing call on Gregory Campbell.

The only way I can think of to confirm this would be to find old video of the game. While what we have isn't definitive evidence, the call Campbell was upset about definitely happened during the Oct. 21st game between the Panthers and Thrashers, which leaves 14 possibilities. It was definitely one in which leaving your feet would be a factor. That likely only leaves two: the call on Gelinas and the call on Gregory Campbell.

Colby Cosh, in a comment that he emailed to me after he was unable to post it due to the firebombing of my website, pointed out the following:

Judging from the newspaper accounts of that 10/21/2006 game, the Gelinas call was the controversial one. Campbell's roughing penalty isn't mentioned, but Gelinas and Jacques Martin were livid about the late boarding penalty. From the Miami Herald:

...Florida's hopes came crashing down with 1:36 left as forward Martin Gelinas was called for boarding Vitaly Vishnevski.

The call, which coach Jacques Martin and Gelinas questioned, put Florida down a skater in the most crucial part of the game. ..."It's a tough call; we were battling hard," said Gelinas, his voice uncharacteristically rising as he spoke.

"I was coming at full speed, and [Vishnevski's] fumbling the puck. That's [tough] for the referee to understand that. Am I supposed to put the brake on and let him control the puck and move on? I don't know. I think it was borderline and it was a big game for us. It's unfortunate."

Said Martin: "That was an unfortunate call at the end. It really took away a chance for us. I think it was a questionable call, a judgment call. Marty just finished a check."

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the game that Campbell and Walkom are discussing is the game that occurred on October 21, 2006. All of the pieces fit and, again, it's not like there's a huge list of games from which to choose.

Which brings us up to yesterday. TSN obtained a statement from Bill Daly in which he said, in part:

Because of the potential for a conflict of interest, or more importantly a perceived conflict of interest, the League has implemented various structural protections that prohibit Colie from having any oversight or disciplinary authority relating to any game in which his son, Gregory, plays. Its always fair to question and criticize League decisions as being wrong, but not on the basis that they aren't justly and fairly arrived at."

Daly gave a similar statement to ESPN, saying:

"In the execution of those rigorous and challenging duties over 12 seasons, Colin has been thorough, thoughtful, professional and scrupulous; his integrity has been impeccable, and he has no role whatsoever in matters pertaining to games in which his son plays.

On the basis of this, don't know that there's anything up for dispute other than the contents of that conversation between Walkom and Campbell, something on which we have one side of the story. Everything other detail seems to be independently confirmed. In the 1:23 pm email, Campbell sends a profane message to Walkom, telling him to talk to Warren about the upcoming game. The schedule fits with the games mentioned. The incident mentioned in the schedule fits with the games. Walkom tells Campbell that he phoned Warren.

In short, there is no reason to think anything but that Walkom had phoned Warren at Campbell's direction, immediately in advance of Warren officiating a game involving Campbell's son. You don't even need Warren's story for this - it fits with the timeline set out in the emails and the decision. Warren's suggestion that he was told that Campbell didn't think that the incident in the first Florida game was a penalty has at least a ring of truth, given that Campbell says as much in his email. Did Walkom say: "Look, if I gotta listen to Colin Campbell anymore, I'm gonna slit my own wrists"? I don't know. At present, we have Warren saying that he did and nothing else to corroborate it.

To bring it back to the NHL itself, quite apart from the question of whether or not Walkom said what he is said to have said (and it would be interesting to know what, exactly, Gregory Campbell did to get that roughing penalty), this would seem to be what Bill Daly means when he says "...he has no role whatsoever in matters pertaining to games in which his son plays" and "...the League has implemented various structural protections that prohibit Colie from having any oversight or disciplinary authority relating to any game in which his son, Gregory, plays."

That's one way of putting it, I suppose.

The Edmonton Oilers are a grim spectacle

2010-11-11T10:49:00.002-07:00

(Click to enlarge)

Justice Delayed is A Contract You're Stuck With

2010-08-31T17:15:00.004-06:00

(I've written a ton of background on Khabibulin on my own site that I don't particularly feel like rehashing. It should be up sometime tomorrow; search Khabibulin if you're interested.)

One of the things that you don't really realize until you follow a truly horrible team that is an ongoing circus is that you can't really be certain that you won't take a vacation at precisely the wrong time. I figured nothing would really happen when I planned to leave the country in late August and early September and then, lo and behold, Nikolai Khabibulin decides to waive his right to a jury trial on his extreme DUI charge and have a trial by judge alone last Friday. When I step back from that sentence, I can't believe I just wrote it but that is the lot of the Oilers fan in the early days of the teens: hoping against hope that the middling group of bumblers that runs the club somehow stumbles into a way out of their worst mistakes and is lucky enough to avoid any other horrific gaffes with which they might somehow be inspired. That this is more rational than hoping that they get fired and replaced with competent management is too depressing to contemplate, so I try not to think about it.

A lot has happened in the past few days. I thought that the trial was straightforward enough - as I understand things from following the excellent @azc_mclellan on Twitter, Khabby's defence involved calling an expert to give evidence that his blood alcohol was actually .158 +/- 10%. The idea, as I understand it, was to establish that a BAC of below the .15 at which a DUI becomes an Extreme DUI (with more severe penalties) could not be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge didn't buy it (hopefully a copy of his reasons turn up somewhere so that we can learn why) and Khabby was convicted.

Over the next few days, we were inundated with a deluge of dumb commentary. The Oilers' statement came out first, so I'll start with it:

“The Edmonton Oilers acknowledge and respect the decision handed down today by the Scottsdale City Court to goaltender Nikolai Khabibulin. Both Nikolai and the Oilers organization recognize the severity of what has transpired. We plan on meeting with Nikolai, his agent and the National Hockey League in the near future.”

Once sentencing has been imposed on Tuesday, August 31st, Oilers General Manager Steve Tambellini will be available to the media.

Edmonton Oilers hockey is presented in part by the Rexall Family of Pharmacies, Molson Canadian, ATB Financial, TELUS, Cenovus Energy and Ford.

You wonder if maybe, just maybe, this wasn't a statement that you tag the list of sponsors onto. Particularly when one of those sponsors is Molson. Of course, if you're going to do it, why not go all the way? "Do you want to be like Nikolai Khabibulin? Spend your fat dividends from Cenovus Energy on a case of Molson, get drunk, drive while impaired in your Ford, make your call to your lawyer from your TELUS cellphone when you get arrested and then get your Antabuse from the Rexall Family of Pharmacies to help you with your problem!" But I digress.

The really curious part in that statement is the suggestion that both Nikolai and the Oilers recognize the severity of what has happened. While I'm not sure what that means - is "severity of what has transpired" the same as "seriousness of the conviction" - I'll come back to that a little later on but I wonder if Khabibulin knew that the Oilers were going to release a statement on his behalf in which he recognizes the severity of what happened.

While some of your more bleeding edge purveyors of Oilers news had kicked around the possibility of the Oilers attempting to void Khabibulin's contract if he was convicted months ago, the conviction itself appears to have been the signal for the more traditional types to start asking questions like "What happens next?" Jim Matheson came up with a column that opened with this:

You often get a second chance to make a first impression, but Edmonton Oilers goalie Nikolai Khabibulin is having a rough time of it.

That is most unintelligible sentence I've ever read. He not only mangles the common expression ("You never get a second chance to make a first impression") but I'm not sure what relationship the bit before the comma bears to the bit after it. It reads like something Steve Tambellini would say. He follows it up with something that I think has been the consensus amongst most people who've paid attention for at least a few months now:

There are clauses in standard players' contracts for conduct unbecoming to a team that theoretically could void a contract, although the Oilers weren't talking about that on Friday. They certainly aren't happy with Khabibulin's behaviour after he was pulled over in his black Ferrari Feb. 8 in Paradise Valley, a Scottsdale suburb. He faces jail time, possibly a fine and alcohol-related rehabilitation classes.

...

The agent doesn't believe a team would challenge the conduct clause over impaired driving. If a team did that, the NHL Players' Association would likely file a grievance.

He's quoting an anonymous agent there but the tenor seems to be that the contract probably can't be voided on morality grounds. I think that's probably right, although you never know. The column then proceeds to go back off the rails:

The long-time agent, who is also a lawyer, didn't know how a conviction would weigh on the goalie's ability to cross the border, for example, to perform his goaltending job. But Khabibulin is a professional athlete, who needs to travel from Canada to the U.S. regularly during the season. He would have good cause to need that to work.
"Usually in these situations there is a lot of bargaining that goes on," said the agent. "I don't know how it's going to work out, but the Americans are a lot stricter since 9/11."

There's a great scene in The Hangover where Zach Galafanakis is explaining that counting cards isn't illegal, it's just frowned upon, like masturbating on an airplane. When someone points out that that is also illegal, he replies "Sure, since 9/11. Fucking Bin Laden." The reference to 9/11 is somewhat relevant here, so it's not quite that bad, but it still misses a key issue: is the guy allowed in Canada anymore? Who knows. There's a lot to suggest that that's a real concern but the question apparently doesn't even come to Matheson's mind.

Robin Brownlee came up with this:

While some fans see this conviction as a loophole that might allow the Oilers to duck out of the lousy contract they signed Khabibulin to, that talk is opportunism at its lowest. Likewise, those mounting a convenient moral high horse are talking out their backsides.
Would fans in the weasel-out-of-the-deal camp be looking for the Oilers to dump the contracts of, say, Ales Hemsky or Taylor Hall, based on exactly the same circumstances and convictions?
Not a chance.

As I think I've made clear, I'm not really interested in the morality of Khabby's DUI. It was, as far as we know, a one time mistake that he made. I don't think it does or should render him unemployable. I'm not sure, however, that you can simply handwave away the possibility of taking the opportunity to get rid of him. As speeds pointed out (and Brownlee conceded) in the comments to the post, nobody questions whether it's fair to take advantage of the buyout provisions and get rid of someone like Robert Nilsson for 1/3 of the contract price. That's what his CBA and his deal provide for. If Khabibulin's deal has a similar out (something that remains to possibly be seen) and it's advantageous for the Oilers to get rid of him that way, it's hard to see how that's any different.

Brownlee, like John MacKinnon in a column that came later, draws a comparison between Khabibulin's situation and the recent incident in which the Edmonton Capitals' manager went on a fairly venemous tirade against a gay umpire. Brownlee says:

If Tambellini, who'll address the media Tuesday, and the Oilers want to get out in front of this, they should handle Khabibulin along the same tactful lines as they did in the incident in which Edmonton Capitals manager Brent Bowers spewed venom at gay umpire Bill Vanraaphorst.

...
If I was the Oilers, the next step would be to approach Khabibulin and see if he'd be willing to make amends beyond his jail sentence and show remorse, perhaps by speaking out against drunk driving.
That could be by making appearances on behalf of MADD or simply by taking on speaking engagements with fans or school-aged youngsters in the community. Like it or not, the actions, be they good or bad, of NHL players like Khabibulin carry a lot of weight with fans.
I can't say I know Khabibulin well and if he'd be comfortable with taking on something like that, but something along those lines would certainly be a way of mending fences -- like the Oilers did by having Vanraaphorst tell his story in Edmonton.

While I sort of see what Brownlee's driving at here, even if I don't agree, I'm also left with the impression that he sees some sort of moral equivalency between "being gay" and "driving with a BAC of 0.164." I assume that was unintentional but the parallel doesn't quite work. You need to compare Khabibulin to Bowers...who got fired.

John MacKinnon of the Edmonton Journal expresses himself a lot more explicitly. First, he correctly identifies Khabibulin as being in the role of Brent Bowers. Then, he proceeds to clearly state that bigoted remarks are more serious than driving with a BAC of 0.164:

Recently, the baseball Capitals dealt thoughtfully and skilfully with the issue of homophobia after then-manager Brent Bowers directed a vicious tirade at openly gay umpire Billy Van Raaphorst during a Golden Baseball League game in Fullerton, Calif., on July 31.
At the Oilers request, Van Raaphorst came to Edmonton, where he spoke about diversity issues with Katz Group employees, both baseball and hockey. Van Raaphorst met with the Capitals players, as well as a variety of diversity-focused community groups.
It was a productive first step in an in-house diversity program that Oilers president Patrick LaForge pledged the organization will undertake, in light of the since-dismissed Bowers's toxic behaviour.
Pending sentencing, of course, Khabibulin's DUI conviction does not seem to be that extreme. Thankfully, no one was hurt as a result of his driving his black Ferrari up to 112 km/h in a 64-km/h zone while having a blood-alcohol content of .164, more than twice the legal limit.
But in a sport that has lost the likes of Tim Horton, Pelle Lindbergh, Steve Chiasson and others to drunken driving, Khabibulin's indiscretion cannot merely be shrugged off.

Again, I don't really see Khabibulin's impaired as a morality issue - first time offender etc - and I wouldn't judge his character because of it. I am mystified though, as to how one can come to the conclusion that his DUI conviction is less extreme than calling someone a faggot and asking whether he enjoys certain sexual positions. Whatever you think of Bowers comments, nobody was put at risk of death because of them. I can't imagine the thought process by which you determine that the comments are the more extreme offence.

It remains a serious matter and unacceptable, obviously, and the Oilers have to be seen to be doing the right thing here.

This is a minor quibble, but I'd suggest that it would be better if they actually did the right thing, whatever that might be, regardless of perception. The rest of MacKinnon's column is a bunch of piffle about the Oilers' role in the community and how Khabibulin is a role model. That debate is nothing but cliches at this point but, reading it, I'm left feeling sort of sorry for MacKinnon that he's a middle aged man who believes that hockey teams have some mandate other than the satisfaction of the ego and financial interests of their owners. If Khabibulin does public service announcements about not drinking and driving (and frankly, if I was him, I'd refuse - I'm sure he feels he's endured more than enough public humiliation without appearing in some amateurish PSA), it will be because the Oilers calculate that it's in their interest that he does so, not because of the faith placed in them by young lads like John MacKinnon.

Finally David Staples of the Journal (does the Edmonton Sun even write about hockey anymore or do they just leave it to their Toronto writers to break Oiler stories?) also seems to have missed the point. He sort of muddles the moral question together with the question of what is best for the Oilers as a hockey team, abandons the second half of the question and then arrives here:

It's time for Khabibulin to change his thinking about drinking and driving. If he fails to do so, harsher penalties will be warranted. But I can't see how him losing his job right now for this drinking-related crime will help anyone: him, his family, his employer, his community or his league.

I pointed out that he's probably being paid about 400% of his value and, therefore, cutting him would certainly help his employer. As for him, his family, his community and the league, while I don't wish them ill, I don't think that his contract being terminated by the Oilers would really hurt any of them and I don't really care about those entities that much. David clarified in his own comments:

More than that, the Oilers already have a rep for bad and weird dealings, what with Comrie in 2003, then the Pronger and Heatley fiascos. They do not need a fight with the NHLPA, when a program is in place to deal with alochol abuse. The Oilers would likely be violating that league program by trying to terminate this deal.
It's certainly not in the spirit of that program, or consistent with humane treatment from an employer with a valued employee.

By failing to distinguish between the moral question ("Should the Oilers do something to help Khabibulin, if he needs help of some sort that he can't get on his own?") and the legal question ("Is there a way for the Oilers to get out of this asinine contract?"), David is able to completely dodge the second question. You can, of course, help Khabibulin get whatever help he might need (if he needs any) without paying him for the next three years.

In any event, David seems to have decided that Khabibulin has an alcohol abuse problem, which is a leap in logic all of its own. He also says that the Oilers would likely be violating the league's substance abuse program if they terminated Khabibulin's contract. Again, because he's merged the legal and moral questions, he's missed the fact that there are various scenarios: Khabibulin unable to play because he's in jail is not necessarily the same thing as Khabibulin unable to play because he has a booze problem.

With the punditry complete, the momentous day came. Unlike the 60-90 days predicted by some (on what basis, I have no idea), Khabibulin got the minimum sentence - thirty days in jail and various fines and counselling. There was a twist though, afterwards - his lawyer announced that he's filed a notice of appeal. This is, I think, the end of the game as far as voiding his contract goes. Appeals generally take some time to make their way through to a hearing - I have a follower on Twitter who does appellate work in California who'd be more familiar with American timelines than I am and he suggested that it wouldn't be unreasonable for this appeal not to be heard before April of next year. You can also abandon an appeal so, in Khabby's case, he could withdraw his appeal as soon as the Oilers' season is finished, in April. He would have to report to jail at that time.

The only realistic shot, as far as I can tell, was having him miss some time while he dealt with the fallout from this. If he can put an appeal into next summer, he can withdraw it then if he wants and serve his jail time in the summer. It's a tactical thing but it's well done. Provided he's available to the Oilers from the day training camp opens to the day that their season is done, they can't make the argument to terminate his deal on the basis of a failure to be available to them and they're left with the much more nebulous argument that he somehow tarnished the team's image. Predictably, Steve Tambellini offered a "No comment" when asked about attempting to void Khabibulin's deal that is a) likely to fuel speculation that the Oilers will attempt to do it, b) seemingly at odds with their contention that Khabibulin is the kind of goalie who is the best player on the team and c) if my California lawyer follower is accurate, probably a sure loser of a grievance if they do pursue it.

What we don't know, and we'll probably never know, is the extent to which the Oilers were serious about taking a run at him if they got the chance to do so. There are some indications at least that Khabibulin perceives that they were interested in doing so. Waiving the right to jury trial despite having previously indicated he wanted one when he couldn't have a jury trial before training camp suggests that. While I haven't seen the reasons of the judge from the trial yet, I've got my doubts that he's got any really solid grounds of appeal - unless the judge botched things, this was a pretty straightforward question of fact trial. One would think as well that, if he had to do 30 days in jail and he could either miss camp or risk not being available, however small that risk might be, during the season, that the Oilers would prefer he not appeal and risk serving his sentence in February or March.

In addition, and perhaps most curiously, it looks like something changed between Friday night and today. After the trial, the Oilers were speaking for Khabibulin. Today, Tambellini was expressing regret that he couldn't speak about the matter because it was on appeal. If the Oilers and Khabibulin were on the same page, one expects that the Oilers would have known he was considering an appeal and that they would have avoided comment. They look sort of foolish having said that Khabibulin recognizes the severity of what has transpired, and not just because of the awkward phrasing, given that he's now appealing.

In the end though, only one thing matters: Dan Tencer looks to have had it right all along. Nikolai Khabibulin will, barring any immigration problems, be at camp on September 17, just as Tencer told us he would.

ianal

2010-07-26T23:16:00.001-06:00

Let's walk through the relevant part of the CBA as it pertains to the Kovalchuk situation. My own comments are {in italics}.

{Note that I've cut out some sentences below that aren't pertinent to the situation at hand. This was an SPC (standard player contract) that was rejected -- not an offer sheet -- and the NHLPA disputed the rejection in a timely manner. Full original text is at NHL.com and NHLPA.com}

**********

11.6 Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets; Subsequent Challenge and/or De- Registration of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets.

(a) Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets. In the case of an SPC that is filed and rejected by the League, the following rules and procedures shall apply:

(i) If an SPC is rejected: (A) because it results in the signing Club exceeding the Upper Limit, or (B) because it does not comply with the Maximum Player Salary or (C) because it is or involves a Circumvention of either the Club's Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary:

...then such dispute over that rejection shall be both heard and decided by the Arbitrator within 48 hours of such referral, during which period the Player shall not be entitled to play under such SPC, and shall not be entitled to any of the rights and benefits provided for under such SPC, pending a resolution of such grievance by the Arbitrator.

(ii) If an SPC is rejected for reasons other than those specified in (i) above:

...then the Player shall be entitled to play under such SPC, and shall be entitled to all of the rights and benefits provided for under such SPC, pending a resolution of such grievance by the Arbitrator.

{So here we have two distinct categories of "rejection" with substantially different routes forward. It's easy to envision that when they were drafting the CBA, the three items under category (i) -- certainly A&B -- were assumed to be fairly cut & dried math determinations. As such, the drafters called for (very) speedy arbitration with everything "on hold" pending the ruling. Category (ii) covers everything else. Again, it's easy to imagine the drafters of the CBA saying, "We haven't the imagination to identify all the reasons why a SPC might be rejected; the issue might be complex, and impossible to arbitrate in 2 days or 2 weeks; we can't leave everything in total limbo during this period."}

(iii) If the Arbitrator sustains the League's rejection of any such SPC pursuant to subsection (i) above, then the Arbitrator shall order that the rejected SPC be deemed null and void ab initio (i.e., the Player's Free Agency and/or contractual status shall revert to the status he held prior to signing his SPC)

{That's straightforward enough, then. If the NHL rejects a SPC for reason i-A/i-B/i-C, and the arbitrator backs them up, then the contract is dead. Player goes back to being a UFA, or RFA, or 'player in the final year of his contract with no extension in place'. As we see below, though, that is not the case if the SPC had been rejected for some other, "category (ii)" reason.}

(iv) If the Arbitrator sustains the League's rejection of any such SPC pursuant to subsection (ii) above, then the Arbitrator shall reform the SPC such that it conforms to the requirements of this
Agreement, in a manner such that the term of the SPC shall not be modified and the aggregate compensation to be paid to the Player pursuant to the SPC shall, to the extent possible, be preserved. In such event, immediately upon the issuance of the Arbitrator's decision, the SPC shall for all purposes be deemed to be amended in accordance therewith and the Player shall be eligible to play. The Player and Club shall be free to agree on a different conforming SPC within three (3) days.

**********

Catch all that last part? "Term... shall not be modified... aggregate compensation... shall... be preserved... SPC shall... be deemed to be amended..." The short version would seem to be that even if the arbitrator sides with the NHL, his/her job is then to make the smallest possible modifications to the deal to make it CBA-compliant. And then, poof, that's the official deal, unless both team and player see it in their mutual interest to agree on further or different changes within the proceeding 3 days.

Now: I had the distinct impression, based on NHL rhetoric via the hockey media (I have not parsed old quotes), that the Bettman/Daly objection to these contracts was inherent to the deals themselves. Yes, the purpose of these deals' structures is to reduce the cap hit for star players, but I never got the idea that the legitimacy of the deals was entirely dependent on which club signed it, and what their cap position is.

But! Mirtle reports that the NHL rejected Kovalchuk's SPC because of reason (i)(C) above, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that, particularly because we keep hearing about Kovalchuk's limbo, which would seem to indicate (per part iii) that his contract will be cancelled outright if the arbitrator backs up the NHL.

That is, the NHL rejected it specifically because it attempts to circumvent New Jersey's upper limit, and not because of some "other" reason. Which brings up so many questions...

If the Islanders -- currently ~$27M below the cap -- had signed Kovalchuk to this contract, it would have been registered? Really? That's what this means.
If the Islanders had signed him to this contract, what would have happened if, after the contract was registered, they then traded him to New Jersey for a 2012 1st-round draft pick?
Let's say the Devils had waited until August 1st to trade for Arnott, and held off on signing Tallinder. Their cap hit last Tuesday would have been much lower. Would the Kovy signing still have been a circumvention?
What if the Devils had signed him first thing on July 1, and *then* signed Tallinder and Volchenkov. Would Kovy's contract still have been a circumvention?
Since the NHL considers this contract to be circumventing the Devils' upper limit, what does the NHL consider to be the "true" average annual $$ value of the deal? They must have a figure, or they could not possibly have rejected on the basis of 11.6(a)(i)(C).

Also, note the scenarios if Mirtle has been misled and the NHL rejected it on some other basis. If the arbitrator sides with the PA, fine, the original contract is valid. If the arbitrator sides with the NHL, he/she reforms the contract. And per (iv) above,

the term stays the same
total $$ stays the same, as much as possible
which means it should still be a 17-year, $102M contract
a $6M/year cap hit
but with less front-loading
which sucks for Kovalchuk, who might want to retire when he's 38 or 40, and now will have less $$ in his pocket
but is good for the Devils, for the same reason. Maybe Lou's still got it after all.

UPDATE: both Mirtle in the comments and seemingly this Kings blogger don't believe that a part (i)(C) rejection hangs on evidence of the club's actual cap situation, i.e. you can be convicted of circumventing the upper limit without coming within millions of dollars of actually doing so. That sounds snarky, but that's not the intent -- see my comment #2 below.

Cost certainty

2010-07-22T16:39:00.002-06:00

The chatter continues about Ilya Kovalchuk, cap circumvention, and lifetime contracts with phony-baloney years tacked on to the end, but amazingly, that’s not the biggest CBA failure that was exposed this week. That happened yesterday, when Oilers owner Daryl Katz stood up in front of Edmonton city council and informed them that hockey-related revenues are not sufficient to operate an NHL team sustainably.

The NHL and its owners locked the players out for a full season because of the critical, non-negotiable imperative that player salaries needed to be indexed to league revenues. This isn’t just something I read into Gary Bettman’s public comments, or something that I assumed but was never stated. This was drilled into the fans over and over by Bettman and Daly, by numerous owners, and by sympathetic media. Cost certainty. Salaries would track revenues, down to the dollar.

Lots of other teams may receive concert revenues or operate non-hockey businesses, but the success or failure of those ventures do not impact player salary expenses – which are contractually determined by hockey-related revenue only – nor other hockey expenses like executive salaries, scouting, travel, etc. which clearly have no relationship to (e.g.) concert revenues.

It's just so bloody galling. I never for a second believed the lockout fairy tales about more affordable tickets, nor did (do) I think the 2005 CBA was good for the league as a whole, on balance. I thought I had a healthy amount of skepticism towards the motives of the very wealthy & successful people who own and run the NHL. But in 2005, I never would have anticipated an owner coming out and saying, Hey, sure we had a year-long lockout to limit player costs to a fixed percentage of hockey revenue, but that doesn’t mean hockey revenue is sufficient to run a team.

**********

Katz Group chief financial officer Paul Marcaccio said owner Daryl Katz has subsidized the Oilers by several million dollars in each of the last two years because revenues are too low.

Unlike other NHL clubs, they don't receive concert and other non-hockey revenue from their home at Rexall Place, he said.

"If professional hockey in Edmonton is going to be sustainable, something has to change, regardless of who owns the team," he said.

"Many factors, such as the size of our market, cannot be helped ... Others can only be addressed by a new arena and having the same operating model as the Calgary Flames and all other NHL teams."

Round and round the mulberry bush. In conclusion, if you went to bat for the owners during the lockout, now would be a good time to hang your head in shame. Also, if you picture the "several million dollars" in the first quoted sentence above as "exactly 3.75 million dollars", it's good for a laugh.

Why Downtown?

2010-07-21T19:22:00.004-06:00

For any who are interested, I will now be writing about the downtown arena project at Why Downtown? This way, I can stick to talking about hockey here, just like so many of you asked...

...

...

$100 says the EOCF has never held a bake sale, or contemplated it

2010-04-25T23:47:00.002-06:00

Look, I really can't get enough of these stories that make the Oilers look bad, and kudos to the reporter for his doozy of a quote from Edmonton Oilers Community Foundation's Natalie Minckler that finishes the piece. But the really educational part of the piece for me was this:

Many of the typical fundraising activities of sports foundations like Team Up come with big overhead.

Every dollar that comes in from game night 50/50 draws — lotteries that direct half the ticket sale proceeds to the charity and the other half to a winning ticket holder — only bring in 40 to 45 cents on the dollar, says [MLSE's Ken] Nonomura.

“It has the lowest net and highest expenses against it. … From the 50 cents we’re getting, we have to pay for the lottery licenses, the ticket printing and … someone to manage the program. It’s a high cost.”

I think this illustrates the drawback of this method of evaluating charities. Smushing fundraising and administration costs together like they're the same thing isn't a great idea, and likewise, not all fundraising costs are the same. The 50/50 draw is a wildly successful method for getting middle class contributions to charity. When the accountant early in the piece says “As community investments go, there are much better places to put your charitable dollars", well, yeah, but, that's a bit of a silly way of looking at it, no? Most importantly, it's pretty cussing transparent to every 'donor' that 50% of the money is NOT going to charity. If a charitable organization I supported was offered the chance to run the 50/50 at Edmonton Eskimos games, and said, "No, sorry, because 55% of the intake goes towards costs", I'd be furious.

P.S. I am not a crank

2010-04-16T12:25:00.001-06:00

"It's been no secret that Sheldon wants out of Edmonton. I've had numerous meetings with him over the last year I would say, mostly all revolving around the fact that he wants to be traded. And that's fine. The situation presents clarity for us on who we have to move, how we have to move to go forward. [...]"

"I want people that love to play in Edmonton," he emphasized. "This is an incredible hockey market. How can you not respect the people here that love this hockey club?

"Someone can have success in another market but you don't know until he gets in here. That's why I keep going back to if you can't develop your own core of expectations of what an Oiler truly is and respect for that logo, this city, then you're always going to be spinning your wheels."

Dear Mr. Tambourine Man,

As someone who happily lives in your city (or "market") but has no affection at all for your team, will you please stop with the blatant attempts to transfer the stench of your failure onto this fine municipality? Player dissatisfaction with your shitty organization is not equivalent to dissatisfaction with Edmonton. And while I understand that self-interest is a powerful incentive, it is nevertheless despicable that you and your equally hapless predecessors and colleagues continue to deliberately blur that line.

Regards,

Matt

2010-03-26T20:52:00.000-06:00

Man vs. Animal

2010-03-23T08:24:00.002-06:00

From the Globe & Mail yesterday, two competing views on Kevin Weekes' performance as a HNiC analyst. Here's one:

When at a loss for insight, Weekes reverts to the hockey-platitude bank: “He was hungry, he wanted that puck... try to focus on the positives... good desperation for Roberto Luongo... the Canucks stepping on the gas pedal, going for the jugular.”

The Nuke LaLoosh bromides are what often happens when you're playing hockey games for 11 years instead of watching them on TV.

Here's the other:

When Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo let in three goals in rapid succession, Weekes dwelt on the technical reasons for the goals instead of concentrating on the real story – is Luongo enough of a clutch goalie for Vancouver to win a Stanley Cup?

I'm not a huge fan (yet?), but if Kevin Weekes is annoying Bruce Dowbiggin with his coachspeak one the one hand, and Bruce Dowbiggin with his bromides on the other, he's probably doing something right.

2010-03-15T22:29:00.004-06:00

It truly is too early for a eulogy on the Flames season -- there's six WC teams that would switch places with them right now -- but Eff-Me do I hate the Sutters right now.

As far as I can tell, Brent is Craig Hartsburg, though with the good fortune of having more talented pro teams. Every fan of just about every team gets frustrated with the "hang back and get railed when you have a lead" strategy (it's not rare), but the Flames' Prevent D this season is the worst and most flaccid I can remember seeing. Brent's strength is supposed to be Team D, and yet...

Despite Kipper having been much, much better this season (much), the team is presently a longshot to make playoffs, instead of barely falling out of a division title. And it's not like you can blame crap luck: they tied 3 or 4 games in the early season with the goalie pulled, i.e. they pulled ~6 points out of the ether.

The team hasn't been nearly as good this year. That falls on the coach and GM.

UPDATE, minutes later: What I always liked about Darryl is his belief -- by action if not by grunt -- that you can improve on the fly. Iginla never had to suffer the indignity of a teardown & rebuild during his prime years, and I still think the Phaneuf trade was a good one in isolation.

But ~~right around~~ exactly on 2009 Trade Deadline, he crossed the Line. The one between "Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" and "Trade every young, moderately paid player I have, and also draft picks, including our #1 for the 1st time, in a desperate attempt to maybe possibly be slightly better for the stretch and playoffs". My present thought is that if he's not fired after this season (which I'm not opining on right now), he probably will be after the team and fans suffer through Staios and Kotalik all next season.

Injured by Matt Cooke

2010-03-11T12:34:00.000-07:00

Daymond Langkow, November 2007 -- concussion (hit from behind into boards)

James Wisniewski, November 2007 -- concussion, face stitches (hit from behind into boards)

Petteri Nummelin, November 2007 -- concussion, broken nose (hit from behind into boards)

Scott Walker, January 2009 -- concussion

Zach Bogosian, March 2009 -- knee

Eric Cole, May 2009 -- knee

Shean Donovan, November 2009 -- torn ACL

Artem Anisimov, November 2009 -- "bell rung"

This is all before Marc Savard, March 2010, and I doubt it's exhaustive (if I missed any, please advise in the Comments).

My take on "respect" is that, both in the old days and today, the large majority of players have it for one another, and a notable few do not. Matt Cooke is one of those few. He is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt -- indeed, if there's one person who you could justify suspending for intent to injure on a legal hit, it's him -- and anyone who's ever employed him, or defended him in earnest, is part of the problem.

March

2010-03-02T21:27:00.000-07:00

So Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Matt and I are taking off to Phoenix for 4 days & 4 nights.

Going to hit the beginning of spring training -- check out the Giants' place in Scottsdale, and maybe the new Indians/Royals place out in Surprise or the new Dodgers palace.

Have basketball tickets to UCLA at Arizona State. Somehow ASU is 2nd in the Pac-10, yet has to win out just to get on the March Madness bubble. When Sacamano and I used to fill in tourney brackets back in the day, we always picked the upset when the Pac-10 team was a higher seed, but I don't know the conference was ever in this bad a shape.

Might head out to the Greyhound Park, if not for the dog racing then the swap meet. Will hit some of the joints from Diners, Drive-Ins & Dives.

Might, might go out to Glendale for hockey Thursday night. I know we can get tickets, and I know they're not expensive, but we have a lot planned, and as I understand the complaints, Jobing.com arena is about 2-1/2 hours from downtown Phoenix.

Observation #1: there's a hell of a lot more to do in Arizona in the winter than in Alberta.
Observation #2: the Flames have three games while I'm gone, and if they lose them all, they'll be just about effectively eliminated by the time I get home.

I said my piece about their chances just before the break (and still feel the same way), but the fact is, with where they are in the standings, and the number of teams right with them or right below them, even a 1-week losing streak puts them in a hell of a spot.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if Sutter manages to do anything else to improve the club tomorrow, but I think they have a good shot at surprising some people with the guys they have now. Go Flames.

Flames Game Night

2010-02-13T20:10:00.000-07:00

This is David Moss. He returns from injury tonight, and he's going to save the Flames' season.

His health, and Bourque's health come March 1, and the addition of the new forwards will -- in the absence of some really rotten luck -- give them a good shot versus a tougher sked over the final 20 games, and propel them into the playoffs on a nice roll.

And by all rights, it should start tonight, with a good thumping of the Ducks. Say 4-1? Sure. Go Flames.

Friday Baseball Standings

2010-02-12T15:34:00.002-07:00

(Click to Enlarge)

Mike W's art therapy

2010-02-10T17:55:00.002-07:00

(Click to enlarge)
Sometimes when I get mad at things I express myself though ART!

Flames Game (Brand New) Day

2010-02-01T18:43:00.001-07:00

I'd like to be excited about tonight's game -- first game of the rest of the season and all, see if Stajan and White are any good (not too worried about Hagman), etc.

But this Kotalik thing is hanging like a dark cloud. In a rather stunning development, the MSM, bloggers, and commenters seem to be unanimous that acquiring Ales Kotalik makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.

The only thing close to a defense of Sutter I've seen was Puck Daddy Hisself last night: a 1998-era "Since Olli's leaving you might as well get something for him" argument that I couldn't disagree with more. I dislike Jokinen a LOT -- I often recall an old Cosh 'joke' about once being ready to shoot Igor Ulanov and bill Igor's parents for the ammunition -- but there's no way that Kotalik + Higgins is a big upgrade over Jokinen + Prust for the remainder of this season.

And as for the two seasons after this one, well,

[$5.5M cap space] >>>[ $2.5M cap space] + [Healthy Scratch on one of the few teams that has as much trouble scoring as Calgary]

So anyway, uh, Go Flames!

Traded Phaneuf

2010-01-31T11:07:00.002-07:00

The die was cast at the end of June 2009. Darryl Sutter may have hoped that paying both J-Bo and Dion $6.5M/yr for years to come was a good plan, but it wasn't; 50+ games this season have shown fairly clearly that it wasn't; and fortunately for we Flames fans, Sutter has acknowledged that it wasn't and acted.

I'm not at all excited to see Phaneuf go. And Stajan, White, and Hagman don't make anyone's hearts skip a beat. But this was a necessary move. I'd say there's very little doubt that it makes them better right now, and it gives them the opportunity to be better in the seasons going forward.

The only way this trade could have been better is if it was basically straight up for a quality young forward (Perry, Semin, that type of thing), but Phaneuf just hasn't been good enough lately to make something like that happen.

It's probably about the best move Sutter could have made. Yes, it was to clean up his own mess, but the alternative to that -- not cleaning up his own messes -- sucks much worse.

Sometimes the kernel just doesn't pop

2010-01-30T22:46:00.003-07:00

For quite a few years, Brent Krahn was the Flames' most important goalie prospect. I often used to think -- as recently as the 06/07 season -- that it wouldn't be so bad if a little injury gave him the opportunity to show his stuff for a couple of weeks, or that maybe the big club should install him as the backup and give him periodic starts. He wasn't setting the minors on fire or anything, but at least then we'd know what we had, right!

But seeing the Oilers for the last couple months now, I have a good idea how that would have went.

Well, it needs SOME kind of gloss

2010-01-28T22:15:00.002-07:00

As I just tweeted, I propose that Saturday night's Battle of Alberta -- where the combatants have a combined 21-game losing streak -- be dubbed, "Keenan and MacT Appreciation Night". Any chance this catches on?

This I Believe: Winter 2010

2010-01-27T14:50:00.001-07:00

Johnson wouldn't even acknowledge that ten consecutive losses constituted a slump. Trying to keep his poise as everybody around him lost theirs, Johnson commented: "You say to yourself, let's go back to the time when we were successful. What did we do differently? For the six weeks when we lost only two games, we were getting some breaks, we were getting some timely goals, and our goaltending was outstanding. Now, all of a sudden, we're not getting many goals, our defense is too tentative, and we're not getting good goaltending. We're in a slump because people keep telling us we're in a slump. People tell you you're playing badly and after a while, you start to believe it. People tell you you're playing great and you believe that, too. What do we need? We need to recapture the winning feeling. And the only way to do that is to win a game."

The wisdom of the late Badger Bob Johnson, coming just before rock bottom: the 85-86 Flames 11th straight loss, to the Hartford Whalers(!) at home (!!) by a score of 9-1(!!!).

The Flames have problems, and they're not a great team, but, they aren't this bad. They just aren't. Their best game of the season was the game before this losing streak started, a shootout win over the Canucks in which they led 33-11 on the shot clock late in the 3rd. Their 2nd best game of the season was probably the game after that -- Loss #1 of this streak -- where Craig Anderson robbed them blind, over and over.

I think GlenX needs a couple of skill plays to go right for him, to get the Scoreface back. Hopefully David Moss -- playoff bubble be damned -- will take the time to heal properly, so that he can be the dominant-looking player he was last season and right up until he left the lineup in October. Because since he came back, he's been a shadow of himself. But also, they need another good hockey player up front.

**Which reminds me: the #1 Google result for 'Trade Phaneuf' is this post from November. Not much to apologize for there, although time seems to be indicating that JBo is not actually in the same league offensively as Phaneuf.

**Kovalchuk: it really seems to me like the Blackhawks are the sensible place for him to go, for all parties. The conventional wisdom seems to be that teams who are interested in him for the long term will be willing to part with more than teams who are 'merely' interested in a rental, but I'm not sure of this at all.

Chicago has a cap problem for next season. If we make the reasonable assumptions that (A) Brian Campbell is untradeable, and (B) cutting Brent Sopel isn't gonna get it done, cap-wise, then we are stuck with the reality that, at some point, the Hawks are going to have to get rid of a good player who is worth his contract -- a guy they don't want to get rid of. So think of it this way:
- they can't afford Kovalchuk next season
- they can't afford Kris Versteeg next season
- they have a better chance winning the 2010 Stanley Cup with Kovalchuk than Versteeg

That's it. Maybe it's Versteeg, Buff-lynn and a pick; maybe Barker, Skille, and a pick; maybe a veteran D comes along with Ilya; who knows. From the Thrashers side, they get an young yet established quality NHL player on a reasonable deal, in addition to the usual 'popcorn in the pot'. Which really is not a very likely return from any other suitors.

As for Kovalchuk himself, it's a great situation. He's auditioning for a mega-contract on a good team with good teammates, and he doesn't have to deal with serious* questions about whether he'd like to stay or get out there as a UFA. (*Of course they'll come up anyway, especially if he and the Hawks have success, but his rental-ness under this scenario could not be more clear.)

**Steve Tambellini Likes Assessing is my favourite post I've read in a while. T-Bone, then Willis:

"The first step is getting through this period as far as the assessment of people who truly want to be an Oiler and get to the next level. That involves an evaluation of character, skill, talent, courage, everything.[...]"

...when Steve Tambellini talks about assessing the players he has, it’s either a null statement or the mark of a fool; he’s been assessing what is essentially the same roster for a season and a half now. If he doesn’t know what he has after more than 130 games of failure by his organization, it’s just one more indication that he’s woefully unequipped to be the man in charge of an NHL franchise.

A related thought: expressions of confidence (extreme confidence!) are intended as reassurance, but do they ever, in fact, serve to reassure? "Oh, they're extremely confident, well then, I'll relax now. Nothing to do but sit back and wait for the multiple Stanleys."

**I was going to write something a bit lengthier about Blair, Laraque, et al, but there's really just the one point I wanted to make.

Georges Laraque's biggest problem, when being considered by the likes of Jeff Blair, is that he enjoys the celebrity and notoriety that comes with his job. He doesn't begrudgingly put up with it; he doesn't quietly accept it as "part of the package". He is a genuinely nice, generous person who, for his own reasons, finds the reality of people bugging him for his time, money, and autograph to be a feature, not a bug, of being a recognizable pro athlete. He likes the attention... he must be a phony! Sure, he does a lot of charitable work, but he thrives on the recognition... so it doesn't really count.

I think that's what's going on with Blair's critique. He's like the self-styled environmentalist who worries more about your take on catastrophic global climate change and the bags you take to Safeway than your actual impact on the planet. Or the zealot who's more interested in having you accept Jesus as your personal saviour than in influencing your behaviour or choices in any way. There's a proper way to behave, you know.

**I think that tonight Calgary beats Phoenix, the Oilers beat St. Loo, and both teams roll into Saturday's final BoA of the season on winning streaks. Go Flames.

Flames Game Night

2010-01-09T17:01:00.003-07:00

Three years and one week ago, on January 2nd, 2007, the Flames played the Canucks (in Calgary). In that game, Alexandre Burrows burned Kipper pretty good on a deke, and scored his 1st goal of the 2006-2007 season. In January. It was his 39th game of the season; his first goal in 48 games.

I like that Burrows a lot more than the one who scores a hat trick every game. Come back, please, starting tonight (8PM MT, HNiC). Go Flames.

Line of the Day

2010-01-06T17:45:00.002-07:00

"I think what people really mean when they say 'I don’t go by numbers,' is 'I don’t go by YOUR numbers.'"
--Joe Posnanski

Sounds about right.

Canada's B Team

2009-12-30T11:00:00.002-07:00

(Inspired by discussions here)

Smyth-Lecavalier-St.Louis
Carter-Savard-Cammalleri
B.Richards-Spezza-Doan
Penner-Sharp-Gagne

Bouwmeester-Green
Regehr-Phaneuf
Robidas-Mitchell

Roloson
Giguere/Mason

Looks solid, no?

Standings! Battle Night! Olympics!

2009-12-28T19:05:00.000-07:00

**Check out this quote from the Associated Press recap of last year's New Year's Eve tilt:

“We played a pretty good game with the exception of our inability to be able to kill a penalty,” Edmonton coach Craig MacTavish said. “That’s killed us all year long. It killed us again tonight. We’ve got to find a way or find some new guys who can kill penalties.”

How's progress going on that, er, Coach?

**Olympic roster (Canada, Men's) thoughts:

Brodeur, Luongo, Fleury: sure. I'd actually take Roloson instead of Fleury -- the guy has played well, consistently, for a season and a half now -- but since he's never going to play, why does it matter?!? *COUGH* Conkannen
There seems to be an awful lot of disagreement as to who the "locks" are on D. My must-haves are Pronger and Keith, and that's all. Maybe Niedermayer, just because the guy has led as charmed a hockey life as has ever been lived.
Past that, I'm fairly agnostic on who makes up the rest of the main six. Boyle is a nice player, but not indispensable and certainly not underrated. Bouwmeester can do a lot, but isn't the best at anything (apart from maybe high-minute fitness, which just isn't a requirement for this position). Weber's solid. Phaneuf and Regehr both have their charms. I like Seabrook, but I'm not at all convinced that a dozen players, including all the guys above, couldn't look as good or better playing with Keith. Etcetera.
Iginla, Crosby, Nash, Heatley, Getzlaf, Thornton, Perry, Toews, and Eric Staal are on every list, yes? I'm OK with all of them (I wouldn't have Toews as a "must", but whatever).
That leaves four spaces, where the choices seem to include: Marleau, Carter, Mike Richards, Brad Richards, Morrow, Doan, Patrice Bergeron, Mike Fisher, Ryan Smyth, Lecavalier, St. Louis, Penner.
The idea, I certainly hope, is to select the 13 best outscorers, subject to some minor positional adjustments. Helpful hints for choosing should be: (1) if a West and East player seem equivalent, the WC player is probably better; (2) all else being equal -- including the 2-way thing -- take the goal scorer
I think my picks are Carter, Morrow, Doan, and Smyth. Carter because of the goals, and the other 3 because they have long records of being tough WC players. It's tough leaving the other players off, excepting Penner & Fisher (maybe if they were 22 and having these "breakouts"), and Vinny and M.Richards (I don't like them).
Lastly, Bruce Boudreau talked me into taking Mike Green as the 7th D. He offers something that no one else can, so why the hell not.

**The Flames aren't in a very good place right now, but I'm trying not to get discouraged. My happy thought in this regard, at least as it concerns making the playoffs, and apart from the happy news that Brent was willing to bench Jokinen in the 3rd the other night, is basically this:

Moss, Glencross, and Bourque have all looked pretty limp in the last month. Not hapless, exactly, but they're just not creating chances. Since all three have a fairly good track record of doing so, I think that has to change. Though I wouldn't count on Dawes being any better than he has been, even recently (the dude is a nice player for a waiver pickup), he's due for a couple more burst. Boyd is due for a burst. Bouwmeester is due to demonstrate some of the offense that makes him worth $6.6M/yr, rather than $4.4M/yr. Conroy, despite playing well and being a crucial member of the team, hasn't scored a goal yet. He's probably due. Etcetera.

In other words, I'm not saying that the Flames are snakebitten -- I'm saying that they can be better offensively (though not miles better), and probably will be any day now.

Today though? Um, uh, errr.... well, why the hell not. Though I feel the Lowetide superstitions with equal ferocity, I think the Oilers are headed for a bit more... shame.

Calgary 5 (Moss x2, GlenX, Conroy, J-Bo) Edmonton 3 (Souray, POS with two late ones)

Go Flames.

Monday Baseball Standings

2009-12-21T16:10:00.000-07:00

Slightly different presentation today. Notes:

You don't need to apply much of a "strength of schedule" adjustment to state that, based on performance to date, the eight worst teams in the NHL are all in the Eastern Conference. (And that, as such, every team in the West has been good enough to make the playoffs in the East.)
Buffalo has more clearance on 9th place than Chicago
How can Carolina be that bad when they play so many games against other bad teams?

Survey Says!

2009-12-15T20:01:00.011-07:00

These are interesting. I don't know who sponsored the survey, and who else it has been sent to, but these three questions were sent to me by someone who had taken the survey. The survey was administered by a company named e-Rewards, a company out of Texas. The only information provided was as follows:

"Topic: Study About Consumers
Research Sponsor: A Valued e-Rewards Partner"

That's it. I'd be interested in hearing what others think of the questions. I think a large number of them are pretty leading, but I also haven't seen the entire survey. Maybe it balances out.

(click image to enlarge)

(click image to enlarge)

(click image to enlarge)

(click image to enlarge)

The More You Know

2009-12-10T16:43:00.003-07:00

"We're still far from having a hockey team," Charest warned.

"We would need a multi-purpose centre and I believe in that project because a city of Quebec's size needs a multi-purpose building."

But one prominent sports economist suggests that if the project were truly smart economics, private investors would already be lining up to build the arena with their own money.

Michel Poitevin, head of the University of Montreal's economics department, notes that the Montreal Canadiens were purchased, and their Bell Centre was built, without public funds. So was the city's Saputo stadium for the Montreal Impact soccer team."

--"Quebec premier says NHL commissioner keen on team in Quebec City," Canadian Press

Bold mine.

Monday Baseball Standings

2009-12-07T16:43:00.000-07:00

So, if the Flames beat LA tonight (830PM MT, RSN West), they move into 1st place in the West by this measure. If they beat LA and the Caps lose in Tampa (Ovechkin messes with their chemistry!), they move into 1st place in the NHL.

Which is really not where I thought the Flames would be 10 weeks into the season; not before training camp, and certainly not after watching their first half-dozen or so games in October.

Kipper's results this year have been shocking in their excellence. If we're lucky, it's because some nagging health issue resolved itself with rest over the summer. If we're unlucky, he's Jose Theodore in the spring of '08. Olli Jokinen's enthusiam for shooting the puck in the last week or two has also been enjoyable. I still think he stinks all things considered, but right now he's providing *something* for the money.

One of the posts I didn't write this summer was that the Flames have too many Europeans -- the joke being that they only have two, but those two individuals were the worst value for the dollar. The fact that this observation is N/A right now, particularly with respect to Kipper, goes most of the way towards explaining 18-7-3.

Calgary 2 (Moss, Phaneuf) Home of the Bodybag 1 (someone called Meat Train?!?). Go Flames.

If I were a rich man

2009-11-27T22:12:00.000-07:00

The best news for Lowe is that in lieu of results, Lowe loves excuses so she's got one right off the bat before camp even starts.

The bad news is that run of luck last year with the injuries and such doens't seem to have abated. Of course Lowe made a lot of his own luck by leaving the team so fucking thin with the Pronger and Smyth disasters.

I dunno, anytime you read LT and he's talking about how pivotal a player Sanderson is, well then it's not a good day. But Lowe's contract still hasn't been renewed so maybe if we suck for '08 and that leads to his dismissal, it will be best for all concerned.

That's the inimitable Dennis King, on the 5th day of September, 2007.

I have no idea if Darryl Katz has the management skills, or organizational know-how, or whatever to turn the Edmonton Oilers into a decent hockey organization. I would submit, however, that he misunderestimated what he was getting into when he bought the place. Evidence supports, though does not prove or disprove, the following:

He had an "End Of History" mentality about fan support. As in, it would/will never be an issue again.
He didn't think that this organization needed "managing", in the same way as the rest of his empire.
His financial justification for purchasing was that a (mostly) publicly funded arena was a very sweet deal, and pretty close to a slam dunk.

Kevin Lowe was not one of my boyhood/yuppiehood idols. But if I bought the Oilers (and he didn't have a lengthy record of failure) I would certainly assume that he knew more about assembling a successful hockey team than I do. At the very least, I would know, for a fact, that he knows more about hockey than I do.

So I think what I'd do at that point is this: (1) assure him that he had complete freedom to run his hockey operations in accordance with his own philosophy, and (2) have him explain to me in a fair bit of detail what that philosophy is.

And then (3), which is the key: I'm going to have to sign off on any moves with financial significance. Look, per (1) I have no interest in interfering with your philosophy, Kevin. Just explain how various moves fit in with that philosophy, and I'll sign off. If they do not, I won't.

I'm seriously not trying to be snarky here either. I think I'd give the guy (say) $120k earmarked for two assistants. "I'm a businessman, so I like numbers. Here's salary for two people, to help you provide them. If you like, you can use them exclusively to support your own point of view and defend it to me."

Dunno. Things are changing. The appetite in Edmonton for a tax-subsidized downtown megaplex is waning, without question. While I've met a handful of people in Edmonton who think a downtown arena would be something they'd like, I haven't met one who sees it as a civic imperative. (And I actually know quite a few people who think in these terms.)

I'm probably underestimating Darryl Katz' intelligence, but it sure as hell looks to me like he bought a business that had permanent popularity and was about to win the lottery; now, he actually has to figure out a way to maintain revenue, possibly without the giant novelty cheque. For the Oilers' sake, he'd better show more in the next 2 years than he has in the last 2.

Points v. Scoring

2009-11-27T10:23:00.007-07:00

I'm having some problems with my site at the moment - I've got my tech guy (or, if my mother is reading this, my "brother") on it but I had a quick post that I wanted to make, so I thought I'd avail myself of Matt and Andy's hospitality and post it here.

There's been some discussion at Lowetide's site about the EV PTS of the various centremen on the Oilers. Brule is doing quite well with 13 so far, followed by Horcoff and Gagner with 7 apiece and Cogliano with 6. Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of whether or not it's fair to call Brule and Cogliano NHL centres, there's a point about points that I thought was worth making.

One of the goals of a hockey team is to score as many goals as it can. The other goal is to allow as few goals as possible. Goals are the currency of the game. Once a goal is scored, we retrospectively allocate credit for it by assigning the players involved. As David Staples has pointed out when responding to the (vociferous) criticism of his errors system, we only allocate credit for the goals are scored and then draw our inferences about offensive ability or performance from that. It strikes me as fair to say, when looking at only a single season, a person could well be misled.

I figured I'd take a look at this in a couple of different ways. I scraped behindthenet.ca for the 5v5 information for forwards who played at least 40 games in 2007-08 and 2008-09, which gave me a list of 302 guys. I then took a look to see whether or not points/goal had any repeatability. It certainly doesn't seem too - see the chart at left, although there's a caveat to that, in that it seems to me that a lot of the players who are recognized as "star" players seem to have some repeatability in this department. I suspect a lot of the real goons fall into the same category.

For example, Crosby's been in on 92%, 86% and 84% of Penguins even strength goals during the past three seasons. This makes a certain amount of intuitive sense to me - guys like Crosby, who control the game and have the play flow through them, likely drive the offence to a greater degree than your average player. If you could somehow drop him into an even better league than the NHL, in which he was an average player, presumably his "share" of the offence would fall.

Extrapolating from this idea a bit, I thought I'd take a stab at classifying offensive performance into four groups from 2007-08 based on two values: on-ice shooting percentage and points/goal. The average shooting percentage for my group of players was 8.35% in 2007-08 and they averaged points on 69% of 5v5 goals scored while they were on the ice. I classified the players into four groups +S%/+pts/gl, +S%/-pts/gl, -S%/+pts/gl and -S%/-pts/gl. I'm using "+" to mean above average there and "-" to mean below average. There's a graph at left setting this out.

My theory, to the extent that I have one, is this: offensive numbers drive salaries in the NHL. Most players put up a significant portion of their offence at even strength, which makes sense, as that's where the game is (largely) played. If salary is driven, to an extent, by the events of the most recent season, a general manager trying to make the best use of his salary cap dollars should try and avoid signing players to contracts who are coming off of seasons in which they fell into the +S%/+pts/gl grouping, unless those players have a rather strong record of belonging there. For the record - twenty guys fell into that group in both 2007-08 and 2008-09 - the list is:

Sidney Crosby
Evgeni Malkin
Henrik Sedin
Jason Pominville
Mike Ribeiro
Mike Cammalleri
David Booth
Andy McDonald
Marc Savard
Ales Hemsky
Niklas Hagman
Alex Ovechkin
Pavol Demitra
Joe Thornton
Vincent Lecavalier
Ilya Kovalchuk
Daniel Paille
Jarome Iginla

If you were to screen that list for the guys who don't play very much, you'd end up with a pretty solid list of hockey players, guys about whom the general consensus would be that they drive offensive results.

Here's the key chart - it compares the offensive performance of my four groups between 2007-08 and 2008-09. There's something interesting at work here, I think. Note the difference in point production for the first two groups in 2007-08 and 2008-09 - almost half a point per 60. Most people I know would consider that to be significant. The difference in goal production though, is miniscule - an extra goal every 20 hours, an amount of time virtually no forward will play in the course of a season. In 2008-09, things turned around - the second group, which had the lower pts/gl ratio in 2007-08 outscored the group with the higher ratio that year and saw an extra 5v5 goal scored for every ten hours or so that they were on the ice.

If goals scored was what you cared about, you'd do as well picking guys who had above average on ice shooting percentages on the basis of their on-ice GF as you would their points. The difference in the lower two groups persisted - the -/- group actually fared worse in on-ice goals in 2008-09 than they did in 2007-08, although they closed the gap in terms of points a bit.

What can you take from this? Well, if I was a GM, I'd tread carefully when signing guys coming off seasons in the +/+ quadrant, particularly if they wanted +/+ dollars. Unsurprisingly, there are a couple of examples of these guys in Kevin Lowe's current crop of contracts, most notably in the form of Shawn Horcoff and Robert Nilsson. Patrick O'Sullivan got paid coming off of a +/+ quadrant season as well. I've argued extensively elsewhere that Horcoff is not that badly overpaid but it seems reasonable to expect that Lowe should have known that he was looking to sign Horcoff at the worst time possible from the perspective of maximizing the value from his contract.

The broader question I think, is to do with how we should weight and think about points. Much was made of the offensive talents of the Oilers defenders last year. It was sold as a strength of the team, while the forwards were perceived as disappointments. Tom Gilbert, Sheldon Souray and Denis Grebeshkov were all over 1.18 ESP/60, fantastic numbers for defenders and likely above the 90th percentile. Lubomir Visnovsky was at 0.93 ESP/60, also an excellent number and likely above the 80th percentile for defencemen. While Grebeshkov and Gilbert had impressive GF/60 numbers though (3.26 and 3.02, respectively), Souray and Visnovsky were nothing special (2.50 and 2.64, respectively). The question that comes to mind - and I don't claim to have an answer for this - is whether they really had fantastic seasons at ES or whether the peculiarities of how we credit players for offence somehow assigned too much to those guys, leading us to be impressed by numbers that don't tell us anything.

To bring this back to my initial point, the wonderful thing about baseball statistics is that the components of runs - walks, singles, doubles, triples and homers - are easily tracked. It's harder to do in hockey. We trust that individual statistics accurately reflect the offensive contributions made by a given player but I'm not entirely certain that they do, or, to be more precise, that they can be trusted without slicing the numbers and looking at them in different ways.

A reading from the Book of Kevin

2009-11-23T16:29:00.006-07:00

In light of this post by Tyler, and Kevin Smith's visit to Rexall this evening, an excerpt from Champions: The Making of The Edmonton Oilers by Kevin Lowe with Stan and Shirley Fischler.

"The evidence of our youthfulness was everywhere but nowhere more than in the dressing room where the music blared as if it were coming from a disco.

The orchestrators, essentially, were Messier, Lowe and Coffee although many others--Ken Linseman in particular for a short but significant period--produced tapes. A song called 'Jeopardy' was a big hit for some time....

...Certain guys--Glennie, Mess, Wayne, myself, Paul and Semenk--would get outwardly excited about the music. We'd put on 'Jeopardy', which has a real nice beat to it, and all of a sudden everyone would be clapping to the music. It was spontaneous. Guys would be standing around, taping their sticks, adjusting their equipment, doing routine stuff when the music would get going and everyone would start to clap.

Even the guys who one wouldn't figure would get so involved because they were the older guard actually were moved by the music. Fogie, for one, liked rock n' roll although he doesn't look like rock n' roller. It really got him fired up and Randy, the doctor, who some thought was out of place on the team, was the same way."

I particularly like how Lowe refers to himself in both the third and first person on the same page. Andy likes it so much, he has a couple of accompanying videos for everyone.

GOILERS.

Trade Phaneuf

2009-11-20T10:34:00.000-07:00

I'm not actually down on Dion Phaneuf. He can do things that few other players can do, and by my eye he makes incremental progress in his all-around game and decision-making.

Occasionally I have this dream where he gets dumped by his girlfriend, and is so goddamned mad and frustrated that he goes on an absolute tear: the kind where he becomes the player Pierre McGuire always thought he'd be, and possibly becomes hated by other NW fans for real sins, rather than imagined or trivial ones. But whatever. He's frustrating sometimes, but it's not often that I slap my forehead and say I can't believe we're paying this guy six-point-five mil a year until 2014.

But the facts are facts, and here are the two important ones:

ONE. The Flames need another difference maker at forward. And not just this season, but going forward as well, so it needs to be someone in his prime or just about.

TWO. Phaneuf's role, his wage, and the team's needs no longer align. Here's something I wrote in July 2008 that gets at my point:

I have written before that, while there is no magic formula when it comes to signing free agents, there are pitfalls to be avoided. They include [...] paying for offense from more than one defenseman, which is why I'm pretty skeptical about the Brian Campbell signing by the Hawks. On the one hand, their PP was pretty lousy last year (24th), and they don't presently have a clear #1 point man who can shoot, distribute, etc., so maybe he was a smart acquisition, in the same manner as he was an excellent acquisition by the Sharks last season. On the other hand, Seabrook and/or Barker are supposed to be growing into that role, and they already have a "do-it-all" d-man in Keith. The Campbell contract only makes sense if he provides a huge marginal advantage over the alternatives, and I'm not at all sure that he does. (And this is setting aside the too-long term, and the fact that he looked very ordinary in the playoffs.)

By definition, you can only have one #1 defenseman. You can only have one featured shooting threat on the PP. Most importantly, you can't pay elite wages for depth.

I think the backup G position is important. You want that guy to be solid when your #1 needs a break, and if there's an injury, well, god help you if you're unprepared. But that doesn't mean you go out and sign the best available goalie next July to be your backup, because on balance, you can't afford to devote those resources to that position.

To a lesser extent, this is the situation in Calgary on D. When Darryl Sutter signed Jay Bouwmeester on June 30 to a five-year, $33.4M deal with a NTC, he made the decision that JB would be heading up the blueline for the next 5 years. He can't afford to pay Dion Phaneuf to play the "Jay Bouwmeester" role, because he now has Jay Bouwmeester filling that role.

(Yes, yes, Pronger and Niedermayer won a Cup together... I believe those Ducks also proved that being the toughest, fightingest, penalty-takingest team was the winning formula, which is why the Maple Leafs are leading the Eastern Conference and are prohibitive favourites to win the Stanley.)

I think Darryl Sutter needs to shop Phaneuf for an elite young forward. There might be a few good reasons, but the important one is, It's what's best for the team.

Looks great in jeans, though

2009-11-19T15:09:00.000-07:00

Olli Jokinen went the final 13 games of the 08/09 regular season without scoring a goal. He scored twice in the 6-game playoff series against Chicago. And in the first 19 games of this season, he has scored two goals: one was shot from the corner that deflected off Kyle Cumiskey, and one was a dribbler that even Antti Niemi would agree was one of the five worst goals in the league this season. Count 'em up: that's 4 goals in the past 38 games.

He's recording 2.3 shots per game; he averaged 4.2 in his three post-lockout seasons. You notice different things in different games, but on Tuesday against Colorado, his unwillingness to shoot the puck was glaring; he didn't pass up prime scoring chances, but he certainly passed up some open lanes to the net.

Robert Cleave made a good point the other day that, like it or lump it, Jokinen is here for the duration. And I wasn't going to keep banging the Olli Sucks drum, but, this annoyed me:

"I think I have seven or eight times I hit the post so far this year, if half of those would’ve gone in, nobody would be questioning anything," he said following this morning’s skate.

While I appreciate that he's been a bit unlucky, that statement is not true, and I really hope he doesn't think it is. The gap between (A) the expected performance of a $5.5M/yr "#1 centre" (acquired for a steep price) playing next to Jarome Iginla and (B) Jokinen's performance to date this season is a lot wider than that.

Go Flames.

Sounds about right

2009-11-15T18:54:00.002-07:00

"...we spent about five years lambasting the organization at almost every turn, and I don’t think its an exaggeration to say that there was some hostility on both sides towards the others. We were fans of the team, but not of the organization, and they weren’t big fans of us either. There were times when it became clear that rooting for the team to fail was our best option, because things weren’t getting better without hitting rock bottom.

They hit rock bottom in 2008. And things have gotten significantly better since then, and not just in the decision making that goes into putting the roster together..."

--USS Mariner

Still waiting on that whole "getting better" thing, but otherwise, this is pretty spot-on.

Glove tap to Avi for the link.

The Return of Friday

2009-11-13T10:54:00.001-07:00

**The trapezoid was back in the news again, and the usual Devils/Stars fans were agitating for its removal. (As well as some new people who have decided that, as a means of reducing boarding, it makes more sense that penalizing boarding more harshly.) I was chatting with Cosh about this nearly 3 years ago, and he nailed it IMO:

me: I find the whole "why should one of Goalie X's skills be neutralized by some rule?" to be very uncompelling.
Colby: It's not a bad question to ask, but when the obvious answer is "Because X's skill really has nothing to do with the essence of the game and isn't any fun to watch", why bother asking.

**Also on the GMs: what's interesting to me is not so much the fact of the change (or "softening") of position on head hits, but rather the way the change was framed. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if George McPhee really thinks the NHL rulebook can be employed with this kind of surgical precision...

“The only issue I have is when the player is vulnerable, there is a blindside hit and the only contact is made to the player’s head. [...] If there are three or four of those a year, maybe we can attack and eliminate a lot of them.”

...he's just dreaming. As I wrote a couple of autumns ago, in the course of getting rid of some unwanted physical play, you're going to end up eliminating some wanted physical play. If someone (besides Bob McKenzie) wanted to be grown up about it, they could just be frank: there will be a bit of a tradeoff, but it's the right decision. Which, it is.

**My favourite contribution to #unpublishedNHLbooks on Twitter yesterday (I'm @FenwickMatt btw) was, "Now I Can Die In Peace", by Tom Benjamin. Nothing personal Tom, I just went for the most well-known Canucks fan I could think of (and thought using Jim Hughson or Michael Buble would confuse the gag).

**There is no way no spin Olli Jokinen's awful performance this season in a positive way. I'm changing my assessment of him from "Bad player with a good shot" to "Bad player with a hard shot".

** This month's Post I Wish I Had Written: Kent's appreciation of Craig Conroy. I second every word.

**Pleasant surprise of the season: Kipper. If he's back as a Top 10-15 NHL goalie, that mitigates a lot of other worries.

**Flames @ Slugs tonight. They haven't won in Buffalo in 13 years, so I think I'll just cheer for no one to get injured. Go Flames.

Don't know, but if, then totally

2009-11-10T10:27:00.008-07:00

"And while it's far too early to know whether Darryl Katz's dream-arena plan will go ahead, if it does come to pass, it will be vital to have an LRT line running straight from West Edmonton Mall to the new arena site."

--Paula Simons, Edmonton Journal

Um, okay, I have a question. Why? Why is a straight line from WEM to The Katz & LaForge World-Class Wonder Emporium™ "vital?" I mean, vital is a pretty serious word. Synonyms include "essential," "paramount," and "imperative." So when I see a journalist suggesting that level of importance to a public transit line running from a mall to a hockey rink-- a hockey rink that doesn't even exist, and if it does, with all its apparent city-healing powers, will likely cost taxpayers so much money that it will prevent some of those very same public transit lines from being built--I have to ask, really? It's that important? That crucial? So important that to think otherwise is unfathomable? Why? Because we'll need to get people from one big casino to another? Because people will be pissed if they can't get from Bootlegger to box seat in under twenty minutes? Oh! Oh! Is it because doing so will rejuvenate, rehab, renew, restore, refresh, refurbish, regenerate, reinvigorate, revitalize, and revivify the downtown core, transforming Edmonton into a shiny, shimmering, utopian metropolis ? Is this the case? It is, right? Okay, then. If you say so.

I'm agnostic about a line going to WEM. If it's the best place to end or anchor the line, so be it. But I'm pretty certain that building a straight line from there to a new arena isn't the best course of action. And it's definitely not vital. For one, the arena doesn't exist. Second, it never should, if it means taxpayers have to foot the bill. Third, as Patrick LaForge has noted, there will only be 90 hockey events there every year. Even if you scatter in another 75-100 events throughout the year (and I am being generous), the reality is that the "anchor tenant" (I'm assuming the full-blown Wonder Emporium™ will be the course of action, because it's the best way to trick people into supporting the public funding model) will be full less than half a year, every year, and even then only for a few hours at a time. Why would you build a straight line to a destination that, in the grand scheme of things, no one goes to? Because there'll also (supposedly) be a casino, some shops and some housing around it? There's lots of places like that (shockingly, they didn't need an adjacent arena and public funding to get built). Are we going to say it's vitally important to build straight lines to all those places, too?

Listen, I'm all for more public transit. And I'm all for public transit that takes people where they actually need to go. As with most cities, getting people in and out of our downtown core in an efficient, expedient and environmentally-friendly manner makes sense. Heck, it's important. What isn't important, however, especially not vitally important, is getting that public transit line to go straight from a mall to a proposed hockey arena, particularly when it's motivated by the unsubstantiated and therefore misguided belief that doing so will revitalize or save a section of our city. This simply will not happen. An LRT line will move people from place A to place B. You want each place to be an optimal destination. A new, publicly funded hockey arena will make Daryl Katz even more wealthy than he already is. You'll probably think it's cool. If those are your points, or your goals, then great. But let's just leave it at that, and save the vitally important words for the vitally important matters.

Battle Gameday: Sailing

2009-10-24T15:14:00.004-06:00

"Fantasy, it gets the best of me
When I'm sailing, all caught up in the reverie"

I've being listening to Yacht Rock all day. Hence the Christopher Cross reference. Even made a Yacht Rock mix. Got me some Cross, the Michael McDonald-led Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan, Hall & Oates, Boz Scaggs, Toto, Kenny Loggins...all of it. So white. So smooth. So wonderful.

So far so good with the Oilers this year. 6-2-1 on the season. 2nd in the NW, 4th in the Western Conference. 36GF. 26GA. Dustin Penner tied (with Ryan Smyth) for 4th in league scoring with 14 points. And all this with a bunch of key players (Fernando Pisani, Sheldon Souray, Steve Staios, and Marc Pouliot) injured. Not too bad, right?

Nope, not too shabby. I'm the biggest cynic in the world when it comes to this hockey club, and even I'm impressed. At the same time, there are concerns. They've only played two games on the road. They've only beaten two teams with a winning record (Dallas and Columbus). The injuries, and a crazy case of the flu, have exposed the lack of depth at forward. They still look really bad in their own end, continually failing to clear the zone. They like to give up goals in the last minute of periods. The starting goaltender plays rebounds like he's playing a game of Pong. The coach isn't Bill Walsh. And Dustin Penner isn't Frank Mahovlich. So, you know, some perspective is probably in order.

As Matt so kindly pointed out, the 2006-2007 Oilers started out 6-2. That was the year of "The Vaunt." They beat some good teams to start the season, too, including the Flames, Sharks, Canucks and Red Wings. Then the wheels came off (on October 25th they were hammered 6-2 by the Ducks and their new defenceman, Chris Pronger). My shrink has advised me to not spend too much time dwelling on that season, but let's just say that it didn't end on a high note.

I'm not saying this season is going to go off the rails like the 06-07 season did (may the Good Lord have mercy on our souls if it does). But there's still a lot of hockey to be played, and this team hasn't really been tested. Tonight's a good test. So too are the next 12 games, 9 of which are on the road. If they can avoid a late-game screwup against the Flames tonight (wouldn't that be nice?), and go even 6-6 over the next 12, I'll be a lot more convinced that this team is the real deal. Right now it's all just a fantasy.

Prediction: What this fool believes is that Oilers ride like the wind in a 5-3 victory. Minute by minute, they take it to the streets, cycle the puck lowdown, and make my dreams come true. Ya mo be thinking Hemmer gets the hatty, and Chopper reels back the years with a pair. Sarah smiles, and the boys Lido shuffle all the way to Margaritaville to meet Rosanna for some post-game celebrations.

GOILERS

Potpourri for 5-2-1, Alex

2009-10-20T15:19:00.001-06:00

Before I type this next sentence, I want to assure you that I am not on any type of drugs. Okay, here goes: Brian McGrattan was the best player on the ice for Calgary on Friday.

Yeahhhhh, let's not get carried away here, Lambert. He had a fine game -- and for Brian McGrattan, a tremendous one -- but he was the 3rd best player on his line. Prust set up two beauty chances in the high slot, the 2nd of which resulted in McG's assist when his miss was redirected into the net by Boyd. The goal came on one of the several chances Boyd created.

Full credit to McG for getting into good scoring position three distinct times. If he averages 1/3 that rate over all the games he plays this season, I'll be thrilled. But he wasn't the guy making things happen out there. And you know what? He's not going to average a scoring chance per game. Not close. It was his first goal in 91 games; no amount of improved skill and luck will turn him into a reliably competent player in the offensive end.

And it's not like this is all calculator skepticism either. In Eric Godard's third game as a Flame, on October 13, 2007, he drove the net on a 2-on-1 with Stephane Yelle and potted the game-winning goal. This spurred some chatter along the lines of ,"Well if he can chip in once in a while on the scoresheet, as well as providing some energy and a physical presence, then we might have a gem in this here heavyweight."

We didn't. He didn't score again in the subsequent (and final) 76 games of his Flames career. He scored twice last season for the Cup champ Pens, dressing for 71 of 82 regular season games and 0 of 24 playoff games. So I guess what I'm trying to say is: my expectations for Brian McGrattan's helpfulness going forward, with respect to Winning, have not been raised one iota.

**Congratulations to the Oilers; they haven't looked this good in October since the Lupul team started 6-2.

**This crossed my mind a few times in the past couple of weeks: I wonder if the NW Division is the new SE Division. It certainly seems, early on here, that every team has serious flaws -- the NW may spend this season getting bootstomped by the other two divisions, and have one of those races where the div champ gets the 3rd seed and the runner-up finishes 9th.

**Thanks to Robert Cleave for pointing out this brief blog post by radio colour guy & WHA legend Mike Rogers. First Rogers lets the cat out of the bag:

People make out that Sutter’s system is so complicated that Albert Einstein would have trouble figuring it out. Brent’s approach is no different than pretty well every team in the NHL.

I knew it! I frickin' knew it. Every time a team gets a new coach, the players gush about his new system, and say something almost exactly like, "Coach has got us playing a lot more aggressive, up-tempo game [...] we just have to make smart decisions." Accordingly, it derives straight from Rogers' comments that, within a fairly narrow range, there is a commonly-accepted "right way" to play successful hockey.

So why the problem? The system will only work as long as the individual will buy in and I believe that some of the Flames players are not willing to do so. Playing a strong defensive game is not glamorous, but scoring goals is. So what would the player rather do? I think you know the answer. Once the individual commits to the idea that everyone has to be on the same page, the team will be successful.

I dunno, Mike. If the players are being asked to do things that are "no different than pretty well every team in the NHL", then how can this be a committment thing? How did the players on the Flames roster get to where they are today if they can't do the things that are acknowledged league-wide as being important? If Jarome Iginla had 7 goals right now, but an identical number of goals against, would you suggest that he needs to commit to a strong defensive game, or that there was any problem at all? I think you know the answer.

**Get well soon, Moss. Go Flames.

If only

2009-10-16T19:59:00.000-06:00

If only the Oilers had a Coach who put an "emphasis on determining and going with what actually leads to success (wins) . . . rather than "hamstring[ing his team's] chances of victory based on some antiquated and unproven model of success".

"There's a thousand stats and the one I look at the most is chances, for and against," said Quinn.

Dummy.

Ahhhh, I'm just bustin' your balls Andy. I could care less what he looks at, so long as he keeps those Irish eyes a smilin'.

RBIs

2009-10-10T18:24:00.000-06:00

Seems like Matt and I are enjoying the same stuff right now.

"The radio guys here protest a little … they point out that while Drew’s OPS is usually good, they aren’t sure that it has led to PRODUCTION — namely runs scored and RBIs. And this is when Theo really takes over. I bold out a few of my favorite thoughts in this wonderful little lesson:

"That’s not true. With RBIs, yes. Based on his skill set, he’s always going to have underwhelming RBI totals. I couldn’t care less. When you’re putting together a winning team, that honestly doesn’t matter.When you have a player who takes a ton of walks, who doesn’t put the ball in play at an above average rate, and is a certain type of hitter, he’s not going to drive in a lot of runs. Runs scored, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you look at a rate basis, J.D. scores a ton of runs.

“And the reason he scores a ton of runs is because he does the single most important thing you can do in baseball as an offensive player. And that’s NOT MAKE OUTS. He doesn’t make outs. He’s always among our team leaders in on-base percentage, usually among the league leaders in on-base percentage. And he’s a really good base runner. So when he doesn’t make outs, and he gets himself on base, he scores runs — and he has some good hitters hitting behind him. Look at his runs scored on a rate basis with the Red Sox or throughout his career. It’s outstanding.

“You guys can talk about RBIs if you want, I just … we ignore them in the front office … and I think we’ve built some pretty good offensive clubs. If you want to talk about RBIs at all, talk about it as a percentage of opportunity but it’s just simply not a way or something we use to evaluate offensive players.”

--Joe Posnanski, on Theo Epstein on J.D. Drew

Now, I am well aware that baseball isn't hockey. I say this to preempt the people who will want to drive home this point in the comments section, knowing full well that they will say it anyway. Baseball is not hockey. Hockey is not baseball. Baseball is not hockey. I know. I get it. And I don't care. What I care about is the broader point of Posnanski's post, and Epstein's interview, which is this: far too many professional sports teams, sport reporters, and sports fans focus on aspects of their particular game that are either secondary or irrelevant to the game's primary purpose, which is winning. They elevate things that, while perhaps fun and entertaining, haven't really been proven to exist or matter. Coaches who talk about players needing more "crust" in their game, for example. Fans who brag about a player being the team's best body-checker, for another. Reporters who mythologize a player for being "clutch" in "crunch time." Me, I'd rather people--managers, coaches, players, reporters, fans--worried more about figuring out what things actually determine success in a sport. Do I know exactly what those things are? Hell, no. But I do have some guesses.

In hockey, for example, I'm more concerned with scoring rates than hit totals. I'm more interested in who a player is playing against, and how he is doing against those players, than I am in his leadership skills. I'm more concerned with finding players who drive results, and less interested in whether or not he is really good at driving a guy's head into the boards. I'm more interested in net total shots on net and driving possession than "errors" and the plus/minus. I'm that way because I'm guessing (I've been convinced, actually) that some of these things are more important in determining the outcome of a game than the things we've traditionally looked at and used to determine outcomes (and excellence). You want to win? Have guys on your team who do these things well. Forget about how "big" his heart is, those "huge" goals he scores, and whether or not he can impale an opponent on his stick like a trident.

Listen, I like physical hockey and fighting as much as the next guy. It gets the blood up, it gets the crowd into a game, and it's just plain fun to watch. But you know what I like more than an entertaining hockey game? One where my team wins. If I just wanted physical entertainment without results, I'd watch the Three Stooges. But I want my team to win, and I remain unconvinced that having it littered with bruisers is going to maximize that result. Am I saying that "physical hockey" is unimportant? No. It may in fact be. But I don't think it's been proven to really matter as much as "scoring hockey." That's what I want first and foremost on my hockey team. Guys who score goals. Also, guys who score goals and prevent other guys from scoring goals. That's really the ideal. If they do it by playing physically, great. But that's an added bonus, not a primary concern. When I see a near historically bad NHL player getting first-line minutes because he's big and hits people, a little bit of my sanity dies. Why? Because the bottom-line is the guy isn't helping his team win when he is placed in that position. His skill set does not match up with what is required to win hockey games. And the coach isn't helping his team win, either. In fact, he's hamstringing their chances of victory, based on some antiquated and unproven model of success. And there goes my sanity, right out the window!

Then again, I may be wrong. Maybe all those traditional ways of looking at a hockey player, and his performance, matter. But I'd like to move away from the acceptance of these things simply because that's the way it's always been, and move more towards an acceptance of these things because that's the way they really are. I'd like there to be more emphasis on determining and going with what actually leads to success (wins), and less emphasis placed on what takes us back to making ill-informed and unproven observations and evaluations. If that means heart and soul and body-checking and all that other stuff really matters, rock n' roll.

And that's my thought for the day.

Battle Game Day

2009-10-08T16:29:00.000-06:00

Flames @ Oilers, 730PM MT, RSN West. So not only have I not found time to put up much of a post today, I'm also going to be curling tonight at the Saville Centre (w/ Sacamano) and will miss the 2nd and 3rd periods. I think I'll wear my Warrener 44 jersey, so mental note, keep my head up. Two things though:

Scott Reynolds' wonderful Gospel of Hockey preview routine, now featured at Copper & Blue, reminded me of this Battle Game Day from 4(!) seasons ago.

Also, Vic and Dennis are back. Vic shows that, as recorded so far, Scoring Chance +/- and Corsi# correspond awfully closely. Dennis is kibbitzing at Lowetide's; here is his latest presented without comment in its entirety.

It seems like I am always picking up for this guy:) but even though I've never had the same injury as 78, I have been injured in that area before and let me tell you, it's pure hell.

It happened while I was at the gym and attempting an exercise on an ab machine and because I'd been doing like 150 situps-a-day for like 2 years before I even started at a gym, I figured I would be Boss when it came to this piece of equipement. Well, I set the gauge too high and when I did the first crunch, I could literally feel something tear.

This was just before christmas and I was gonna stay away from the gym for a couple of weeks anyway so when I finished up that day, I said I'd take awhile off and hopefully this would heal (I had finished my workout after feeling this tear because you never really full the full effects of an injury until the adrenaline wears off, anyway).

So, for a week I'm a little sore but then I start my christmas drinking and my stomach literally grinds everytime I take a drop and the next morning it's like I'm pissing honest-to-goodness fire.

Note: I still powered through because it was Christmas;)

Anyway, as soon as I got back to town after the holidays, I tried out the gym again and wound up in the absolute racks-of-pain for a full week. I remember going to the gym on a Monday and for the first next few days I could hardly get out of bed. I mean I had shooting pains in my stomach, groin, my balls, my ass and even in the head of my Brian Burke! The #1 and #2 bodily functions were resolute murder and I didn't know what was going on.

Note: I hope LT's daughter isn't reading this!

So I go to the doctor and he says it's likely prostatitis and it's either from a muscle pull or an infection. I get a bunch of bloodwork done - if you have this, you want it to be from an infection because that's the easiest way to treat it - but no such luck, it's a muscle pull.

So the doctor tells me no physical activity for six weeks and even when I resumed that, I should consider giving up alcohol and caffeine for an even longer period of time.

So, because I'd been in such rough shape before, I went from early Jan to early June without drinking a beer because I was fearful of bringing the pain back upon myself. And because I wasn't hungover or hungover hungry, I eventually worked out like never before and went to the gym six days a week and was in the best shape possible.

Note: my friends kept going out once a weekend but I've never been one to go out without getting hammered:)

Also, do you know what the doctor suggested would sooth flare-ups?

E-jackulation!

So, the girlfriend wasn't overly happy about that but I certainly was:D

The moral of this story is I don't know what's going on with 78 but I feel bad for the kid and I felt like sharing.

Go Oilers?

Calgary 5 (Iginla, Phaneuf x2, Conroy, Boyd) Edmonton 4 (probably the Comrie-Brule-Stone line, that looks fearsome). Go Flames.

Thought for the Day

2009-10-07T09:47:00.002-06:00

From a piece by Chicagoan Steve Chapman, Chicago Wins By Losing: Why losing the Olympics is a blessing in disguise for the Windy City:

Here, as elsewhere, public opinion does not always matter. When the mayor and assorted corporations and interest groups line up behind something, even a grandiose vanity project, it's a good bet they will prevail over petty malcontents.

Insightful? Not particularly. True, and well said? Yep-per.

Flames Game Day

2009-10-06T15:15:00.000-06:00

The Lions in Winter come for an autumn visit to the Saddledome tonight (7PM MT, RSN West). The reaction around Flamesland to the lads' 2-0-0 start seems to be pretty much unanimous: they don't look that great yet, but it's nice to see Kipper making some stops, and we'll sure as hell take the points.

I quite agree, and for beyond the usual reasons (i.e. better to hav'em than not hav'em, they count the same as ones earned in March, etc.). Because of the Flames' unevenly compressed schedule this season, it's absolutely critical for them to gain points when they're healthy and coming off of real rest. I may get into this again next week, but for now let's just note that in the next 8 days, the Flames play 5 games. In the following 21 days, the Flames play... 5 games.

In other words, a game like tonight's -- off 2 days' rest, at home, opponent not a powerhouse -- represents points the Flames cannot afford to get away. Because even if they're playing really well after Christmas, they have 14 games in 23 nights: what would you use as an optimistic forecast for that stretch, that includes 4 games in 5 nights twice?

Calgary 4 (Iginla x2, Jokinen x2) Lez Habz 1 (Cammo). Go Flames.

Thought for the Day

2009-10-05T22:12:00.002-06:00

Bill James said something a while ago that I thought was about as good a thought about bad baseball teams as anything I’ve heard. He said, “The future is not a plan.” And I think that’s exactly right. Every baseball team has a future. Every one. Every team has “prospects” — Baseball America next year will list off 30 for each team. Every team is loaded down with players in Class A who, if things go well, can emerge as the next great superstar. Every team has pitchers who could, and hitters who might, and catchers who should, and base runners who conceivably can. Every team in baseball.

And because every team has a future, it’s easy to fool yourself. It’s easy to talk about how things will get better. This is not always a bad thing. This is what gives fans hope every spring training. This is what keeps players inspired. This is what keeps baseball people going forward. And sometimes, rarely, a team even might fool itself into believing that it is better than the apparent talent and play at that higher level, at least for a while.

But … more often than not, fooling yourself isn’t much of a plan for survival. And thus, The Hochevar Principle: The future comes to all teams. Some teams wait for it. Those teams finish in last place a lot.

-- Joe Posnanski, Kansas City Royals fan, today

Battle Gameday

2009-10-03T18:07:00.002-06:00

Don't know if Matt is throwing anything up, so I'll just give a quick prediction. I had a busy day at the waterpark that prevented me from doing anything further. I'd apologize, but it's the waterpark. That's a park, full of water slides. And a wave pool. And hot tubs. And girls far too young for me. Yeah. Exactly. BUSY.

Can any honest Oilers fan look at this depth chart and not be horrified? Who the hell are these guys? JF Jacques? Ryan Stone? WHO THE F**K IS RYAN STONE? And I haven't even gotten to Brule and Stortini yet. Or Comrie. Sweet Mother of Thor. Why did I start blogging again? Oh, right. "Flame Killer" Nikolai Khabibulin. Right (eyeroll).

Prediction: 6-5, Oilers. Gilbert Gilbert, Hemmer, Cogliano, and Scorcoff with the triple. Six fights, including a real donnybrook involving Pat Quinn and bare-knuckled boxing legend Brent O'Sutter that will be borderline erotic. Save percentages for both goalies below .800.

GOILERS???

Opening Night

2009-10-01T16:57:00.000-06:00

A handful of thoughts and predictions on the cusp of the 2009/10 season:

**The Canucks might well win the NW Division again, but I'm not at all clear on why they're supposed to be better than last year (apart from Luongo starting 70+ games instead of 54). They traded in Ohlund for Ehrhoff on D, which certainly doesn't constitute a clear upgrade; they still don't have any "value contracts" on the back end.

Up front, they still have the Sedins and Kesler kicking ass, but they don't appear to be better. Demitra's hurt. Samuelsson is not that good. It's the same bunch of bleh in terms of depth.

**In fact, I think the Flames probably will win the NW. Losing Cammalleri's 39 goals (19 PP) isn't "good", but replacing those goals on the #21 PP seems a lot more doable than had it been the #1 PP.

I'm with the crowd that saw Jarome Iginla have a worse year in 08/09 than his stats would indicate, but I'm not (quite) yet worried about a steep decline from #12. I'm also with the crowd that thinks there's nowhere to go but up for Phaneuf this season. Also, you may have heard, they added the #1 UFA on the market.

I don't have much faith that Kipper will bounce back, or even stop getting worse, but the good news is that further decline can only cost the team so much. There's a certain point past which his contract and past accomplishments won't matter, and the org will try something different. Maybe McE plays well in relief and takes more and more of the workload; maybe they trade for Martin Biron or the like; who knows. At any rate, my current stance is that -- whatever the mechanism -- the Flames goaltending is quite unlikely to be worse than last year, and it could easily be better.

**The thing with the Oilers is, there's just very little basis on which to predict improvement. For every youngish guy pegged to improve, there's an oldish guy who might well get worse. While it's one thing to think Khabibulin is a better goalie than Roloson (maybe he is), it's quite another to think that Khabibulin 09/10 can outperform Roloson 08/09.

And while Quinn/Renney are clearly sound NHL coaches, there's just little or no evidence that they're going to do things much differently than Mac-T, certainly in the area of "encouraging offense and creativity". I heard Ryan Rishaug on TEAM 1260 on Monday, trying to explain how he thought Quinn's handling of the youngsters/skill players was an improvement. It made absolutely no sense, and with Jason Gregor's prodding, he ended up taking back the whole thing item by item.

**I think Chicago will be clearly better than Detroit, the rest of the Central, and the rest of the conference save for maybe San Jose (I'm not quite sure what to think about the Sharks yet). The goaltending concerns there are way overblown -- Huet's pretty good -- and among skaters, almost every one should be expected to improve to some degree. And they were a bloody good team last year. My pick for the President's Trophy.

**My breakout pick is the Kings. They added a great player in Smytty, and I think Kopitar will bust out -- the percentages weren't kind to him last year. Also, both my fantasy teams are way too dependent on this pick.

**I can't think of a single thing, off the top of my head, that interests me about the Eastern Conference. See you in June, fellas.

**Did you know:

A loss tonight for the Flames would mark their seventh consecutive loss in season openers – tying the mark for the longest losing streak in season openers with the 1972-78 Minnesota NorthStars and the 1993-1999 Anaheim Ducks.

Last season, the Flames opened their season with a 6-0 loss to the Canucks at GM Place.

I hate to go out on a limb, but I'm pretty positive that tonight the Flames will improve upon last season's Opening Night performance (vs Canucks, 8PM MT, CBC). Let's say Calgary 3 (Moss, Iginla, Giordano) Vancouver 2 (DSedin x2). Go Flames.

Tea Leaves

2009-10-01T10:51:00.002-06:00

"The Oilers will avoid making the mistake all bad teams make, panicking, and refuse to rush into any bad decisions. They won't fire their coach and bring in a grizzled retiree who pontificates non-stop about "heart" and "soul." They won't waste months chasing the sniper who has absolutely no desire to live and play in a northern Canadian city. They won't bid against themselves and overpay for an ancient goalie coming off of a career year. And they won't sign a pint-sized centre whose greatest hockey achievement is that he was once asked by a general manager to pay back a large chunk of his contract.

No, the Oilers will avoid all of these things, instead focus on reasonably priced depth, acquiring someone who can actually win a faceoff, and making their current stadium a provincial heritage site, and remain a shining star in the NHL firmament.

4th in the Northwest, 12th in the West."

My prediction on the Oilers season, via In The Box. If you were looking for optimism or smoke up your a@%, you've come to the wrong place. Try the Journal instead.

The Flames and Canucks roll tonight. I hope both teams spontaneously combust. The Oil hit the ground running on Saturday, on Hockey Night in Canada, in the first BoA tilt of the season. It's go-time, folks.

GOILERS.

Breaking

2009-09-29T09:42:00.002-06:00

McKenzie: Islanders pick up ~~poor~~ homeless man's John Tavares to play with John Tavares.

My 2-year-old Schremp scouting report here.

It's only hard if you make it hard

2009-09-28T16:59:00.001-06:00

The old Local Team's Enforcer is a Real Human Being! story is a September fixture in many NHL cities; Vicki Hall is a fine and capable writer/reporter; and Brian McGrattan is just doing what he can to earn a terrific living for as long as possible.

So I'm not directing this at either Hall or McGrattan when I say that this article from Sunday's Calgary Herald is beyond embarrassing.

“I want to lead the league in majors this year,” McGrattan says, peeling off his blinding yellow practice jersey. “And I think this is the right division to do it.”

The tattooed enforcer looks across the room at Jarome Iginla and Olli Jokinen.

“I can’t wait,” McGrattan says, “for the first guy who runs one of these guys.

“That will give me the green light to go get ’em.”

I'm not anti-fighting, but that kinda makes my skin crawl. Also, while I sincerely hope that he really does have sobriety figured out for good, your typical 20-years-sober alcoholic comes off as more humble and guarded about the whole issue than McGrattan does at 9+ months.

Mostly, it's just galling that the Flames gave a one-way contract to a guy who can only "help his team" by fighting, even though he's not yet recovered from shoulder surgery, and has the substance abuse baggage noted above. Jaffray and Lundmark were waived today, both of whom would help the Flames score/prevent goals and win games from the 4th line more than McGrattan could hope to. It's a real blot on what was otherwise a pretty solid summer by management.

Thought for the Day

2009-09-23T07:42:00.002-06:00

The best way to win a lot of hockey games is to get off the bus with the best players.

-- Jack Parker, Boston University coach, career record 816-412-101 (via a Pipeline Show clip on TEAM1260)

Battle Game Day

2009-09-15T14:14:00.000-06:00

Hurray, it's hockey! Though calling it "NHL hockey" might be a stretch, at least looking at the lineup the Flames are icing tonight (7PM MT, web stream). Moss, Boyd, Lundmark, Dawes, and Nystrom are the "veterans" skating against the Oilers at the 'Dome tonight; looks like Quinn is dressing a more traditional preseason mix of vets and hopefuls.

I commented last week at M&G that

I sincerely hope that with the myriad 4th-line-types signed up this offseason, there’s legit competition for those spots, i.e. the org has an open mind about who will be in the Opening Night lineup. I can’t get too jazzed about any given 4th-line trio, but I CAN get jazzed about the idea that the three best performers thru camp/preseason — out of 8 or 9 competitors — get the gig. Depth, in that sense, could be a strength. And the team probably needs it to be one.

In this context, I'm very encouraged by Coach Sutter's roster tonight; looks to me like the beginning of a 15-day Battle Royale for a job at the bottom of the forward corps. Right now there are 7 guys who will certainly dress for every regular season game in which they're healthy: Iginla, Langkow, Jokinen, Conroy, Glencross, Bourque, and Moss. There's another 4 who essentially have jobs, but could conceivably be healthy scratches on occasion (or be punted to the minors if they're really struggling): Boyd, Dawes, Sjostrom and Nystrom.

That leaves 2 spots open for the winning, to my eye, as well as the whole concept of making a good impression and being an early callup when the inevitable injuries come. I typically agree with Tyler's take that your crystal ball need be no more complicated than looking for who has one-way contracts (meaning Prust and McGrattan will be the lucky two), but I think this season might constitute special circumstances.

Last season the team paid Eriksson $1.5M to play in the minors and paid Rhett Warrener ~$2.4M to convalesce from his various injuries/surgeries, just to get down to the cap at the beginning of the season. In other words, they spent a lot of dead money from Day 1. That's not the case this season, and particularly with a new coach, I think that if 1 or 2 borderline guys with 2-way deals make a big impression on Coach Sutter from now until October 1, then GM Sutter will make room for those guys in the big leagues one way or another.

That group is probably represented by: Brett Sutter, David Van der Gulik, Kris Chucko, Kyle Greentree, Jason Jaffray, Jamie Lundmark, Colin Stuart, and Garth Murray.

Greg Nemisz and Mitch Wahl are in that unfortunate Draft+1yr cohort of "Would be Better Off Playing in the AHL, But Have to Go Back to Junior". Very little chance they make the big club.

This leaves the two most interesting hopefuls in camp. Mikael Backlund is... something. He was a good junior player in his stint with Kelowna, but he's not the next Peter Forsberg. He's not even the next Daymond Langkow. But he might well be a quality NHLer. First step, though, is to take the step up to the AHL, and start (continue?) internalizing the fact that he's not going to score enough to hang around the perimeter or be an indifferent two-way player.

The other, of course, is the Little Big Man. I won't hem and haw here: I think his invitation to camp is tremendously exciting, and I'm thrilled for him. I take Tom Benjamin's point that, in the big picture, the Flames might not be doing him any favours, but I'll disagree nonetheless. He's been sober for ~ 4 years, not six months, and has gone through financial and family tribulations in the interim. "Not an emotionally healthy person" is probably true, now and forever, but I guess my sense is that Fleury's not quite as fragile as TB thinks he is. And further, that even if this comeback attempt falls short, it might be more beneficial than detrimental to Fleury's psyche.

At any rate: a wildly successful training camp and preseason for Fleury means a two-way, league min. deal to play in Abbotsford for the Heat. There is zero chance he makes the Flames out of TC. If he looks like he can still play -- even if he looks like he can still help an NHL team -- he'll be sent to the AHL; to see if his body can keep up with the grind for a couple months, to see if he can be effective all over the ice over a larger sample of games, and, yes, to see if he folds under the pressure.

The "Holy Shit, Woo-HOO!!!" Scenario is Fleury scoring 28 points in the first 20 games with the Heat, then coming up to the Flames and adding something to depth and 2nd-unit PP (and of course, getting his name on the Stanley Cup 21 years after the 1st time, but I digress). I think the best-case scenario though, as in, more realistic and something every Fleury fan could cheer for, is:

hero's reception in a preseason game
capable performance in camp and preseason
contract, off to Abbotsford
competes hard, but realizes he's not a difference-maker any more
officially retires in mid-December, as he misses his family, dislikes the travel, and is realistic about his chances for promotion or improvement
happy he went through the whole process anyway, as it gave him some closure on his career
#14 is retired to the Saddledome rafters in March

Fingers crossed, folks.

Thought for the Day

2009-09-07T12:01:00.000-06:00

All of economics is devoted to the proposition that there is no such thing as a free lunch. All of politics is devoted to the opposite conviction. All economics teaches that you can’t get something for nothing. All politics supposes that you can -- or that you can at least persuade other people that you can. Economics is about scarcity, universal and inescapable. Politics is about limitless plenty.

Consider that 98% of all bad policy amounts to nothing more than ignoring opportunity costs: the simple axiom that the cost of something is measured not just by the actual sum of money used to produce it, but what the same funds might have purchased, diverted to another end -- the profits forgone, the jobs not created, because that money was spent in one way and not another.

-- Andrew Coyne, October 9, 2007

Stuff we can agree on

2009-09-04T16:36:00.000-06:00

Northlands showed it is Edmonton's "sports and entertainment complex experts" after Rexall Place was ranked 10th in the world for concert and event ticket sales, an official with the non-profit group says.

What conclusions are reasonable to draw from this? I think there's a couple:

Rexall Place is, at the least, a good concert/event venue
Northlands is, at the least, a competent venue manager

Based on such a high standing, it would seem awfully hard to argue that Northlands is enjoying tremendous success despite a lousy facility (making chicken salad out of chicken shit); likewise, it would be hard to argue that people are packing the place despite barely competent management by an out-of-touch quasi-government agency.

Which brings us to Pat Laforge on Monday... when asked about the future of Rexall Place, he said:

"Our lease expires in the spring of 2014. ... We're a tenant here and we don't own the building so I can't offer speculation on what might happen to it. But it's been a great building and it still is."

David Staples translated this to mean (and Jonathan Willis seems to agree), "Not our problem".

But whether Staples and Willis are misinterpreting, or Laforge is being disingenous (No!), it clearly is an issue. Whatever scenarios exist for a new downtown arena being successful and profitable (or, self-supporting) involve the migration of all the concerts and a bunch of the other stuff from the old place to the new place.

There's a non-zero chance that, in the event of a taxpayer revolt (and a credible election threat to the mayor), the Oilers press on with the project through private financing. But this non-zero chance drops to zero-point-zero-zero if it's premised on competing with Northlands and the existing building for concerts and other non-hockey events. The abandonment (/demolition) of Rexall Place isn't a side effect of a downtown arena plan; it's a necessary element.

Which brings us back to the Are We Sure This Is Necessary question... I think the proponents and fans of a new downtown arena have done a pretty poor job of explaining why it's necessary, or alternatively, worth it, to abandon Rexall Place.

**I don't think there's any question that a new place would have dozens of features to recommend it over Rexall Place, but if you agree that money talks, customers aren't dissatisfied with Rexall (see top).

**I got the impression before I moved here that it might as well be out in Kanata, but jeez, it's 2 LRT stops (5 minutes) from the east end of downtown, and maybe 10 minutes from the west end/legislature. It's about as handy to downtown as you could want without being within walking distance.

**The CFR -- Rexall's 2nd most important tenant and a genuine boon to the city's economy -- is very likely to bolt for the Stampede grounds if "shuttling cattle back and forth downtown proves to be too complicated and costly". I'm not a logistics guy, but I sense that this would be a major challenge.

**And, I mentioned that I'm not a logistics guy, but even maintaining the existing level of concerts and events at a new downtown location won't be easy. There are no arterial roads to speak of near downtown Edmonton. Just given the price and availabilty of land, blacktop for parking and access around the new place will presumably be limited. But of course it's not "just given" that; the whole idea is to have lots of development around the arena, not lots of development around a 200m strip of asphalt around the arena.

Here's a couple of pics I snapped from the window of the Coliseum Inn, at about 9AM on the morning of a Rascall Flatts concert (after an Oilers game the night before).

Approximately 20 tractor-trailers and 10 Maddencruisers, all told. The difficulties in organizing something like this downtown are not at all insurmountable. That said, every square foot of space surrounding the building that's used for accommodating major concert acts and the like is a square foot that's not being used for the vitality (re-vitality?) of the surrounding development of retail, housing, etc. And as such, it must be acknowledged that the new plan has what everyone besides politicians call "tradeoffs".

Or, we could just pretend that the new place will be fairytale perfect, featuring everything you like about the old place, plus a reasonably-priced restaurant you like a few steps out the front door, and plenty of open urinals at intermission.

Sound and Fury

2009-09-01T10:36:00.009-06:00

"We found that the mainstream media in most of these cities is noticeably biased toward supporting publicly financed stadiums, which has a significant impact on the initiatives' success.

This bias usually takes the form of uncritically parroting stadium proponents' economic and social promises, quoting stadium supporters far more frequently than stadium opponents, overlooking the numerous objective academic studies on the topic, and failing to independently examine the multitude of failed stadium-centered promises throughout the country, especially those in oft-cited "success cities" such as Denver and Cleveland."

--Rick Eckstein, Philadelphia Enquirer

"Tremendously reassuring was LaForge's return, time and time again, to the rhetoric of making Edmonton great, emphasizing downtown revitalization, going on about improving the city. Which means that the development will strive to fit in and complement downtown, that the esthetics (or the "look") of the arena and surroundings won't be sacrificed on the altar of cost-cutting.

I'm convinced that lifelong Edmontonian Katz wants to leave a lasting legacy."

--Graham Hicks, Edmonton Sun

Ahem.

Some links from the past few days.

New Oilers Arena Underway--Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal
Much Ado About Nothing--John MacKinnon, Edmonton Journal
Progress on Arena--Unsigned Editorial, Edmonton Journal
City in Dark on Arena--Frank Landry, Edmonton Sun
Patience is Key to Worthwhile Arena--Graham Hicks, Edmonton Sun
Despite Funding Questions, Edmonton Oilers Proceed With New Downtown Arena--Canadian Press
Arena Could Leave Poor Our in Cold, Advocates Say--Richard Warnica, Edmonton Journal
Edmonton Arena Developments--Brad Humphreys, International Journal of Sports Finance
Columbus a Model for Edmonton?--Scott Hennig, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Katz Plan Should Go Ahead, But With Strict Conditions--Scott McKeen, Edmonton Journal

Downtown Arena Primer

2009-08-31T21:53:00.016-06:00

I'm going to place a link to this post in the left sidebar, and will continue to update it as time goes on. That way, people can come to the site, click on the link to the left, and get their hands on everything we have posted here.

This is, to my mind, the most comprehensive gathering of information and opinion around on the proposed downtown arena. Most of the opinion is mine, and therefore reflects my viewpoint (which is in opposition), but there are invaluable contributions, from both sides of the argument, within the comment sections of each post. There are also a large number of links to newspaper articles, academic articles, and other items within those posts. I encourage all to read through what is provided here, and to share it with others. I also encourage everyone to look for other sources of information on this issue. Like I said, these opinions are mine. I make no qualms about having them, believing them to be clear and rational, but I do encourage everyone to seek out other voices and opinions in making a determination on where they stand on the issue.

Arena Powerpoint

Arena Powerpoint

Downloadable Documents
These two documents were created to supplement the powerpoint presentation above, and have been updated to include the most recent announcements. They will continue to be updated as events transpire.

21 Key Arena Posts

Front Page Challenge (Nov. 14, 2006)
Pyramid Power (Nov. 16, 2006)
Taxpayers To Buy Oilers An Arena (Apr. 24, 2007)
We Built This City (Apr. 24, 2007)
In Defence Of Northlands (Apr. 26, 2007)
Sixteen Candles (Apr. 26, 2007)
"...willing to be persuaded..." (Apr. 27, 2007)
A New Arena? Don't You Mean Saving Your Immortal Soul? (Oct. 1, 2007)
Where Would We Have Gotten That Idea? (Oct. 10, 2007)
Dan Mason Outdoes Himself (Jan. 4, 2008)
Questions (Jan. 7, 2008)
In Praise of Tradition, or And I Will Always Love You (Jan. 9, 2008)
Len Bias? No, No. I Said MEDIA Bias (Jan. 31, 2008)
Tonight In Rexall Village, Allan Ginsberg Will Perform A Reading Of "Howl" (Feb. 11, 2008)
Interview With Brad Humphreys (Feb. 18, 2008)
Arena Response: Letter #1 (Mar. 26, 2008)
An Arena Response: Letter #3 (Mar. 27, 2008)
Horse Race Reporting (July 22, 2008)
Hockey Draft? (Aug. 6, 2008)
Will Anyone Say No? (Aug. 27, 2009)
Columbus A Model For Edmonton? (August 31, 2009)

Complete List of Arena Posts

Front Page Challenge (Nov. 14, 2006)
Front Page Challenge, cont'd. (Nov. 15, 2006)
Pyramid Power (Nov. 16, 2006)
Let It No, Let It No, Let It No (Dec. 22, 2006)
Muh Mum Ma My... Arena (Jan. 18, 2007)
A $250 Million Doughnut (Feb. 22, 2007)
Friday Odds & Ends (Feb. 23, 2007)
And The Walls, Come Tumbling Down (Apr. 19, 2007)
Taxpayers To Buy Oilers An Arena (Apr. 24, 2007)
We Built This City (Apr. 24, 2007)
In Defence Of Northlands (Apr. 26, 2007)
Sixteen Candles (Apr. 26, 2007)
Sixteen Candles Update (Apr. 27, 2007)
"...willing to be persuaded..." (Apr. 27, 2007)
Economists? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Economists (Apr. 28, 2007)
Either/Or Else (Apr. 28, 2007)
How I Spent My Saturday Night (Apr. 30, 2007)
I Want A New Drug (May 5, 2007)
Caught In The Cookie Jar (May 16, 2007)
Visual Aids Can Be So Helpful (May 24, 2007)
*Victory! (June 2, 2007)
Yesterday (June 7, 2007)
I Guess Ominous Is In The Eye Of The Beholder (July 25, 2007)
A Little Help For My Friends (Aug. 13, 2007)
Let's Be Clear Here (Aug. 16, 2007)
So Fresh And So Clean (Sept. 11, 2007)
A New Arena? Don't You Mean Saving Your Immortal Soul? (Oct. 1, 2007)
Where Would We Have Gotten That Idea? (Oct. 10, 2007)
You Don't Say? (Oct. 11, 2007)
All The Great Ones Leave Their Mark. We're The Wet Bandits (Dec. 7, 2007)
Great, Bouncing Icebergs! (Dec. 14, 2007)
Oh...You Hit Santy Claus! Just For That, No Toys! (Dec. 15, 2007)
The Location Agreement (Jan. 3, 2008)
Dan Mason Outdoes Himself (Jan. 4, 2008)
Questions (Jan. 7, 2008)
In Praise of Tradition, or And I Will Always Love You (Jan. 9, 2008)
In Praise of Tradition, Redux (Jan. 19, 2008)
Lessons In Alberta Politics, 101 (Jan. 21, 2008)
Len Bias? No, No. I Said MEDIA Bias (Jan. 31, 2008)
Bohemian Like You (Feb. 8, 2008)
Tonight In Rexall Village, Allan Ginsberg Will Perform A Reading Of "Howl" (Feb. 11, 2008)
Interview With Brad Humphreys (Feb. 18, 2008)
Arena Response: Letter #1 (Mar. 26, 2008)
An Arena Response: Letter #2 (Mar. 27, 2008)
An Arena Response: Letter #3 (Mar. 27, 2008)
Arena Stories (Apr. 2, 2008)
It's Tradition! (May 28, 2008)
Canadian Teams, Including Oilers, Doing Just Fine (May 30, 2008)
Horse Race Reporting (July 22, 2008)
Hockey Draft? (Aug. 6, 2008)
Good News And Bad News (Aug. 23, 2009)
Will Anyone Say No? (Aug. 27, 2009)
Arena Press Conference (Aug. 30, 2009)
Columbus A Model For Edmonton? (Aug. 31, 2009)
Sound and Fury (Sept. 1, 2009)
Stuff We Can Agree On (Sept. 4, 2009)
Thought for the Day (Oct. 7, 2009)
Don't know, but if, then totally (Nov. 10, 2009)
The More You Know (Dec. 10, 2009)

Now this is exciting...

2009-08-31T12:55:00.002-06:00

Todd Bertuzzi will be playing for the Knights' team in the Euro Can Cup tonight -- meaning that (finally!?!) he and Rob Schremp will be on the same team. Hey, maybe Bert can teach Schremp a thing or two about what it takes to be a useful NHLer. (ÞMalik)

(P.S. Looks like they'll be shooting on Zug goalie Jussi Markkanen.)

Arena Press Conference

2009-08-30T20:59:00.003-06:00

The Edmonton Oilers and the Katz Group will hold a press conference Monday morning at Rexall Place with an update about the proposed downtown arena development.

--Edmonton Journal

This should be interesting.

***Update*** Nope. Not interesting at all. It was a press conference about nothing.

A Tale of Two Offseasons

2009-08-30T12:36:00.002-06:00

I don't know what preview magazine it was, but in the 7-Eleven last night I saw a cover that featured two players from Alberta's NHL teams. One of the players was Jay Bouwmeester. The other was Nikolai Khabibulin. Let's just say I didn't leave that 7-Eleven feeling very well, despite the bag of Super Melange I had just purchased.

Will Anyone Say No?

2009-08-27T20:38:00.007-06:00

"We would not use current city taxes to build the arena.”

--Mayor Stephen Mandel

Emphasis mine.

Two new articles on the proposed downtown arena appeared today, one by Graham Hicks of the Edmonton Sun, the other by Gordon Kent of the Edmonton Journal. Both emphasize the fact that the mayor and his arena "feasibility" committee would still like taxpayers to foot the bill, despite consistent and overwhelming evidence that it's not in the best interests of taxpayers to do so, as well as recent polling that shows that 76% of Edmontonians do not wish to have their tax dollars used in this fashion. The fact that the mayor and his committee continue to ignore the evidence and the will of the electorate on this issue isn't terribly surprising. They've been doing so for almost three years now. What is so baffling is the fact that no one else on City Council has stood up and loudly proclaimed their opposition to the idea. The idea makes no sense economically or, as the polling suggests, politically. It's an idea disliked by people on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. So where are the champions of both common sense and the people? Is anyone on council going to have the courage to make this their issue, and say this is a bad idea? As one of those 76%, I certainly hope so.

p.s. For those who have asked, yes I coming back, and yes, I will be writing hockey-related Oilers content again, and soon.

p.p.s. Confirmation that the Katz Group has indeed purchased the land around the Baccarat Casino.

p.p.p.s Another story in today's (Friday's) Journal. Uses a lot of the stuff from the Kent article above.

***Saturday update***
Another story, focusing on the Community Revitalization Levy (CRL).

Questions?

2009-08-27T15:51:00.001-06:00

If Jim Balsillie is so untrustworthy etc. that, based on prior actions and dealings with NHL owners, he was unanimously by the Board of Governors as a suitable owner, why didn't the BoG do something about him after the Nashville situation? Did they think he wouldn't be back for Aggressive Purchase & Relocation Attempt #3? Or was it that after the PIT and NSH tries, they still found him suitable enough, but his actions specific to PHX is what makes him unsuitable to be the PHX owner?

What was it about the NHL's quasi-takeover agreement of the Coyotes during the 08/09 season that allowed Moyes to declare bankruptcy of the club? It seems reasonable to assume that they screwed up the legal agreement in some manner, or the judge would have rejected Moyes' original filing weeks ago, so what was missed? Did it arise from the NHL being afraid of the bad press associated with them officially assuming control of a franchise?

In their Coyotes bid, the NHL is putting up a (very little) bit of cash to purchase the team, and will have to finance operating losses for as long as they own the team. Where is this money coming from? Assuming it's being borrowed, where is the money for the interest payments coming from?

There is what is seen, and what is not seen. What other things could the NHL be investing that cash (or loan) in that might be of equal, or greater, benefit to the league's long term health? And as I've noted many other times before, what does it do to NHL-NHLPA relations when the NHL spends so much time and money on an effort that depresses, rather than enhances, Hockey-Related Revenue, at least in the near-term? (Particularly when it's easy to view their efforts as an attempt to preserve expansion revenue, which the players are forbidden from sharing in?)

The logic behind the NHL's bid is that it's bad business to walk out on Glendale after they invested a ton of money in the league, in large part because it might dissuade future governments from doing the same thing. But their bid only precludes relocating for one season, and the express purpose of that stay-of-execution is to allow more time for squeezing more money out of Glendale. Realistically, does that send a much warmer, fuzzier message to the governments and taxpayers of (say) Long Island?

What has changed since the Coyotes signed their lease at the Glendale Arena? Why was it a good deal at the time it was signed, but unworkable now? (Would they be in better shape if they had built it themselves and taken out a mortgage?) Or did the Coyotes never really intend to meet the original terms, and foresaw a showdown something quite like this, with the assumption that Glendale would cave (which they may)?

My opinion on this whole situation, expressed in parts in previous posts, is that how the NHL has been responding on a brief-by-brief basis is understandable, and they quite possibly have the better side of the legal arguments. But, I think they could have prevented the whole situation from happening, and once they got caught with their pants down, the best course of action would have been to say, "We can probably win this one, but it's not going to be worth it..." and accept their fate. Extort a big relocation fee from Balsillie -- possibly "negotiating" with him to go the Kitchener-Waterloo route instead, preserving the GTA as an expansion market -- and welcome him to the club (and then, who cares, treat him like he has H1N1 at BoG meetings).

Unfortunately, "admitting failure" is not really one of Bettman et al's strong suits, so the earth will continue to be scorched for a while here.

Good News and Bad News

2009-08-23T10:31:00.005-06:00

Good news:

Three quarters (76%) of Edmontonians ‘disagree’ (46% strongly/31% somewhat) that ‘The City should provide taxpayer’s money for a new Hockey Arena. With nearly one half strongly disagreeing with this notion, it is unlikely that further debate on the issue would make them more receptive of the idea.
Very interesting breakdown here.

The bad news? Oilers fans have to watch this lineup starting October 3rd.

***Update*** Professor Brad Humphreys has posted some quick thoughts on the International Journal of Sports Finance blog.

Winning isn't everything

2009-08-11T15:55:00.001-06:00

So I've just been doing some light reading, taking in the NHL's latest motion to the bankruptcy court (ÞMirtle), and I'm left with the same overriding thought as I was a couple of months ago: are they sure this is really what they want?

In particular, I'm referring to The Bankruptcy Code Cannot Be Invoked to Abrogate The NHL's Transfer Consent Rights (pp.6-16), but broadly, the 22 pages as a whole. I'm trying to think of this from the perspective of a banker who has been asked to lend, for example, $50M to the Columbus Blue Jackets, secured by the value of the franchise. How does the outcome of this motion affect my calculation of the risk?

Surely, if there is judicial precedent saying the NHL can veto the highest bidder (or bidders) for the bankrupt franchise for their own reasons, my risk is greater by some non-zero amount, true? I may charge more interest on the loan; I may decline to make it at all -- not sure.

Now that I know that my ability to recover my money if the BJs go tits-up is partially dependent on a vote of the NHL's Board of Governors, I have to make an assessment of how likely it is that the BOG will protect my best interests if my debtor files for bankruptcy. (That is, now that I know the BOG can shaft the secured creditors, will they?) I have one obvious precedent to look at: the Coyotes. And I know the major secured creditors got shafted there because the BOG wouldn't accept Balsillie as the buyer. And why?

Well, to assess why, I doubt I'll be parsing the motions and transcripts from the court case -- I'll be looking big picture. The NHL takes great pains in this motion (after arguing that they have no obligation to do so) to assert that the Balsillie rejection was in good faith, and that he really is a dingus of the greatest order. But from behind my desk at the First Ohio Bank six months from now, I don't think the legal merits of this section of the motion matter squat.

I'll note the compelling evidence that the NHL had a preferred buyer the whole time. I'll note that, however awful a shark Jim Balsillie is, he's the founder/head/whatever of a company built on millions of satisfied customers, and that maybe the NHL BOG isn't the greatest judge of who's OK to do business with. I'll note that the NHL was insistent on keeping the Coyotes in a market that is unprofitable in the good times, and shockingly unprofitable in the bad times.

I really don't know what issues I would weight most heavily and which I would mostly ignore, but there's a good chance that my general conclusion would be, approximately, These guys have an awful lot of priorities that come ahead of me getting my money -- and unlike many/most other ways for me to lend out this $50M, bankruptcy law isn't protecting me.

Is it a bit weird for a hockey blogger to weigh in on this situation on the basis of the marginal effect it will have on the price and availability of credit? I suppose it is. But on the other hand, when the league is bellowing in federal court about the supremacy of its internal procedures over the rights of their lenders, I don't think it's crazy to suppose that some of those lenders might hear the message and act accordingly. And even the successful NHL franchises aren't operating on a cash-in-the-bank basis, and they have their weaker financial stretches as well -- credit is important.

But most of all, I think it just serves to highlight that this battle that the NHL is fighting against Jim Balsillie has costs, both immediate and long-term. I certainly understand the league's desire to maintain some control over franchise transfers, but it sure doesn't look like they picked their best spot here. This is what winning looks like?

clarifying to the creditors of the 24 American teams that the security of their loans is subject to a vote of the NHL BoG, without the protection of bankruptcy law
preventing a wealthy prospective owner from moving a franchise to an area where it would likely be popular and profitable
keeping the Coyotes in a market that, for the foreseeable future, has no hope of paying its own way
selling the Coyotes to a group that will not guarantee that they stay in Phoenix indefinitely anyway
entering into negotiations with Glendale needing massive taxpayer concessions that are either "not" or "absolutely not" forthcoming
continuing to poison relations with the NHLPA by sacrificing the pursuit of leaguewide Hockey-Related Revenues in favour of some ill-defined greater good and/or expansion fees

Not sure what else to say -- that just seems like kind of a shit deal. I think they would have been a lot better off if, as soon as the bankruptcy court asserted jurisdiction, they had gone to Balsillie and said, "Let's talk relocation fee." It would have sucked for Coyotes fans, and for the real estate developers around Something.com Arena, but that seems like the lesser loss at this point.

That said, having NHL lawyers stand in front of a judge and blast someone else's trustworthiness is good entertainment, assuming you like black humour.

Sked

2009-07-15T21:59:00.002-06:00

Any idea when the NHL decided that 4 games in 5 nights was OK? I don't recall ever seeing it before. The league has done all manners of loony things with the schedule, but has never (again, to my recollection, and I do pay attention to these things) okayed

3 games in 3 nights
4 games in 5 nights

The Flames do it twice this season: December 27/28/30/31, and January 5/6/8/9. (That also makes 9 games in 14 nights, which I would also submit is unusual.)

Feschuk on Heatley

2009-07-02T21:40:00.001-06:00

This post is so good I almost can't stand it, and not just on account of the humour ("To be fair, a small number of Ottawa residents are still keen to give him the key to the city, though only if he agrees to accept it rectally."). Try to find something to disagree with here:

What’s truly fascinating in all this is the utter ham-handedness with which Heatley has “managed” this situation. You’d think a guy who’s raking in millions might be willing to part with $10,000 or $20,000 for some top-notch strategic advice. Nothing fancy – just the basics: precondition the fans to expect an ultimatum, praise the community for its past support (…but golly, I’m an elite player in this league and want to go somewhere where the coaching staff sees me as such, etc. etc.), sit down with a sympathetic reporter and lay out the reasons for wanting out, enlist a teammate or two to speak out as a third-party supporter, maybe visit Ottawa and do a charity thing to emphasize the It’s Nothing Personal aspect of it all.

But nooooooooo. Heatley has done none of that. His trade request was crude and insulting and not couched by any (genuine or manufactured) love for Ottawa and its fans. He’s remained silent for weeks now, allowing the Senators to portray him as a total douche and giving reporters and columnists nothing to write about except those douchey musings. And now, having demanded out, he’s gone and vetoed the only decent trade the Senators could come up with – naturally, without so much as a word as to why.

Would most Ottawa fans be down on Heatley no matter what right now? Absolutely. But the level of hatred in the city could have been diminished, and the degree to which he’s now viewed as a Problem Child in cities around the league could have been avoided entirely.

If anyone still read this here blog, this statement might hurt someone's feelings, but we gotta keep it real: to an outsider, Dany Heatley comes off as the NHL's Patrick Bateman.

It really doesn't matter that you've been forgiven for your past mistakes, Dany: you should still be keeping your head down, working hard, being easy to get along with, and basically thanking the stars for your good luck on a daily basis. You drove your car into a wall and killed your buddy, and you're neither dead yourself nor in jail. Displeasure with your work environment is probably something you ought to be suffering in silence.

Craig MacTavish wasn't one-half the hockey player you are, but Christ could you learn some stuff from him -- the first being that you, like him, are never, never allowed to feel sorry for yourself for any reason. It's the price you owe, in perpetuity. Deal.

My Christmas List

2009-06-30T15:14:00.001-06:00

No deal with Bouwmeester (though I'm not going to stomp my feet if he signs). Pardy for $2.5M over 3 years. Steve Sullivan for ~$2M/yr X 2 or 3 years. Kent Huskins (or thereabouts) for $1.6M over 2 years. Jason Labarbera for 1 or 2 years at under $1M/yr. And a minor trade: Miikka Kiprusoff for Ryan Smyth

Why it Could Happen:

Flames and Avs have a long history of dealing with each other
Flames (based on years of rumours) have a long-standing desire to acquire Smyth; it was apparently pretty close to happening in July '07
Their cap and salary numbers are pretty close (Kipper is $5.3M avg. salary, $5.83 cap hit for 5 more years; Smyth is $5.5M avg. salary, $6.25M cap hit for 3 more years)
Avs have been unstable and/or poor in goal for several years; probably tired of it! Kipper has a Vezina, two near-misses, and a Conn Smythe near-miss too
Given bullet #2 above, and that the Avs have been trying to move Smyth for a while, he'd likely waive his NTC to come to Calgary
The Avs have had a positive recent experience with the rejuvenation of a former Vezina winner

Why it Won't Happen: oh, basically for the same reasons that I'd like it to. Smyth may be a bit overpaid, but he's a hell of a hockey player, always plays against the other team's best, and makes your team better at both ends of the ice. On a shift-to-shift basis, he was the best Avs player in every game of theirs I watched this past season.

Kipper's struggles have been monitored at some length at this site over the past two seasons. Darryl Sutter might be the only guy, along with some true-believing fellow Flames fans, who think he's a good bet to be an above-average goalie going forward.

But maybe if I close my eyes and wish really, really hard....

Big Day

2009-06-09T10:30:00.000-06:00

Item the first: Brent Sutter to leave Devils. Even back before he took the NJD job, I was never on board with the notion that he was a great fit to coach the Flames. It comes down to two semi-related issues:

The success he's achieved in his post-playing career has pretty much always been as the big dog; the guy who makes the final decisions on everything. I was surprised that he took the Devils' job in the first place, given Lamoriello's well-known status as the Ultimate Overlord of everything there short of signing the cheques. I'm not at all sure he wants another position where he's "just the coach".
Yeah, the Flames are turning into a Sutter family business, but Darryl's relatives in the org have roles that are quite specific and out of the spotlight. The coach's job is to do WHATEVER, that one way or another results in regular season and then playoff success. Sometimes, that's going to be odds with the way the GM has planned things. Let's imagine for a second that Brent was coach this past season, and thinks Olli Jokinen is basically crap. Darryl trades for him at the deadline, announcing that the org has been interested in him for years; he only did it because Olli has another year left on his deal; and that he only notified Brent the night before that it was about to happen ("GMs manage, coaches coach"). Does Brent really want to be in this kind of position, where his brother has autonomous license to affect what he thinks he should be doing to succeed? I'm not so sure.

Item the Second: Bankruptcy court to rule on Balsillie bid for Coyotes. The NHL (and/or Gary Bettman, and/or the Board of Governors, make your own distinctions) is specifically asking for a ruling that a court cannot supersede the rules and regulations of the league with respect to transfer of ownership or relocation. The NBA, NFL, and MLB are apparently all supporting the NHL.

This seems to me like a "careful what you ask for" situation. To look at it from another angle, the NHL is asking Judge Redfield to explicitly tell the secured creditors of every team that in reality, what they are is secured** creditors (**subject to a vote of the 30 Governors, who always have their own interests first).

If you're a major lender, then it seems to me that being secured is better than being secured**. If word comes down that what they are is secured**, I don't see how the result -- short, medium, and long-term -- could be anything but more difficult and more expensive financing for pro sports teams. Are the Governors, and the owners in the other leagues, sure they want to call that a Win?

Item the Third: Stanley Cup may be awarded tonight. "Young team with gobs of talent makes finals, gets schooled by veteran & successful franchise, learns what it takes to win, comes back the following season to match up with the same franchise, and takes the final step." As a long-time Flames fan, I've been bored with that narrative for approximately 25 years minus 5 minutes. Accordingly, I thought the most fascinating narrative for these Finals would be a Wings sweep. My second preference is "identical result to previous year", so I'll be rooting for the Wings to wrap it up tonight. The NHL can then save money by continuing to run that Crosby stop-motion TV ad through next season as well.

Duck!

2009-05-13T13:30:00.001-06:00

We are gathered here today to mark the passing of the 2008/2009 Vancouver Canucks. Let us pause for a moment of silence: to reflect on what might have been, but mostly to allow GM Place staff to clear debris tossed by petulant fans.

I was given the privilege of eulogizing the 2008/09 Canucks at Puck Daddy, and as you can see, I went for the blindingly obvious joke in the lede.

Whole thing here. Not my best work, but hopefully it does the job. Ironic given the title and origins of this blog, but I find it surprisingly difficult to be vicious and make sense at the same time.

Blast from the past: the gold standard for these pieces is Mike W's eulogy of last season's Flames ("We ask now that everyone remove their idiotic Stetsons as we bury your dreams.")

Incentives Matter. Still.

2009-05-07T16:12:00.000-06:00

[...] one wonders at what point the owners look at this situation and wonder why they are propping up losing propositions everywhere they look.

That's BDHS, contemplating Gary Bettman and the Coyotes. Here's something I wrote in July 2007 that I think is still pretty relevant:

The present CBA has an expiry date. The next one, and the one after that, will be different. Extremely different? I doubt it, but time will tell. Maybe some of the cost certainty elements will be watered down. Maybe some of the revenue-sharing provisions will be altered. I dunno. What I do know is that NHL owners have to plan for this in some way; they do have incentives to make decisions that will benefit the value of their businesses regardless of exactly what the next CBA says.

Steadfastly supporting a franchise that appears to have no chance of being profitable in their present location is not one of those things. Keeping a team from relocating into a market that will be extremely lucrative is not one of those things. Exercising an extreme amount of collective control over the fate of an individual franchise is not one of those things. And being indifferent -- or hostile -- to overall league revenue growth is not one of those things.

(And let's not forget: the next CBA will not drop out of the sky, it will be negotiated. If the league and owners spend the next 4 years trying to torque everything except Hockey Related Revenues, then the notion of the "partnership" will be in much bigger shambles than it is now, and it will considerably more difficult to negotiate a CBA with terms favourable to them.)

When I assess the short, medium, and long-term interests of NHL owners, each weighed as appropriately as I can figure, I think they must be in favour of the Balsillie bid for the Preds. It got denied this time, because Gary Bettman aggressively intervened (note: his interests are not identical to the owners'), and because Balsillie overplayed his hand (acting as if it was a done deal, instead of simply being clear about his intentions). Next time -- especially after all the owners have had time to reflect on this past bid -- Gary's veto is going to be overridden. Or at least, that's my prediction.

Developing...

My thoughts, not yours

2009-04-30T14:03:00.003-06:00

There will surely be fallout in Calgary, and Keenan’s head is probably on the block. If he is fired it will be the first time he didn’t deserve it. - Tom Benjamin

I endorse this statement. My vote is for a one-year contract extension (so through 2010-11). In evaluating the Flames' achievements this season, whether they are headed in the right direction, and why they suffered a 4th straight Round 1 defeat, I'd say there's several more obvious answers than "wrong head coach".

The GM. My take on Sutter (this week, at least) is that he deserves to keep his job for another season. Starting in 2005/06, the annual consenus has been that the Flames have a better chance at winning this season than next. And yet, next season the team is always pretty good, and they've made the playoffs for 5 consecutive seasons.

He made some nice acquisitions/signings this past offseason of guys who provided above-average play for below-average wages. I've been mostly impressed with the play of the AHL call-ups -- these are sub-cherry prospects, so I think it speaks well of player development, and Sutter is owed credit for that.

That said, I wish there was some way for him to get a clear and unmistakeable rebuke for a couple of things, and that's setting aside the specific issue of the Jokinen for Lombardi + 1st round pick, which looks worse than awful heading into the summer.

One: the cap fiasco at the end of the season. Injuries (substantial, but not unforeseeable) do not in any way excuse the lack of a buffer that forced them to dress a short bench -- which contributed to, if not caused, the loss of the NW Division. Quick primer if you need it: the amount of salary you can carry today and tomorrow is increased by how far below the cap you were yesterday. If through 3/4 of the season you are "on pace" to be $1M below the cap, you can increase your salary by $4M over the last 1/4 of the season.

Now consider that in a late season game, it was reported that Warren Peters was called up for a game instead of Dustin Boyd because of the difference in their salaries (which I believe, because there's no other 'good' reason). Boyd made $742k; Peters made $487k: a difference of $255k.

1/82nd of that difference is $3,000. The salary cap was $56.7M, and the Flames had to make a roster decision for a game based on three thousand dollars of cap space. That's outrageous.

Two (and this is related to One): his absolutely insufferable attitude in front of the media. His deadline day answer to a reporter asking about the Flames' cap situation -- ~"You guys have no idea" -- is all the more shameful in hindsight. We should have learned, from guys like Sean Avery, that working your ass off on the ice does not equate to character, so I have no idea why that label is affixed to Darryl Sutter (and his kin, to a lesser extent).

Like I said, I'm not sure the Flames could do better in the GM department, and I know they could do worse, but when Sutter eventually takes a bullet, I won't shed a tear, because at least that jerk won't be the face of my franchise any more.

The Goaltending. I realize it comes off as picking on one player, which is not my desire, but facts are facts. The numbers say that, over four seasons, the Flames have gone from having way above-average goaltending, to above-average, to around-average, to below-average. The most plausible primary explanation for this is that Miikka Kiprusoff is getting progressively worse at his job.

There's really no evidence that overwork in a given season is the reason -- his finest stretch this year was in February -- and even if it is, it brings up the question: "If your goalie is both a slow starter and suffers when overworked, doesn't that represent a somewhat intractable problem in itself?" Also, I'll hear no talk of Mike Keenan being personally responsible for Kipper being less able to stop pucks. Keenan didn't jerk the goalies around mid-game, deployed them in the exact manner of his two predecessors, and by all accounts doesn't really talk to them.

The numbers strongly suggest that #34 is declining, and precipitously. The other explanation is that year-by-year, though their Shots Against have stayed relatively stable, the Flames are allowing better and better quality scoring chances. Oh, and that it isn't reflected in any of the several current methods of tracking shot quality around the Web. If that's the case, surely a lot of the blame falls on

The Assistant Coaches. Jim Playfair's rep as a great defensive teacher is suffering by the season, even if a good chunk of the blame belongs to the one defender wearing the mask. I have absolutely no idea what Rich Preston brings to the table. What would you point at to advance the argument that David Marcoux is a good goalie coach? Etc.

I don't want Mike Keenan within ten steps of a trading phone or a Standard Player's Contract, but I still don't understand why he has never been able (allowed?) to bring in at least one or two ACs of his choosing.

If it were up to me: I'd give Playfair one more season, but dismiss the rest of them. The org can choose a new goalie coach, and Keenan can choose another bench coach (w/ JP) and a video/pressbox guy.

Injuries. Of course injuries are an excuse. No one likes to do that, because "excuse" in our vernacular doesn't mean "reason", it means "bad reason". "Good excuse" is essentially an oxymoron.

The Flames are a better team with Robyn Regehr and Mark Giordano in the lineup, and they're a better team when Conroy, Bourque, Langkow, Sarich etc. are healthy than when they're injured. Having lots of injuries makes them much less apt to beat another good team in a seven-game series. How can this even be controversial?

The Flames were a pretty good team this year -- 5th in a tough 15-team conference -- despite some lackluster goaltending. A lot of Mike Keenan's sins are imaginary (he's in Kipper's head!), or are the sins of basically every other current and prospective coach (he juggles his lines too much! he dresses the goon even though he sucks! all else being equal, he favours veterans!). I'm considerably more impressed with the guy than I thought I'd be the day he was hired, and I hope he's back next season.

Go Flames.

UNRELATED POSTSCRIPT, 807PM MT, VAN up 1-0: Continuing on with my thus-far unimpressive system of picking playoff winners, I'm going with the Wings, Hawks. Bruins, and Caps, and have more confidence in the WC picks than the EC picks.

Do it To it

2009-04-20T16:59:00.001-06:00

Now I wish I hadn't, but I decided to look up the Flames' record since the lockout with Robyn Regehr out of the lineup; the horrifying results are at left. (Amazing but true: Games 2 thru 6 of that playoff annihilation by the Red Wings is the most successful stretch of games the Flames have had with the Brazilian in the basement.)

That noted though, I'm not any more down on their chances than circumstances dictate. On balance of play, this series could easily be tied. The Hawks have looked better than I hoped, but the Flames have a lot of good hockey players and (IMO) a pretty good coach, and now they get a chance to come back at home.

Calgary 4 Chicago 2. Iginla in the first, Langkow and Moss in the second, and Conroy blows the lid off with The Most Exciting Play in Hockey late in the third. Go Flames.

Playoff Arrows

2009-04-15T16:42:00.001-06:00

How do you pick playoff series? I get pulled in eighteen different directions by various factors. This time I'm doing it systematically (with one notable exception).

I wouldn't say that the system I've chosen is the right one; not at all. But at least there's a method to it, as opposed to (for example), deciding that Rangers will beat the Caps because you (correctly) believe that Lundqvist is a better goalie than Theodore, without accounting for why the Caps finished 13 points ahead of the Rags despite that truth. Call it an experiment.

I'm looking at EV play, because most of the game is played at EV and (b) some of the things that make players successful at EV translate to the PP/PK as well
I'm interested in Shots+/-, because I think in a sample that's large enough, it tells me what I want to know better than Corsi#, and yet it's still small enough that GF/GA is subject to too much randomness.
I'm looking at play when the score is tied only. Because my intention is to use shots as a proxy for scoring chances, I'd rather not use the shot data from when one team is ahead, because there's some decent evidence (see mc79hockey) that a trailing team shoots more and those shots are less likely to go in. In other words, if I included all shots data regardless of score, it might run counter to my purpose.
I'm looking at data since February 1st only. The idea is partly to acknowledge that some teams have improved or suffered internally since the first half of the season, but mostly because the roster compositions since then will more closely approximate playoff rosters (re: injuries, acquisitions, etc.). I think it's a big enough sample (30-odd games worth of shots) to be useful; YMMV.

So to sum up, I'm going to look at Shots For minus Shots Against at EV with the score tied since Feb1, and use that as (what I am positing is) the best available predictor of who will have the biggest advantage (and disadvantage) in scoring chances in the playoffs. Throw in a bit of goaltending factor after that, and ta-da: you have an empirical basis for predicting who will be best (and worst) at outscoring the other team, and thus who will be most and least likely to win. Take it or, as I would assume and possibly recommend, leave it.

So in the East:

Add in the reasonable assumption that Hankqvist will stop an extra 1 of 100 shots than Theodore, and Caps/Rags looks like a coin flip.
Pitt should handle Philly even if they don't sustain those insane percentages.
Montreal looks like a not-very-good team, the Bruins are the right pick.
Maybe if the Hurricanes had home ice they'd be worth a look, but it looks like the Devils are the pick there.

Tiebreaker: I'll use the American TV conspiracy theory, where Ovechkin is gold, but New York is platinum. Rangers. Good thing I took so many Caps in my playoff pool. In the West:

Columbus has actually relapsed a bit since the first half. Better goaltending won't be enough to beat the Wings.
The Sharks' shooting can't stay that cold forever, so they're the pick.
The Blues look real. Don't forget that they had solid special teams all season too. I'm with Puck Daddy -- Blues in 6. Sorry Mirtle.
Uhhhhh, Flames in 6!!!

So over at the Calgary Herald's site (which naturally, like most canada.com sites, I can't get to load right now), they had a bunch of their staff and contributors post their Flames/Hawks predictions with a few notes, one of which was "Key Flame". About half of them identified Miikka Kiprusoff as said Key, and to them I say, Bravo.

At right is the same info as above, but with the 16 teams ranked by their EVSV% (score tied since Feb1 etc.). Anyone else notice a slight gap there between 15th and 16th? I'll listen to arguments that Calgary gives up higher quality scoring chances than any other playoff team, but: that's not a slight gap, it's a giant chasm, and a lot of it has got to be on #34.

Now, having had 76 regular season starts in which to warm up, Kipper needs to be better in the playoffs. He just does. If he (or his replacement, haha) isn't, the team isn't going far.

On the bright side though (seriously), they're in the playoffs, and when you're in, you have a chance. It sure beats the hell out of the alternative.

Go Flames.

Seen at Game 82

2009-04-14T09:22:00.002-06:00

Flames Game Day

2009-04-07T16:15:00.001-06:00

Flames @ Canucks, 8PM MT, RSN West

I guess this is a huge game tonight, but I find myself not caring all that much. I get more convinced by the week that, notwithstanding the impact of injuries, the Blue Jackets are at least as tough an opponent as the Blackhawks. I'd like Game 7 in Round 1, if it comes to that, to be at home, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

And the other thing is, a big part of the fun of the regular season is not just seeing where your team finishes so much as finding out what kind of team you have -- and nothing in the final three games is going to affect my opinion of that one way or the other. The Flames:

are a pretty good 5v5 team that reliably outshoots the other guys
give up too many shots and chances on the PK
have an average PP that could go either way over a short stretch of games
have a stupidly effective "3rd line" of GlenX/Conroy/Moss
aren't quite as good defensively as they ought to be given their payroll on the blue (and their payroll overall)

And most importantly, aren't going on a deep run unless they get significantly better goaltending in the playoffs than they've gotten in the regular season. On January 29th, I posted about Kipper's steadily declining EV SV%, .907 on the season at that point. Then on February 27th, I noted triumphantly that in the intervening 29 days, his EV SV% was .931 -- huzzah! I mean, harrumph, because in the 38 days since then, it's .892 [runs to office washroom to yack, sob quietly].

Since the evidence points so clearly towards Kipper needing lots of work to stay sharp, I'm sure the lads will lose tonight, and #34 will start both ends of the B2B against the Oilers too -- it'll work out for the best!

Calgary 2 (Langkow, Moss), Vancouver 3 (Sundin, Sedin, Salo in the OT). But, Go Flames.

Friday Baseball Standings

2009-04-03T13:18:00.001-06:00

Well, the Oilers made a fine hash of what was a promising situation only eight days ago, didn't they. The good news is, with the playoffs now out of reach, the org can devote its full energy to the important issues -- like the need for a new arena, and what their radio broadcasters are talking about on the pre-game show.

Who's Fooling Who

2009-04-01T14:08:00.003-06:00

So I had a marginally clever April Fool's post set for today. I was going to announce that, having moved to Edmonton, and been treated so well, and just enjoying it so damn much, that I got swept up in things and found myself to be an Oilers fan ("I never expected this to happen at all, let alone so soon...").

But seeing as how not even Oilers fans want to be Oilers fans today, the whole thing seemed kinda... limp. So I scrapped it.

Carry on.

Friday Baseball Standings

2009-03-27T15:01:00.000-06:00

So, a 5-0 loss to their most likely playoff opponent... nice. The Flames' night wasn't quite as bad as the Oilers', but that's not good. Neither is 3-7-0 in their last 10.

Or perhaps I should say 4-7-0 in their last 11, those being the 11 games in which they've had an upgraded Big Body Down The Middle^TM centreman. I was at least fairly clear when the Jokinen for Lombardi Plus trade went down that I didn't much like it in the big picture, but that there were reasons for optimism and that it could work out. If you had told me back on March 5th that Olli would score 8 goals in his first 11 games... well, I should like the trade more now than I did then, shouldn't I? I don't, yet. Score a bunch of goals in the playoffs, help win a round or two, and all is forgiven.

And Go Ducks.

Five teams, two spots

2009-03-26T13:51:00.000-06:00

That's about what it's down to, now. Dallas is toast (let's all have a facetious moment of silence). Columbus would really have to yak on the balance of the schedule to be passed by three teams. So it's the Oilers, Ducks, Preds, Wild, and Blues for the two remaining spots, and they're separated by but one game. The remaining H2H games involving these teams are:

Mar 27 (EDM @ ANA); Mar 29 (MIN @ EDM); Mar 31 (ANA @ EDM); and Apr 10 (NSH @ MIN)

All five teams realistically control their own destiny, as they're packed together closely and they have 8 or 9 games left. Something like 6-3 over the last 2+ weeks would pretty much assure any of them of a spot, though in the case of the Oil, they might not want those '3' to be the wrong three.

Based on both their remaining schedules and their wee headstart, the Oilers and Ducks are the best bets to get home, though the Flames could spoil a lot for the Oil (and Wild).

Speaking of the Flames, they're in Columbus tonight, and no I'm not brimming with confidence. The lads haven't had much success this season in the second half of back-to-backs, and the BJs are a good team who handled them last game at Nationwide (and significant parts of the two at the 'Dome).

But, what the hey. Calgary 3 (Moss, Iginla x2), C-Bus nil (McElhinney!). Go Flames.

Why Calgary? It HAS to be Calgary.

2009-03-21T15:20:00.003-06:00

As the Oilers chances at a playoff spot get better and better, the mind naturally starts to turn towards the most desirable opponent for the Oilers. As I see it, they're going to be the decided underdog against anyone. They're most likely going to lose and lose quickly. It just isn't a particularly good team.

With that said, the opponent might as well be Calgary. Two reasons really. First of all, the Flames should win this hypothetical series. If the universe unfolds as it should, they will. No real bragging rights for Calgary would accrue from beating the hapless Oilers. On the other hand...if Roloson started channeling his (slightly) younger self, if Olli Jokinen is the chemistry destroying Nazi war criminal that the NHL media would have you believe that he is, if Dion Phaneuf continues to show himself to be the consumate Calgary Flame what with his playoff immolation...well, if Edmonton somehow even pushed the series to six games, that would basically be a win. If they actually WON the series, they might as well just move the Flames to Red Deer or something and try and convince the more successful Sutter to leave New Jersey and run the team. It's hard to think of a loss that would be more humiliating for the Flames than going down in defeat to this particular bunch of Oilers.

Unlikely? Certainly. BUT: Calgary hasn't won a playoff series in which they've had home ice advantage since 1989. They've had trouble winning playoff series generally, but particularly in the early to mid 1990's, they suffered some simply horrific losses. For obvious reasons, I've cued up the relevant videos:

1990: Calgary 99 points, +83 goal differential vs. Los Angeles, 75 points, +1 goal differential

Can't find any video of this unfortunately. If you know where I can find video of Krushelnyski managing to get the puck about a foot off the ice to score the OT winner while Mike Vernon waves his comically short arms at the puck, let me know.

1991: Calgary 100 points, +81 goal differential vs. Edmonton, 80 points, 0 goal differential

(At 1:28)

1993: Calgary 97 points, +40 goal differential vs. Los Angeles, 88 points, -2 goal differential

1994: Calgary 97 points, +46 goal differential vs. Vancouver 85 points +3 goal differential

1995: Calgary 55 points, +28 goal differential vs. San Jose 42 points, -32 goal differential

2006: Calgary 103 points, +18 goal differential vs. Anaheim 98 points, +25 goal differential

"Home ice advantage is EVERYTHING! Flames fans, tonight your team needs you. They need your loyalty, they need your heart and most of all they need your deafening cheers."

Didn't seem to matter.

Go Flames. (Until April 11.)

Friday Baseball Standings

2009-03-20T10:33:00.001-06:00

**It's happening -- the Oilers are on their way to qualifying for the playoffs. You still only get 2 points for an 8-1 Win, not 4 or 5, but it looks awfully promising for the the greasers. 4 of the next 5 on the road (two back-to-backs if you count tonight), then 6 straight at home before the finale in Calgary. Oil fans might want to hold back for the moment on purchasing that 10-pack of car flags -- the opposition over these final 12 is pretty strong, and/or gunning for the same spot as them -- but odds are.

**Know what I did earlier this week? Took the #8 bus. Regrettably, the chatter was somewhere between subdued and non-existent.

**Yes, I'm now in Edmonton. I've been living (and dining!) chez Sacamano, and it's been great. I like the city, with the obvious caveat that there are too many Oiler fans around for my liking.

**The Canucks have, unexpectedly, made this NW race look interesting. Barring a serious Flames slump, I think this 6-game roadie the Canucks are about to start will take care of the remaining drama, but the landscape has definitely changed. The Hawks don't look so tough any more; it's getting to the point where the BJs might be a tougher matchup. The Wild have been scathed by their March From Hell, but the worst is over and they're still in decent position: BIG GAMES against the Oil these next two Sundays. And even the Ducks' position looks suddenly favourable (in the context of squeezing in); two games each remain against the Oil, Avs, and Coyotes, which sounds to me like a Recipe For 8th. Maybe we'll finally get that Battle of California.

**Blues @ Flames, 7PM MT, RSN West. Calgary has played some nice games against St. Louise over the past couple of seasons, and even the mediocre ones have come up as Ws in the end. They're a good bet to outplay the Blues 5v5 tonight. But as Kent has been pointing out lately, the Flames PP/PK have been struggling, and both are relatively strong points for Blues.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another 2-1 Calgary victory (Moss 5v5 in the 2nd and 4v4 in the OT). Go Flames.

Friday Baseball Standings

2009-03-13T09:39:00.000-06:00

Remaining Games:

CBJ - 7 Home/7 Road
EDM - 9H/6R
MIN - 6H/9R
DAL - 6H/8R
STL - 6H/9R
NSH - 5H/9R
ANA - 7H/7R
LAK - 4H/12R

So you can't like the Kings chances of hanging onto the edge for much longer, and the Oilers seem like as good a bet as any to start the playoffs on the road in San Jose or Detroit.

Here, boy, waste your time!

2009-03-11T11:18:00.011-06:00

Think you can do a better job of predicting future games than the mindless mathemagical weighted randomizing of Mudcrutch or Sports Club Stats?

Here is this year's edition of Sacamano's Western Conference Playoff Predictor. I'm sure there are better ones out there, but I had it ready, so I might as well post it.

As in the past, just enter in your predictions for the remaining games, and it will spit out the final standings. Alas, I'm not still not web-savvy enough to make it an online interactive deal, so you will have to download and/or open the excel file on your own computer. If anyone out there wants to put it up in web format (if such a thing is even possible), you are more than welcome to do so.

As in previous years, I've still been too lazy to design an array formula that will take into account the divisional leaders, tie-breakers, etc., in the rankings. So, you will have to use your own grey matter to sort that out.

Also, I still haven't done one for the Eastern Conference. I just couldn't bring myself to design something for the abysmal, pathetic, SE Division.

I've put in my best guesses for the remainder of the season. As MF likes to say, your mileage may vary.

Flames Game Day

2009-03-10T16:52:00.000-06:00

Flames @ Devils, 5PM MT, Flames PPV.

I'm feeling a bit poor right now, so tonight I'll be skipping the PPV and instead flipping between the Oil v Gainey game and the Brier.

Today's interesting story: Brent Sutter homesick for Alberta. Could I have been 3 years early with my prediction?

Flames 2, Devils 1. Habs 5, Oilers 0. Manitoba 7, Ontario 5. Go Flames.

Flames Game Day: so much for irrational exuberance

2009-03-08T13:01:00.000-06:00

Flames @ Thrashers, 1PM MT, RSN West.

So I was slightly optimistic about Friday's tilt with the 'Canes when I posted. Then I went out and about for quite a while, and after listening to the FAN for much of the afternoon, I was pessimistic to the point of panicked. The long-term optimism from Kerr et al was moderated (they weren't planning the proverbial parade route), but the level of certainty that the evening's game would be a W was just alarming. Sure, the Flames were playing Pt2 of a B2B, and they've played lousy in front of McE all season, and they're racked by injuries, and Carolina is a pretty decent team (note: none of these things were actually acknowledged), but "the confidence in the room, with these new additions, is... there's really something there" (I quote from memory).

So in retrospect, if the Flames were going to lose that game, I'm glad they got thumped. I know I tend heavily towards numerical analysis here, but I'm superstitious too, and I think big losses can have a positive long term effect. They tend to clarify the negatives, like

Kris Chucko isn't ready for the NHL, while Van der Gulik can help as-is
Soft backhand passes up the middle are a sub-optimal way to exit the zone
Open shots from the slot are high quality chances, because if the shooter puts them where he wants, a goalie cannot stop them
Too Many Men penalties are atrocious unforced errors

etc. -- and winning road games are difficult no matter who the opponent.

Atlanta is not a very good hockey team, but they have two excellent players who can win the odd game on their own. Staying out of the penalty box is a good first step towards neutralizing Kovalchuk, while spending a lot of the game with the puck in and around the far goal is a good first step towards neutralizing Lehtonen.

Calgary 4 (Iginla, Moss, VdG, + GlenX with The Most Exciting Play in Hockey)
Atlanta 2 (Reasoner x2)

Go Flames.

The Battle of Alberta

Friday

OPM

Welcome Home Big Fella!

Friday Baseball Standings

Face: red

Thursday Baseball Standings

Friday Baseball Standings

Friday Baseball Standings

League at a Glance - All Star Break

Monday Baseball Standings

Monday Baseball Standings

Friday Baseball Standings

Thursday Baseball Standings

Monday Baseball Standings

Monday Baseball Standings

Friday

Another instance of Colin Campbell becoming involved with Florida games?

The Edmonton Oilers are a grim spectacle

Justice Delayed is A Contract You're Stuck With

ianal

Cost certainty

Why Downtown?

$100 says the EOCF has never held a bake sale, or contemplated it

P.S. I am *not* a crank

Man vs. Animal

Injured by Matt Cooke

March

Flames Game Night

Friday Baseball Standings

Mike W's art therapy

Flames Game (Brand New) Day

Traded Phaneuf

Sometimes the kernel just doesn't pop

Well, it needs SOME kind of gloss

This I Believe: Winter 2010

Flames Game Night

Line of the Day

Canada's B Team

Standings! Battle Night! Olympics!

Monday Baseball Standings

Survey Says!

The More You Know

Monday Baseball Standings

If I were a rich man

Points v. Scoring

A reading from the Book of Kevin

Trade Phaneuf

Looks great in jeans, though

Sounds about right

The Return of Friday

Don't know, but if, then totally

Battle Gameday: Sailing

Potpourri for 5-2-1, Alex

If only

RBIs

Battle Game Day

Thought for the Day

Flames Game Day

Thought for the Day

Battle Gameday

Opening Night

Tea Leaves

Breaking

It's only hard if you make it hard

Thought for the Day

Battle Game Day

Thought for the Day

Stuff we can agree on

Sound and Fury

Downtown Arena Primer

Now this is exciting...

Arena Press Conference

A Tale of Two Offseasons

Will Anyone Say No?

Questions?

Good News and Bad News

Winning isn't everything

Sked

Feschuk on Heatley

P.S. I am not a crank