HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Oiler article in the Toronto Sun

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2003, 08:09 AM
  #1
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Oiler article in the Toronto Sun

I have always enjoyed Al's writing... he gives you the positive and negative without really overplaying either.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Toront...30/212898.html

dawgbone is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 08:13 AM
  #2
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I have always enjoyed Al's writing... he gives you the positive and negative without really overplaying either.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Toront...30/212898.html
I usually can't stand Stachan but this article is good...It's pretty objective actually...

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 08:20 AM
  #3
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,438
vCash: 500
I try to read articles without thinking about who wrote it. That was a fine job done.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 08:45 AM
  #4
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
AL STRACHAN best point was:

"There have been suggestions that last year, coach Craig MacTavish tended to coach like a general manager. The higher the salary, the longer the power-play time. But if that was true, it won't be any longer."(source: Edmonton feels offence will be Oil-right from the Toronto Sun)

OYLer is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 09:02 AM
  #5
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
The thing that bugs me about Eastern based writers (no, this is not a Toronto thing and it extends to Eastern writers that comment on other teams as well) is that they don't seem to actually follow the teams they are writing about yet they seem to believe they can do an acurate assessment on them by only looking at last years stats.

A couple examples;

Every year for the past 6, at the beginning of the season Edmonton is written off as a playoff hopeful. They are never considered to be improved and always considered to have "sneaked" in to the playoffs the year before. Yeah we were in 8th place last year BUT we were 13 pts ahead of the next best team and only a 3 points behind the next 2 teams ahead of us. However, every team behind is being pegged as pushing us out and yet the two teams that were a mere 3 points better are looked at giving the top seeded teams a run for their money this year.

Comrie is considered a catalyst for the team now, simply because he is holding out. Too me it amounts to Comrie being the flavour of the month so to speak. Last year between his injury and susequently the way he played down the stretch we were basically without his services for half the season. And yet, the half of season that he was healthy was less productive for the team than the half of season he was out or playing injured. However looking at his point totals, naturally the Oilers will be sunk without him?

Marchant is also generally viewed as a big loss, and he is in a sense, but I don't see him as being the big loss because he had 60 pts last year. He wasn't a 60 pt player before last year and I don't think he is a 60 pt player after next year. If you look at where he got his extra 20 pts from you could argue that his extra output didn't make the team better. In fact I would say that although he personally had a good year, he did it at the expense of the team. He had 19 PP pts on one of the worst PP's in the league. If Smyth and York and yes even Comrie was healthy all year, we may have had a 13 best? PP as opposed to 19 best and that should have actually translated into more points than what is lost from Marchant.

I think he is right that there is some assumptions and question marks with the team and that the Oilers could or could not make the playoffs, but I say that there are 20 teams in the league that could say the same thing and I definately think that if the Oilers do miss the playoffs it won't be because of the reasons he thinks.

Just my rant....

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 09:27 AM
  #6
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
The thing that bugs me about Eastern based writers (no, this is not a Toronto thing and it extends to Eastern writers that comment on other teams as well) is that they don't seem to actually follow the teams they are writing about yet they seem to believe they can do an acurate assessment on them by only looking at last years stats.

A couple examples;

Every year for the past 6, at the beginning of the season Edmonton is written off as a playoff hopeful. They are never considered to be improved and always considered to have "sneaked" in to the playoffs the year before. Yeah we were in 8th place last year BUT we were 13 pts ahead of the next best team and only a 3 points behind the next 2 teams ahead of us. However, every team behind is being pegged as pushing us out and yet the two teams that were a mere 3 points better are looked at giving the top seeded teams a run for their money this year.

Comrie is considered a catalyst for the team now, simply because he is holding out. Too me it amounts to Comrie being the flavour of the month so to speak. Last year between his injury and susequently the way he played down the stretch we were basically without his services for half the season. And yet, the half of season that he was healthy was less productive for the team than the half of season he was out or playing injured. However looking at his point totals, naturally the Oilers will be sunk without him?

Marchant is also generally viewed as a big loss, and he is in a sense, but I don't see him as being the big loss because he had 60 pts last year. He wasn't a 60 pt player before last year and I don't think he is a 60 pt player after next year. If you look at where he got his extra 20 pts from you could argue that his extra output didn't make the team better. In fact I would say that although he personally had a good year, he did it at the expense of the team. He had 19 PP pts on one of the worst PP's in the league. If Smyth and York and yes even Comrie was healthy all year, we may have had a 13 best? PP as opposed to 19 best and that should have actually translated into more points than what is lost from Marchant.

I think he is right that there is some assumptions and question marks with the team and that the Oilers could or could not make the playoffs, but I say that there are 20 teams in the league that could say the same thing and I definately think that if the Oilers do miss the playoffs it won't be because of the reasons he thinks.

Just my rant....
I think the point Strachan was trying to make was that Marchant picked up Comrie's slack when he was hurt, so the oilers basically had a #1 centre all year long in some form.

As of now, both players are gone, leaving no one to fill that gap. You can't take away a player like that without replacing them and expect to stay the same.

Strachan's article is pointing out that the Oilers are expecting guys like Hemsky, Dvo, York, Izzy, etc to pick up that extra slack, and that is how the Oilers will succeed.

Yes the Oilers finished 13 points up and 3 back, but don't forget that L.A. has improved their goaltending and possibly 2 of their top players in Deadmarsh and Allison back. The Yotes will have a healthy Burke all year. These teams are gaining on last season.

I think you missed the point of the article, which is sad because it puts this season in a pretty good perspective for the Oilers and their fans...

Lots of things that could go right.
Lots of things that could go bad.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 10:09 AM
  #7
barto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think the point Strachan was trying to make was that Marchant picked up Comrie's slack when he was hurt, so the oilers basically had a #1 centre all year long in some form.

As of now, both players are gone, leaving no one to fill that gap. You can't take away a player like that without replacing them and expect to stay the same.

Strachan's article is pointing out that the Oilers are expecting guys like Hemsky, Dvo, York, Izzy, etc to pick up that extra slack, and that is how the Oilers will succeed.

Yes the Oilers finished 13 points up and 3 back, but don't forget that L.A. has improved their goaltending and possibly 2 of their top players in Deadmarsh and Allison back. The Yotes will have a healthy Burke all year. These teams are gaining on last season.

I think you missed the point of the article, which is sad because it puts this season in a pretty good perspective for the Oilers and their fans...

Lots of things that could go right.
Lots of things that could go bad.
I agree with that summary - the gist of the article for me was that the Oilers management was putting their faith(s?) in a bunch of question-mark players (Izzy, Dvorak, others) having very good/great years. Certainly if that's true then the Oilers won't be missing Comrie or Marchant (or even Weight!!) at all this year.

BUT, if a guy like Isbister continues his inconsistent play (that led to the Islanders finally giving up on him), if Dvorak can't regain the scoring touch that saw him pot 30, if York takes longer to recover from his injury...etc...then we'll be in some trouble.

I'd almost say that we're all *hoping* that all these guys have great years, but *expecting* is maybe where we'd see some difference of opinion.

I do "expect" Hemsky to get more points than last year, but most of the rest is "hope" (including the Izzy/Dvorak thing):

- Hope that Horcoff plays more like the final part of last season for the FULL YEAR.

- Hope that RPM line can recapture the chemistry they had late last year

- Hope that Brewer improves, Salo bounces back, and so on.

Hope springs eternal, esp. at this time of year!

Bart

barto is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 10:22 AM
  #8
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think the point Strachan was trying to make was that Marchant picked up Comrie's slack when he was hurt, so the oilers basically had a #1 centre all year long in some form.

As of now, both players are gone, leaving no one to fill that gap. You can't take away a player like that without replacing them and expect to stay the same.

Strachan's article is pointing out that the Oilers are expecting guys like Hemsky, Dvo, York, Izzy, etc to pick up that extra slack, and that is how the Oilers will succeed.

Yes the Oilers finished 13 points up and 3 back, but don't forget that L.A. has improved their goaltending and possibly 2 of their top players in Deadmarsh and Allison back. The Yotes will have a healthy Burke all year. These teams are gaining on last season.

I think you missed the point of the article, which is sad because it puts this season in a pretty good perspective for the Oilers and their fans...

Lots of things that could go right.
Lots of things that could go bad.
Allison hasn't practiced yet and there is still question marks on whether his concussions are healed.

But completely agree with you. I think the Oilers can't afford to let Comrie sit for long. They may do well in the short-term but I don't think Ryan Smyth is a centre long term.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 11:01 AM
  #9
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaz44
Allison hasn't practiced yet and there is still question marks on whether his concussions are healed.

But completely agree with you. I think the Oilers can't afford to let Comrie sit for long. They may do well in the short-term but I don't think Ryan Smyth is a centre long term.
I will be in Lowe's corner until the team is suffering...I'm really happy with the stance he's taking and if all owners would be like that, the league wouldn't be in the state that it is right now...

I believe that the longer this drags on, egos will start to creep in and I hope Lowe will have enough sense to do what is best for the team...I think he will but I'd hate to see the Oilers tied dead last with the Flames and Lowe sticking to his guns by making Comrie sit...That's a pretty valuable asset that is not giving you any return and the more he sits, the less value he has; who will trade for a player that will take 1.5 months to get in game shape?

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 11:34 AM
  #10
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
I won't even get on him then

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
I will be in Lowe's corner until the team is suffering...I'm really happy with the stance he's taking and if all owners would be like that, the league wouldn't be in the state that it is right now...

I believe that the longer this drags on, egos will start to creep in and I hope Lowe will have enough sense to do what is best for the team...I think he will but I'd hate to see the Oilers tied dead last with the Flames and Lowe sticking to his guns by making Comrie sit...That's a pretty valuable asset that is not giving you any return and the more he sits, the less value he has; who will trade for a player that will take 1.5 months to get in game shape?
Because that is what Rich Winter and Mike Comrie will be banking on. The fans getting impatient.

I want the best return in a trade.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 11:46 AM
  #11
CanmoreMike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canmore, Alberta
Posts: 1,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone

Lots of things that could go right.
Lots of things that could go bad.
How about the other teams, though?

In all honesty, if the defence stinks and both the goalie and offence handle them puck inadequately well, teams miss the playoffs. To say that it is a forgone conclusion that this team or that team will be in the playoffs is redundant. Good teams miss. See Rangers (1993); Nordiques (1994); NJ Devils (1996); Dallas (2002).

Injuries, streaks and players playing above or below themselves is going to determine who is in and who is out.

CanmoreMike is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 11:51 AM
  #12
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaz44
Because that is what Rich Winter and Mike Comrie will be banking on. The fans getting impatient.

I want the best return in a trade.
So Lowe would be willing to sacrifice the season for the sake of getting the best return? I agree with you that he shouldn't give Comrie away but we all know that a GM will rarely get FMV in today's NHL, especially on a player that hasn't played a pro game is a couple of months...All I'm saying is that it may come to a point where holding on to Comrie will be a serious detriment to this team...Lowe may have to cut his losses...If Lowe lets Comrie sit for the year, will Comrie's value be higher next summer...As a GM, how much would you give up for some one who hasn't played in a year and half...

I just hope Lowe won't keep holding on to Comrie for the sake of proving a point...There comes a time when the point has been made and it's time to move on...

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 11:54 AM
  #13
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
No doubt

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
So Lowe would be willing to sacrifice the season for the sake of getting the best return? I agree with you that he shouldn't give Comrie away but we all know that a GM will rarely get FMV in today's NHL, especially on a player that hasn't played a pro game is a couple of months...All I'm saying is that it may come to a point where holding on to Comrie will be a serious detriment to this team...Lowe may have to cut his losses...If Lowe lets Comrie sit for the year, will Comrie's value be higher next summer...As a GM, how much would you give up for some one who hasn't played in a year and half...

I just hope Lowe won't keep holding on to Comrie for the sake of proving a point...There comes a time when the point has been made and it's time to move on...
But we don't want to panic early. I obviously don't want to have a terrible season and just want to hold on to Comrie.

I also don't want to panic and force Lowe to get minimal return in a trade either. If we get a bad trade for Comrie that is going to hurt for a long time!

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 01:49 PM
  #14
Chayos
Registered User
 
Chayos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
So Lowe would be willing to sacrifice the season for the sake of getting the best return? I agree with you that he shouldn't give Comrie away but we all know that a GM will rarely get FMV in today's NHL, especially on a player that hasn't played a pro game is a couple of months...All I'm saying is that it may come to a point where holding on to Comrie will be a serious detriment to this team...Lowe may have to cut his losses...If Lowe lets Comrie sit for the year, will Comrie's value be higher next summer...As a GM, how much would you give up for some one who hasn't played in a year and half...

I just hope Lowe won't keep holding on to Comrie for the sake of proving a point...There comes a time when the point has been made and it's time to move on...
I don't want to see this turn into a peca type thing where he sits all year just to make a point.

Chayos is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 02:13 PM
  #15
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
So Lowe would be willing to sacrifice the season for the sake of getting the best return?
I can't speak for anyone else... but if it comes down to Lowe not getting a fair deal in exchange for Comrie should he be traded... and sitting him for the entire year....

I choose for Comrie to sit. I'd rather that Lowe look for what's best for the club long term (in a couple years) rather than look at obtaining simply short-term gains to appease the fans.

momentai is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 02:27 PM
  #16
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
So Lowe would be willing to sacrifice the season for the sake of getting the best return? I agree with you that he shouldn't give Comrie away but we all know that a GM will rarely get FMV in today's NHL, especially on a player that hasn't played a pro game is a couple of months...All I'm saying is that it may come to a point where holding on to Comrie will be a serious detriment to this team...Lowe may have to cut his losses...If Lowe lets Comrie sit for the year, will Comrie's value be higher next summer...As a GM, how much would you give up for some one who hasn't played in a year and half...

I just hope Lowe won't keep holding on to Comrie for the sake of proving a point...There comes a time when the point has been made and it's time to move on...
I don't think Lowe is a moron. He will know when he's reaching the point where Comrie's value is depreciating. According to his history, his will want to deal from a position of strength (i.e. Guerin trade) but will not sit idly by when he can get a good deal.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 02:50 PM
  #17
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaz44
But we don't want to panic early. I obviously don't want to have a terrible season and just want to hold on to Comrie.

I also don't want to panic and force Lowe to get minimal return in a trade either. If we get a bad trade for Comrie that is going to hurt for a long time!
Totally agree...I didn`t mean to imply that if the Oilers lose the first 5 or 6 games in a row that Lowe will trade Comrie for nothing...I`m looking at it from a 2 or 3 month perspective...Come late December or early January if the Oilers are out of a playoff spot and struggling, I fully expect Lowe to either sign Comrie or trade him...These two scenarios will shake up the team...If they trade him, they most likely wont get FMV for him then either but may get a veteran whole kick the players in the but...

Bottom line, I really don`t know what Lowe is thinking but I hope he has a plan....

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 02:58 PM
  #18
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
I can't speak for anyone else... but if it comes down to Lowe not getting a fair deal in exchange for Comrie should he be traded... and sitting him for the entire year....

I choose for Comrie to sit. I'd rather that Lowe look for what's best for the club long term (in a couple years) rather than look at obtaining simply short-term gains to appease the fans.
But how is missing the playoffs for this team good in the long run...I agree that there are no guarantees ths team would make the playoffs even with Comrie in the lineup...But the chances of them making it with him or with an adequate replacement(s) are alot better...I`m sorry but I just don`t see the advantage of having him sit for a year...Having a productive asset sit is a waste...

Like I said, I`m on Lowe`s side here and will be until the Oilers are on the verge of missing the playoffs and Comrie is still selling sofas for is dad...

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 03:21 PM
  #19
ZIM
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
It's not obvious what "point" Kevin Lowe is trying to make regarding Mike Comrie but it is true that he has decided to gamble the playoff fate of the team to prove that point.

Someone tell me what "point" he is trying to make.

Kevin Lowe's job is to make as much money for the Oilers owners as possible because that is the point of a business - to make money.
The further the Oilers go in the playoffs the more money they make, or lose less. By not signing Comrie, Lowe is automatically $4.55 M ahead of last year. This is great as long as the Oilers make the playoffs and Lowe will be considered a financial genius. In this scenario the "point" is "Mike, we don't need you"

Assume that things aren't going well standing wise but the accountants determine that the Oilers are still better off financially without Comrie. The point becomes "Mike we don't need you and $crew the fans".

The fans attack the accountants, Lowe relents and signs Comrie. Unfortuanately we are now in a must win scenario but it takes Comrie 6 weeks to find his legs, the Oilers miss the playoffs and Lowe loses more than the $4.55M he started with. In this scenario the point according to Lowe is "Mike, we missed the playoffs, it's all your fault, the fans hate you and your father and I'm organizing a boycott of the Brick"

Or perhaps after the accountants are attacked and Comrie is signed he is traded. Unfortunately Comrie's trade value is low because everyone knows he doesn't want to play here, at least according to all reports published in the Sun for the last 6 months. Lowe trades him for 3 prospects who as a group make more than Comrie, they play like Dan Cleary, the Oilers miss the playoffs and lose even more money. The point is "Mike, if you had only signed the low-ball qualifying offer I would have my job"

Or maybe the real point being made by Lowe is "I'm not bitter about having played when salaries were low. I'm a bigger SOB than you are and I'm going to prove it no matter what"

I ask you again, "What is the point"

 
Old
09-30-2003, 03:21 PM
  #20
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
But how is missing the playoffs for this team good in the long run...I agree that there are no guarantees ths team would make the playoffs even with Comrie in the lineup...But the chances of them making it with him or with an adequate replacement(s) are alot better...I`m sorry but I just don`t see the advantage of having him sit for a year...Having a productive asset sit is a waste...
Having just an "adequate replacement" doesn't help us out long-term either. If we're just getting 70 cents on the dollar for Comrie, then it isn't worth doing no matter what the cost IMO.

By the same token, how is getting a poor return for Comrie helping us out long-term. If we do make the playoffs, and those replacements are a bunch of prospects/third liners... I think it hurts more than it helps.

momentai is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 05:02 PM
  #21
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by omar
It's not obvious what "point" Kevin Lowe is trying to make regarding Mike Comrie but it is true that he has decided to gamble the playoff fate of the team to prove that point.

Someone tell me what "point" he is trying to make.

Kevin Lowe's job is to make as much money for the Oilers owners as possible because that is the point of a business - to make money.
The further the Oilers go in the playoffs the more money they make, or lose less. By not signing Comrie, Lowe is automatically $4.55 M ahead of last year. This is great as long as the Oilers make the playoffs and Lowe will be considered a financial genius. In this scenario the "point" is "Mike, we don't need you"

Assume that things aren't going well standing wise but the accountants determine that the Oilers are still better off financially without Comrie. The point becomes "Mike we don't need you and $crew the fans".

The fans attack the accountants, Lowe relents and signs Comrie. Unfortuanately we are now in a must win scenario but it takes Comrie 6 weeks to find his legs, the Oilers miss the playoffs and Lowe loses more than the $4.55M he started with. In this scenario the point according to Lowe is "Mike, we missed the playoffs, it's all your fault, the fans hate you and your father and I'm organizing a boycott of the Brick"

Or perhaps after the accountants are attacked and Comrie is signed he is traded. Unfortunately Comrie's trade value is low because everyone knows he doesn't want to play here, at least according to all reports published in the Sun for the last 6 months. Lowe trades him for 3 prospects who as a group make more than Comrie, they play like Dan Cleary, the Oilers miss the playoffs and lose even more money. The point is "Mike, if you had only signed the low-ball qualifying offer I would have my job"

Or maybe the real point being made by Lowe is "I'm not bitter about having played when salaries were low. I'm a bigger SOB than you are and I'm going to prove it no matter what"

I ask you again, "What is the point"
Bingo.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 05:30 PM
  #22
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by omar
It's not obvious what "point" Kevin Lowe is trying to make regarding Mike Comrie but it is true that he has decided to gamble the playoff fate of the team to prove that point.

Someone tell me what "point" he is trying to make.

Kevin Lowe's job is to make as much money for the Oilers owners as possible because that is the point of a business - to make money.
The further the Oilers go in the playoffs the more money they make, or lose less. By not signing Comrie, Lowe is automatically $4.55 M ahead of last year. This is great as long as the Oilers make the playoffs and Lowe will be considered a financial genius. In this scenario the "point" is "Mike, we don't need you"

Assume that things aren't going well standing wise but the accountants determine that the Oilers are still better off financially without Comrie. The point becomes "Mike we don't need you and $crew the fans".

The fans attack the accountants, Lowe relents and signs Comrie. Unfortuanately we are now in a must win scenario but it takes Comrie 6 weeks to find his legs, the Oilers miss the playoffs and Lowe loses more than the $4.55M he started with. In this scenario the point according to Lowe is "Mike, we missed the playoffs, it's all your fault, the fans hate you and your father and I'm organizing a boycott of the Brick"

Or perhaps after the accountants are attacked and Comrie is signed he is traded. Unfortunately Comrie's trade value is low because everyone knows he doesn't want to play here, at least according to all reports published in the Sun for the last 6 months. Lowe trades him for 3 prospects who as a group make more than Comrie, they play like Dan Cleary, the Oilers miss the playoffs and lose even more money. The point is "Mike, if you had only signed the low-ball qualifying offer I would have my job"

Or maybe the real point being made by Lowe is "I'm not bitter about having played when salaries were low. I'm a bigger SOB than you are and I'm going to prove it no matter what"

I ask you again, "What is the point"
If Lowe's job is to make the Oiler owners money, he is doing a brutal job of it.

His job is to ice the most competetive team he can within a fixed budget.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 05:41 PM
  #23
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by omar
It's not obvious what "point" Kevin Lowe is trying to make regarding Mike Comrie but it is true that he has decided to gamble the playoff fate of the team to prove that point.

Someone tell me what "point" he is trying to make.

Kevin Lowe's job is to make as much money for the Oilers owners as possible because that is the point of a business - to make money.
The further the Oilers go in the playoffs the more money they make, or lose less. By not signing Comrie, Lowe is automatically $4.55 M ahead of last year. This is great as long as the Oilers make the playoffs and Lowe will be considered a financial genius. In this scenario the "point" is "Mike, we don't need you"

Assume that things aren't going well standing wise but the accountants determine that the Oilers are still better off financially without Comrie. The point becomes "Mike we don't need you and $crew the fans".

The fans attack the accountants, Lowe relents and signs Comrie. Unfortuanately we are now in a must win scenario but it takes Comrie 6 weeks to find his legs, the Oilers miss the playoffs and Lowe loses more than the $4.55M he started with. In this scenario the point according to Lowe is "Mike, we missed the playoffs, it's all your fault, the fans hate you and your father and I'm organizing a boycott of the Brick"

Or perhaps after the accountants are attacked and Comrie is signed he is traded. Unfortunately Comrie's trade value is low because everyone knows he doesn't want to play here, at least according to all reports published in the Sun for the last 6 months. Lowe trades him for 3 prospects who as a group make more than Comrie, they play like Dan Cleary, the Oilers miss the playoffs and lose even more money. The point is "Mike, if you had only signed the low-ball qualifying offer I would have my job"

Or maybe the real point being made by Lowe is "I'm not bitter about having played when salaries were low. I'm a bigger SOB than you are and I'm going to prove it no matter what"

I ask you again, "What is the point"

This isn't about Comrie. It's about Hemsky and all the kids who will come along afterwards who are 23 and looking for a contract taht will pay them 4.55 million.

The line in the sand is drawn. Lowe has no wiggle room at all, imo. If he signs Comrie to a deal that gets him 4.55 a year, they'll be talking about Lowe as a guy who helped ruin hockey.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 05:47 PM
  #24
Narnia
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Narnia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Narnia
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowetide
This isn't about Comrie. It's about Hemsky and all the kids who will come along afterwards who are 23 and looking for a contract taht will pay them 4.55 million.

The line in the sand is drawn. Lowe has no wiggle room at all, imo. If he signs Comrie to a deal that gets him 4.55 a year, they'll be talking about Lowe as a guy who helped ruin hockey.
This is a case where Lowe will be criticized either way. He can't win. If he signs Comrie, he'll be criticized just like he'll be criticized if he doesn't sign him and Comrie gets traded.

__________________
"He just ate up Robyn Regehr for dinner, a spectacular play by Hemsky, and Robyn Regehr has got doo doo all over his face" - Rod Phillips call on Hemsky's goal vs the Flames
Narnia is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 05:56 PM
  #25
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilers89
This is a case where Lowe will be criticized either way. He can't win. If he signs Comrie, he'll be criticized just like he'll be criticized if he doesn't sign him and Comrie gets traded.
How could you criticize him legitimately for signing Comrie?

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.