You call it heat, I call it interesting discussions.
- James_Tanner

He calls it heat, you call it "interesting discussions", and those of us that are used to seeing this sort of tomfoolery from you like to call it "fishing for blog hits".

A well-constructed article with reasonable projections leads to interesting discussions. Your preferred level of outlandish delusion only leads to deserved criticism and the loss of whatever credibility you may have once had.

You call it heat, I call it interesting discussions. I think calling the West "stacked" is preposterous. There are exactly 3 teams you can say for sure will make the playoffs (Chicago, LA, St.Louis) after that, it's pretty wide open, in my opinion.
- James_Tanner

So you think Ch,LA, STL are locks, I agree but Let's look at the teams you think aren't that good:

Ducks- They lead the league in goals for, finished 1 point shy of the Presidents Trophy AND added Kesler to the team?

San Jose- Finished 6th in goals for, 5th in goals against and 6th in PK, are notorious for killing it in during the regular season, and didn't really lose anyone of too much substance.

Minnesota- I think these guys are going to really excel this year. They just added a 30 goal scorer in Vanek, maybe more if he redevelops his chemistry with Pomminville.

I would maybe buy the argument that Minesotta isn't a lock but even then that leaves 3 spots open, so the Oil would be fighting with(in my view) Dallas, Col, and Minn.....all teams that got much better during the offseason than the Oilers.....who, based on last season, will need an addional 20-30 points to make the post season.

If that's what you call wide open you need to do better/more research and less opinion

He calls it heat, you call it "interesting discussions", and those of us that are used to seeing this sort of tomfoolery from you like to call it "fishing for blog hits".

A well-constructed article with reasonable projections leads to interesting discussions. Your preferred level of outlandish delusion only leads to deserved criticism and the loss of whatever credibility you may have once had.

- LatentC

Yeah, well, everyone's a critic. No one's forcing you to read it. And, believe it or not, we have interesting discussions here nearly everyday.

However, I do apologize, and I am so sorry that your free entertainment doesn't live up to your high journalistic standards!

So you think Ch,LA, STL are locks, I agree but Let's look at the teams you think aren't that good:

Ducks- They lead the league in goals for, finished 1 point shy of the Presidents Trophy AND added Kesler to the team?

San Jose- Finished 6th in goals for, 5th in goals against and 6th in PK, are notorious for killing it in during the regular season, and didn't really lose anyone of too much substance.

Minnesota- I think these guys are going to really excel this year. They just added a 30 goal scorer in Vanek, maybe more if he redevelops his chemistry with Pomminville.

I would maybe buy the argument that Minesotta isn't a lock but even then that leaves 3 spots open, so the Oil would be fighting with(in my view) Dallas, Col, and Minn.....all teams that got much better during the offseason than the Oilers.....who, based on last season, will need an addional 20-30 points to make the post season.

If that's what you call wide open you need to do better/more research and less opinion
- nikel

#1. You are arguing against me saying those teams are not locks. Think about that for a second. I didn't say they suck and won't make it, I said they aren't a lock. A lock is a team that even if decimated by circumstance and injuries are for sure going to make it. I grant there are 3 of them, although even that is pushing it, since it's August and everyone has 82 games to play.

I think all the teams you mentioned are good teams. But the Sharks are aging and just blew a 3-0 series lead. Sure, it's reasonable to expect them to make the playoffs,since, as you mention, they still have a good team, but come on, you have to be delusional to say they are a "lock." Let alone get on here and complain about it.

Basically this is what you just said "Jimmy, your opinions are stoopid. Here are some of my opinions to prove you wrong."

Now, maybe I misunderstand you, and in that case I preemptively apologize, but I really don't think I did. Let's not even touch on the fact that you think a writer should offer less opinion and how ridiculous that is.

There are a lot of charts and graphs guys out there. Nothing wrong with them, but a columnist is paid for his opinion and analysis. That is and will always be how these thing work.

Yeah, well, everyone's a critic. No one's forcing you to read it. And, believe it or not, we have interesting discussions here nearly everyday.

However, I do apologize, and I am so sorry that your free entertainment doesn't live up to your high journalistic standards!
- James_Tanner

And similarly, no one's forcing you to write it if you don't like the fact that "everyone's a critic", lol. Your work is scrutinized word-for-word every day by the members and lurkers of this site and, like it or not, will be held in comparison to the standards that your fellow HB bloggers have already set.

I'm not asking you to be a Bill Meltzer or whoever else is held in high regard on this site, but you could do with a healthy dose of reality in your posts. Either you seriously believe that the Oilers are going to make the playoffs, riding along on Yakupov's uncharacteristic 30+ goal milestone (i.e. personal delusions), or you need to lay off on spamming that hyperbole button so much.

I will, however, accept your apology in earnest and hope that one day you embrace the notion that an article doesn't have to be inherently inane in order to drive a productive conversation.

<3

Dude, just stop. LOL . I enjoy writing it, and I certainly have no problem with any criticism. I enjoy it, especially when its as funny as yours is.

The last thing I have to say to you is this:

If you think the Oilers making the Playoffs and Yakupov scoring 30 goals is "insane" then you're watching the wrong sport.

It may not be a mainstream opinion, but it's sure as hell not insane to think that. I mean, you're acting as if I came on here and said the Oilers would win the Cup after going 80-0-2 and that Yakupov would score 92 goals. THAT would be insane.

#1. You are arguing against me
>>clearly this is where everyone on this site has gone wrong

A lock is a team that even if decimated by circumstance and injuries are for sure going to make it.
>>Nope, that's just wishful thinking on your part. A team's chances of making the playoffs are NEVER a "sure" thing like you imply, especially if they are "decimated by circumstance and injuries". Assuming a team would be a "lock" for the playoffs even if they are massively crippled, and suffer as a result, is what we like to call "being delusional".

Sure, it's reasonable to expect them to make the playoffs,since, as you mention, they still have a good team, but come on, you have to be delusional to say they are a "lock." Let alone get on here and complain about it.
>>Good thing he never said that they were a "lock", eh? He was, in fact, reviewing some of the teams you claimed were "not very good"...there was never any implication that San Jose was a "lock". And even if he had, would it be delusional to argue against a similarly-delusional "columnist" in a topic that raised this discussion? Perhaps if he was expecting a reasonable response to the points he raised...then yes, that'd be delusional.

"Basically this is what you just said "Jimmy, your opinions are stoopid. Here are some of my opinions to prove you wrong."
>>aaaaaaand that's pretty much what you said back to him. Keepin' it classy as always.

Nothing wrong with them, but a columnist is paid for his opinion and analysis. That is and will always be how these thing work.
>>A "columnist" is paid for insightful analysis and opinions that are reasonable, constructive, and relevant to the topic at hand - not for getting a rise out of people with outlandish claims that suit his fancy. A "columnist" is paid to write for the reader's benefit and entertainment, not his own; a "blogger", on the other hand, writes largely for his or her own enjoyment. Also, it would seem that "columnists" on this site are also paid to respond aggressively to readers' comments...and not paid to proofread.



- James_Tanner

Dude, just stop. LOL . I enjoy writing it, and I certainly have no problem with any criticism. I enjoy it, especially when its as funny as yours is.

>>I'm glad we're enjoying one another's company

The last thing I have to say to you is this:

>>and right when we were starting to have fun, you run off and leave me without a prom date nor a ride home...

If you think the Oilers making the Playoffs and Yakupov scoring 30 goals is "insane" then you're watching the wrong sport.

>>I said "inane"; see "stupid" or "silly". I love the Oilers - they're one of my top 5 favorite teams in the league. That being said, I have to note that it's highly unreasonable (especially after last year's performance) to expect the team to improve so dramatically and substantially. You have no practical basis for any of your claims, hence they are being viewed as "wildly delusional". I appreciate your enthusiasm but it's especially irresponsible as a journalist to make such claims to your base of readers without concern for inevitably being held responsible for your own words.

It may not be a mainstream opinion, but it's sure as hell not insane to think that. I mean, you're acting as if I came on here and said the Oilers would win the Cup after going 80-0-2 and that Yakupov would score 92 goals. THAT would be insane.

>>No, I'm acting as though you are abusing your privilege to speak your mind as a "columnist" by throwing out promises and claims you have no intention to be accountable for, and when someone tries to call you out on them you just act as though that is your job. There are plenty of "columnists" on this site that do not have to rely on hyperbole to launch a successful article.
>>It would be unreasonable and certainly delusional of me to claim that the Flyers are a "lock" to make the playoffs this year in spite of the organization's defensive and even-strength concerns, simply because I'm a fan of said team and feel strongly about that opinion...and no, I was not serious about that bit at all, I realistically expect the Flyers to have an up-and-down season while they iron out the rough patches and adapt to a new system. There's nothing wrong with having your feet on the ground, instead of having your head in the clouds, is there?



- James_Tanner

im confused, if you have RNH winning the Art Ross next season (last set of comments) why isnt he on your breakout list
- DDM-Coga

In case you haven't noticed, James enjoys stroking the Edmonton fans egos for some reason... Closet fan I guess, or maybe just a brown noser.

That is a mystery though because Oil fans have been waiting for RNH to have that break out season a lot longer than Yak.

I don't think Yak will progress that explosively. 20 goals will be impressive, highly doubt he goes 30. Again though this is James making sensational predictions that are really based on nothing substantive other than the at some point people expect him to live up to his number overall draft ranking.

In case you haven't noticed, James enjoys stroking the Edmonton fans egos for some reason... Closet fan I guess, or maybe just a brown noser.

That is a mystery though because Oil fans have been waiting for RNH to have that break out season a lot longer than Yak.

I don't think Yak will progress that explosively. 20 goals will be impressive, highly doubt he goes 30. Again though this is James making sensational predictions that are really based on nothing substantive other than the at some point people expect him to live up to his number overall draft ranking.
- MnGump

A lot longer for RNH??? Yeah he was drafted a whole year earlier. Been waiting soooooo much longer for him to break out.

Break out player of the year is Calvin de Haan

I don't think it's luck. I see Stl, Chi and LA having enough depth on their rosters to withstand a couple key injuries. That's good management to me, not luck.

The difference between the rest of the teams isn't that much in my opinion; they all have a few good players and some holes. Pretty much every other team could be in trouble with the extended loss of a couple key players. Again, not luck, just not enough depth on those teams.
- Tumbleweed

I'm not saying they're good because of luck. Quite the opposite. I'm saying all the teams who made the playoffs in the west last year are good enough to do it again and there may not be a strong argument that any of the teams that missed can bump them out.

he's saying it's highly improbable that EVERY SINGLE TEAM that made it last year makes it again, which I agree to, but arguing for any specific team to miss banks a lot on spooky stuff like injuries and slumps.

A lot longer for RNH??? Yeah he was drafted a whole year earlier. Been waiting soooooo much longer for him to break out.
- ruttager17

You mad? Relax

You mad? Relax
- MnGump

You know I am relaxed Gump. Apply that to Tanners Sh!t that he writes.

#1. You are arguing against me saying those teams are not locks. Think about that for a second. I didn't say they suck and won't make it, I said they aren't a lock. A lock is a team that even if decimated by circumstance and injuries are for sure going to make it. I grant there are 3 of them, although even that is pushing it, since it's August and everyone has 82 games to play.

I think all the teams you mentioned are good teams. But the Sharks are aging and just blew a 3-0 series lead. Sure, it's reasonable to expect them to make the playoffs,since, as you mention, they still have a good team, but come on, you have to be delusional to say they are a "lock." Let alone get on here and complain about it.

Basically this is what you just said "Jimmy, your opinions are stoopid. Here are some of my opinions to prove you wrong."

Now, maybe I misunderstand you, and in that case I preemptively apologize, but I really don't think I did. Let's not even touch on the fact that you think a writer should offer less opinion and how ridiculous that is.

There are a lot of charts and graphs guys out there. Nothing wrong with them, but a columnist is paid for his opinion and analysis. That is and will always be how these thing work.
- James_Tanner

If that's you're definition of a "lock", then ZERO teams could be considered, come on use your brain.

The difference between my "opinions" and yours are that I used actual stats from last season to base my reasoning on.....you however seem to pick a topic and then construct the most outlandish results to score blog hits without providing any GOOD arguments....such as the Oil will make the playoffs because they're just too good to keep losing, that was particularly one of my favorites from you

I'm not saying they're good because of luck. Quite the opposite. I'm saying all the teams who made the playoffs in the west last year are good enough to do it again and there may not be a strong argument that any of the teams that missed can bump them out.

he's saying it's highly improbable that EVERY SINGLE TEAM that made it last year makes it again, which I agree to, but arguing for any specific team to miss banks a lot on spooky stuff like injuries and slumps.
- Morris

Fair enough. I think our estimates of non-playoff teams' chances to make the playoffs differ, but point taken.

You know I am relaxed Gump. Apply that to Tanners Sh!t that he writes.
- ruttager17

Yeah, I've tried... he pretty much ignores me. I've tried to be more open minded when reading his blogs but it becomes difficult to take seriously when it seems blatently obvious he's just pining for controversy. I sometimes wonder if he even believes what he writes on any level or if he's seriously just trying to step in where Clouts left off.

I do find it funny though that even though he tends to cater to Edmonton fans, you guys still call BS on him...

Yeah, I've tried... he pretty much ignores me. I've tried to be more open minded when reading his blogs but it becomes difficult to take seriously when it seems blatently obvious he's just pining for controversy. I sometimes wonder if he even believes what he writes on any level or if he's seriously just trying to step in where Clouts left off.

I do find it funny though that even though he tends to cater to Edmonton fans, you guys still call BS on him...
- MnGump

I believe everything I say. I would be happy to explain my thought process on anything I may have said that you find particularly crazy.

You mad? Relax
- MnGump

No one's mad. But ur term 'alot longer' is misleading.
One year.

And to be fair; as much as u say tanner is an unabashed oiler lover and cant be taken seriously, u seem to be the opposite. So maybe same goes

No one's mad. But ur term 'alot longer' is misleading.
One year.

And to be fair; as much as u say tanner is an unabashed oiler lover and cant be taken seriously, u seem to be the opposite. So maybe same goes
- hugefemale dog77

While I'll agree the wording "a lot longer" vs just "longer" may be overstating, it's still arguing semantics... my point was that RNH should be expected to have that break out season before Yak does.

As far as bashing the Oil? I rarely have anything unproductive to say about the Oilers, I've been a closet fan for years so maybe I'm a bit harder on the organization for that reason. Most, of any of my bashing came from reading Richie. Not because I don't like the Oil.... and I don't think Tanner can't be taken seriously, just think that he likes to suck up to Oiler fans a little more than most. Nothing against it, just making an observation.

I believe everything I say. I would be happy to explain my thought process on anything I may have said that you find particularly crazy.
- James_Tanner

Well yeah that's fine, kind of loosely stated though. You can say you believe everything you say, but that doesn't mean what you're saying has any true merit or credibilty. That's what I call a crack pot.

So that leads once again to my curiousity. Do you truly believe the un-credible and often sensationalized claims you put forward? Or do you think like a kid who really kind of knows Santa isn't really real, but on the chance he's wrong still defies others to prove it?!

I personally believe this is the year we get a real good idea on Kadri and what his ceiling will be. He is exciting to watch and can lift you out of your seat, however at times he disappears for games at a time. If he can improve on his inconsistency, gains a few pounds, and really works on his conditioning, the sky is the limit. For all those things to come together, it may be a stretch, but if he does, he could be elite as he has the skillset to do so. He should be going back to Roberts for his off season training.

As a Leaf fan, I obviously hope this happens and he can bring it all together. IMO the worst case scenario, he is a career 2nd line C.