What are you, The Blade Runner of Alt accounts?

And what do you care if Oilers fans are in the Tanner thread? Hes discussing our team FFS.
- Larsson_fan

This guy is pretty much James' #1 fan boy. If he calls you a loser, I'd take it as a huge compliment.

Nice measured response. You really taught him a good lesson.
- RonPielep

He didnt teach me poop. Besides, Im not the alt hes looking for.

This guy is pretty much James' #1 fan boy. If he calls you a loser, I'd take it as a huge compliment.
- RonPielep

Funny thing is, i actually did take it as a compliment.

This guy is pretty much James' #1 fan boy. If he calls you a loser, I'd take it as a huge compliment.
- RonPielep

So when someone disses Tanner they have to brace themselves for a.........wait for it.............







....wait....







....wait............


...SHACK ATTACK!!!!!

So when someone disses Tanner they have to brace themselves for a.........wait for it.............







....wait....







....wait............


...SHACK ATTACK!!!!!
- Larsson_fan

Muzzin
Trouba
Shattenkirk
Gardiner
Rielly

Matthews, Kadri, Johnson.

No one is coming anywhere withing 20 points of that roster. Come on!!
- James_Tanner

This would be the first team since the early 90s to both score 300 goals and allow 300 goals against in the same season. We're talking 1980s Edmonton Oilers score games here.

This would be the first team since the early 90s to both score 300 goals and allow 300 goals against in the same season. We're talking 1980s Edmonton Oilers score games here.
- tkecanuck341

Except the Oilers scored 450 goals and let in 300.

Except the Oilers scored 450 goals and let in 300.
- Larsson_fan

I didn't say that they would be on the winning side of every game. Just that there would be a lot of games with scores of 8-5 or 7-6. Kinda like the Philly vs Pittsburgh series a few years ago.

Three is ample evidence every single day that NHL teams constantly make horrible mistakes. I am 100% confident I would be a better GM than Peter Chiarelli, Bob Murray, Brian Burke, Anyone who's ever run Ottawa or Buffalo, Dave Nonis.........I could go all day.

Being an NHL GM is as simple as a) being born into an NHL family b) playing in the NHL c) being a player agent (which first requires being a lawyer) c) starting your own stats company.

I think that covers 100% of the NHL's GMs.

What I lack in hockey experience first hand, I make for by being one of the only people on this earth capable of an original thought, having been to college, and being an expert in critical thinking.

I dunno, I think I could hack it, no problems. Also, I should probably point out (before you pull something trying to respoind) that I am only giving the answer this question deserves, I'm not entirely serious.
- James_Tanner

Fair enough. Then I guess you are bitter that the Oilers, Canadians, and Red Wings had dynasties too, because they played in a no salary cap league?
- Katana777

Not bitter...just call a spade a spade

This guy is pretty much James' #1 fan boy. If he calls you a loser, I'd take it as a huge compliment.
- RonPielep

And you were saying in the Oilers thread today how you don't click on Tanners blogs anymore but here you are. You're here all the time but I'm the fanboy.

While the trade scenarios are out to lunch the concept is not totally out to lunch like some think


Carolina
Anaheim
Pittsburgh
Chicago


These are all teams in the last ten years to have star players on ELC that were surrounded with talent taking advantage of their low cap hits

And you were saying in the Oilers thread today how you don't click on Tanners blogs anymore but here you are. You're here all the time but I'm the fanboy.
- shack67

Stalker much?

While the trade scenarios are out to lunch the concept is not totally out to lunch like some think


Carolina
Anaheim
Pittsburgh
Chicago


These are all teams in the last ten years to have star players on ELC that were surrounded with talent taking advantage of their low cap hits
- Redmile247

The problem is that Tanner's whole plan isn't just revolving around having a few players on ELC's. Those teams didn't immediately after finishing 30th in the league go out and trade the next several 1st and 2nd rounders the very next year to try and win right away.

They waited like any sensible team until they'd improved at least a little bit, then maybe traded some picks and prospects to get the extra pieces they needed. The leafs were 30th last year. They will likely be picking top 5 again with a good chance of winning a lottery spot. This is a stupid time to consider trading a 1st rounder.

My training in critical thinking that I received in college (I remember one course that was basically devoted to this) suggests you are full of poop.

Well yeah, that was sort of the point.

If luck plays such a strong role in deciding the Stanley cup winner each year, then it seems your "strategy" you have "created" would be the opposite of what should be done.

If you need luck to win it all, then you just want to actually be good enough to make the playoffs year after year so you have a chance to be "lucky enough to win."

Incorrect. Luck plays a huge role, but that doesn't mean you just surrender yourself to providence. It's not an either/or proposition. The best team is still going to have the best odds of winning.

So you take the steps needed to be the best team. And if you're the best team by a mile, then you have way better odds of winning at least once in the two years you max out vs the four or five years of your competitive window in a normal situation.



Unless of course you believe that using your brilliant strategy of trading all your future draft picks is somehow going to make your team so amazeballs that they transcend the normal rules and no longer need to worry about luck.
- Thecakeisalie
- James_Tanner

1. Oh. So the point of your previous post was that lots of people have the ability to think original thoughts, have been to college, and have learned critical thinking skills - thus making you an average person and in absolutely no way a shining example of someone that could be a superior GM than most of the current professionals? That is what I was hinting at. Good, glad we cleared that up.

2. I see. So your assertion is that currently no team is able to become good enough that luck doesn't play a role in who wins the cup - Even if they are slightly better than the competition, it's to such a small degree that luck still plays a factor.
Meanwhile your strategy of trading away future draft picks the year after a team finished dead last is somehow going to make a team skilled enough to heavily skew the odds in their favor of winning a cup? So basically what I suggested in my first post.

Even if your strategy worked completely, by your own logic, there is still a good chance they would lose when they got unlucky (maybe they would have a better chance for a couple years, but still could be victims of bad luck)...and then they would suck for the next decade.

And you were saying in the Oilers thread today how you don't click on Tanners blogs anymore but here you are. You're here all the time but I'm the fanboy.
- shack67

Sorry, you are right. I am James Tanner's fanboy, not you. I'm sure James will back us up on this.

You would trade 4 first round picks for Muzzin? How many does MacDonald get?

I love how condescending you are and yet you're judging the worst trade in NHL history as good after seven games.
- James_Tanner

James, please tell me you see the humor of this sentence. I think its the only time I've laughed at you (in a good way).

Sorry, you are right. I am James Tanner's fanboy, not you. I'm sure James will back us up on this.
- RonPielep

Pretty sure he already handed the job to that Tumbleweed person much earlier in the comments section.

I read and see enough about "snowplowing" parents thank you, I certainly don't want to read about participation ribbons and "hey, let's recognize the losing team too" in PROFESSIONAL sports. No, it's about winning...there is a trophy for it.

The rest of this blog is like a kid managing a team on a video game. Perhaps I missed the sarcasm but it sort of sounds like you were serious with all of this long term franchise destruction talk.

Hall for Larsson was a great trade for both teams. Edmonton got what they desperately needed and paid for it. Strong defense ultimately wins championships in all sports.

That's your analogy for this blog?
- RonPielep

no. I just remembered it because of the comment about PvJ. That was a fun episode!

Hypocrisy thou reareth thine ugly head yet again
- MaximumBone

You don't even know what that word means. Jesus, does anyone? Other than "ignorant" and "ironic" easily the most incorrectly used word.

Yeah but you can only speculate as to whom. And even then, its just your opinion that said mystery Defenceman is a better fit than Larsson.
- Larsson_fan

He doesn't have to be better. Since you're keeping Taylor Hall - an elite 5v5 goal scorer and likely a top ten player in the NHL, it doesn't matter. Hell, why not just sign Demers and keep Hall?

Trading Hall for Larsson was so bad it's almost hard to comprehend. Perhaps the worst one for one trade in NHL history.


I have two sources - Cap Friendly and this site - which list McDavid's cap hit as 900K. If that is supposed to include bonuses, that ain't on me.

The Oilers, no one wants to acknowledge, played zero games last year with their optimum lineup. Then they tore their team apart without ever having seen it play a single game.
- James_Tanner

Do you really believe this?