The crazy part is this is absolutely true


The argument that “well he’s a professional and In the nhl so he must know more than anyone’s who’s not” is a narrative that is littered with evidence to the contrary.
- HB77

No, really, it's not.

There's no evidence to the contrary. None at all.

You can't compare what has actually happened to what you imagine what might have happened if you were GM.

- you don't know if your trade ideas would have actually been accepted
- you don't know how your team chemistry would have worked out
- basically, you don't know poop.

The hilarious part of all of this is that Mr. Tanner despises Donald Trump supporters - yet this is the exact same "logic" that Trump supporters keep bringing up. It's the rejection of expertise - the belief that you know better than people who actually know better.

https://www.foreignaffair...rica-lost-faith-expertise

Just in case you have a subscription to Foreign Affairs.

If not, think of it this way:

Quit going with Feelz over Realz.

Peace out, yo'.

Again with the false comparisons in place of arguments.

Again with the false comparisons in place of arguments.
- james_tanner1

Hie are they false if there has never been a case of someone without Hockey experience being a GM ( at least for a few years to see if the Coyote model wotks or not )


Also i ask again how Chiarelli does not at the least get a passing grade if his team puts up 103pts one year, than the following is 2nd in the league in numerous advance stats? With a crazy low PDO, which by your standards means they are unlucky, not necassarily a bad team?

No, really, it's not.

There's no evidence to the contrary. None at all.

You can't compare what has actually happened to what you imagine what might have happened if you were GM.

- you don't know if your trade ideas would have actually been accepted
- you don't know how your team chemistry would have worked out
- basically, you don't know poop.

The hilarious part of all of this is that Mr. Tanner despises Donald Trump supporters - yet this is the exact same "logic" that Trump supporters keep bringing up. It's the rejection of expertise - the belief that you know better than people who actually know better.

https://www.foreignaffair...rica-lost-faith-expertise

Just in case you have a subscription to Foreign Affairs.

If not, think of it this way:

Quit going with Feelz over Realz.

Peace out, yo'.
- Atomic Wedgie

it’s weird that you used this opportunity to somehow take a jab at tanners political ideas. But ok

Anyway, there absolutely is a mountain of evidence of supposed professionals in their field doing a horrible job. Across all professions. This isn’t even up for debate.

In terms of hockey, One could name countless gm’s that have evicerated their organization during their tenure. And with that said, there are countless armchairs that wouldn’t have made those same moves and thus not done the subsequent damage. That’s all that was said. And this isn’t even just in hindsight terms, but An immediate identification that the move was a mistake.

Those opinions being proven right over time is exactly the evidence I spoke of. whether it’s merely assumption or not, one can logically conclude that the opposite of a mistake isn’t in fact a mistake. You’re arguing nuance and semantics as if it’s a controlled scientific hypothesis. Of course it’s not. But let’s not dismiss basic logic.

Trade away a superstar game changing scoring winger and downgrade your offence.
“ our biggest issue is that we’re desperate for a superstar game changing scoring winger to upgrade our impotent offemce”

Basic logic concludes that had you not made the move in the first place, the 2nd part of that scenario doesn’t take place (barring injury etc. But that’s neither here nor there )

Again with the false comparisons in place of arguments.
- james_tanner1

Hey Best friend, who do we have to rough up in here. This is Tannerbuzz and there is no place for Nerds taking shots at the King

Hie are they false if there has never been a case of someone without Hockey experience being a GM ( at least for a few years to see if the Coyote model wotks or not )


Also i ask again how Chiarelli does not at the least get a passing grade if his team puts up 103pts one year, than the following is 2nd in the league in numerous advance stats? With a crazy low PDO, which by your standards means they are unlucky, not necassarily a bad team?
- Shyster19

Chiarellis first year they finished 3rd last.
2nd year 2nd round of the playoffs.
If the 3rd year they finish bottom 10, all with Connor McDavid on your squad, I don’t see any scenario where that’s not abysmal overall.

And let’s not forget that he made no serious moves to upgrade his team to take a stab at a cup in connors last cheap year.
Despite his anchor signings, and because he actively downgraded a developing team by dealing ebs for cap, He’s actually got a few bucks right now.
But after this season it’s only gonna get harder to fill the roster. And of course because of the contracts, he can’t really acquire any term. So hes also pigeonholed himself in to keeping his prospects as they’re needed to fill out the roster in the future in cheap deals

He fuked us good

it’s weird that you used this opportunity to somehow take a jab at tanners political ideas. But ok

Anyway, there absolutely is a mountain of evidence of supposed professionals in their field doing a horrible job. Across all professions. This isn’t even up for debate.

In terms of hockey, One could name countless gm’s that have evicerated their organization during their tenure. And with that said, there are countless armchairs that wouldn’t have made those same moves and thus not done the subsequent damage. And this isn’t even just in hindsight terms, but An immediate understanding that the move was a mistake.

Those opinions being proven right over time is exactly the evidence I spoke of. whether it’s merely assumption or not, one can logically conclude that the opposite of a mistake isn’t in fact a mistake. You’re arguing nuance and semantics as if it’s a controlled scientific hypothesis. Of course it’s not. But let’s not dismiss basic logic.

Trade away a superstar game changing scoring winger.....
“ our biggest issue is that we’re desperate for a superstar game changing scoring winger”

Basic logic concludes that had you not made the move in the first place, the 2nd part of that scenario doesn’t take place (barring injury etc. But that’s neither here nor there )
- HB77

I think the main debate is that there is no evidence that a complete amateur ‘would’ do a better job than alot of experienced GM’s. yes there are alot of GM’s that have made terrible blunders, but we dont have all the information to why they made such moves/transactions. Nor as amateurs will we ever know the truth behind them.

James Tanner: Time for Oilers and Canadiens to Fire their General Managers (and Coaches)
It's about half past too late already, but enough is enough.
- james_tanner1

Awesome blog you sad Richard Cloutier wannabe

- LittleRicky

😂😂😂

I think the main debate is that there is no evidence that a complete amateur ‘would’ do a better job than alot of experienced GM’s. yes there are alot of GM’s that have made terrible blunders, but we dont have all the information to why they made such moves/transactions. Nor as amateurs will we ever know the truth behind them.
- Shyster19

Fair point. Of course I certainly can’t argue that it’s an unequivocal fact that joe in his moms basement could’ve built a contender.
But I think I can state that logic says had joe been in charge and not made said move, the team would be better off.

Hall + decent stay at home dependable defender > larsson and Lucic

By alot imo

Awesome blog you sad Richard Cloutier wannabe
- LittleRicky

Chiarellis first year they finished 3rd last.
2nd year 2nd round of the playoffs.
If the 3rd year they finish bottom 10, all with Connor McDavid on your squad, I don’t see any scenario where that’s not abysmal overall.

And let’s not forget that he made no serious moves to upgrade his team to take a stab at a cup in connors last cheap year.
Despite his anchor signings, and because he actively downgraded a developing team by dealing ebs for cap, He’s actually got a few bucks right now.
But after this season it’s only gonna get harder to fill the roster. And of course because of the contracts, he can’t really acquire any term. So hes also pigeonholed himself in to keeping his prospects as they’re needed to fill out the roster in the future in cheap deals

He fuked us good
- HB77

I actually truly agree with everything you are saying. My only question ( which i am torn on ) is does he get a pass ‘because’ he has built a team with unreal underlying numbers, that history shows will come back to the ‘mean’ and may be built better for playoffs. Or a team that could have been, that who knows what they could have done? Like i said, i am torn. If history shows good corsi and possession teams more often than not make the playoffs and make deep runs, i am not sure i am as unhappy ( even tho i am with his moves ) as i would be.

Fair point. Of course I certainly can’t argue that it’s an unequivocal fact that joe in his moms basement could’ve built a contender.
But I think I can state that logic says had joe been in charge and not made said move, the team would be better off.

Hall + decent stay at home dependable defender > larsson and Lucic

By alot imo
- HB77

Just for fun a fun debate.

Hall career pts/game average is .84, very good

Lucic ( which he matched last year and is on pace for again. career pts/game .61, pretty decent

Difference over 82 games is 16pts. Which is a pretty big difference.


Lucic averages about 75-78 games a year

Hall about 65. So lets say 10games a year difference. So now their yearly point difference is only about 9pts ( not as much as before )

If a guy wants you could add in the ‘intangibles’ which i think Lucic gets a bump from, but that can never be measured so lets not

Each make 6million a year

Larsson who is a 1B RHD makes just over 4M ( which is a steal in todays NHL )

Now compare him to another stay at home RHD ( who would probably be more of a 2nd pair Dman ( without giving up too much to get. That would probably cost 3.5M ( lets say Michael Stone out of Calgary. Now is the difference between Larsson and ‘Stone’ be greater than 9pts a year?

I honestly dont know, but i think this might be along the lines of what Gm’s and their staff look at when making these decisions.


Haha. Anyway, just food for thought

I actually truly agree with everything you are saying. My only question ( which i am torn on ) is does he get a pass ‘because’ he has built a team with unreal underlying numbers, that history shows will come back to the ‘mean’ and may be built better for playoffs. Or a team that could have been, that who knows what they could have done? Like i said, i am torn. If history shows good corsi and possession teams more often than not make the playoffs and make deep runs, i am not sure i am as unhappy ( even tho i am with his moves ) as i would be.
- Shyster19

Imo, he’s out the door today. (Even if the damage is already done)

But u make a solid counterpoint. And I think there might be some logic that the team might actually be better suited for playoff hockey (Even if that seems counter intuitive because the teams are all good)
Thing is, we gotta get there first

And yeah- so much luck goes into winning a cup. So that’s not my bar. Just build a team that a true contender for multiple years and maybe cash in on a run or two if we’re lucky. (of course yearly additions and subtractions and down years with a poor mix are part and parcel of that too. But always at least in the convo)
But yeah, I’m not super confident we’re even close to getting there at present and not sure corsi Is super relevant regarding this iteration of the squad.

Agreed for the most part

As far as the hall deal, I tend to hear this alot and I think it’s too much a generalization. Yes of course we needed a solid defender. And yes Of course larsson is exactly that. He’s a good dman and is not one of the “issues” with the team.

It’s no diss intended towards him, But this narrative neglects that his game and style is fairly ordinary. Or rather that stay at home, Physical, dependable, lumbering guys with almost no offence like him are out there. In semi large quantities actually.
And just for argument sake, Even if some of his intangibles put him ahead of many (which I believe they do), the difference still doesn’t lend itself to having to pay your 2nd best player and a franchise cornerstone forward to make it up.

I like larsson and I love his nasty streak and his intangibles, but he’s a limited player. Imo, I think the whole “we needed a dman and he filled a hole” while true, is kinda more what Oiler fans tell themselves to feel better about giving up a guy who would literally be the piece along with Connor/leon/nuge, that not only makes us far better, but puts us right in the conversation for cup contender

As far as getting more added to offset, totally agree. One for one was abysmal. But regardless, U don’t trade a player like hall unless you’re adding to him to acquire a true 1 stud. Or at least one that has the offence to potentially be that
- HB77

See that's the thing. While I will never see Larsson becoming a top end offensive producing defender (he seems to have developed a strong defensive instinct when it comes to risk assessment; he will prefer to play it safe than to risk it in almost all cases), he has the necessary chops to at least provide positive puck transition movement across the ice and peak at the 30-40 point range. I used to think that he could do that with PP time, but now I think he can do it without.

https://oilonwhyte.com/20...sson-be-power-play-asset/

While PP on the 2nd unit might not be his long-term wise in regards to how Edmonton utilizes him (which I disagree, he may be defensive instinctive, but he is still more than capable of handling that role given his xp in Sweden and in the Internationals), it may give him a spark when it comes to developing his offensive game. Keep in mind though that Larsson is most likely seen as more important on the PK in a manner that restricts his utilization on the PP.

This season alone has shown him makes good/solid strides in his offensive game. He has been joining or starting rushes, taking way more shots (albeit sometimes he may be taking shots just for the sake of it), and creating plays from his own zone or in the offensive zone. I see this moreso as a rise in confidence and an increase in comfortability with what he is capable of and the systems in play.

http://edmontonjournal.co...sson-keeps-getting-better

Also, nobody seems to talk about how Larsson contributed offensively in the playoffs last season either, which seems strange to me. He had 6 points in 13 games and of those points, 2 of them were game-winning goals.

Another thing to add is that defenders take a longer time to develop. I don't expect to see the best out of Larsson until he is 26-27. However, nobody should be expecting a Hedman out of Larsson (as some people were thinking), that's just crazy talk. Whoever does should be slapped in the face.

https://www.usatoday.com/...devils-contract/30669711/
https://pucksandpitchfork...-exceled-post-deboer-era/
https://pucksandpitchfork...ving-new-coaching-regime/

Now as for his development pattern, Deboer definitely did some damage in that aspect. Once Scott Stevens and Oates stepped (see above links for even more info about just how big of a change it made on his game) in (2014-2015 season), things got way better in the latter part of that year and did well offensively (20 points in the last 42 games of the season). Regardless of even that, NJ implemented and utilized Larsson heavily defensively, thus hindering any true offensive development from him in the first place.

http://edmontonjournal.co...nce-after-trade-to-oilers

Also, read the comment from Carmien Owen. A great perspective on the whole thing.

Lastly, this all connects to the trade in terms of value and risk assessment. This is also why the Oilers overpaid and didn't get enough value back in terms of trade value and outlook (Most likely due to Chia's poor negotiation skills). A reasonable GM would have tried to acquire a high pick coupled with Larsson considering the risk involved when it came to the development of Larsson and the loss of offense that will be expected short term and possibly long term. If Chia wants to strive for a long-term gamble in correlation to stability, that aspect should have been considered to the greatest extent possible.

Hey Best friend, who do we have to rough up in here. This is Tannerbuzz and there is no place for Nerds taking shots at the King
- DDM-Coga

Tamsy is my bff.

Just for fun a fun debate.

Hall career pts/game average is .84, very good

Lucic ( which he matched last year and is on pace for again. career pts/game .61, pretty decent

Difference over 82 games is 16pts. Which is a pretty big difference.


Lucic averages about 75-78 games a year

Hall about 65. So lets say 10games a year difference. So now their yearly point difference is only about 9pts ( not as much as before )

If a guy wants you could add in the ‘intangibles’ which i think Lucic gets a bump from, but that can never be measured so lets not

Each make 6million a year

Larsson who is a 1B RHD makes just over 4M ( which is a steal in todays NHL )

Now compare him to another stay at home RHD ( who would probably be more of a 2nd pair Dman ( without giving up too much to get. That would probably cost 3.5M ( lets say Michael Stone out of Calgary. Now is the difference between Larsson and ‘Stone’ be greater than 9pts a year?

I honestly dont know, but i think this might be along the lines of what Gm’s and their staff look at when making these decisions.


Haha. Anyway, just food for thought
- Shyster19

Larson is way better than stone. I think the gap between them is much larger than the forward gap u stated . In this scenario ur right. But I think we could’ve acquired a better stay at home guy than stone. That’s a pretty big drop

I also think that hall is a far far better player than Looch today.
At present, one guy is good for, and on pace for, about 50 towards the back end of his best years. and while other is absolutely capable of, and on pace for, 70-80 in the Center of his prime.

Injuries and intangibles are fair to state as a benchmark over their careers. But I think the gap between them not factoring in health, but more where they’re at currently in their careers is a chasm.
One is the best player and often carries his line a good young team, the other might actually be more of An anchor to his linemate nuge

See that's the thing. While I will never see Larsson becoming a top end offensive producing defender (he seems to have developed a strong defensive instinct when it comes to risk assessment; he will prefer to play it safe than to risk it in almost all cases), he has the necessary chops to at least provide positive puck transition movement across the ice and peak at the 30-40 point range. I used to think that he could do that with PP time, but now I think he can do it without.

https://oilonwhyte.com/20...sson-be-power-play-asset/

While PP on the 2nd unit might not be his long-term wise in regards to how Edmonton utilizes him (which I disagree, he may be defensive instinctive, but he is still more than capable of handling that role given his xp in Sweden and in the Internationals), it may give him a spark when it comes to developing his offensive game. Keep in mind though that Larsson is most likely seen as more important on the PK in a manner that restricts his utilization on the PP.

This season alone has shown him makes good/solid strides in his offensive game. He has been joining or starting rushes, taking way more shots (albeit sometimes he may be taking shots just for the sake of it), and creating plays from his own zone or in the offensive zone.

http://edmontonjournal.co...sson-keeps-getting-better

Also, nobody seems to talk about how Larsson contributed offensively in the playoffs last season either, which seems strange to me. He had 6 points in 13 games and of those points, 2 of them were game-winning goals.

Another thing to add is that defenders take a longer time to develop. I don't expect to see the best out of Larsson until he is 26-27. Nobody should be expecting a Hedman out of Larsson (as some people were thinking), that's just crazy talk. Whoever is should be slapped in the face.

Now as for his development pattern, Deboer definitely did some damage in that aspect. Once Scott Stevens and Oates stepped in (2014-2015 season), things got way better in the latter part of that year and did well offensively (20 points in the last 42 games of the season). Regardless of even that, NJ implemented and utilized Larsson heavily defensively, thus hindering any true offensive development from him in the first place.

http://edmontonjournal.co...nce-after-trade-to-oilers

Also, read the comment from Carmien Owen. A great perspective on the whole thing.

Lastly, this all connects to the trade in terms of value and risk assessment. This is also why the Oilers overpaid and didn't get enough value back in terms of trade value and outlook (Most likely due to Chia's poor negotiation skills). A reasonable GM would have tried to acquire a high pick coupled with Larsson considering the risk involved when it came to the development of Larsson and the loss of offense that will be expected short term and possibly long term. If Chia wants to strive for a long-term gamble in correlation to stability, that aspect should have been considered to the greatest extent possible.
- EdmHockeyMan

He’s a break forecheck, safe play, dump it out defender. Even if he’s starting to carry the puck more, the safe play without doing anything positive for transition is still his go to

40 points is miles away from where he is right now. I just don’t see close to that.
His career best is 24, and he currently has 3 in 22 games. And that’s with as u said being even more willing to join the attack.
He just doesn’t have those chops. He’s good at his job and I’m happy with that. Not saying he won’t develop further, he has already. But I don’t see a total shift in his game

He’s a break forecheck, safe play, dump it out defender. Even if he’s starting to carry the puck more, the safe play without doing anything positive for transition is still his go to

40 points is miles away from where he is right now. I just don’t see close to that.
His career best is 24, and he currently has 3 in 22 games. And that’s with as u said being even more willing to join the attack.
He just doesn’t have those chops. He’s good at his job and I’m happy with that. Not saying he won’t develop further, he has already. But I don’t see a total shift in his game
- HB77

Agree to disagree on that specific aspect then?
Cause I feel like we just have two sparring perspectives on what we see out of him long-term wise.

At least we'll know who is right in a few years time.

Larson is way better than stone. I think the gap between them is much larger than the forward gap u stated . In this scenario ur right. But I think we could’ve acquired a better stay at home guy than stone. That’s a pretty big drop

I also think that hall is a far far better player than Looch today.
At present, one guy is good for and on pace about 50 towards the back end of his best years. and while other is absolutely capable of and on pace for 70-80 in the Center of his prime.

Injuries and intangibles are fair to state as a benchmark over their careers. But I think the gap between them not factoring in health and where they’re at currently in their careers is a chasm.
One is the best player and often carries his line a good young team, the other might actually be more of An anchor to his linemate nuge
- HB77

For sure Larsson is better than Stone, but i was just using ur scenario of Hall plus stay at home defender, which Stone fits at just shy of what Larsson makes, i also agree that Hall can put up 80 and Looch is. 50pt guy, but looking at the career numbers, which i did ( minus games played, which is a crap shoot for sure ) i think strictly point wise they are alot closer than just looking at 50 and 80 ( which Hall has only put up once ).

Would i take Hall over Looch, yup everyday, would i take Hall and Stone (or name another stay at home Dman ) over Larsson and Looch, who career wise puts up 9pts less than Hall, which cones right from the stats, i think i take Larsson and Looch.

Again with the false comparisons in place of arguments.
- james_tanner1

You mean like automatically firing a coach when you fire a GM... you know... just because... ?

You are correct James. Both teams should let their current GM's go, although the question is whether they will actually hire someone better if they do so, or find someone just as incompetent. The latter doesn't seem too far fetched to me. It would be hilarious if they just ended up swapping GM's.

By the way. Seems you were spot on about OV and Backstrom. You suggested they should be played together to get Ovechkin scoring again and that is just what happened. Good call.

You are correct James. Both teams should let their current GM's go, although the question is whether they will actually hire someone better if they do so, or find someone just as incompetent. The latter doesn't seem too far fetched to me. It would be hilarious if they just ended up swapping GM's.

By the way. Seems you were spot on about OV and Backstrom. You suggested they should be played together to get Ovechkin scoring again and that is just what happened. Good call.
- Thecakeisalie

Nice alt account tanner.

Oh how I yearn for the Tanner that "guaranteed" multiple cup wins for this young Oilers team.
Now he has moved on to the "new" and "improved" Oil......Called the Leafs...And although we can all play"shoulda, coulda, woulda" The fact is (despite James claim) it doesn't appear the Oil will be competing for all those cups after all.
However(unlike James) I still believe the Oil are still a damn good young team with plenty of untapped potential. They are simply to talented to be playing this poorly.

Larson is way better than stone. I think the gap between them is much larger than the forward gap u stated . In this scenario ur right. But I think we could’ve acquired a better stay at home guy than stone. That’s a pretty big drop

I also think that hall is a far far better player than Looch today.
At present, one guy is good for, and on pace for, about 50 towards the back end of his best years. and while other is absolutely capable of, and on pace for, 70-80 in the Center of his prime.

Injuries and intangibles are fair to state as a benchmark over their careers. But I think the gap between them not factoring in health, but more where they’re at currently in their careers is a chasm.
One is the best player and often carries his line a good young team, the other might actually be more of An anchor to his linemate nuge
- HB77

To be fair, Larsson has been pretty lousy lately. Stone has been very solid. Career-wise Larsson is better. These last two weeks Stone has been far better.