AROUND THE LEAGUE PLAYOFFS WEEK SIX

Jason Gregor
June 03 2010 02:45PM

As the Stanley Cup Finals wind down, I wonder if Patrick Kane is the most under-rated player in the NHL; or at least from the Canadian media and fans. Jonathon Toews gets more accolades than Kane, and despite his 22 points, to Toews 27; Kane hasn’t been mentioned as even a possibility for the Conn Smyth.

Why I wonder?

Toews is clearly a better ambassador off the ice.

He hasn’t been involved in any dust ups with taxi drivers,  doesn’t have a cool nickname like 20 cent, and he wasn’t shirtless in a limo with young Vancouver ladies. The only flak Kane should have received over the limo pics was his choice of companions. Who cares if a 21-year-old male is partying in a limo with girls?

But if you focus on his on-ice play it is hard to overlook what he has accomplished.

In his first three seasons he has 76 goals and 230 points in 244 games. Toews has 83 goals, 191 points in 222 games. Toews is the captain and one hell of a leader, and has shown an ability to step up his game in the playoffs and Olympics.

But so has Kane.

Toews has 40 career playoff points to Kane’s 36. It’s not a comparison between who is better, (I’d take Toews’ overall game) because their games are different, but I sense Kane doesn’t get the respect his game deserves. He might be the best player in the game at controlling the play high in the offensive zone. He has the ability to circle between the top of the circles and the blueline and make teams look lost. He has great vision, and for my money is one of the best passers in the game.

I also like his flair/cockiness. He makes the game fun. Some have laughed at his playoff Mullet, but it doesn’t faze him. And you can’t discount his ability to produce in the clutch. Kane needs one chance and he can finish. If Patrick Kane was Canadian would he be talked about more?

ICE WOMEN OF THE WEEK

The playoffs could be over by next Thursday, so let’s honour the entire BlackHawks Ice Crew. With such a wide array of beauties it is hard to pick a favourite, but, for me, something about Yanina separates her from the rest of the crew.

RANDOM THOUGHTS

  • Can anyone tell me who picked up the puck after game one of the Penguins/Red Wings series last year? Didn’t think so, because we shouldn’t care. Not sure why The Human Rake’s decision to pick up the puck annoyed so many people. That’s why he did it. To piss people off. Rake 1- hockey people 0.
  • If you are planning on going to the NHL draft in LA you can get tickets starting Saturday. Here’s a blurb from the Kings website. “Tickets for the 2010 NHL Entry Draft will be available to the general public beginning this Saturday, June 5, at 10 a.m.~ A limited number of tickets, which are free of charge, can be downloaded and printed (note a service charge of $1.25 per ticket will be charged) by visiting LAKings.com/nhldraft.~ Ticket limit is 4 (four) and each ticket is good for both days.”
  • The Hawks haven’t missed Andrew Ladd that much in the finals. He is an RFA this summer, and with his size should make him attractive trade bait if Stan Bowman elects to move him.
  • How much will RFA D-man, Niklas Hjarlmarsson be worth this summer? The 22-year-old Swede has been very solid for the Hawks. What Bowman does with his backend this summer will be intriguing to watch. Brian Campbell has played the 5th most minutes in the Cup final out of the blueliners, but his contract makes him untradeable I’d think.
  • Would Darryl Sutter buy-out the final two years of Ales Kotalik’s contract? They could buy him out for $4 million and split that up over four years.  
  • Why doesn’t baseball have instant replay? Detroit pitcher, Armando Galarraga was robbed of a perfect game last night when first-base umpire, Jim Joyce ruled Jason Donald safe at first. Replays clearly showed Donald was safe. Commissioner Bud Selig should wake up and allow teams to one or two challenge flags every game. I do credit Joyce for admitting after the game he screwed up, and Galarraga was incredibly classy after the game. He did get a surprise gift today though for his efforts
  • Kelly Buchberger and Wayne Fleming have yet to receive contract extensions. Their contracts are up June 30th, so we could see some changes behind the bench this summer. No position in the organization is safe at this point, and that’s how it should be when you’ve missed the playoffs four years consecutively.

 

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#101 Quicksilver ballet
June 04 2010, 11:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

Probably has a lot to do with the city itself. It's small, as far north as the NHL goes, ugly, and not known for much aside from a giant mall. As the team goes, who on the Oilers would be a draw for guys to play with? Hemsky to some extent, and then? A lot of people hate Edmonton and Calgary for the weather, the 'lack of culture', distance from large bodies of water, etc. I know players don't get a ton of downtime during the season, but if you get a day off here or there and want to enjoy yourself, there are teams in warm climes, teams in bastions of fine dining, and so on.

Not saying that this is based off anything but supposition, but I would imagine it's pretty decent supposition.

I don't think it has much to do with the city at all. The players spend only about 125 days of the year actually in town during a season, it has everything to do with the team on the ice. I'm sure 99% of the players will go anywhere for one of the 750'ish NHL jobs available.... especially if there's an opportunity to be part of a successful team.

Give it 12-18 months and players will be very willing to come back here again. The paycheque and the possibility of being part of a successful team are the two most important factors......it has little to do with the city itself.

Avatar
#102 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
June 05 2010, 02:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Quicksilver ballet wrote:

I don't think it has much to do with the city at all. The players spend only about 125 days of the year actually in town during a season, it has everything to do with the team on the ice. I'm sure 99% of the players will go anywhere for one of the 750'ish NHL jobs available.... especially if there's an opportunity to be part of a successful team.

Give it 12-18 months and players will be very willing to come back here again. The paycheque and the possibility of being part of a successful team are the two most important factors......it has little to do with the city itself.

Balogne.

Way too many guys go to losing teams every year for this to be remotly true.

Every player is different, and I'm sure winning wieghs in for alot of guys (to varying degrees) but factors such as weather, travel and the city itself are all also considerations for guys (again in varying degrees).

Avatar
#103 madjam
June 05 2010, 08:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The haunting words of Tambellini "proper rebuild "still rings fresh in my mind as the draft draws nearer. Was Tams serious about his choice of direction and words when he spoke them ? A proper rebuild is from the backend .

Considering Souray appears to be on his way out and goaltending is up in the air , i would somewhat think that Tambellini will address our biggest problems filling the backend rather than drafting a forward with our first choice .

Is Tambellini trying to drive up the value of Hall and Seguin for the purpose of drafting from the backend and maybe getting a 2 for 1 deal ? If Tams is serious about a proper rebuild then i have reservations that we'll be drafting Hall or Seguin this season with Eberle and Svensson already on the radar .

If we are to draft Hall or Seguin , then what did Tambellini mean by a "proper rebuild" ? Sounds a little dyslexic to do a proper rebuild from forward position don't you think , considering our problems are more severe on backend ?

That picture of Gudblanson in Journal today makes him look imposing ?

Avatar
#104 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
June 05 2010, 09:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@madjam

"A proper rebuild is from the backend ."

According to who?

Avatar
#105 Matt Henderson
June 05 2010, 09:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@madjam

Seriously, drop the idea that the Oilers need to draft more defensemen instead of one of the top 2 players in the draft. The Oilers already have Petry, Plante, Chorney, and Peckham in the minors, plus the Oil can expect to get SOMETHING back for Souray. Why should they pass up the opportunity for a dynamic forward in favour of another defenseman that wont be ready for 3 years?

If Tambellini is serious about rebuilding he will not waste the 1st overall pick on defensemen who arent in the same league as Hall or Seguin.

Was Washington, Chicago, and Pittsburgh wrong in how they did their rebuilds by taking Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kane, Toews, Ovechkin, and Backstrom? NO.

Avatar
#106 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
June 05 2010, 09:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Rusty Duggan wrote:

Hey Gregor, Willis, Brownlee anyone

I challenge/beg you to write an article about why Edmonton has become a place players don't want to play. I know there is a number of different angles to this topic, and I want it ALL explained, every in and out, because I don't think the average fan/Edmontonian knows why this has happened.

Is it management? Is it the city? Was it the post-lockout year that caused this perception? Is it the temperature? Is it the lack of success? Are the fans too hard for "todays" player? Is management still in denial? Is it becasue we were a low buget team for so long that we have lost a little bit of mojo? Is this still an issue?

~great idea. lets beat the sh** out of that dead horse too~

is it really hard to see?

1) team f-ing stinks, and has for almost 20 years

2) management clearly had (has) no plan

3) the weather stinks

4) the "fishbowl" problem

5) the travel compared to most of the league stinks

Avatar
#107 David S
June 05 2010, 10:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Matt Henderson wrote:

Seriously, drop the idea that the Oilers need to draft more defensemen instead of one of the top 2 players in the draft. The Oilers already have Petry, Plante, Chorney, and Peckham in the minors, plus the Oil can expect to get SOMETHING back for Souray. Why should they pass up the opportunity for a dynamic forward in favour of another defenseman that wont be ready for 3 years?

If Tambellini is serious about rebuilding he will not waste the 1st overall pick on defensemen who arent in the same league as Hall or Seguin.

Was Washington, Chicago, and Pittsburgh wrong in how they did their rebuilds by taking Malkin, Crosby, Staal, Kane, Toews, Ovechkin, and Backstrom? NO.

I'm not sure if Petry, Plante, Chorney, and Peckham don't add to his case. The less of those guys we see up here, the better.

On the other hand, Smid, Gilbert, Whitney are a good start. I wonder if it would be easier to acquire the other guys as RFA's or trades due to the fact it seems to take so much longer to develop a good D. Because it seems to me our own AHL resources pretty much blow.

Avatar
#108 David S
June 05 2010, 10:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

*BTW. Seeing that collection of Ice Girls is a great way to wake up on a Saturday morning.

Avatar
#109 Rusty Duggan
June 05 2010, 11:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan wrote:

~great idea. lets beat the sh** out of that dead horse too~

is it really hard to see?

1) team f-ing stinks, and has for almost 20 years

2) management clearly had (has) no plan

3) the weather stinks

4) the "fishbowl" problem

5) the travel compared to most of the league stinks

Questions and theories have yet to be explained as to the real reason why.

Avatar
#110 David S
June 05 2010, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Rusty Duggan wrote:

Questions and theories have yet to be explained as to the real reason why.

Actually, this topic been beat to death. A bit of research would give you enough conspiracy theory rhetoric to keep you going until game 1 next fall. Google is your friend.

There is no one "real reason why". There's several, any combination of which that might apply to any different athlete's situation.

I would say this. Winning makes alot of other problems secondary. Even then, we're not going to be a good fit for every athlete - end of story. NHL 2010 fails in real life, believe it or not.

God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is no.

Avatar
#111 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
June 05 2010, 12:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Rusty Duggan wrote:

Questions and theories have yet to be explained as to the real reason why.

this isnt an A+B=C problem. Every player has different ideas on what is important to them, and may put an emphasis on something that another player wont really be concerned about.

the problem is, when the organization has so much working against it, almost every player can find a reason NOT to want to come here. Whether it be the track record over the last number of years, the organization itself, the city, whatever.

you will never find someone to sum it up and say "the reason nobody wants to play here is -----------"

Lets take detroit, for example. The city is in absolute shambles, neighbourhoods are deserted etc. Would that be an ideal place to play? No, probably not. But, the team has a top notch managment team, and a proven track record over the past number of years when it comes to winning. Players overlook some of the negatives when the chance at winning and the positives that come with playing for the red wings are there.

IF the Oilers can put together a couple years of success, and maybe have a player or two that can attract some talent, the "nobody wants to play here" thing will disappear for a while..

Avatar
#112 madjam
June 05 2010, 01:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Using the city is an easier "cop out " than expressing what players really feel to begin with . It is for some annoying reason the "canned " for public answer they all seem to use . I don't like it , but even organization seems to use it rather abundantly .

Born and raised in Edmonton , i've yet to find thru extensive travels any city any better than Edmonton or Alberta for that matter . The advantages here are far greater than any disadvantages and much more so , when you consider the Alberta advantages and educational system , etc..

I find using the city as an excuse is fake and phony with most of them . The real reasons are withheld from media and public scrutiny i feel . And yes , we are a beautifull city as many ardent international travellers will attest to, and second to none !

Avatar
#113 Matt Henderson
June 05 2010, 01:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
David S wrote:

I'm not sure if Petry, Plante, Chorney, and Peckham don't add to his case. The less of those guys we see up here, the better.

On the other hand, Smid, Gilbert, Whitney are a good start. I wonder if it would be easier to acquire the other guys as RFA's or trades due to the fact it seems to take so much longer to develop a good D. Because it seems to me our own AHL resources pretty much blow.

I can see that the AHL crop doesnt add that much optimism, but they shouldnt scare the Oilers SO MUCH that they pass up clearly better hockey players just to fill defense positions. Plante was a 1st rounder and he's no NHL either, I wouldnt expect any defenseman we draft in this class to be NHL ready. These guys are a couple years away for the most part, and by then we might not be that hurting at the backend.

Avatar
#114 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
June 05 2010, 02:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
madjam wrote:

Using the city is an easier "cop out " than expressing what players really feel to begin with . It is for some annoying reason the "canned " for public answer they all seem to use . I don't like it , but even organization seems to use it rather abundantly .

Born and raised in Edmonton , i've yet to find thru extensive travels any city any better than Edmonton or Alberta for that matter . The advantages here are far greater than any disadvantages and much more so , when you consider the Alberta advantages and educational system , etc..

I find using the city as an excuse is fake and phony with most of them . The real reasons are withheld from media and public scrutiny i feel . And yes , we are a beautifull city as many ardent international travellers will attest to, and second to none !

I've yet to see one player *say* he didn't want to come here because of the city.

Avatar
#115 madjam
June 05 2010, 03:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Burke just recently had made the quote that every Gm basically knows you rebuild from the backend . Seems logical to me . Hall/Seguin don't appear to be phenoms , so why not build from the backend when it's our weakest points to begin with ?

Avatar
#116 David S
June 05 2010, 03:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

A "Rebuild" can happen by trades, drafting or RFA's or probably a combination of all three.

See: Phoenix Coyotes.

Avatar
#117 Matt Henderson
June 05 2010, 04:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
madjam wrote:

Burke just recently had made the quote that every Gm basically knows you rebuild from the backend . Seems logical to me . Hall/Seguin don't appear to be phenoms , so why not build from the backend when it's our weakest points to begin with ?

You stick with Brian Burke then. He rebuilt his clubs with whom?

Hall and Seguin arent phenoms according to who?

Avatar
#118 Crash
June 05 2010, 04:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
David S wrote:

I'm not sure if Petry, Plante, Chorney, and Peckham don't add to his case. The less of those guys we see up here, the better.

On the other hand, Smid, Gilbert, Whitney are a good start. I wonder if it would be easier to acquire the other guys as RFA's or trades due to the fact it seems to take so much longer to develop a good D. Because it seems to me our own AHL resources pretty much blow.

Not sure I understand why people are quick to poo poo these d-men...what is it you know about Petry that makes you infer that he isn't going to be any good? Same with Chorney...because he had a less than a stellar rookie year? Couldn't it be possible for him to become another Tom Gilbert in a year or two. What were you saying about Gilbert 2/3 yrs ago?

IMO Peckham has started to come into his own...he brings something the Oilers sorely lack...a decent stay at home d-man who brings a real mean streak to his game and a willingness to stand up for teammates at the drop of a hat. Plante didn't really look that out of place during his 2 game stint here...why are you so quick to toss him aside as a failure already?

Alot of people on here are always screaming that the Oilers need to develop their young talent in the AHL and yet when they do the players that are developing are labled as being useless because they are just AHL calibre.

What would everyone say if the Oilers managed to sign a Dan Hamhuis type d-man this summer or get a decent d-man back in a trade for say Souray and Cogliano?

IMO the Oilers D is going in the right direction but I'm always the optimist (drinking the Kool aid if you prefer)

Just a couple of small moves required and voila, it'll look pretty darn good...at least from where I sit.

Avatar
#119 TigerUnderGlass
June 05 2010, 04:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Matt Henderson wrote:

You stick with Brian Burke then. He rebuilt his clubs with whom?

Hall and Seguin arent phenoms according to who?

What do you consider a phenom?

Do you think the top pick every year is automatically a phenom? Numbers wise this will not be an especially strong number one pick. They look like great prospects but...

What I am saying is that it all very much comes down to your definition of phenom, because I have a hard time calling someone beneath generational talent a phenom. Neither of these guys is Crosby or Ovechkin. I'm not even certain that either of these guys is as good as a Getzlaff or a Heatley.

Avatar
#120 David S
June 05 2010, 06:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Crash wrote:

Not sure I understand why people are quick to poo poo these d-men...what is it you know about Petry that makes you infer that he isn't going to be any good? Same with Chorney...because he had a less than a stellar rookie year? Couldn't it be possible for him to become another Tom Gilbert in a year or two. What were you saying about Gilbert 2/3 yrs ago?

IMO Peckham has started to come into his own...he brings something the Oilers sorely lack...a decent stay at home d-man who brings a real mean streak to his game and a willingness to stand up for teammates at the drop of a hat. Plante didn't really look that out of place during his 2 game stint here...why are you so quick to toss him aside as a failure already?

Alot of people on here are always screaming that the Oilers need to develop their young talent in the AHL and yet when they do the players that are developing are labled as being useless because they are just AHL calibre.

What would everyone say if the Oilers managed to sign a Dan Hamhuis type d-man this summer or get a decent d-man back in a trade for say Souray and Cogliano?

IMO the Oilers D is going in the right direction but I'm always the optimist (drinking the Kool aid if you prefer)

Just a couple of small moves required and voila, it'll look pretty darn good...at least from where I sit.

You're judging these guys on the merit of a 30th place team. Players like Chorney don't see the light of day on a decent NHL team, which is what I hope we're working towards. That they got thrown into our lineup was only a matter of circumstance and (IMO) insurance towards that 30th place.

If he gets to be as good as Gilbert, more power to him. But let him do his learning in the development leagues, not on our blueline. If he's good enough to push his way up by his own, that's what pro sport is all about.

Unless we want to finish last again next year. Then its "Helloooo Mr Chorney".

Avatar
#121 Rusty Duggan
June 05 2010, 06:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
David S wrote:

Actually, this topic been beat to death. A bit of research would give you enough conspiracy theory rhetoric to keep you going until game 1 next fall. Google is your friend.

There is no one "real reason why". There's several, any combination of which that might apply to any different athlete's situation.

I would say this. Winning makes alot of other problems secondary. Even then, we're not going to be a good fit for every athlete - end of story. NHL 2010 fails in real life, believe it or not.

God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is no.

Times change. Things come and go, and right now Edmonton has a bad name. Here's hoping that we can change that perception and be a desired place to play again!!!

Long live the Oilers!

Avatar
#122 Crash
June 05 2010, 08:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
David S wrote:

You're judging these guys on the merit of a 30th place team. Players like Chorney don't see the light of day on a decent NHL team, which is what I hope we're working towards. That they got thrown into our lineup was only a matter of circumstance and (IMO) insurance towards that 30th place.

If he gets to be as good as Gilbert, more power to him. But let him do his learning in the development leagues, not on our blueline. If he's good enough to push his way up by his own, that's what pro sport is all about.

Unless we want to finish last again next year. Then its "Helloooo Mr Chorney".

You've narrowed down your distain for all of those blueliners to just the one...Chorney.

I'm all for guys developing on the farm if need be...but you were suggesting IMO that these players would not ever become something at the NHL level...not just Chorney but Peckham, Petry and Plante.

How do you know at what point Chorney will be this coming season? How do you know where Peckham is at or Plante and how much research have you done on Petry to know that he isn't any good already? How do you know that this past season even though it was a disaster in the standings didn't actually help Chorney to develop even quicker? IMO it's assinine to suggest that the only reason Chorney was playing here was to ensure a 30th place finish but to each their own.

Actually I did a bit of research and players just like Chorney do in fact see the light of day in the NHL on decent teams...I started listing them here but there were too many to list...

In any event I'm not ready to write all of these young blueliners off...maybe there isn't room for all of them next year but I could see 1 or 2 and yes maybe one of them will even be Chorney and no I don't think it has to mean the Oilers will finish 30th again next year.

Tell me how many teams in the league survive losing their top goaltender, their top offensive player, their top d-man and don't plummet down the standings.

Avatar
#123 Matt Henderson
June 05 2010, 08:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

What do you consider a phenom?

Do you think the top pick every year is automatically a phenom? Numbers wise this will not be an especially strong number one pick. They look like great prospects but...

What I am saying is that it all very much comes down to your definition of phenom, because I have a hard time calling someone beneath generational talent a phenom. Neither of these guys is Crosby or Ovechkin. I'm not even certain that either of these guys is as good as a Getzlaff or a Heatley.

These guys are supposed to be on par with other former top tier picks like Stamkos, Kane, Malkin, etc. Who is saying they arent going to be as good as the guys you mentioned? Just find me a scout that says either of these kids is going to top out at 60 points on the 2nd line. You wont find one.

Avatar
#124 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
June 05 2010, 09:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
madjam wrote:

Burke just recently had made the quote that every Gm basically knows you rebuild from the backend . Seems logical to me . Hall/Seguin don't appear to be phenoms , so why not build from the backend when it's our weakest points to begin with ?

Are you drunk?

Avatar
#125 TigerUnderGlass
June 05 2010, 10:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Matt Henderson wrote:

These guys are supposed to be on par with other former top tier picks like Stamkos, Kane, Malkin, etc. Who is saying they arent going to be as good as the guys you mentioned? Just find me a scout that says either of these kids is going to top out at 60 points on the 2nd line. You wont find one.

Find one scout who refers to them as "phenoms".

Did I say anything about topping out at 60 points or the second line? I suggested they were not phenoms.

I specifically asked you for your definition of phenom because if we have different definitions the conversation ends there. If our definitions are the same we have something to talk about. However, reading what you just wrote I can only assume you believe that the cutoff point for calling someone a phenom is 60 points or the second line.

I should also mention that most of what I have read has them well below the guys you just mentioned, but lets go back to my question.

Do you consider Kane a phenom? Stamkos?

I just want to understand why everyone thinks these two guys who have put up slightly low numbers for potential first overall forward picks are suddenly all but guaranteed superstars.

They look like very good prospects and possible all-stars, but phenoms? Do you see why I want to know what you define as a phenom?

Avatar
#126 Pajamah
June 05 2010, 11:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

Are you drunk?

Really, what have you come to expect from this guy?

He just found his "enter" button after a few months of commenting. I wouldn't take much of what he says seriously.

Avatar
#127 TigerUnderGlass
June 05 2010, 11:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I just realized that I should make one thing clear....I am in no way supporting madjam's lunacy, I am only saying that calling them phenoms may be somewhat overstating their abilities.

Avatar
#128 Crash
June 06 2010, 12:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Find one scout who refers to them as "phenoms".

Did I say anything about topping out at 60 points or the second line? I suggested they were not phenoms.

I specifically asked you for your definition of phenom because if we have different definitions the conversation ends there. If our definitions are the same we have something to talk about. However, reading what you just wrote I can only assume you believe that the cutoff point for calling someone a phenom is 60 points or the second line.

I should also mention that most of what I have read has them well below the guys you just mentioned, but lets go back to my question.

Do you consider Kane a phenom? Stamkos?

I just want to understand why everyone thinks these two guys who have put up slightly low numbers for potential first overall forward picks are suddenly all but guaranteed superstars.

They look like very good prospects and possible all-stars, but phenoms? Do you see why I want to know what you define as a phenom?

Just curious who you are comparing these two guys to when you say they have put up slightly low numbers for potential one and two overall picks because looking back at the last 10 yrs (the 2000's) of entry drafts they match up pretty well in the group of forwards that were selected either 1 or 2 overall that played in the CHL..

Before this year there have been 10 forwards taken 1 or 2 that played in the CHL. (3) of them had more points than Hall and Seguin in their draft years while (7) of them didn't. Of the (3) that beat them (2) of them were a fair distance ahead of them..Crosby and Pat Kane...the other wasn't that far ahead Jason Spezza

So I'm thinking their numbers aren't really all that low comparatively.

Avatar
#129 madjam
June 06 2010, 07:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

Are you drunk?

I suppose you think that perhaps getting Hedman and Gudblanson for a flop of first round picks is a bad idea then ? Young defenceman are making almost immediate positive impacts on several cases throughout the league . Oilers are not one of them to date .

I certainly would not be unhappy to see the Oilers go the route of Hedman and Gudblanson (if it's possible) for flop of picks .Some of you think i'm drunk , while i wonder if some of you might have callouses over your eyes with some of your comments .

Avatar
#130 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
June 06 2010, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
madjam wrote:

I suppose you think that perhaps getting Hedman and Gudblanson for a flop of first round picks is a bad idea then ? Young defenceman are making almost immediate positive impacts on several cases throughout the league . Oilers are not one of them to date .

I certainly would not be unhappy to see the Oilers go the route of Hedman and Gudblanson (if it's possible) for flop of picks .Some of you think i'm drunk , while i wonder if some of you might have callouses over your eyes with some of your comments .

Swaping the first for for Hedman and Gudbranson would be great.... problem is you are delusional in the other direction on this one... no way TB does that.

.... other catch is that he is unlikely to fall all the way to #6.

Avatar
#131 Matt Henderson
June 06 2010, 01:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

I havent read a single thing that suggested Hall and Seguin dont compare to the guys I listed. Please provide me a link.

Phenom is probably tough to define, but I'd say Stamkos probably fits the bill right now. Leading the league in goal scoring at 20 years old is quite the feat. Maybe you think only Crosby and Ovechkin deserve that title, but they were both just beaten by Sedin in the scoring race.

Avatar
#132 SmellOfVictory
June 06 2010, 01:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
madjam wrote:

Using the city is an easier "cop out " than expressing what players really feel to begin with . It is for some annoying reason the "canned " for public answer they all seem to use . I don't like it , but even organization seems to use it rather abundantly .

Born and raised in Edmonton , i've yet to find thru extensive travels any city any better than Edmonton or Alberta for that matter . The advantages here are far greater than any disadvantages and much more so , when you consider the Alberta advantages and educational system , etc..

I find using the city as an excuse is fake and phony with most of them . The real reasons are withheld from media and public scrutiny i feel . And yes , we are a beautifull city as many ardent international travellers will attest to, and second to none !

Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. Edmonton is an ugly, ugly city. I don't say that because I'm Calgarian, I say that because I have eyes. What real advantages do the Albertan cities have over Vancouver, for instance? Dry air for people who hate moisture?

Even over American cities, where most of the advantages for Edmonton/Calgary would be in terms of the educational system, health care, and so on, you have to realize you're talking about people who make an average of over a million dollars per year. If you make that much money in the US, you can buy the best health care in the world, and you can get some pretty solid education for your kids. Unless someone carries distaste for American government/society (which is a fair caveat), there isn't much to separate these two cold, isolated cities as being "places to go."

Avatar
#133 TigerUnderGlass
June 06 2010, 02:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Crash

Why are you looking at number twos? If we are going to talk about a phenom then they will have been a runaway number one.

Avatar
#134 David S
June 06 2010, 02:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

~Not to mention the fact that neither Edmonton nor Calgary have ridiculously hot Ice Girls.~

Avatar
#135 TigerUnderGlass
June 06 2010, 03:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Matt Henderson

I would suggest the term phenom is to be reserved for rare talents. Guys that come around only every so often. Guys like Hall and Seguin can be had at number one any year.

Stamkos scored 58 goals his draft year. Way more than either of these guys, and I don't remember him being called a phenom when he was going into the draft either. I do recall however that he was more highly regarded than either Hall or Seguin are this year.

If you are really claiming that you have never heard anything other than that these guys are as good as Stamkos and Kane and Tavares then I an surprised because I have never heard anyone other than Oiler fans describe them as being as good as those guys.

Avatar
#136 TigerUnderGlass
June 06 2010, 03:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@SmellOfVictory

What real advantages do the Albertan cities have over Vancouver, for instance? Dry air for people who hate moisture?

Less taxes? Less congestion? Opportunity for investment? Less violent crime?

There are obviously advantages to living in Vancouver as well, but to claim there are none to living in Alberta is wrong.

Avatar
#137 Matt Henderson
June 06 2010, 03:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

Seriously, I just want the link that says these kids arent comparable at all to the past #1s. Yeah, most of what I've heard about the kids comes from Oiler fans, we have the most to gain from dissecting them.

In the sense that there are usually 1 or 2 dynamic players who are heads and tails above the other players in the draft, then yes, guys like Hall and Seguin can be had every year.

Avatar
#138 Crash
June 06 2010, 03:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Why are you looking at number twos? If we are going to talk about a phenom then they will have been a runaway number one.

I'm looking at number twos because one of Hall and Seguin will go number two....I wasn't really talking phenoms because that is subjective, i was talking about what you said about both Seguin and Hall as having low numbers for being top picks which given the last 10 yrs simply is an incorrect statement...

Is it only possible to have one phenom per yr? What if both are phenoms? They both can't go number one.

Avatar
#139 madjam
June 06 2010, 03:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. Edmonton is an ugly, ugly city. I don't say that because I'm Calgarian, I say that because I have eyes. What real advantages do the Albertan cities have over Vancouver, for instance? Dry air for people who hate moisture?

Even over American cities, where most of the advantages for Edmonton/Calgary would be in terms of the educational system, health care, and so on, you have to realize you're talking about people who make an average of over a million dollars per year. If you make that much money in the US, you can buy the best health care in the world, and you can get some pretty solid education for your kids. Unless someone carries distaste for American government/society (which is a fair caveat), there isn't much to separate these two cold, isolated cities as being "places to go."

The "grass is not greener on the other side " as the old adage goes . I have several friends and relatives in the Calgary area and they speak very highly of both cities . I frequent Calgary and have been to Vancouver several times over the last few years as i have friends and relatives there as well. I moved to Kelowna with my family for 1 and 1/2 years . Like almost all the others we have chosen to come back to Alberta .

Vancouver is my least desirable place i might add, and wrote to the Olympic Committee to clean up downtown druggies problem before they embarrassed the rest of Canada . Gas town was a haven for very aggressive drug culture shooting up at every corner. What they have done to the ocean around there is worse than any swamp around Alberta . Environmental disaster .

Vancouver is the only Canadian city that my wife and i felt so unsafe in that i felt compelled to voice my sentiments to their Chamber of Commerce and Olympic Committee . The island i do like and frequent , but have no desire to live their either .

Calgarians generally marvel at our River Valleys over their own , WEM , Commonwealth Stadium , even our downtown and many other finer and better traits . Beauty is in the eye of the betrayer and you must really hate Calgary if you think Edmonton is ugly !! Maybe you just need to go out and travel some more .

Avatar
#140 Crash
June 06 2010, 03:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Here's a link to a tsn story from last september that suggests that many nhl scouts would have taken Taylor Hall had he been eligible for the draft last year ahead of Tavares, Hedman and Duchene. Not bad for a guy who was only 17 at the time.

It's also mentioned that Tyler Seguin has blossomed into an elite offensive force.

Sounds like phenom is at least a possibility...no guarantee but possibility, no?

So it's not just Oiler fans that are high on these guys.

http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=11944

Avatar
#141 madjam
June 06 2010, 04:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
David S wrote:

~Not to mention the fact that neither Edmonton nor Calgary have ridiculously hot Ice Girls.~

Alberta is a hotbed of beautiful women over the years . In fact if you go to many beaches throughout most of N.America and sun destinations many of those women are Alberta women on vacation or transplanted Alberta women . Alberta women need not take a backseat to anyone . The average Alberta woman far exceeds most U.S. women .

Canadian women in general are very well regarded by beauty standards . Perhaps even due to the cold weather that keeps their bodies more tight ?

Avatar
#142 David S
June 06 2010, 05:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
madjam wrote:

Alberta is a hotbed of beautiful women over the years . In fact if you go to many beaches throughout most of N.America and sun destinations many of those women are Alberta women on vacation or transplanted Alberta women . Alberta women need not take a backseat to anyone . The average Alberta woman far exceeds most U.S. women .

Canadian women in general are very well regarded by beauty standards . Perhaps even due to the cold weather that keeps their bodies more tight ?

Ahhhhh-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Seriously man. You crack me up.

Avatar
#143 Matt Henderson
June 06 2010, 06:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

3-0 Blackhawks in the 1st period. It looks like men vs boys right now.

Avatar
#144 TigerUnderGlass
June 06 2010, 07:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Crash

You are taking my point too far. I don't object to the idea that these are potentially very good to elite players. My objection is to the term phenom. I never said nobody was high on these guys.

I am suggesting that a player going into the draft with the term phenom attached is nearly a sure fire hall of famer, not a guy who could maybe be a possible one some day. Besides, what does the possibility of becoming a star later have to do with this conversation? I am talking about what they are now, and I am still waiting to see them referred to as phenoms outside of the Oiler's sphere of influence.

As for Hall as a 17 year old...when Tavares put up 134 points as a 16 year old there were scouts saying he might have gone number one that year instead of Kane. So what, showing me a preseason report is hardly a fair statement of how he is regarded at this moment unless you are also going to tell me that people still think Cam Fowler is better than Seguin.

I don't believe that "elite offensive force" is equal to "phenom." If you do, fine. I just think people are using the word phenom without any real measure of its implications.

Bryce Harper, who is about to go number one in the MLB draft and has been called baseball's LeBron James is a Phenom, A guy who may not even be the best player born in his draft year is not.

I love both of these kids as players and can't wait to see how good they turn out, but I think I have decent reason to question whether we have a phenom on our hands, since the last time I remember a player coming in with that level of regard was Crosby.

Avatar
#145 RossCreekNation
June 06 2010, 08:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Some interesting tidbits from Matty in the Journal today:

- suggests not a lot of teams lining up for Souray (no surprise), but mentions the Sharks & Devils as possibilities... says Sharks would likely offer up D Kent Huskins ($1.7M) & F Torrey Mitchell ($1.3M).
- suggests Oil dangle #31 to CHI for F Kris Versteeg.
- Oilers won't be resigning F Vlad Trukhno or F Geoff Paukauvich, and may let Ryan O'Marra go in favour of Colin McDonald.
- the word on D John Scott is he's a great dressing-room prescence who can often be found doing crossword puzzles an hour after the game; also trying to finish his degree in engineering.
- says you can bet the Oilers are asking Boston about Blake Wheeler and/or #15 in any talks of swapping picks, but also mentions 23 yr old 6'5" RW Mikko Lehtonen down on the farm.

Avatar
#146 SmellOfVictory
June 06 2010, 08:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

madjam, I have not traveled to many NHL cities, but the places I have traveled to all look better than Edmonton. Yes, Edmonton has a nice river valley, but White Ave looks greasy, there is a web of unappealing overhead lines throughout the city, and much of what I've seen of it looks dirty and industrial. I'm not saying that Calgary is head-and-shoulders above it, but I do think Calgary looks better, and the other dozen or however many medium/large cities I've been to are significantly more aesthetically appealing.

@TigerUnderGlass: Lower taxes, yes. Less violent crime? In 2008 (most recent year I could pull up without much effort) Edmonton had a higher violent crime severity index than Vancouver; Calgary's is lower, but this discussion is focusing on Edmonton (I pulled Calgary into it partially so Edmontonians wouldn't see me as just bashing their hometown). Investment opportunities? Again, we're talking guys who make seven figures; they don't need to invest. There are certainly some advantages (Calgary being built on the most excellent grid system, which I am in love with, is one of the cleanest cities in the world, etc), but the perceived disadvantages tend to outweigh the advantages.

And just to clarify my position, I personally love Calgary, and I think Edmonton is alright. But put yourself in an outsider's shoes - these two cities, probably Edmonton moreso than Calgary, lack a lot of the flashiness that can draw someone to the other areas (again, things like great weather, high culture, abundant good food).

Avatar
#147 Crash
June 06 2010, 08:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

You are taking my point too far. I don't object to the idea that these are potentially very good to elite players. My objection is to the term phenom. I never said nobody was high on these guys.

I am suggesting that a player going into the draft with the term phenom attached is nearly a sure fire hall of famer, not a guy who could maybe be a possible one some day. Besides, what does the possibility of becoming a star later have to do with this conversation? I am talking about what they are now, and I am still waiting to see them referred to as phenoms outside of the Oiler's sphere of influence.

As for Hall as a 17 year old...when Tavares put up 134 points as a 16 year old there were scouts saying he might have gone number one that year instead of Kane. So what, showing me a preseason report is hardly a fair statement of how he is regarded at this moment unless you are also going to tell me that people still think Cam Fowler is better than Seguin.

I don't believe that "elite offensive force" is equal to "phenom." If you do, fine. I just think people are using the word phenom without any real measure of its implications.

Bryce Harper, who is about to go number one in the MLB draft and has been called baseball's LeBron James is a Phenom, A guy who may not even be the best player born in his draft year is not.

I love both of these kids as players and can't wait to see how good they turn out, but I think I have decent reason to question whether we have a phenom on our hands, since the last time I remember a player coming in with that level of regard was Crosby.

I never once said that these two guys are phenoms...this is a word you have been using and you have attached to it in your mind what it means. Who is to say what classes a player as a phenom, you? me?

All I said was is it not possible for these guys to become phenomenal players? Given their skills and talent I would say this possibility exists.

"If you are really claiming that you have never heard anything other than that these guys are as good as Stamkos and Kane and Tavares then I an surprised because I have never heard anyone other than Oiler fans describe them as being as good as those guys"

That was your statement from post #135....so I just provided a link that showed that if Hall had been draft eligible in 2009 that many scouts would have rated him ahead of Tavares, Hedman and Duchene which clearly was going against your statement above that only Oiler fans believe that Hall/Seguin are as good as those guys...that's the reason i included the link.

Phenomenal is described as extraordinary, remarkable...so who decides what that is?

Actually i think this phenom talk all began with madjam who thinks the Oilers would be better served to trade the 1st overall pick for a d-man (Hedman) who is also still a question mark as to how good he may become and for a later pick so as to take another d-man (if still available with Tampa's pick) that would also be a big question mark as to how good he is going to be.

It seems that hockey people in all circles are saying that Hall and Seguin are can't miss or as close to it as you can get and are clearly the class of this years draft.

So I guess most Oiler fans are thinking why would you roll the dice so heavily on unproven d-men over one of 2 guys that are being labelled as can't miss?

IMO and it's just my opinion, I think Hall has all the tools that one needs to really become a remarkable player.

Avatar
#148 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 12:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Crash

I never once said that these two guys are phenoms...this is a word you have been using and you have attached to it in your mind what it means. Who is to say what classes a player as a phenom, you? me?

I never said you did. I was talking to Arch. If you want to reply to a comment directed at someone else you should probably read the conversation first, because because I twice expressed the importance of how we are defining the word and asked arch for his definition. Don't lecture me on a point I have made quite clearly twice already.

All I said was is it not possible for these guys to become phenomenal players? Given their skills and talent I would say this possibility exists.

Did I not already address this? If you can't grasp the difference between a discussion about how a player is regarded and the possibility that they become something more then I can't help you.

so I just provided a link that showed that if Hall had been draft eligible in 2009 that many scouts would have rated him ahead of Tavares, Hedman and Duchene which clearly was going against your statement above that only Oiler fans believe that Hall/Seguin are as good as those guys...that's the reason i included the link.

No. You provided a pre-season report about how Hall was regarded entering the season. I clearly responded to this your reply here does not address the concerns I raised - that this is pre-season and that they have Fowler over Seguin. What do you think about my Tavares comment? This is feeling pointless when you don't seem to want to respond to my actual comments.

Show me something leading into the draft ranking these guys as hight as the last few number ones and I will take back that they are not as highly regarded GOING INTO THE DRAFT as they were. You seem to think this distinction unimportant, but it means everything and is why I mentioned Tavares 16 year old season.

The funny thing is...even if you can show me that it still wouldn't make me think any different because I didn't consider any of those guy phenoms going into the draft either.

Phenomenal is described as extraordinary, remarkable...so who decides what that is?

While this is true common usage of the word phenom typically suggests something a bit more, but you already know this, you just want to argue. :)

AS for the madjam crap...I have no idea why you are telling me any of that. It is completely immaterial to our discussion. Not to mention the fact that I have addressed it previously.

The entire reason this discussion even started was because I believe that Arch was engaging in a wee bit of hyperbole so I asked him what he considers a phenom to be. Rather than take back the word he chose to defend his usage, (Admittedly I knew he would do exactly that because Arch doesn't take things back.) and here we are.

Avatar
#149 SmellOfVictory
June 07 2010, 01:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think the word "phenom" should be censored on this site.

Avatar
#150 madjam
June 07 2010, 07:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Just how valuable are Hall/Seguin ? If Chicago was to offer Toews or Kane for our first pick should we take it ? Would you turn it down ? Maybe not such a bad idea considering Hawks cap situation going into next year .

Take some of the others some of you have mentioned Hall/Seguin being as good as over the last few drafts . How many of those names would you turn down straight up , if any ?

I wonder what sorts of offers we are getting from other clubs for Hall/Seguin worth contemplating . What sort of value others put in to obtain our pick is probably a good indicator of their value .

Comments are closed for this article.