Derrico

As disappointed as #TankNation was on our meaningless win, we got some more out of town help with a Flames win last night. I'm not as concerned as Edmonton passing us as Calgary (although I would obviously rather neither).

I'm not sure but I just picked up my gens knights tickets for feb 17, I get to watch zadorov for cheap and up close and continue to watch dal colle progress.

Just an aside but I watched parts of their game last night (one of the first times I've seen an Oil game this year). Man their D is as advertised. Their transition game breaking out of their own end is not bad but there were 3 or 4 odd man rushes against in the 10 or 15 minutes I watched. Their D looked horrible. Also, Scrivens played lights out but he also got lucky. San Jose hit two crossbars and missed an open net in the little time that I watched. I was pleasantly shocked to wake up and see the Oils won. I didn't notice Yak the whole time.

To be fair, it was reported he is looking for $6 mil per. http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/29/report-callahan-seeking-seven-year-42m-deal-girardi-eyeing-33m-over-six/

That's it, we certainly need leaders. We're going to be icing a young team over the next few years and I want a couple of solid vets who can really show these kids the way (similar to when it was rumored Buffalo offered Shane Doan a boat load of money). Also, although we are obviously hurting for scoring (something like record bad) if Miller is gonezo next season then we're going to have to step up our defensive game going forward as well.

Agreed.

I've got 14 coming over. I've got 8 pounds of wings and two extra large pizzas. Others are bringing cheese potatoes, sandwiches, carrot cake and two different cheesecakes. Mix all that with a 24 of Keith's and I'll be lucky to be alive on Monday. Looking forward to it though!

He may be 20 but is his brithdate in Feb or August :P

Ya I think so and I think that is too high. I would sign up for just a 1st (or more likely just a prospect) if you're fairly confident he won't resign. Since there has been no indication of him signing before July, you have to take what you can get IMO. Moulson on the other hand should net us more.

Don't even go there :doh:

Did you see Enroth last night? We'll just lose 6-4 games next year rather than 2-1 games this year :P

Well we're 9 back of Calgary with a game in hand after our 1 point effort and a Flames win last night. I'm still gunning for 1st overall pick but if not I need to be in the top 3. For that to happen we can only end up in 2nd last. Let's start (keep?) cheering for Calgary wins. Which Sam will it be fellas? As an aside, I have been to several Gens games this year and love Dal Colle, but from what I've read and highlights I've seen, it's one of the two Sam's that this team needs. After a season like this that we've (dare I say) suffered through, only one of the Sam's will be satisfactory.

Oh that's right.

Small world, I've got a conference in Halifax in early June so we're taking a few extra days and making a week long trip out of it. Can't wait for the seafood!!

Strange having a back to back. They seem rare this year compared to years past. Enroth tonight?

Well, we lost in regulation, the Oilers won and Isels lost in regulation. Tank on Sabres Nation, Tank on.

I'm still aiming for 1. If Edmonton gets it they should take Ekblad (but stranger things have happened so I'd rather not take the chance). Atleast with a top 3 pick it leaves the two Sam's but as you said, I certainly want the choice. One reason we brought Tim Murray in here is his ability to draft. He's had numerous interviews talking about implementing his drafting techniques so I want him to have the choice at that pick. I can't decide who I want them to take but I'm sure he has a much more educated opinion on the mater.

Interesting, thanks for the research.

I'm sorry but I can't understand the graph. What do the x and y axis represent?

I think the real question is: Is he? I would argue either the opposite or atleast that he's valued correctly (better player). I was not a very good hockey player but I played rep hockey when I was younger (the highest I ever made was AA so not very good lol). The best players were relied upon and got much more ice time. But more importantly I found that the coaches paid much closer attention to the better kids (I'm not sure if they were older or not). In theory, the older kids are the better kids early and with all of the extra advice they've been given throughout, maybe the younger players are at a disadvantage adn thus don't develop to their potential. That's my take on it atleast, certainly an interesting discussion. As an aside, I implore you to read the freakonomics series. I think they have it in video form too but read the books if you can. Certainly worth the read imo.

This is similar to what they said in Freakonomics. The premise is kids older amongst their peers were more co-ordinated, bigger ect and would therefore have a better shot at making their young rep team. Because they make the best team possible they get the best coaches. As they are the oldest and sometimes better developed, they are usually the better players and coaches give them extra attention. The cycle then continues all the way up through junior.

Hahahha, after watching Bob McKenzie's breakdown I may also agree with you but not based on his age. Yep, if you read Freakonomics it talks about kids older amongst their peers actually turn out to be better athletes than younger kids in the same age group.

I do understand what you are saying. However, using a Zadorov Risto example is just one example of many. I could name a million older guys playing better than younger guys. Maybe it's because Zad now has a couple of years adjusting to North American style of hockey. It's not necessarily the age. Who would I take in the draft tomorrow, well it's very close but Risto is still 7 months older for whatever that means. I think age is a factor, but not as big as you might make it out to be. That's just my opinion and I respect yours. For the two Sam's maybe they are close enough to take the younger Sam. Without digging back into old posts, I've seen you use this analogy more than once and wanted to have a discussion. I still respect your opinion on it, I just don't agree. Also, if you think Reinhart is 9 and Bennett is 8.7, you should be already taking age as one of your many factors. So in that case you go with Reinhart.

Yep and that same year John Tavares went 1st overall and Jacob Josefson went 20th. Josefson is 6 months younger though. I'm sure you could find a million examples of younger player x ending up a better prosepect than older player y. You could also find a million the other way. If the two players are very close then yes I will take that into account but I don't think it's a huge factor or you will see year in and year out the youngest guys being taken 1st overall and turning into the best players of the class. And Monaghan was one of the older players in the draft last year and although I haven't checked lately, he's been having a great rookie season. What's your point? I do understand what you are saying but these players are scrutinized day in and day out by scouts looking for potential. I get it if it's really close but I'm not going out of my way to talk myself into somebody due to the less than a year age gap.

In Pitt there was bankruptcy issues and they got lucky with the ball. Chicago did have a poor owner at the time (I think I remember something about them not televising home games unless they were sold out which is so dumb as you lose a huge fan base if they can't watch their games). However, according to Wiki (I know the source is not great but this where the info came from) Chicago had a higher payroll than 10 other teams in the league in the season leading up to the Kane pick. They were just slightly under the avg. payroll in the league. I'm not sure money was a factor there.