That Aud Smell

Rentals go at the deadline. Hockey trades are made in the offseason. I dunno, man. "It's very likely."

Read it. Hamilton's not the greatest writer, but what's written there is clear enough. O'Reilly expects to be moved.

Wait. WHAT? (I'm not all capping in dismay -- it's out of WTF THIS IS A BIG DEAL AND UNDER-REPORTED SHOCK.)

Ah, I see. Okay. Yeah - I just tend to differ, at least somewhat, on that take. For reasons I've explained, I'm just not a fan of the player.

Bridgewater. Man. I'd love to see that, but I'd be nervous as hell too.

I'm losing the thread here. They "had to"? They chose not to pursue re-signing him (because reasons) and then moved him as a deadline day asset on an expiring contract. And the return was what it was. Why is it curious?

Absofrickinlutely.

Please. No sober commentary on pi’s take on the Daniels of the West.

Oh, you son of a b1tch. Next thing you’ll tell me is that O’Regan is training with a Boston strong man.

There’s something to this, in theory. I’m not of a mind that the inflated asking price was ever perceived or discussed as a reality, or that a team acquired Player X over Kane because another GM was being more reasonable on price.

Good point.

Do it all the time, in fact. The balance of this post is fairly incomprehensible, or at least a significant moving of the goal posts of the contention you were making (or I thought you were making). I acknowledged above that the issue of whether JBOT waited too long to sell is an open one -- albeit one that we're probably never going to get to the bottom of because we have no idea whether better offers were made in December or thereabouts. I can't really fault JBOT for hanging onto Kane going into the season. At that point in time, the hope had to be that the team would possibly compete for a wildcard spot. And Kane was one of the team's top wingers. Your theory on JBOT being inflexible on his asking price strikes me as strange. Even if JBOT had been getting the word out that he wanted 4 valuable picks/prospects/pieces for Kane, and even if that price was way over-blown (it would have been), that's not something that stops an interested buyer from making a deal. If a buyer is truly interested and thinks the asking price is insane, the buyer doesn't turn around, put his hands in his pockets, drop his chin, kick a stone, and shuffle off down the road. Instead, that buyer makes an offer -- maybe an offer that is as ridiculously low as the asking price is high. That is frequently, almost always in fact, how negotiations start. To the extent an inflated asking price has any effect on setting value (and I am not sure it does), it will tend to improve value. Yeah, I'm not sure where this guy might fit. Could be a 'tweener. Maybe if the team ices a good third line, he could fit in there. San Jose's savvy tack was to wait to make a low-ball offer at 2:15 and bank on the fact that JBOT wouldn't have time to ask 2 or 3 other pending suitors whether they'd beat it?

As can I. But I've never heard anything to the effect that JBOT had a sweeter deal in December (or whenever) and passed on it in hopes of getting an even better return.

I didn't listen to that give and take, but I think the denial of ownership's involvement was intended to tamp down any theory that the Pegulas wanted the guy gone because he was trouble. That the guy was traded for hockey reasons alone -- that he wasn't part of the team's future plans for hockey reasons.

GMs low-balled JBOT? JBOT got played? Is the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy afoot? I know I said it already, but I literally can't fathom the thought process that ends in these takes. This may be a function of my limited imagination, or just some cognitive road block in my brain. But I just don't get it. There was an "open" market among 30 buyers (I qualify "open" because 30 is a pretty small market.) That market had supply and demand, and yielded a price. Forgot about that one. I attended a game in a group of four earlier this season (JESUS, I've been to too many games), and there was a guy with us who I didn't know who's coached at a variety of non-college/non-major-junior levels for going on 25 years. He's a Red Wings fan, but lives just over the border so he has seasons to the Sabres. Anyway - that was the word he used for Kane, and, I think, well before Falk reportedly did. It struck me how he didn't say it with any bitterness -- just very matter of fact.

That sounds more accurate.

Neither more nor less likely. The real answer to this one: A sum equal to the number of dogs that live in London.

For sure. Geoff Kelly (Kelley?) and his crew sold to Parlato because they were insolvent. They reformed as The Public.

Oh, man - sorry for the traumatic experience. In my experience, general anesthesia is preceded by an IV “cocktail” that makes application of the general, if by a mask, an easy process.

Haha - you funny.

I am unclear on this. Where's Flagg with a comprehensive post on the subject?

Right. I just don't understand, at a fundamental level, how it could follow that you're a pushover if you make the best deal available to you, even if it's underwhelming or disappointing. It's the role of the expiring contract and the reality that the player's not returning that are at the root of my confusion. This is not really akin to a situation where Seller holds an asset (say, a piece of real property) and sells too cheaply. After deadline day, Kane was effectively worthless (or even a net negative) to this franchise. I understand the gripe that JBOTS waited too long, but also recognize that we just don't know whether there were better offers being made in December, etc. I tend to doubt it. Far more likely that suitors were waiting for other dominoes to fall before settling on Kane. It's a sports message board, boss. Everything's an opinion. Or, in more modern parlance, a take. I don't think things would be improved if we were to add "IMO" to every assertion made.

For the life of me, I don't understand this line of thinking. As in, there are positions people take here that I understand, but disagree with. Even vehemently. This one, I just don't understand. Cannot get my head wrapped around it.

Oh, man. When you put it that way. Fair. Also fair. My take is to shrug my shoulders and think that it's likely that there are probably a few GMs out there for whom the matter of Kane's race played a role (probably unwittingly) in their aversion to him. Fair question. O'Regan (sp?) is a bit long in the tooth, but he seems like a guy who has a better than 50-50 shot at becoming a good bottom-6 forward/role player. Which is not exciting, I admit.

Well, I think that's just wrong. The manner in which the other objective factors get evaluated and weighed can be influenced by racism. That's not to say it happens all the time, or even happened here. But it's naive to say it doesn't happen. The problem being: It's difficult to tease out when and where it happens. Maybe it's semantics. That term is a virtual molotov cocktail, to me. #triggered Okay - well, it is tricky to follow the bouncing ball on the last on, first off report. In any case, I don't really need the last on, first off story to confirm my take on Kane's hockey IQ and ability to devote attention to details. That report, if true, is consistent with my understanding. Low hockey IQ seems particularly apt for Kane because his physical skill set is so remarkable, and his effort generally so consistent, that the absence of a decent hockey IQ becomes that much more glaring. I'm not sure about Scandella. Girgensons? Makes total sense. He seemed like he could become a decent middle 6 forward when he played for a coach who wanted him to do nothing except skate through brick walls. Thing is: Girgensons isn't nearly the talent that Kane is, so the fact that he lacks hockey IQ isn't as jarring to watch. Another good take, even if this gave me a sad. I've got my eyes peeled for your content, JAH.