I agree with Matt. ... granted I haven't been watching much hockey since moving from Edmonton and lacking access to television.

But, that being said, Edmonton fans are exceedingly fickle. They'd have turned aggressively against hometown hero Fernando if his game had gone downhill and he didn't have a disease to blame it on... Even the likes of Joffrey Lupl who are doing great in their post-Oilers maturation wouldn't have been good to bring back, fan-wise, because he wasn't worth the money then, why would he be now, once he's grown into his role? (unless he brought home a goal a game every game right from the first day he was re-hired)

We'll reminisce about the glory days, but not the better plays of a couple years ago... or not without then cursing the guys who are still around and clearly dealing with the aftermath of bad injuries. Edmonton fans seem to be loyal to the team, but fickle about the players.

It's like all the "Fire ____ Oiler staffer" twitter chatter. Foolishly short-sighted, and no longer buzzed about after they have a good game.

I've never really been for the idea of trading Hemsky. The only argument I can possibly see is the injury history. Eventually when this team is competing seriously in the playoffs, they'll need to have most of their players for most of the season.

In terms of production, and entertainment, he's still EASILY in the top 5 on the team. I don't really get it either, but that's how the Edmonton hockey fan horde works. It's like his many seasons at or near a point per game never happened, he's a bum and always has been. Makes no sense to me either, Par.

It's not like he's going to make $5mil/year on the open market. I'd be surprised if he made much more than the $4mil he's getting now, and less wouldn't surprise me.

For those of you bored by my hockey questions:

Power just went out at work today... guess who gets an afternoon off!

Okay, in 2 days, 4 votes, not bad. 3 for trading him, 1 against. (I didn't vote, but you'll guess where I stand in a moment.)

I guess I feel crazy because I don't understand the reasons for trading him. I understand that they will trade him because if they weren't going to trade him they would have signed him by now. I understand that there isn't a player in the Oilers history who didn't reach the point where they were perceived to be more valuable traded than not.

I just don't understand why it's an uncontroversial thing. Is it because people are afraid that paying him will mean they won't be able to pay Hall, Eberle, Nugent-Hopkins in 2-3 years? Is it the injury fears? Is it about "try" or "grit" or something?

Does anyone else remember a free-agent top-6 forward up and deciding to sign in Edmonton? I can't recall any free agent signing of that calibre. They've traded for players at high value on the dollar at crucial times, but free agents who can fill that role are usually kept by the team that employs them, or get hugely overpaid on the free market. (Apparently even when the Oilers try to hugely overpay them (Nylander, Hossa, etc.) they still don't come here.) Is the team better off letting one of those type of players go (again!) for two or three magic beans? Is it that much worse to have cap problems because you have too many good players?

I feel crazy. Please help me feel uncrazy.

As it's coming up a lot recently on blogs I read, I have a question for the lurkers. Apologies to the non-hockey inclined.

This is something I find fascinating about sports. In the Super Bowl yesterday, there was an extremely odd touchdown late in the game:

The smartest play of all would've been for Belichick to have allowed the touchdown even earlier. The Patriots certainly could have done so on the play prior to Bradshaw's touchdown run, when he was stopped for a one-yard gain, forcing New England to burn its second timeout. In fact, they probably should have allowed a touchdown as early as the two-minute warning. That’s the point at which the Win Probability of receiving a kickoff down by four or six points (0.23) exceeds the Win Probability of trying to stop the Giants from bleeding the clock dry (0.2). The Patriots would have had almost two minutes, two timeouts, and all four downs available to get a touchdown and steal the win. The lesson: New England didn't lie down soon enough.

Not that I really expect a different outcome from the last two times I posted on here about this, but here we go!!!!

-Druid FC fundraiser PUBCRAWL!!! (yes, that last bit was meant to be yelled)
-Sat feb 11 for the low low low price of $15 with a freeee slapchop electric blanket hybrid (statement about slapchop electric blanket hybrid was not intended to be a factual statement)
-We are starting at the brewhouse south, then off to the billiards club, a mystery stop ( I really have no idea where the third stop is, and the bus ride is the best part anyways), and then finishing at the old strathcona Rack. (but really, we are taking you to the moon!!! its that good!!!(moon not included))

so, um, yeah, scream really loud if you want to come. (I've got great hearing)

So, apparently, at a recent LA Kings/Columbus Blue Jackets game, the score was tied 2-2 late in the game, when LA scored with 0.6 seconds left to win it 3-2. Except, it seems, that the clock appeared to have stopped for 1 second during the last 3 seconds of game time. The Columbus GM was not amused. On the other hand, Dean Lombardi, GM of the LA Kings, apparently, was:

"Those clocks are sophisticated instruments that calculate time by measuring electrical charges called coulombs," explained Kings general manager Dean Lombardi in an email to TSN. "Given the rapidity and volume of electrons that move through the measuring device the calibrator must adjust at certain points which was the delay you see – the delay is just recalibrating for the clock moving too quickly during the 10 - 10ths of a second before the delay - this insures that the actual playing time during a period is exactly 20 minutes. That is not an opinion - that is science - amazing devise quite frankly."

.