Peter Chiarelli appears to be fixing the Oilers in a measured, logical manner. His quick media avail today delivered an enormous amount of information and it’s worthwhile taking a few moments discussing some of the significant things he mentioned

We knew about some of these things on the weekend, Semenko and Moores were made public today. In Moores case, I would have hoped the club would have quietly announced in August he was stepping away (again) to enjoy the quiet life and write books. Billy Moores earned that kind of an exit, I believe.

Amen. I understand the need to move on today but would like to point out:

  • Keeping Anton Lander in the NHL fall 2011 had nothing to do with the scouts
  • Not signing Tobias Rieder isn’t a reflection of the scouts, that was a significant pick.
  • People have been saying all day that Tyler Pitlick is the only Oilers pick second round or below who was on the team. Does NO ONE remember Martin Marincin? Anton Lander?
  • We’ll never really know, but based on anecdotes I’m prepared to suggest several early picks came over the top of the scouting department and were directed by the GM at the time.

God bless you, Peter Chiarelli. A Dougie Hamilton offer sheet would tighten Jeremy Jacobs’ sphincter to 11 and cause Cam Neely to shake uncontrollably. It might ruin poor Don Sweeney. As a Bruins fan, I’m worried. As an Oilers fan, I’m thrilled! I suspect Boston finds a way to match but the fact Chiarelli expressed it confirms the club is in fact thinking about it. Jacobs will go nuts.

It’s mammoth. A monster. McDavid is going to change the world—in an Oilers uniform!

Interesting. McLellan’s staff in place before the draft is a solid bit of work, let alone the other things accomplished.

Chiarelli on a goalie: “We’re in a bit of a buyer’s market.”

Major, major item. Recognizing the market is a big damn deal, especially with goalies. Of all the things Chiarelli said today, this is the one that resonates most for me. Fantastic quote. He also mentioned getting a goalie with a small sample size but didn’t seem married to it over other options and did say he’d like to have something done by the draft. Talbot for No. 33 and a conditional pick in 2016, the condition being Edmonton’s ability to sign Talbot beyond 2015-16. That’s my guess.

We’ve discussed this all spring but it’s so very true. The McDavid cluster needs players, and Svecnikov, Meier, Roy and others will be very attractive at No. 16 overall. My guess is the Oilers keep it.

I think Howson fits in with Bob Green on the amateur side. The Jackets were reasonably effective under Howson as GM (Ryan Johansen, Boone Jenner, Ryan Murray, John Moore, David Savard, Matt Calvert, Cam Atikinson, Dalton Prout) and that may end up being an area he spends significant time for the 2016 draft.

draisaitl capture

Chiarelli also mentioned Leon possibly seeing time on LW this fall in training camp. Interesting avail.

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

204 Responses to "DAY WATCH"

« Older Comments
  1. B S says:

    theres oil in virginia: The Theory of Evolution” is actually an ideology (doctrine) that has arisen alongside the theory itself,

    I’m going to post here to avoid carrying over to the next thread (someone may actually want to talk about hockey at some point).

    As an Evolutionary Biologist I’ve tried to avoid weighing in on this sort of thing when it comes up. I realize there are many different perspectives and beliefs represented on here. I will point out a few things though:

    Much of the ‘atheism’ of evolution stems from a combination of imperfect organisms (many features of organisms are largely inefficient and why would that be so if God was perfect) and a direct conflict between a literal interpretation of genesis and evolutionary theory. Both of these metaphysical issues stem from an anthropomorphism of God (there’s no reason to assume he made us completely in his image, just as there is no reason to believe he would waste his time trying to convince hebrews from 3000 years ago of evolutionary theory when he and they probably had more important thigns to worry about).

    From a personal perspective however, none of this excludes the possibility that this is simply how God works, or that a God exists. Evolution (particularly natural selection) is merely how life began and arrived to where it is, it doesn’t apply a plan, or a direction, or meaning, or say whether such meaning exists. Those concepts are where religion, theology, and metaphysics in general exist.

    The problem then is that the Dawkins and Goulds (who are/were more evolutionary theorists, than actually evolutionary biologists) conflate evolution with their own personal beliefs on meaning and existence (religion if you will), and unlike physics where for all the Hawkings (a flaming atheist if you’ve ever read him), alternative, knowledgeable views on the metaphysical implications of the Big Bang arise (I believe Don Page at the U of A was one of these, but don’t quote me).

    The truth is that like most sciences biologists don’t really see evolution and god as being mutually exclusive, their just sick of people quoting a book written thousands of years before evolution was ever described to tell them they’re wrong (and insisting regardless of the evidence to the contrary), so they get defensive about it. No-one questions chemists by quoting the bible, but a theory that brings you vaccines, high yield agriculture and various medical discoveries and has consistently predicted the existence of numerous fossil taxa is somehow inherently wrong?

    If anyone is every actually curious about evolution, I strongly recommend reading On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, he’s too early for many of the advances in evolutionary theory (genes, DNA, Archaeopteryx, Lucy) but he provides an excellent explanation of natural selection from the perspective of a devout Christian, and is incredibly thorough and descriptive.

  2. theres oil in virginia says:

    B S: No-one questions chemists by quoting the bible

    Great post! I’ve only quoted that one line, because it’s a beauty.

    I’ve got the Darwin book on my shelf, one of the few great finds I had over the years of renting run-down dumps. It, along with Bertrand Russell’s Aphorisms book (both in hardcover) was abandoned and molding in a closet. One day, when my kid is grown and my mortgage is paid, I’ll get a chance to read it.

    I was schooled in Geophysics, and always had an interest in paleontology, so I hung out with the paleo grad students and always enjoyed the conversations. I think there is a creator, and based on what I’ve read about what Jesus said, I think he was/is who he said he was/is. However, I am by no means convinced, and I’ve got my eyes open. I also am reasonably sure that the Earth is really old, life on it has been around for much of that time, and humans (a few individuals notwithstanding) are related to the rest of the life on the planet. I’ve read the bible cover to cover (well, truth be told, I skipped some of Numbers and Leviticus). I’m quite sure that the age of the Earth is not discussed therein. The notion of the 6,000 year old Earth is doctrinal. Sort of like how alcohol is evil, but Jesus drank wine regularly.

    It just seems to me that the best practice would be to search for the truth, whatever it may be. What good is believing in something, if it’s false.

  3. Halfwise says:

    B S,

    I’m trying (without success so far) to find on my shelves this fairly recent book by an Ivy League prof and Christian biochemist / geneticist that supported your framework exactly. There were some examples used (a dozen different species that could have turned into an elephant but didn’t) that support the idea that selection in the face of changing conditions is an essential mechanism. Is it “natural”? Can’t “natural” be “how God works?”

    There’s no inherent conflict between science and faith, but there sure can be conflict between dogmas that purport to represent one or the other.

  4. B S says:


    theres oil in virginia,

    Thanks, as this is a hockey blog, and many people find these issues to be sensitive I try to leave them to their own beliefs, but I thought it might be fair to pipe in now, and hopefully not offend anyone (plus this blog community is generally quite open and intelligent even/especially when opinions differ).

    My background is Palaeontology so I can imagine how much alchohol might have been involved in those discussions. I have plenty of experience arguing with both sides of the theism vs atheism debate, often against my will, but it’s amazing how people like to draw non-physical conclusions (purpose, meaning) from physical data or vice-versa.

    I may be functionally an atheist (it’s not that I don’t believe but rather that I don’t generally care whether there is a god), but I can certainly respect that others have alternative beliefs, as long as they don’t let those beliefs (and I don’t let mine) harm other people (anti-vaxxers I’m lookin’ at you).

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!
© Copyright -