ifiwaschucknorris Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Done... Hahahahahahaha...where's the roflcopter when you need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Hahahahahahaha...where's the roflcopter when you need it. You got it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Even from a number of edmonchuk residents, word is the kool aid just hasn't been the same ever since Pronger pissed in it right before he went out the door with a big smile on his face... LMFAO!! Cheers Bud! What did Lowe even say? Did he guarantee that the Oilers would make the playoffs? Oh yeah, that was Feaster. Did the Flames make the playoffs? He said they were building a contender. Sucking scum off the floor without improving does not = contender. & on your post #646 (answer within the posts) finishing 29th isn't a big accomplishment (although after 2 last place finishes Edmonton might see it as such). The current regime is the same 1 that changed the team from contender to a bottom team. The Caps had a contender when Boudreau was hired. BIG difference. & where would Edmonton find 4 top defense? The good teams are still looking to add those as there isn't a glut so that leaves out the UFA market. The refusal to trade any of the high pick prospects (what they'd be on good teams) that compose Edmonton's front end isn't going to result in 1 (let alone 4) via trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 A "few" would be at least 3 or maybe more. Please quote and link 2 of them. Jeff Marek on Oilers Now and Doug MacLean on Inside Hockey. It was months ago so I'm not going to spend time looking for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 LMFAO!! Cheers Bud! He said they were building a contender. Sucking scum off the floor without improving does not = contender. & on your post #646 (answer within the posts) finishing 29th isn't a big accomplishment (although after 2 last place finishes Edmonton might see it as such). The current regime is the same 1 that changed the team from contender to a bottom team. The Caps had a contender when Boudreau was hired. BIG difference. & where would Edmonton find 4 top defense? The good teams are still looking to add those as there isn't a glut so that leaves out the UFA market. The refusal to trade any of the high pick prospects (what they'd be on good teams) that compose Edmonton's front end isn't going to result in 1 (let alone 4) via trade. - There is more to a team improving than wins and loses. - Nice try but the Capitals weren't close to a contender when Boudreau came aboard. The Caps had 70 points in 2006-07 getting 2nd last in the east and 4th worst record in the league. You might remember that year because that was the year the Flyers were the worst in the league getting 56 points. Even the Oilers have never gotten lower than 62 points during this rebuild. Boudreau started as Caps coach mid season when the Caps started the season 6-14-1 and went 37-17-7 under Boudreau. - The Oilers need to add two top 4 defencemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrippinVdUb Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 oilers will be better than the flames this year. HAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 You might remember that year because that was the year the Flyers were the worst in the league getting 56 points. Even the Oilers have never gotten lower than 62 points during this rebuild. But the Flyers were only the 30th place team for 1 year. Since that quick rebuild they've been contending every year. In the 3rd year they were in the SCF. The Oilers in the 3rd year (technically) won the lottery after finishing 29th (a 1 spot climb from the 2 previous years - some progress). It also looks like that rebuild is years from being to the degree the Oilers will climb to being even a bubble team. Good luck Oiler fans, you have a long road ahead of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 But the Flyers were only the 30th place team for 1 year. Since that quick rebuild they've been contending every year. In the 3rd year they were in the SCF. The Oilers in the 3rd year (technically) won the lottery after finishing 29th (a 1 spot climb from the 2 previous years - some progress). It also looks like that rebuild is years from being to the degree the Oilers will climb to being even a bubble team. Good luck Oiler fans, you have a long road ahead of you. The only thing that makes sense is that Conner has this tunnel vision thing going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 What did Lowe even say? He said... "Look at the Oil pressure, we better pull over for a few years because we are Lowe on Oil... And it's going to blow" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 He said... "Look at the Oil pressure, we better pull over for a few years because we are Lowe on Oil... And it's going to blow" I see humour is not your forte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Tribal Chief Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 Keep Sniffing The glue you picked the wrong week to quit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Ralph Kruger to be named head coach tomorrow. I'm ok with it. My choice was Cooper but Krueger is a decent alternative. I'm thankful it's not Sutter. Supposedly Flames management didn't give him permission to talk to the Oilers until June 30th when his contract expires. Flames management felt it would reflect bad on the Flames if a coach fired/quit Calgary to come to Edmonton. Inside Hockey 49 Minute Mark June 26th 30 Thoughts 26. Wrote a couple of weeks ago that Brent Sutter would have received "official" permission to talk to Edmonton if he wanted (his contract with Calgary ends this week). Think I was wrong about that one. Sounds like the Flames weren't happy with the public dalliance between their former head coach and the Oilers. It's tough because we all understand the rivalry. But Calgary did fire Sutter and you can't blame a guy for looking at new work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally31 Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Ralph Kruger to be named head coach tomorrow. I'm ok with it. My choice was Cooper but Krueger is a decent alternative. I'm thankful it's not Sutter. Supposedly Flames management didn't give him permission to talk to the Oilers until June 30th when his contract expires. Flames management felt it would reflect bad on the Flames if a coach quit Calgary to come to Edmonton. Source? "Supposedly" is how rumours are started/spread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Edited my post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Flames management felt it would reflect bad on the Flames if a coach fired/quit Calgary to come to Edmonton. ........But Calgary did fire Sutter and you can't blame a guy for looking at new work. If you ever hope to last more than a couple days at a GM job you have to be able to understand and use the lingo properly. Sutter wasn't fired and he didn't quit. That blooper alone would negate your ability to get a reporter job(Eric Francis your job is safe for now) let alone a GM job. Sutter and the Flames agreed to part ways, go different directions. He is still under contract so the usual courtesies apply should any other team wish to approach him for a position. If your team wanted to talk to him maybe they didn't say please or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 If you ever hope to last more than a couple days at a GM job you have to be able to understand and use the lingo properly. Sutter wasn't fired and he didn't quit. That blooper alone would negate your ability to get a reporter job(Eric Francis your job is safe for now) let alone a GM job. Sutter and the Flames agreed to part ways, go different directions. He is still under contract so the usual courtesies apply should any other team wish to approach him for a position. If your team wanted to talk to him maybe they didn't say please or something. Part ways? Is that the legal definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Part ways? Is that the legal definition? Try this...You are hired on contract for 3 years. At the end of it, you decide not to extend or your boss decides not to extend. You neither have quit or have been fired. I think he can possibly collect EI now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
returnofthejets Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Walking out the door or being thrown out, either way they still pay. Taking the classy way was the better approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Part ways? Is that the legal definition? Seeing as you took the time to ask I will just assume you are really that dense. CBS used the exact same term "Part Ways" in the title of this article just yesterday: June 27, 2012 11:16 AM Indiana Pacers part ways with Larry Bird Same meaning, same end result. Agree to go different directions. Note he is not quitting and he is not fired. If you still have trouble with 2x 4 letter word meanings, google "part ways" and you will come up with a lot of similar examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Seeing as you took the time to ask I will just assume you are really that dense. CBS used the exact same term "Part Ways" in the title of this article just yesterday: Same meaning, same end result. Agree to go different directions. Note he is not quitting and he is not fired. If you still have trouble with 2x 4 letter word meanings, google "part ways" and you will come up with a lot of similar examples. Who cares? You're harping on something that is frivolous. The point of the matter is that Feaster and company did not think it would reflect well on the Flames if Sutter came to Edmonton after leaving Calgary. IMO that was a classless move. I did not want the Oilers to hire Sutter but to stop him from attaining employment is low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
returnofthejets Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Who cares? You're harping on something that is frivolous. The point of the matter is that Feaster and company did not think it would reflect well on the Flames if Sutter came to Edmonton after leaving Calgary. IMO that was a classless move. I did not want the Oilers to hire Sutter but to stop him from attaining employment is low. The Flames talked with Butter while under contract with the Devils when those 2 sides decided to also part ways. You say they don't want to have a negative image reflect on them if Butter went to the oilers before his current contract expires shortly, how negative does it reflect if they actually didn't grant him the chance to seek future employment when both sides had agreed to move on from each other. I'm sure if approached they would have granted him permission. Your trying to start up a fire when you don't even have a spark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 The point of the matter is that Feaster and company did not think it would reflect well on the Flames if Sutter came to Edmonton after leaving Calgary. IMO that was a classless move. I did not want the Oilers to hire Sutter but to stop him from attaining employment is low. Or it could be as straight forward as Sutter having no interest in coaching the Oilers since he realizes he'd be replaced by 1 of Lowe's buddies as soon as they decide they have enough lottery picks & are ready to compete again. Coaching the current Oilers carries an implied short term. Any coach taking that should ask for maximum $s & a 5 year term. Either they pay him to pursue his hobbies for most of that term or give him a big buyout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 The point of the matter is that Feaster and company did not think it would reflect well on the Flames if Sutter came to Edmonton after leaving Calgary. IMO that was a classless move. I did not want the Oilers to hire Sutter but to stop him from attaining employment is low. Where exactly did you hear this anyways? For something like this you need links was it the Oilers board, an imaginary friend, voices in your head or did you just make it up? Did you ever even consider the possibility that maybe Sutter just did not want to coach the Oilers? What is it, 4 coaches in 5 years? That does not make it a very attractive destination... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Or it could be as straight forward as Sutter having no interest in coaching the Oilers since he realizes he'd be replaced by 1 of Lowe's buddies as soon as they decide they have enough lottery picks & are ready to compete again. Coaching the current Oilers carries an implied short term. Any coach taking that should ask for maximum $s & a 5 year term. Either they pay him to pursue his hobbies for most of that term or give him a big buyout. Unless you have more inside info than Friedman, you're simply trying to spin the Flames out of a negative light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crzydrvr Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Unless you have more inside info than Friedman, you're simply trying to spin the Flames out of a negative light. And you do? Really, an Oilers fan who knows more about the inner workings of the Flames than a Flames fan. We didn't fire Sutter, we just didn't renew him. How many bosses out there say to a parting employee "We aren't going to give you another contract but you can't talk to anyone else about different jobs before you part ways." Hell, my mother is about to be released again (she works as a lab technician for the U of Calgary, god bless her, and the profession tends to have a lot of turnover because research budgets for the different departments change faster than a hipster changes fashion trends) and she has spent the past month looking for a different position within the University. And her contract doesn't come up until January 2013. Unlike the Oil, who work under dubious rules of conduct at best (Lowe's pissing match with Burke back in 07 probably didn't generate much applause from the 28 other GMs around the league) the Flames are well-known for having a great organization in terms of code of conduct and ethics. And how would Jay Feaster and Co. benefit from holding Sutter back from a position? Especially the Oilers one. Either way we'll likely see a decent number of victories against the Oilers irrespective of whoever's behind the bench. And we aren't getting money to keep him from ever working in an Albertan hockey organization ever again. As one of the previous posters said, you're trying to light a fire without a match. It's just not logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.