Look at the oils record against the west ...a conference which they are the in the bottom of.... Now look at their record against the east ...they just might be a playoff team if they could play there. The oil are built like an eastern team ...which is why they have issues in the west. Id love to swap the oil with Habs in their respective conference ...I'd be willing to bet the oil make it in the east and the Habs miss in the west
- Redmile247

and the poopy Avs havent had a chance to play against the Sabres, Canes, Blue Jackets yet like some other teams. Early on this season have been easy wins for team.

Yet they aren't thrown under the bus like the Oilers, its a bit unfair to them and their fan base

- Cheeseballin

and the poopy Avs havent had a chance to play against the Sabres, Canes, Blue Jackets yet like some other teams. Early on this season have been easy wins for team.
- DDM-Coga

It's ok, it's the avs down year. Just means presidents trophy next year followed by lotto draft the year after

- Cheeseballin

omg

this is me

omg

this is me
- hugefemale dog77

Hehe

Claiming that MacT is jerking other GMs around, and listing a series of other teams they may be talking to and implying that one of those GMs thinks MacT is jerking them around is skirting the edge of libel, isn't it?
- Morris

It's a cap world, the pieces need to fit both ways. Every GM is making calls, there haven't been a lot of trades for a reason. Buyer/Sellers should be up soon, still not easy to make a deal for players and no one wants to overpay and give up picks.

It's a cap world, the pieces need to fit both ways. Every GM is making calls, there haven't been a lot of trades for a reason. Buyer/Sellers should be up soon, still not easy to make a deal for players and no one wants to overpay and give up picks.
- VanHockeyGuy

l.schenn fits into this category

Bobby Holik 5 years 45 Mil
Wade Redden 6 years 39 Mil
Brad Richards 9 years 60 Mil
Scott Gomez 7 years 51.5 Mil

Great Work NY
- VanHockeyGuy

Ass
Ass
Defacto captain led our team to SCF
McDonagh

l.schenn fits into this category
- Flyfreaky

Yep, and teams would love to have him. Tough to put it together.

Ass
Ass
Defacto captain led our team to SCF
McDonagh
- rangerdanger94

you guys missing del zotto yet?

Ass
Ass
Defacto captain led our team to SCF
McDonagh
- rangerdanger94

Well this poopty Oilers team whipped your loser rangers team.. So does that mean the rangers are a joke?

Ass
Ass
Defacto captain led our team to SCF
McDonagh
- rangerdanger94

Overpay always. Fact.

Yep, and teams would love to have him. Tough to put it together.
- VanHockeyGuy

hextall's all over it

Right, but would it not be true from the moment of its existence? Being the first person to point it out doesn't make it original, it was true before it was proposed.

Depends on how you want to look at it I suppose.
- ehabs9

It is an ontological truth but not an epistemic truth. If we're talking about how we come to call something true, then at the moment we deemed it was true (as in, accepted it as the prevailing scientific theory) we can say that that's a pretty original explanation for an observed, but previously unsatisfactorily explained, phenomenon.

If we're talking about everything that is ontologically true from the first moment of existence, then more than "the truth is rarely original", we arrive at "no truth can possibly be original". Thus any discoveries we do end up making about the natural world will paradoxically never be original, since they'll always have been true.

In a certain way though, either begs the question. True things are original when they can first be called true, depending on who is doing the calling.

So I'll set aside something that is a fact about the universe, and talk about "original" in the sense of social interaction. In the context of his sarcastic "how original" comment, I believe your retort was meant to imply that cliches have a kernel of truth to them. Which I'll give you. On the other hand, you're using a false equivalency with the word original about an unproven claim that something is true. In other words arguing:

Premise 1:
This thing is unoriginal.
Premise 2:
True things are often unoriginal.
Conclusion: This thing is true.

That's of course a specious argument. There are true things that could be original, false things that are unoriginal, or false things that are original. Truths can have a property of being unoriginal, but it is not an antecedent characteristic.

I hope everyone hates me that much more after making this post.

I love when oilers get chirped by eastern teams we've beat this year.

Well this poopty Oilers team whipped your loser rangers team.. So does that mean the rangers are a joke?
- Oilfan19

They actually are a joke. The FA market is messed up because of these stupid contracts.

Ass
Ass
Defacto captain led our team to SCF
McDonagh
- rangerdanger94

Overpay first, think later.

I love when oilers get chirped by eastern teams we've beat this year.
- ystoil

how about the one's you haven't

Oilers are listening on all offers regarding all players..and so are all other teams regarding all their players.
- oilers2k10

minus hall and rnh

They actually are a joke. The FA market is messed up because of these stupid contracts.
- VanHockeyGuy

Oilers want a D for him....it makes sense just think about it.
- Nucker101

I hardly think Rozival helps the Oilers.

It is an ontological truth but not an epistemic truth. If we're talking about how we come to call something true, then at the moment we deemed it was true (as in, accepted it as the prevailing scientific theory) we can say that that's a pretty original explanation for an observed, but previously unsatisfactorily explained, phenomenon.

If we're talking about everything that is ontologically true from the first moment of existence, then more than "the truth is rarely original", we arrive at "no truth can possibly be original". Thus any discoveries we do end up making about the natural world will paradoxically never be original, since they'll always have been true.

In a certain way though, either begs the question. True things are original when they can first be called true, depending on who is doing the calling.

So I'll set aside something that is a fact about the universe, and talk about "original" in the sense of social interaction. In the context of his sarcastic "how original" comment, I believe your retort was meant to imply that cliches have a kernel of truth to them. Which I'll give you. On the other hand, you're using a false equivalency with the word original about an unproven claim that something is true. In other words arguing:

Premise 1:
This thing is unoriginal.
Premise 2:
True things are often unoriginal.
Conclusion: This thing is true.

That's of course a specious argument. There are true things that could be original, false things that are unoriginal, or false things that are original. Truths can have a property of being unoriginal, but it is not an antecedent characteristic.

I hope everyone hates me that much more after making this post.
- Morris

Don't waste your impressive lexicon on this person. They are just here to whine/troll because they may be frustrated with their playoff team.

It is an ontological truth but not an epistemic truth. If we're talking about how we come to call something true, then at the moment we deemed it was true (as in, accepted it as the prevailing scientific theory) we can say that that's a pretty original explanation for an observed, but previously unsatisfactorily explained, phenomenon.

If we're talking about everything that is ontologically true from the first moment of existence, then more than "the truth is rarely original", we arrive at "no truth can possibly be original". Thus any discoveries we do end up making about the natural world will paradoxically never be original, since they'll always have been true.

In a certain way though, either begs the question. True things are original when they can first be called true, depending on who is doing the calling.

So I'll set aside something that is a fact about the universe, and talk about "original" in the sense of social interaction. In the context of his sarcastic "how original" comment, I believe your retort was meant to imply that cliches have a kernel of truth to them. Which I'll give you. On the other hand, you're using a false equivalency with the word original about an unproven claim that something is true. In other words arguing:

Premise 1:
This thing is unoriginal.
Premise 2:
True things are often unoriginal.
Conclusion: This thing is true.

That's of course a specious argument. There are true things that could be original, false things that are unoriginal, or false things that are original. Truths can have a property of being unoriginal, but it is not an antecedent characteristic.

I hope everyone hates me that much more after making this post.
- Morris

*swoons*

I love when oilers get chirped by eastern teams we've beat this year.
- ystoil

At least the Oilers are trying to build through the draft and development. The Rangers write a cheque and pray it works, they are a bunch of individuals, not a team. That's the part they always never seem to figure out. It will get tougher for them without any buyout amnesties left.

The city of Edmonton is boring, the team is boring and the GM is boring.

They're going to blow all year, do nothing about it and finish with a lotto pick, it's a tale as old as the last decade. Can we move on from this already?
- ehabs9

On a side note, if u put MTL in the west they would also get demolished year after year w/ the team they have