Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Two Bags of Pucks and a Roll of the Dice

Alright everybody. Let's take a deep breath.

The way everybody's talking about the Ryan Smyth trade today, you'd think the world had come to an end. Sadder yet, being the night the Oilers raised #11 to the rafters, commentators and jilted fans have been heard lamenting the fact that #94 won't be retired someday, as well.

Come on. Ryan Smyth is good, but he's no Messier. Heck, he's not even an Al Hamilton (that other guy in the rafters at Rexall). I'm not saying Smitty's a bum. Just that he's a symbol.

It's time for some perspective.

Smyth is a gritty character player. He's a 20-goal scorer who's had a couple of good years (thanks largely to a lack of other goal-scorers on the team). He's a second-line winger on most other clubs. He may well have been the "face of the franchise" (the "mullet of the mob"), but he is not the player everyone's making him out to be.

All this in mind, Kevin Lowe's decision not to pay Smyth $22 million over 4 years was a no-brainer. Think about his options:

Option 1: Recognizing he's an unrestricted free agent this summer, trade Smyth now for the best package possible... Regardless of what Glen Healey says, three first round picks was the best deal on the table for Ryan Smyth, especially considering the fact that Bertuzzi, Guerin, Tkachuk, and Forsberg had already found homes. (Not that Smyth is even remotely in that eschelon of players.) It would have been nice to have made a trade earlier, when teams were still hungry. But Oil Country wouldn't have stood for a deal that ended their playoff hopes any earlier in the year. Nor would fans have let Lowe off the hook if he made the deal without negotiating down to the very last minute. And no one could be sure that Detroit, San Jose, Atlanta or Nashville were even interested in Smitty.

Oh, don't kid yourself: Nillson and O'Marra are not going to be first-line players in the NHL. But, combined, they won't be much worse than Smyth's 20 goals / year. Plus, the first-round pick gives the Oilers a total of three (3) first-rounders this June (their own, the Islanders', and the one Ducks sent over for Pronger). Combine all of this youth with the players they already have (Schrempf and Syvret are ready next year), and you have a decent up-and-coming group. Put yourself in a good position to contend next year, and you have a ton of trade bait at deadline time. Long story short, the Oilers would have been hard-pressed to make a playoff run even with Smyth in the line-up. It was time to start thinking about next year.

Option 2: Hold onto Smyth and hopefully sign him in the off-season... Knee-jerk Oiler fans, conjuring up images of "I promised Mess I wouldn't do this" would say, "Pay Smyth as much as he wants -- he's our franchise player!" I'm not as nostalgic, and neither was Lowe. The way he and Donny Meighen were 'negotiating', neither side was going to back down this summer. So, option #2 would have seen the Oilers get nothing at all for Smyth. Two bags of pucks and a roll of the dice are better than a kick in the teeth.

Ahhhh, but there's still a third option that makes everyone happy......

3) Rent Smyth out to the Islanders for a good price, then sign him back in June.... NO, I'M NOT A TEARY-EYED OPTIMIST, HERE. I'm not saying Smyth will ever put on an Oilers jersey again. Nor will I be burning my own chandail if he doesn't. But consider this: Why on earth would you sign Smitty to a $22 million contract in February, when you could sign him to the same contract in June PLUS pick up three decent prospects? (Turn the rally-caps around, delerious Oiler fans -- we were not making another Finals run this year, so Smyth's departure doesn't cost us anything.) No one else in the league -- not even the delusional Garth Snow -- would sign Smitty for more than $5.5 million / year. Lowe knows that. At the very least, he will be a top bidder for Smyth when he becomes a UFA in a few months. If he lands Smitty again, all is well. If he doesn't, we're back to Option #1 -- which is still far better than Option #2.

Lowe says his decision was based on hockey factors, not financial ones. I, for one, believe him. Until the rest of Oil Country comes to its senses, I suggest we join forces and do what comes naturally to all of us: Cheering for whichever team plays the Flames in the first round. (Go Preds, Go!?!)

Jesus in Thunder Bay?

Check out Hobbs's Blog for details.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Passports, Provincial Politics & Security

Recent efforts by Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick to alleviate the financial burden and inconvenience of cross-border travel are certainly welcome. Politicians should be applauded any time they save Canadians money and time, right? Well, almost....

Now entering its second week, the 'Misters Doer, McGuinty and Graham Go to Washington' tour is emphasizing the need for the United States to relax its land-border access requirements to allow Canadians to continue to enter the United States using only driver's licences. (Presumably, their scheme will allow Americans to continue to enter Canada on the same terms.)

The plan sounds solid on the face of it. No need for occasional tourists to wait in line and pay for a passport in order to visit the States on holiday or business. Just preserving the status quo, right? WRONG.

Let's leave aside the fact that the Premiers are entering international negotiations -- informal as they are -- without the federal government present. This is part of an on-going trend that's seeing Canadian heads-of-government become second-rate lobbyists, begging governors and congresspeople to heed their interests. Granted, it can be effective (witness Ralph Klein's leveraging of Alberta oil on the BSE issue). But more often than not, it reveals precisely how small provincial governments are the grand scheme of things. When they travel in packs, like when they attend various governors' association meetings, they have a chance. But sending only the premiers of Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick turns the whole thing into a sideshow. It may work in terms of election posturing back home -- oh, how they look statesmanlike in their photo-ops on Capitol Hill -- but it's not even backpage news in Washington, where it really counts.

(The Harper government hasn't been silent on this issue, either. They've managed to push back the implementation date several times, and recently got Washington to agree to allow Canadians under 17 to cross land borders sans passports. What three premiers think they can do better than the PM is beyond me.)

The more concerning issue is that the deal they're proposing would involve the development of new, "enhanced" drivers licences. While news reports are short on details, McGuinty claims that the new Ontario card will include more security features than the current Canadian passport.

When you read "security features", don't think it means making your identity more secure. Or even your country more secure. This is all about making America more secure. And this means handing over personal information.

Presumably, your 'vital' information will be attached to these cards (your name, birthdate, birthplace, social security number, address, phone number, etc.). Your driving record would be recorded here, allowing the police to swipe your card when they pull you over. Maniotba's plan is to include vehicle registration information on their new licences, meaning your licence plate number will be attached. It's not a stretch to imagine that your criminal record could be stored here, as well, in order to facilitate border security. Throw in biometrics -- like your photo, fingerprints, retinal imprint, height, weight, eye-color, blood type -- and the card becomes what the Americans want it to be. But it won't end there.

It's a matter of practicality that a number of other pieces of information be attached to these new licences. Premiers have been collaborating on the development of electronic health records. The easiest solution: attach it you your 'citizenship card' (i.e., your new licence). Other information (including your family status, next of kin, tax returns, organ donor status, voter registration data, gun registration, pet registration, etc.) could easily be compiled here, allowing Canadians to access a wealth of government services with a single card. (It would be cool to add your banking information here, too, wouldn't it?)

It's disquieting enough that various Canadian governments have all of this information at their disposal. As it stands now, this information is purposefully compartmentalized (so that the DMV doesn't have access to your health records, for instance). Talk of citizenship cards always brings up the spectre of breaking down these compartments, however. (Recall the uproar over HRDC's attempts to monitor air travel in the aftermath of 9/11.)

I'm the last one to be alarmist when it comes to government over-reach. But it doesn't take a libertarian to see the slippery slope here. At the very least, these new licences would merge together data collected by provincial and federal governments. Suddenly, the police now has access to your health records, and your accountant has your gun registration. Good luck talking your way out of a speeding ticket because of your 'uromycetisis'.

If it's alright with the premiers in Washington, I'd like to spend the extra money and time on a passport. Leave my driver's licence out of it.