Horcoff

• due to be paid $3.6 million next year


• points last year/this year are 73/45 (118 total)


• plays PK and PP


• is a leader


• is 28 years old

Hemsky

• due to be paid $3.6 million next year


• points last year/this year are 77/49 (126 total)


• plays PP


• has rediculous talent


• is 23 years old

Stoll

• due to be paid $2.2 million next year


• points last year/this year are 68/39 (107 total)


• plays PP and PK


• is a leader


• is 24 years old

Smyth

• wanted ~$5.5 million next year?


• points last year/this year are 66/53 (119 total)


• plays PP and PK


• is a leader


• is 31 years old

I would argue that Horcoff, Hemsky, and Stoll are all of similar value to the team as is Smyth. You can argue around the edges (e.g. Smyth's been injured, scores more goals) but there are responses to those (e.g. Smyth's style of play is injury-causing so injuries are part of the package he brings, what's so special about goals over assists, Horcoff outplayed Smyth in the playoffs). At most, I think I'm pretty safe in saying that Smyth isn't hugely better than Hemsky, Horcoff, and Stoll, while Smyth is older and is likely approaching a decline soon. In light of that, does Smyth really deserve $5.5 million?

I'm as crushed by this deal as the next Oiler fan, and I really wanted to see Smyth as an Oiler for life. To me, this hurts more than losing Pronger, Messier, Ranford, or Gretzky even. But, looking at this with cold logic, I think Smyth was asking for way too much. I have to very grudgingly accept that Lowe was right to trade him.

I just wish we'd picked up people who'd help us next year instead of more prospects. We've got so many prospect, I don't think we know what to do with them any more. We needed at least one warm body back.

Finally, I will commend Kevin Lowe for calling this a "hockey decision" and not a "financial decision". Budgets can always be made to work so Smyth could have been signed (despite what elite pudits on TSN et al. seem to think). This was a move made because Lowe thought it was in the interests of the team. I question some of Lowe's judgement especially this past year, but at least he's being honest with us. I'm willing to support him for a while longer for that alone.

The procedural option: deny or delay Royal Assent. What everyone seems to forget is that laws don't just need to pass the House and Senate --- they also need the consent of the third part of Parliament, and that's the Queen (as represented by the Governor-General or her delegates). Royal Assent, while generally a formality, is by no means automatic: if Steve-o says "Hey, my advice to you, GG, is that you not provide assent", the Governor-General by constitutional convention can't approve it, the bill's dead in the water, it isn't law, and there aren't any legal problems associated with ignoring it. Of course, this lets the opposition make hay about "abusing" our constitutional process.

The strategic option: pass it, and comply. Come up with the compliance plans, with hard numbers on what it'll cost and draft legislation setting out what'll be needed in order to comply. Include all the details about what the provinces will need to do for this régime to be effective.

And then say to the Canadian public, Hey, look at what they're forcing you to do. The Liberals want you to lose your jobs. They want you to be impoverished --- and still not do anything about global warming. They want to distract from Canada's real environmental concerns.". And then you call an election.

My money's on option 2.