June 2009 Archives

Courtesy David Staples: rumour du jour is Penner and Smid for Heatley.

I've always liked Heatley, but as an Oiler, he's a poor fit. Even if it was Penner's salary going out of town, that's still another 3 million dollars to cover, and anything more than Penner on his own is an overpay - especially if it's any blueliner who played more than 10 games last season. Smid? The team's spent the last couple of years developing him, and his salary is reasonable. Unless he's utter cancer in the dressing room - and it's hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff on that one, clearly there's something wrong and nobody agrees on who it is - moving him is insane.

Penner++ for Heatley would be stupid, Penner alone is not enough cap room and probably not enough to satisfy the Senators, and anybody making less than Penner would be even worse than stupid... unless there was another trade in the offing. Does it make sense given the other rumour, Souray to LA? Not unless the Oilers plan on not contending next season, so why offer Roloson a contract then?

Too many things about this just don't make sense.

First off, I guess I blew the Finals - right number of games, wrong team. Hossa and Conklin get shut out again. Crosby missed shaking Lidstrom's hand? Not a big deal. He should have, but it's hardly damning, and I'm sure he doesn't care what Draper thinks: gee Drapes, I can hardly hear you under the weight of these scoring titles and Stanley Cup rings. Funny I called Crosby missing a handshake, even if it didn't quite play out as I expected. Leaves me short of last year's mark.

Draft: not too many surprises, but I was a bit curious about the moves the Oilers made. Sure, Brodziak was hardly a sterling player last year, but who was? Trading him and a 6th for a pair of low-round picks? Crazy. Scott at Gospel of Hockey says they could have done better losing him to an offer sheet, or just taken their time signing him to a reasonable contract. I guess this means Pouliot and Brule move up the depth chart a bit, and leaves #78 as the only guy on the team who can take regular faceoffs. Dustin Penner is curiously good at them as well, but I doubt he'll be lining up at C again, unless Pat Quinn has a MacTavish-level brainfart to open the season. Rob Schremp may have an outside shot at 4th line spot duties next season as a result too, although Potulny should get first shot there. It really is time to fish or cut bait for two young men, a quiet francophone from Quebec and a brash fellow with poor fashion sense from New York. Will Schremp be the next Dan Tessier, or will he regain some of whatever he lost in the transition from junior to pro? Yeah, Tessier wasn't drafted, but at this point, does it matter if Schremp went 25th or 250th?

Call me a bad fan, but I don't even really follow prospects any more, much less speculate about them post-draft. Jason Bonsignore had chops, Jani Rita couldn't score even on Sidney Crosby's wing, and Curtis Joseph was undrafted. Like others, I'm starting to think it's not how the team does at the drafting table that matters, it's how they groom their prospects post-draft. Think of it this way: if you'd been scouted for your current career at 18, do you think you'd have had a chance?

I'm working on a long post regarding psychology versus statistics, predictors, and such. It's taking me uncommonly long to work up, especially since I'm busy with other writing projects, but hopefully it will shed at least some marginal light and no heat. At the least, I hope it'll make somebody think.

Article: "Why security and usability don't go hand in hand."

Wrong. In fact, so wrong I'll say it several more times. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. The most succinct way to say why is this:

If it isn't usable, it's not secure. If it's not secure, it isn't usable.

Not only do they go hand in hand, they absolutely must go hand in hand. These are not two axes that must be constantly balanced against one another. That view is outmoded and grounded in the idea that we make something secure by making it less usable, and you make it more usable by making it less secure. Why must that be?

Consider this: if something is "secure" but not "usable," what will those who need to use it do? Figure out a way to make it usable, which will almost certainly obviate whatever security measures were put into place. If something is "usable" but not "secure," well, that speaks for itself. Expect to see articles on pogowasright and security mags lambasting your laxness.

I'd say I can't believe this is even a question, but obviously it is, ergo I must believe. But I don't have to be happy about it.