If The Oilers End Up With A Lottery Pick...

Jonathan Willis
December 07 2009 10:07AM

If this edition of the Edmonton Oilers manages to finish in the bottom five of the NHL, they'll have done something few teams have done in the salary cap era. 

This morning, Tyler Dellow looked at teams spending more than 90% of the cap who have managed to contend for a lottery pick.  The Oilers currently sit at 98.6% of the cap; only one team in the salary cap era (the 2006-07 Chicago Blackhawks) has managed to spend that much and earn a spot in the draft lottery, so if the Oilers can pull it off (and despite recent victories, that's plausible) it will represent an achievement of sorts.

In any case, Dellow looked at the nine teams to manage such woeful incompetence despite a relatively high payroll, and again with the exception of the 2006-07 Blackhawks (Khabibulin) all were plagued by lousy goaltending.  He also looked at the general managers of those teams; with the exception of Dean Lombardi, were fired or retired shortly thereafter.  Dale Tallon managed to hang on for two years before getting fired for other incompetence, while Larry Pleau managed to extend his job by bringing in a replacement. 

I strongly recommend reading Dellow's piece to get an idea of the true level of mismanagement involved in such a feat.  I'm of two minds on this one; I want to see the Oilers add a franchise talent via the draft lottery this summer, but I also feel that the current management group should be completely cleared out if the Oilers find themselves in that situation - Kevin Lowe's already on the fast track to the sunset, but such a poor performance would certainly warrant a full burn it to the ground and start from scratch approach in the front office.

Wouldn't it?

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#151 Hemmertime
December 07 2009, 03:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
RossCreekNation wrote:

How 'bout 5 of each? Balance, my friend, balance.

The bottom six can be rounded out with UFA's and older players. Really good bottom 6 people are normally over 25 years old anyway

Avatar
#152 RossCreekNation
December 07 2009, 04:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Hemmertime

Fair enough, but homegrown is much better. Your selecting 10 guys with a 20% chance of making it. Thats 2 players that will make it, rather than the 8.5 that make it under your other example. My example gives you 5 NHLers. Good drafting all around is more efficient than a 20% success rate on only highend talent, no?

Avatar
#153 BarryS
December 07 2009, 04:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Most of those trades can't be called major when they went over. Salo was done and a playoff acquisition. Torres and Brule were thought to be done by their respective teams. Pronger was a player forced trade. Iginla as a spare part when traded, Kiprusoff couldn't make the team that traded him, Flury was done. So of your list only three trades might be called major. Trading with Pheonix was like taking candy from a baby. The others were good enough moves when made by one teams, to be sure, but what do you mean by major? Can't say any of them have put either team up a level, except Iginlia and Kiprusoff a few years later and Jokinen might yet pay off.

Avatar
#154 BarryS
December 07 2009, 04:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Repeating it does not make it more applicable.

Do you have a loop in your reply system, or are you one of those guys gets an idea and can't ever let it go?

Avatar
#155 Dan the Man
December 07 2009, 04:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

You been watching hockey more than this year? Give a couple examples to show major trades made within conference even since the new CBA. Now I know my memory is failing, but I can't remember any. Even Daan the Man admits the trade with the Wild not a major one.

Curtis Glencross traded by Columbus for Dick Tarnstrom.

Dwayne Roloson traded by Minnesota for 1st round pick in 2006

Tony Salmelainen traded to Chicago for Jaroslav Spacek.

Eric Brewer traded to St. Louis with Doug Lynch and Jeff Woywitka for Chris Pronger.

Jason Chimera traded to Phoenix with 3rd round pick in 2004

Tom Gilbert traded by Colorado for Tommy Salo and 6th round pick in 2005 (Justin Mercier).

Avatar
#156 Ogden Brother
December 07 2009, 04:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

vclav= Vaclav Prospal, does it not?

You know who I mean you turd

Avatar
#157 TigerUnderGlass
December 07 2009, 04:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

You been watching hockey more than this year? Give a couple examples to show major trades made within conference even since the new CBA. Now I know my memory is failing, but I can't remember any. Even Daan the Man admits the trade with the Wild not a major one.

Lets recap the conversation between us on this thread.

You: Teams won't share future plans with fans. ME: Why do you hate talking about the future. you: Teams rarely trade in-conference. me: what? how does that apply? you: they rarely trade in-conference. me: that still doesn't make sense. you: give me one example of a major trade within the conference.

You make no sense at all. None.

Avatar
#158 BarryS
December 07 2009, 04:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

Curtis Glencross traded by Columbus for Dick Tarnstrom.

Dwayne Roloson traded by Minnesota for 1st round pick in 2006

Tony Salmelainen traded to Chicago for Jaroslav Spacek.

Eric Brewer traded to St. Louis with Doug Lynch and Jeff Woywitka for Chris Pronger.

Jason Chimera traded to Phoenix with 3rd round pick in 2004

Tom Gilbert traded by Colorado for Tommy Salo and 6th round pick in 2005 (Justin Mercier).

Never said it wouldn't happen, just it was unlikely and do you consider any of these players listed on either side of the class of the players many hope to pry out of the Hawks?

Avatar
#159 BarryS
December 07 2009, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Lets recap the conversation between us on this thread.

You: Teams won't share future plans with fans. ME: Why do you hate talking about the future. you: Teams rarely trade in-conference. me: what? how does that apply? you: they rarely trade in-conference. me: that still doesn't make sense. you: give me one example of a major trade within the conference.

You make no sense at all. None.

Let's see, one poster trumpets his lack of understanding and sense. Other posters present trades to prove me wrong. The trades can then be debated to see if they are equivalent to those players many want to pry from the Hawks?

So who has the problem, here?

Avatar
#160 Dan the Man
December 07 2009, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

Never said it wouldn't happen, just it was unlikely and do you consider any of these players listed on either side of the class of the players many hope to pry out of the Hawks?

Pronger was pretty good...

Avatar
#161 BarryS
December 07 2009, 04:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

Pronger was pretty good...

I agree, the first trade proves it is possible, though wasn't Pronger a salary dump/unsignable player by Saint Louis, The Second Pronger can't qualify as he forced the trade, not the two teams working to what they see as their advantage. Missed the actual Pronger to the Flyers deal, was he traded. If so, out of conference.

A trade with the Hawks is not impossible, just unlikely without extenuating circumstances such as with Pronger to ducks.

Avatar
#162 RossCreekNation
December 07 2009, 04:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@BarryS

Barry S wrote:

comment153

Most of those trades can't be called major when they went over.

comment 143

The planet were all the people thinking making trades within the conference are likely, live. Look back and see what percentage of players traded are traded in conference. Not very high, I expect.

So... you never said MAJOR trade.

-Pronger never forced a trade to a western conference team, yet he was still traded within conference.

-Iginla was not a "spare part" in that deal. He was the centerpiece!

-Fleury wasn't yet quite done... soon after. It WAS a MAJOR deadline deal.

Avatar
#163 RossCreekNation
December 07 2009, 04:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Lets recap the conversation between us on this thread.

You: Teams won't share future plans with fans. ME: Why do you hate talking about the future. you: Teams rarely trade in-conference. me: what? how does that apply? you: they rarely trade in-conference. me: that still doesn't make sense. you: give me one example of a major trade within the conference.

You make no sense at all. None.

l.............................................................................................................o..................................................................................................................l

Avatar
#164 Dan the Man
December 07 2009, 04:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@BarryS

Not willing to trade within your conference cuts your trading partners in half. If a team had 2 more or less equal trades on the table, one in their conference and one out of conference, they would likely trade out of conference. Aside from that teams make trades within their conference all the time. The only team the Oilers wouldn't trade with is probably Calgary, they've even made the odd minor deal with Vancouver over the years.

Avatar
#165 TigerUnderGlass
December 07 2009, 04:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@BarryS

If you aren't responding to me then don't reply to my posts. If you are then at least try to respond to the post you are quoting instead of typing random inapplicable statements.

If you can seriously read back our conversation and believe that your responses to me applied, in even the slightest sense, to the posts to which you were responding then you are at least slightly retarded.

Have you tried reading the homeschooling books you sell?

Avatar
#166 BarryS
December 07 2009, 04:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

If you aren't responding to me then don't reply to my posts. If you are then at least try to respond to the post you are quoting instead of typing random inapplicable statements.

If you can seriously read back our conversation and believe that your responses to me applied, in even the slightest sense, to the posts to which you were responding then you are at least slightly retarded.

Have you tried reading the homeschooling books you sell?

Fame is wonderful, if a little late. The homeschooling business has been dead a couple years. To bad you didn't buy a few.

Avatar
#167 BarryS
December 07 2009, 04:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

Not willing to trade within your conference cuts your trading partners in half. If a team had 2 more or less equal trades on the table, one in their conference and one out of conference, they would likely trade out of conference. Aside from that teams make trades within their conference all the time. The only team the Oilers wouldn't trade with is probably Calgary, they've even made the odd minor deal with Vancouver over the years.

Not want to be thought of as trying to change the terms in mid debate without warning, I take correction.

So lets put it this way, given Iginila can be called a major trade within the conference, and rare enough to quickly come to mind, how many posters think the Oilers or anyone else in the Conference can realisticly be said to be able to pry one of the top players rumour says the Hawks are going to have to trade?

I think this would be a major trade, any disagreement on it being a major trade.

Having only half the teams available as possible trading partners has been a fact of life in the NHL as long as there have been conferences. Doesn't make sense, I agree, but a lot the NHL does doesn't seem to make sense.

Avatar
#168 Dan the Man
December 07 2009, 04:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

Not want to be thought of as trying to change the terms in mid debate without warning, I take correction.

So lets put it this way, given Iginila can be called a major trade within the conference, and rare enough to quickly come to mind, how many posters think the Oilers or anyone else in the Conference can realisticly be said to be able to pry one of the top players rumour says the Hawks are going to have to trade?

I think this would be a major trade, any disagreement on it being a major trade.

Having only half the teams available as possible trading partners has been a fact of life in the NHL as long as there have been conferences. Doesn't make sense, I agree, but a lot the NHL does doesn't seem to make sense.

Chicago will trade with whoever gives them the best return.

Avatar
#169 BarryS
December 07 2009, 04:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dan the Man wrote:

Chicago will trade with whoever gives them the best return.

Sorry, I added a couple lines during your post. Didn't do it out of spite, only realized I didn't answer your whole post.

Hope the Oilers have enough to give enough. Can we actually fill a hole they have?

Avatar
#170 Senator Theo
December 07 2009, 05:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

Sorry, I added a couple lines during your post. Didn't do it out of spite, only realized I didn't answer your whole post.

Hope the Oilers have enough to give enough. Can we actually fill a hole they have?

My wife was asking me the same thing. I told her we'd have to wait and see what we've got in the summer.

Avatar
#171 RossCreekNation
December 07 2009, 05:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@BarryS

I'd say Cogliano & Smid would be of interest to the Hawks given their age and relative inexpensiveness of their contracts compared to what their moving. For example, if Cogliano replaced Versteeg & Smid replaced Barker, the Hawks shouldn't be a whole lot worse, but they'll save a glut of scrilla.

Avatar
#172 BarryS
December 07 2009, 05:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
RossCreekNation wrote:

I'd say Cogliano & Smid would be of interest to the Hawks given their age and relative inexpensiveness of their contracts compared to what their moving. For example, if Cogliano replaced Versteeg & Smid replaced Barker, the Hawks shouldn't be a whole lot worse, but they'll save a glut of scrilla.

Can see Cogliano, but and Smid if he doesn't want to resign, I think he only signed one year, last year. Looks to me like he might be the shut down defenceman we've all wanted, yes even me. To me, keeping a developing player who wants to stay makes more sence than trading for one who might not want to stay.

The Hawks might not be a whole lot worse, but will we be a whole lot better?

Avatar
#173 srbuhr
December 07 2009, 05:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

It seems to me the biggest management problem with this team is much more than the salary cap issue. The overpaid players are only a symptom of a greater problem. All teams have injuries - good teams have depth to deal with this issue. The oilers have been a bad team for nearly twenty years and yet have a so called skilled team that is near the bottom of the league. Their AHL affiliate is at the bottom of its league - no doubt full of highly skilled players. What we need to consider is who is telling us these players are highly skilled - the management team that drafted them. Look back at the drafts - Klowe and his crew nearly always drafted players that central scouting rated much much lower. These are all our highly skilled players. I agree with Pat Quinn - "supposedly we are a team of high skilled players - We just havent seen that yet".

For this reason I shudder at the thought of trading the few players that may have value for draft picks. Sure lets trade a Souray, Vishnovski or a Brule for more picks that will be wasted. Since the 2001 draft the oilers have had 32 picks in the first three rounds. Their success - Hemsky, Gagner and Cogliano. Stoll and Green could be considered a good pick too but were traded for another teams good pick. 32 picks and two likely top six forwards. Based on this simply math, this team management will need 27 years to draft 6 top six forwards. It looks like they went to the Toronto Maple Leafs school of Hockey Management. No wonder our AHL and the big club struggles. Klowe and his crew have no clue.

Avatar
#174 BarryS
December 07 2009, 05:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@srbuhr

Well Tambo seemed to have tried to address that last summer. Good thing too, some of those players are playing here now.

Unless you receive personal press releases from the team, you get your information the same place we all do, through the media, and our buddies. Not blaming the messengers, just pointing out how some media person says something and hundreds of parrots start posting.

Now I'm sure you have you have your own personal league sources none the rest of us have and always form your own opinions, but the rest of us don't have that option. And given the number of complaints about the quality of the various people broadcasting the games live, they don't affect our opinions either.

Avatar
#175 srbuhr
December 07 2009, 09:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ BarryS

Whats your point? Tell me then, who the highly skilled players are. I never said the team had no skill but its a stretch at best to say highly skilled.

My point is that the team has a thin talent level and expecting that recent draft picks will be answer seems a foolish bet. Certainly, as you call him, Tambo has a daunting task ahead of him to improve this team.

And finally: "Well Tambo seemed to have tried to address that last summer" What does this mean - Atleast he tried hard??? Do you mean atleast he is having fun, thats what really counts.

Avatar
#176 BarryS
December 07 2009, 11:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
srbuhr wrote:

@ BarryS

Whats your point? Tell me then, who the highly skilled players are. I never said the team had no skill but its a stretch at best to say highly skilled.

My point is that the team has a thin talent level and expecting that recent draft picks will be answer seems a foolish bet. Certainly, as you call him, Tambo has a daunting task ahead of him to improve this team.

And finally: "Well Tambo seemed to have tried to address that last summer" What does this mean - Atleast he tried hard??? Do you mean atleast he is having fun, thats what really counts.

I mean he improved the farm team, many of the new players played with the big team during the injury time. A couple might even stick this year.

Don't know what other farm team could lose as many players to the big team at one time during the season and still remain competative, including their top goalie. Can't say how competative they really are, since so many players are here.

Don't recall mentioning highly skilled at any time but since you ask.

Penner seems highly skilled, so does Hemsky Souray and Vish seem highly stilled. Khabbi seems highly skilled, JDD is not looking to bad and plays better almost every game, Brule, Smid, Gagner, Grebs are still viable players to build a team around. Cogs and Nilsson still might pan out, much as I don't like Nilsson. There are some kids with a chance coming up in a year or two. Heard on the Team tonight a couple of the Swedes are mean besides talented around the net. Don't know if mean for Swedes, or mean like Canadians. Time will tell.

Sorry its not all gloom and doom as some may think/hope. Can't see a cup run, as opposed to a win, this year or maybe two.

Avatar
#177 MrOiler
December 08 2009, 09:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Four (4) points out of seventh place and 52 games to go.

This is too early for this kind of article. It comes off way too knee jerk for my taste.

Comments are closed for this article.