Around the Blogosphere: April 6th

Jonathan Willis
April 06 2009 03:00PM

Harding/Backstrom

Below, you’re going to see a link that takes you to an article arguing that the Oilers should sign Josh Harding to an offer sheet. The article argues that this is in the best interest of the Oilers, but what about Josh Harding? Is it fair that he continue to toil behind Nik Backstrom despite his own exceptional talents? Look how crushed he is in this picture. I’m sure it’s all he can do to put on a smile and congratulate Backstrom – all while carefully hiding his eyes from the camera, lest someone should see his real feelings.

Alright, so that’s probably out to lunch, but the article isn’t:

- Tyler argues, and argues well, that the Oilers should sign Josh Harding to an RFA offer sheet. I’ve pointed to Harding’s availability before (as have commenters here) and I don’t disagree with Tyler in the slightest. This would be a relatively cheap way to address the Oilers goaltending problems for the foreseeable future.

- David Staples has an excellent article out this morning; a long look at a single photograph from the Rick Rypien/Zack Stortini fight the other night. It’s a piece that only David Staples could have written – whether you agree or disagree with him, few people ennoble the game like he does.

- Sam Gagner continues to close in on his numbers from last season, and for the second year in a row looks like a very different player over the back half of the season.

- Relatively new blog The Church of Kurri has a strategy for NHL GM’s that he’s surprised hasn’t been used yet – dual offer sheets. I’m not going to get into it (read the full article) except to say that it’s a really good idea as far as offer sheets go, as long as you aren’t worried about the possible reprisals (like, say, if you have two hot-shot rookies who become RFA’s in a year where the cap is supposed to fall and you already have too many players under contract for too much money).

- On the other hand, it’s possible that the salary cap may not drop as much as expected (or at all!), and if so there are few teams that will benefit as much as the Oilers.

- Linus Omark has absolutely no interest in “farmarhockey”. While online Swedish to English translators produce some funny results, I’m pretty sure that means he’s not willing to sign anything other than a one-way NHL contract. Is that a good idea for the Oilers?

eberle

- Oilers prospects currently in the CHL, and where Alex Plante and Jordan Eberle project going forward. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the upside to Eberle is probably not as high as Oilers fans (or for that matter, The Hockey News) seem to believe.

- The good folks at Oilverse still believe that there’s a glimmer of hope. Just embrace the end already, you poor optimists.

- More debate on what the Craig MacTavish stick call means for his future. I can’t disagree that the stick call is probably not the right reason to fire MacTavish, but on the other hand it’s the kind of obvious symbol that’s easy to point to. Meanwhile, BDHS is another who feels that the coach will resign.

- The Oilers latest win (and some losses by a few other teams) mean that their best possible slot at the draft this summer is 8th overall.

- There’s been a lot of talk about the possible divide in the Oilers’ dressing room, and Bruce takes a look at the demographics of it. There’s a very clear divide; clearer than I expected.

- The Edmonton Oilers have been named a 2009 Great Place to Work. Quick, somebody pass the word along to Marian Hossa.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is Managing Editor of the Nation Network. He also currently writes for the Edmonton Journal's Cult of Hockey, Grantland, and Hockey Prospectus. His work has appeared at theScore, ESPN and Puck Daddy. He was previously founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue. Contact him at jonathan (dot) willis (at) live (dot) ca.
Avatar
#1 Rice
April 06 2009, 03:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Hmmmm age gap. That creates a problem in any organization. I can see much more clearly now that this would create a problem in an organization the will not succeed unless it is as a team.

Avatar
#2 Mr P
April 06 2009, 04:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Josh Harding was my first order of business in the off season. Him or Hiller.

It is a pretty good sign that Gagne is a better second half player than a first half player.

Avatar
#3 CurtisS
April 06 2009, 04:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

That article on Sam, is it so hard to figure out why it takes him 35 games to get going.

Ill tell you why. Mact has started both seasons now not knowing where to play him. Last season he was a 3rd and 4 th liner for the first 30 games.

This season he was a winger for the first 20+ games.

Macts fault not gagners.

Avatar
#4 Rick
April 06 2009, 04:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

CurtisS wrote:

Ill tell you why. Mact has started both seasons now not knowing where to play him. Last season he was a 3rd and 4 th liner for the first 30 games. This season he was a winger for the first 20+ games. Macts fault not gagners.

You must be joking, MacT started Gagner in the exact same spot he had the most success last year.

Second guessing is fun and all but wholly molly use some grey matter.

Avatar
#5 Ogden Brother
April 06 2009, 04:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Rick wrote:

CurtisS wrote: Ill tell you why. Mact has started both seasons now not knowing where to play him. Last season he was a 3rd and 4 th liner for the first 30 games. This season he was a winger for the first 20+ games. Macts fault not gagners. You must be joking, MacT started Gagner in the exact same spot he had the most success last year. Second guessing is fun and all but wholly molly use some grey matter.

It's gotten to the point that everything is blamed on MacT.... I'm starting to think he sabotaged Lubo's shoulder.

Avatar
#6 Robin Brownlee
April 06 2009, 04:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I guess if you argue that Backstrom's numbers were jazzed up by playing with Minnesota, then the same holds true for Harding.

So, what is it about a goaltender with a losing record and good, but not great (considering the Minnesota factor) numbers like a 2.48 GAA and .920 saves percentage that make it worth quadrupling his pay, giving up a second-round pick and shit-canning Deslauriers?

Best option? No.

Avatar
#7 Colin-FMNF
April 06 2009, 04:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Ogden Brother wrote:

It’s gotten to the point that everything is blamed on MacT…. I’m starting to think he sabotaged Lubo’s shoulder.

He didn't? Damn my theory is shot, back to the drawing board!

Avatar
#8 Jonathan Willis
April 06 2009, 06:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Robin Brownlee wrote:

I guess if you argue that Backstrom’s numbers were jazzed up by playing with Minnesota, then the same holds true for Harding.

Very true.

So, what is it about a goaltender with a losing record and good, but not great (considering the Minnesota factor) numbers like a 2.48 GAA and .920 saves percentage that make it worth quadrupling his pay, giving up a second-round pick and shit-canning Deslauriers?

Harding and Deslauriers are the same age. Here's a quick comparison of their career AHL numbers (since we agree that Harding's .920 NHL SV% is a little suspect)

Deslauriers - 137 career AHL games, .906 SV% Harding - 118 career AHL games, .924 SV%

Even without the .920 SV% in the NHL (which, Minnesota or no is damn good), a shot at Harding is easily worth sending JDD along his way.

And it's the perfect time to do it, while Roli's still around in case the kid stumbles. Wouldn't you agree?

Avatar
#9 Jon K
April 06 2009, 06:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Unfortunately Omark can only be given a two-way deal for entry level contract. What's he probably looking for are assurances that he won't be spending the whole season in the AHL.

With the state of the team currently I don't necessarily think it is a good decision to give any player those types assurances. Especially a player whose skill set is redundant on the roster.

If he wants assurances let him get them somewhere else. He's still young and that means he's still going to be getting playing time. Obviously retaining his rights is important so perhaps a token deal which allows him to be released to a Euro club if he doesn't make the team out of training camp might be the best solution.

Avatar
#10 Jon K
April 06 2009, 06:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

God I must be tired. Note to self: Proofread twice.

Avatar
#11 AlBundy
April 06 2009, 07:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I think we should ask Morely Scott what he thinks of the goalie situation.

What is he doing now please?

Avatar
#12 Robin Brownlee
April 06 2009, 07:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Jonathan Willis: No. I'm not putting out an offer sheet, quadrupling a player's pay, giving up a draft pick and losing Deslauriers when Harding's got a losing record in the NHL.

"Easily" worth sending Deslauriers on his way? And if the "kid stumbles" after you've done all the above, you've made another move that was as unneccesary and ill-conceived as overpaying for mediocre Dustin Penner.

Avatar
#13 Jon K
April 06 2009, 08:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Robin Brownlee:

I would argue that a losing record paired with a 0.932 SV% and 2.15 GAA indicates the offensive bounces not going Minnie's way while Harding is in net rather some deficiency in his abilities.

Avatar
#14 Robin Brownlee
April 06 2009, 08:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jon K wrote:

@ Robin Brownlee: I would argue that a losing record paired with a 0.932 SV% and 2.15 GAA indicates the offensive bounces not going Minnie’s way while Harding is in net rather some deficiency in his abilities.

I think this is where I ask you to provide some numbers to back that up. And he's got a losing record for his career not just this season. I'm not gambling on bounces when I'm handing out offer sheets.

How do you know Harding isn't playing like gangbusters 55 minutes a night, but has a penchant for giving up bad or untimely goals?

Avatar
#15 Sandra
April 06 2009, 09:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

AlBundy wrote:

I think we should ask Morely Scott what he thinks of the goalie situation. What is he doing now please?

Collecting a cheque

Avatar
#16 Sandra
April 06 2009, 09:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I still say bring back Garon, he won't cost much, and he goes in cycles, so next year will be his year.

Avatar
#17 cm
April 06 2009, 09:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I like the idea of making the offer sheet just to get mini to match...if they don't well then we didn't give up any more than we gave up for kotalik...but I don't think it is a move that should be made with MacT behind the bench or if roli is brought back for another season...there is no point in having 6 million tied up in a 3 headed dragon between he pipes...

Avatar
#18 CurtisS
April 06 2009, 09:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Rick: Great argument, that holds alot of weight.

Avatar
#19 CurtisS
April 06 2009, 09:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Ogden Brother: Another thoughtful post.

Avatar
#20 William
April 06 2009, 10:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathon,

I'm curious about your thoughts on the article by BDHS. Unless I'm missing something he has never spoken to anyone in the Oilers organization.

When he writes a piece like that, especially after "your guys on here, Gregor and Brownlee" have been saying for months MacT will resign, doesn't that look like he had read their stuff and then just wrote his own piece.

Gregor and Brownlee obviously talk to people within the Oilers and other teams, so while they might not have the best contacts it seems they have some.

I'm not ragging on anyone here, just curious why an opinion from BDHS, weeks after people in the know have wrote it, who seems to have no apparent connections is worthy of linking too?

I found some of the other articles insightful, but that one just seemed to be from a guy rehashing what has been said for months.

Thanks for the likns, I was just curious.

Avatar
#21 EMAC
April 06 2009, 10:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

What about Ray Emery? When the Oilers miss the playoffs for a fourth straight year, we can blame him instead of MacT. And who wouldn't want to see his white Hummer going 175km down Wayne Gretzky Drive to make practice on time.

Avatar
#22 Jonathan Willis
April 06 2009, 10:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ William:

Pat's been doing this for years (for The Score now) and he may not have any particular connections, but he's a fun writer.

I'm just laying the buffet out there; what people want to eat is their business ;)

Avatar
#23 Tyler
April 06 2009, 10:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Robin Brownlee wrote:

I guess if you argue that Backstrom’s numbers were jazzed up by playing with Minnesota, then the same holds true for Harding.

Jonathan might be willing to concede this. I don't know that I am or, to the extent that I am, I think that the effect is awfully small?

So, what is it about a goaltender with a losing record and good, but not great (considering the Minnesota factor) numbers like a 2.48 GAA and .920 saves percentage that make it worth quadrupling his pay, giving up a second-round pick and shit-canning Deslauriers?

It's awfully clear that the Oilers don't believe in Deslauriers. If they did, he might have played a meaningful minute sometime after November 30. As Willis has pointed out on several occasions, his numbers provide absolutely no evidence that he's an above average goalie prospect, let alone a guy to hang the future of the franchise on. I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if I was Kevin Lowe and I let him go, not that I'd have much sleep to lose as lay awake nights kicking myself for the scratch that Staios, Moreau and Pisani are pulling down.

Two questions: 1) Sportswriters (and GM's, back in Slats' day) love to go on about the size of an increase in a guy's salary. Do you think that his past salary is in any way relevant to what he should be paid going forward? The CBA is designed to screw over the young guys. Surprise, surprise, they're the ones who tend to get massive raises when that first contract is up.

2) Do you actually think that the losing record means anything? I mean, I haven't gone and looked or anything, but it's virtually unanimous in baseball that a pitcher's W-L is a function of his performance in part but that there are large parts he has no control over, in that he doesn't contribute to the offence. A hockey goalie would seem to have it worse - if a pitcher gets outs, the other team can't just keep having shots at scoring; the inning ends. If the team in front of you can't clear the puck, you're just screwed. I don't even look at goalie records most of the time.

Avatar
#24 Jonathan Willis
April 06 2009, 10:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Robin Brownlee wrote:

And he’s got a losing record for his career not just this season.

But he had a winning record in the AHL and in the WHL, so I think it's probably wrong to imply that he isn't a winner. Hell in 2005-06, he went 29-8 in Houston.

Besides, it isn't like Deslauriers was a winner in the AHL.

Avatar
#25 Robin Brownlee
April 06 2009, 11:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Robin Brownlee wrote: And he’s got a losing record for his career not just this season. But he had a winning record in the AHL and in the WHL, so I think it’s probably wrong to imply that he isn’t a winner. Hell in 2005-06, he went 29-8 in Houston. Besides, it isn’t like Deslauriers was a winner in the AHL.

I'm not implying anything. He has a losing record as an NHL goaltender. Where's the debate?

Avatar
#26 Jonathan Willis
April 06 2009, 11:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Robin Brownlee wrote:

I’m not implying anything. He has a losing record as an NHL goaltender. Where’s the debate?

Roberto Luongo played five seasons before the lockout. Not once did he have a winning record.

Josh Harding isn't Roberto Luongo. He's is however better than any current Oilers prospect, and a one-year, 2.8MM deal isn't analagous to Dustin Penner's multi-year offer sheet.

There are no long-term ramifications, and the upside is that you could end up with a starting NHL goaltender for about the same money that Steve Staios is making.

To toss away that kind of possibility because he has fewer wins than losses at the NHL level makes no sense. His SV% is excellent, and from what I've seen it accurately reflects his play.

Besides, if win-loss records accurately measured goaltender performance, Kiprusoff would be the best goalie in the league. I can't believe that you're making a serious argument that Harding should be written off because of his W-L record.

Avatar
#27 Tyler
April 06 2009, 11:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Harding is also 1-6 in one goal games this year, including a couple of ridiculous losses in games where, for example, he's faced two shots, one of which was Alfie shorthanded, and lost the game.

Like I say, if Robin's serious about the idea that there's really something to Harding's record, that's one thing...I just can't believe anyone thinks goaltending W/L matters that much.

Avatar
#28 Tyler
April 07 2009, 12:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Just to add some other names who had losing records through age 24: Bernie Parent, Billy Smith, JS Giguere and Tomas Vokoun.

The solid Avs duo of Raycroft/Budaj certainly doesn't fall in that camp: 35-27-10 and 45-26-12 respectively.

Avatar
#29 Robin Brownlee
April 07 2009, 07:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Do I have to agree with you? You've run the numbers and decided Harding is a good idea. I'm not so sure. That's how it is.

You've shifted the argument to my reference to win-loss and, no surprise, come up with more numbers to show win-loss isn't everything. I never said it was.

Win-loss is a factor for me, but so is quadrupling a player's salary, giving up a draft pick and writing off a still-young player who has been brought along (badly) and waited his turn. Do we know he's a wash-out yet? What you say is lack of confidence might just be piss-poor handling of an asset. Either way, they've done Deslauriers no favours. That much I know.

It's OK not to see it your way, and vice-versa, no?

Avatar
#30 Jonathan Willis
April 07 2009, 08:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Robin Brownlee wrote:

Do I have to agree with you? You’ve run the numbers and decided Harding is a good idea. I’m not so sure. That’s how it is.

Fair enough. But I was reading your "not so sure" as "not a chance".

I realize you're skeptical of using sv% as a guide (I am to for that matter - I think it has roughly the same limitations as using overall points as a guide), but if the Oilers' scouting crew felt Harding was a good choice would that change your mind?

Avatar
#31 Ogden Brother
April 07 2009, 08:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

CurtisS wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: Another thoughtful post.

Are you the guy that used Hemsky/Kotalik as one of your proofs that MacT was doing a bad job?

Avatar
#32 Tyler
April 07 2009, 08:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Robin Brownlee wrote:

Win-loss is a factor for me, but so is quadrupling a player’s salary, giving up a draft pick and writing off a still-young player who has been brought along (badly) and waited his turn.

Hey, it's a free world, anyone can think what they think, I just assume that most people like to use relevant criteria in formulating their assessments of various options.

I'm not sure that any of the criteria cited above are particularly relevant or at least they aren't without more. Win-loss matters if the underlying numbers suck, which they don't here. Quadrupling a player's salary matters if you wouldn't get value for the outlay, which you would if Harding's track record is right and he can be a successful starter. Writing off a still young player would matter if you weren't replacing him with something better and more likely to be an actual NHL goaltender. The draft pick matters if it's such a valuable pick that you aren't doing better by moving it.

Like I say, you don't have to agree, you don't even have to debate the point. If you want to debate the point with weak justifications though, it's a little weak, from a debating perspective, to then retreat to "Do I have to agree with you?"

Avatar
#33 topshelf FMNF
April 07 2009, 08:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

while Roli’s still around in case the kid stumbles

Is there 100% chance he will be back in Oiler silks next season?

Avatar
#34 Rick
April 07 2009, 09:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

I realize you’re skeptical of using sv% as a guide (I am to for that matter - I think it has roughly the same limitations as using overall points as a guide), but if the Oilers’ scouting crew felt Harding was a good choice would that change your mind?

I don't really have a sense one way or another on what Harding can do moving forward but it seems that the real wild card here is the Minnesota effect (or probably more specifically the Lemaire effect) and in that respect sv% probably could say quite a bit.

There isn't a tonne of reference material but there are a couple that stand out.

Roloson went from seasons of .927 (2.00 gaa) and .933 (1.88 GAA) in his final two years (not counting the year he was traded because Fernandez seemed to take over) to .909, .901 and .915. There is a substantial drop off there.

Fernandez is tough to compare because injuries and the emergence of Thomas have derailed things for him somewhat in Boston.

Here is an interesting one though in terms of a Lemaire coached team.

In the final two years Lemaire coached New Jersey, Brodeur had a .927 (1.88 GAA) and .917 (1.89 GAA) and then didn't get close to repeating those numbers for 5 more years after Lemaire was gone. His numbers dropped by over .10 sv% and his GAA increased by .5.

The point isn't that Harding definately isn't the real deal, just that there is reason to place a buyer beware tag on him considering where he is coming from.

Avatar
#35 Ogden Brother
April 07 2009, 09:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Rick wrote:

Jonathan Willis wrote: I realize you’re skeptical of using sv% as a guide (I am to for that matter - I think it has roughly the same limitations as using overall points as a guide), but if the Oilers’ scouting crew felt Harding was a good choice would that change your mind? I don’t really have a sense one way or another on what Harding can do moving forward but it seems that the real wild card here is the Minnesota effect (or probably more specifically the Lemaire effect) and in that respect sv% probably could say quite a bit. There isn’t a tonne of reference material but there are a couple that stand out. Roloson went from seasons of .927 (2.00 gaa) and .933 (1.88 GAA) in his final two years (not counting the year he was traded because Fernandez seemed to take over) to .909, .901 and .915. There is a substantial drop off there. Fernandez is tough to compare because injuries and the emergence of Thomas have derailed things for him somewhat in Boston. Here is an interesting one though in terms of a Lemaire coached team. In the final two years Lemaire coached New Jersey, Brodeur had a .927 (1.88 GAA) and .917 (1.89 GAA) and then didn’t get close to repeating those numbers for 5 more years after Lemaire was gone. His numbers dropped by over .10 sv% and his GAA increased by .5. The point isn’t that Harding definately isn’t the real deal, just that there is reason to place a buyer beware tag on him considering where he is coming from.

Agreed 100%. Going off memory, the Wild haven't had a SV% lower then .919 (for a someone with regular ice time.)

Avatar
#36 Chris
April 07 2009, 09:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The more I read about Linus Omark: the less I like him. This unproven Europunk feels entitled to a one-way NHL contract without ever playing in North America? That's the kind of attitutde the Oilers DON'T need in an already character deprived locker room. I feel much the same way about Trukhno and Plante. If the Oilers want cancer in the room just trade for Avery already... or lure Lindros out of retirement.

Avatar
#37 offside
April 07 2009, 09:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

What do you think the true outlook on Omark is? Yeah, he's scored some nice goals but he isn't exactly playing in a NHL caliber league, plus he's quite small. Does anyone think he'd actually perform at a high level in the NHL?

Avatar
#38 topshelf FMNF
April 07 2009, 09:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ offside: He's one of the top point producers in one of the top leagues in Europe. Why would he not garner at least a look from the Oilers for next season when one of their biggest problems this year was scoring goals?

Avatar
#39 Lofty
April 07 2009, 09:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Ogden Brother: couldnt agree with you more, people need to get off him, loosing Lubo was a disaster

Avatar
#40 smytty777
April 07 2009, 09:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Rick wrote:

The point isn’t that Harding definately isn’t the real deal, just that there is reason to place a buyer beware tag on him considering where he is coming from.

And what goalie is there not a huge buyer beware tag on right now. Roli? I wouldn't be surprised if he breaks down completely next year, maybe he'll be good, maybe not. He has shown the ability to be stellar, nearly out of this world (Anaheim win), and the ability to single-handedly crush the Oilers playoffs hopes all in the span of one week (losses to Minny and Anaheim).

There are no stud goalies available, only big question marks. I would rather go with a young, potential long-term solution, question mark, be it Deslaurier, Hiller or Harding, than a short-term aging one.

A second round pick and 2.6M in salary is a small risk in my view, since you are going to have to pay Roli more than that anyway. If you can pry Hiller out of the Ducks (I don't think its possible) that might be another solution.

One way or another I don't think Roli is the answer here for next year.

Avatar
#41 Ogden Brother
April 07 2009, 10:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

smytty777 wrote:

Rick wrote: The point isn’t that Harding definately isn’t the real deal, just that there is reason to place a buyer beware tag on him considering where he is coming from. And what goalie is there not a huge buyer beware tag on right now. Roli? I wouldn’t be surprised if he breaks down completely next year, maybe he’ll be good, maybe not. He has shown the ability to be stellar, nearly out of this world (Anaheim win), and the ability to single-handedly crush the Oilers playoffs hopes all in the span of one week (losses to Minny and Anaheim). There are no stud goalies available, only big question marks. I would rather go with a young, potential long-term solution, question mark, be it Deslaurier, Hiller or Harding, than a short-term aging one. A second round pick and 2.6M in salary is a small risk in my view, since you are going to have to pay Roli more than that anyway. If you can pry Hiller out of the Ducks (I don’t think its possible) that might be another solution. One way or another I don’t think Roli is the answer here for next year.

Anderson in Florida? UFA so no compensation.

Avatar
#42 Jonathan Willis
April 07 2009, 10:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ offside: @ Chris:

The same questions were asked about Zetterberg, and as always it is a wildcard. I will say this though: there isn't a forward currently in Springfield that I would take over Linus Omark.

Based on what other players have done since coming over from the SEL, Omark projects as a good second-line player right away; I'd guess they take a look at him in camp and if he performs to expectations he takes Robert Nilsson's spot. If not, he can always be sent back to Sweden, so there's really no risk in offering a contract.

And I was mistaken about the one-way thing - it's evidently the details of the contract, since an entry-level contract is by definition two-way.

Avatar
#43 Jonathan Willis
April 07 2009, 10:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Rick:

Even with the Minnesota effect, Harding's the same age as Deslauriers and his AHL numbers are way better.

He's quality IMO.

Avatar
#44 Rick
April 07 2009, 10:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ smytty777:

Where did I suggest that Rollie was the answer?

Personally I would like to see the Oilers take a pass on him altogether this summer and address the position for the long term.

If it's Harding, so be it. I just hope that if he is then the Oilers need to be completely convinced in what they will end up with.

You have to weigh the risks of what you're buying and Harding may be a bigger risk than he appears.

Avatar
#45 Rick
April 07 2009, 10:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Jonathan Willis:

Comparing him to Deslaurier doesn't really make sense to me.

The only reason to go after Harding is to find a starter and Deslaurier isn't a starter.

He has to get compared to the other starters around the league because that is the competition he would be judged against.

Avatar
#46 Chris
April 07 2009, 10:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Linus Omark should never be compared to Zetterberg. The obvious and glaring difference is strenght on the puck. Omark is VERY unlikely to be effective on smaller ice against bigger, faster opponents. Zetterberg also brings a lot of other intangibles to the ice. (Defensive awarness, speed, strength, strong work ethic, etc)

Avatar
#47 smytty777
April 07 2009, 10:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Ogden Brother: I would agree that Anderson might be another option to look at, again he is a huge question mark. I guess it depends on what you would have to offer him as a UFA. If less than $2.6M maybe he's the best option, since you are taking a risk with any of the previously mentioned goalies as well and wouldn't have to give anything up. The one problem with Anderson is it would likely have to be a multi-year deal, where Hiller and Harding would be one-year deals, minimizing the downside risk with the cap falling in 2010-11.

My main argument against Roli is that he presents equal risk that he will not perform next year and provides zero long-term upside.

Avatar
#48 smytty777
April 07 2009, 10:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Rick: I did not mean to suggest you were promoting Roli, only trying to explain that in my opinion any of the goalies that might be available have some serious questions marks attached and that I personally would like to move forward with one question mark that has long-term upside.

Avatar
#49 topshelf FMNF
April 07 2009, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Chris: Omark is 22 and Zetterberg is 29. At 22 was it known just how good Zetterberg would end up being? Probably not considering he was taken so late in the draft. With Euro's you never know until they are here.

Avatar
#50 Ogden Brother
April 07 2009, 10:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

smytty777 wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: I would agree that Anderson might be another option to look at, again he is a huge question mark. I guess it depends on what you would have to offer him as a UFA. If less than $2.6M maybe he’s the best option, since you are taking a risk with any of the previously mentioned goalies as well and wouldn’t have to give anything up. The one problem with Anderson is it would likely have to be a multi-year deal, where Hiller and Harding would be one-year deals, minimizing the downside risk with the cap falling in 2010-11. My main argument against Roli is that he presents equal risk that he will not perform next year and provides zero long-term upside.

Why would Hiller/Harding be one year deals?

Comments are closed for this article.