Trade Hemsky?

Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009 11:31AM

Hemsky and Sakic

Jim Matheson floated the idea in his piece this morning, with the Los Angeles Kings being the destination and a package consisting of Dustin Brown and Matt Greene being the return.

Lowetide’s opinion is here; he examines things from an organizational angle and stresses what the benefits would be before saying he doesn’t like the idea. I completely agree with him, but I thought it might be worthwhile to examine the relative offensive production of Brown and Hemsky year by year in the NHL.

Ales Hemsky at 19: 59GP – 6G – 24A – 30PTS (.51 PPG) Dustin Brown at 19: 31GP – 1G – 4A – 5PTS (.16 PPG)

Ales Hemsky at 20: 71GP – 12G – 22A – 34PTS (.48 PPG) Dustin Brown at 21: 79GP – 14G – 14A – 28PTS (.35 PPG)

Ales Hemsky at 22: 81GP – 19G – 58A – 77PTS (.95 PPG) Dustin Brown at 22: 81GP – 17G – 29A – 46PTS (.57 PPG)

Ales Hemsky at 23: 64GP – 13G – 40A – 53PTS (.83 PPG) Dustin Brown at 23: 78GP – 33G – 27A – 60PTS (.77 PPG)

Ales Hemsky at 24: 74GP – 20G – 51A – 71PTS (.96 PPG) Dustin Brown at 24: 80GP – 24G – 29A – 53PTS (.66 PPG)

Ales Hemsky at 25: 72G – 23G – 43A – 66PTS (.92 PPG)

Career Totals By Age 24

Ales Hemsky: 349GP – 70G – 195A – 265PTS (.76 PPG) Dustin Brown: 349GP – 89G – 103A – 192PTS (.55 PPG)

If the Oilers were to make that trade they’d be sending away someone who was a better point producer at age 25 than Pavel Datsyuk, Jarome Iginla, Henrik Sedin and Jason Spezza. They’d be sending away the best offensive talent on the team for a guy who once hit 60 points. It would mean that the best offensive season recorded by anyone on the team, ever, was Shawn Horcoff’s 73 point effort in 2005-06.

It would be a mistake.

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
#1 Twitted by OilersNation
May 03 2009, 11:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

[...] This post was Twitted by OilersNation - Real-url.org [...]

Avatar
#2 Death Metal Nightmare
May 03 2009, 11:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

finally some sanity.

the Oilers definitely need a Morrow, Brown, Doan type player in the organization (who wouldnt want one?) but giving up a key elite player at a great price who can be part of a core for almost a decade to come is retarded. its almost to the point where fans/media are so impatient (i dont blame them to a degree) that the idea of shifting around parts like impulsive credit card shoppers is what gives them a moment of happiness before pooping their smelly Edmonton diaper again.

this team needs to build a core of dependent/consistent players. that starts with Hemsky. Penner and Horcoff are brutal mistakes in that regard with a projected shrinking cap. theyre tweeners between passengers and drivers. skew the perspective all you want. theyre not players that are going to carry a team to a cup at their price. and the jury is still out on the ceiling of Gagner and Cogliano as they mature.

Avatar
#3 David S
May 03 2009, 11:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Trade Hemsky? Bah!

Interesting to note that Sam Gagner is ahead of Hemsky at 19, with a pretty crappy first half season. Man that kid is going to be good.

Avatar
#4 Victoria
May 03 2009, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Man, we need some real news.

Avatar
#5 David S
May 03 2009, 12:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Victoria wrote:

Man, we need some real news.

^ X2

Avatar
#6 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 12:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Not sure I would do it, but it isn't as "retarded" as it sounds. Both Brown & Greene are young and signed long-term to similar cap-friendly contracts as Hemsky.

Ales Hemsky 3years left @ 4.1 Dustin Brown 5 years left @ 3.175 Matt Greene 5 years left @ 2.95

When Hemsky's deal is up, he'll be looking for a hefty raise (still doesn't mean you HAVE to move him at this point, but a year from now, it might not sound so crazy).

Greene is exactly whats missing on the backend and would be a great replacement for a guy like Staios (who IMO should be moved).

Brown is also exactly what the Oil need up front.

With Gagner already in the mix, Hemsky may not be as "untouchable" as everyone thinks. They bring similar skill sets. Gagner could even be slid into Hemsky's RW spot on the #1 line (depends on how they view him long term - C or W).

Definately something to think about. Not something I'd dismiss so easily one way or the other. I'm not sure if that was just an example by Matheson, or if he's getting this info from the team to float around out there to see what kind of reaction it would receive. Matheson's pretty connected so who knows. Brownlee may be able to shed some light on if that kind of thing regularily happens or not (I'd assume it occasionally happens).

Avatar
#7 TonyT
May 03 2009, 12:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Not the first trade I'd make, but I wouldn't be entirely pissed off if it happened.

Avatar
#8 ed
May 03 2009, 12:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Hemsky's better. No thanks. I can't believe it was even brought up.

Avatar
#9 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 12:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

Brown is also exactly what the Oil need up front.

If the Oilers move Hemsky, Hemsky will be exactly what the Oilers need up front.

Avatar
#10 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 12:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Jonathan Willis: For the record, I did state I'm not sure I'd do it. And they do have some players with skill similar to Hemsky style-wise, but none like Brown, so I'm not sure that argument holds significant water. This is a blue-collar town that wants a hard-nosed, hard-working team. Brown & Greene fit that mold a lot more than the flashy Hemsky does. I know most Oil fans wouldn't think twice about a move like this before dismissing it, but I'd argue its something to at least think about.

Avatar
#11 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 12:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ RossCreek:

This is a blue-collar town that wants a hard-nosed, hard-working team.

This is a town accustomed to winning; they want a winning team. I didn't dismiss the idea out of hand, but Ales Hemsky is the only player on the team with a track record of high-end offense every single season. He's not even 26 and he can outscore tough opposition and is far and away the best powerplay option the team has.

Moving Hemsky for Brown fills one hole by opening a new one; good teams don't do that.

Avatar
#12 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 12:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

What if the deal also had a swap of 1st round picks (10th for 5th) or a salary dump from the Oil to LA (in the 2 mil range-Nilsson)? Perhaps with the Kings moving their captain, they'd be interested in bringing in Chopper in the deal.

Avatar
#13 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 12:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

is far and away the best powerplay option the team has.

Not disagreeing, but don't you think Gagner could fill that void to a certain extent. Surely within a couple of years he wouldn't be a drastic downgrade from what Hemsky is at this very moment.

Avatar
#14 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 12:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Moving Hemsky for Brown fills one hole by opening a new one; good teams don’t do that.

Kind of like moving a young faceoff/pk specialist and a young, physical, tough shutdown D for a veteran puck-mover? Not discrediting that trade, but using your logic, the Oil created 2 holes to fill 1 even though they had Souray (who missed most of the previous season), Gilbert & Grebeshkov. Now everyone says that 1 of their puckmoving D is expendable and they need a 3rd line faceoff/pk guy and a physical shutdown D. Perhaps your right... good teams don't do that.

Avatar
#15 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 12:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ RossCreek:

For the record, I think Sam Gagner is going to be a better player than Hemsky (<a href="http://www.coppernblue.com/2009/03/for-those-of-you-who-feel-sam-gagner.html rel="nofollow">he certainly tracks ahead of him right now). And from a hockey perspective, I think Ales Hemsky and the 10th overall pick for Dustin Brown, the 5th overall pick and Matt Greene is a steal for the Oilers.

All of that said, the only way those trades get done is if the team has decided that the only way to move forward is to blow-up the group and rebuild from the ground up, and I don't think there's a need to do that or an appetite among either fans or management.

Trading Hemsky for Brown is a significant downgrade in the here and now; Hemsky's the better player and probably always will be the better player, and for the Oilers to compete next year they need someone of his ilk; down the road Gagner may well outscore him but he isn't there yet.

Avatar
#16 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 01:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

Kind of like moving a young faceoff/pk specialist and a young, physical, tough shutdown D for a veteran puck-mover? Not discrediting that trade, but using your logic, the Oil created 2 holes to fill 1 even though they had Souray (who missed most of the previous season), Gilbert & Grebeshkov.

Which hole is harder to fill:

- number one defenseman

or

- third line checker/PK - tough second-pairing defenseman?

The Oilers let Marty Reasoner go too and Kurt Sauer was signed to a cheap long-term contract despite the fact that he's still better defensively than Greene.

Trading Hemsky for Brown and Greene would fill two holes at the expense of one; the opposite of the Visnovsky trade. But the hole being created is far more difficult to fill than the holes being fixed. Same question, which hole is harder to fill:

- number one RW/PP ace

or

- top-six power forward - shut-down defenseman

I get the same answer.

Avatar
#17 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Ales Hemsky and the 10th overall pick for Dustin Brown, the 5th overall pick and Matt Greene is a steal for the Oilers.

Yup. So what would even it out the most - adding Moreau, Brule or a 2nd?

Jonathan Willis wrote:

All of that said, the only way those trades get done is if the team has decided that the only way to move forward is to blow-up the group and rebuild from the ground up

I don't think that move would create such a drastic blow-up & rebuild. And it still would be an option to move a D & F for a top 6 F. Hemsky's not as "untouchable" as everyone thinks. I know this is all fodder right now, but its interesting nontheless. Hemsky wouldn't be at the top of my list to actively shop, but I wouldn't be at all opposed to the idea.

Avatar
#18 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 01:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

Hemsky wouldn’t be at the top of my list to actively shop, but I wouldn’t be at all opposed to the idea.

But then again, you're a Flames fan.

Avatar
#19 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 01:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

And it still would be an option to move a D & F for a top 6 F.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but are you suggesting that the Oilers a) move a top-six forward for an F and a D and b) move an F and a D for a top-six forward?

Because that's treading water.

Avatar
#20 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 01:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Jonathan Willis: Personally I believe KLowe sent mixed messages with all of his moves (hardly an Earth-shattering viewpoint). If they were rebuilding, why did they need Visnovsky rather than Stoll & Greene? Especially when they already had Souray who missed most of the previous season. Their D was automatically gonna get better with a healthy Souray, and they shipped out players from their young core (players that were a part of the Cup run) for a 30+ defenseman. Mixed messages indeed. The trade itself wasn't a bad one by any stretch as a hockey move, but wasn't necassarily the right type of move for this organization at that time.

Avatar
#21 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 01:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but are you suggesting that the Oilers a) move a top-six forward for an F and a D and b) move an F and a D for a top-six forward? Because that’s treading water.

Yes essentially I guess thats what I'm saying. Remember though, I never said I would definately do it. It's all about changing the chemistry & makeup of the team (the "culture" if you will). Its not like those types of moves would guarentee a sideways move (nor is it a guarentee they'd be better off). Tambellini has suggested he wants to change the makeup - a F & D for a F, and a F for a F & D would do just that. It's not as assinine as you make it seem.

Avatar
#22 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 01:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

RossCreek wrote: Hemsky wouldn’t be at the top of my list to actively shop, but I wouldn’t be at all opposed to the idea. But then again, you’re a Flames fan.

Correct you are Jonathan. That doesn't mean I can't look at things objectively. I'm a hockey fan 1st. I live in the Edmonton area and see, hear & read all. My viewpoints aren't to suggest moves that would make the Oil worse just for spite. Quite the contrary. If that was my MO, I probably wouldn't be here posting, or I'd be posting a lot more ignorant things.

Avatar
#23 kingsblade
May 03 2009, 01:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

@ Jonathan Willis: Personally I believe KLowe sent mixed messages with all of his moves (hardly an Earth-shattering viewpoint). If they were rebuilding, why did they need Visnovsky rather than Stoll & Greene? Especially when they already had Souray who missed most of the previous season. Their D was automatically gonna get better with a healthy Souray, and they shipped out players from their young core (players that were a part of the Cup run) for a 30+ defenseman. Mixed messages indeed. The trade itself wasn’t a bad one by any stretch as a hockey move, but wasn’t necassarily the right type of move for this organization at that time.

They weren't rebuilding when they made that trade. They were making a move they though would help the team make a playoff run. That much should be obvious when you consider preseason statements made about challenging for the division and such.

Making the discussed trade of Hemsky to LA sounds to me like one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. (not counting the hypothetical addendum of swapping picks of course) That's why I'm so afraid it might happen.

Avatar
#24 Fiveandagame
May 03 2009, 01:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I don't think this team can trade any of it's major pieces until they see what a new voice behind the bench can do. Hemsky was clearly frustrated last year as was Penner and a few others.

Lets not forget what a bum Lupul was under MacT. I'm not saying Lupul is a great hockey player but he does score goals and has scored a bunch since being run out of town.

Spare parts and a puck moving d will be dealt before training camp but I wouldn't expect much more until the team has 20-30 games under it's belt.

And unless you're getting an elite winger + for Hemsky, who in their right mind would give him up?

Avatar
#25 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ kingsblade: But they were "rebuilding" the season before, were they not? And then all of the sudden, 1 year later they decided they had enough of that and wanted to go in a different direction and "challenge" for the division title. That worked out well, eh? That is the mixed message I'm talking about. You don't just flip flop from year to year. Stick with a plan!

Avatar
#26 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

It’s all about changing the chemistry & makeup of the team (the “culture” if you will).

The problem I have with that is there has already been a two/thirds turnover of the roster over the past two seasons. I think the Oilers need to stop making a ton of changes; they already have a new coach and they'll be bringing in players to fill needs. Change for the sake of change would be a mistake at this point, IMO.

Besides, whatever happened to those Oilers teams that everyone said were so tight? I suspect that truning over two-thirds of the roster had something to do with it.

Avatar
#27 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

You don’t just flip flop from year to year. Stick with a plan!

A big part of the reason Kevin Lowe had to go, IMO.

Avatar
#28 kingsblade
May 03 2009, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

@ kingsblade: But they were “rebuilding” the season before, were they not? And then all of the sudden, 1 year later they decided they had enough of that and wanted to go in a different direction and “challenge” for the division title. That worked out well, eh? That is the mixed message I’m talking about. You don’t just flip flop from year to year. Stick with a plan!

Oh I can definitely agree with that. I was just pointing out that that move specifically was not a rebuilding move and was not intended to be.

I think they should trade Hemsky for Ovechkin and Semin. That would help with the rebuilding I bet. (Sorry that was for the benefit of "David S." and his comments from a previous thread.)

Avatar
#29 kingsblade
May 03 2009, 02:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ RossCreek: I should say something else though. While I agree with you I general terms, they did have reason to believe that they may have turned a corner. It is not unheard of to go from a rebuilding team to a challenger in one year, like the Hawks for example.

They felt like they had the payers in place that a couple of good moves could do it. They were very wrong in that assessment, but it is not unheard of for a teams fortunes to change as quickly as that.

That being said...you are definitely right in this situation, and JW too, for his statement hast that was a big problem with Low. He couldn't seem to make up his mind how to build this team.

Avatar
#30 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 02:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

kingsblade wrote:

It is not unheard of to go from a rebuilding team to a challenger in one year, like the Hawks for example.

I'd argue that it wasn't a 1 year rebuild for the Hawks (even though it may seem like that). You could see their fortunes changing a couple years back.

As for Lowe, I think he still has too much player in him - he hates to lose, and therefore rebuilding was way too hard for him. Its hard to fault that attribute, but its easy to say his time as GM had come & gone.

Avatar
#31 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 02:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

As for Lowe, I think he still has too much player in him - he hates to lose, and therefore rebuilding was way too hard for him.

There are two decisions that I fault Lowe on:

- the 2006 trade of Chris Pronger that (along with free agency) turned this into a rebuilding team. - the Penner offer sheet; this team should have tanked for another year and then emerged, rather than trying to buy it's way out

Avatar
#32 Hemmertime
May 03 2009, 02:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

He couldn't do the trade. We fans would be flabbergasted at the trade unless it was a package for Malkin or someone of that caliber - I'd be happyish with #1 or #2 pick overall, but a move to land 4-8 overall would be no. Even then you would have fans question it, but any move that could be deemed "debatable" would be an outright call for Tambos head. The new owner, a cap, all the money to keep our stars, and instead of Weight/Smyth leaving we would be again losing our top player - for a chance at another Joffery Lupul or Dustin Penner. Hemsky is a proven performer, was our entire offensive strategy (good idea? Well hes gone for a reason) under MacT. Even on the nights we lose he still is entertaining enough to put fans in the seats - as if we needed that. Ask any person who the best player is on the Oilers now, and if they don't answer Roli, Big Sexy or Vis its 83 (for even more biased results - ask best Forward!). Ask After that trade the best forward and your ripe for debate. We should not, could not, and would not trade Ales Hemsky in that deal.

Avatar
#33 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 02:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Hemmertime: Uhh, did you just more or less say the only way you'd trade Hemsky is for Malkin or someone of that calibre? Seriously? Or did I read that wrong?

Avatar
#34 chronictaco
May 03 2009, 02:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Hemsky to LA (e4)

Avatar
#35 Hemmertime
May 03 2009, 02:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

With my Nick Im obviously biased, I re-read what I wrote and Knew someone would think Im one of those Hemsky for Malkin idiots. I was meaning the only way we would pull the trigger on him was a Our first round pick, Grebeshkov or Vis and Hemsky for an elite player. Otherwise in a move that could be seen as sideways it would be a horrible way to endear us to Tambo

Avatar
#36 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 02:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Hemmertime: Alright, I'll let it slide since you explained yourself. I was gonna bash you, but I thought I'd give you a chance 1st. Carry on.

Avatar
#37 Hemmertime
May 03 2009, 02:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ RossCreek: I'd have deserved it, it hurts when I have to bash people telling them The Hemsky wouldn't land the elite alone. Hell, he wouldnt land Marleau alone. But I'll still argue hes one of the top 5 Entertaining players when people use such logic as "winning" and "points".

Avatar
#38 GSC
May 03 2009, 03:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Idiotic proposal on Matheson's part, let me count the ways:

1) Hemsky's contract is an absolute beauty. Top scorer for $4.1 MIL, you don't trade away a player who ridiculously outperforms his contract like Ales does.

2) He's an all-world talent and easily the best offensive skater that the Oilers have. There's no one who comes anywhere close in comparison on this team.

3) He's had NO ONE to play with, and don't you dare argue that Horcoff and Penner are good enough to benefit from his play. He's had garbage linemates, and when he has had someone who knows what the hell they're doing (see: Smyth, Ryan and Samsonov, Sergei), he's reached that elite level.

4) Dustin Brown comes no where close in terms of scoring, he's reached 60 points once and only makes $1 MIL less than Hemmer. I like Mean Matt Greene, but at $2.95 MIL? We'd be taking on far more salary for less offence and no guarantee of any improvement defensively, which is a big NO-NO in the cap world.

5) I'm mentioning #4 twice because it's that important to recognise the consequences of such a boneheaded deal. Such a deal makes ZERO sense, both in terms of on-ice and salary cap ramifications.

I don't care if he's a HHOF writer, Jim needs give his head on shake on this one.

Avatar
#39 Jonathan Willis
May 03 2009, 03:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ GSC:

The real question is whether this is coming from Matheson or if Matheson has heard rumours that it might be on the table.

If the former, it's sort of a silly column; and I don't think Matheson floats trade ideas for his own amusement. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that L.A. suggested something along these lines.

Avatar
#40 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 03:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

GSC wrote:

and no guarantee of any improvement defensively

Disagree with that point. They would be better defensively. The added work ethic Brown & Greene bring compared to Hemsky is another thing to look at. These guys compete every night. Again, not saying I'd be in favor of such a move, but its far from idiotic. And if Matheson is throwing it out there, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss. Perhaps there would be more to the deal and those would be the bigger names involved. Or maybe there's a deal out there that makes more sense involving Hemsky. Trading him wouldn't be the worst move they could make (depending on who they receive in return).

I like Hemsky; think he's oozing talent. But he doesn't make players around him better the way true elite superstars do. Crosby played half the year with Pascal Dupuis & Ruslan Fedotenko for God sakes! Now I'm not trying to compare Hemsky to Crosby, but I just feel that Hemmer's a TAD overrated in this market (as I said, I think he's oozing talent). If he's your best forward, your probably not an elite team. If he's your 2nd best forward, you just may be one.

The downside of a deal like this would be watching Hemsky go to LA to play with Kopitar (where he'd be the 2nd best forward and have the benefit of playing with a real superstar). But you have to worry about your own, not what he's gonna do elsewhere. If you think it changes the identity of your team in a positive manner, you make the move. If not, you don't. Ultimately, Tambellini & Lowe will make that decision without our input.

Avatar
#41 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 03:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that L.A. suggested something along these lines.

Why do you put it that way. Maybe the Oil are the ones floating this to see how the fans would react to moving Hemsky.

I'm not saying that your wrong, but could it be that the opposite is true and Matheson is "working" for the Oil on this one?

Avatar
#42 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 03:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Robin Brownlee: Chime in anytime here ;-)

Avatar
#43 Andrew W
May 03 2009, 04:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jonathan Willis

What about packaging Hemsky with another sought after player, say Gilbert, for a truly elite top six player? Somebody like Jeff Carter, playing for a team with too many centres and too few puck moving d? I know that Philly would much rather move Briere, yet as it's highly unlikely any other team would take that contract, a package like this one might be an alternative for them.

This may be pie in the sky dreaming, but it's the direction I'd like to see the team take if moving Hemsky is being considered: packaging him with somebody else for a young perennial all-star with 40+ goal seasons under their belt, not for a valuable but less talented player like Brown.

Avatar
#44 Rice
May 03 2009, 04:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I know he is just a prospect, but with what Omark is doing at the Worlds this year may make him a good top line LW with Hemmer. the price is right and it allows for focus on other holes. I realize that he is just a prospect, but playing with Sweden means he has some talent on his team and there is some decently high calibre opposition at the tourny as well. It isn't the NHL, but it is probably a close second. He might be one of the answers to the Oils troubles.

Avatar
#45 RossCreek
May 03 2009, 04:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Rice: And he signed in the Russian KHL for next season rather than come to North America.

Avatar
#46 Bob Cob
May 03 2009, 05:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

It would be a huge mistake, and down the line the Oilers would regret it. For once Jonathon I agree with you 100%

Avatar
#47 Joel Quenneville's Moustache
May 03 2009, 05:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Who cares really? Does anybody here believe this team would trade Hemsky right now?

Avatar
#48 Jasmine
May 03 2009, 05:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

RossCreek wrote: As for Lowe, I think he still has too much player in him - he hates to lose, and therefore rebuilding was way too hard for him. There are two decisions that I fault Lowe on: - the 2006 trade of Chris Pronger that (along with free agency) turned this into a rebuilding team. - the Penner offer sheet; this team should have tanked for another year and then emerged, rather than trying to buy it’s way out

I have heard that EIG threatened to fire him if he didn't someone soon and that is why the OS was tendered.

Avatar
#49 Jasmine
May 03 2009, 05:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jasmine wrote:

Jonathan Willis wrote: RossCreek wrote: As for Lowe, I think he still has too much player in him - he hates to lose, and therefore rebuilding was way too hard for him. There are two decisions that I fault Lowe on: - the 2006 trade of Chris Pronger that (along with free agency) turned this into a rebuilding team. - the Penner offer sheet; this team should have tanked for another year and then emerged, rather than trying to buy it’s way out I have heard that EIG threatened to fire him if he didn’t someone soon and that is why the OS was tendered.

Should have rad if he didn't sign someone soon

Avatar
#50 Rice
May 03 2009, 05:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

@ Rice: And he signed in the Russian KHL for next season rather than come to North America.

Right, I knew that.. just a bit of a brain fart. Its a bit smelly in here

Comments are closed for this article.