Armchair GM V: housekeeping items

Robin Brownlee
June 01 2009 01:42PM

Even with the hiring of head coach Pat Quinn, associate coach Tom Renney and assistant Kelly Buchberger taken care of, Oilers GM Steve Tambellini has a full plate these days.

The first order of business for Tambellini right now is schmoozing and setting the table for possible deals down the road at a meeting of general managers in Pittsburgh over the next couple of days.

While we media types refer to trades made at the NHL Entry Draft as, duh, draft-day deals, the feeling out process begins weeks ahead of time when the GMs get together to kick tires as to what-ifs and possibilities with an eye to when everybody gets together again at the draft.

Given the significant tweaks Tambellini is looking to make to the roster, the glad-handing, huddling and casual inquiries that mark these gab sessions will be particularly important before the draft begins in Montreal.

Hey, big spender, can I buy you a drink?

Looking ahead

If Tambellini manages to package up (unload), say, a Robert Nilsson and a Rob Schremp for pucks, I mean picks, chances are the seeds of that deal will be sown in Pittsburgh before the action heats up down on St. Catherines Street in Montreal.

Same thing if Tambellini is looking to move up in draft order from the 10th spot. I know, it never happens with the Oilers, but there's no harm in asking what it might take to slip into the top five, and Tambellini will do his due diligence on that front.

Likewise, you can bet Tambellini will ask around about players who might fit into one of his top six-forward spots, preferably on left wing. Would making a defenceman like, say, Tom Gilbert (you knew this was coming) and a leader of men like Ethan Moreau available be the start of a meaningful discussion before things get busy on the draft floor?

You'd have to be profoundly dense not to understand Tambellini has depth on the blue line and that, jettisoning spare parts aside, the most likely move is that he'll use that depth to attempt to fill that top six spot.

The checklist

From what I understand, Tambellini will wrap up the GM schmoozefest and jet to Kelowna to oversee meetings with assistant GM Kevin Prendergast and the amateur scouting staff in preparation for the draft.

Aside from going over his staff's draft list -- who is this Turkish goalie we've got rated No. 10? -- Tambellini has his work cut for him in the next 10 days. In no particular order:

-- What about naming a head coach in Springfield? I'd be stunned if it isn't Rob Daum, but I'm going strictly by common sense and the job Daum did at the end of last season despite being saddled with, essentially, an ECHL roster, especially on defence. Indications are we won't hear anything on the Springfield front until next week.

-- What about adding a second assistant to the coaching staff? People are already guessing about who that might be, but I haven't heard one firm word from anybody who calls the shots that the decision has even been made to go with a staff of four.

-- Who replaces video coach Brian Ross, a Craig MacTavish hire who was let go with assistants Charlie Huddy and Bill Moores?

-- What happens with goaltending coach Pete Peeters?

-- Does Rod Phillips come back for his 37th season as radio play-by-play man or does he hand the microphone over to Bob Stauffer?

When I know, you'll know.

-- Listen to Robin Brownlee every Thursday from 4 to 6 p.m. on Just A Game with Jason Gregor on TEAM 1260.

Aceb4a1816f5fa09879a023b07d1a9b4
A sports writer since 1983, including stints at The Edmonton Journal and The Sun 1989-2007, I happily co-host the Jason Gregor Show on TSN 1260 twice a week and write when so inclined. Have the best damn lawn on the internet. Most important, I am Sam's dad. Follow me on Twitter at Robin_Brownlee. Or don't.
Avatar
#101 Ogden Brother
June 02 2009, 12:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

@ speeds: Where I am going with all this: If the Oilers, who are already deep on defencemen signed long term, draft Ellis… and end up later trading his rights for a Kassian type player to address their need for size; what is the difference? More importantly, what if they need that Kassian type player and are unable to make that trade? Obviously you always try to take the BPA; but is the player ranked 11th THAT much worse than the player ranked 10th? Also, organizational values come into play when creating the lists. When looking at the Oilers record the last twenty years, it may be time to review Organizational values. I like my Gagner, Cogliano example. If the Oilers try to muck through another year with Cogliano as the checking line center, it will prove to me that there are some pitfalls with the “pure” BPA concept. The pitfalls of drafting to need are well known; I just think it is important to acknowledge there may be pitfalls the other way as well.

I agree, but at the same time. We both know if the Oil would have grabbed say Downie instead of Cogs or Mcdounagh insted of Gagner you'd be complaining that they didn't go BPA ;)

Avatar
#102 Mikey
June 02 2009, 12:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I think the only time you would draft for need is if you were 100% sure the player would be able to make it onto the roster that fall. That's the only way it makes sense.

Avatar
#103 speeds
June 02 2009, 12:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: Fair enough. I could be wrong about overall trade activity… But let us further examine the BPA concept: So the Oilers figured the BPA at 25th overall in 2005 was Cogliano. (Great Pick…Prendergast was right)Then the Oilers didn’t have another first round pick until 2007 when they grabbed Gagner. (Another small center and also the absolute BPA) Both players are now up and contributing with the big club. Unfortunately, IMO, there isn’t really room for both players on the roster. Each guy is ideal to slot in as second line center as neither guy has been effective on the wing, or in a checking/shutdown role. The true test and ultimate validation of the pure BPA concept: Can Tambellini get a different type of player with similar value, and quality to either Cogliano or Gagner to make the roster better? Does he have either the ability, or the will to do so? If he does not, in a stupid sort of way, the Oilers would have been better off last season had they drafted a Reasoner type player instead of Cogliano… Having lots of good players means nothing if you don’t have the right mix. Just ask the pre-lockout Rangers.

I think there is room for both Gagner and Cogliano on the roster, and I don't think it's fair to say that the drafting strategy in picking both players was wrong because EDM, for some reason chooses to play Cogliano at C when they easily could have signed a vet 3rd line C last summer and shifted Cogliano to the wing.

As for Gaganer being the absolute BPA, I don't think it was clear cut between Gagner and Voracek at the time of the draft. I know I prefered Voracek at that time. I will say that I do believe EDM thought him to be the BPA, it doesn't seem like they "drafted for need" with Gagner.

Avatar
#104 Chris
June 02 2009, 12:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother:

Your examples are somewhat extreme...

So how about mine: What if the Oilers had used having Cogliano as an excuse to not draft Gagner; taking Jakub Voracek instead? (a winger with both size and skill)... Cogliano may have had twenty goals last season as the uncontested second line center; the Oilers would have made it a priority to keep Reasoner (who would have helped the PK IMO); and the team may have squeeked into the playoffs... Also Voracek would be the organizational hope for the future to play left wing with Hemsky. IMO, Gagner is probably a better player than Voracek... But the Oilers would have been better off drafting the winger they needed instead. That said, the BPA concept trumps my example if the Oilers could now keep Gagner and swap Cogliano for Voracek straight accross... (Unfortunately, this will never happen)

Avatar
#105 Chris
June 02 2009, 12:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ speeds: Funny. You brought up Voracek well I was still writing the above post. At the time, being so deep in smallish centers, I thought the Oilers should have taken Voracek... (When players are extremely close... draft to need)

Avatar
#106 MattN
June 02 2009, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Every year we get so wrapped up in prospects. How many first round draft busts or late round sleeper picks do we have to see before we realize that this is a very inaccurate science.

(stealing Scott Cullens numbers)

Between 1995 and 2004 only 67% of all draft picks played 100 games in the NHL.

To put this a different way, statistically speaking, if the Oilers had all 30 picks in the first round instead of just 1, 10 of these picks would never get more than a cup of coffee in the NHL. Of the 20 that remain, how many would be considered "impact players"?

Trying to quantify the difference between Kassian, Glennie and Ellis is pretty ineffective.

My personal favorite draft strategy would be to aquire as many picks as possible. Keep rolling the dice.

Avatar
#107 Ogden Brother
June 02 2009, 12:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris:

It was extreme, but to make the point it needed to be. The Gagner draft was a little different because at 6 overall, you should still have a pretty good shot at landing a high end player if you reach off board by 2-3 spots. Most of our picks have been in the 10 - 25 range though, odds of you getting a comparable player that fits your needs goes down substantially in that range.

Avatar
#108 Ogden Brother
June 02 2009, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

MattN wrote:

Every year we get so wrapped up in prospects. How many first round draft busts or late round sleeper picks do we have to see before we realize that this is a very inaccurate science. (stealing Scott Cullens numbers) Between 1995 and 2004 only 67% of all draft picks played 100 games in the NHL. To put this a different way, statistically speaking, if the Oilers had all 30 picks in the first round instead of just 1, 10 of these picks would never get more than a cup of coffee in the NHL. Of the 20 that remain, how many would be considered “impact players”? Trying to quantify the difference between Kassian, Glennie and Ellis is pretty ineffective. My personal favorite draft strategy would be to aquire as many picks as possible. Keep rolling the dice.

Is it really that high a %? From what I've seen, outside the first round only 5% - 10% of guys play 100+ games.

Avatar
#109 Chris
June 02 2009, 12:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

@ Chris: It was extreme, but to make the point it needed to be. The Gagner draft was a little different because at 6 overall, you should still have a pretty good shot at landing a high end player if you reach off board by 2-3 spots. Most of our picks have been in the 10 - 25 range though, odds of you getting a comparable player that fits your needs goes down substantially in that range.

This is another funny little quirk in the BPA vs Need debate. Teams universally go BPA in the first round, but try to fill organizational needs in later rounds. Like you just said, I often wonder if it should be the other way around. First rounders are more carefully ranked, and will play sooner. This year in particular, Garth Snow can't go wrong asking himself if he NEEDS a stud defenceman, or a future marqee forward... This is almost a more important question than which guy is slightly better... any of the top three picks will be great.

Avatar
#110 Chris
June 02 2009, 12:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

speeds wrote:

I think there is room for both Gagner and Cogliano on the roster, and I don’t think it’s fair to say that the drafting strategy in picking both players was wrong because EDM, for some reason chooses to play Cogliano at C when they easily could have signed a vet 3rd line C last summer and shifted Cogliano to the wing.

So which second line is better?

O'Sullivan-Gagner-Cogliano

or

O'Sullivan-Cogliano-Voracek.

Trying to convert Cogliano to the wing makes less sence than just making an appropriate trade. If you can never seem to make an appropriate trade: why not just draft a winger in the first place?

Avatar
#111 Hemmertime
June 02 2009, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother: Gomez/Nylander/Kariya/Hossa/Parise with no luck. Also, Souray was hardly highly disirable.

Gomez 7.357 cap hit. I doubt we offered 7.5 long term to Gomez with Horcoff in place. That may have been a city choice for Gomez vs other teams, but vs Edmonon wasnt city but the money. Nylander - You mean Mrs. Nylander, the Mr and his Agent were fine with it. But you got me there. Kariya - Lost out on FW that year yes, but Signed Souray same offseason, who was, even if undesirable to some people - a top 10 free agent that year. There are 30 teams in the league so signing a top D is still a semi successful offseason. Landing an Elite FW via Free Agency is slim. Lets say 3-4 come up per year. Thats 30-40 per 10 years for 30 teams in league. So if snatch 1 up within 5 years of having money bags Katz as owner Ill be happy, and patient. That would be above the norm. Hossa - Like I said, when Its Edmonton vs Det its Nobody vs Det. Parise RFA who NJ and everyone knew would match. We went for Vanek - who DID sign, and were matched. So the way I see it we have inked deals with top 5 free agents/RFA each year that Katz has been around and thus I wont bitch too much. Would I like Hossa? Sure, love him this year, but I will still give 2-3 more years at the plate for GMs here before I call for their heads.

Avatar
#112 MyrJ
June 02 2009, 01:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Robin Brownlee:

I realize that our dmen are our strength, and I agree that dealing one of them would be best. However, I don't think dealing Gilbert would be best. As I said, within a couple of seasons, it would look bad. Why not trade Souray or Visnovsky to a team who has a win-now mindset? For one, they both performed better than Gilbert, and would (theoretically) give us a larger return. Secondly, we would keep Gilbert, who should (also theoretically) continue to develop into the high end dmen that his potential and contract says he can. In return, we could also get a strong forward prospect, which works for us, since the Oilers can't win 'now', but they can very soon.

Avatar
#113 MyrJ
June 02 2009, 01:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris:

Converting Cogs to the wing would make better sense, since this past season showed he couldn't consistently win a faceoff. With Cogs and Gagner, you have the one with brains at center setting up a play, while the one with speed rushing into the open spot to score the goal.

Avatar
#114 Ogden Brother
June 02 2009, 01:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Hemmertime wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: Gomez/Nylander/Kariya/Hossa/Parise with no luck. Also, Souray was hardly highly disirable. Gomez 7.357 cap hit. I doubt we offered 7.5 long term to Gomez with Horcoff in place. That may have been a city choice for Gomez vs other teams, but vs Edmonon wasnt city but the money. Nylander - You mean Mrs. Nylander, the Mr and his Agent were fine with it. But you got me there. Kariya - Lost out on FW that year yes, but Signed Souray same offseason, who was, even if undesirable to some people - a top 10 free agent that year. There are 30 teams in the league so signing a top D is still a semi successful offseason. Landing an Elite FW via Free Agency is slim. Lets say 3-4 come up per year. Thats 30-40 per 10 years for 30 teams in league. So if snatch 1 up within 5 years of having money bags Katz as owner Ill be happy, and patient. That would be above the norm. Hossa - Like I said, when Its Edmonton vs Det its Nobody vs Det. Parise RFA who NJ and everyone knew would match. We went for Vanek - who DID sign, and were matched. So the way I see it we have inked deals with top 5 free agents/RFA each year that Katz has been around and thus I wont bitch too much. Would I like Hossa? Sure, love him this year, but I will still give 2-3 more years at the plate for GMs here before I call for their heads.

Believe what you wish, the evidence is pretty clear that FA's avoid Canada... (Montreal/Edmonton specifically) and why wouldn't they?

Wouldn't you prefer: beutiful weather/little to no media/little to no fan pressure/more money (less tax) and for the next little bit, dirt cheap housing to boot.

Avatar
#115 MyrJ
June 02 2009, 01:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris:

Teams go BPA early rounds, then organizational need later rounds, because of the player themselves. With BPA, you're getting a young 18 year old, and who knows what they'll be in 10 years. Chris Phillip is a player who comes to mind as a player who was drafted but became something completely different in the long run, from a forward to a dman. You need to draft BPA and hope for the best, cause stuff can happen. In later rounds, the reason why they can go by need is because they're not always expected to be a cornerstone, so you use them as stopgaps until your true cornerstone players from the early rounds are ready to step in. Think Markkanen, Pisa, etc.

Avatar
#116 The Menace
June 02 2009, 01:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

MattN wrote:

Every year we get so wrapped up in prospects. How many first round draft busts or late round sleeper picks do we have to see before we realize that this is a very inaccurate science. (stealing Scott Cullens numbers) Between 1995 and 2004 only 67% of all draft picks played 100 games in the NHL. To put this a different way, statistically speaking, if the Oilers had all 30 picks in the first round instead of just 1, 10 of these picks would never get more than a cup of coffee in the NHL. Of the 20 that remain, how many would be considered “impact players”? Trying to quantify the difference between Kassian, Glennie and Ellis is pretty ineffective. My personal favorite draft strategy would be to aquire as many picks as possible. Keep rolling the dice.

There's a flaw in this argument: you're saying that 67% of ALL draft picks stay in the NHL. Then you're applying that to just the first round. It stands to reason that of all the rounds, the most players would stay in the NHL from the first round; players from later rounds would have harder times staying in the bigs.

Avatar
#117 The Menace
June 02 2009, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

that said, I like the idea of acquiring more picks.

Avatar
#118 Chris
June 02 2009, 01:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ MyrJ:

Cogliano doesn't win draws (nor does Gagner) so he shouldn't be used in a defensive/shutdown role; but that doesn't mean Cogliano shouldn't play center. IMO, Cogliano is an excellent young center and potential 25 goal scorer. His speed up the middle is his primary weapon but he needs that open ice to be effective... I also like his ability to backcheck from the center ice position. As a winger, Cogliano is awful small to be mucking it up along the boards; and despite his speed, isn't particularly great at retrieving the puck down low. I think it's a waste of Cogliano's abilities to cut his ice in half, and send him charging wide on a nightly basis. By following the principals of BPA first round drafting, the Oilers are now redundant at center. Why skate Cogliano as a 30 point winger when you can trade him as a 50 point center?

Avatar
#119 Chris
June 02 2009, 02:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

Why skate Cogliano as a 30 point winger when you can trade him as a 50 point center?

Or better put: Why not trade Cogliano for a player more comfortable or suitable to play the wing.

Also, I still have had no opinions regarding post #110. Which is the better line? Think about it. The logic applies before you consider forcing Cogs to the wing.

Avatar
#120 Chris
June 02 2009, 02:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Robin Brownlee:

I know the consensus is that Tambellini will offer up a top four d-man as trade bait for a top six forward. Why not trade one of either Cogliano or Gagner instead? The defence is fine... why mess with it? IMO, the problems with the forwards relate more to the overall mix, not the overall talent level.

Avatar
#121 Ogden Brother
June 02 2009, 02:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

Chris wrote: Why skate Cogliano as a 30 point winger when you can trade him as a 50 point center? Or better put: Why not trade Cogliano for a player more comfortable or suitable to play the wing. Also, I still have had no opinions regarding post #110. Which is the better line? Think about it. The logic applies before you consider forcing Cogs to the wing.

Too early to call which is the better line. If Gagner puts up Savard #'s and Vorachek puts up Saku Koivu numbers I'll take the out of position player.

Avatar
#122 Ogden Brother
June 02 2009, 02:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

@ Robin Brownlee: I know the consensus is that Tambellini will offer up a top four d-man as trade bait for a top six forward. Why not trade one of either Cogliano or Gagner instead? The defence is fine… why mess with it? IMO, the problems with the forwards relate more to the overall mix, not the overall talent level.

We'd still have too many PMD's vs physical guys on the back end.

Our defense is highly overated on here... our GAA has been to high for far to long.

Avatar
#123 Chris
June 02 2009, 02:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother:

I see your point... but you are arguing to UPGRADE the defence through changing the MIX on the backend. Many people who post here regularly argue in favor of scenario's where net talent is moved out of the back end to upgrade net talent on the front end. This doesn't necessarily have to occur. There are valuable pieces on the front end that can be used as trade bait also.

Avatar
#124 Chris
June 02 2009, 03:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ogden Brother wrote:

Too early to call which is the better line.

IMO Voracek will eventually be a first line player... as will Gagner. Ideally, Tambellini needs to find a legitimate first line left winger to fill the hole left by Smyth so many years ago. It is easier to replace/upgrade the hole at third line center via free agency if you move Cogliano to fill this need, as opposed to replacing a top four D-man if you move Gilbert.

Essentially, I'm saying if you move a D-man for a top six forward, you further cloud the situation upfront, while sacrificing depth on the back-end. Obviously, moving a d-man for a forward, will likely set off a chain reaction of other necessary moves. If multiple deals cannot/won't fall into place, it may be easier to simply move Cogliano for a forward of similar quality; a forward who fits more logically on the depth chart.

Avatar
#125 Ogden Brother
June 02 2009, 03:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: I see your point… but you are arguing to UPGRADE the defence through changing the MIX on the backend. Many people who post here regularly argue in favor of scenario’s where net talent is moved out of the back end to upgrade net talent on the front end. This doesn’t necessarily have to occur. There are valuable pieces on the front end that can be used as trade bait also.

Ya, I'm not sure why no one wants to trade forwards. In my mind the perfect summer would be:

One of Cogs/O'sully and one of Souray/Vis/Gilbert/Grebs out

One of Volchenkov/Phillips/Mitchell (or someone similar) and one of Horton/J Staal/Malone/Hartnell in

Wouldn't matter who goes for who as long as some variation is accomplished.

complimented with a Malhotra or Pahlson and Anderson/Clemmenson/Harding signing.

Avatar
#126 Chad
June 02 2009, 03:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Well anyone who hoped that the Oil would sign Hosa may be let down. Rumors floating that he will sign a 7 year deal with the wings at the end of the finals.

Avatar
#127 Chris
June 02 2009, 03:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chad:

I've often wondered how the Oilers would deploy Hossa. Hossa has always said, he preferrs to play on the right wing...

Avatar
#128 RossCreek
June 02 2009, 03:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chad Ya I've heard that too. Michael Farber of Sports Illustrated is reporting that they have a 7 year deal done, but have to wait for the playoffs to be over to announce it. Of course, this could just be speculation at this time, but I don't think this would surprise anyone.

Avatar
#129 speeds
June 02 2009, 03:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

O’Sullivan-Gagner-Cogliano or O’Sullivan-Cogliano-Voracek. Trying to convert Cogliano to the wing makes less sence than just making an appropriate trade. If you can never seem to make an appropriate trade: why not just draft a winger in the first place?

I'm not the guy to ask, as I said I'd have drafted Voracek to begin with, and think just as much of him going forward as I do of Gagner.

I also reject your "If...?", because I think you can make an appropriate trade - the Oilers probably just really like Cogliano and value him more than the offers they have received. That said, I think he's somewhat likely to be traded this summer, and I think he holds more value in a trade for a winger than picking a clearly inferior winger that looks less promising and keeping him.

All that said, I don't disagree that when you've got two prospects you judge to be more or less equivalent in value, it makes more sense to draft the one that fits your organizational depth chart better.

I don't agree with picking a clearly inferior PF prospect when your team is small, over a clearly superior smaller F prospect. You're giving away too much value, IMO, even if you have to make trades later and that isn't the easiest thing in the world.

But there's a selection bias problem, because you don't have the "problem" of having to make a trade in the case where you pick an inferior prospect and he busts, because you don't have an asset of value.

Avatar
#130 Chris
June 02 2009, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ speeds:

I always said I support the BPA concept... but even the Oilers MUST have known Gagner and Voracek were close. Since they were so close, I think Predergast should have taken Voracek based on need; It wouldn't matter if Gagner was "slightly" better. The only explanation I can come up with, is either Predergast strictly adheared to his list, or he didn't really KNOW what he had in Cogliano... The latter wouldn't surprise me. I'll lead the fire Predergast bandwagon; he seems very uninformed about his own prospects.

Avatar
#131 Chris
June 02 2009, 04:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I'd bet a Detroit fan who wandered onto this site would find the way we agonize over the possibility of trading players like Cogliano, or even Hemsky, rather amusing.

Avatar
#132 Robin Brownlee
June 02 2009, 05:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ MyrJ: It's more difficult to move Souray or Visnovsky, given their ages and cap hit.

Avatar
#133 kingsblade
June 02 2009, 06:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Robin Brownlee wrote:

@ MyrJ: It’s more difficult to move Souray or Visnovsky, given their ages and cap hit.

Isn't that also a good reason for why the team should try to move them first (Souray anyways, I don't really want to move Visnovsky) and move Gilbert only as a last resort?

Avatar
#134 David S
June 02 2009, 06:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chad wrote:

Well anyone who hoped that the Oil would sign Hosa may be let down. Rumors floating that he will sign a 7 year deal with the wings at the end of the finals.

Just watching the Wings right now. If I'm Hossa, re-signing with this organization is a no-brainer.

Avatar
#135 Chad
June 03 2009, 10:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

David S wrote:

Chad wrote: Well anyone who hoped that the Oil would sign Hosa may be let down. Rumors floating that he will sign a 7 year deal with the wings at the end of the finals. Just watching the Wings right now. If I’m Hossa, re-signing with this organization is a no-brainer.

I would like to be saying this about the Oilers but unfortunately I am saying it about the wings.....they are the best run franchise in the NHL today and have been for IMO the last 5 years.

The way they handle their rookies is amazing. It seems that they have endless talent because of it.

Lets hope the Oil are taking notes.

Avatar
#136 Chad
June 03 2009, 10:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Just wondering other peoples thoughts on Nikolai Khabibulin. Last year he had a Cap hit of 6.75MM while Roli's was 3.7MM. It would probably still require a deal to dump some salary to sign him but it is an option that I think Tambs will have to think about.

I have a couple concerns: 1 - Money, what will he sign for? and 2 - age, was his injury the start of more to come?

Who else on the UFA list interests you?

Avatar
#137 The Menace
June 03 2009, 11:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chad: IMO, that last place the Oilers want to blow their wad on right now is goaltending. look at the teams that spend huge $$ on Goal (I'm looking at you, Calgary, Vancouver and NJ!) - they don't get very far in the playoffs, because they don't have the supporting cast. When's thr last time a 'superstar' goalie has won the cup? it hasn't happened yet in salary cap era. Also, I think these teams rely on that goalie too much in the regular season, and they are spent by the playoffs.

Edmonton has too many other needs to fill, and they can get someone reasonable in goal for pretty cheap - those options have been discussed here before.

Avatar
#138 Chris
June 03 2009, 12:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chad wrote:

The way they handle their rookies is amazing. It seems that they have endless talent because of it.

I tried more than once to push that agenda on this website. I love Gagner and Cogliano... but only a poorly run organization gives children important NHL ice time.

Avatar
#139 David S
June 03 2009, 04:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

I tried more than once to push that agenda on this website. I love Gagner and Cogliano… but only a poorly run organization gives children important NHL ice time.

Or more to the point, how good would Gagner and Cogliano be if they were in the Red Wings org? Yeah, they'd still be rippin' up the minors this year, but my god they'd be good when they finally came up. And they'd be learning the trade from the likes of Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Jeeezuz!

Avatar
#140 swany
June 03 2009, 04:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RB what's with all the Vinny rumours again, how do we get him while not moving to much money the other way. Gregor was on with the guy from TB and he also said that the three teams he keeps hearing about are the same ones as up here L.A., Montreal, and Edmonton. Is Gilbert = to Johnson from L.A. do they want Gagner or Cogs. To me this doesn't make much sense (and Vinny is a hell of a player) but this causes more problems, if Vinny comes then Horc is moved to second line Gagner is NOT a 3rd line centre so does he go to the wing and they move Cogs. And we still don't have a LW for the first line. I thnik they should trade Gilbert, Cogs, Nilsson a prospect and a 2nd round pick for Gagne, and Hartnell. That gives you a very good first line and a second line of Hartnell, Gagner, Sully

Comments are closed for this article.