Draft Day 2009: THE LIST

Robin Brownlee
June 24 2009 02:39PM

kevin-the-scout

You don't want guesses from rank amateurs. Mock drafts? Pfft. You want THE LIST. You want to know what name will be on the tip of the tongue of Oilers GM Steve Tambellini when he steps to the podium in Montreal Friday with the 10th pick at the NHL Entry Draft.

I want THE LIST, too. But, as in years past when I covered the draft for The Journal and The Sun, none of the Oilers brass or scouting staff has slipped it to me on the down-low. Zero chance, Mr. Inside Guy.

As fans know, that's never stopped me from asking questions, taking names or rummaging through Kevin Prendergast's garbage, then offering my best projection as to how things will unfold.

Prendergast, chief scout Stu MacGregor and his staff have compiled a list ranking the top 150 prospects. While there might be some tweaking when the staff gathers in Montreal Tuesday, it's pretty much set.

So, for those who recall my draft previews in those newspaper days, I'm going to take another swing rolling it out OilersNation style -- and, yes, I did have Jordan Eberle on the WISH LIST in 2008.

As always, everything goes out the window if Tambellini deals and moves up in selection order -- he'll be pitching to get into the top seven -- but I'm writing this with the assumption the Oilers stay where they are.

The wish list

John Tavares? Victor Hedman? Matt Duchene? Duh! They don't count.

Obviously, Tambellini, Prendergast and MacGregor will sprint to the podium screaming like their hair is on fire if one of these three blue-chippers is available at 10th. They won't be. So, let's get a grip and stick with players who might be available in the first round.

MAGNUS PAAJARVI-SVENSSON, F, Timra (Sweden)

ISS Ranking (International Scouting Services): 4th

WHAT THEY SAY

Director of NHL Central Scouting E. J. McGuire: "Magnus perhaps is the stereotype of the skilled Swede coming over here in recent years – outside speed extraordinaire, ability to freeze defenders and make all his good moves work even more effectively. He was a good contributor to his team at the World Junior tournament and I think will be an essential member of any NHL team in years to come. He showed, at the World Junior championships, why the 1980 comparisons to Mats Naslund, Kent Nilsson and more recently a Peter Forsberg will follow him over to his NHL team. He’ll be a high draft pick and I’m sure he’s going to be a combination of the kind of offensive flare and skills that have made those other three predecessors great NHL players."

MACGREGOR SAYS: "He's a great skater. He takes it to the net, drives to the net with speed. He's one of those players who's around the puck a lot. He's not overly tall, but he's a solid 198 pounds and he's going to get bigger."

THE SKINNY: The Oilers like his skill and compete-level. He's also got some flair, having suggested Canadian players at the World Junior Championship would "shit their pants" if Sweden scored a couple quick goals. The buzz is some scouts are picking Paajarvi-Svensson to drop a notch or two, but as far as 10th? Not likely.

EVANDER KANE, C, Vancouver (WHL)

ISS Ranking: 5th

WHAT THEY SAY

NHL Central Scouting’s Blair MacDonald: "He has power forward qualities from the blue line in. He's the type of player who doesn't like being denied access to the net. You can almost see when he's got the puck he's going to the net and defying people to stop him. He'll be a 200-pound forward in the NHL. He plays like he's six-foot-two, six-foot-three, bigger than his size. He's surprised a lot of people with his strength going to the net."

MACGREGOR SAYS: "He's everything we could use. He's an offensive player with a real physical edge. There's just a real edge to his game. He competes extremely hard."

THE SKINNY: To steal from Paajarvi-Svensson, the Oilers would "shit their pants" in unison if Kane was around at 10th. They've got no chance at getting him unless they move up to the 4th-7th picks. Take this to the bank: they like him enough to try.

JARED COWEN, D, Spokane (WHL)

ISS RANKING: 7th

WHAT THEY SAY

E.J. McGuire: "Cowen made his name last year as a Memorial Cup winning member of the Chiefs and the comparisons that were thrown around at that time were that of Zdeno Chara. Physically, he looks big, strong and rangy. Offensively he has that kind of contribution and if he, despite the pressure that we are putting on him, blossoms into half the player that Chara he is going to be a solid NHL player for years to come."

MACGREGOR SAYS: "He's a shutdown-type defenceman. He's got great reach. He loves the challenge of being matched up against the other team's offensive players. He plays a simple, easy game with the puck. He isn't punishing physically, but he uses his body effectively."

THE SKINNY: While Cowen might not develop into a first pairing defenceman in terms of offence, he's got the size and skill set that makes him a sure-fire NHLer as no worse than a second-pairing guy.

The Oilers select...

Don't expect the Oilers to have a Jesse Niinimaki flashback and go off the board if Tambellini can't make a move up from 10th pick.

MacGregor refused to discuss the Oilers list of rankings in relation to those of Central Scouting or ISS, but I'd be surprised if anybody utters WTF?, as was the case with Niinimaki, when Tambellini leans into the microphone.

NAZEM KADRI, C, London (OHL)

ISS RANKING: 8th

WHAT THEY SAY

E.J. McGuire: "He's big, lanky and skilled. He uses his size to accentuate his puck skills. Size, reach, stick handling ability, those long kinds of stick movements that Mario (Lemieux) used to make, like (Vincent) Lecavalier makes."

MACGREGOR SAYS: "Sure, we like him. He's very good with the puck and he uses his size to his advantage."

THE SKINNY: Can he be an elite centre one day? The jury is out on that. The consensus seems to be that Kadri's got the tools that project to him being no worse than a second-line centre.

DMITRY KULIKOV, D, Drummondville (QMJHL)

ISS RANKING: 10th

WHAT THEY SAY

Central Scouting’s Chris Bordeleau: "In his first year, he’s been an all-around good player. He’s a great skater; he can carry the puck and shoot the puck well. He’s strong too, he can take big hits and they don’t seem to bother him. What we saw this year is likely what we are going to see from Kulikov in the future; he’s going to play the same way in the NHL. He knows when to join the rush, he plays defence first, but recognizes the holes. He can shoot the puck well on the power play and I wouldn’t be surprised if he played in the NHL next year."

MACGREGOR SAYS: "He's an excellent two way defenceman with some offensive upside. He's a guy who is going to give you a lot of minutes as develops."

THE SKINNY: Everything about Kulikov's resume -- he was defenceman of the year and rookie of the year in the QMJHL and voted best pro prospect -- screams blue-chipper.

SCOTT GLENNIE, RW, Brandon (WHL)

ISS RANKING: 19th

WHAT THEY SAY

E.J. McGuire: "Glennie was mislabelled earlier in the year as perhaps being only a finisher for linemate Brayden Schenn. Yet Scott took matters into his own hands with an equal number of goals and assists and contributed greatly this season with a power forward type attitude. Glennie might remind the fan of NHL players with power forward abilities coming off the wall like Jonathan Cheechoo and Jonathan Toews -- that kind of offensive ability."

MACGREGOR SAYS: "He has some real athletic aspects to him. When Schenn was out early in the year, he still played at a high tempo. He's a guy who really has untapped potential at this point."

THE SKINNY: While the scouting staff won't admit it, I have a sneaking suspicion -- nobody's tipped me off, I'm reading between the lines -- they're almost as ga-ga about Glennie as they are over Kane.

Taking a Flyer

Looking for a darkhorse pick if the WISH LIST is picked clean and Glennie, Kulikov and Kadri are gone?

DAVID RUNDBLAD, D, Skelleftea (Sweden)

ISS RANKING: 22nd

WHAT THEY SAY

CS Director of European Scouting Goran Stubb: "He has a very good shot. He is a right-handed shot and he is used on the power play, even in the (Elite) League despite being a young player. He is a very smart player. He could be a little more physical in his game, but that is something that he is learning."

MACGREGOR SAYS: "Good size. He needs to improve his skating and speed a little bit, but he's got real good patience and calmness with the puck. He has a unique offensive vision and ability to move the puck."

THE SKINNY: The Oilers like Rundblad a lot more than ISS and CS do.

THREE DOTS...

Adam Kimelmen of NHL.com had the Oilers taking Carter Ashton 10th in his mock draft, but that won't happen... The Oilers like Zack Kassian (20th ISS), but not enough to take him ahead of Kadri, Kulikov or Glennie because he projects to a third-line player in the estimation of the scouting staff... Diminutive defenceman Ryan Ellis (13th ISS) and pint-sized right winger Jordan Schroeder (14th ISS) are pegged by some as possibilities for the Oilers, but MacGregor and his staff have other players ranked higher, so it's not in the cards.

Now, you 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 23 2009, 10:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

So taking Kane one step further... seeing as theirs already questions about the Oil keeping Cogs/Gagner, and Kane would be a third young center on the team. Would this deal offcially spell the end of Cogs with the Oil?

Cogs+10th for 4th?

Avatar
#102 Archaeologuy
June 23 2009, 10:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Robin Brownlee wrote:

@ Archaeologuy: There’s always a chance, but I’m telling you: KANE, KANE, KANE, KANE. Capiche?

I dont know if I'm picking up what you're puting down here Robin. Are you suggesting that the Oilers are looking to get Kane?

@ Ogden Brother: Why would the Oilers move one good prospect at centre because they might get another? That doesnt make sense. There is no guarantee that Kane is NHL ready or that he can be more productive than Cogliano right now. There is also no guarantee that Cogs will be playing at C next year.

Avatar
#103 Ogden Brother
June 23 2009, 10:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

Robin Brownlee wrote: @ Archaeologuy: There’s always a chance, but I’m telling you: KANE, KANE, KANE, KANE. Capiche? I dont know if I’m picking up what you’re puting down here Robin. Are you suggesting that the Oilers are looking to get Kane? @ Ogden Brother: Why would the Oilers move one good prospect at centre because they might get another? That doesnt make sense. There is no guarantee that Kane is NHL ready or that he can be more productive than Cogliano right now. There is also no guarantee that Cogs will be playing at C next year.

Because Kane's top end is far higher then Cogs.

Same reason we'd be nuts to pass up a Gagner+ (depending on the +) for Tavares.

Avatar
#104 Archaeologuy
June 23 2009, 11:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Ogden Brother wrote:

Because Kane’s top end is far higher then Cogs. Same reason we’d be nuts to pass up a Gagner+ (depending on the +) for Tavares.

Kane's top end is PROJECTED higher than Cogliano's. Tavares is the consensus #1 pick in the draft, not the same.

The logic behind sending Cogs is still suspect. The idea is to collect as many good players as possible, not have one or two that you replace with other good players.

Its one thing if you have to give up a good young player to get a more valuable asset, its another to think that getting a good asset means that the team needs to get rid of another.

Avatar
#105 Chris
June 23 2009, 11:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Robin Brownlee:

I'm having a little trouble reading between the lines here...

Avatar
#106 Chris
June 23 2009, 11:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

its another to think that getting a good asset means that the team needs to get rid of another.

Unless you have multiple good assets that fit in the same roster spot... Then it is time to consider balance, the future, the salary cap, and so on.

Avatar
#107 Archaeologuy
June 23 2009, 11:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris wrote:

Unless you have multiple good assets that fit in the same roster spot… Then it is time to consider balance, the future, the salary cap, and so on.

a multitude of good young talent down the C seemed to work out just fine for the Penguins.

Honestly, there is no reason to believe that all 3 guys (cogs gags and Kane) would be fighting for the same spot. There is no reason to believe there isnt room for all 3 in the Oiler system. No one is saying in Anaheim that Perry should be traded because Ryan will be better. That's crazy.

Avatar
#108 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 07:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

Ogden Brother wrote: Because Kane’s top end is far higher then Cogs. Same reason we’d be nuts to pass up a Gagner+ (depending on the +) for Tavares. Kane’s top end is PROJECTED higher than Cogliano’s. Tavares is the consensus #1 pick in the draft, not the same. The logic behind sending Cogs is still suspect. The idea is to collect as many good players as possible, not have one or two that you replace with other good players. Its one thing if you have to give up a good young player to get a more valuable asset, its another to think that getting a good asset means that the team needs to get rid of another.

It's clear your Cogliano goggles are on far to tight to form any type of relavant oppinion regarading any potential moves he may be involved in.

The funny part is, if I would have said O'sully+10th for Kane you'd be jumping up and down to do it, yet Cogs+10th gets a "no way no how" answer from you... despite the fact they are essentially the same player (different positive and negative attributes but similar currrent and top end levels).

Avatar
#109 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 08:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

Chris wrote: Unless you have multiple good assets that fit in the same roster spot… Then it is time to consider balance, the future, the salary cap, and so on. a multitude of good young talent down the C seemed to work out just fine for the Penguins. Honestly, there is no reason to believe that all 3 guys (cogs gags and Kane) would be fighting for the same spot. There is no reason to believe there isnt room for all 3 in the Oiler system. No one is saying in Anaheim that Perry should be traded because Ryan will be better. That’s crazy.

That's because Ryan/Perry are two guys for 4 top 6 wing spots. Cogs/Gagner/Kane are 3 guys for 2 top six spots. You were the one complaining that Cogs was held back in the third line role, remember?

Their has also been lots of speculation that Pits will eventually have to move one of Malkin/Crosby/Staal to balance assets/salary.

That said, I'd try to move other assets then Cogs to move up to the 4th, but if Cogs was the key I'd be driving him to the airport.

Avatar
#110 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 08:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Ogden Brother: Yes i like cogs, but youre including him in the trade because you think he MUST remain a centre and that Kane would make him instantly obsolete. I dont think he has to stay a centre, in fact i think he must adapt to the wing. I have a problem with the logic behind the trade. IF Kane becomes a better NHLer than Cogs then that trade would be huge. IF.

There is no guarantee that if drafted by the Oilers Kane would make the team AND be better than Cogs today. So if a pick can be had for a lesser player than Cogs then why get rid of him simply because 3 years from now a prospect MIGHT be better than him? It has already been reported by Matheson that Tambi is leary of sending Cogs in a trade for Heatley, so why would he be more willing to do it for a prospect that has never played an NHL game? If Kane is drafted by the Oilers and he makes Cogs expendable then the Oilers are trading from a position of strength.

Cogs and Gags are the 2 most attractive players on the team in any trade proposal. Young, Cheap, NHL ready, tonnes of upside. Why START the bartering process with the best offer? Do you think that the 4th overall pick can ONLY be had for cogs, or are you just puting all of your eggs in the Kane basket?

Avatar
#111 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 09:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

That said, I’d try to move other assets then Cogs to move up to the 4th, but if Cogs was the key I’d be driving him to the airport

I guess you didn't read to the end of my post.

Avatar
#112 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 09:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Ogden Brother: ahh. no i did not catch that.

Avatar
#113 Chris.
June 24 2009, 10:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

I dont think he has to stay a centre, in fact i think he must adapt to the wing.

How do you know Cogs will be an effective winger? Have you EVER seen him play wing? Has anyone? Even when the kid line came together and made a late season push in 07/08 Cogliano was the center. I strongly suspect that Cogliano's long term future with the Oilers came to an end when that line was dissolved and Gagner took his spot on the second line... That said, I could be reading too much into things. I just wish we had all gotten a good look at him on the wing before tentatively penciling him into that slot this fall.

Avatar
#114 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 10:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Chris.: good point about not seeing him play on the wing. But why do you think he cant be effective there? Or rather, why do you think Kane (who has not played a single game in the NHL) would be able to over come the same obstacles facing Cogs? Does anyone think Kane will come in and supplant Gagner as #2? or Horc as #1? No. So If we should trade Cogs because he cant be the #2 centre, then why take Kane who also cant be the #2 centre?

That is the next progression of the faulty logic that has brought us this far.

Avatar
#115 RossCreek
June 24 2009, 10:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Having 2 guys like Cogliano & Gagner with contracts that expire at the same time

OR

Having your youngsters age staggered so that when Gagner is up for a new deal, you don't have to give Cogliano a similar deal because you have a guy like Kane replacing him on an entry level deal

That said, is it possible they'd pull off BOTH Heatley & 4th deals?

Gilbert, Cogliano & Nash for Heatley 10th & O'Sullivan for 4th

??

Avatar
#116 RossCreek
June 24 2009, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

Does anyone think Kane will come in and supplant Gagner as #2? or Horc as #1? No. So If we should trade Cogs because he cant be the #2 centre, then why take Kane who also cant be the #2 centre?

They don't need Kane to be their 2nd line center right now. Eventually, Gagner & Horcoff switch 1st & 2nd line roles, later followed by Kane & Horcoff switching 2nd & 3rd line roles.

Avatar
#117 RossCreek
June 24 2009, 10:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

So If we should trade Cogs because he cant be the #2 centre, then why take Kane who also cant be the #2 centre?

Also, because in 2010-11 it helps out with your cap management, right?

Avatar
#118 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 10:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ RossCreek: I still dont understand why people cant allow themselves to consider the possibility of converting a kid from C to W. The forward position for natural centremen is set in stone. It is much more difficult to take a RW and turn him into a C than turn a C into a RW. There are a massive amount of Ws that started their jr careers at C but had to change. Plus, having a guy who can take faceoffs when the main guy is waved out is a good thing. And NO, those players that needed to convert arent failures. It happens a lot. And eventually the club will need to pay their RFAs, you cant just keep switching guys out for younger versions just to keep the salary at the min. But since when do you have to trade an RFA to keep from losing him?

Avatar
#119 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 10:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Archaeologuy: that should read "The forward position for natural centremen is NOT set in stone."

Avatar
#120 RossCreek
June 24 2009, 10:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

@ RossCreek: I still dont understand why people cant allow themselves to consider the possibility of converting a kid from C to W. The forward position for natural centremen is set in stone. It is much more difficult to take a RW and turn him into a C than turn a C into a RW. There are a massive amount of Ws that started their jr careers at C but had to change. Plus, having a guy who can take faceoffs when the main guy is waved out is a good thing. And NO, those players that needed to convert arent failures. It happens a lot. And eventually the club will need to pay their RFAs, you cant just keep switching guys out for younger versions just to keep the salary at the min. But since when do you have to trade an RFA to keep from losing him?

Oh for the most part I agree with you. Kinda playing devils advocate. I just know how much you love Cogliano ;-) RossCreek wrote:

Gilbert, Cogliano & Nash for Heatley 10th & O’Sullivan for 4th

You make those?

Avatar
#121 RossCreek
June 24 2009, 11:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm calling: TO DALLAS: 14th pick & rights to Jay Bouwmeester TO FLORIDA: 8th pick

Dallas needs to find a top notch d-man and Joe Nieuwndyk wants to make a splash. He knows Jay and might just figure the only way to ensure the Stars land him is to make a deal for him and talk him into signing in Dallas by June 30th.

Avatar
#122 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 11:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

@ Chris.: good point about not seeing him play on the wing. But why do you think he cant be effective there? Or rather, why do you think Kane (who has not played a single game in the NHL) would be able to over come the same obstacles facing Cogs? Does anyone think Kane will come in and supplant Gagner as #2? or Horc as #1? No. So If we should trade Cogs because he cant be the #2 centre, then why take Kane who also cant be the #2 centre? That is the next progression of the faulty logic that has brought us this far.

Kane would be a more natural fit at C3 for a year or two (if need be) he could also spend a year or two in jr and suplement Horc at that time.

Avatar
#123 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

Gilbert, Cogliano & Nash for Heatley 10th & O’Sullivan for 4th You make those?

I do in a heart beat.

Avatar
#124 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 11:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

Gilbert, Cogliano & Nash for Heatley 10th & O’Sullivan for 4th You make those?

both? I like using O'sullivan to move up in the draft. Ive been saying they should use him to move up since the season ended. It would finally be like trading pitkanen for the 4th (?) overall pick, which should bring in a greater return than Cole did.

You might have to do both just to make the Cap room for Heatley. The only thing i would be concerned about then is how to fill the hole on the beck end *snicker* and in net because a lot of Cap space has just been used on Heatley. Im going back and forth on whether that's too much to give up for Heatley.

The reports are saying that the Oilers arent on the list (actually it only names 7 of the 10 teams and mysteriously leaves the other 3 out) and that they arent close in terms of getting Heatley. BUT has anyone else been reported as being close? The fact that the only news coming out is saying the Oilers arent close might suggest the opposite. The Sens could be playing the media to put pressure on the Oilers to make a better offer when they might not have to. I doesnt seem to me that people are lining up for Heatley and his contract. That's just how i read things.

Avatar
#125 Chris.
June 24 2009, 11:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

good point about not seeing him play on the wing. But why do you think he cant be effective there? Or rather, why do you think Kane (who has not played a single game in the NHL) would be able to over come the same obstacles facing Cogs?

I never said anything about Kane. My pet theory is that Gagner supplanted Cogs.

As for why I think Cogliano can't be effective on the wing... Really? We've been through this before. I typed my fingers down to nubs with reasons why I think Cogliano won't be effective on the wing...

Remember me? I'm the guy who spent hours explaining to you why Cogs isn't likly to be an effective winger:

a) Playing on the wing cuts his ice in half; nullifying his best weapon...SPEED. b) Smallish and not great along the boards...Never seems to retrieve a puck down low. (Critical for A WINGER)... c) Left shot...so would probably would have to play on the left side against the left wing lock... d) No real experience EVER, at any level, playing on the wing... and so on.

You never gave my arguments any consideration... and just dismissed them offhand. I don't say things like, "Cogliano can't play wing", just to be difficult... I have reasons. The fact is, neither of us, nor anyone else including Cogliano himself; really knows if he can contribute on the wing... So it's just a little premature to pencil him in there on your top six.

Avatar
#126 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 12:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris. wrote:

it’s just a little premature to pencil him in there on your top six.

and its a little premature to write him off the depth chart when he only scored 3 less points than Gagner despite no PP time and being forced to play with much lower level teammates.

Avatar
#127 Chris IQ&RWT
June 24 2009, 12:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Archaeologuy:

I never wrote Cogliano off the depth chart... I'm only saying I won't be surprised if he is moved... If that happens, I'll evaluate the deal on it's own merit.

Avatar
#128 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 12:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

Chris. wrote: it’s just a little premature to pencil him in there on your top six. and its a little premature to write him off the depth chart when he only scored 3 less points than Gagner despite no PP time and being forced to play with much lower level teammates.

You know Cogs spent most of the season with Moreau/Pisani/MAP/O'sully while Gagner spent most of the year with Cole/Nilsson/MAP/O'sully/Kotalik right? Theirs barely any difference in caliber.

Avatar
#129 Chris
June 24 2009, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Archaeologuy:

Also, I'm not the guy who took Gagner off the wing and gave him Cogliano's spot... that was MacT. Do you think he made a mistake?

Avatar
#130 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris IQ&RWT wrote:

@ Archaeologuy: I never wrote Cogliano off the depth chart… I’m only saying I won’t be surprised if he is moved… If that happens, I’ll evaluate the deal on it’s own merit.

Archaeologuy wrote:

RossCreek wrote: Gilbert, Cogliano & Nash for Heatley 10th & O’Sullivan for 4th You make those? both? I like using O’sullivan to move up in the draft. Ive been saying they should use him to move up since the season ended. It would finally be like trading pitkanen for the 4th (?) overall pick, which should bring in a greater return than Cole did. You might have to do both just to make the Cap room for Heatley. The only thing i would be concerned about then is how to fill the hole on the beck end *snicker* and in net because a lot of Cap space has just been used on Heatley. Im going back and forth on whether that’s too much to give up for Heatley. The reports are saying that the Oilers arent on the list (actually it only names 7 of the 10 teams and mysteriously leaves the other 3 out) and that they arent close in terms of getting Heatley. BUT has anyone else been reported as being close? The fact that the only news coming out is saying the Oilers arent close might suggest the opposite. The Sens could be playing the media to put pressure on the Oilers to make a better offer when they might not have to. I doesnt seem to me that people are lining up for Heatley and his contract. That’s just how i read things.

Do you see how your personal bias completly throws you off on this proposal?

Avatar
#131 Chris
June 24 2009, 12:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Ogden Brother wrote:

RossCreek wrote: Gilbert, Cogliano & Nash for Heatley 10th & O’Sullivan for 4th You make those? I do in a heart beat.

10th and O'Sullivan for the 4th. Yes. I agree. Sully didn't look comfortable here... (And I'm a big fan)... The Oilers have too many forwards and need to shed salary; and Evander Kane isn't three years away.

As for Gilbert, Cogliano, and Nash for Heatley... I guess the deal would probably improve the hockey club. Heatley is a known quantity along the left side, and Cogliano is not... that said, I don't think Tambellini should have to pay that much. Cogliano alone, may fetch a good young player who doesn't have 7.5 million cap hit... I'd want Ottawa to eat a bigger salary than Gilbert's (Souray) should Cogliano be attached to the deal.

Avatar
#132 OvenChicken8
June 24 2009, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris. wrote:

I’m the guy who spent hours explaining to you why Cogs isn’t likly to be an effective winger: a) Playing on the wing cuts his ice in half; nullifying his best weapon…SPEED. b) Smallish and not great along the boards…Never seems to retrieve a puck down low. (Critical for A WINGER)

So uh, does playing wing cut Hemsky's ice in half? There is no rule to say that Cog's has to stay in one particular lane when moving up the ice. Hell if he played wing with his speed just imagine a stretch pass to him when he is at full stride.

And he doesn't have to be great on the boards all of the time, if he's pressured too much all he has to do is chip it off the boards/glass and out.

Shifting from a Center to a Winger is much easier than the reverse. And considering his sub 39% faceoff percentage, he better learn to play the wing quickly or he'll have a great 3-4 line/pk career.

Avatar
#133 RossCreek
June 24 2009, 01:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris wrote:

I’d want Ottawa to eat a bigger salary than Gilbert’s (Souray) should Cogliano be attached to the deal.

1. Souray won't waive his no-trade to move back to eastern Canada further away from his kids. Its NOT gonna happen. So why do people place his name in deals to Ottawa?

2. Bryan Murray has already suggested that they don't want to bring a lot of salary back. My guess is that he wants to create enough room to take a run at Cammalleri to replace Heatley. I believe it was Garrioch (I know, I know) that stated an offer from Minnesota that included James Sheppard, Cal Clutterbuck & Tyler Cuma might be of more interest to Murray given that he could add young talent AND create enough cap space to have some flexibility.

Avatar
#134 Chris
June 24 2009, 01:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ OvenChicken8: Sorry, I was referring to an argument Arch and I had in the past so my rehashing of my reasoning was brief.

b>OvenChicken8 wrote:

So uh, does playing wing cut Hemsky’s ice in half?

Yes it does...But Hemsky simply has more weapons at his disposal offensively than Cogliano...(And better lateral movement to dance around checks) I merely said putting Cogs on the wall limits his space to fully expoit his speed... So if you put him on the wall, even with better linemates, expect a fall in production. IMO, If Cogliano can't produce offensively, he doesn't bring enough else to justify a spot in the top six (ie Nilsson)

OvenChicken8 wrote:

And he doesn’t have to be great on the boards all of the time, if he’s pressured too much all he has to do is chip it off the boards/glass and out.

~Always a good play when you are in the offensive zone.~

C'mon... I was talking puck retrieval in the OFFENSIVE zone, particularly on the shoot in... and you're fooling yourselves if you think Quinn won't be having the guys shoot it in!

Avatar
#135 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 01:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

Chris wrote: I’d want Ottawa to eat a bigger salary than Gilbert’s (Souray) should Cogliano be attached to the deal. 1. Souray won’t waive his no-trade to move back to eastern Canada further away from his kids. Its NOT gonna happen. So why do people place his name in deals to Ottawa? 2. Bryan Murray has already suggested that they don’t want to bring a lot of salary back. My guess is that he wants to create enough room to take a run at Cammalleri to replace Heatley. I believe it was Garrioch (I know, I know) that stated an offer from Minnesota that included James Sheppard, Cal Clutterbuck & Tyler Cuma might be of more interest to Murray given that he could add young talent AND create enough cap space to have some flexibility.

He better be darn sure he can get Cammy (or someone at least close) if he's going to make a deal like that.

Avatar
#136 Chris
June 24 2009, 01:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ RossCreek:

I already acknowledged that your trade proposal would improve the roster... But if Murray doesn't take a bunch of salary back, nothing will really work for the Oil under the cap... Tambellini is just too deeply committed to other rich contracts he can't move...

Avatar
#137 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 01:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris wrote:

@ RossCreek: I already acknowledged that your trade proposal would improve the roster… But if Murray doesn’t take a bunch of salary back, nothing will really work for the Oil under the cap… Tambellini is just too deeply committed to other rich contracts he can’t move…

With a quick glance at the numbers we'd simply need to slot a Brule or Pultuny in to make the #'s work.

Avatar
#138 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 01:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

ugh. Kane would be an excellent addition to the club but there is no reason to get rid of one NHL player because the team picked up a CHL player. Even WHEN the team gets a proper 3rd line centre there will be no need to instantly drop Cogliano when they can just as easily TRY him on the wing. If it doesnt work he can be moved. Until then he's cheap and effective.

Ogden Brother wrote:

Do you see how your personal bias completly throws you off on this proposal?

I admited as much and i DID say i was back and forth on the proposal. I still doubt 2 bonafide NHLers is what it will take to get Heatley.

Chris wrote:

Also, I’m not the guy who took Gagner off the wing and gave him Cogliano’s spot… that was MacT. Do you think he made a mistake?

I think MacT was unquestionably the worst coach in the league last season (last 5 seasons). What do you think my answer to that question would be? Seriously, Gagner needed to get time at C and so did Cogs (if he was going to prove he could be one). What is unexplainable is why Cogs was NEVER given PP time. The PP was absolutely terrible yet the guy tied for 2nd in goals for the club doesnt get a sniff of 2nd unit time?!

Avatar
#139 Chris
June 24 2009, 02:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Ogden Brother:

Look I want Heatley too...and the deal makes "hockey" sense... I just think that giving up TWO great young players like Gilbert and Cogliano is too much compensation under this CBA when you're absorbing a $7.5 million contract... Particularly when other UFA's may be lurking out there for just the money.

That said, If Tambellini does decide to do a deal like that; I'll order my #15 jersey and go to the games expecting to be dazzled.

Avatar
#140 Chris
June 24 2009, 02:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris wrote:

Particularly when other UFA’s may be lurking out there for just the money.

I'm not trying to say Heatley is a UFA... I'm saying there are other options for your top six that wouldn't require shipping away Cogs, or Gilbert.

Avatar
#141 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 02:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: Look I want Heatley too…and the deal makes “hockey” sense… I just think that giving up TWO great young players like Gilbert and Cogliano is too much compensation under this CBA when you’re absorbing a $7.5 million contract… Particularly when other UFA’s may be lurking out there for just the money. That said, If Tambellini does decide to do a deal like that; I’ll order my #15 jersey and go to the games expecting to be dazzled.

Banking on a FA sniper will leave us high and dry at the alter yet again. (and if it doesn't it will be a far worse contract then Heatly's.

If we actually have a shot at Heatly, nows the time to do it. We've got repeat (quality) assets all throught the line-up)

Avatar
#142 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 02:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

ugh. Kane would be an excellent addition to the club but there is no reason to get rid of one NHL player because the team picked up a CHL player. Even WHEN the team gets a proper 3rd line centre there will be no need to instantly drop Cogliano when they can just as easily TRY him on the wing. If it doesnt work he can be moved. Until then he’s cheap and effective. Ogden Brother wrote: Do you see how your personal bias completly throws you off on this proposal? I admited as much and i DID say i was back and forth on the proposal. I still doubt 2 bonafide NHLers is what it will take to get Heatley.

See the contradiction again? You see no reason to get rid of one NHL player to get a (likely) better CHL player(current), yet you've been saying since the end of the season that the team should look at swapping O'sully+10th for the 4th.

Really what you should be saying is "I really like Cogs" and leave it at that, because the rest of the conversation is completly skewed.

Avatar
#143 Chris
June 24 2009, 02:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

What is unexplainable is why Cogs was NEVER given PP time.

They were trying to develop two set PP units... Continuity is important particularly with special teams... Also Gagner is better than Cogliano at managing and distributing the puck from a static position... while Cogliano is stronger on the rush.

I'm not saying these are necessarily good enough reasons... they were the reasons MacT gave in answer to your very question sometime after Christmas... Cogliano did get some PP time due to injury, or other reasons... but put up very few points. I'm having trouble locating the totals... but I remember him looking very ineffective when he drew in during Gagner's ankle injury.

Avatar
#144 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 02:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Ogden Brother: It's not Murray that sets the price here. It's the market. And the Market sees a shrinking Cap and a number of covetted UFAs that are available over the next 2 years. The Oilers would be outbidding themselves by offering 2 of their best NHL ready young players and one of the best prospects on the team. No one is lining up to take Heatley in a hockey deal. The Sens arent getting fair value. Tough cookies.

Avatar
#145 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 02:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Ogden Brother wrote:

You see no reason to get rid of one NHL player to get a (likely) better CHL player(current), yet you’ve been saying since the end of the season that the team should look at swapping O’sully+10th for the 4th.

O'Sullivan is 24 and has been a pro for 4 years. Cogliano is 21 and has been a pro for 2. Pardon me for valuing a NHL player with loads of potential over one that has considerably less.

@ Chris: Listening to MacT about the PP is like listening to Wanye about ballroom dancing.

Avatar
#146 Ogden Brother
June 24 2009, 02:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

@ Ogden Brother: It’s not Murray that sets the price here. It’s the market. And the Market sees a shrinking Cap and a number of covetted UFAs that are available over the next 2 years. The Oilers would be outbidding themselves by offering 2 of their best NHL ready young players and one of the best prospects on the team. No one is lining up to take Heatley in a hockey deal. The Sens arent getting fair value. Tough cookies.

You should let me use your crystal ball.

Avatar
#147 Chris
June 24 2009, 02:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy wrote:

What is unexplainable is why Cogs was NEVER given PP time.

Found a breakdown on NHL.com. Cogliano played 160 minutes on the PP last year and scored 4 goals and had 5 assists. Gagner played 232 minutes and had 6 goals and 5 assits...

I wouldn't say Cogs was never given PP time... Gagner despite limited production, just got more.

Avatar
#148 Chris
June 24 2009, 02:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Penner, only in his full third pro season, had nearly three times as many PP points as Gagner with less PP time... ~Boy... Penner sure does suck!~

Avatar
#149 Mike76
June 24 2009, 02:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

They should give Ottawa Gagner for Heatley and make them take Horcroff and his over inflated salary too. They get our best young player, our best two way player (with a huge salary) we get the sniper we need and aren't taking on much more salary then we already have. Maybe they can add one of our d men and get Brian Eliott as a goalie in the deal too.

@ Chris:

Avatar
#150 Archaeologuy
June 24 2009, 02:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Ogden Brother wrote:

You should let me use your crystal ball.

I'm just reacting to what's going on around me. There are no reports of anyone making a good offer for Heatley. Based on that I'm simply deducing that if the Oilers had offered a defenseman that would have led the Sens in offense (by a Dman) last year AND the 2nd best young player on the team I think it would have been considered a very good option by the Sens. I see no reason to give the Sens both guys Cogs and Gilbert for Heatley. Is he worth it? Probably. Will the Sens get that? Not a chance.

Comments are closed for this article.