Ethan Moreau: where there's Big Smoke there's fire?

Robin Brownlee
February 02 2010 10:05PM

Edmonton Oilers v Buffalo Sabres

 

Darren Dreger of TSN had Edmonton Oilers fans buzzing today through the attention-getter that is his Twitter account with the proclamation: "Oilers pushing trade hard. Moreau and others, but deals unlikely unless Edmonton sweetens the pot."

And fans should be talking because Dreger is as connected as it gets when it comes to who's doing what in the NHL's executive suites, and he's bang on with his assessment of the push to move the Oilers captain.

As a follow up to what Dreger stirred the pot with today, the indication I'm getting is that the Toronto Maple Leafs are the team at the front of the line when it comes to talks with the Oilers about Moreau.

The name I'm hearing that might fit in a deal for Moreau, and a name that came up here in the last couple of days in the comments section, is that of defenceman Garnet Exelby.

SWEETEN THE DEAL

As Dreger said, the Oilers are going to have to "sweeten the pot" because there's really no reason for the Maple Leafs to take Moreau for Exelby straight up. What the Maple Leafs are likely looking for is a draft pick as part of the deal because that's a commodity GM Brian Burke wants and needs.

Moreau, 33, has one more season after this one at a salary of $1.750 million and his cap hit is $2 million. Exelby, 28, is making $1.725 million this season with a cap hit of $1.392 million. He's an unrestricted free agent after this season.

Would Edmonton GM Steve Tambellini be "sweetening the pot" enough if he were to send, say, a third-round pick to Toronto with Moreau while taking a fourth-rounder back from Burke as part of a deal for Exelby?

Another scenario could see the Maple Leafs take Moreau and a pick for Exelby, giving them an extra asset for helping Tambellini rid himself of an extra year of salary.

In any case, the teams are talking, so we'll have to keep an eye on this one.

AND...

I'm told, as Jason Gregor indicated here several days ago, Anaheim is one of the other teams the Oilers are talking to about Moreau, but I have no indication on the level of interest by the Ducks.

-- Listen to Robin Brownlee every Wednesday and 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
#401 Eric Johnson
February 03 2010, 05:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Matt Henderson

I agree, but there is plenty of room for Moreau on this team this year. He may have Fringe NHL talent but thats better than some of the AHL talent we have.

The waiver thing only becomes an issue next season if we cant move him before september.

He is also easier to trade when the season is over and teams have more room to play with.

Avatar
#402 Matt Henderson
February 03 2010, 05:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Chris. wrote:

You are being deliberately obtuse.

I could have written the same about you, but we just come from 2 seperate philosophies about what's best for the team.

I dont have a problem with teams who manage their assets aggressively. That doesnt mean treat players poorly, it means be prepared to do whatever it takes to make the Oilers better.

This whole discussion started on my end when I disagreed with losing assets to ship out Moreau when there exists an option to avoid that loss. I dont think that I am being all that unreasonable. I didnt say that the Oilers should put him in the minors "just because".

It's the team that doesnt want him, not me. Let's just remind everyone of that.

Avatar
#403 Matt Henderson
February 03 2010, 05:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Eric Johnson wrote:

I agree, but there is plenty of room for Moreau on this team this year. He may have Fringe NHL talent but thats better than some of the AHL talent we have.

The waiver thing only becomes an issue next season if we cant move him before september.

He is also easier to trade when the season is over and teams have more room to play with.

I completely agree with this. I even like the way Moreau has played since being teamed with Pisani and Horcoff.

Avatar
#404 Wanyes bastard child
February 03 2010, 05:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

And on this note, I believe the comments from this thread alone equal or better the amount of comments made in the time that both the flames and canucks nations have been up...

We should all do our part and and help them by blogging on their sites to attract more attention :)

Also RossCreek is one of the flames main bloggers, so it sucks enough for them as it is, the least we could do is inject some cheer and life into their hearts over that fact.

Avatar
#405 Crash
February 03 2010, 05:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Eric Johnson wrote:

I agree, but there is plenty of room for Moreau on this team this year. He may have Fringe NHL talent but thats better than some of the AHL talent we have.

The waiver thing only becomes an issue next season if we cant move him before september.

He is also easier to trade when the season is over and teams have more room to play with.

I also agree with this, I don't think anyone said anything about waiving Moreau this season just that if need be next year then so be it.

Archaeologdenguy wrote:

I dont have a problem with teams who manage their assets aggressively. That doesnt mean treat players poorly, it means be prepared to do whatever it takes to make the Oilers better.

This whole discussion started on my end when I disagreed with losing assets to ship out Moreau when there exists an option to avoid that loss. I dont think that I am being all that unreasonable. I didnt say that the Oilers should put him in the minors "just because".

And this is the bottom line...doing whatever it takes to make the Oilers better...

Avatar
#406 Chris.
February 03 2010, 05:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Matt Henderson

I'm calling you obtuse because you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge, or disprove my contention that it would be a first time event for an NHL team to place one of their own ten year roster players on waivers.

This is a simple statement; very limited in scope. Everyone gets it...Nobody has yet provided a suitable example to disprove it. In fact, this is such a simple concept to grasp: I have to believe that you are being deliberatly obtuse... because I don't want to believe that you are colossally stupid.

You can deflect, and cloud the argument all you want... But, until you provide me with an example of a player that was placed on waivers by his own team, after 10 years or 600 games of service to that very same team: I will hold up my contention that it would be a precedent setting move by the Oilers to place Moreau on waivers... The precedent lies in the specific nature of the theoretical situation.

I know you know what I'm driving at... You are therfore being deliberatly obtuse... and it is annoying.

Avatar
#407 Matt Henderson
February 03 2010, 06:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Chris.

Ok. Let's play your game. I cannot think of another player being waived after 600 games of service for that particular team off the top of my head.

It would also be a precedent for a player named Ethan Moreau to be waived by the Edmonton Oilers. No other player named Ethan Moreau has ever been waived by the Edmonton Oilers ever before. It was also a dangerous precedent to Trade Ryan Smyth. Now we have to wonder if the Oilers will trade everyone else named Ryan Smyth from their roster.

I think you're purposefully refusing to acknowledge that your criteria is so specific that it suits only your purpose and has no meaning beyond that.

Avatar
#408 Eric Johnson
February 03 2010, 06:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Ok. Let's play your game. I cannot think of another player being waived after 600 games of service for that particular team off the top of my head.

It would also be a precedent for a player named Ethan Moreau to be waived by the Edmonton Oilers. No other player named Ethan Moreau has ever been waived by the Edmonton Oilers ever before. It was also a dangerous precedent to Trade Ryan Smyth. Now we have to wonder if the Oilers will trade everyone else named Ryan Smyth from their roster.

I think you're purposefully refusing to acknowledge that your criteria is so specific that it suits only your purpose and has no meaning beyond that.

Thats not entirely true as there are many players who have played 10 plus seasons (600games ish) with one team. There is only one Ryan Smyth. That would be a gross exaggeration of the specified argument.

Avatar
#409 Chris.
February 03 2010, 06:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Ok. Let's play your game. I cannot think of another player being waived after 600 games of service for that particular team off the top of my head.

It would also be a precedent for a player named Ethan Moreau to be waived by the Edmonton Oilers. No other player named Ethan Moreau has ever been waived by the Edmonton Oilers ever before. It was also a dangerous precedent to Trade Ryan Smyth. Now we have to wonder if the Oilers will trade everyone else named Ryan Smyth from their roster.

I think you're purposefully refusing to acknowledge that your criteria is so specific that it suits only your purpose and has no meaning beyond that.

It's troubling when people want specific, relevent examples, isn't it?... Makes making sweeping statements more difficult...Hmmm?

In my inital response to you I greatly widened the scope. I allowed for you to provide me an example for a player who has played 500 games for a team that placed him on waivers... how about 400?

I didn't purposely create an unreasonably specific criteria to prove a point... Remember, the point I'm making is that it is: at the very least; incredibly rare for a team to waive a long serving player. What criteria would you apply to an example that would disprove my contention?

That middle paragraph you wrote is absolute proof that you are being deliberatly obtuse... It's clear your M.O. is to waste my time: and I won't allow you to do that anymore. I'm adding you to my troll list of posters not worth responding to.

Avatar
#410 Eric Johnson
February 03 2010, 06:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Anything is possible. Its just not likely.

Past trends have to be taken into consideration when looking to the future.

Avatar
#411 Eric Johnson
February 03 2010, 06:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

OMFG would LOVERBOY FINALLY PLAY THE RIVER CREE ALREADY!!!!!

That pic creeps me out!

Avatar
#412 Crash
February 03 2010, 06:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Chris. wrote:

It's troubling when people want specific, relevent examples, isn't it?... Makes making sweeping statements more difficult...Hmmm?

In my inital response to you I greatly widened the scope. I allowed for you to provide me an example for a player who has played 500 games for a team that placed him on waivers... how about 400?

I didn't purposely create an unreasonably specific criteria to prove a point... Remember, the point I'm making is that it is: at the very least; incredibly rare for a team to waive a long serving player. What criteria would you apply to an example that would disprove my contention?

That middle paragraph you wrote is absolute proof that you are being deliberatly obtuse... It's clear your M.O. is to waste my time: and I won't allow you to do that anymore. I'm adding you to my troll list of posters not worth responding to.

You ask for an example that is hard to research...is there a list somewhere that contains all the players that have been placed on waivers?...

The name in recent history that has been provided to you is Kyle McLaren who played 5 seasons with the San Jose Sharks...which means he was with them for close to 400 games (He missed some of those games due to injury).

But I'm certain you'll have criteria in your head that says well 5 yrs is ok to place a player on waivers and it won't have a negative affect on the team that does it but anything over what? 6 yrs? 7 yrs? or does it have to be 10 yrs before it's not ok and has a negative effect....and how would you know anyway how it would be viewed if in fact it's never been done...you have nothing to go on to say this, no?

And it's laughable that yourself and "Ogden know it all" don't think that you aren't annoying.

It's also ammusing that you would think that other players would look at a Moreau being waived as a reason to not come to the Oilers...don't you think it would be even more possible that players would avoid a certain team who waives players not long after they arrive to a team? I mean afterall it's those players that won't likely be with that team for 10 yrs....wouldn't players look at it and say I'm not going to sign in Vancouver cuz hell they put guys on waivers who sign there....Or the NYI who have placed Brendan Witt on waivers or many teams that have signed players only to place them on waivers.

What is your actual point if it hasn't happened to someone yet that has played 10 seasons with someone?

And just how long have we had a salary cap in the NHL...has it even been 10 seasons? I think you'll find more and more vet players get placed on waivers during this era

Avatar
#413 Bryzarro World
February 03 2010, 07:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Why would you take down some of my posts? Didn't say anything crude or disrespectful. Just told wayne to use a mirror to see wtf was on his back instead of running around in circles trying to chase his tail... LOL

Just trying to help a brother out....

Avatar
#414 Reagan
February 03 2010, 07:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Funny Bob McKenzie is hyping the Kovalchuk trade needs to involve vetran NHLer's to make a deal. Hmm, I'm thinking the Oilers have a crap load of NHler's.... LOL Who cares if the Oiler could resign Kovalchuk...

Avatar
#415 Matt Henderson
February 03 2010, 07:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Chris. wrote:

It's troubling when people want specific, relevent examples, isn't it?... Makes making sweeping statements more difficult...Hmmm?

In my inital response to you I greatly widened the scope. I allowed for you to provide me an example for a player who has played 500 games for a team that placed him on waivers... how about 400?

I didn't purposely create an unreasonably specific criteria to prove a point... Remember, the point I'm making is that it is: at the very least; incredibly rare for a team to waive a long serving player. What criteria would you apply to an example that would disprove my contention?

That middle paragraph you wrote is absolute proof that you are being deliberatly obtuse... It's clear your M.O. is to waste my time: and I won't allow you to do that anymore. I'm adding you to my troll list of posters not worth responding to.

My M.O. is to take your poorly conceived argument and display why it is based on premises that are not accepted nor explained sufficiently. My M.O. is to look at the points you make and display how they have no bearing on the conclusions you make.

My middle paragraph did the same thing you did. You want me to acknowledge that there will be a dangerous precedent set by waiving Moreau. You want me to acknowledge that without you ever proving that waiving Moreau would be dangerous or proving that the "precedent" set is meaningful in any way. Would it be a precedent for a team to waive a player that played for them for 10+ years? Maybe. Does that precedent actual mean anything? A precedent implies that it would become an act that would be emulated by others. Would every other team then feel that they could waive 10 year vets? Yes. Because they already feel that. They feel that because there has been absolutely nothing from stopping them to ever do it before.

As far as my troll status goes, I'm usually the only person that ever takes the time to argue with you regarding any topic. I do so generally without snide remarks about your general level of intelligence, age, experience, or other background. Your responses to me are usually filled with references to my "obvious" youth and inexperience but always manage to lack any form of substance.

Your argument here is based solely on precedent and not whether it would be good, bad, or indifferent. Your only response is "has it been done before?". No. No the Oilers have not waived Ethan Moreau before. However, that does not mean they cant in the future.

Call me obtuse, make reference to the video game generation, call me inexperienced if you will. But you dont have a point to your argument. You just want someone to say, "Nobody has waived a 10 year vet before."\

I said it. And that still doesnt change anything.

Avatar
#416 Kevin
February 03 2010, 07:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Bucknuck wrote:

Everyone should remember that this years third rounder could be as high as a 61st pick. An Edmonton third rounder is potentially one pick worse than a San Jose 2nd rounder.

a 1st, 31st, and 61st picks should get you some good players, particularly in a deep draft year like this one.

Absolutely. Please don't be moving any picks. This is a deep draft and if our scouts have a good year we could well replemish our blue chip prospects.

Avatar
#418 Eric Johnson
February 03 2010, 08:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Robin Brownlee wrote:

"Replentish" suggests the Oilers have had blue chip prospects at some point.

ZING!

Avatar
#419 TigerUnderGlass
February 03 2010, 09:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Robin Brownlee wrote:

"Replentish" suggests the Oilers have had blue chip prospects at some point.

I didn't see the original post, but did he just edit "replentish" to say "replemish"?

Avatar
#420 TigerUnderGlass
February 03 2010, 09:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Chris.

The Leafs bought out Tucker after 7 years. Is that long enough for you?

How about the Wing putting Osgood on waivers after 8 years?

There are almost certainly more but there are two that immediately come to mind.

Avatar
#421 Reagan
February 03 2010, 09:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

421...

Phaneuf looked great in a leaf uniform. I hate the Leafs...

Avatar
#422 Chris.
February 03 2010, 09:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

The Leafs bought out Tucker after 7 years. Is that long enough for you?

How about the Wing putting Osgood on waivers after 8 years?

There are almost certainly more but there are two that immediately come to mind.

Now that is a constructive response: a straight answer to a simple question. Looking at the Tucker/Ozgood examples, it can be said that it would not be an unprecedented move by the Oilers to put a long serving player like Moreau on waivers. I never heard that Osgood had been placed on waivers... and I had forgotten about Tucker... though Ender and I had already concluded a buy-out wasn't quite as big a slap in the face.

Why was that so difficult? Was it a difficult question, or difficult people?

Avatar
#423 Chris.
February 03 2010, 10:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Crash

Believe me, I didn't research the waiver wires to deliberately set a rigged criteria to my question simply to prove a point... and I bristle at that accusation. I just never remembered a really long serving member of an organization ever being placed on waivers. It's only logical that my criteria for a relevent example would be a player with a similar service record to what Moreau has had as an Oiler... (Logical or diabolical... you decide)

I wasn't the one who said waiving Moreau would disuade others from signig here...(That was others) I did, however say that I think it's bad practice to waive long serving members of your team. I stand by that and it's okay to disagree.

Avatar
#424 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
February 04 2010, 08:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Eric Johnson wrote:

OMFG would LOVERBOY FINALLY PLAY THE RIVER CREE ALREADY!!!!!

That pic creeps me out!

Ya I mentioned that before, but now the cheech and chong x-mas special is there.

Avatar
#425 Jokerr
February 04 2010, 08:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Let's just hope the OIl don't make lateral moves and have a plan for the future.

Comments are closed for this article.