GETTING TO CRUNCH TIME

Jason Gregor
September 28 2010 02:35PM

WIth only three preseason games left, the bubble boys have precious time to try and convince Tom Renney to keep them here or receive, what is most likely a one-way ticket to the OKC. Depending on injuries, most of the remaining cuts won't see the light of Rexall Place again this season, so they need to be at their best Wednesday and Friday.

The reality is that even their best won't be good enough.

The Oilers were on the ice for just under two hours this morning at Millenium Place in Sherwood Park, and here's how the lines look to shape up for tomorrow's tilt v. Phoenix.

Ales Hemksky/Sam Gagner/Magnus Paajarvi
Dustin Penner/Andrew Cogliano/Gilbert Brule
Liam Reddox/Colin Fraser/Ryan Jones
Alex Giroux/Ryan O'Marra/Colin McDonald

Ladislav Smid/Alex Plante
Taylor Chorney/Tom Gilbert
Richard Petiot/Kurtis Foster

Jeff Deslauriers
Martin Gerber

TALKING LINEUPS

Look for Deslauriers to play the entire game. He has only faced eight shots so far this preseason and the Oilers need to see how he looks. Renney liked how he played in his 30 minutes against the Canucks, but this will most likely be Deslauriers only chance to shine. He needs to play well tomorrow, but even if he does I still think it won't be enough. Renney said he has tried to evaluate his goalies based on how they play this camp, so JDD needs to play well tonight of Renney will have an easy decision on his backup.

The top two lines seemed destined to start the regular season together, and don't be surprised to see Brule and Penner take some of the draws in place of Cogliano. Brule will most likely take the draws on the right side of the ice, because he'll be on his backhand, while Cogliano/Penner will take the draws on the left side. Renney will give Cogliano a chance to show he can win draws, but Brule told me today that he and Cogliano have already discussed some faceoff strategy that should put both of them in a better position to win draws.

It will be interesting to see how Reddox and Jones play. Only one of them will make the opening night roster, and maybe neither if Renney's dresses Steve MacIntyre v. Calgary, but Jones and Reddox are battlling for the RW spot on the 4th line. Ryan Rishaug mentioned on my show yesterday that he thinks there might be a slight disconnect between the coaches and management when it comes to Reddox and Jones.

Renney really likes Reddox, while management picked Jones off waivers last year so they would like to see what he can do. Ultimately it will be Renney's decision, but I can see how the politics/protect assets argument will come into play. Reddox is a better penalty killer, and at this point I'm not sure what Jones does better to be honest. He isn't an agitator, he isn't big enough to be a banger and he doesn't fight. He might be better suited as a 3rd line winger, but that won't happen on this team.

I don't see Giroux, O'Marra (sorry LT) or McDonald being in the mix at all. Giroux hasn't shown the offence needed to stick, while O'Marra and McDonald have just been okay. Neither one has stood out to this point, and I don't see them sticking through the weekend.

The blue line has three pairings with guys who are locks to make the team in Smid, Foster and Gilbert, while the other three are longshots. Petiot played well with Gilbert last Thursday, and he needs to continue playing the same way. "He can play. If we can see some consistency in some of the things that have been lacking in the past, he's got a shot to play in the NHL. I like his mobility, he passes it well, he shoots it well and I think what he has to do is be real confident and assert himself," said Renney.

Plante has shown lots of improvement since last year, but he is still a year away from really pushing for a job. Chorney, in my mind, has fallen down the depth chart and I don't see him being a part of the future of this team. Jeff Petry has surpassed him as a puck mover, and Chorney isn't big enough to play a physical game. You can never have too many puck movers, but Chorney hasn't stood out at all in this camp and is probably 10th or 11th on the depth chart now.

QUICK HITS

  • Ryan Whitney didn't skate today. He rode the bike for brief stint before practice, but he still has a slight headache from taking that puck in the face on Sunday. He doesn't have a concussion, but they are going to ease him back in to the daily routiine. Renney expects him to be fine by the weekend.
     
  • Renney hinted that he'd like to give JDD, Khabibulin and Dubnyk a full game each in the remaining three. I wonder if he'll play Khabibulin on Friday and if he plays well go to Dubnyk on Sunday, but if Khabibulin struggles maybe he'll get a third start just to be sharpen up for the season. We will see.
     
  • Steve Tambellini didn't want to discuss if he's had conversations with Minnesota regarding goaltending, but Jim Matheson asked him so I wonder if the Wild are sniffing around now that Josh Harding is out for the year.
     
  • Renney is really big on leadership, so expect Jason Strudwick to make the team. It is an intangible that many don't understand, but Renney loves how Strudwick can make the rookies feel welcome and comfortable, but also help the leaders lead.
     
  • Shawn Belle and Theo Peckham will most likely play Friday v. the Flames. Both guys need to play better than they have, but I still think Peckham has a slight edge as the number seven.
     
  • There has been so much focus on the rookies so far, and they have delivered, but I can't help but think Gagner is a guy who needs to emerge this season. It looks like he'll start with Hemsky and Paajarvi on his wings. He has slimmed down and looks quicker, but he needs to make an impact on the ice this year and he won't get a better opportunity than starting with Hemsky.

FINAL WORD

I was scanning the blog world yesterday and came upon David Staples article that referenced this article on MC79hockey.com I've seen many bloggers question the thoughts of other bloggers or MSM guys, so I thought I'd chime in on Dellow's idea to send down Hall and Paajarvi.

I had tried to go to his site this morning and read the article in it's entirety but kept getting an error message saying that the bandwidth for the site had been exceeded. I guess writing a bunch of inaccurate statements and having it referenced at the Journal brought the house down.

Anyways, here is his opening line courtesy of Staples' site.

 "I’ve made the argument about burning years off the entry level contracts of rookies before. It’s a simple enough proposition: you only get three years with these guys on entry level contracts and you might as well use them when the player in question is a stronger player.

As I’ve pointed out before, on teams like Detroit and New Jersey, teenagers virtually never make the team. There was lots of talk, when the Oilers installed Tambellini as general manager, that they were moving towards more of a Detroit model. I made this point then, but there’s more to doing what Detroit does than having a lot of people in your management group. They do smart things, like not forcing teenagers into the lineup and wasting their cheap years on 45 point seasons."

Comparing what the Devils and Red Wings have done with their kids to Hall and Paajarvi is inaccurate and completely off-base. Since 1992 the Wings haven't had one pick in the top twenty, Jakub Kindl went 19th in 2005, while the Devils have only had one Zach Parise, 17th overall in 2003, top twenty pick since 1996. And FYI, Zach Parise spent one year in NCAA and then his ECL kicked in when he played in the AHL during the lockout. So I can't help but think that  the Devils did the exact same thing with Parise that the Oilers are going to do with Paajarvi.

And come on - of course the Wings haven't rushed any players, because none of them were ready to play in the NHL at 18. A perennial top-five hockey team is blessed with lots of talent and then can bring along players slowly. Bottom feeder teams don't have that luxury.

Suggesting the Oilers send Hall down, and Paajarvi back to Sweden so they get a more mature player is nothing more than speculation. 

Sure players will be a year older, but by playing in lower leagues will their games get better and prepare them more for the NHL? I don't see how Hall would be able to adapt to the speed and quickness of the NHL next year any better than this year. He needs to experience it first hand and adjust accordingly. And if he is ready now, let him play.

And can anyone name the last top-ten pick who stayed a year in Europe after being drafted, then came to camp as a 19-year-old, had a great preseason, but then was sent back to Europe, just to delay the start of his ELC? It doesn't make sense on so many levels. You don't send a player back to Europe who is better than the guy you would keep in his place, just to delay the start of his contract.

Another FYI...Datsyuk scored 35 and 51 points his first two years in the league. So even having him come over as 23-year-old didn't prevent the Wings from avoiding wasting his "cheap" years on 45-point seasons. Zetrterberg was a 22-year-old rookie and tallied 44 and 43 points his first two seasons. Again those "cheap" years still garned around 45 points.

The last forward who was taken 1st overall who didn't play in the NHL in his draft year was Eric Lindros. He didn't play because he wasnt' good enough, it was because he refused to go to Quebec. And playing that extra year out of the NHL didn't make him realize he needed to keep his head up anymore now did it!

The reason first overall picks go straight to the NHL is because they can compete and are better players than guys picked late in the first round like or later rounds like the Wings have drafted. Not to mention the the teams that get the first pick rarely have more talented players to keep ahead of them.

Suggesting that the Oilers would get more bang for their buck by sending Hall and Paajarvi away just to delay the start of their contract in an attempt to stretch a dollar is just nonsense.

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#101 Buckwheat
September 28 2010, 07:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ribs

Seriously. The key word is "adapt." And the key question is; If Hall plays in the NHL @ 18, regardless of how he fares statistically, would a 19 year old Hall with NHL experience be more prepared than a 19 year old Hall who tore up the cabbage patch in the O?

Comes to a vote, yay Gregor, boo Dellow. Gregor wins on points, not a TKO. George Bush I was once quoted as saying, "It's the economy, stupid." If we were to ask Georgie to respond to Dellow, perhaps it might be, "It's the psychology, stupid."

Avatar
#102 David S
September 28 2010, 07:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
David S wrote:

Hey Jason - I caught the last few minutes of your show today just as you were mentioning Zack called in unscheduled. I love his phone calls. What hour did his call come in?

Nevermind. Damn good segment.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/the-jason-gregor-show/highlight_reel/clips/Zach_Stortini_Hordichuk_Fight_-_Sept_28.mp3

Avatar
#103 dawgbone
September 28 2010, 08:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@PaperDesigner

And how did Stamkos challenging for the Richard Trophy at 19 help the lightning as team in their playoff hunt?

If Stamkos had not challenged for the Richard trophy this year, would the Lightning have been worse off?

Does it hurt the Lightning at all if he only scores 30 last year in his rookie season?

Avatar
#104 dawgbone
September 28 2010, 08:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Buckwheat

Who cares if he's a better player at 19?

The real question should be is he a better player at 22 on his ELC after 2 years in the league than he is at 20 on his ELC after 2 years in the league? Because that is when the Oilers are going to need it.

Avatar
#105 dawgbone
September 28 2010, 08:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@jr_christ

The Oilers have essentially sold out the season this year. Hall isn't going to sell many more seats.

Not only that, but they've got Eberle that they can use to sell those half price seats if it's really that much of an issue.

In terms of jersey sales, it's a moot point because all merchandising revenues are split in the NHL.

Sportsnet already has an agreement in place with the Oilers for their TV rights. Hall will not change that this year.

The only place you could argue that the Oilers would be better off is in terms of PPV sales.

Hall isn't going to win enough games to keep Penner and Hemsky happy anyways. The Oilers aren't a playoff team this year with or without him, so guys like Penner and Hemsky will fly south regardless.

Avatar
#109 dawgbone
September 28 2010, 08:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

Don't you think the ridiculous Campbell signing and forgetting the fax on Barker and Versteeg hurt them? Lots of things came into play.

They decided to go for it and won the Cup. They brought in Hossa as a big ticket free agent too.

And the 2003 class had some guys play in the NHL and then go to the AHL. Big difference.

Sure those things hurt them. Part of the Campbell signing is that they did exactly what people here are suggesting "Don't worry about 3 years from now, it will sort itself out". Lots of things did come into play, one of them being the extra money they have to pay out to Kane and Toews this year as opposed to next year.

Some guys did (5 I think, not counting Fleury). A lot of them didn't. Perry, Richards, Getzlaf, Parise, Carter & Vanek all stayed out of the NHL at 18. Some took a couple of years outside of the NHL.

As a flipside to that, what happened to Horton, Brown & Michalek (3 players who did go right to the NHL) that year?

All 3 suffered major injuries.

In any case, did the switch from the NHL to the AHL hurt these players in their development? Wouldn't MPS fit into this same category now?

Avatar
#110 Cole G
September 28 2010, 08:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Wow, by reading these comments, my belief that there is a large group of Oiler fans who can NEVER be pleased has been further reinforced. What kind of a message do you think you're sending when you give a soft bumm like giroux a job by sending paajarvi and hall down/overseas to save a year on their ELC?! Haven't the Oilers rewarded mediocre skills enough over the recent years, these kids are hungry, and they have players like Hemsky and Horcoff playing better and pushing themselves again. That attitude spreads and you would deflate everything by sending them down. Those two plus eberle and a renewed attitude in the room will make the Oilers a fun team to watch again and isn't that what people pay to see when they go to a game? I bloody well hope thats the case, not these fantasies of stacking the team with more youth by purposely sabatoging this year, armchair Gm's, please give your head a shake.

Thankfully the likes of Tyler Dellow and his number crunching cronies who place no value on good people, intagibles (See Strudwick) and leadership are in no way involved in the decision making of this fragile team.

Avatar
#111 dawgbone
September 28 2010, 09:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

What else does your crystal ball tell you? You seem to know exactly how things will unfold. We will see.

Enlighten us with who will score what this year, so I can make lots of money. You think everything plays out exactly like you think.

Putting Hall and MP in the minors would have made Hemsky and Penner more happy is what you are saying, or you are taking a loser mentality and stating they have zero chance to improve as a team. I can tell you from speaking with Hemsky this is the most excited he has been about playing in a long time. He wants skilled guys to play with and he will get them. If he sees progress this year and half way into next year, why are you so sure he will leave??? Once again just a guess on your part.

Really, this is the route you are taking?

Why don't you take that crystal ball crap and go after people talking about how Hall will be mad and not sign here again or demand a trade if the Oilers send him back down?

Why not take it after the person I replied to who said leaving Hall off may make Hemsky and Penner not want to sign in Edmonton?

Why not apply it to your own commentary "Suggesting that the Oilers would get more bang for their buck by sending Hall and Paajarvi away just to delay the start of their contract in an attempt to stretch a dollar is just nonsense."

Where's your crystal ball? How do you know the Oilers won't be better off cap-wise holding them back a year?

Tell me so I can make money.

If that's the route you are going to take, go apply it to everyone, not just cherry pick stuff you don't agree with. If that's what you need to resort too, you should consider stepping back and reading what people are saying and think about your position.

As for the stuff that wasn't written by a 12 year old:

The Oilers have nothing to do but improve as a team. You can't get worse than a 30th place hockey team can you? And no I'm not saying not having Hall & MP in the minors would make Penner and Hemsky happy, what I was saying was in response to keeping them here will make them happy. That's not necessarily true. If those guys want to win, having Hall here this year isn't going to change how much they win.

Answer these questions.

1. Do you think the Oilers will make the playoffs this year?

2. Will Taylor Hall be a better rookie at 18 than he would at 19 or 20?

3. Do you have any evidence that suggests extra years in junior have a negative impact on the development of players?

If you answer no to all 3 of these, is there any reason why the Oilers would benefit as a team by playing an 18 year old Hall in the NHL and burning a year off his contract?

Avatar
#112 dawgbone
September 28 2010, 09:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Cole G

Yeah, good thing we have the competent management group in place that has orchestraed 2 of the worst finishes in franchise history over the last 4 years instead. Strudwick may be a great guy, but he's an awful hockey player and it would take more intangibles and leadership than one person could possibly have to make up for the number of games Strudwick cost the Oilers by not being a good hockey player.

Avatar
#113 Cole G18
September 28 2010, 09:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@dawgbone

While I totally agree that yes, Strudwicks skills are mediocre, looking at the new found depth in our backend bottom pairing, i doubt he will have to be exposed the way him and Chorney were many times (the most memorable being "the shift" against DET). I think this year he, along with horcoff and friends will be able to focus much more on being a positive influence in the room and helping instill values and good attitude to hall/mps/eberle what moreau and co. seemingly failed to do during their time as the go to "leaders" of the room.

Many people have said that they could maintain strudwicks positive attitude and people skills no problem if it meant they could be on the team and collect the mega salary seem to forget how tasking mentally and physically it is to live the life of an NHL player every day and strudwick is one of the best guys you'll ever meet, certainly someone to give a little perspective. He didn't cost us games, our poor drafting and development that led to no blueline depth for years forced him to be exposed in ways he shouldn't have been. That falls on management, so I won't argue your point there.

Avatar
#114 BarryS
September 28 2010, 10:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
dawgbone wrote:

Sure he can.

Were guys like Richards, Carter, Perry, Getzlaf, etc... not able to get better going up against the same guys/boys they had already been facing?

Your school analogy is utterly ridiculous. Not only is there absolutely no relation, but in school you stay with the same peers which you just argued against. The equivilant would be jumping to University from Grade 10.

And what on earth makes you think Hall is ready!!!! ? Ready for what? Ready to be a difference maker in the NHL this year? I doubt it.

Fortunately there have been people who jumped to university with less than grade ten, and some who became professors without a university degree of any sort.

All your assumptions are based on salaries generally remaining high and the CBA remaining unchanged, neither being likely at the moment. (See rapid decline in salaries in new contracts, other than a couple top end stars).

If on the off chance both the cap and the general levels of contracts rise, then the Oilers will have the room to sign them if they want to, unless folks stop shopping at certain drug stores, that is.

Given the NFL gathers in most of the TV and corporate box money in the US and Baseball and Basketball most of the rest, there will never be a large TV money contract for what in the US will always be a nitch sport with limited real growth potental given an aging market place and youth demographics seeming to shift away from regularly scheduled mass entertainment events.

Avatar
#115 Buckwheat
September 28 2010, 10:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
dawgbone wrote:

Who cares if he's a better player at 19?

The real question should be is he a better player at 22 on his ELC after 2 years in the league than he is at 20 on his ELC after 2 years in the league? Because that is when the Oilers are going to need it.

Math was never my strong point, but, if Hall is 22 with two years in the league, it must mean that he made the club at the age of 20. Yes? If on the other hand he is 20 with two years in the league, where did the missing year go?

Anyway, I respectively disagree. Since you reference the age of 22, you do so because of financial considerations, disregarding the player Hall will become.

My point is simply this: If Hall is able to make the club this year on talent, that's where he should be. Further, given an extra year of experience, I respectively submit that he will be a better player with it than without it. And, after all, isn't winning the name of the game?

Avatar
#116 andrewmk20
September 28 2010, 10:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Completely agree Gregor. Not to mention the precedent that this sends out.

"Bust you butt training and play your heart out in the preseason but because your contract can slide we're sending you back"

If that doesn't deflate a young player I don't know what will, especially with how well the trio have played. If they perform well enough to make the team they make the team. It's that simple. And all three have been noticeable difference makers in the preseason. And the Oilers are short on those types of players as only Hemsky is the kind of player who can alter the momentum of the game with his skill.

Avatar
#117 BArmstrong
September 28 2010, 11:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@dawgbone

You sir get an attaboy for arguing your position - great debate fellas.

Question #2 - Hall will most certainly be a better player at 19 than 18, at 20 than 19, at 21 than 20, etc. Stamkos was also a better player after one more birthday. The question is will Hall improve more in Windsor than in the NHL, and if not will he catapult further if held back a year.

What scares me is Tambo's pitch if he sends Hall down?

"Oh sure, you're gonna be a great player one day kid, maybe the next Gretzky, or Crosby, but we've got a real opportunity to save some money here. I mean, we can't have you putting up big numbers too soon - hell, success can be expensive. Sure we could keep you on the big club and get you set up with some fine line mates like O'mara and MacDonald - that worked great for Cogs last year, just re-signed him for a mil, but I'd take to much heat in the press. Better you just go back to Windsor and (*makes air quotes*) develop."

*smiles that greasy smile like at the Pat Quinn presser when he let everyone know - including Quinn, "the plan".

Avatar
#118 eskimoilerfan
September 28 2010, 11:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Mike Modano choose to return to Prince Albert after he was drafted because HE felt he wasn't ready for the show? Or was he sent back to Junior by the North Stars? Regardless he did mature with that extra year and posted 75 points in his 19 year old Rookie season, just food for thought.

Avatar
#119 VK63
September 29 2010, 12:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@eskimoilerfan

He wasn't physically ready... He grew a bunch before and during that last raider year, when he did make the north stars he was a much more physically mature man.

Avatar
#123 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 07:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BarryS wrote:

Fortunately there have been people who jumped to university with less than grade ten, and some who became professors without a university degree of any sort.

All your assumptions are based on salaries generally remaining high and the CBA remaining unchanged, neither being likely at the moment. (See rapid decline in salaries in new contracts, other than a couple top end stars).

If on the off chance both the cap and the general levels of contracts rise, then the Oilers will have the room to sign them if they want to, unless folks stop shopping at certain drug stores, that is.

Given the NFL gathers in most of the TV and corporate box money in the US and Baseball and Basketball most of the rest, there will never be a large TV money contract for what in the US will always be a nitch sport with limited real growth potental given an aging market place and youth demographics seeming to shift away from regularly scheduled mass entertainment events.

Yup, but not everyone does jump to university with less than grade 10. It's reserved for special circumstances.

And yes my assumptions are based on the salaries remaining high in general and the CBA remaining unchanged.

First of all, UFA contracts (for players in their 30's) may be on the decline but RFA ones are not. RFA ones have increased dramatically and those are the ones we are concerned about.

And yes I'm using the current CBA as an assumption because that's what is currently in place. Sure it could change or it could be extended another 10 years. I'd rather deal in what we know now, which is this current CBA.

Avatar
#124 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 07:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Buckwheat

Correct, hall would be 22 with 2 years in the league if he started at 20 years old. Starting his first year at 20, his 2nd at 21. He would begin his 3rd year at 22. Hence he'd be 22 with 2 years experience.

If he started at 18 and had 2 years experience he'd be 20 at the start of his 3rd year.

I'm not disregarding the player Hall will become, I'm hoping he's going to be the player he's touted to be at that time.

Is there any sort of evidence that you can provide that shows the year in the NHL at 18 years old makes you a better player later on than you would be if you spend that year in Junior?

You are right, he'd be a better 19 year old player in the NHL if he had that 18 year old season there, but how much does that help the team? We aren't concerned about his 19 year old season for 2 reasons:

1. The team won't be in a position to compete.

2. He's still on the developmental side.

What we want is the best Taylor Hall at 20, 21, 22, 23, etc... because he's going to be a superior player at that point than he will at 18 or 19 and the team will be in better shape (hopefully). If you can argue (with evidence) that not playing in the NHL at 18 & 19 makes you a worse player at 22, then I'll buy the argument that he needs to be here.

I just don't think that's the case.

Avatar
#125 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
September 29 2010, 07:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Anyone have a figure to how much cap we have committed when the big three contracts expire?

Less then 10mil or so is it not?

I'd think that if all 3 of them are the players that people are predicting them to be that in 3 years there will be other changes to the roster and room will be made for them or one will be dealt for help on the blueline.

People worry far too much about what is going to happen in 3 years from now.

Are we assuming that all three are going to have a better first 3 years then Gagner and all are going to get that much more then he did after his ELC?

Avatar
#126 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 08:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

I never said it was a guarantee that the OIlers would be better off cap wise in four years, because no one can predict what they will do.

Unlikely that they do, but if Hall and Paajarvi play here they will be better off next year.

No idea about how good Hall will be one year older. Show me a guy who was that much more dominant at 19. How many first year 19 year olds put up big points. So what is the point of delaying him a year? Just to maybe be in a better cap space. That is a big maybe.

No because no first overall pick who was a forward in the past 20 years have went back. Do you have any proof that suggests he would do?

Why the worry about burning a year off his contract??? What proof do you have that saving that year makes the Oilers better in the long run.

Hall learning the NHL game sooner has more benefit longterm, if he is physically mature enough to handle it. And every says he is. He likely won't score 60 points, but he doesn't have to become a better player at 19.

As for your little rant about a 12-year old, give me a break.

You wrote claims that it was a sure thing that the Oilers would be better off to send Hall and MP down. With no proof and since you, nor anyone, can predict what happens in two years, your theory seems based on no outside influences interfering, which is impossible in the sporting world. So if you want to give flack, be prepared to take some.

You didn't? Then please explain this statement (pulled directly from your post):

"Suggesting that the Oilers would get more bang for their buck by sending Hall and Paajarvi away just to delay the start of their contract in an attempt to stretch a dollar is just nonsense."

If you aren't saying that there is no chance the Oilers won't be better cap wise, then what do you mean the argument that they could be is just nonsense? I'm curious to know. If it's not a fact in your mind, how could the argument be nonsense?

And yeah, you are acting like a 12 year old. Crystal ball? Really? Is that an argument a grown man should be using in a discussion? I don't think so.

I'm not sure I've placed anything as fact, it's all been an opinion.

As for not providing evidence, there's been no "evidence" from either side, so I'm not sure why you suggesting it's only coming from me.

Here is the argument in it's most basic form:

Hall should be held back because there is little to gain for the club this year by putting him in the NHL. 18 year olds (as a rule) tend to struggle with some very rare exceptions.

We good so far? I'll continue.

The evidence as to why it's a good idea is as follows:

If we assume he's going to be as advertised (in other words a star), that means when is contract is up he'll command salaries like Kane, Ryan, Getzlaf, Toews, etc... So after 3 years the Oilers could be paying him between 5-7mil/season.

Am I using a crystal ball? No, I'm assuming a similar CBA will still be in place.

So if Hall starts in the NHL at 18 years old, we are looking at paying him $6 mil (conservatively) at 21 years old.

Because there is a whole history of players who don't play in the NHL at 18 and who have gone on to be impact players in the NHL, there is no evidence to suggest that keeping an 18 year old out of the NHL stalls their development.

So if we start Hall in the NHL at 19, that means he is 22 when the Oilers have to pay him $6mil.

Extending that further, if the Oilers then play Hall in the AHL at 19 (he'll be eligible under the Spezza rule), his ELC rolls over a year. Meaning that he's 23 when the Oilers have to pay him $6mil.

If Oilers management is smart, that gives them 3 seasons to make the roster into what they think will be a championship team, then 2 further years to tweak it using the savings in Hall's (and MPS's) cap hits to bolster the roster.

If Hall and MPS are as advertised, I'd rather be paying them their $3mil at 20, 21 & 22 rather than $3mil at 18, 19, 20 and $6mil at 21 & 22. For one the Oilers aren't in a position to benefit from a cheap year by Hall right now. Secondly, Hall should be a better rookie at 20 than he would be at 18.

So what proof do I have that saving the year makes the Oilers better in the long run?

I don't have proof, I have an opinion. Hall should be better prepared to be a rookie in the NHL at 20 than he should at 18, which would give the Oilers a longer window to assemble the players necessary to make a run for the cup while Hall is on his ELC.

And what is your proof that makes this argument, as you so eloquantly put it, nonsense?

Avatar
#127 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 08:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

Yes the number six D-man was the reason they stunk. Who would you have called up in his place that would have been so much better?

Blaming a #6 D-man for the woes of a 30th place team is rich. Yes he played too many games. If he plays 35-45 this year, the Oilers are better off, but he played 72 games last year due to injuries.

How many games did he directly cost them? I'd be curious what that number is.

Read the comment I responded too, then try again.

Be less in a hurry to jump all over someone and spend more time following the conversation.

He suggested that management was smarter than others in part because they understood the value Strudwick brought to the team.

My response was above and it involved 2 points:

1. This management group has put a roster together that has had 2 of the worst regular season finishes in Oilers history over the past 4 years.

2. Whatever intangibles strudwick has is negated by the fact he's a bad defenceman. Whether he plays 35 games or 72, he's still not a good enough defenceman to do that. Playing him less doesn't make him a better player in those games, it just exposes your team less because he's playing in half the games.

Avatar
#128 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 08:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

Anyone have a figure to how much cap we have committed when the big three contracts expire?

Less then 10mil or so is it not?

I'd think that if all 3 of them are the players that people are predicting them to be that in 3 years there will be other changes to the roster and room will be made for them or one will be dealt for help on the blueline.

People worry far too much about what is going to happen in 3 years from now.

Are we assuming that all three are going to have a better first 3 years then Gagner and all are going to get that much more then he did after his ELC?

Why wouldn't you plan for 3 years down the road as a rebuilding hockey team?

How can you build when you have no plan? Haven't we seen this the last 4 years?

Didn't Chicago have to dump off some good players because they didn't think far enough into the future when they signed guys like Campbell and Huet?

Having less than $10 mil committed means there is an entire roster to fill, so you better know now how you plan to fill it.

Avatar
#130 BBOil
September 29 2010, 09:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I have the solution. Play Hall, Eberle, Magnus now. When there ELC are up, assuming they have earned it, hopefully sign them each to big money, long term deals. In the meantime, make decisions on whom you will keep out of Gilbert, Whitney, Penner, Hemsky, Gagner, Brule, and Cogs. Also Souray and Khabby contracts will be up by the time it comes to pay day for the kids, so there will be money to go around.

Point is, play them now. See what you have, and what it will cost to pay them. If they are looking like guys to build around, maybe a guy like Penner becomes expendable. Trade him at the deadline, for more young prospects/picks. Now there is money to go towards future signing of kids. Now you have a young core you can build around, and hopefully can sign them long term, then its a matter of bringing in a supporting cast for them. The kids ELC may be up a year earlier, but that isn't necessarily bad either. Have to pay them sometime right, and right now 2013 doesn't look like a bad year to do it.

Avatar
#131 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
September 29 2010, 09:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
dawgbone wrote:

Why wouldn't you plan for 3 years down the road as a rebuilding hockey team?

How can you build when you have no plan? Haven't we seen this the last 4 years?

Didn't Chicago have to dump off some good players because they didn't think far enough into the future when they signed guys like Campbell and Huet?

Having less than $10 mil committed means there is an entire roster to fill, so you better know now how you plan to fill it.

They dumped replaceable players that didn't exactly have the best contracts.

Even after all that dumping they did they are still considered a contender in the west.

They moved Ladd a 40 point player for a 2nd a prospect. Bufflin, Eager, Sopel and Aliu for three guys and a 1st and a 2nd.Versteeg another 40-50 point for some prospects.

It's not like they got raped in the deals. Maybe they lose them all, but they added lots of prospect depth and picks that will be used to help them acquire guys at this years trade deadline.

Avatar
#133 BBOil
September 29 2010, 09:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach

Here, Here!!!

That's what I was getting at yesterday too. Of the guys the Hawks lost, they weren't core guys. Valuable yes, but not essential pieces. When you have an abundance of assets, you can afford to lose some, and really they just ended selling their 3rd/4th line guys at max value, and restocking the shelf. A bad contract or two sure, but Campbell isn't exactly useless. I watched a lot of Hawks the last couple of years, and they are a lot better team with him than they are without.

Oilers are starting to build assets now too, which gives them the flexibility to choose who to build around. As long as they can keep contracts manageable, the potential to shed assets as needed is there. Cogs is the perfect example. If he does well this year and develops into a solid player, and they end up signing him to another 2-3 years at a 2-3mil, then its easy enough to find a trade partner if needed in order to shed money to sign someone else.

Part of thinking 2-3 yrs down the road is making sure you have assets to work with, which gives you the option to make decisions on who you want and who you can part with.

Avatar
#134 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 10:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

Hey smart guy...why don't you follow along.

Your exact line was, "but he's an awful hockey player and it would take more intangibles and leadership than one person could possibly have to make up for the number of games Strudwick cost the Oilers by not being a good hockey player."

So how many games. Can't you follow along, or do you forget what you wrote. Just answer the question.

I didn't jump on you Mr. thin skin. You don't seem to want to back up your points. Just answer how many games. It was a serious question. Curious how you come to that conclusion.

I don't have a number for how many games.

He's a terrible defenceman and has played a lot of minutes.

Not only that, but whatever leadership he did have evidently wasn't enough to overcome the rift that was generating in the locker room. So exactly what value does he provide?

He's not a good defenceman, so his on-ice performance hurts the team.

His off-ice presence wasn't enough to prevent what happened in the room (not his fault, no one could).

So what does he provide that benefits the Oilers? His on ice play hurts them, so how much are his "intangibles" worth? How have they contributed to hockey games?

Don't get me wrong, you need guys who can show the young players the ropes, stand up for teammates, act as a mediary, etc...

But if they can't play hockey, they lose a lot of effectiveness because there are guys who can do that stuff and play the game.

And for the record, there's no thin-skin here. I just find it hypocritical that you choose to demand proof from me while you aren't demanding the same from others.

I also find it hypocritical that you demand answers from me, but choose not to answer the questions I've posed to you, especially seeing as you responded to the rest of the post.

I guess it's my fault. I should temper my expectations when someone comes at me with a crystal ball argument.

Avatar
#135 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
September 29 2010, 10:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
BBOil wrote:

Here, Here!!!

That's what I was getting at yesterday too. Of the guys the Hawks lost, they weren't core guys. Valuable yes, but not essential pieces. When you have an abundance of assets, you can afford to lose some, and really they just ended selling their 3rd/4th line guys at max value, and restocking the shelf. A bad contract or two sure, but Campbell isn't exactly useless. I watched a lot of Hawks the last couple of years, and they are a lot better team with him than they are without.

Oilers are starting to build assets now too, which gives them the flexibility to choose who to build around. As long as they can keep contracts manageable, the potential to shed assets as needed is there. Cogs is the perfect example. If he does well this year and develops into a solid player, and they end up signing him to another 2-3 years at a 2-3mil, then its easy enough to find a trade partner if needed in order to shed money to sign someone else.

Part of thinking 2-3 yrs down the road is making sure you have assets to work with, which gives you the option to make decisions on who you want and who you can part with.

The thing that gets me about the 2-3 years is a lot can happen. Wasn't it just not so long ago that we were suppose to be in cap trouble this year?

Having too many assets is never a bad thing.

Avatar
#136 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 10:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@BBOil

BBOil, Dustin Byfuglin lead the team in the playoff goals. He was not a minor piece to their team.

Yes they dumped off 3rd and 4th liners but they dumped off guys who contributed. They also dumped a decent young goaltender and replaced him with an older vet who has been up and down since the lockout.

Campbell may not be useless but they could have signed Mark Streit to play the same role at significantly less money.

Do you believe the Hawks are stronger now than they werelast year?

There's no dount they good some good assets back in the trades, but they don't help the Hawks this year. As much as good talent is an important key, depth is the deciding factor when the talent is a near wash.

Avatar
#137 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 10:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

The thing that gets me about the 2-3 years is a lot can happen. Wasn't it just not so long ago that we were suppose to be in cap trouble this year?

Having too many assets is never a bad thing.

I don't think a lot can happen is an excuse.

I for one don't want to be sitting here 3 years from know hearing about how "We didn't know it would turn out like this".

I don't know what is going to happen in my life in 3, 10, 25 years but I certainly have plans.

We aren't in cap trouble because we "lost" a player on waivers, bought out another one, downgraded our defence and managed to find someone to take Staios & O'Sullivan off our hands.

Not really ideal, but it worked out. I don't think I want to bank on "it worked out" too many times, because next time it might involve a good player we lose on waivers instead of Moreau.

Avatar
#138 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
September 29 2010, 10:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
dawgbone wrote:

BBOil, Dustin Byfuglin lead the team in the playoff goals. He was not a minor piece to their team.

Yes they dumped off 3rd and 4th liners but they dumped off guys who contributed. They also dumped a decent young goaltender and replaced him with an older vet who has been up and down since the lockout.

Campbell may not be useless but they could have signed Mark Streit to play the same role at significantly less money.

Do you believe the Hawks are stronger now than they werelast year?

There's no dount they good some good assets back in the trades, but they don't help the Hawks this year. As much as good talent is an important key, depth is the deciding factor when the talent is a near wash.

Goaltending shouldn't be an issue for them. Crawford has lots of potential and playing behind Turco will be good for him.

The Hawks might not be as strong, but they are still a cup contender. No team is going to be able to keep their team year after year and compete for the cup. It is what happens with the cap era.

As for Streit he was a one year wonder at the time and could've very easily flopped on the Isles.

Avatar
#139 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
September 29 2010, 10:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@dawgbone

We have 10mil committed in 3 years from now. There is also the chance that if we are really that good that we waive Horcoff and eat his 4mil salary.

Having 3 guys making 6mil isn't going to be the end of the world for this team.

The other thing is the CBA is most likely going to be revised in that time period too, so how do you even know what kind of rules we are going to be working with then?

Avatar
#140 Lochenzo
September 29 2010, 10:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

you have to be careful in sending a guy down just for the sake of saving a contract year. If he clearly deserves to be in the Show, but you send him down just to delay the expiry of his entry level deal, you could create some animosity with that player. I don't get that sense from Paajarvi, but you better have a hockey reason. If Renney feels he needs to be better on the boards or better in defensive coverage, so be it. That's something that a hockey player can understand. If he was bitter about money, he would either leave or make sure that the team paid him 'extra' in the next contract.

Avatar
#141 BBOil
September 29 2010, 10:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
dawgbone wrote:

BBOil, Dustin Byfuglin lead the team in the playoff goals. He was not a minor piece to their team.

Yes they dumped off 3rd and 4th liners but they dumped off guys who contributed. They also dumped a decent young goaltender and replaced him with an older vet who has been up and down since the lockout.

Campbell may not be useless but they could have signed Mark Streit to play the same role at significantly less money.

Do you believe the Hawks are stronger now than they werelast year?

There's no dount they good some good assets back in the trades, but they don't help the Hawks this year. As much as good talent is an important key, depth is the deciding factor when the talent is a near wash.

Don't think they are as strong as they were last year, but they also put themselves in the position to be awesome for that one year. Had a chance to win the cup, so they went for it, and won it, likely knowing they would have to dump some guys after.

The fact that they had Buff, Versteeg, Ladd, etc... signed to reasonable contracts though, allowed them to essentially recycle them. They could have got rid of any of those guys a year or two ago seeing the trouble with the cap coming. Instead they pushed the limit, won the cup, then decided who was expendable and who wasn't.

Like it or not, in a salary cap world, guys are going to be lost whether you want to or not.

In the end, I pose this hypothetical. Lets put the Oil in the position of cup contender a few years from now (stretch I know). Would you rather they get rid of some valuable assets earlier than needed (ie - Brule, Gagner, Cogs), thinking about the cap a year or two down the road, or would you rather they put the best team they can out for a year or two and go for a cup, then deal the same guys they would have had to part with earlier, after the fact?

Me, I push the limit, go for the cup, and keep my core solid until the next time I can push the limit.

Avatar
#142 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 11:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

Goaltending shouldn't be an issue for them. Crawford has lots of potential and playing behind Turco will be good for him.

The Hawks might not be as strong, but they are still a cup contender. No team is going to be able to keep their team year after year and compete for the cup. It is what happens with the cap era.

As for Streit he was a one year wonder at the time and could've very easily flopped on the Isles.

Crawford has been average at best in the AHL. I don't think that translates to much more than mediocre backup in the NHL.

Turco is 35 now and has had up and down years since the lockout. He bounced back well last year (in a reduced workload), but was awful the year before. I'm just not sure what you getwith this guy.

And you are right, no team will keep their team year after year but the Hawks could have been damn close this year. They are still one of the top teams in the West but they aren't as good as last year. That can make a lot of difference in the playoffs.

As for Streit, well we know he wasn't a one year wonder and we know Campbell has flopped on the Hawks. We can what if until the cows come home and it's not important.

What's important is to learn from the mistakes made. Chicago was able to overcome them but it doesn't mean the mistakes were good. The Oilers need to learn how Chicago made those mistakes (not worrying about 3+ years down the road), and then not make the same ones.

Avatar
#143 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 11:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@BBOil

No doubt they build a strong team, I'm not denying that. Having guys like Buff, Versteeg, Ladd etc... on good contracts did help because it gave them added depth.

The issue is they lost that depth, depth that was a key part in winning the cup. And they lost it because they made bad decisions.

As for your hypothetical, I have a different scenario:

Recognize where you are going to be in 2,3,4 years. Plan for it.

If you know you are going to have to sign your good young players to $6mil contracts then make sure you don't sign a UFA now to a 7 year deal paying him that much money, especially if you think it will cause you problems.

Don't sign a guy taking only into account today and saying "We'll see where we are in 3 years!". The Oilers have an awesome chance to do something special here, and I'm truely worried they are going to blow it.

Avatar
#144 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 11:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

We have 10mil committed in 3 years from now. There is also the chance that if we are really that good that we waive Horcoff and eat his 4mil salary.

Having 3 guys making 6mil isn't going to be the end of the world for this team.

The other thing is the CBA is most likely going to be revised in that time period too, so how do you even know what kind of rules we are going to be working with then?

Having only committed $10 mil just means there are lots of holes on the roster, which means this team has to factor in how the decisions they make today can impact down the road.

The question is, will we only have 3 guys making $6mil? What about Penner & Hemsky? What about Gagner? What about the next shiney UFA that catches Tambo's eye? What if instead of paying $6mil to both Hall and MPS we were only paying $3.75 and 1.525? Allowing the team to use an additional $6mil that year on a ringer?

As for the CBA, I'm not sure how likely it is to be revised nor by how much. That being said I don't think we should throw everything out the window. I think it's prudent to prepare for the CBA as it stands now. The good news is if you do it right you have extra flexibility to handle anything.

Avatar
#145 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
September 29 2010, 12:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
dawgbone wrote:

Crawford has been average at best in the AHL. I don't think that translates to much more than mediocre backup in the NHL.

Turco is 35 now and has had up and down years since the lockout. He bounced back well last year (in a reduced workload), but was awful the year before. I'm just not sure what you getwith this guy.

And you are right, no team will keep their team year after year but the Hawks could have been damn close this year. They are still one of the top teams in the West but they aren't as good as last year. That can make a lot of difference in the playoffs.

As for Streit, well we know he wasn't a one year wonder and we know Campbell has flopped on the Hawks. We can what if until the cows come home and it's not important.

What's important is to learn from the mistakes made. Chicago was able to overcome them but it doesn't mean the mistakes were good. The Oilers need to learn how Chicago made those mistakes (not worrying about 3+ years down the road), and then not make the same ones.

I agree with your last part and the best thing the hawks learnt and we can learn is to let the GM make the team and not have an owner or team president making the calls for you.

Avatar
#146 BBOil
September 29 2010, 12:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@dawgbone

I agree with you about not signing the big FAs now, in prep for the future.

I agree about planning ahead too. I wouldn't want them to go sign a big name FA next year. I'd rather establish that core of guys that you think you can win with, then maybe add that ringer as you put it with Ogden Jr after the fact, even if that means losing someone else after you make the push.

Either way decisions have to be made on who we keep and who goes, but if two years from now we look like a legit contender in the upcoming years, I'd rather they sign Penner, Hemsky, Gagner, Brule, etc.... and go for it the next year, then shed who you have to in order to sign the kids you want. If you are not in contention 2-4 yrs from now, I get what I can for Penner and Hemsky, and start working on that valuable depth to go with the kids in the future.

Really it comes down to balancing between now and the future. In the end though, if they want those kids long term, they'll give them the contracts to get it done. When they do it, doesn't matter. At some point a decision may need to be made between Hall and Hemsky, and for me you make that decision when you need to, keeping one eye on the future, and one eye on now.

Guess what really gets me is the idea we shouldn't play Hall or Magnus now, because we cannot win now. I see it as if this is going to be their team, give it to them now, because really there is only one way to become an NHL player and that is to play in the NHL.

Avatar
#147 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
September 29 2010, 12:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@BBOil

Realistically if MPS, Hall and Eberle become these superstars, do you really see Penner, Hemsky, Gagner and Brule playing with them for much more longer regardless of when the rookies were brought in?

Maybe you get an extra year by waiting a year with MPS and Hall, but long-term odds are the one year doesn't make that big of a difference.

Avatar
#148 BBOil
September 29 2010, 12:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach

Confused. Think I'm on your side. I want them in now.

Saying bring them in now, get a feel for what they are going to bring in the future. If they play well and we decide to build around them, then we make decisions on everyone else who's contracts are up the year prior. If we have a chance to win sooner than later, I'd be more inclined to try to keep as much of that group as possible (keeping in mind the upcoming RFAs). If there isn't a chance of winning, I'd be more inclined to get what I can for Penner and Hemsky, and continue building around young guys.

Avatar
#149 Saved by the Hall!
September 29 2010, 01:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ dawgbone

Question for you.

How many 40-50 point players coming out of their ELC have earned between 5-7 million on their second contract?

I'm pretty sure it's none.

So if we waste Hall's ELC on an non competitive team (as you say we will), what makes you think Hall will earn 6 million on his 2nd contract?

Please explain

Avatar
#150 dawgbone
September 29 2010, 01:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Saved by the Hall!

Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf.

Perry Put up 54 points in 07-08 and was signed July of 08 to his current deal (5 years 5.325 mil).

Getzlaf put up 39 points and was in the middle of a season where he scored 58 when he was signed to an extension in Nov 2007 (5 years 5.325 mil).

And just because the team won't be competetive doesn't mean that by the end of the contract he can't put up good personal numbers.

Comments are closed for this article.