Can the Edmonton Oilers afford to trade Sam Gagner? Can they afford not to?

Jonathan Willis
March 18 2014 10:13AM

89-Gagner-6

There is no more controversial player in Edmonton than Sam Gagner. The payoff for the difficult 2006-07 season, the still-young forward was supposed to be a primary piece for the Oilers to build around at centre. Instead, nearly 500 games into his NHL career, he continues to struggle.

What should Edmonton do with him?

The Case for Moving

89-Gagner-4

The argument for moving Gagner is that he isn’t a two-way hockey player.

Scoring isn’t really Gagner’s problem. He hasn’t lit the world on fire but he’s been posting very respectable second-line point totals since day one. On a team with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, that’s good enough (or should be eventually), even if it isn’t what the Oilers had in mind when they picked him sixth overall.

Gagner isn’t big, but that isn’t really a primary problem either. History is full of teams that have won Stanley Cups with centres roughly the size of Nugent-Hopkins and Gagner (fun fact for the ‘every team needs size down the middle!’ people: of the 10 centres to play on the Cup winners from Detroit (2008) and Boston (2011), not even one of them was listed at over 200 pounds). There are plenty of ways to win hockey games, and having a bunch of 6’4” guys who can play pivot is one of them, but not the only one.

What every Stanley Cup winner has in common is good players. And while Gagner is certainly an NHL player, it’s fair to wonder if he’s really the guy a team wants in the No. 2 pivot slot. Chicago won with Martin Hanzal (edit: Michal Handzus) there last season, but very few teams can insulate their No. 2 centre with Jonathan Toews in the No. 1 role and people like Patrick Kane and Patrick Sharp and Marian Hossa on the wings.

Watch Gagner on this goal against from Edmonton’s last game in Carolina:

Justin Schultz grabs the puck at the blue line and jumps up ice. Gagner’s in the middle of the zone, behind the pinching Schultz and his two wingers, and sees it all happen. At about the two second mark, he’s at the far left of the screen about halfway up, watching a battle on the side boards. There’s a Carolina player just above and to the right of him. A good centre knows that, knows that Schultz (smartly) pinched, and covers for the defenceman. Gagner wanders past the Hurricanes forward and suddenly there’s a two-on-one, and eventually a goal against.

Every player makes mistakes, and thus any player can be made to look terrible on video. But from what I’ve seen, this is a mistake typical of Gagner. He doesn’t have the defensive commitment a centre needs. He cheats for offence.

The Case Against Moving

89-Gagner-7

The argument against moving Gagner is equally simple. It’s a stupid idea from an asset management perspective to trade players during low ebbs in value.

The following are Gagner’s totals (projected over 82 games) for the last five seasons:

Season  G A PTS +/-
2009-10 18 31 49 -10
2010-11 18 33 51 -21
2011-12 20 31 51 5
2012-13 24 41 65 -10
2013-14 10  36 46 -31

Gagner is at a low ebb in goal-scoring, a low ebb in point-scoring and a particularly low ebb in plus/minus. I think that in this case the basic statistics reflect reality. He started the year injured, he came back and was brutal, and while he’s improved a little bit lately he simply hasn’t been the Gagner of past seasons.

If the Oilers had traded Gagner two years ago, they likely would have had a better return. Ditto for last season. This year? We’re talking about the Oilers retaining salary and getting back Kyle Clifford.

Bad NHL teams typically bleed talent. One of the reasons is because bad teams generally have managers who make bad decisions, but there’s more to it than that. Bad teams are under more pressure than good teams to move players in off years, because they need everyone performing at a top level just to get within visual range of respectability. Bad teams tend not to have a support system, so when the bottom falls out on a player it really falls out.

Moving Gagner right now will see the Oilers get a 50 cents on the dollar return.

What Should Edmonton Do?

Craig MacTavish10

We are in a situation where the team has competing interests. It needs to get better in the No. 2 centre slot, which means trading Gagner away. But it also needs to get full value (or as close to it as possible) to improve the roster, which means retaining Gagner.

There are all kinds of real world problems here (is Gagner pushing for a trade, which free agents will consider Edmonton, what does the trade market look like) but in theory I think there’s an obvious two-step best course here:

  • 1. Add a replacement for Gagner to the roster.
  • 2. Keep Gagner until his trade value rebounds.

Let’s call Gagner’s replacement “Brandon Dubinsky” (we’re picking on Columbus here because they have Ryan Johansen and Boone Jenner and Artem Anisimov and because virtually any of their four good centres would be a nice fit for the Oilers – but the general idea is just to add a player-type, not a specific player). If the Oilers add “Dubinsky” in the off-season without off-loading Gagner, they could start next year by putting him at centre on the third line and bumping Boyd Gordon down into the role of fourth-line defensive specialist (it’s the role Manny Malhotra played in Vancouver).

That puts Nugent-Hopkins’ line in the power-vs.-power role, the “Dubinsky” line in a secondary tough minutes role, the Gordon line in a defensive zone role, and leaves all kinds of soft minutes for the Gagner line. In that situation, it’s pretty conceivable that Gagner recovers offensively and his trade value increases dramatically, at which point Edmonton’s free to deal him for something else and bump “Dubinsky” into a more offensive role.

As we said, there are real-world considerations that might make this scenario an impossibility. But if possible, I think it’s the best route forward for Edmonton.

RECENTLY BY JONATHAN WILLIS

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#101 KSC10032
March 18 2014, 02:04PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

While often over-stated in terms of degree, most of the pluses and minuses @ Gagner's attributes as an NHL hockey player have been clearly identified and dissected on this site. At the 500ish game mark, he is what he is.

To me, one of the issues that blunts Sam's effectiveness is that he is a smurf who is -- almost exclusively -- forced to play with two other smurfs on his line. (I know Sam is listed at 200 lbs, but, c'mon).

I wonder just how much more effective he would be with a couple of 200+ lbs linear, tough wingers, with decent ability, who'd give Gagner the space and time he needs to maximize his strengths in terms of passing and puckhandling. Perhaps this is one of the reasons MacTavish pushed so hard for Clarkson.

It might be easier to find decent 2nd line wingers than the idealized second centre this sites readers seem so obsessed with.

Avatar
#102 Tikkanese
March 18 2014, 02:05PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers
** wrote:

Well there is talk of Bogdan Yakimov coming over this summer. He's Yakupov's homie, plays center, is a massive human being at 6'5, 210 pounds and did some scoring on depth minutes in the KHL this season (7 goals and 12 points in 33 games). It would be interesting to see him at training camp.

On a side note, keeping with JW's awful recommendations, he suggested to trade for David Clarkson back in December:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/12/14/should-the-edmonton-oilers-trade-for-toronto-maple-leafs-forward-david-clarkson/

These are Clarkson's numbers so far: 47 games, 4 goals, 6 assists, 10 points, plus/minus -7, $5,250,000 cap hit until 2020.

So, there's that.

Your answer is Yakimov?!? Wow!

When the best defensemen in the KHL (Belov) cannot even play regularily on the worst defense in the NHL, how is a depth KHL center supposed to instantly become a 2nd line center in the NHL?!?

Avatar
#103 Casey
March 18 2014, 02:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
They're $hittie wrote:

Why are people so hard for Draisaitl. Ya he is big and talented, but I just got a bad feeling that says bust. I still think if we go with a center it has to be one of the sams. Pick the best player not the biggest.

I agree BUT 105 points in 64 games does not say bust at all. Still though I would prefer Sam Bennett over Draisatl. 91 points in 57 games is a good resume BUT add that with his 118 penalty mintues

Avatar
#104 **
March 18 2014, 02:09PM
Trash it!
10
trashes
Cheers
10
cheers
Tikkanese wrote:

Your answer is Yakimov?!? Wow!

When the best defensemen in the KHL (Belov) cannot even play regularily on the worst defense in the NHL, how is a depth KHL center supposed to instantly become a 2nd line center in the NHL?!?

Dang it boy!! where did I write Yakimov was the answer? I just wrote it would be interesting to see him in camp. I didn't even write he would make the team. Get a grip boy, get a grip. Also, you are writing about a 28 yr old man already molded vs a 19 yo boy who is just starting. You're an idiot, and I say that with all my heart.

Avatar
#105 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 02:17PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
** wrote:

Dang it boy!! where did I write Yakimov was the answer? I just wrote it would be interesting to see him in camp. I didn't even write he would make the team. Get a grip boy, get a grip. Also, you are writing about a 28 yr old man already molded vs a 19 yo boy who is just starting. You're an idiot, and I say that with all my heart.

That's rich.

The guy making some of the grossest mischaracterizations I have ever seen saying, "where did I write that?"

Avatar
#106 **
March 18 2014, 02:18PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
oilerjed wrote:

Thanks for that. My next question was about Yakimov. How ready is he?

Well he played solid, if not eye popping, hockey at the WJC. Physically he is ready, but he needs to improve his skating, not that he is a coke machine, but he needs to get faster but beyond that I couldn't tell you. That's why I am intrigued to see him at the training camp, not at the prospects camp.

Avatar
#107 **
March 18 2014, 02:23PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

That's rich.

The guy making some of the grossest mischaracterizations I have ever seen saying, "where did I write that?"

Me no te entiendo muchacho (aka the guy making the grossest generalization I have seen on this particular post, because A: I don't have a idyllic memory to recall all other mis characterizations I have ever seen, and B) because I am not self-serving (well sometimes).

Avatar
#108 Tikkanese
March 18 2014, 02:26PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
16
cheers
** wrote:

Please elaborate.

Oilers sell low/buy high strategy elaboration:

Buy high

- Khabibulin UFA

- Ben Eager UFA

- Eric Belanger UFA

- most argue Sam Gagner's current contract

- some would argue Nugent-Hopkins contract

- offering more than Leafs did for David Clarkson

- Denis Grebeshkov's one way high price contract

Sell Low

- Hemsky trade years too late for magic beans

- Pronger's trade for magic beans immediatley after request became public knowledge

- Ryan Whitney not traded at deadline

- Curtis Glencross walking over minimal $ difference

Buying high and selling low on the same player:

Buy high - Sheldon Souray UFA

Sell low - buyout of Sheldon Souray

Buy high - Shawn Horcoff contract after career year

Sell low - Horcoff one of the best 3C in the game trade for magic beans, albeit due to the contract

Avatar
#109 nunyour
March 18 2014, 02:27PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

Bring in a veteran center and veteran winger to play in the top six,i think the young guys could use some veteran experience,Gags could play wing with Gordon and Hendricks,and yak could play on the forth line,where they can learn how to play on the defensive side of the game,and add some offence to the bottom six.

Avatar
#110 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 02:36PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers

@**

No special memory required.

If the Oilers followed JW's recommendations, Dubnyk would still be on net, Hemsky would still be here, Khabibulin would have been resigned, Horcoff would still be here, and nothing would ever change, because the team would still be terrible and no one would increase their value. Hell eve Jason Strudwick would probably be here still.

What?

I never liked Clarkson, and I am the one you're replying to. And you giving credence to the people running a team 8 years out of the playoffs, hmmm.... I know you can make a better argument than that. I can assure you Mac. T. is praying hail marys every night thanking the heavens Clarkson didn't sign here. Pretty much what you are predicting for Hendricks is what is happening to Clarkson right now. IF you are talking about khabibulin then I'm confused as to what your point is.

Again. WHAT?

Avatar
#111 Tikkanese
March 18 2014, 02:37PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
** wrote:

Dang it boy!! where did I write Yakimov was the answer? I just wrote it would be interesting to see him in camp. I didn't even write he would make the team. Get a grip boy, get a grip. Also, you are writing about a 28 yr old man already molded vs a 19 yo boy who is just starting. You're an idiot, and I say that with all my heart.

When you reply to the article titled "Can the Edmonton Oilers afford to trade Sam Gagner? Can they afford not to?", then yes you are saying Yakimov is the answer.

Also name calling will not help your cause.

Avatar
#112 **
March 18 2014, 02:38PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Tikkanese wrote:

Oilers sell low/buy high strategy elaboration:

Buy high

- Khabibulin UFA

- Ben Eager UFA

- Eric Belanger UFA

- most argue Sam Gagner's current contract

- some would argue Nugent-Hopkins contract

- offering more than Leafs did for David Clarkson

- Denis Grebeshkov's one way high price contract

Sell Low

- Hemsky trade years too late for magic beans

- Pronger's trade for magic beans immediatley after request became public knowledge

- Ryan Whitney not traded at deadline

- Curtis Glencross walking over minimal $ difference

Buying high and selling low on the same player:

Buy high - Sheldon Souray UFA

Sell low - buyout of Sheldon Souray

Buy high - Shawn Horcoff contract after career year

Sell low - Horcoff one of the best 3C in the game trade for magic beans, albeit due to the contract

I agree with almost everything you just wrote. So I will say this:

Horcoff's trade as fair value considering his conract, injury history, and his decline in play (he's been a fourth liner for the stars most of the season, and that's not a contending team).

Hemsky should have been moved before when his value was higher.

Those are the only 2 trades Mac Tavish had a hand on from your list, and they were done the best they could have been done under the circumstances.

Pinning hopes on what ifs doesn't work, and neither does buying high and selling low. Although bottom feeders sometimes have to do that, The Oilers are particularly awful at it.

Avatar
#113 -30-
March 18 2014, 02:42PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
9
cheers

Gagner is like Cogliano. A square peg being forced into a round hole.

In another situation, on another team Gagner will find his niche and flourish but not in Edmonton.

-30-

Avatar
#114 Tikkanese
March 18 2014, 02:43PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
** wrote:

I agree with almost everything you just wrote. So I will say this:

Horcoff's trade as fair value considering his conract, injury history, and his decline in play (he's been a fourth liner for the stars most of the season, and that's not a contending team).

Hemsky should have been moved before when his value was higher.

Those are the only 2 trades Mac Tavish had a hand on from your list, and they were done the best they could have been done under the circumstances.

Pinning hopes on what ifs doesn't work, and neither does buying high and selling low. Although bottom feeders sometimes have to do that, The Oilers are particularly awful at it.

I for the record never said the Oilers should pin hopes on the "what if" scenario of Gagner becoming a two-way player. I asked the question do you still trade him if he suddenly develops into one.

Avatar
#115 Curcro
March 18 2014, 02:46PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers
** wrote:

Well there is talk of Bogdan Yakimov coming over this summer. He's Yakupov's homie, plays center, is a massive human being at 6'5, 210 pounds and did some scoring on depth minutes in the KHL this season (7 goals and 12 points in 33 games). It would be interesting to see him at training camp.

On a side note, keeping with JW's awful recommendations, he suggested to trade for David Clarkson back in December:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/12/14/should-the-edmonton-oilers-trade-for-toronto-maple-leafs-forward-david-clarkson/

These are Clarkson's numbers so far: 47 games, 4 goals, 6 assists, 10 points, plus/minus -7, $5,250,000 cap hit until 2020.

So, there's that.

You don't get the concept of buying low do you? Is Clarkson as bad as his numbers suggest? Historically his number indicate that he normally produces at twice the rate.

What is different this year?

Zone Starts, Clarkson is used in the defensive zone faceoffs more than any other Leaf except McClement. So he has to skate further on every shift to get a scoring opportunity (see Boyd Gordon).

Next Clarkson is seeing allot less Powerplay time in Toronto versus when he was in New Jersey.

Finally, who he is playing with in Jersey, he played with Henrique and Zajac mostly. In Toronto he has had much less consistent linemates, and worse ones in Raymond and McClement.

So depending on how a team would use him, there would be the potential to get more value from his contract. That being said is it worth $5.25M?? Probably not, but buying low perhaps you can get the team to retain salary.

I think you are very stupid to say Willis doesn't know anything about hockey because he ASKED a question about whether or not Clarkson would be a good pick up.

Personally I'd rather get my hockey information from Willis than you.

Avatar
#116 **
March 18 2014, 02:48PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Tikkanese wrote:

I for the record never said the Oilers should pin hopes on the "what if" scenario of Gagner becoming a two-way player. I asked the question do you still trade him if he suddenly develops into one.

Fair point. That must have been the reasoning behind the contract length he got. I personally think he helps the team more being traded in a package for a needed piece.

Avatar
#117 Lochenzo
March 18 2014, 02:49PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

Maybe Sam Gagner wouldn't feel like he has to cheat for offence if the team wasn't struggling for offence.

Defence is learnable, no matter how old you are. The key is the buy in - commitment and dedication. Brett Hull did it later in his career. So I think it's a mistake to say that Sam Gagner is a lost cause in the defensive zone.

Now, having said that, I'm open to trading Sam, but MacT better cover the bases, acquiring either a #2 centre or a top 2 Dman for Sam Gagner or having this trade involving another Oiler asset in his pocket before moving Sam Gagner for something else.

Avatar
#118 Ed in Edmonton
March 18 2014, 02:53PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Tikkanese wrote:

Oilers sell low/buy high strategy elaboration:

Buy high

- Khabibulin UFA

- Ben Eager UFA

- Eric Belanger UFA

- most argue Sam Gagner's current contract

- some would argue Nugent-Hopkins contract

- offering more than Leafs did for David Clarkson

- Denis Grebeshkov's one way high price contract

Sell Low

- Hemsky trade years too late for magic beans

- Pronger's trade for magic beans immediatley after request became public knowledge

- Ryan Whitney not traded at deadline

- Curtis Glencross walking over minimal $ difference

Buying high and selling low on the same player:

Buy high - Sheldon Souray UFA

Sell low - buyout of Sheldon Souray

Buy high - Shawn Horcoff contract after career year

Sell low - Horcoff one of the best 3C in the game trade for magic beans, albeit due to the contract

Virtually all of the "buy high" are high $ values. I don't see any high players values given as a buy high. If we are just talking about the K man's $, then I'm not too stressed.

Avatar
#119 **
March 18 2014, 02:55PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Curcro wrote:

You don't get the concept of buying low do you? Is Clarkson as bad as his numbers suggest? Historically his number indicate that he normally produces at twice the rate.

What is different this year?

Zone Starts, Clarkson is used in the defensive zone faceoffs more than any other Leaf except McClement. So he has to skate further on every shift to get a scoring opportunity (see Boyd Gordon).

Next Clarkson is seeing allot less Powerplay time in Toronto versus when he was in New Jersey.

Finally, who he is playing with in Jersey, he played with Henrique and Zajac mostly. In Toronto he has had much less consistent linemates, and worse ones in Raymond and McClement.

So depending on how a team would use him, there would be the potential to get more value from his contract. That being said is it worth $5.25M?? Probably not, but buying low perhaps you can get the team to retain salary.

I think you are very stupid to say Willis doesn't know anything about hockey because he ASKED a question about whether or not Clarkson would be a good pick up.

Personally I'd rather get my hockey information from Willis than you.

I think you are very stupid to say I am stupid because I never wrote Willis doesn't know anything about hockey. Personally I'd rather you read things before you drool all over the keyboard.

AS for Clarkson, one word: age. If you agree with Willis so much, see if you have the intelligence to extrapolate what applies to Clarkson form this article of his:

http://oilersnation.com/2014/3/15/the-matt-hendricks-career-curve

I don't think you understand any concept. Buying low means a player who does more than what his salary projects, like David Perron, he's a bargain right now for the Oilers. Buying high, is paying Clarkson over 5 million a season on average for 10 points. So either you had a typo and meant buying high, or you're very, very stupid.

Avatar
#120 **
March 18 2014, 02:57PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
Lochenzo wrote:

Maybe Sam Gagner wouldn't feel like he has to cheat for offence if the team wasn't struggling for offence.

Defence is learnable, no matter how old you are. The key is the buy in - commitment and dedication. Brett Hull did it later in his career. So I think it's a mistake to say that Sam Gagner is a lost cause in the defensive zone.

Now, having said that, I'm open to trading Sam, but MacT better cover the bases, acquiring either a #2 centre or a top 2 Dman for Sam Gagner or having this trade involving another Oiler asset in his pocket before moving Sam Gagner for something else.

In Gagner's defense, none of the top 6 forwards seems to know what to do on defence. To me this is a coaching issue. Then again, Gagner has been bad positionally since day 1.

Avatar
#121 **
March 18 2014, 03:01PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Tikkanese wrote:

When you reply to the article titled "Can the Edmonton Oilers afford to trade Sam Gagner? Can they afford not to?", then yes you are saying Yakimov is the answer.

Also name calling will not help your cause.

That is your interpretation, and I don't appreciate it when someone puts words in my mouth (or my fingers, for some overly grammar junkies).

Avatar
#122 **
March 18 2014, 03:03PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

No special memory required.

If the Oilers followed JW's recommendations, Dubnyk would still be on net, Hemsky would still be here, Khabibulin would have been resigned, Horcoff would still be here, and nothing would ever change, because the team would still be terrible and no one would increase their value. Hell eve Jason Strudwick would probably be here still.

What?

I never liked Clarkson, and I am the one you're replying to. And you giving credence to the people running a team 8 years out of the playoffs, hmmm.... I know you can make a better argument than that. I can assure you Mac. T. is praying hail marys every night thanking the heavens Clarkson didn't sign here. Pretty much what you are predicting for Hendricks is what is happening to Clarkson right now. IF you are talking about khabibulin then I'm confused as to what your point is.

Again. WHAT?

Not sure if you're trolling or just incapable of reading and arguing.

Avatar
#123 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 03:12PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
** wrote:

Not sure if you're trolling or just incapable of reading and arguing.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

For your clarity, the use of "what" in my comments relay the lack of a connection between your statements and anything written by young Willis.

On a related note, here is another bit of rich hypocrisy for everyone's enjoyment.

Personally I'd rather you read things before you drool all over the keyboard.

updated for one more:

I don't appreciate it when someone puts words in my mouth
Avatar
#124 TKB2677
March 18 2014, 03:14PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

Here's a question.

When a player is going well, how many of you are chopping at the bit to trade them? Seriously?

Case in point. When Gagner had the 8 point night, the Oilers should of traded him the next day. His value would of been sky high? How many of you would of lost it if the Oilers did that?

Gagner was clueless when he came into the league defensively and in his 7th season, he's still clueless. Blame coaches all you want, after 7 seasons, he should be a hell of a lot better defensively than he is. So most of his problems are on him.

Gagner was been terrible at faceoffs ever since he came into the league. He was 41.8% in his rookie year and after 7 seasons, he's at 45.9%. That's an improvement by a lousy 4%

Gagner ever since he came into the league has been a mediocre offensive center. In his rookie year, he scored 13 goals and 49 pts. In 7 seasons, his career high is 18 goals and he has never matched his point total. If you do the math, his average is 15 goals and 44 points. So a lousy 2 more goals from his rookie year.

But we all sat back and waited for him to develop. As each year went by, we blamed the players around him, the coach, the system and mostly his age. "He's still young".

So when was the right time to trade Gagner? Before it wasn't the right time because he was too young, still developing. Now it's not the right time because his value is too low in peoples opinion.

Will there ever be a time?

Avatar
#125 **
March 18 2014, 03:16PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

For your clarity, the use of "what" in my comments relay the lack of a connection between your statements and anything written by young Willis.

On a related note, here is another bit of rich hypocrisy for everyone's enjoyment.

Personally I'd rather you read things before you drool all over the keyboard.

updated for one more:

I don't appreciate it when someone puts words in my mouth

So troll it is.

Avatar
#126 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 03:22PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers

@**

I don't think you understand any concept. Buying low means a player who does more than what his salary projects, like David Perron, he's a bargain right now for the Oilers. Buying high, is paying Clarkson over 5 million a season on average for 10 points. So either you had a typo and meant buying high, or you're very, very stupid.

You're sort of right, except that you're linking it too much to salary.

Buying low means getting a player for less than market because his value is low at the time. For example, trading Yakupov right now is a certain example of selling low because his return will not be great. Hemsky was another example of selling low, despite his salary because Ottawa could probably already get more than they paid for him just based on the last 4 games.

Avatar
#127 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 03:23PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
** wrote:

So troll it is.

More accurately, I am in the process of pointing out a troll to everyone else.

Avatar
#128 Tikkanese
March 18 2014, 03:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
** wrote:

That is your interpretation, and I don't appreciate it when someone puts words in my mouth (or my fingers, for some overly grammar junkies).

Then don't claim I said the Oilers should keep Gagner on the "What if" scenario.

When I clearly asked the question "What if Gagner suddenly learns to play two-ways? Do you still trade him?"

Avatar
#129 **
March 18 2014, 03:35PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Tikkanese wrote:

Then don't claim I said the Oilers should keep Gagner on the "What if" scenario.

When I clearly asked the question "What if Gagner suddenly learns to play two-ways? Do you still trade him?"

You are asking "What if?", I am not claiming anything, that's what you wrote. The only way to answer your what if is for the Oilers to decide not to trade Gagner and let him play here next season. Unless you are asking what if Gagner learns to play two-ways in the 13 games left in the season. IF that's the case then good luck with that.

Avatar
#130 **
March 18 2014, 03:38PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:
I don't think you understand any concept. Buying low means a player who does more than what his salary projects, like David Perron, he's a bargain right now for the Oilers. Buying high, is paying Clarkson over 5 million a season on average for 10 points. So either you had a typo and meant buying high, or you're very, very stupid.

You're sort of right, except that you're linking it too much to salary.

Buying low means getting a player for less than market because his value is low at the time. For example, trading Yakupov right now is a certain example of selling low because his return will not be great. Hemsky was another example of selling low, despite his salary because Ottawa could probably already get more than they paid for him just based on the last 4 games.

You really don't follow your own train of thought. You start talking about buying low and then cite two examples of selling low. And even your examples are poor. Hemsky was a rental, entirely different scenario than trading a future like Yakupov.

Avatar
#131 **
March 18 2014, 03:40PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

More accurately, I am in the process of pointing out a troll to everyone else.

I call you a troll, you answer:

"I don't even know what that is supposed to mean."

Then you write on another post:

"More accurately, I am in the process of pointing out a troll to everyone else."

Your argument just became massively invalid.

I'm done here. Good night.

Avatar
#132 Maggie the Monkey
March 18 2014, 03:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
** wrote:

I never liked Clarkson, and I am the one you're replying to. And you giving credence to the people running a team 8 years out of the playoffs, hmmm.... I know you can make a better argument than that. I can assure you Mac. T. is praying hail marys every night thanking the heavens Clarkson didn't sign here. Pretty much what you are predicting for Hendricks is what is happening to Clarkson right now. IF you are talking about khabibulin then I'm confused as to what your point is.

I'm going to release my inner "Steve Smith":

I don't think giving credence means what you think it means.

Avatar
#133 **
March 18 2014, 03:44PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
Maggie the Monkey wrote:

I'm going to release my inner "Steve Smith":

I don't think giving credence means what you think it means.

Nice try, points for originality, sadly, in the words of Inigo Montoya:

"I don't think it means what you think it means"

Here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credence

"b : credibility 1 "

My work here is done. Another bites the dust. I like this game.

Avatar
#134 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 03:47PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
** wrote:

You really don't follow your own train of thought. You start talking about buying low and then cite two examples of selling low. And even your examples are poor. Hemsky was a rental, entirely different scenario than trading a future like Yakupov.

FFS WHEN ON TEAM BUYS LOW IT MEANS ANOTHER SOLD LOW. I know that may seem odd, but a relationship exists amazingly.

Of course Hemsky and Yakupov are different. How does that detract from the fact that both are sell (or buy if it means that much to you)low scenarios?

You spend a shocking amount of time whining about people "putting words in your mouth" for someone who steadfastly refuses to characterize anyone's comments accurately.

Avatar
#135 **
March 18 2014, 03:53PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

FFS WHEN ON TEAM BUYS LOW IT MEANS ANOTHER SOLD LOW. I know that may seem odd, but a relationship exists amazingly.

Of course Hemsky and Yakupov are different. How does that detract from the fact that both are sell (or buy if it means that much to you)low scenarios?

You spend a shocking amount of time whining about people "putting words in your mouth" for someone who steadfastly refuses to characterize anyone's comments accurately.

Calm your tits, here have a cookie.

Avatar
#136 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 03:53PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

@**

Now you can't even accurately characterize your own comments.

First:

Not sure if you're trolling or just incapable of reading and arguing.

Later to be referenced by:

I call you a troll

I know you hate having words put in your mouth so...

Regarding my "massively invalid" argument; I have no clue what you are getting at. Which argument exactly? I haven't made any arguments, and frankly, I don't think "argument" means what you think it means.

Avatar
#137 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 03:59PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
** wrote:

Calm your tits, here have a cookie.

Caps are for emphasis. How does one "calm tits" exactly? That's cool though. What's a little misogyny to go with your hypocrisy.

Avatar
#138 **
March 18 2014, 04:00PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Now you can't even accurately characterize your own comments.

First:

Not sure if you're trolling or just incapable of reading and arguing.

Later to be referenced by:

I call you a troll

I know you hate having words put in your mouth so...

Regarding my "massively invalid" argument; I have no clue what you are getting at. Which argument exactly? I haven't made any arguments, and frankly, I don't think "argument" means what you think it means.

"I haven't made any arguments", Couldn't have said it better myself. Logical arguments anyways.

Avatar
#139 **
March 18 2014, 04:01PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Caps are for emphasis. How does one "calm tits" exactly? That's cool though. What's a little misogyny to go with your hypocrisy.

Damn, gotta call all the scientific community in the world right away. Apparently only women have tits now.

Avatar
#140 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 04:02PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
** wrote:

"I haven't made any arguments", Couldn't have said it better myself. Logical arguments anyways.

I repeat, I don't think "argument" means what you think it means.

Avatar
#141 **
March 18 2014, 04:04PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

I repeat, I don't think "argument" means what you think it means.

So now you're a troll, and a parrot. This is getting interesting.

Avatar
#142 A-Mc
March 18 2014, 04:12PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

This thread went down the pisser.. and fast.

Avatar
#143 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 04:13PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
** wrote:

So now you're a troll, and a parrot. This is getting interesting.

Since you seem to have given up even trying to defend your comments I'll take that to mean you've had enough and call it a day.

Till next time your comments become fallacious then.

Avatar
#144 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 04:14PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
A-Mc wrote:

This thread went down the pisser.. and fast.

Agreed. My bad. I engaged when I knew better. My only defense is I was bored.

Avatar
#145 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 04:16PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

For the anti-Yakupov brigade:

https://twitter.com/mc79hockey/status/446045332246261760/photo/1

Avatar
#146 **
March 18 2014, 04:19PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
A-Mc wrote:

This thread went down the pisser.. and fast.

Yeah, I got too much free time today, plus, they were just asking for it, made it too easy, too hard to resist. Sorry Nation.

Avatar
#147 Tikkanese
March 18 2014, 04:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
** wrote:

You are asking "What if?", I am not claiming anything, that's what you wrote. The only way to answer your what if is for the Oilers to decide not to trade Gagner and let him play here next season. Unless you are asking what if Gagner learns to play two-ways in the 13 games left in the season. IF that's the case then good luck with that.

Did you even read the article or my statement? It appears that you have not.

I said I agree with JW that unless there is a decent underperformer for underperformer trade out there that selling low on Gagner this summer would be a bad idea and to keep him until his value rises. While also asking "what if" he suddenly develops a two-way game, do we still want to trade him?

It was hardly rocket science jargon that I was using.

Your insitance on trading Gagner for whatever to dump his salary or whatever reason just continues to subscribe to the sell low/buy high philosophy.

Avatar
#148 TigerUnderGlass
March 18 2014, 04:24PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
** wrote:

Yeah, I got too much free time today, plus, they were just asking for it, made it too easy, too hard to resist. Sorry Nation.

People were asking for you to lie about what Willis wrote?

Avatar
#149 Oiler Al
March 18 2014, 04:42PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
** wrote:

"I haven't made any arguments", Couldn't have said it better myself. Logical arguments anyways.

Linus taught you were going to bed, didnt mama tuck you in with you cookies, glass of milk and a bed time story,

Avatar
#150 Maggie the Monkey
March 18 2014, 04:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
** wrote:

Nice try, points for originality, sadly, in the words of Inigo Montoya:

"I don't think it means what you think it means"

Here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credence

"b : credibility 1 "

My work here is done. Another bites the dust. I like this game.

My previous comment was perhaps a bit too obscure. Although I love The Princess Bride, it was not the reference to which I was pointing. "Steve Smith" is a treasured yet infrequent commenter on LT's site who stopped posting here ages ago. (I think he lost one of those poisoned drink challenges where his opponent had built up immunity.)

The reference to him and one of his jokes was not meant as an insult, and if you must consider it as a challenge, then this is my formal letter accepting defeat.

Your happy monkey,

Maggie

Comments are closed for this article.