Gagner traded to Tampa Bay

Jason Gregor
June 29 2014 08:16PM

sam_gagner_edm

Sam Gagner is no longer a member of the Edmonton Oilers. Gagner was dealt to Tampa Bay for Teddy Purcell. ***Update. Tampa just traded him to Arizona.**

Gagner has two years left on a deal that pays him $4.8 million/year. 

Purcell has two years left on his $4.5 million/year cap hit.

Gagner has played 481 games and scored 101-194-295.

Purcell has played 401 games and tallied 75-153-228.

Purcell is four years older, however, he has produced 51 and 65 point seasons.

Craig MacTavish had mentioned numerous times over the past few weeks that the Oilers planned on using Gagner on the wing next season, so trading him for a winger suggests they'd didn't want to wait and see how Gagner would adapt moving to the wing.

Purcell has a bigger frame, but don't expect him to be play with an edge. He is not a physical player, but he is much better defensively than Gagner.

Purcell was 2nd best on the Lightning last season with a  53% CF, but I don't see him as a guy who will face the tough minutes on a nightly basis. 

To me this trade signifies the Oilers didn't want to wait and see if Gagner could take the next step in his development. 

It is an interesting trade from Tampa Bay's perspective. They add a younger player, but Gagner hasn't produced more recently and they don't need him to play centre. Purcell is a big body and better possession player, so part of me wonders if they make another move. They could buy out Gagner at 1/3 of his contract if they wanted to. It looks like they need to clear some cap space.

***EDIT...Turns out they did make another move. They just traded Gagner and BJ Crombeen to the Arizona Coyotes for a draft pick according to Bob McKenzie**

Regardless of what the Lightning do, the Oilers have added an older player, who is a better possession player, but don't expect him to me more than a complementary player in Edmonton. That is fine, because teams need solid complementary players to win, but people shouldn't expect Purcell to be an offensive leader.

WRAP UP

I always enjoyed dealing with Gagner. The past few seasons weren't easy for him. He was aware of how he was perceived by some fans, and he understood their disappointment. Gagner was always a professional and he never hid from the media, unlike some other players.

I have a lot of respect for Gagner, and I hope a change of address gives his career a jumpstart. While he didn't produce as much as he or the fans wanted, he always cared. The losing bothered him, and this year was the more frustrating of his career.

Good luck Sam.

Recently by Jason Gregor: 

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
#201 Fresh Mess
June 30 2014, 06:30AM
Trash it!
11
trashes
Cheers
14
cheers
dougtheslug wrote:

How bad are the Oilers when the "best case scenario" for trading their second line centre is a questionable forward who has fallen to fourth line duty on a team that actually made the playoffs?

Does this really make the Oilers a better team? Or are they just judging a player from his hockeydb stats again ("hey look, this Purcell guy is over six feet tall and had a good season three years ago. I bet he's way better than Jerred Smithson was!")

Sorry for being such a naysayer. It usually isn't my style, but I've vowed not to fall for the off-season hype this summer. Right now,I'm sceptical of everything this team does, and will continue to be until I see results.

Good for you. Some reality based thoughts are needed and welcome.

Avatar
#202 Ca$h-Money!
June 30 2014, 06:41AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
33
cheers
Fresh Mess wrote:

Good for you. Some reality based thoughts are needed and welcome.

There's always a bit of risk in these things, but he had more points than Gagner last year (lower points per game but not worlds apart), wasn't -29, had a good Corsi... and oh yeah, he's bigger.

We all complain that the team is too small, they get bigger by adding a guy who has a comparable level of skill to the asset going the other way, and we find a way to complain.

Avatar
#203 madjam
June 30 2014, 06:45AM
Trash it!
13
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers

A salary dump to Oilers in return for Gagner ? MacT. assesses , and is thrilled with Gagner and offers him a huge contract . A year later he realizes/thinks his assessment was in error . However , now he takes on another big contract that was a salary dump from Tampa . Is his assessment any better this time ?

I wonder if Gags will be fighting Samuelson (Oil Kings ) over a center spot in Phoenix ? Will Gags blossom in Phoenix -he might .

Avatar
#204 BBF III
June 30 2014, 06:47AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
Zarny wrote:

The entire first half of the article talks about Murray contemplating the buy out due to the cap recapture penalty.

They weren't afraid Ehrhoff would retire because of the rebuild. They were afraid he would just suck until he retires at 35 like he planned. Of course he doesn't want to go through a rebuild. No player does. He gave no indication he would retire earlier than when his contract tails because of it though.

The point I was making was in response to you earlier flatly rejecting the idea that "One of the reasons Buffalo bought out Erhoff, was they were concerned Erhoff might retire rather than go through a rebuild." One of the reasons, not the only reason. The cap recapture dictated that he would be departing through a buyout but the verbal from Buffalo seems to indicate that he would have been gone anyway, likely through trade. Even with a standard, non-front loaded contract it looks as though they may have been considering trading him anyway.

Avatar
#205 Fresh Mess
June 30 2014, 06:48AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
7
cheers
Ca$h-Money! wrote:

There's always a bit of risk in these things, but he had more points than Gagner last year (lower points per game but not worlds apart), wasn't -29, had a good Corsi... and oh yeah, he's bigger.

We all complain that the team is too small, they get bigger by adding a guy who has a comparable level of skill to the asset going the other way, and we find a way to complain.

I'm not complaining. I view the move as neither a positive or negative. It was time for Sam to go and this was the type of return the market would yield. If Purcell made 2 million or less, I would view it as a positive for Mactavish.

Big win for Yzerman in cap flexibility at negligible cost.

Avatar
#206 oilslick
June 30 2014, 06:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
28
cheers

I just gotta say....What did some of you here think the return was going to be for Gagner...You damn MacT for not making a trade and then when he does you keep yelling about ``inept management`` don`t get me wrong this team has made some silly moves over the years but if you ask me MacT has done some good things under his watch not all trades will be home runs especially when you`re dealing from a position of weakness that being said if nothing is addressed with the start of Free Agent Frenzy tomorrow then I will also be ticked off there needs to be a big move to signal a change in direction with this team....also as an Oiler fan living in Southeastern BC I saw every home game Sam Reinhart played for the Kootenay Ice an amazing young talent and an even better young man and despite the naysayers would`ve looked good in an Oiler uniform.

Avatar
#208 madjam
June 30 2014, 07:15AM
Trash it!
33
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

How much of Gagner's salary are we paying/retaining to Arizona to take Gagner from/to Tampa ? Did we just get double fleeced ?

Avatar
#209 otter2233
June 30 2014, 07:27AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@Jason Gregor: Have the official rules dealing with UFAs changed since the new CBA in regards to speaking with but not being able to sign UFAs before July 1st? If so, do you think this trade may indicate MacT has been talking with any UFA centres and has a high level of confidence that he will sign at least one on July 1st? I realize Gagner was going to be tried on the wing but he could always be moved back to centre and now without him depth at that position is just frighteningly bad. Thank you.

Avatar
#210 CMG30
June 30 2014, 07:36AM
Trash it!
17
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

Risky move by MacT trading Gagner when his value is lowest. Comparing their relative performances last year it would appear that Edmonton did get the upgrade, but there is every possibility that Gagner may thrive in his new surroundings making this look less like a deal and more like theft.

Avatar
#211 hockeycrazed
June 30 2014, 07:45AM
Trash it!
14
trashes
Cheers
7
cheers

People just doesn't get it! If hall's 5 years service became the longest servicing oilers on the team, what does that tell you? Misfortune? Mismanagement?! Look at all the players that the Oil traded away in the last 5 years, most of them played better with their respective teams, and mark my word Gagner will too!

Avatar
#212 Ed in Edmonton
June 30 2014, 07:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
12
cheers
Fresh Mess wrote:

I'm not complaining. I view the move as neither a positive or negative. It was time for Sam to go and this was the type of return the market would yield. If Purcell made 2 million or less, I would view it as a positive for Mactavish.

Big win for Yzerman in cap flexibility at negligible cost.

I think all three teams got what they were looking for.

Bolts get cap relief (maybe because they think they will be signing Erhoff tomorrow??).

Dogs get Gagner at 2/3 the price.

Oil get a proven NHL winger. They don't have to gamble on what Gagner might have been as a winger.

But tere is some risk for all 3 as well

Maybe the Bolts don't get the UFA they are targeting and they have let a roster player go for virtually nothing.

For the Dogs and the Oil,there is always a chance the player you get doesn't work out as you hoped.

Avatar
#213 Aitch
June 30 2014, 08:01AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers
CMG30 wrote:

Risky move by MacT trading Gagner when his value is lowest. Comparing their relative performances last year it would appear that Edmonton did get the upgrade, but there is every possibility that Gagner may thrive in his new surroundings making this look less like a deal and more like theft.

Sure, Gagner could thrive in Arizona. However, that doesn't mean that he would've thrived here as well. Don Maloney is of the belief that Gagner can learn to play defense. Yeah, MacT, Quinn, Renney, Krueger and Eakins thought that too.

Avatar
#214 lolhockey
June 30 2014, 08:01AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
14
cheers

So Sam Gagner isn't going to be the Oilers' captain?

#Wanye #Troll

Avatar
#215 acesaaron
June 30 2014, 08:04AM
Trash it!
10
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

Gagner trade is pretty good overall but why didn't MacT just trade a 6th rounder to Tampa for Purcell and Crombeen?? Could have got two NHL players for $6 Million to play in the bottom 6. In my opinion, Gagner should have been traded after his 8 point night right at the trade deadline. Could have gotten a few picks (2nd and 4th) plus a player back and his stock was as high as it was ever going to be. Bad move by Tambo at the time as instead of selling high, they now sell a bit lower.

Avatar
#216 Geoff
June 30 2014, 08:10AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
hankthetank wrote:

Stinks in this thread from all the whiners throwing poo at each other... and Sam Gagner.

The poo throwing in this thread is pretty epic lol.

Good trade. Got the drama out of "WHERE DO WE PUT THIS GUY" out of the team. Will miss Gagner though. If only he was 3 inches taller :(

Avatar
#217 The Soup Fascist
June 30 2014, 08:17AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
acesaaron wrote:

Gagner trade is pretty good overall but why didn't MacT just trade a 6th rounder to Tampa for Purcell and Crombeen?? Could have got two NHL players for $6 Million to play in the bottom 6. In my opinion, Gagner should have been traded after his 8 point night right at the trade deadline. Could have gotten a few picks (2nd and 4th) plus a player back and his stock was as high as it was ever going to be. Bad move by Tambo at the time as instead of selling high, they now sell a bit lower.

I would guess because the cap is down to $69 million (as opposed to the anticipated $71M) and having Gagner, Purcell and Crombeen eats up $10.5 million of that number. That would really have tied MacT's hands if he hopes to land anything resembling a solid NHL D-man or center this week.

It is a different world. Contracts and cap need to be considered in every trade. Hence, all the tap dancing yesterday.

Avatar
#218 Mark
June 30 2014, 08:26AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers

Gagner...gone-yeah!!

Avatar
#219 Lance Bass
June 30 2014, 08:27AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
9
cheers

I'd rather have Gagner for two more years than Purcell. Keep Draisaitl in juniors, don't rush him. In two years when Gagner's contract is up, Leon would be ready for the NHL. I think rushing RNH and Nail into the NHL has been a mistake. I keep thinking about the extra time Subban spent in the OHL and AHL. I think it helped him immeasurably. I hope Nurse and Draisaitl take the same route.

Avatar
#220 camdog
June 30 2014, 08:31AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
PutzStew wrote:

My Bad.

2007-2009.

5 1st round picks, 1 NHL player on the Team.

If you want to be proud of this please feel free too. In my eyes it is still a disappointment.

"That leaves Petry and Eberle as the only 2 players within the organisation from the day Lowe gave up his post, 6 years back."

I wouldn't call this being proud. Now that we have had time to evaluate all of Kevin Lowe's drafts and moves it's no wonder we are where we are. I know some like to say Tambelinni turned this organisation into the bottom feeder it is now (and he certainly didn't help), but if you honestly go through each and every move made post Pronger trade in Lowe's remaining tenure with the organisation as GM, you'll see one of the worst managed teams in all of professional hockey.

I remember a time when we used to mock the Islanders but the reality is that the Milbury/Snow era is no different than the Post Pronger years with Lowe and Tambeliini. I guess we well wait and see if Mact changes the tide...

Avatar
#221 Spiel
June 30 2014, 08:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers

@Jason Gregor

I too think Eberle is a solid player, but most points in a draft year can be a deceiving standard until you get many years out from a draft. Note that Gagner has the 2nd most points to date from his draft class.

This trade closes the book on the 2007 draft where the Oilers made three first round picks. None are currently Oilers. A 6th, 15th, and 21st overall pick have turned in to Purcell and Marincin.

Avatar
#222 Wax Man Riley
June 30 2014, 08:46AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
7
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

The fact that you see NHL players as permanently holding a static value based on their draft number is hilarious.

OMG thank you tiger!

Avatar
#223 Wax Man Riley
June 30 2014, 09:00AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
7
cheers
Spydyr wrote:

Perhaps your reading comprehension could use some help see:

Those assets can go up or down in value and they do.

and

Good teams buy low and sell high bad teams buy high and sell low.

What I am presenting is the initial investment cost as compared to the value of the investment when it is sold.

You and Putz are arguing for the sake of trying g to sound smarter than The Oilers. If you actually believe a player taken at #3 overall is worth more than the player taken #46 overall because of the draft number, then there's nothing more to say.

You can talk diminishing value all you want to tell everyone how bad The Oilers are, and try to sound smart, but the value of a player 4, 5, 6, 7 years after being drafted Is not he same as the number they were drafted at on draft day.

This started because I said the PRV trade was not a #10 pick and a 2nd rounder. the trade was for the player PRV and a pick. Whatever he cost to the team was doesn't matter on trade day.

Yes the Oilers love to pick high and sell low (Gagner and every other trade in the last 10 years), but yesterday Gagner was traded for Percell. 2 picks were not exchanged.

Avatar
#224 The Soup Fascist
June 30 2014, 09:01AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
Wax Man Riley wrote:

OMG thank you tiger!

So I should lower the asking price in order to trade Alexander Daigle in my fantasy league?

Damn you, Wax Man, he was a first overall.

I am going to hold out for full value.

Avatar
#225 Jay87
June 30 2014, 09:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

I am sad to see him go, I've always had that koolaid-like hope in him. When he was on, he was on. Sincerely hope he does better in a new environment with new staff, and a different fan base.

Avatar
#226 Lochenzo
June 30 2014, 09:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers

This is probably as good of value as MacT was going to get for Gagner this summer. Purcell brings much needed size that can play top 6 and just like Sam, he needs to bounce back from last year.

I think Sam will flourish in Phoenix. Dave Tippett is a heckuva coach and that's a great defensive system that Sam's going to. Even if Sam doesn't get better defensively, he has Hanzal and Vermette to handle the tough defensive minutes.

Avatar
#227 Rama Lama
June 30 2014, 09:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers

This trade is a wash at best and achieves what is best for the player and the team.

Sam gets an opportunity to show the hockey world that he can play.......we get a chance to get bigger and hopefully faster with Purcell. Sam had ample opportunity to showcase his game........IMHO he will not get bigger, faster or better at this stage of his career, so it's a gamble worth taking.

I for one hope that we do not trade any more draft picks away anymore........not having a second or a third rounder at the draft is akin to window shopping....does nothing for me!

Avatar
#228 SLURVE
June 30 2014, 09:36AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

I don't like the move for Purcell. I thought Gagner was a great soldier on a poor team never complaining always playing hard. He was put into the NHL too early on a bad team never developed thoroughly in the AHL/OHL but rushed in too soon on a desperate team.

I thought we should be keeping some "veteran" presence as part of the core to lead the younger players. That was part of our problem, when Gagner was injured, we lost some of that leadership. Why didn't MacT stuck with his plan to put Gagner on the wing if and when Drasiatl makes the team. Why didn't they give Gagner another year another chance since almost everyone regressed under the Eakins and company...Perhaps Ramsey could have done something to help Gagner developed properly, he is only 24.

Avatar
#229 BingBong
June 30 2014, 09:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

Trade seems like a moderate win-win for everybody; Oilers get a bigger body for the same money, TB saves money, and Arizona gets a much-needed center.

But I'm still looking at our center depth and hoping MacT still has a plan up his sleeve. A top 4 of RNH, Draisaitl, Arcobello and Gordon does not give me confidence going into next year. In a perfect world Draisaitl would be back in junior and Arcobello would be competing for that 3rd line center spot. We still need a top 6 center.

Avatar
#230 Milos
June 30 2014, 09:46AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
PutzStew wrote:

Wow you are so cool. If I was a free agent I would definitely want to come play for a fan like you. Please post more on the other team blogs so that other player know what classy fans Edmonton has. Maybe you can burn his furniture and it will get on Rome again. I'm sure prospective free agents will look at that and think to them selves, boy I really want to live there. Great management and really great fans.

So what did Sam ever do to you. You just jealous because Gagner is making more money then you are ever going to see, living in a warm climate and getting to play hockey. I'm sure he is in better shape then you get higher quantities and better quality girls then you would, even after you paid for them. You are still stuck in Edmonton. Pretty sure the door did not hit him in the rear end, as you implied, because he probably ran right through it when he found out he could get way losers like yourself.

Thanx for coming out. I won't miss you one bit if you do not repost.

You realize Snowpants is a taken man, right? RIGHT? Mor.on.

Avatar
#231 VK63
June 30 2014, 09:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
7
cheers

interesting. Saw Sam good, amazing and pathetic…..sometimes in the same shift.

Im gonna miss his cellys. They were always fun.

I wish him well in the desert with one of the leagues best coaches. Should be an interesting project for Tip.

As an aside….. I sure wish Kassian had nutted up and dropped the flippers with Gazdic. But alas….. kassian…

Avatar
#233 Wax Man Riley
June 30 2014, 09:55AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
VK63 wrote:

interesting. Saw Sam good, amazing and pathetic…..sometimes in the same shift.

Im gonna miss his cellys. They were always fun.

I wish him well in the desert with one of the leagues best coaches. Should be an interesting project for Tip.

As an aside….. I sure wish Kassian had nutted up and dropped the flippers with Gazdic. But alas….. kassian…

A good coach is going to turn him into a good player. Poor kid had 6 different coaches. The organization really sh*t the bed with him.

Avatar
#235 Zarny
June 30 2014, 09:59AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
PutzStew wrote:

Barker Again. Who care who win the trade because that is not the point. If you are concerned with the trade alone then don't was anymore braincells relying to this. I don't care what place he was drafted, who won the trade, Baker, Streit or any other defencemen who's name should never be mentioned on this site again.

It does not matter who won the trade. The Oilers added yet another of a long list of high draft picks or prospects that failed to reach expectations before they were ran out of town. PRV (among others) should have been a player fans would have been pissed to see leave town. In the end he was a guy that was traded with another asset, in a salary dump trade that is being commended but some as a really great thing.

No it is not a great thing because they failed (yet again) in developing a high draft pick with high potential into anything but a bit part.

You are certainly correct that in general the Oilers have not done a good job of developing players.

However, your argument doesn't hold when it comes to Paajarvi. The Oilers didn't "fail" in developing Paajarvi. He was only 22 when he was traded and the norm is that prospects don't fully develop until they are 24 or 25. Even prospects drafted in the top 10.

Some of the Oilers' biggest mistakes have been trading prospects away too soon when they are only 22-24. It is the exception not the rule for prospects to be developed that young. Cogliano is a good example.

And in the case of Paajarvi it was simply a case of speeding up the process. They traded a good prospect who was still 3 years away ish from reaching his potential for a player who is already there.

It's no different than LA trading Wayne Simmonds and Brayden Schenn to Phi for Mike Richards. Did LA "fail" at developing Simmonds and Schenn? No. They simply weren't done developing and Richards was.

Avatar
#236 PutzStew
June 30 2014, 10:01AM
Trash it!
9
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:
If you want to look at the 2009 and 2008 drafts, Edmonton currently has no players, at the NHL level with the team.

I think Eberle is a solid NHL player. He has the 3rd most points from his draft class to date. Pretty hard to miss him.

You should probably go back and read all the comments, especially the one where some one already corrected me on this. Good reporting again Gregor.

As I told that individual, thanx for the correction but 1 NHL Player on the roster,out of 5 first round picks over 3 years is still a disaster. Good thing you pointed it out because it totally makes the situation better.

Another good try at trying to cover up the obvious by one of Edmonton's poor excuses for a sports reported, though. Don't want to criticize the bozo's that run this team. Way better to only point out the few good things they do instead of pointing out the many huge gaffs they make or try to hold them accountable. Much better for the pay check, eh Gregor.

Avatar
#237 Ed in Edmonton
June 30 2014, 10:02AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers
camdog wrote:

"That leaves Petry and Eberle as the only 2 players within the organisation from the day Lowe gave up his post, 6 years back."

I wouldn't call this being proud. Now that we have had time to evaluate all of Kevin Lowe's drafts and moves it's no wonder we are where we are. I know some like to say Tambelinni turned this organisation into the bottom feeder it is now (and he certainly didn't help), but if you honestly go through each and every move made post Pronger trade in Lowe's remaining tenure with the organisation as GM, you'll see one of the worst managed teams in all of professional hockey.

I remember a time when we used to mock the Islanders but the reality is that the Milbury/Snow era is no different than the Post Pronger years with Lowe and Tambeliini. I guess we well wait and see if Mact changes the tide...

You summed things up very well.

The rot started during the Lowe years. Tambo was handed a bag of crap when he took over, as was MacT. Meanwhile Klowe hides in the executive suite.

Avatar
#238 PutzStew
June 30 2014, 10:09AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
Zarny wrote:

You are certainly correct that in general the Oilers have not done a good job of developing players.

However, your argument doesn't hold when it comes to Paajarvi. The Oilers didn't "fail" in developing Paajarvi. He was only 22 when he was traded and the norm is that prospects don't fully develop until they are 24 or 25. Even prospects drafted in the top 10.

Some of the Oilers' biggest mistakes have been trading prospects away too soon when they are only 22-24. It is the exception not the rule for prospects to be developed that young. Cogliano is a good example.

And in the case of Paajarvi it was simply a case of speeding up the process. They traded a good prospect who was still 3 years away ish from reaching his potential for a player who is already there.

It's no different than LA trading Wayne Simmonds and Brayden Schenn to Phi for Mike Richards. Did LA "fail" at developing Simmonds and Schenn? No. They simply weren't done developing and Richards was.

What do you mean it doesn't hold. The oIlers drafted him number 10 over all. He had huge potential and they traded him a much lower value then they got him. When they traded him he had a new coach every year, never was given an actual role on the team and had no confidence. Hitchcock said him self that the kids has some good tool but know one had taught him how to use them. You are correct that is is not the norm for player to develop that quickly but it is also not the norm for players, especially high end prospects, to be ruined that quickly either.

Edmonton took something good and made it not good.

It is much different then the LA/Phi trade in that, that trade was an actual hockey trade. PRV for Perron was a salary dump by St. Louis, much the way the Gagner trade was.

Avatar
#239 Zarny
June 30 2014, 10:12AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
PutzStew wrote:

And thoughts like this are why this team has been the worst team over the past 8 seasons.

Please keep it up.

No, that's actually utterly ridiculous.

A player's draft position has value for maybe 1-2 years. It's similar to where your university degree was obtained. When you are young and have no experience and nothing to show it's the only thing on your resume.

Once you work for a year or 2 no one gives a sh*t where you got your degree. They only care about your work experience.

Prospects are no different. Being drafted 10th simply means scouts/GMs thought a player had more potential than the player drafted 98th.

2-3 years later no one cares where a player was drafted. They only care about their work experience and the player's real progression; not some imaginary projection as an 18 y/o.

Avatar
#240 ThinkingOutLoud
June 30 2014, 10:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

@Spydyr

While I get what you are saying, I don't think you should get hung up on the draft order/number as the determining factor of a players value. A first round pick itself of course will have greater value than a sixth, but after the pick has been made, the only true way to measure value is the success of the player.

Avatar
#241 PutzStew
June 30 2014, 10:22AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
Wax Man Riley wrote:

You and Putz are arguing for the sake of trying g to sound smarter than The Oilers. If you actually believe a player taken at #3 overall is worth more than the player taken #46 overall because of the draft number, then there's nothing more to say.

You can talk diminishing value all you want to tell everyone how bad The Oilers are, and try to sound smart, but the value of a player 4, 5, 6, 7 years after being drafted Is not he same as the number they were drafted at on draft day.

This started because I said the PRV trade was not a #10 pick and a 2nd rounder. the trade was for the player PRV and a pick. Whatever he cost to the team was doesn't matter on trade day.

Yes the Oilers love to pick high and sell low (Gagner and every other trade in the last 10 years), but yesterday Gagner was traded for Percell. 2 picks were not exchanged.

I don't believe you understand this simple concept, as you claim other wise you would not be arguing it.

I do not know if I can make this any simpler for you but as you said "Yes the Oilers love to pick high and sell low"

Picking a player at #10 (PRV) or #6 (Gagner) is buying high.

Trading those when they have little to no value is selling low.

I hope that does not sound too smart for you be cause I don't think it is possible to dumb it down anymore with out using pictures and puppets.

Avatar
#242 Spydyr
June 30 2014, 10:22AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers

My God people.

Players change in value thats is a given.To even think I am suggesting otherwise is asinine.

What I am comparing is the cost of a player(his draft position)to the return(what you get back for the player).

If you continue to trade 6th overall picks for undrafted players you will lose.

If you hit home runs in later rounds of the draft you will win.

The Oilers do the former.They are eight going on nine years out of the playoffs.The Red Wings do the later they have been in the playoffs for twenty three years.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Avatar
#243 PutzStew
June 30 2014, 10:24AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
ThinkingOutLoud wrote:

While I get what you are saying, I don't think you should get hung up on the draft order/number as the determining factor of a players value. A first round pick itself of course will have greater value than a sixth, but after the pick has been made, the only true way to measure value is the success of the player.

The draft number don't really matter and it is not that he is hung up on them. The Point is buying high and selling low.

Avatar
#244 pkam
June 30 2014, 10:24AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
PutzStew wrote:

What do you mean it doesn't hold. The oIlers drafted him number 10 over all. He had huge potential and they traded him a much lower value then they got him. When they traded him he had a new coach every year, never was given an actual role on the team and had no confidence. Hitchcock said him self that the kids has some good tool but know one had taught him how to use them. You are correct that is is not the norm for player to develop that quickly but it is also not the norm for players, especially high end prospects, to be ruined that quickly either.

Edmonton took something good and made it not good.

It is much different then the LA/Phi trade in that, that trade was an actual hockey trade. PRV for Perron was a salary dump by St. Louis, much the way the Gagner trade was.

That LA/Phi trade was a salary dump trade as well. Philly needed the cap space to sign Ilya Bryzgalov so they dumped Richards and Carter.

Avatar
#245 Spydyr
June 30 2014, 10:26AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
ThinkingOutLoud wrote:

While I get what you are saying, I don't think you should get hung up on the draft order/number as the determining factor of a players value. A first round pick itself of course will have greater value than a sixth, but after the pick has been made, the only true way to measure value is the success of the player.

The whole point of the exercise was try to explain asset management in the simplest possible terms.Of course players go up and down in value.The teams that develop their players better win.The teams that develop a player worse lose.

It is that easy.

Avatar
#246 Zarny
June 30 2014, 10:30AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
PutzStew wrote:

What do you mean it doesn't hold. The oIlers drafted him number 10 over all. He had huge potential and they traded him a much lower value then they got him. When they traded him he had a new coach every year, never was given an actual role on the team and had no confidence. Hitchcock said him self that the kids has some good tool but know one had taught him how to use them. You are correct that is is not the norm for player to develop that quickly but it is also not the norm for players, especially high end prospects, to be ruined that quickly either.

Edmonton took something good and made it not good.

It is much different then the LA/Phi trade in that, that trade was an actual hockey trade. PRV for Perron was a salary dump by St. Louis, much the way the Gagner trade was.

See here is the thing...being drafted 10th overall does not mean a prospect has huge potential.

Here is what the 10th overall pick got you from 2000-2013:

Mikhail Yakubov, Dan Blackburn, Eric Nystrom, Andrei Kostitsyn, Boris Valabik, Luc Bourdon, Michael Frolik, Keaton Ellerby, Cody Hodgson, Magnus Paajarvi, Dylan McIlrath, Jonas Brodin, Slater Koekkoek and Valeri Nichushkin.

Nothing about that list screams huge potential. Paajarvi wasn't some wunderkind that the Oilers diminished. Less than 50% of all 1st round picks end up better than NHL regulars.

That is a very high failure rate which is why draft picks don't have the value you seem to think they do and why no GM gives a sh*t about draft position 2-3 years after the draft. Completely and utterly irrelevant since it was a crap shoot to begin with.

The Paajarvi trade is exactly like the Phi/LA trade in that prospects who hadn't fully developed (Paajarvi, Schenn and Simmonds) were traded for players are were fully developed.

Avatar
#247 PutzStew
June 30 2014, 10:33AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Zarny wrote:

No, that's actually utterly ridiculous.

A player's draft position has value for maybe 1-2 years. It's similar to where your university degree was obtained. When you are young and have no experience and nothing to show it's the only thing on your resume.

Once you work for a year or 2 no one gives a sh*t where you got your degree. They only care about your work experience.

Prospects are no different. Being drafted 10th simply means scouts/GMs thought a player had more potential than the player drafted 98th.

2-3 years later no one cares where a player was drafted. They only care about their work experience and the player's real progression; not some imaginary projection as an 18 y/o.

As I said. Thoughts like this are why this team has sucked for so long.

Who cares if Oilers have one player on the roster out of 5 first round picks between 2007 and 2009.

Who cares if the Oilers buy high and sell low regularly.

Please keep up the good work as there are not enough people drinking Kool-aid.

Avatar
#248 PutzStew
June 30 2014, 10:40AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
Zarny wrote:

See here is the thing...being drafted 10th overall does not mean a prospect has huge potential.

Here is what the 10th overall pick got you from 2000-2013:

Mikhail Yakubov, Dan Blackburn, Eric Nystrom, Andrei Kostitsyn, Boris Valabik, Luc Bourdon, Michael Frolik, Keaton Ellerby, Cody Hodgson, Magnus Paajarvi, Dylan McIlrath, Jonas Brodin, Slater Koekkoek and Valeri Nichushkin.

Nothing about that list screams huge potential. Paajarvi wasn't some wunderkind that the Oilers diminished. Less than 50% of all 1st round picks end up better than NHL regulars.

That is a very high failure rate which is why draft picks don't have the value you seem to think they do and why no GM gives a sh*t about draft position 2-3 years after the draft. Completely and utterly irrelevant since it was a crap shoot to begin with.

The Paajarvi trade is exactly like the Phi/LA trade in that prospects who hadn't fully developed (Paajarvi, Schenn and Simmonds) were traded for players are were fully developed.

Sorry forgot you are an Oilers Fan so you probably haven't seen a hockey trade since the mid 80's

It is also interesting you are using Scheen as an example because he held his draft value long after being drafted even though he was not in the NHL.

Would you care to try an argument that holds merit? Other wise don't waste my time.

Avatar
#249 Zarny
June 30 2014, 10:42AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Spydyr wrote:

My God people.

Players change in value thats is a given.To even think I am suggesting otherwise is asinine.

What I am comparing is the cost of a player(his draft position)to the return(what you get back for the player).

If you continue to trade 6th overall picks for undrafted players you will lose.

If you hit home runs in later rounds of the draft you will win.

The Oilers do the former.They are eight going on nine years out of the playoffs.The Red Wings do the later they have been in the playoffs for twenty three years.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

The problem with your argument is you assume players drafted 6th overall always have more value than an undrafted player which simply is not true.

If you trade a player drafted 6th overall 7 years after being drafted for an undrafted player who has progressed more and become the better player you win...full stop.

Where a player like Gagner was drafted in relation to Purcell is completely irrelevant 7 years after the fact. The only value that matters is what they have done on the ice recently.

The Red Wings also haven't hit a home run in the late rounds since they drafted Zetterberg in the 1999. That's 15 years ago. The best player on their roster since 2004 is Darren Helm which is why they've slipped from being perennial Stanley Cup contenders to simply trying to make the playoffs.

Avatar
#250 Zarny
June 30 2014, 10:51AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
PutzStew wrote:

Sorry forgot you are an Oilers Fan so you probably haven't seen a hockey trade since the mid 80's

It is also interesting you are using Scheen as an example because he held his draft value long after being drafted even though he was not in the NHL.

Would you care to try an argument that holds merit? Other wise don't waste my time.

Good grief, LA/Phi was a hockey trade? Phi was dumping Richards because of salary and off-ice behavioral concerns. It was as much of a non-hockey trade as Paajarvi/Perron.

As for Schenn holding his value try reality sometime...you'll like it.

Schenn was drafted 5th overall in 2009. A mere 2 years later he had to be packaged with Wayne Simmonds (drafted 61st overall) to get a player drafted 24th overall in 2003 (Mike Richards).

Yes, packaging a 5th overall + 61st overall for a 24th overall 2 years after being drafted is really holding value isn't it.

The reality is that proven players, regardless of where they were drafted, have far more value than prospects that were high draft picks.

You should try making an argument that holds merit yourself because so far you've provided nothing but drivel.

Comments are closed for this article.