Denis Grebeshkov Signs With Edmonton

According to TSN, it’s a one-year, 3.15 million dollar contract – a dollar figure in the same ballpark of what he likely would have received in arbitration.

This is a positive. The arbitration process is an adversarial one, and can frequently sour the relationship between a player and a team.

While it’s good to have Grebeshkov under contract, this also helps make the Oilers’ salary cap situation clearer. Here’s the likely roster as of right now, with RFA’s Brule and Smid excluded:

Forwards (13): Horcoff, Penner, Hemsky, O’Sullivan, Pisani, Nilsson, Moreau, Gagner, Cogliano, Pouliot, Stortini, MacIntyre, Jacques

Defensemen (6): Visnovsky, Souray, Gilbert, Grebeshkov, Staios, Strudwick

Goaltenders (2): Khabibulin, Deslauriers

Total Cap Space: 3, 269, 167 (courtesy of CapGeek.com)

That leaves a little over 3-million to sign Ladislav Smid and Gilbert Brule, meaning that as it stands the Oilers should be fine cap-wise. If, however, the Oilers decide to address some of their more obvious deficiencies (penalty-killers, third-line centre) it becomes clear that something will have to give.

Looking at contracts relative to performance and having listened to what the organization has hinted at over the summer, I’d say it’s an interesting time to be Robert Nilsson.

  • Hippy

    kingsblade wrote:

    Here is a bit of homework for you. Which do you think more closely mirrors discretionary spending, the GDP or unemployment? Do you want a hint?
    Your conclusion does not follow your premises.
    When I tried to point out that a stabilized economy does not necessarily add up to better NHL revenues you proceeded to continue to argue that the economy was stabilizing. I don’t recall actually disputing that assertion, yet you went on and on as though I had. This is the source of my frustration.
    All I wanted was some sort of answer from you about how the markers you discussed correlate to NHL revenues. Especially considering your own point about a stronger correlative, which is unemployment.

    You know what smart guy? We don't know how NHL revs are going to react, sure you can assume they are going to act like a typical discretionairy product… but we just don't know. I for one am confident that theirs still 20,000 people in 15 or so NHL cities that still have the expendable income to go to as many hockey games as they please…. And if the league is as gate driven as they say, that's all it will take.

  • Hippy

    Ogden Brother wrote:

    You know what smart guy? We don’t know how NHL revs are going to react, sure you can assume they are going to act like a typical discretionairy product… but we just don’t know

    I agree with that. We don't know. That would be impossible. That is why we are discussing your prediction. I wanted to know why you believe what you believe…which after all this finally brought us to this:

    Ogden Brother wrote:

    I for one am confident that theirs still 20,000 people in 15 or so NHL cities that still have the expendable income to go to as many hockey games as they please

    If so that would be great. I hope you're right. Wasn't that easier than lecturing us on the GDP?

  • Hippy

    kingsblade wrote:

    Ogden Brother wrote:
    You know what smart guy? We don’t know how NHL revs are going to react, sure you can assume they are going to act like a typical discretionairy product… but we just don’t know
    I agree with that. We don’t know. That would be impossible. That is why we are discussing your prediction. I wanted to know why you believe what you believe…which after all this finally brought us to this:
    Ogden Brother wrote:
    I for one am confident that theirs still 20,000 people in 15 or so NHL cities that still have the expendable income to go to as many hockey games as they please
    If so that would be great. I hope you’re right. Wasn’t that easier than lecturing us on the GDP?

    Couldn't keep your word that you are done eh?

    And again, you took things out of contect. I brought GDP up and when it increases/decreases in contrast to umployment to show that the economy often recovers through rising unemployment.

    The convo went:

    Op: "in a failing economy"

    Me: "the economy is stabilizing nicely"

    OP: "unemployment is at 20 year highs"

    Me: "Economies can grow through rising unemployment"

    At that point I wasn't commenting on the NHL specifically, simply that the economy was stabilizing (remember how I kept trying to focus on those key points) but you came in swinging, twisting and turning the conversation.

  • Hippy

    @ Ogden Brother:
    I concurred with your statement. That is a far cry from continuing the argument.

    Ogden Brother wrote:

    At that point I wasn’t commenting on the NHL specifically, simply that the economy was stabilizing

    but if that's true then why did you add:

    And the league is just now starting to earn their rev that will count for the 10/11 season

    Who's taking things out of context again? You're even doing it with your own statements. If one isn't commenting on the NHL one usually doesn't refer to them directly.

    There, now that's not keeping my word. (eh)

    What can I say, I'm bored and I have an injury so I can't really leave my desk. I had to cancel a Tee time today and I'm even seeing clients in my office instead of the signing room. I need something to keep me amused.

  • Hippy

    kingsblade wrote:

    @ Ogden Brother:
    I concurred with your statement. That is a far cry from continuing the argument.
    Ogden Brother wrote:
    At that point I wasn’t commenting on the NHL specifically, simply that the economy was stabilizing
    but if that’s true then why did you add:
    And the league is just now starting to earn their rev that will count for the 10/11 season
    Who’s taking things out of context again? You’re even doing it with your own statements. If one isn’t commenting on the NHL one usually doesn’t refer to them directly.
    There, now that’s not keeping my word. (eh)
    What can I say, I’m bored and I have an injury so I can’t really leave my desk. I had to cancel a Tee time today and I’m even seeing clients in my office instead of the signing room. I need something to keep me amused.

    God you're obssesed. By the time I got to my GDP post, I wasn't commenting on the NHL directly, I was showing how the economy can grow through increases in unemployment. He strickly commented on the economy, I strickly commented on the economy back.

  • Hippy

    Ogden Brother wrote:

    God you’re obssesed. By the time I got to my GDP post, I wasn’t commenting on the NHL directly, I was showing how the economy can grow through increases in unemployment. He strickly commented on the economy, I strickly commented on the economy back.

    If you say so.

    So you're the one who was changing the focal point of his discussion but we are the ones who took it in 10 different directions?

  • Hippy

    kingsblade wrote:

    Ogden Brother wrote:
    God you’re obssesed. By the time I got to my GDP post, I wasn’t commenting on the NHL directly, I was showing how the economy can grow through increases in unemployment. He strickly commented on the economy, I strickly commented on the economy back.
    If you say so.
    So you’re the one who was changing the focal point of his discussion but we are the ones who took it in 10 different directions?

    He isolated the focal point when he brought up unemployment.