JESUS PIECES

Todd McLellan didn’t employ many rookie defensemen in San Jose (one a year, on average) and even then those blue didn’t play very much as rookies. From 2008 fall through this past season, McLellan didn’t spend a lot of games on inexperienced defensemen. He auditioned a total of eight D in seven seasons:

  • 2008-09: Derek Joslin (12 games)
  • 2009-10: Jason Demers (51 games); Derek Joslin (24 games)
  • 2010-11: Justin Braun (28 games); Mike Moore (6 games)
  • 2011-12:
  • 2012-13: Matt Irwin (38 games); Matt Tennyson (4 games); Nick Petricki (1 game)
  • 2013-14:
  • 2014-15: Mirco Mueller (39 games); Matt Tennyson (27 games)

Edmonton, during the same time frame, was sending 16 defensemen to the NHL (double the number for SJS):

  • 2008-09: Theo Peckham (15 games); Taylor Chorney (2 games)
  • 2009-10: Taylor Chorney (42 games); Theo Peckham (15 games); Alex Plante (4 games); Johan Motin (1 game)
  • 2010-11: Jeff Petry (35 games); Shawn Belle (5 games); Alex Plante (3 games)
  • 2011-12: Colten Teubert (24 games); Alex Plante (3 games)
  • 2012-13: Justin Schultz (48 games)
  • 2013-14: Martin Marincin (44 games); Oscar Klefbom (17 games); Taylor Fedun (4 games); Brad Hunt (3 games)
  • 2014-15: Oscar Klefbom (60 games); Brandon Davidson (12 games); Jordan Oesterle (6 games); David Musil (4 games); Darnell Nurse (2 games)

Over these seven seasons, San Jose gave rookie defensemen 230 games in what was a window of 3,240 games (six D per game) that needed defensemen. That’s 7 per cent of their overall use in these seasons (providing my math is correct). Over those same seven years, Edmonton gave rookie D 349 games, or 10.7 per center of their overall use during those years.

No defenseman played more than 51 games during the McLellan era in San Jose, and no Oilers defenseman played more than 60 games for Edmonton. I think Darnell Nurse has a very good chance to play 60 games for the Oilers this coming season. Why? Two reasons. First, the club doesn’t have that many superior options, no matter Nurse’s lack of experience. Second? He’s a damn good hockey player. Full stop.

Darnell Nurse had a helluva game, three assists and solid defensive play. If he does start in Bakersfield, I can’t see him being any worse than the first callup—and that gets him to Edmonton by Halloween night. 60 games. That’s my bet. Same as Klefbom.

Leon Draisaitl is an  important part of this team’s future, no matter where he plays in 2015-16. If you start him at 3L behind Hall and Pouliot, that gives Edmonton five center’s every night and frankly Leon is a better bet on portside than guys like Matt Fraser or Iiro Pakarinen. The problem? Oilers are going to be hella-young as it is with McDavid. Talk of trading Leon Draisaitl is lunacy in my opinion. The team’s central cluster will be McDavid’s group and that’s important to remember. Remember the difficulty in drafting the defensemen after Hall—Eberle? Not the same issue with Nurse and Klefbom being older than McDavid.

The next trade Edmonton makes, and my guess it will be one year from this summer, has to be from the Hall-Eberle cluster. From an economic and team perspective, it just makes sense. Why? Well, dropping a $6M player in the summer of 2016 makes more sense than dropping Leon, who will still be in his entry-level deal. Jordan Eberle is (basically) seven years older than Connor McDavid.

The cluster’s center is McDavid. Starting June 26.

Now, that doesn’t mean you go out and trade any of Hall, Eberle or Nuge, but for Peter Chiarelli the Justin Schultz contract is the first challenge to building a cap-wise team. There’s a giant mistake waiting to happen on the Schultz deal and there’s very little wiggle room. Nail Yakupov’s contract makes him attractive to keep, but Schultz at $4M? Little chance he’ll deliver enough value to make the signing a wise decision and I’m not at all sure Schultz has a lot of trade value at this time.

One thing for certain? Peter Chiarelli is a far better choice to handle the Schultz challenge than Craig MacTavish. I’m hopeful that Chiarelli has ‘walking away’ as a legitimate option for Schultz negotiations.

CLUSTER AGE, 2015-16

  • 18: Connor McDavid
  • 19: Leon Draisaitl
  • 20: Darnell Nurse, Bogdan Yakimov
  • 21: Nail Yakupov
  • 22: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Oscar Klefbom
  • 23: Taylor Hall, Martin Marincin
  • 24: Anton Lander
  • 25: Jordan Eberle, Justin Schultz

I’m using hockeydb for this glance and it’s interesting to see what McDavid’s presence does to the older group. Ideally you’d hold on to all of these players until year four or five McDavid, suspect that may be what Chiarelli tries to do. The most vulnerable player on this list? Justin Schultz. The NEXT most vulnerable? Probably Nail Yakupov, who’ll need a new contract in two seasons.

CLUSTER AGE, 1980-81

  • Age 19: Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Glenn Anderson, Paul Coffey
  • Age 20: Jari Kurri, Andy Moog
  • Age 21: Kevin Lowe, Risto Siltanen, Charlie Huddy
  • Age 22: Dave Hunter
  • Age 23: Dave Semenko
  • Age 24: Matti Hagman
  • Age 25: Pat Price, Lee Fogolin, Doug Hicks, Pat Hughes

LOOK at that 19-year old group! Holy hell. Oilers would do well to strongly consider using that No. 16 overall pick on an impact prospect like Timo Meier or Jeremy Roy. McDavid changes everything. Everything.

And for those suggesting Edmonton trade the Nuge, please stop. If we think about the value of building up the middle, then Nuge, Leon, McDavid, Klefbom and Nurse are all inner circle (along with Hall and Eberle) at this time. You may say ‘they have to trade someone’ but that isn’t, strictly speaking, true. The Oilers MAY have to trade a $6M deal when they sign McDavid to his second deal (depending on cap situation) but that’s a distant bell and we don’t know the cap number.

Keep both clusters, the Hall-Nuge-Eberle cluster and the McDavid-Leon-No. 16 overall cluster. Let them build to a crescendo over the next three seasons and then we’ll see what the cap looks like. The Edmonton Oilers are drunk with insane young players, they shouldn’t trade any of them until it’s time.

This summer isn’t the time. Add Niemi and Sekera in free agency, trade if you can using less than prominent pieces and get McLellan in here to identify the players he’ll want to run with through the end of the decade. Peter Chiarelli needs to start as he means to go, meaning quality moves when they present themselves in regard to trading this department of youth.

vitti

LOWDOWN WITH LOWETIDE

At 10:45-ish today (we’re on after the WHC’s). Scheduled to appear:

  • Travis Yost, TSN. Semifinals are set, fantastic hockey ahead.
  • Dennis King Oilogosphere Icon. Habs are out, that MAY be the entire segment! I’m sure we’ll get to McLellan etc.
  • Derek, Fear the Fin. McLellan as a coach and what we can expect.

10-1260 text, @Lowetide on twitter. Talk soon!

 

 

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

145 Responses to "JESUS PIECES"

  1. Ben says:

    This guy thinks Peaches should give up 16th for Talbot:

    http://becauseoilers.blogspot.ca/2015/05/talbot-might-be-new-schneider-if-he-is.html

    I’d rather pay both 2nds.

  2. LMHF#1 says:

    Hadn’t looked much at Talbot’s record – weird road to the NHL.

    As for Nurse – I’m not worried about his conditioning, I’m worried about whether he’s stopped chasing the puck all over the place. That’s his flaw. If he corrects it, he’s excellent.

  3. Woodguy says:

    *WARNING SPAM*

    I had a look at Talbot and whether or not the Oilers should acquire him here:

    http://becauseoilers.blogspot.ca/2015/05/talbot-might-be-new-schneider-if-he-is.html

    *END SPAM*

  4. Woodguy says:

    Ben:
    This guy thinks Peaches should give up 16th for Talbot:

    http://becauseoilers.blogspot.ca/2015/05/talbot-might-be-new-schneider-if-he-is.html

    I’d rather pay both 2nds.

    Ha! you spammed for me.

    I think that BUF and DAL might set the market to a 1st.

  5. supernova says:

    Ben:
    This guy thinks Peaches should give up 16th for Talbot:

    http://becauseoilers.blogspot.ca/2015/05/talbot-might-be-new-schneider-if-he-is.html

    I’d rather pay both 2nds.

    I like Woodguy plenty but I disagree with him over paying the 16th pick for a goalie with less than 100 starts.

    Not saying that Talbot can’t be the guy but we need to invest (picks and $$) into a capable top 4 first.

    I would rather use the 16th pick for a quality D man, and then another on free agency.

    If I have to I go with Niemi or Neuveruth but I spend my picks on top 4 D.

  6. Lowetide says:

    I have to zip but will read WG’s post later. Before reading it, my concern is the wild spikes (in both directions) even good goalies seem to display.That said, i don’t think we should ignore the idea completely just because of the Ben Scrivens incident.

  7. Rondo says:

    Is this correct ? Oilers 2015 draft pick positions

    1, 16, 33, 57, 79 , 86, 87, 124, 154, 184

  8. Ca$h-McMoney! says:

    Woodguy: Ha! you spammed for me.

    I think that BUF and DAL might set the market to a 1st.

    Interesting take. Buffalo doesn’t seem to me like they’re ready to get significantly better next year, and I’ve got to feel like they might stick with Lindback or try to bring Neuvirt/Enroth back. I hadn’t considered Dallas a buyer on goaltending given that I’m generally positive on Lehtonen. He didn’t have a great year but was much better than his supporting cast, a guy who went on to do good things in Buffalo of all places. Tells me they’re likely buying D and supportive forwards first.

    That said I’ve been wrong before.

  9. slopitch says:

    LT, what your suggesting is to “let it simmer” for another year and hope Nurse and Klefbom can become top pairing. Ive brought up trading Leon if you can get a dman of the calibre of Hamilton, OEL or Seth Jones. Otherwise I tend to agree. You dont trade them any of these guys. Moving an elite talent could look Forsberg for Erat bad in a couple years.

    Leon scored 2 goals in the final 2 games short handed. He may morph into a 2 way gem. But that’s exactly what we need. A C with size. Man Im excited. Dont forget Landers emergence either. I still think the balance between F and D is an issue. 10 million in cap space could solve that.

    Burns looks great on Canada. Wonder how much he’d cost. I dont see SJ moving Burns despite them despite the McLellan connection. Canada has some quality dmen who IMO are a bit underappreciated – Wiercoch and Savard.

    In short, I agree with you LT. But I think its not a closed door if an elite D is coming back. The 80s cluster had KLowe, Coffee, Huddy. We dont know what level Nurse/Klefbom will get to.

  10. Rip Fan Winkle "OilOnslaught" says:

    I had a dream last night that Todd McLellan was living in my basement. Should I talk to somebody?

  11. book¡je says:

    Lowetide: The Ben Scrivens Incident.

    When I start my band, that’s what I am going to call it.

  12. hunter1909 says:

    “Keep both clusters, the Hall-Nuge-Eberle cluster and the McDavid-Leon-No. 16 overall cluster.”

    Yeah, man.

    Like I said before, too many fans can’t wait to see the GM start handing off it’s sensational young players to the rest of the league.

    When recently Petry was thrown away like a red haired stepchild.

    Hold onto what you have until you know what you have. otherwise, you risk getting a bunch of Nilssons, Teuberts and O’Sullivan’s back.

    Fortunately, Chiarelli’s no fool. This by itself makes a 179 degree improvement from the last GM.

  13. leadfarmer says:

    Woodguy,

    Buffalo is not spending a first on a goalie that is likely to walk in a year. They are still rebuilding. The market isn’t there for talbot to command a first especially that you only control him for a year. I don’t think you can definitely say that he is better than Neuvirth, Niemi for sure and they only cost money to sign. With guys like Crouse and Zacha likely to be picked sooner rather than later, a very good prospect is going to drop to 16.

    If Chia really likes Talbot and the price really is a first rounder he better trade that 16th overall pick down to 22nd and get a 2nd round pick and then trade it down to 25th and get a third round pick.

  14. Dan the Man says:

    Slats would be able to trade Schultz for a first rounder and two prospects.

  15. supernova says:

    Woodguy,

    http://the6thsens.com/2015-articles/giving-up-on-lehner.html

    for woodguy and anyone else a interesting look at Lehner from a senators blogger

  16. rickithebear says:

    Rondo:
    Is this correct ?Oilers 2015 draftpick positions

    1, 16, 33, 57, 79 , 86, 87, 124, 154, 184

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_NHL_Entry_Draft

    87-> #117

  17. Bag of Pucks says:

    RE Rookie D usage.

    You could have alernatively titled this post “Why the Oilers live in the basement.”

    One of this org’s biggest blind spots has been its failing to realize that the NHL can no longer be used as a developmental league for rookie Defenceman. The pace is too fast now, the system play too detailed.

    Here’s the D corps for last night’s Game 7

    McDonagh / Girardi
    Klein / Staal
    Boyle / Yandle

    Orpik / Carlson
    Alzner / Niskanen
    Green / Gleason

    THAT’s the level of depth on D it takes to compete for the Cup now.

    So far we have 3 players with an outside shot at cracking those teams (KBom, Nurse, Fayne) and KBom and Nurse are obviously extremely green.

    This team has MILES to go on the D side. Chia has a big job ahead of him.

    But yeah, let’s continue to draft Fs in the 1st every year (talking about #16 obviously). That worked out so well for the first rebuild.

  18. barry.moore23 says:

    Rip Fan Winkle “OilOnslaught”,

    No. You’re exactly where you’re supposed to be. Provide well for your guest. The benefits will come back tenfold 🙂

  19. Rip Fan Winkle "OilOnslaught" says:

    slopitch:
    LT, what your suggesting is to “let it simmer” for another year and hope Nurse and Klefbom can become top pairing. Ive brought up trading Leon if you can get a dman of the calibre of Hamilton, OEL or Seth Jones. Otherwise I tend to agree. You dont trade them any of these guys. Moving an elite talent could look Forsberg for Erat bad in a couple years.

    Leon scored 2 goals in the final 2 games short handed. He may morph into a 2 way gem. But that’s exactly what we need. A C with size. Man Im excited. Dont forget Landers emergence either. I still think the balance between F and D is an issue. 10 million in cap space could solve that.

    Burns looks great on Canada. Wonder how much he’d cost. I dont see SJ moving Burns despite them despite the McLellan connection. Canada has some quality dmen who IMO are a bit underappreciated – Wiercoch and Savard.

    In short, I agree with you LT. But I think its not a closed door if an elite D is coming back. The 80s cluster had KLowe, Coffee, Huddy. We dont know what level Nurse/Klefbom will get to.

    McLellan didn’t like to use Burns as a D. He’s erratic methinks. The Oilers have enough erratic up front, they need stoic types in the back. Stoic (not meaning “defensive defenseman” which to me means can’t think, pass or skate well at an NHL level so has to block shots) but cool headed.

    I hope McLellan isn’t into shot blocking. With sticks now and everyone being able to shoot hard D just get hurt and D stick deflections are hard on goalies. Making sure wingers are good at being in the shooting lane is enough, let the goalie deal with it.

  20. Bag of Pucks says:

    Rip Fan Winkle “OilOnslaught”:
    I had a dream last night that Todd McLellan was living in my basement. Should I talk to somebody?

    I think you just did.

  21. su_dhillon says:

    It’s amazing, for the last 2 weeks every morning you wake up as a an Oiler fan it feels like there is good news or another reason to be excited. Nurse with 3 A’s last night, young Leon wins MVP of WHL playoffs, Oh and Connor F’n Mcdavid with another 4pt game. Top it off with the rumored hiring an honest to goodness bonifide top level coach in Todd McLellan and it’s like everything just keeps coming up Millhouse.

    There is a big part me, based on the last decasde, that keeps thinking this is all going to fall apart in some epic way but McDavid is killing that part slowly day by day.

    Connor Mcdavid the man who turned toilet water to Pappy Van Winkle

  22. Pajamah says:

    Nurse scares me simply because we’re not sure what he is yet. I’ll admit that when they trotted out Hall, Eberle and MPS years ago, I pictured Magnus as a 2 way, impossible to knock off the puck, Peter Forsberg type. Couldn’t have been more wrong in his potential, although his is a responsible player.

    I see Nurse, and all I picture is CFP in the defensive zone, obviously without the shot, but the same QB type playing a 1-3-1 PP. Tough as nails, throwing an elbow when needed, and eating up 28 minutes a night. Fingers crossed on this one.

  23. G Money says:

    Cam Talbot is 1,598 shots into his NHL career and has posted a .931 behind a decent Rangers defense, and as backup to King Henrik, in the Eastern Conference (implying that many of Talbot’s starts will have been against the weakest of the weak sisters, though I don’t think that’s actually true).

    For goalies, this is a very small sample size.

    Talbot may indeed be the next Dominator.
    Or he may be the next Ty Conklin.

    He was given more starts this year when Lundqvist was out, and his sv% fell from an unearthly .941 to a more human (but still excellent) .926.

    We won’t really know how good he is until he faces the pressure of being the day-in day-out starter facing a barrage of shots every night behind a porous defense in the West. And that’s worlds away from where he is now.

    For comparison, here is Ben Scrivens Folds Five numbers with approximate comparables:

    After 1,365 shots, prior to joining the Oilers, Scrivens was a .917 goalie behind the terrible Leafs defense and the stellar Kings defense.
    After joining the Oilers, by seasons end playing behind a nearly-league-worst defense, Scrivens had faced 2,106 shots and was still a .917 goalie.

    Those are legitimate NHL starter numbers. Great stuff, right?

    Right now, Scrivens has faced 3,648 shots and has a career .905. That’s backup level, barely.

    So how good will Talbot be? At this point, we have no idea if he’s a contender or a pretender.

    Should the Oilers take a chance on him?
    Should the Oilers give up a 16OV to take that chance?

  24. NYCOIL "Taking Photos" says:

    There aren’t many teams in the market for a starting goaltender. If Minny signs Dubnyk, that basically leaves Edmonton and Buffalo. All the other teams are set or have an expensive contract with term (Smith and Lehtonen).

    This is why I pointed out to LT that Niemi shouldn’t cost so much when we were first discussing him back in the winter when it became clear SJ wanted to move on to Stalock.

    A first rounder in a deep draft is too much to pay for Talbot. There’s got to be another way.

    Edit- I’m not saying Niemi is the solution but 16th overall for Talbot is overpayment, in my opinion.

  25. G Money says:

    supernova:
    Woodguy,

    http://the6thsens.com/2015-articles/giving-up-on-lehner.html

    for woodguy and anyone else a interesting look at Lehner from a senators blogger

    The interesting part about this article for me is the reference to the age of goaltenders.

    There has been some work of late that suggests that goalies peak much earlier than traditional wisdom suggests.

    I think this work is flawed because of sample size. There aren’t enough young goalies to make that statement supportable. The goalies that are playing that young are outliers, and can’t be used to assess the majority. (I found the same effect when I did an aging curve for defensemen).

    The money quote in that regard is this: Just to put things in perspective, there were only five goalies in the entire NHL last year who were 23 or younger and played in more than 10 games — Lehner was one, Petr Mrazek, John Gibson, Calvin Pickard and Andrey Vasilevskiy were the others.

    In other words: beware of drawing any conclusions about young goalies.

    Goalies are, and remain, voodoo.

  26. Lewis Grant says:

    The cluster’s center is McDavid. Starting June 26.

    Let me bring up an elephant in the room. Who is the next captain of the Edmonton Oilers?

    If McDavid is the next Crosby, then once he hits 21 (or thereabouts), how do you deny him the captaincy? Doesn’t it create a great tension between McDavid (surely the de facto leader) and whomever is the captain? How do you switch the captaincy to McDavid at that point without antagonizing the current captain and splitting the locker room?

    It’s easy if the current captain is about to retire or not a star player or can be traded away. But it’s hard if the captain at that point is Hall or Nuge.

    Imagine if Messier had been 5 years older than Gretzky and had been made captain in Gretzky’s first year. Does nobody see any problems there?

  27. NYCOIL "Taking Photos" says:

    Lewis Grant,

    I don’t see it as an issue. Two years from now when Ference is done it will be clear whose team it is.

    If Ference is gone before then? Music! We can cross that bridge then.

  28. G Money says:

    Lewis Grant,

    The team will have to deal with that issue when the time comes. Let’s not fret about it now. There are lots of examples in history of the captaincy being transferred between two players still on the team. In the big picture, as long as the new captain is worthy, I doubt if it will cause any issues.

  29. NYCOIL "Taking Photos" says:

    G Money,

    Yes. Put it this way. Cory Schneider was way more proven than Talbot when he fetched a 9th overall pick in a deep draft. Is Talbot worth the #33? Debatable if you ask me but you have to give to get. #16? Ouch.

  30. Stelio Kontos (Formerly Zangetsu-Formerly Thinker) says:

    I don’t think this is mark 3 as you suggested. Oil can and should try to run with both clusters. Cap still hasn’t felt the sportsnet deal, and canadian dollar will rebound. It’s not unreasonable to think we can hold onto both clusters for the duration of McDavid rfa at least. This is assuming we bridge on the second core. If you keep Nurse and Draisaitl in the A next year, you buy an extra ELC deal, which is actually valuable now (Unlike with Hall, Nuge, Yak). At some point, we may need to trade one piece, but I think that is a deadline deal to push over the top, and I think it is at least 2018 deadline (barring miracle next season). The Oil have to do all they can to hold the ship together. UFA defensemen pop up all the time, and there is a good chance we can address the need from there.

    On forward, the cluster as is projects very well, with no major holes. Pouliot is here long term, and spare parts like Hendricks and Gordon can be found fairly easily via UFA, or depth prospect trade. Ultimately, those 3 lines can probably play close to 60 min by themselves, so the 4th line will be cap savings.
    Hall McDavid Yak
    Draisaitl RNH Eberle
    Pouliot Lander XXX
    XXX XXX XXX

    Defence is sketchy right now, but the pieces are there, it is just time we are waiting on. Nurse will get paid, but I have a feeling Klef will be a value contract. Marincin is solid top 4, and hopefully 16 can also slot in the 2D range. My hope is Werenski is there. He probably isn’t, but I’ve seen him called the best defensemen with the puck in this draft, and you gotta hope sometimes.Question is how long is he going to stay in school? Kylington and Roy are almost definitely there, and could also develop well. There are a lot of defensive gems in the late 1st and 2nd round. Since we have 3 picks in that range, hopefully we get 1. At very least we should get a Marincin caliber with those picks. Future on D could be good with in house options. Nurse looks like a number 1 or 2. Klef a 2-3. Marincin a 3-4, and Fayne a 4. UFAs in the Fayne range shouldn’t be too hard to find, and I think you can run a pretty good defence by committee type thing. Pronger would be nice, but very few teams have that, and I think Nurse will be good enough.

    Future D. Toss in a UFA, or maybe Simpson or someone pans out.
    Nurse Klef
    Werenski Marincin
    XXX Fayne

    Goaltending will be a UFA thing, and I think it would be a waste to try and get a star goalie. Kenny Holland mentallity here.

    The big thing for this team is cap management and future drafting success. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I don’t see what you would be trying to do with an Eberle calibre trade. Most of the holes that exist on the future roster are pretty easy to fill with mid round picks and UFA signings.

  31. G Money says:

    NYCOIL "Taking Photos",

    It also wouldn’t surprise me if Buffalo decides that another year of tanking is an appropriate strategy (even with the new rules, if they finish dead last they still pick no worse than fourth I believe). They sure aren’t going to be challenging for a playoff spot next year. So I’d bet they don’t even look to address the goalie situation for another year.

  32. Bag of Pucks says:

    Can anyone tell me what the justification is for expending all your blue chip draft picks on Fs when you have glaring organizational needs at D and G?

    As I understand it, here are the rationales provided for that approach

    BPA favours F over other positions. More Fs in total draft pool. Thus, more favourable odds of getting a good one and not a bust.
    D don’t contribute immediately. Gs are voodoo.

    The problems with applying this logic to the Oilers are numerous.

    1) Ignoring organizational need to draft your BPA F assumes you can trade this asset later to then address the need. Problem? Where does the prospect play to accrue trade value? He’s blocked on the depth chart by a glut of Fs.

    2) Outside anomalies like McD and Eichel, there is no such thing as clear and obvious BPA! This is falling prey to smartest man in the room syndrome. If at pick 16, the Oil have a choice btw a F ranked at 15 OV and a a D ranked 17 OV, do you honestly believe their crystal ball is clear enough to project the F as the clearly better option despite the incremental difference of the consensus? Hogwash. They’re making their best educated guess like everyone else.

    3) Please stop pointing to outliers like Lidstrom and Rinne as proof that you can always find D and G later in the draft so ignore them early. Meanwhile the LAs and MTLs of these league draft Doughty and Price and laugh all the way to the bank. The blue chip prospects for every position are at the top end of the draft. Again, don’t fall prey to smartest man syndrome thinking you can land them elsewhere.

    This draft sets up perfectly for the Oil to draft the obvious F at 1, D at 16, and a G at 33.

    I believe Chiarelli is smart enough to know this.

  33. NYCOIL "Taking Photos" says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    I think with respect to goalies people have argued that in the cap era you pay big money for an elite goaltender like Price, Henrik, Rask but otherwise it makes sense to spend less because Oilers aside it is relatively easy to find an average goaltender these days. The bell curve now has a very fat middle compared to the 90s and 80s. Only a few are very bad and a few very good. So why waste high picks on goalies when you should be able to find an ok one fairly easily. And unless you are dead set sure, you can’t be banking on a goalie draft pick turning into the next Price.

    Essentially same argument for not drafting 3rd and 4th line checking forwards. Why bother when you can find them later for cheap. Draft as much skill as you can and hope some pan out.

  34. G Money says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    I’d be perfectly OK if the Oilers expend every draft pick after #1 on D, as long as those D can skate. If they have mobility (and ideally, some size), and also assuming it doesn’t become a reach pick where you leave an obviously better forward on the table … I think after that, development plays the biggest role.

    IMO, this is why there are typically more D gems found later in the draft than F gems.

    I would not use the #33 on a G. You are far more likely to find an impact D at that point than an impact G. When I ran draft success curves for F/D/G, there is a mild historical sweet spot for goalies centred around #80 +- 20 as I recall. That might just be a data twitch, or it might be something. But it’s enough of a something that using one or two of 57, 79 , 86, or 117 on G would make sense.

    But #33? No way.

  35. rickithebear says:

    #15 CGy
    #16 EDM

    #33 EDM
    #45 CGY

    #52 CGY
    #53 CGY
    #57 EDM

    #76 CGY
    #79 EDM
    #83 CGY
    #86 EDM

    Won’t this be a us versus them!

  36. G Money says:

    Bag of Pucks: If at pick 16, the Oil have a choice btw a F ranked at 15 OV and a a D ranked 17 OV, do you honestly believe their crystal ball is clear enough to project the F as the clearly better option despite the incremental difference of the consensus? Hogwash. They’re making their best educated guess like everyone else.

    History suggests this is in fact the case. Best guess or not, historically the F ranked 15OV has a higher likelihood of playing in the NHL. You can of course go against the grain of history at any time, but you need to be acutely aware that “this time it’s different” and “I know better” are both famous last words.

    Bag of Pucks: Please stop pointing to outliers like Lidstrom and Rinne as proof that you can always find D and G later in the draft so ignore them early.

    It’s not an outliers issue. Looking at a long history of the draft lets you assign probabilities, and the probabilities of success converge for F, D, G later in the draft. This is the farthest thing from proof that you can “always find D and G later”. What it actually tells you is the opportunity cost of taking a G early in the draft is high. The opportunity cost of taking a G late in the draft is much lower. That’s why it makes sense.

    Opportunity cost matters because (my assumption is always that) the goal of a draft is to maximize the total assets you get out of that draft.

    Now of course, the purpose of a scouting team is to allow you to make intelligent bets that occasionally go against consensus opinion. But as I noted above, you need to be extremely careful when placing those bets.

  37. Bag of Pucks says:

    The argument to always draft a F in the first round reminds me of the NFL a decade or so ago when it was extremely fashionable to draft RBs in the first round because so many of them made immediate impacts in their rookie season.

    As draft strategies have evolved to accommodate cap strategy, most NFL org’s now realize that RBs are a commodity that can be easily acquired on the open market. What is much more to difficult to acquire on the open market is elite level players at OT, WR, CB and QB which is why these positions now are now the most drafted in the early rounds.

    The Fs that are most difficult to acquire in the NHL are outscoring Cs. And they pale in comparison to the difficulty of getting elite D with offensive skills. Gs are perceived as commodities because there’s more supply than demand each offseason, but that does not apply to elite tenders almost all of whom are locked up on longterm deals.

    In simple terms – build down the middle, draft down the middle.

    The fact that we’re already talking about Drai playing on the wing tells us everything about the value of Cs vs Ws. Similarly, is anyone shocked whenever Team Canada ‘s roster is announced and its spilling over with Cs.

    Wingers are the shiny toys of the draft.

  38. slopitch says:

    I think WG makes a good enough case that if he continues the current save rates (small sample size) then the 16 is worth it. However I think given the goaltending market, its not.

  39. Rondo says:

    I see Oilers taking Jeremy Roy or Oliver Kylington if available at #16. Unless players like this are available at #16 Travis Konecny, Pavel Zacha, or Lawson Crouse

  40. Bag of Pucks says:

    G Money:
    Bag of Pucks,

    I’d be perfectly OK if the Oilers expend every draft pick after #1 on D, as long as those D can skate.If they have mobility (and ideally, some size), and also assuming it doesn’t become a reach pick where you leave an obviously better forward on the table … I think after that, development plays the biggest role.

    IMO, this is why there are typically more D gems found later in the draft than F gems.

    I would not use the #33 on a G.You are far more likely to find an impact D at that point than an impact G.When I ran draft success curves for F/D/G, there is a mild historical sweet spot for goalies centred around #80 +- 20 as I recall.That might just be a data twitch, or it might be something.But it’s enough of a something that using one or two of 57, 79 , 86, or 117 on G would make sense.

    But #33?No way.

    The problem with this is the one or two best G prospects will likely be on the board at #33 and gone later.

    Chiarelli drafted Subban. He won’t be shy to draft a G early.

    Agreed with everyone that the key to drafting one this early is they have to project favourably as elite.

  41. Captain Smarmy says:

    Bag of Pucks:
    The argument to always draft a F in the first round reminds me of the NFL a decade or so ago when it was extremely fashionable to draft RBs in the first round because so many of them made immediate impacts in their rookie season.

    As draft strategies have evolved to accommodate cap strategy, most NFL org’s now realize that RBs are a commodity that can be easily acquired on the open market. What is much more to difficult to acquire on the open market is elite level players at OT, WR, CB and QB which is why these positions now are now the most drafted in the early rounds.

    This isn’t completely true. Today RBs are interchangeable because the game changed. In the run first 90s where people were talking about the death of the quarterback. Running backs were absolutely not interchangeable.

    If you can correctly predict the direction the game is going in you can tailor your roster to that and benefit.

    If the NHL is in fact serious about jump starting offense and getting rid of the clutch and grab (they absolutely should) then the Oilers should benefit immensely.

  42. slopitch says:

    rickithebear:
    #15 CGy
    #16 EDM

    #33 EDM
    #45 CGY

    #52 CGY
    #53 CGY
    #57 EDM

    #76 CGY
    #79 EDM
    #83 CGY
    #86 EDM

    Won’t this be a us versus them!

    Bennett vs Draistal. Draisatl vs Bennett. Finckle vs Einhorn.

    FWIW I think the Oilers are gonna smash the draft this year. Id be very hesitant to move the picks. We need to stock the cupboards to support our upcoming dynasty 😉

    I really hate how the draft is right in the prime of the summer. I miss it every year. This year Im out in a cabin, probably with the worst internet in Alberta. How am I supposed to enjoy the great outdoors with the damn draft on. Have it Wednesday during work. I can deal with that.

  43. NYCOIL "Taking Photos" says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    Seems to me you answered the goalie portion of your question with your NFL running back analogy. Goalies can be had further along their development curve for very little. Why waste a high pick on a low probability bet?

  44. fuzzy muppet says:

    G Money,

    I say no. Neuvirth is available for only money.

    #16 OV in this draft is far too dear a price to pay for a relatively unproven Goaltender with 1 year left to FA.

    The Rags won’t resign him so their position is weak. Let some other team gamble if they want

  45. Bag of Pucks says:

    G Money: History suggests this is in fact the case.Best guess or not, historically the F ranked 15OV has a higher likelihood of playing in the NHL.You can of course go against the grain of history at any time, but you need to be acutely aware that “this time it’s different” and “I know better” are both famous last words.

    It’s not an outliers issue.Looking at a long history of the draft lets you assign probabilities, and the probabilities of success converge for F, D, G later in the draft.This is the farthest thing from proof that you can “always find D and G later”.What it actually tells you is the opportunity cost of taking a G early in the draft is high.The opportunity cost of taking a G late in the draft is much lower.That’s why it makes sense.

    Opportunity cost matters because (my assumption is always that) the goal of a draft is to maximize the total assets you get out of that draft.

    Now of course, the purpose of a scouting team is to allow you to make intelligent bets that occasionally go against consensus opinion.But as I noted above, you need to be extremely careful when placing those bets.

    So how do you rationalize the fact that this approach (ie the safe approach) then would likely result in you continually avoid drafting D in the first two rounds, despite the fact that this is where the best D prospects reside?

    1) Opportunity cost should also factor in the cost of not addressing clear organizational needs
    2) The goal should be to find these D and G nuggets not avoid them cos picking one is more risky. That’s caving to incompetence.

  46. G Money says:

    rickithebear:
    #15 CGy
    #16 EDM

    #33 EDM
    #45 CGY

    #52 CGY
    #53 CGY
    #57 EDM

    #76 CGY
    #79 EDM
    #83 CGY
    #86 EDM

    Won’t this be a us versus them!

    Now this is true for later in the draft, but lets compare them on a full scale basis – after all, this is our payback for a year of suckage while the Flames overperformed all the way to the second round:

    #1 EDM
    #15 CGY

    #16 EDM
    #45 CGY

    #33 EDM
    #52 CGY

    #53 CGY
    #57 EDM

    #76 CGY
    #79 EDM

    #83 CGY
    #86 EDM

    Yup, I like that a whole lot more.

  47. fuzzy muppet says:

    rickithebear,

    This next decade is going to be fun as hell. The BOA should be back in full force.

  48. Ducey says:

    No way that I would give up #16 for Talbot.

    He has played on a very good NHL team. This is evident from his stats. His save %’s:

    .902 in 10-11 AHL 1300 minutes 22 GP (Grumet-Morris played 22 with a .923, Johnson 40 GP .901)
    .913 in 11-12 AHL 1860 minutes 33 GP (Chad Johnson played 49 games with a .919)
    .918 in 12-13 AHL 3100 minutes 55 GP ( Talbot was the #1)

    .941 in 13-14 NHL 1200 minutes 21 GP
    .926 this last year 2000 minutes 36 GP

    How does a guy go frojm .913 and .918 in the AHL to .941/ .926 in the NHL? Maybe he worked on his positioning. Maybe its a better team in front of him. Maybe its sample size. Maybe its luck.

    So far he has played 57 games with a good save % that he was never able to achieve at any time in his minor league career. He has essentially come out of nowhere – he played with the noted hockey power – the University of Alabama – and was never drafted. He has played the backup role for the most part – playing the Oilers, Toronto and other weak sisters. He did play well when Henrick was hurt though.

    Schneider on the other hand was a first round draft pick out of a strong Boston college program who has put up strong numbers year after year. He had 98 NHL games and won the Jennings trophy one year with VCR. Of note is that he was signed by VCR to another 2 years at the time of his trade.

    So, whereas you are likely keeping your fingers crossed that Talbot doesn’t turn into Scrivens, there was little chance that was going to happen with Schneider. Cory was as close to a sure thing as you are going to get.

    However, my biggest problem is the contract. As Woodguy points out, Talbot is a UFA after this next season. The Oilers would not be able to talk to him about an extension until January 2016 about a new one. This is what agents call “The Driver’s Seat” and GM’s call “Over a Barrel”.

    The Oilers would be trading #16 for a guy who has one season in the last 6 that he has been a #1 (in the AHL) and then be faced with signing him to an unfavourable contract or having him walk almost right away.

    If Sather wants MTL’s 2nd for him, its likely worth the gamble, but otherwise no way.

    Keep in mind Sather essentially has to trade him this summer. Anyone else going to give him a first rounder? I doubt it.

  49. NYCOIL "Taking Photos" says:

    Ducey,

    In total agreement with you here. Wrote essentially the same thing above, only more poorly.

  50. Bag of Pucks says:

    Captain Smarmy: This isn’t completely true. Today RBs are interchangeable because the game changed. In the run first 90s where people were talking about the death of the quarterback. Running backs were absolutely not interchangeable.

    If you can correctly predict the direction the game is going in you can tailor your roster to that and benefit.

    If the NHL is in fact serious about jump starting offense and getting rid of the clutch and grab (they absolutely should) then the Oilers should benefit immensely.

    That’s a factor but not the only one. The average career for an NFL RB is 2.3 years. They’re the very definition of a commodity because of their short lifespan. NFL GMs are expending their blue chip picks on those skill positions that play the longest in the league. An elite OT can play for a decade.

  51. russ99 says:

    As exciting as Nurse and Draisaitl look, we really need to put an abrupt stop to learning at the NHL level, generational McJesus-nicknamed players aside.

    They both should get a half-year at the least in Bakersfield.

    Chiarelli needs to also put an abrupt stop to MacT’s practice of avoiding to make tough choices on the pro roster by forcing in an unready young player in way over his head with no veteran cover.

    It’s refreshing that McLellan (if true) as coach has a completely opposite gameday decision-making track record of putting young players in only when they’re ready to handle their role.

  52. fuzzy muppet says:

    At 16 OV you take the BPA.

    The Oilers have a much deeper prospect pool on defense.

    They may not be high end prospects but outside of Draisaitl/McDavid(and I expect them both in the NHL next year) there’s nothing in the pipeline worth a damn for forwards at this point.

  53. Bag of Pucks says:

    NYCOIL “Taking Photos”:
    Bag of Pucks,

    Seems to me you answered the goalie portion of your question with your NFL running back analogy. Goalies can be had further along their development curve for very little. Why waste a high pick on a low probability bet?

    Because the easiest way to get an elite level G is to draft one.

    Btw, two of the best drafting orgs in the NHL are ANA and MTL. Both flout the conventional wisdom on drafting Gs high. As a result, both have two of the deepest G prospect pools in the league.

    Run with the masses and the smart contrarians are the ones that prosper.

    Conventional wisdom = Conventional results

  54. G Money says:

    Bag of Pucks: So how do you rationalize the fact that this approach (ie the safe approach) then would likely result in you continually avoid drafting D in the first two rounds, despite the fact that this is where the best D prospects reside?
    1) Opportunity cost should also factor in the cost of not addressing clear organizational needs
    2) The goal should be to find these D and G nuggets not avoid them cos picking one is more risky. That’s caving to incompetence.

    1) Actually, the gap in opportunity cost between F and D shrinks markedly by the time you get to about 5OV. So if the player is good enough, taking a D after that based on organizational need or your scouting teams insistence would make sense, as long as you’re not leaving a clearly better forward on the table to do it. This is why, as I said earlier, I am fine with the Oilers taking D from #16 onwards.

    Similarly, the opportunity cost of G shrinks to little by the time you get to the third round or so.

    As I noted above – the point here is not that you don’t take a D #1 (Ekblad says hi, right?) or a G high or whatever. The point is that if you do so, you better be damn sure that you have that player projected as elite. And you better also recognize that you’re still taking a large risk in doing so.

    I’m a big believer in intelligent risk. Conversely, my observation is that most risk-taking is of the stupid variety. In drafting, we don’t know which is which til after the fact. The Oiler track record certainly points in one specific direction, though.

    2) The handful of studies that have looked at using simple metrics for player selection tend to outperform actual scouting teams. I suppose the analogy here is index funds vs actively managed funds. Turns out the latters competence is mostly marketing and mirage. Apart from a handful of specialty funds that don’t have a comparable index available, I have most of my mutual-funded money in index funds.

    I call this recognizing reality and making smart decisions to maximize my long term returns, not caving to incompetence. What say you?

  55. Lowetide says:

    1
    16 – Pens
    33
    56 – Habs
    78 – Sens
    85 – Blues
    116 – Habs
    123
    153
    183

  56. Ca$h-McMoney! says:

    This next decade is going to be fun as hell.

    Plagiarism!!!

    That’s a direct quote of me, four years ago.

    Sigh…..

  57. admiralmark says:

    16th overall for Talbot may be too rich. So I wonder how Sather would feel about next years 1st+ a prospect? If not Neuvirth/Anderson.

    Connor McDavid-“Except this wasn’t my last game in Erie” Lovin this kid!

    WHO THE OILERS ARE GONNA NAME AS THE NEXT CAPTAIN? = Most overblown issue that fans/media concern themselves with. If a team is going anywhere there will be 8-10 Leaders in that dressing room that play an equally important role minus the title.

  58. Woodguy says:

    G Money:
    Cam Talbot is 1,598 shots into his NHL career and has posted a .931 behind a decent Rangers defense, and as backup to King Henrik, in the Eastern Conference (implying that many of Talbot’s starts will have been against the weakest of the weak sisters, though I don’t think that’s actually true).

    For goalies, this is a very small sample size.

    Talbot may indeed be the next Dominator.
    Or he may be the next Ty Conklin.

    He was given more starts this year when Lundqvist was out, and his sv% fell from an unearthly .941 to a more human (but still excellent) .926.

    We won’t really know how good he is until he faces the pressure of being the day-in day-out starter facing a barrage of shots every night behind a porous defense in the West.And that’s worlds away from where he is now.

    For comparison, here is Ben Scrivens Folds Five numbers with approximate comparables:

    After 1,365 shots, prior to joining the Oilers, Scrivens was a .917 goalie behind the terrible Leafs defense and the stellar Kings defense.
    After joining the Oilers, by seasons end playing behind a nearly-league-worst defense, Scrivens had faced 2,106 shots and was still a .917 goalie.

    Those are legitimate NHL starter numbers.Great stuff, right?

    Right now, Scrivens has faced 3,648 shots and has a career .905.That’s backup level, barely.

    So how good will Talbot be?At this point, we have no idea if he’s a contender or a pretender.

    Should the Oilers take a chance on him?
    Should the Oilers give up a 16OV to take that chance?

    This is about Scrivens from my post:

    Scrivens played 2 1/2 NHL seasons before joining the Oilers with 12, 20 and 19 games played.
    11/12
    Old – 50/58 (min 525 5v5 TOI)
    New – 51/58 (min 525 5v5 TOI)
    12/13
    Old- 22/35 (min 750 5v5 TOI)
    New- 27/35 (min 750 5v5 TOI)
    13/14 (LAK only)
    Old – 3/45 (min 700 5v5 TOI Oct 1- Jan15 – day of trade to EDM)
    New – 4/45 (min 700 5v5 TOI Oct 1-Jan15 – day of trade to EDM)

    So looking at Scrivens it seems that MacT was seduced by him kicking out the jams in the 13/14 season, but looking at the 2 previous years should have made him wary.

    I don’t think Talbot and Scrivens are very comparable.

  59. theres oil in virginia says:

    Lowetide:
    1
    16 – Pens
    33
    56 – Habs
    78 – Sens
    85 – Blues
    116 – Habs
    123
    153
    183

    Isn’t this supposed to be a really good draft year (even after the top 2 are gone)? And the Oilers have 6 picks in the top 3 rounds? Who is responsible for this mess?!

  60. Bag of Pucks says:

    G Money: 1) Actually, the gap in opportunity cost between F and D shrinks markedly by the time you get to about 5OV.So if the player is good enough, taking a D after that based on organizational need or your scouting teams insistence would make sense, as long as you’re not leaving a clearly better forward on the table to do it.This is why, as I said earlier, I am fine with the Oilers taking D from #16 onwards.

    Similarly, the opportunity cost of G shrinks to little by the time you get to the third round or so.

    As I noted above – the point here is not that you don’t take a D #1 (Ekblad says hi, right?) or a G high or whatever.The point is that if you do so, you better be damn sure that you have that player projected as elite.And you better also recognize that you’re still taking a large risk in doing so.

    I’m a big believer in intelligent risk.Conversely, my observation is that most risk-taking is of the stupid variety.In drafting, we don’t know which is which til after the fact.The Oiler track record certainly points in one specific direction, though.

    2) The handful of studies that have looked at using simple metrics for player selection tend to outperform actual scouting teams.I suppose the analogy here is index funds vs actively managed funds.Turns out the latters competence is mostly marketing and mirage.Apart from a handful of specialty funds that don’t have a comparable index available, I have most of my mutual-funded money in index funds.

    I call this recognizing reality and making smart decisions to maximize my long term returns, not caving to incompetence.What say you?

    Actually I think we’re closer to agreeing than not on most here.

    Do you have a link to that draft success curve for G? I’d be interested to see what the success criteria is? I’ve read a couple studies that show the 2nd round as the optimal round for drafting ‘elite’ tenders.

    Btw, to those claiming it’s actually heretical to draft a G in the second round, John Gibson is a better value draft pick than David Musil. Perspective.

    Granted, caving to incompetence is a tad too strong, but the point I’m making here is these success curves are derived by measuring the masses most of whom absolutely suck at this. Rather than measuring the draft as a whole to derive conclusions as to how to approach it, I think it’s best to focus the dataset on those org’s that consistently outperform it.

    Competent mgmt should be able to enter this draft knowing they need a viable Top 4 D prospect from that 16 pick, identify 3 players that meet that criteria, and then draft the best of those 3 left at 16. If they can’t achieve that simple mission, and would rather default to drafting a W to cover their asses, why even employ them?

  61. rickithebear says:

    G Money my list is about the like range picks for scouting DEPT narative.

    2013:
    #6 Monohan
    #7 Nurse

    #22 Poirier

    #28 Klimchuk
    #37 -> 83; #88; #94; #96; #113

    #56 MOR
    #67 Keegan kanzig

    #83 Yakimov
    #88 Slepyshev
    #94 Houck
    #96 Platzer
    #113 Muir

    #128 Campbell
    #135 E. Roy

    #157 Harrison
    #158 Betker

    #187 Rafikov
    #188 Chase
    #198 Gilmour

  62. frjohnk says:

    Woodguy,

    I think 16th overall for a guy with a small sample who is slated to become a UFA next summer is too much of a gamble. If he was RFA then it’s a different story.

    The goalie I go after is Bernier.
    -put up average numbers in a down year for him behind what I would call the 2nd worst team defence in the league.
    -still young
    -his value is low because of all the shit that is Toronto
    -the year before he put up some good numbers with a shitty team defence. One stat I like is quality starts. A quality start is when a goalie has league average save % or better in a game. Or allows 2 goals on 20 or less shots in a game.

    There are currently 17 goalies who have put a season where they played 50 games or more and had a quality start % of 60% or more. Bernier is one of them who did this in 13-14. There were 9 this past year. All bonafide nhl starters.

    Plugging shots from the high, medium, low danger areas with edmonton shots and Bernier in 13-14 had a 0.919 save %. This past year it would have been 0.912. League average save % with what the oilers gave up 0.911. I’ll explain this more in depth when I’m at my laptop.

    I am betting that in a down year Like this past year, Bernier gives you league average goaltending.
    But in a normal year without turmoil Bernier will give you well above league average goaltending (top 10-15, seriously)even with a not very good team defence.

  63. Jon K says:

    Woodguy:
    *WARNING SPAM*

    I had a look at Talbot and whether or not the Oilers should acquire him here:

    http://becauseoilers.blogspot.ca/2015/05/talbot-might-be-new-schneider-if-he-is.html

    *END SPAM*

    Great article, WG. You’ve sold me on Talbot.

    The 16th would be a dear price but I agree with your ultimate conclusion.

  64. Richard S.S. says:

    When someone talks about not giving away a first round pick for a goalie, didn’t Vancouver get a 9th pick for Cory Schneider in a weak draft? Isn’t the 16th pick in this draft as good as an 8-10 pick in any other draft? Chances of getting another “plug and play” player with this pick is extremely good. Trading that caliber of a pick for less than a #1 Stud Player of some kind is poor asset management.

  65. Hall Awaits says:

    LT, with the assumption that Schultz does have very little trade value, do you think a Schultz for Bernier deal could have any traction? Both have tricky RFA deals to work out so it could be a fit. Only Schultz trade I can think of without bringing back a bloated contract or waning veteran.

  66. Cahoon says:

    Woodguy,

    Do you think Sather would take next year’s first for Talbot?

  67. Ducey says:

    Cahoon:
    Woodguy,

    Do you think Sather would take next year’s first for Talbot?

    That could be even worse. With EDM’s luck winning lotteries, you could be giving up Austen Matthews for what might be Scrivens v.2.

  68. Bag of Pucks says:

    I wouldn’t trade the #16 for Talbot.

    Sample size too small and we don’t know how much of that sv pct is related to playing behind one of the best D corps in the league. Scrivens looked good in LA too.

    If I’m Chia, I try to fashion a trade like #16 and Yak for Seth Jones, draft my G of the future at #33 and acquire Anderson as a placeholder G until Brossoit or the #33 pick is ready.

    Suspect what Chiarelli will do is trade next year’s first plus Schultz for Chara, draft D at #16 and trade the #33 plus a prospect for Talbot.

  69. G Money says:

    Bag of Pucks: Actually I think we’re closer to agreeing than not on most here.

    Yes. If I were to try and turn our comments into draft rules, I suspect that you would be looking to pick D and G perhaps 10 spots higher than I would. Not a whole lot of difference.

    Bag of Pucks: Btw, to those claiming it’s actually heretical to draft a G in the second round, John Gibson is a better value draft pick than David Musil.

    Rather than measuring the draft as a whole to derive conclusions as to how to approach it, I think it’s best to focus the dataset on those org’s that consistently outperform it.

    This is a problem, though. Most people are happy to look at a few years worth of draft history and declare one team good and one team bad.

    The issue is that the inherent variability of draft picks and the tiny sample sizes (average 7 per team per year) make drawing such conclusions … maybe a bit harsh, but I’d say nonsense. One terrific (but fluky) late pick one year and Team A looks brilliant by comparison to Team B. But all you’ve likely seen is a good roll of the dice. And to boot, the sample sizes are so small that the effect of that one good pick can outweigh the next three lousy ones.

    Saying “look – Gibson” is a perfect example of playing into that. The fact that one team got a good goalie at one point shouldn’t be the one you cherry pick out of a larger number of failed picks.

    Again, to use a financial analogy, every year there are a lot of orgs that outperform. And you can find that effect over one, three, five, and even ten years. The problem is that this is not a meaningful marker for actual performance, it’s just based on the fact that if you have a large set of mostly comparable funds, at years end (or three years end), they will line up from best to worst. But the reason you have to recognize this is random variation is that the predictability of that organizations results from one time period to the next is basically nil. Hence the disclaimer “Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results”.

    At one point, I took the success probability curves I’d generated and plugged them into a Monte Carlo simulation, with two simulated drafting teams and one having an artificial 10% higher probability of success than the other. To see a statistically significant difference in the quality of the drafting between the two, I had to run the simulation out to 500 years!

    Now, that might be an artificially low ceiling, maybe ANA has a team that is 10x better than the Oilers team and the difference will show up in a year. (Doubtful, though, in my books) The main point is, when you have such small sample sizes and such inherently high variability in the results, using “Team X” as your model of drafting success because they did better than the average in the last five years can just as easily lead you down a garden path as it will to finding any meaningful or applicable draft strategies.

    Bag of Pucks: Do you have a link to that draft success curve for G? I’d be interested to see what the success criteria is?

    I posted it over at C&B about a year ago. You can search there for G Money, or you can go to OilersNerdAlert, I have individual links posted there as well.

  70. G Money says:

    rickithebear: G Money my list is about the like range picks for scouting DEPT narative

    I know. I just posted my version because I think it is, ahem, “visually better”! 🙂

  71. Lowetide says:

    Hall Awaits:
    LT, with the assumption that Schultz does have very little trade value, do you think a Schultz for Bernier deal could have any traction?Both have tricky RFA deals to work out so it could be a fit. Only Schultz trade I can think of without bringing back a bloated contract or waning veteran.

    Makes sense for Oil not for TML

  72. kinger_OIL says:

    I was surprised that the difference between SJ and OIL in terms of rookie D play was only 3% over 7 years. I do want to point out though it’s likely that TMcl didn’t ice as many rookie D, because his GM gave him a roster with more veteran D available, not because TMcL doesn’t like rookie D’s. All things being equal, coaches will choose to dress an experienced D rather than an inexperienced one….

  73. G Money says:

    Woodguy: I don’t think Talbot and Scrivens are very comparable.

    That’s the problem though. Tiny sample sizes in both cases. So whatever comparisons you draw are problematic. Previous attempts to pin down goalie performance suggest you don’t have a real good handle on a goalie until you hit at least 3,000 shots, and even that still has a farily high rate of predictive failure.

    You say in your article “Talbot it trending to be an elite goalie.” In Talbot’s case, you have a sample size that, relative to an elite goalie’s career, is equivalent to predicting how a team will do in a season after 6 games. You can’t conclude that. Just can’t.

    The analysis gets even more problematic when you split out the high-medium-low danger shots. Now you’ve taken a tiny sample size and split it into three miniscule ones.

    I am still in favour of Neuvirth (who I know you also like). But for entirely different reasons from Talbot. Talbot may indeed turn into an elite goalie. But with Neuvirth, what you get is an extremely consistent one. Few poor starts. And an extremely high easy sv%. (He reverses the Scrivens/Fasth effect, both of whom were OK on difficult shots but terrible on the easy/medium ones. Neuvirth is excellent on the easy and just OK on the tough ones).

    This may sound backwards, but in the NHL, I think it’s more important to have a goalie, especially in front of a young team, who doesn’t let in the softies rather than one that makes big saves and lets in a knuckler from the blueline.

    Neuvirth now has enough of a track record that we can confidently say that this is likely who he is. And he’s done that in front of one of the few defenses that is inarguably worse than the Oiler defense.

    And all he’s going to cost is money, and likely not much money at that.

  74. LoDog says:

    No to Talbot for the 16th.

    That pick, in this deep of a draft, should be easily worth the 9th paid for Schneider.

    Based on a very small sample size that he looks like he might be the next Schneider is too big a risk.

    Schneider had a proven track record Talbot does not.

  75. Bag of Pucks says:

    GMoney, thanks for pointing me in the right direction on that link.

    I don’t think financial markets are the best analogy because NHL orgs obviously control a lot more of the variables that will ultimately determine success. This is likely the crux of it. Are the best drafting teams not that at all, but simply org’s that better develop their players? Cleary, Cogliano, Dubnyk, etc.

    I agree that the datasets for outperforming draft org’s is definitely rife with data integrity issues, particularly given the turnover in the development layers and the always critical X factor of injuries that have derailed many a good prospect.

    So we’re often left with qualitative.

    The Ducks do consistently enjoy one of the best ranked prospect pools despite unfavourable drafting position. One of the key attributes I’ve noticed is their tendency to pick up draft day ‘sliders’ that end up representing excellent value. Gs in particular tend to slide on draft day. There’s value to be had there.

  76. G Money says:

    Woodguy,

    And just for balance, let me say that I think your post was excellent and I enjoyed it.

    I just don’t agree with the conclusion!

  77. Bag of Pucks says:

    Seems hopeful to arrive at the conclusion that Talbot is not Scrivens when the only appreciable difference seems to be the lack of data on Talbot playing with an inferior team. Sounds like buyer beware to me.

  78. LMHF#1 says:

    Is there any chance Philly gives up Mason?

    With their penchant for big-game hunting for goalies and doing assorted crazy business, he might be available.

    He’s only 26, has been through all the crap and seems to be smelling like a rose these days. Not near as big a risk as Talbot might be.

    It sounds crazy…but these are the Flyers. Crazy is what they do.

  79. G Money says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    I think this is the hardest thing to separate when assessing drafting. What is the effect of development vs drafting?

    When we look at the Red Wings, I see the hallmarks of development everywhere. They have a deep team which affords them the ability to leave picks, well coached, on the farm team until physically and mentally ready. And then they can still give them more time to adapt to the NHL by sheltering them with veterans when they do arrive.

    So agreed – we’re left with the qualitative assessment. From the outside. With small sample sizes garnered over multiple years.

    I can tell you this – I can criticize the Oilers scouting record all I want. But I’m glad I’m not hiring the replacements.

    All of this of course applies to the amateur scouting department.

    As to the pro scouting department … yeesh. No equivocation needed there, methinks.

  80. Bag of Pucks says:

    G Money:
    Bag of Pucks,

    I think this is the hardest thing to separate when assessing drafting.What is the effect of development vs drafting?

    When we look at the Red Wings, I see the hallmarks of development everywhere.They have a deep team which affords them the ability to leave picks, well coached, on the farm team until physically and mentally ready.And then they can still give them more time to adapt to the NHL by sheltering them with veterans when they do arrive.

    So agreed – we’re left with the qualitative assessment.From the outside.With small sample sizes garnered over multiple years.

    I can tell you this – I can criticize the Oilers scouting record all I want.But I’m glad I’m not hiring the replacements.

    All of this of course applies to the amateur scouting department.

    As to the pro scouting department … yeesh.No equivocation needed there, methinks.

    I would love to see an alternate universe where Justin Schultz is developed by the Detroit Red Wings.

    Suspect Schultz gets the callup from the A at the age of 29 in that scenario.

  81. Woodguy says:

    frjohnk,

    I think 16th overall for a guy with a small sample who is slated to become a UFA next summer is too much of a gamble. If he was RFA then it’s a different story.

    From my post:

    Since Talbot is on a 1 year deal, you cannot extend him until January 1st, 2016. That is not to say you cannot talk to him or his agent about extending him before that.

    If you trade for Talbot, you must make sure he is warm to the idea of signing an extension.

    He should be as there are only 30 starter jobs in the NHL and he would have one of them on a team stacked with young talent and a bright future. (finally a bright future….lordy its been the desert for 9 years…..)

  82. Woodguy says:

    G Money:
    Woodguy,

    And just for balance, let me say that I think your post was excellent and I enjoyed it.

    I just don’t agree with the conclusion!

    Well screw you then!!!

    Ha!

  83. Woodguy says:

    G Money: That’s the problem though.Tiny sample sizes in both cases.So whatever comparisons you draw are problematic.Previous attempts to pin down goalie performance suggest you don’t have a real good handle on a goalie until you hit at least 3,000 shots, and even that still has a farily high rate of predictive failure.

    You say in your article “Talbot it trending to be an elite goalie.”In Talbot’s case, you have a sample size that, relative to an elite goalie’s career, is equivalent to predicting how a team will do in a season after 6 games.You can’t conclude that.Just can’t.

    The analysis gets even more problematic when you split out the high-medium-low danger shots.Now you’ve taken a tiny sample size and split it into three miniscule ones.

    I am still in favour of Neuvirth (who I know you also like).But for entirely different reasons from Talbot.Talbot may indeed turn into an elite goalie.But with Neuvirth, what you get is an extremely consistent one.Few poor starts.And an extremely high easy sv%.(He reverses the Scrivens/Fasth effect, both of whom were OK on difficult shots but terrible on the easy/medium ones.Neuvirth is excellent on the easy and just OK on the tough ones).

    This may sound backwards, but in the NHL, I think it’s more important to have a goalie, especially in front of a young team, who doesn’t let in the softies rather than one that makes big saves and lets in a knuckler from the blueline.

    Neuvirth now has enough of a track record that we can confidently say that this is likely who he is.And he’s done that in front of one of the few defenses that is inarguably worse than the Oiler defense.

    And all he’s going to cost is money, and likely not much money at that.

    My post is all about making a bet.

    From my post:

    A reasonable argument against getting Talbot is that 57 games is a small sample and that “MacTavish made reasonable bets on Scrivens and Fasth and they didn’t turn out”

    The small sample argument is true. Its best to have a longer track record, but when trying to find “the next very good goalie”, by the time they have the track record they are locked up long term or cost more than a 1st to get.

    I know full well the limitations of what I looked at.

    I still like the bet because the upside is very, very high.

    My next post will be about Neuvirth and you can (and I will) make an argument that signing Neuvirth and keeping the 16th (or trading for 1LD) is probably a better use of assets.

    I still think Talbot is tracking very well.

  84. Woodguy says:

    Cahoon:
    Woodguy,

    Do you think Sather would take next year’s first for Talbot?

    No clue.

  85. Bootstrap Effexor says:

    G Money:
    The handful of studies that have looked at using simple metrics for player selection tend to outperform actual scouting teams.

    Your comment is stacking the deck in subtle ways, because what you really mean here is “outperform over commodity metrics”.

    Teams get into pickles where their role assignments are far from ideal. Maybe they make a pick that’s goes a bit into the weeds in order to break the role assignment pickle logjam.

    Subsequently, an existing player who was moved into a more suitable role is traded the following off season for a far better return than if you hadn’t been able to make the role adjustment.

    Where does that tactical ripple-effect term show up in commodity player metrics?

    It doesn’t.

    Now it might be the case that struggling teams consistently over-value short term tactical advantages.

    Equally, it might also be the case that winning begets winning and losing begets losing, and that struggling teams who don’t avail themselves of tactical considerations also tend to regress away from the mean—until some jumping McJesus comes along and turns sump into trumps.

    You start with a correlation between struggling teams and greater recourse to tactical considerations (anti BCA—best commodity available).

    Then you observe that most of the struggling teams get worse, and most of the good teams remain good or get better.

    Then you hypothesise that results are largely linear, and therefore also that BCA is the optimal strategy, completely ignoring that the dynamics of the rich getting richer also adequately explains regression away from the mean.

    Imagine you have two aftermarket carburettors A and B, and two aftermarket exhaust systems C and D.

    You try out all four combinations A+B, A+D, B+C, B+D and measure delivered power on a dynamometer.

    Even if the your linearity assumption is correct, you still can’t figure out whether carbs are a better investment choice than exhaust manifolds. What you can figure out is that, supposing you start with the worst combination in hand, which of the two you’d upgrade first, sufficient funds available for either but not both.

    However, I suspect that many people have the intuition that carb + manifold is not even a properly linear system.

    Within this group of people exists a elite nucleus who likewise think that phonograph needle + speaker wire is not a fully linear system (you need the right needle matched to the right wire).

    Turns out there are two distinct camps of audio fritterbudgets. One tries to purchase every component as neutral as possible, and then adopts the policy of picking the best A/B for each item.

    The other group evinces more creativity and less scientific thinking. You have this absolutely fabulous phonograph needle, with exceptional brights and too many other virtues to list in a single mothbreath, but with some types of music it’s so bright as to verge on harsh.

    Then you have this fabulous speaker wire that’s exceptional in all regards, but it seems to take a very slight edge off brights that are over the top.

    Music! They belong together.

    There was a time, maybe back in the seventies or eighties, where audio electronics design was largely driven by exceptional components. You couldn’t get just any component you wanted. There were a handful of elite components, each of which had some quirk you just had to live with. It actually made sense to some degree to put together a finished audio system balancing quirk against quirk (bonus: when the customer—whose list of possessions definitely includes a bed but perhaps not a couch—finally becomes flush enough to afford a big upgrade, all of his old stuff hits your nearly-good-as-new crack-bait shelf).

    Then CAD technology started to have a greater impact on chip design and engineers were better able to model and tweak (on the drafting board) all behaviours of the proposed silicon sliver, and the quirkiness of elite parts started to become a lot less prominent—gone now is the strange phase lag that peaks around 300 Hz.

    The scrupulous audio consultants quickly changed horses, leaving the unscrupulous to match needles to wires for another decade or two.

    My main point here is that determination of the degree of linearity of the optimal draft strategy is under-determined relative to the matrix of observations we normally discuss. It can’t be solved.

    Here’s how to read two common terms of reference:

    BPA — man, I love linearity!

    Smartest man in the room — man, I hate non-linearity!

    But of course, in both cases. A management hanging judge loves the regime that best supports decisive verdicts.

    If the GM’s job is dominated by linear terms, we can hang the incompetent in good conscience.

    If non-linearity dominates the escape from suck-hood, all bets are off concerned certain judgement of past decision regimes.

    Did we just escape from suck-hood by the slow and steady application of linear thinking, or did rainbow-coloured unicorn shit dissipate into the polar magnetosphere?

    It seems like most people believe you can pin down your dynamical starting point by the converse of proof by contradiction.

    Call it proof by consistency.

    See the team get bad results.
    See desperate management reach for non-linear methods.
    See the correlation between non-linear methods and continued poor results.
    Predict more of the same.
    Witness more of the same.
    QED.

    The problem is that you can postulate other dynamical models (completely opposite in character) which also achieve proof by consistency, which nicely disproves the method of proof by consistency using proof by contraction.

    Proof by consistency proves A.
    Proof by consistency proves B.
    A implies not B.
    B implies not A.
    Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t very fuzzy, was he?

    Personally, I like that statement of syllogism.

    Another premise that constantly shows up here is the fungibility of competence. The gist of this story is that you can pluck established competence (esp. from the coaching ranks) from a good team and plunk it into a bad team and necessarily get good—or at least better—results.

    However, in a model with a strong rich-get-richer effect, competence alone might not be enough to salvage a bad situation. It might even take a different brand of competence to launch a bad team across the great divide, after which you replace GM fritterbudget tugging on the lawnmower cord time and again with someone who can run a tight pattern given a reliable motor.

    In a strongly linear dynamical model, there is most likely only one kind of competence. You can’t make this assumption for any other proposed dynamic.

    Even in the markets, it’s not a good business model to understate (or under-model) your dynamical uncertainty.

    Eric Rosenfeld 15.437 presentation 2/19/09

    The whole house of cards was based on a presumption about strong decorrelation accruing automatically from maximal diversification (e.g. where two industries have no apparent point in contact across dozens of major dimensions).

    But the truth of the matter is that all spheres of human enterprise become correlated if all the same class of calculating savants is busy spreading their irons across all the same fires.

    They also made a bunch of simple mistakes (most of these in service of better veiling their activities from external competitors). I’m mainly going after the reality that they pitched their assurances (and self-assurances) way too high.

    BTW, unlike Enron, these really were the smartest guys in the room, but any standard of raw IQ, if anyone still believes in such a measure. There was nothing mocking about it, except for the subtext that beautiful people tend to put extra stock in personal beauty, smart people likewise, etc.

    Here’s another syllogism.

    All I have to my credit is a narrow ability in numbers and abstraction.
    There is such as thing a generalized intelligence.
    If there is such a thing as generalized intelligence, mathematics would surely be a big piece of the pie.
    Basis step: Mathematics is the universal narrow tool.
    Induction step: This can be proved mathematically.

    I don’t think I even need to finish this little story of a narrow tool going all pie-eyed after spending too much time alone.

  86. Rational Zealot says:

    I wouldn’t trade the #16 pick for any player with one year left on his contract. And if I wouldn’t trade it for Sidney Crosby I sure as hell wouldn’t trade it for Cam Talbot.

    It’s one year. One year is nothing.

    I want the Oilers to be good year after year after year. The only way to do that is to keep your first round picks. Trade all the rest, I don’t care, but keep your first round picks.

  87. ashley says:

    This is a great post. Lots of wisdom, LT. Hopefully Chia shares your vision.

    Trading a first round pick for a goalie is not something I would do. I wonder if SP is an inadequate measure of goaltender quality. We say goalies are voodoo, partly because of their inconsistency which is real, but perhaps also partly because we probably don’t yet have the right statistical tools to measure goalie value. It’s probably more complicated than we know.

    What makes us think that Talbot is going to show up and look any different than Dubnyk, Scrivens and Fasth? Why don’t we consider team effects, D quality, shot quality, other instead of just SP?

    I think the advanced stats do a better job of skaters, but still, we are missing information. For example, I suspect Fayne is a below average NHL defenceman who rides historical corsi pedigree garnering mild praise in his first year as an Oiler despite statistical and eyeball results that suggest otherwise. It’s also more comfortable to frame him as quality since he is signed to a multi-year contract.

  88. coolwasabi says:

    I don’t understand why in the world the New York Rangers – who are definitely in their WIN-NOW-BEFORE-LUNDQVIST-GETS-TOO-OLD window – would trade Cam Talbot. He’s a cheap backup who has been exceptional for them.

    Sure, if someone wants to overpay for him then Slats would pull the trigger and find another backup… but then why don’t we instead look for a that other backup ourselves and save ourselves an asset?

    And yes, I realize that some may consider a starting goaltender that’s stuck behind Lundqvist, but the sample size is just too small.

  89. Ducey says:

    G Money:
    Woodguy,

    And just for balance, let me say that I think your post was excellent and I enjoyed it.

    I just don’t agree with the conclusion!

    Agreed. I look forward to the Neuvirth post.

    Get on it already!

  90. G Money says:

    Bootstrap Effexor,

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean by ‘commodity metrics’. If I parse your prose, I think I can agree with your criticism in the sense that the studies I mentioned were not in the end ‘scientific’ in any real way. They were really thought experiments – but still ones that lead to some interesting and arguably supportable conclusions about the quality of scouting.

    On a side note, I am also a reformed ‘audio fritterbug’. Stuffed in my basement you will find a Clearaudio/Rega/Bryston/Classe/Sonus Faber system, all tied with AQ interconnects and MIT bi-wire from power amp to speaker that, with high grade source material, is so good it will create a sonic wormhole in your brain.

    I am unfortunately ‘reformed’ because a. advanced age and the foolishness of youth mean my ears are now of lower quality than the equipment I listen to, and b. the equipment layout has been unceremoniously destructured to make room for the kids ping pong and foosball tables. Wish they’d get off the damn lawn AND my basement!

  91. zatch says:

    I was curious about the poster up higher talking about drafting goalies, so I just spent most of my free time today analyzing goalies success and draft position. It was a lot of data. And I don’t know what to do with most of it. But besides everything that was said to Bag of Pucks, I’ll just add what I noticed. It’s actually not that relevatory.

    Basically, the goalies drafted higher skew better. No surprise there. If you look at who is who in elite goaltending, minus Hank, Bob, Rinne and arguably Halak and Vokoun, the best goalies are snapped up by late round 4. That said, there’s a LOT of dross in there. As you likely can all conclude, the issue is it’s hard to ID goalies. For example, here is every goalie drafted top 10 since 1980

    Rick DiPietro
    Marc-Andre Fleury
    Kari Lehtonen
    Roberto Luongo
    Tom Barrasso
    Carey Price
    Brian Finley
    Al Montoya
    Jamie Storr
    Grant Fuhr
    Jimmy Waite
    Pascal Leclaire
    Brent Krahn
    Jocelyn Thibault
    Dan Blackburn

    Some great, some good, some ok, some awful.

    It’s just not worth it. As has been restated here before, in todays NHL, the “Good enough” part of the bellcurve for goalies is large. It’s not worth whale hunting in drafts. Yes, everyone said Bobby Lou and Price were Dynamite, but they also said that about DiPietro, Fleury and others.

    Were I in charge of a team, I would not draft a goalie before the 3rd round unless:
    There was someone honestly and clearly a monster on the board, and even then I’d think hard
    The team was in a good place for all other prospects EXCEPT goaltending and there was an obviously good candiate on the board.

    tl;dr Don’t go chasing waterfalls in the form of early round goalies. NEVER do it in the first 20 picks.

  92. zatch says:

    zatch,

    Further to my above, I’d also add: Scout the crap out of Europe and try to draft a high reward high-risk goalie once every 2-3 years from in there with a 6th or 7th rounder. Then send guys to pick up FA’s in their early 20’s. Like what Edmonton just did.

  93. leadfarmer says:

    You are violating rule number 1 of hockey GM ing. Do not trade with Glen Sather. Even if a trade looks innocent enough, he is actually taking you behind the woodshed.

  94. Bag of Pucks says:

    zatch:
    I was curious about the poster up higher talking about drafting goalies, so I just spent most of my free time today analyzing goalies success and draft position. It was a lot of data. And I don’t know what to do with most of it. But besides everything that was said to Bag of Pucks, I’ll just add what I noticed. It’s actually not that relevatory.

    Basically, the goalies drafted higher skew better. No surprise there. If you look at who is who in elite goaltending, minus Hank, Bob, Rinne and arguably Halak and Vokoun, the best goalies are snapped up by late round 4. That said, there’s a LOT of dross in there. As you likely can all conclude, the issue is it’s hard to ID goalies. For example, here is every goalie drafted top 10 since 1980

    Rick DiPietro
    Marc-Andre Fleury
    Kari Lehtonen
    Roberto Luongo
    Tom Barrasso
    Carey Price
    Brian Finley
    Al Montoya
    Jamie Storr
    Grant Fuhr
    Jimmy Waite
    Pascal Leclaire
    Brent Krahn
    Jocelyn Thibault
    Dan Blackburn

    Some great, some good, some ok, some awful.

    It’s just not worth it. As has been restated here before, in todays NHL, the “Good enough” part of the bellcurve for goalies is large. It’s not worth whale hunting in drafts. Yes, everyone said Bobby Lou and Price were Dynamite, but they also said that about DiPietro, Fleury and others.

    Were I in charge of a team, I would not draft a goalie before the 3rd round unless:
    There was someone honestly and clearly a monster on the board, and even then I’d think hard
    The team was in a good place for all other prospects EXCEPT goaltending and there was an obviously good candiate on the board.

    tl;dr Don’t go chasing waterfalls in the form of early round goalies. NEVER do it in the first 20 picks.

    I’m not advocating drafting a G in the Top 20 (ie with pick 16) either. Players like Price are definite outliers.

    GMoney’s advocating waiting until the 3rd. I like the 2nd round particularly at #33 this season cos you can potentially land the best G prospect in the draft at that slot which represents excellent value both positionally and needs wise in the org.

    Btw, in the current Hockey News draft preview, one scout when talking about G prospect Vladar predicts no G taken in the first round again, but as soon as one is taken in the 2nd they’ll go like dominoes.

    Finally, one thing we have to factor in when questioning how few drafted Gs actually make the show is the scant amount of jobs actually available to them. G draft success ratios don’t account for this and the reality is if you’re drafted as a G by the Flames the season after Kiprusoff starts a 10 year run, you’re pretty much fucked.

    Btw only 4 of the Gs on your list didn’t play significant GPs in the NHL. I’m not sure that’s evidence in support of the positional drafting bias against Gs.

  95. nelson88 says:

    Sweden loses a close one to Russia.

    Big game for Lander 1G 2A +1

    Kids a beauty. Wish we would have locked him up longer term.

  96. GCW_69 says:

    Woodguy:

    If you are going to make that gamble, why not go after Vasilevskiy? Sample size is small, but the upside is much higher (Price like). A Neuvirth Vasilevskiy tandem or Niemi Vasilevskiy tandem means you spend only money on the guy you expect to help you improve now, and spends your assets on the guy who is going to help you win the Cup in three years and stay in the mix for the ten years after.

  97. Bag of Pucks says:

    leadfarmer:
    You are violating rule number 1 of hockey GM ing.Do not trade with Glen Sather.Even if a trade looks innocent enough, he is actually taking you behind the woodshed.

    He’s built a helluva team in NY. Some pretty impressive records broken.

    http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=767626&navid=DL%7CNHL%7Chome

    I’d call them gutty or clutch if such things existed.

  98. Bad Seed says:

    G Money,

    Your ears may be of lower quality due to the “quality” of your components – e.g.. Brightson amps. I’ve never heard a solid state system that didn’t make your ears bleed. Rush deserves better than that!

  99. Dashingsilverfox says:

    Matheson on the goalie situation and the suggestion of a Yakupov for Jared Spurgeon trade:

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/edmonton-oilers/Edmonton+Oilers+Peter+Chiarelli+defence/11055969/story.html

  100. Bag of Pucks says:

    Just realized I’m sitting here pondering the good possibility of this team drafting McDavid, Kylington and Samsonov when 8 years ago I was pondering the sad reality of this team drafting Gagner, Plante and Nash.

    That my friends is progress!

    Woooot!

  101. admiralmark says:

    I like a lot of what Staples writes but it’s really odd to witness his ongoing love affair with Schultz?! He must wear the same glasses MacT wears?

  102. Ducey says:

    Dashingsilverfox:
    Matheson on the goalie situation and the suggestion of a Yakupov for Jared Spurgeon trade:

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/edmonton-oilers/Edmonton+Oilers+Peter+Chiarelli+defence/11055969/story.html

    I remember when Matheson actually had access to the team and his columns meant something. Now he is struck in his basement, dreaming up trades, like the rest of us.

  103. LadiesloveSmid says:

    Dashingsilverfox:
    Matheson on the goalie situation and the suggestion of a Yakupov for Jared Spurgeon trade:

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/edmonton-oilers/Edmonton+Oilers+Peter+Chiarelli+defence/11055969/story.html

    Spurgeon is pretty underrated. Years of a nice blue bubble in the top right quadrant.

    I’d take him on, not at the cost of Yak. Don’t know who his Scandella would be in Edmonton, too.

  104. Woodguy says:

    GCW_69: If you are going to make that gamble, why not go after Vasilevskiy?Sample size is small, but the upside is much higher (Price like).A Neuvirth Vasilevskiy tandem or Niemi Vasilevskiy tandem means you spend only money on the guy you expect to help you improve now, and spends your assets on the guy who is going to help you win the Cup in three years and stay in the mix for the ten years after.

    I know that Talbot is available.

    I do not know that Vas. Is available and would guess that he is not.

  105. Woodguy says:

    Ducey: Agreed.I look forward to the Neuvirth post.

    Get on it already!

    Thanks.

    I’m going to do a follow up post on this one first, but hope to have both done in the next 10 days or so.

  106. SwedishPoster says:

    Sweden lost 5-3 to Russia which was expected but sadly the boys, outside of Jacob Josefsson who worked is litlle New Jersey behind off, didn’t show up until half the game and a russian 3-0 lead. Enroth fell apart as usual when under pressure and was pulled after the third GA. Stay away in free agency! Sweden got back and made it 3-3 with 5 mins left but Malkin scored right after via OELs skate and Tarasenko added the empty netter. Well deserved russian victory and they have a far stronger team than sweden but if they had come to play from the first puck drop they could have hurt them. They kinda showed their youth, a lot of nerves.

    Klefbom looked the most nervous, he was a mess for large parts, overworked a lot of situations and looked really tense, his skating looked stiff, saved his own ass with good second attempts and got better later in the game but was not himself tonight. Still got a lot of ice time and did good things just too many small mistakes all game long.Very important experience for him this and his talent is evident he just needs more high octane games.

    The other Oiler on the other hand showed that he truly is the big game player he has a rep to be. He basically went into beast mode after an ok first period. Masterful on the dot, lost maybe two all game. Strong defensively. Hard on the forecheck. Constantly in the russians faces, trolling Malkin, slashing Kulikov, skating into Bobrovsky. A goal and two helpers. The goal was a nice finish after a magnificent OEL setup. His first assist was a clean face off win, he won most of his FOs cleanly(against Malkin et al). His 2nd assist was a perfect hard pass from the right halfboards straight onto Loui Erikssons stick who just redirected it into the net.

    A lot of good players on the ice but three players stood out and looked like elite players Panarin, Malkin and Anton freaking Lander. Can’t wait to see him in a Stanley Cup game.

  107. Tire Fire says:

    Bootstrap Effexor,

    I really like how your version of quod erat demonstrandum is “Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t very fuzzy, was he?”

    Borrowing your diction of linear vs non-linear terms, a lot of the “that GM is an idiot and should have done X” comes from a different weighting of L vs NL, rather than the simple case of the GM being an idiot who doesn’t understand the L terms.

    Unfortunately, without an interview soaked in truth serum, it’s hard to confidently assign one of those two narratives. That’s why I often skip over the GM judgments. Some of the indictments are no doubt true, but I’m not so interested if I can’t really figure out which.

    I particularly don’t buy the narrative that MacT was KO’d by opening his mouth too much in press conferences. He’d be constantly narrating his real plans to Katzman and Nicholson, and that’s the parking lot where the rubber really met the road.

  108. LadiesloveSmid says:

    Woodguy: I know that Talbot is available.

    I do not know that Vas. Is available and would guess that he is not.

    why is Talbot available? (no sass, legitimately asking). Who’s their backup option? Skapski? Just trying to cash in before he’s gone in a year?

  109. Gally says:

    I fully understand the multiple cores, and appreciate the perspective on them, but, sometimes moves do need to be made before there’s cap crunches. Brad Treliving, who many in the Oilogosphere seemed to want instead of MacT, is a pretty smart guy(we’ll see the moves he makes this summer to confirm) and he said that in the cap league, you have to be thinking five years ahead https://twitter.com/SUNRandySportak/status/598215111354945536?s=09 . Lowetide, you’re pretty measured on your thoughts about moving pieces, but there’s a lot more out there that have the Connor goggles on and think like the cap will always move up in leaps and bounds. Hell, before the announcement of this cap being relatively flat, I had seen many people(not here, necessarily) suggesting the cap would be $80M next year.. That’s one of the problems of signing excessively long TV contracts, it stunts growth unless bookkeeping is creative, or seat prices get jacked.

  110. kinger_OIL says:

    coolwasabi:
    I don’t understand why in the world the New York Rangers – who are definitely in their WIN-NOW-BEFORE-LUNDQVIST-GETS-TOO-OLD window – would trade Cam Talbot. He’s a cheap backup who has been exceptional for them.

    Sure, if someone wants to overpay for him then Slats would pull the trigger and find another backup… but then why don’t we instead look for a that other backup ourselves and save ourselves an asset?

    And yes, I realize that some may consider a starting goaltender that’s stuck behind Lundqvist, but the sample size is just too small.

    2 words: Bunny Larocque

  111. Visually better says:

    Please don’t overreact to this but am i the only one who thought Klefbom looked a little shaky with and away from the puck this tournament. He’s still very young and I have no doubt will be a great d-man for us one day, I am however just a slight bit concerned on his play, based on he was playing with OEL.

    On the other hand, Lander looked like a wizard and I couldn’t be happier that he turned out the way we all thought he would. Great on draws, good in our own end, loves getting in the dirty areas what more could an Oilers fan want from a young C!!

  112. LoDog says:

    Here is a nice write up from a Rangers blog.

    http://satheronwaivers.blogspot.ca/2015/03/cam-talbots-trade-value-2015-goalie.html

    Makes some of the same points as Woodguy and the comparison to Schneider.

    Spoiler alert: Their conclusion is a second round pick. Worth a read.

  113. Visually better says:

    SwedishPoster,

    and the Swedish poster himself just answered my question. Couidn’t agree more, good read!!

  114. Ducey says:

    LadiesloveSmid: why is Talbot available? (no sass, legitimately asking). Who’s their backup option? Skapski? Just trying to cash in before he’s gone in a year?

    Yeah. Sather isn’t going to be able to resign him, as he will want starter time and money.

    Sather trades Talbot and then signs a UFA. They took a G in the second round last year, so they likely want a three year bridge to him.

  115. misfit says:

    There’s lots to like about Spurgeon. I would be very happy with him as a replacement for Schultz, but I wouldn’t expect the same kind of performance here without being in the same role. And his role in Minny for years has included a fairly healthy zonestart push. Schultz absolutely needs that push (we don’t want him anywhere near the dzone), so those minutes wouldn’t be available to Spurgeon.

    Also, trading Yakupov for him would be a bad move. I would hope Yakupov would have more value around the league than that based on draft position alone.

    Scandella is the guy I’d target out of Minny, though I don’t know why they would be looking to move any of their defensemen. They’ve got a pretty well rounded group there lead by one of the very best in the business.

    Back to McLellan and the defense. I wouldn’t place too much into it. You always hear people talk about potential coaching candidates say things like “he wouldn’t be good for us because he prefers veterans”. The thing is, EVERY coach prefers veteran players to young ones. The only reason some play prospects more is because they have no choice. Unless they have a meddling GM who tells them who they have to play, any coach is going to use the players he thinks are going to give him the best chance to win. Dallas Eakins wasn’t a “youth coach”. He played 7 rookies over the last 2 years because he didn’t have a choice. His veterans stunk and/or he didn’t have enough of them.

  116. Woodguy says:

    Dashingsilverfox:
    Matheson on the goalie situation and the suggestion of a Yakupov for Jared Spurgeon trade:

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/edmonton-oilers/Edmonton+Oilers+Peter+Chiarelli+defence/11055969/story.html

    I like Spurgeon a lot, but not sure about the Yak cost.

  117. wheatnoil says:

    It has been mentioned before, but when looking at the market for goalies and discussing Talbot vs others, we need to look at the demand in the market to determine the cost. Which teams need goalies AND have money to spend on a significant acquisition?

    Anaheim – Set with Gibson & Anderson
    Arizona – Paying Mike Smith $5.6M for the next number of years
    Boston – Paying Rask $7M for the next number of years
    Buffalo – Opening available
    Calgary – Opening available if they don’t resign Ramo. Hiller being paid $4.5M but only for one more year
    Carolina – Ward and Khudobin signed for combined $8.5M but only for one more year; they’d have to make a trade / buy-out to get an opening
    Chicago – Crawford signed forever, Darling & Raanta signed for cheap; would have to trade Crawford
    Colorado – Varlamov signed for 4 years, Berra signed for 2
    Columbus – Paying Bobrovsky $7.425M x 4 more years
    Dallas – Paying Lehtonen $5.9M x 3 more years
    Detroit – Paying Howard $5.3M x 4 more years; Mrazek signed for cheap
    Edmonton – Opening available; Only Scrivens signed for 1 more year
    Florida – Luongo paid $4.5M x forever; Montoya signed for cheap x 1 year
    LA – Quick signed forever for $5.8M; Jones is RFA
    Minnesota – Dubnyk is gonna get paid to stay; Kuemper & Backstrom also signed for 1 year
    Montreal – Price at $6.5M x 3 years and Tokarski is signed for cheap x 1 year
    Nashville – Rinne signed for $7M x 4 years
    New Jersey – Schneider signed forever for $6M
    Islanders – Halak signed for 3 years at $4.5M; need cheap-ish back-up
    Rangers – Lundqvist signed forever at $8.5M; Talbot as back-up for a year
    Ottawa – Anderson & Lehner signed; Hamburgler is UFA -> they’re probably not adding
    Philadelphia – Mason signed for $4.1M x 2 years, could get a mid-range option for backup but probably less than $3M
    Pittsburgh – Fleury at $5.75M x 4 years
    San Jose – Stalock at $1.6M x 1 year; could use a 1A/B if they don’t resign Niemi
    St. Louis – Elliott signed for $2.5M x 2 years and Allen is an RFA; they have the ability to make a move if they want to go in a different direction
    Tampa – Bishop and Vasilevsky signed for 2 more years
    Toronto – Reimer for 1 more year and Bernier is an RFA; they have the ability & the cap room to make a move if they want to go in a different direction
    Vancouver – Miller for 2 years; Lack for 1 year; Markstrom is an RFA
    Washington – I suspect Holtby is going to get paid but he’s an RFA so that may hold down his cost; depending on how much he signs for, they could be in the market for a 1B but I doubt it
    Winnipeg – Pavelec is signed for $3.9M for 2 more years. They may be looking for a 1B.

    I bolded the teams that may have the ability to land a significant goalie without making another significant move. These include teams that don’t have any goalies making greater than $4M signed for 2 years or more (Pavelec is close so I rounded him up). I figure if you already have a goalie making more than $4M, even if you have an opening for a backup, you’re probably going to fill internally or sign someone for less than $3M to have even reasonable cap management.

    So that’s 6 teams with the potential to get a goalie making >$3M a year without making a significant move.

    For two of those teams (Toronto, St. Louis), making a splash in the goalie market would likely lead to another goalie entering the supply options (Reimer, Bernier, Allen, Elliott).

    Calgary has Hiller signed for $4.5, but only for one more year. They’re actually in a really nice spot if they want to chase Talbot and give him Hiller’s money next year. This is all assuming they don’t resign Ramo.

    Buffalo, Edmonton, and San Jose have the least amount of money tied up in goalies and could really make a push if they wanted.

    So when we look at how much goalies are going to get paid this year (Niemi, Neuvirth, Talbot in trade) these are the teams to watch. If Toronto and St. Louis hold steady with their goalies (not unreasonable), that drops us down to four: Edmonton, Buffalo, San Jose, Calgary. Those are your openings for starting caliber goalies making $4M or greater.

    Other teams may join the fray, but if they do, they’ve got to unload somebody and probably for cheap.

  118. Masamax says:

    My issue with Talbot is that nothing lines up right for us with him, aside from his skill. I trust Woodguy’s analysis, since he is a smarter man than I, but it doesn’t take into consideration the actual cost.

    Sather has absolutely no reason to trade Talbot as the draft except for an overpay, and one year for an unproven year of Talbot is a big overpay in my mind. The problem is that I don’t see Slats trading Talbot for anything less, since he could almost certainly get an equal pick at the trade deadline, meaning the dream of getting him for one of our second rounders is probably of the pipe variety.

    I don’t think Sather gets much less than a mid to late first rounder for Talbot at the deadline, but if he waits till then he has the kind of insurance that proved so valuable this season. Who would the Rangers replace Talbot with? Talbot at $1.45M is a steal for a competent backup, and they don’t really have anyone apparent in their system who could step up.

    We talk about good GMs waiting to the deadline to offload players for draft picks that are mightily undervalued. If Talbot puts up good numbers this year, I could easily see him fetch a first rounder or a second rounder for a team with goaltending woes. So, his value right now might be more than it is next year. But on the other hand, if King Henrik gets injured, without Talbot the Rangers are truly fucked. And, more importantly, adding anyone of good enough quality will likely be more expensive (or less competent) than Talbot.

    And, say we do get Talbot? In six months we could be talking about putting in a huge contract for a goalie with 4 months of production. It’s a huge risk.

  119. G Money says:

    Bad Seed:
    G Money,

    Your ears may be of lower quality due to the “quality” of your components – e.g.. Brightson amps.I’ve never heard a solid state system that didn’t make your ears bleed.Rush deserves better than that!

    Ha, we’ll have to disagree on that one. I actually have a Bryston pre-amp and a Classe power amp. The Bryston is an absolute beaut, neutral to the core and not bright in the least, and the Classes are also neutral (though some have argued they have a slight tube-ish warmth to them, though I’ve never heard that).

    I like tube amps for acoustic stuff, but prefer the flat out power of good old transistors for rock – especially the Holy Trinity of Lee Lifeson Peart!

  120. GCW_69 says:

    Ducey: Yeah.Sather isn’t going to be able to resign him, as he will want starter time and money.

    Sather trades Talbot and then signs a UFA.They took a G in the second round last year, so they likely want a three year bridge to him.

    I wouldn’t trade Talbot if I was him. Sather is running out of time to win. He saw how valuable Talbot was this season. Why not keep him and go all in next year rather than get a second round pick that won’t play until after Sather is retired? Even a first round pick is iffy to play before Sather retires.

  121. misfit says:

    Masamax:
    My issue with Talbot is that nothing lines up right for us with him, aside from his skill. I trust Woodguy’s analysis, since he is a smarter man than I, but it doesn’t take into consideration the actual cost.

    Sather has absolutely no reason to trade Talbot as the draft except for an overpay, and one year for an unproven year of Talbot is a big overpay in my mind. The problem is that I don’t see Slats trading Talbot for anything less, since he could almost certainly get an equal pick at the trade deadline, meaning the dream of getting him for one of our second rounders is probably of the pipe variety.

    I don’t think Sather gets much less than a mid to late first rounder for Talbot at the deadline, but if he waits till then he has the kind of insurance that proved so valuable this season. Who would the Rangers replace Talbot with? Talbot at $1.45M is a steal for a competent backup, and they don’t really have anyone apparent in their system who could step up.

    We talk about good GMs waiting to the deadline to offload players for draft picks that are mightily undervalued. If Talbot puts up good numbers this year, I could easily see him fetch a first rounder or a second rounder for a team with goaltending woes. So, his value right now might be more than it is next year. But on the other hand, if King Henrik gets injured, without Talbot the Rangers are truly fucked. And, more importantly, adding anyone of good enough quality will likely be more expensive (or less competent) than Talbot.

    And, say we do get Talbot? In six months we could be talking about putting in a huge contract for a goalie with 4 months of production. It’s a huge risk.

    Sather has (arguably) the best goalie in the NHL locked up for eternity (too long). Him having Cam Talbot on the bench and becoming a UFA in a year is like the Packers having Mark Brunell and Matt Hasselbeck backing up Brett Favre. When your #1 is an all-star and has years of quality ahead of him, if you can get something for your backup you do it. Yes, you can get burned if your starter gets hurt, but when so much of your success is based on the play of that one player, you’re screwed if he goes down, even if you have the best backup possible.

    Yes, the Packers drafted Rogers in the first round and he’s one of the top QBs in football, but Ludqvist has a lot more in the tank than Favre did (or than everyone thought Favre did) when they drafted him.

  122. Ducey says:

    Here is a piece from Hockeybuzz about Nurse, Leon and Connor

    http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Matt-Henderson/A-Special-Trio/191/68653

    Unbelievable the Oilers have three of the best players in the CHL, if not the best. Add in Lander who played well on Sweden’s top line, and WOW!

    The other thing: McDavid has 169 pts in 66 games. 169 pts!! Absolutely staggering.

  123. jake70 says:

    Sens owner Melnyk needs some liver tissue……life threatening. Geez. The team announced he is looking for a donor.

  124. GCW_69 says:

    Woodguy: I know that Talbot is available.

    I do not know that Vas. Is available and would guess that he is not.

    For any player that is not an established starter, isn’t it better to assume they are available for the right price? Tampa has just rode Bishop to the conference finals and Bishop went toe to toe with Price. Get creative on an offer for Vasilevskiy and they should consider it.

    What’s the source on Talbot being available? I have seen lots of speculation about it, but nothing firm that says for a fact the Rangers are going to trade him.

  125. GCW_69 says:

    misfit: Yes, you can get burned if your starter gets hurt, but when so much of your success is based on the play of that one player, you’re screwed if he goes down, even if you have the best backup possible.

    Do you really believe that? The reason we are talking about Talbot is because he came in and held the fort admirably when king Henrik went down. If his injury has been season ending you are saying the Rangers would have packed their bags and went home rather than ride Talbot as far as he could take them? Lundquist is no spring chicken. Having Talbot as insurance should help a 72 year old GM sleep easy when he knows his window to win in narrow.

  126. NYCOIL "Taking Photos" says:

    I don’t mind Talbot. I think the 16th overall in a deep draft is much too dear a price to pay. 9th got Schneider who had played in twice as many games at that time. If the 16th is going to the Rangers I want them to send over a D as well, and, no, we aren’t adding Yak to that deal (we can add something else), as some have suggested.

  127. Ducey says:

    GCW_69: Do you really believe that?The reason we are talking about Talbot is because he came in and held the fort admirably when king Henrik went down.If his injury has been season ending you are saying the Rangers would have packed their bags and went home rather than ride Talbot as far as he could take them?Lundquist is no spring chicken.Having Talbot as insurance should help a 72 year old GM sleep easy when he knows his window to win in narrow.

    But how is the 72 yr old going to keep Talbot?

    Talbot will want something more than $3 million/ yr and NYR are paying Lundquist $8.5. That’s too much for your tandem. Plus Talbot may not even sign. He is 28 and has a limited chance to be a starter. He won’t get that chance in NY.

    Maybe Sather will just run with Talbot next year knowing he will lose him as a UFA. Its hard to believe he is going to do that for a position that might only get 20 – 30 games.

  128. John Chambers says:

    GCW_69,

    They lose him for nothing in a year’s time, and we can safely assume that Slats knows a thing or two about maximizing value so …

  129. Masamax says:

    The risk at the trade deadline is a lot less than the risk at the draft table.

  130. Bad Seed says:

    G Money,

    I assure you – if you’ve ever heard a well matched pair of efficient speakers mated to an 845 or 520 based tube system, you’d never go back! Look up Horning Hybrid out of Denmark. It’s my final system after a lot of turnover in the last 20 years. Rush have never sounded better, I tells ya!

  131. godot10 says:

    Pajamah:
    Nurse scares me simply because we’re not sure what he is yet. I’ll admit that when they trotted out Hall, Eberle and MPS years ago, I pictured Magnus as a 2 way, impossible to knock off the puck, Peter Forsberg type. Couldn’t have been more wrong in his potential, although his is a responsible player.

    I see Nurse, and all I picture is CFP in the defensive zone, obviously without the shot, but the same QB type playing a 1-3-1 PP. Tough as nails, throwing an elbow when needed, and eating up 28 minutes a night. Fingers crossed on this one.

    The comparable for Nurse (on the upside) is NOT Pronger. It is Larry Robinson.

  132. Магия 10 says:

    Bootstrap Effexor: However, in a model with a strong rich-get-richer effect, competence alone might not be enough to salvage a bad situation. It might even take a different brand of competence to launch a bad team across the great divide, after which you replace GM fritterbudget tugging on the lawnmower cord time and again with someone who can run a tight pattern given a reliable motor.

    That may be far more fundamental than a supposition. There is a school of thought that economic cycles at the macro level and the swing from growth focus to efficiency both emerge from the strengths of L vs NL approaches, Balance may be more sequential than parallel. Hard to outperform the way biology manages growth and efficiency.

  133. rickithebear says:

    Gally: Brad Treliving, who many in the Oilogosphere seemed to want instead of MacT, is a pretty smart guy

    Giordano:
    08-09 58 gm +2 .328 PPG Phanuef 52.4%; Sarich 28.8%
    09-10 82gm +17 .366 PPG Bouwmeester 42.3%; Pardy 22.2%
    10-11 82gm -8 .524 PPG Sarich 54.2%; Bouwmeester 19.3%
    11-12 61gm Even .443 PPG Hannan 75.5%; Sarich 11.%
    12-13 47gm -7 .319 PPG Bouwmeester 43.7%; Wideman 37.4%
    13-14 64gm +12 .734 PPG Brodie 68.4%; Smid 1.2%
    14-15 61gm +13 .787 PPG Brodie 92.1%

    giordano is at best an even player with the likes of Bouwmeester.
    A plus player with Brodie.
    Brodie proved he drives the d.
    Paired with Engelland in playoffs.

    Treliving stated Giordano was his Priority!
    i hope fora 7.5-8M over 5 Years.
    Target brodie shaking from the tree.

  134. knighttown says:

    The number 16 pick is exactly what it was the day they acquired it. The pick is temporarily ours until we cash it in on the day it’s most valuable for the best unde 30 defenseman you can find. It’s your bait. No idea what you get but perhaps (with things added in some cases) you find at the end of your line Shattenkirk, Pietrangelo, Burns, Josi, Letang, Barrie, Faulk, Byufglien or Seabrook.

    Nurse, Klefbom and this guy need to be your core in 3 years.

  135. godot10 says:

    G Money: History suggests this is in fact the case.Best guess or not, historically the F ranked 15OV has a higher likelihood of playing in the NHL.You can of course go against the grain of history at any time, but you need to be acutely aware that “this time it’s different” and “I know better” are both famous last words.

    Those stats of forwards over D is a very superficial analysis. One should go deeper and separate forwards into centres and wings. And one should do a deeper analysis and look at the failures, and combined stats with scouting reports to determine why the D fail more than forwards. Determine if there is a common factor why D fail.

    Hypothesis: High drafted D fail because they are relatively poorer skaters and/or have a better than average shot, and are relatively poor passers. Highly drafted D don’t fail if they are of average size or better and have elite passing and skating skills.

    If an NHL team only does the first level of data analysis, they are being lazy. Steve Yzerman and Joe Sakic shot themselves in the foot leaving Seth Jones on the board.

    Advanced stats people also should no longer only do the first level of analysis. One should study the draft failures.

  136. GCW_69 says:

    Ducey: But how is the 72 yr old going to keep Talbot?

    Talbot will want something more than $3 million/ yr and NYR are paying Lundquist $8.5.That’s too much for your tandem.Plus Talbot may not even sign.He is 28 and has a limited chance to be a starter.He won’t get that chance in NY.

    Maybe Sather will just run with Talbot next year knowing he will lose him as a UFA.Its hard to believe he is going to do that for a position that might only get 20 – 30 games.

    The return on Talbot is not going to make or break the Rangers, and slats has another opportunity to deal Talbot at the trade deadline if he wants to. Teams let secondary players go to free agency all the time. I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe. It’s not Lundqvist we are talking about letting go to free agency.

  137. GCW_69 says:

    John Chambers:
    GCW_69,

    They lose him for nothing in a year’s time, and we can safely assume that Slats knows a thing or two about maximizing value so …

    Slats has to weigh risk mitigation for next season against the potential return. Lot of people here are ignoring the value of that risk mitigation and that’s a mistake. Slats may trade Talbot if he feels he has an equivalent alternative available, but if he trades Talbot and goes with a lesser back up, he is taking a huge risk for a Cup contender. Unless the return on Talbot is spectacular, I think he would be crazy to do it.

    And I say that as a guy that believes 99% of the time you shouldn’t let assets go for free. I don’t know the prospects in the Rangers system, but I strongly suspect this is one of the 1% that trading the player isn’t worth it.

  138. Seismic Source says:

    Im ok with trading the 16th IF,

    Its for something established on D, and we atleast hold off on dealing it until we see if someone we didnt expect to be there drops on draft day.

    Have a deal on the backburner…fine…but dont miss out on something amazing.

  139. Shafty19 says:

    Don’t think anyone mentioned this from Matheson’s piece yet:

    “Chiarelli, who has never had trouble with small defencemen (see Torey Krug and Brad Marchand in Boston), should be…”

    I can’t even.

  140. Really? says:

    Lewis Grant,

    You seem to be implying that the best player is automatically the best candidate for the captaincy. Please do not confuse skill (best player) with leadership (best captain material). They are not always one and the same.

    Many have stated that Gretzsky was the best player ever while many others have stated that Messier was the best leader/captain ever. None of them are necessarily wrong. You are talking about two different things.

  141. Bootstrap Effexor says:

    G Money:
    I’m not sure I understand what you mean by ‘commodity metrics’.

    In practical terms I mean the boxcars, but conceptually I mean all the player statistics that fundamentally assume you can treat the players like separable commodities, where the sum of what’s attributed to the players equals what is attributed to the team.

    On of the assumptions is that a player doesn’t affect his team when he’s not on the ice (here I’m ignoring the stupid line-change problem).

    Look at it this way: was Nuge getting a regular PK shift because Nuge, or because everyone else? So if the GM changes the mix under the “everyone else” column, Nuge’s contributions end up being measured under a different usage pie (more 5-5, 5-4, 5-3, and less 4-5, 3-5, etc.)

    Then he gets a different set of boxcars on which to argue whether he was a legitimate #1 overall pick. Linearity assumptions are buried in this stuff all over the place.

    BTW, it’s an interesting question given the new center depth chart how that PK investment pays off down the road. It was noisily decried by some posters here at the time. Then again, perhaps McJesus is God’s own shortie machine when iced against defensemen who cough up the pill after rotating onto the kill floor.

    ———

    Until I resolved my sleep issue, my primary occupation was “hiatus” so I was never a big spender. For my movie viewing, I’m running an ancient NAD amplifier (dates to 1989) and a pair of B&W DM601 S3 bookshelf speakers.

    I can’t identify the cross-over transition points, which is my personal bar for acceptable audio. In action movies, there’s about one major scene per movie where the sound gets so thick my little speakers take a brief trip into Mudville, but otherwise it’s pretty palatable. Well, that brackets my taste, doesn’t it?

    ———

    I have experienced excellent sound a few times along the way. Thirty years ago a sales-side buddy from work—with a hot Swedish wife—had a pair of floor-standing KEF speakers in his small study that seemed exotically understated to me at the time. As I recall it, they looked a lot like the hooded KEF 107 (and 1986 is exactly right).

    But you’ll never see these woofers because they fire upward within the cabinet and radiate from the top of the enclosure right below the separate midrange and tweeter ”head.”

    That’s exactly right, too. All the sound came out on top. Interesting what you can piece together thirty years hence.

    One time he had his system playing in the background at a volume level comparable to the sound of someone breathing beside you in bed (quietly—i.e. more than 3″ away from your still flawless ears) and you could hear everything like it was studio equalised. Not even as loud as the birds outside, and you could have listened to them for twelve hours a day with zero ear fatigue. If I play my own speakers at that volume, I often struggle to make out the sounds.

    The other notorious issue with super high-end equipment (back when I last paid attention) is that it will image a Holodeck-replica sound stage, but your head needs to be held perfectly motionless inside a canteloupe-sized sweet spot. Perhaps the high-end audio stores need to have a head-shaped cut-out and if your giant head is too large to pass through, they can’t sell to you (go cry on your huge pillow!) Also, no using the XXL hair relief flange unless you’re actually this guy. Maybe they fixed that problem by now.

    As it happens, I was speaking with an audio engineer today who told me his very old AKG K 240 Studio headphones now pretty much exceed his diminishing hearing ability. He also told me not to pick up a pair used, because they never get sold until they are totally trashed.

    ———

    I fear it’s not just the ears outstripped by operation Occupy Geezer Lawn. Let’s not make a list.

  142. hags9k says:

    rickithebear:
    #15 CGy
    #16 EDM

    #33 EDM
    #45 CGY

    #52 CGY
    #53 CGY
    #57 EDM

    #76 CGY
    #79 EDM
    #83 CGY
    #86 EDM

    Won’t this be a us versus them!

    You missed one of ours. Wooooooot!!

  143. PhrankLee says:

    Woodguy,

    As Sam and Dave would say:

    You didn’t have to write it but you did, but you did, but you did.

    And I thank you.

    Good post Darcy. I seethe with jealousy.

    Great point on woi with shot danger ratings. I am hoping the tech regarding chips in pucks develops along with looking at these type of performances. I also love the idea that one day the chip will collect elevation data.

    You have a nice style and I hear reason and thoughtfulness from you.

    Talbot is more important than expendable, imo, to the Rangers.

    I’d love to see you post more. I’d love if LT picked a random poster once a month to round table with you, LT and Bruce or someone like that.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!
© Copyright - Lowetide.ca