YOU CAN’T GO FAST ENOUGH TO GET THERE EARLY

Lots of talk last night about Brent Seabrook as an Oiler and for me that’s a problem. I didn’t like the payment for Griffin Reinhart but understood the idea. Seabrook is another matter.

IF you buy Seabrook, the assets required weaken the rebuild in a big way, robbing the team of useful assets for the future both in trade and in cap. The contract Seabrook will require (and Cam Talbot too, don’t forget) sends Edmonton careening toward the cap. As quickly as Niki Niktin and Teddy Purcell come off the books, that money goes to a Seabrook for a long time. Years. Six years? Maybe more. When we talk about Seabrook, he does have some things going for him in the short term:

  • Seabrook is a veteran
  • He’s righthanded
  • Any reasonable model of his career trajectory from now through the end of the decade involves several productive seasons
  • Chicago badly needs cap relief and may need to trade away multiple veterans for picks and useful youth.

seabrook boxcars and fancyThis is Seabrook in a box and you can see he’s a plus possession player while also getting a ZS push. We’ve talked many times about the Niklas Hjalmarsson pairing handling the heavy minutes and this shows Seabrook’s load over the last several seasons is a more offensive usage. I don’t like the Seabrook idea—not because he’s a poor fit—but rather because he’s going to cost a lot in assets and cap moving forward.

VOLLMAN SLEDGEHAMMER

chicago blue vollmanIf the Oilers are going to acquire Seabrook, I imagine the cost will be a young NHL-ready defenseman plus a pick and maybe a veteran to even up the money (a little). How many NHL-ready blue do the Oilers have? Three. Do you want to review the names? Me either. One more thing: The guy Edmonton needs in the Vollman? Niklas Hjalmarsson.

We can be certain that the ‘Hawks are capable of trading Seabrook, but the smart play (for them) is trading Patrick Sharp or Bryan Bickell. If Chiarelli is pushing hard and Chicago is listening, I’d have to think that the return ask is at least one young, inexpensive, flourishing NHL-ready defender. Step off, Chicago, step off.

GLENCROSS?

One name that’s still out there in free agency? Curtis Glencross.

glencross boxcars and fancyThis is a nice player and he does in fact fit the Pisani role. I’ve listed him as RW, but he can play LW too. Good speed, veteran, can check and play with skill. Why hasn’t he signed? Don’t know. Didn’t Edmonton already address this with Korpikoski? Yes. However, I love players who possess a range of skills, Glencross is a guy the Oilers could deploy on a skill line with all this youth.

OILERS CURRENT ROSTERoilers current roster july 7

The roster looks fairly set at this point. Among the top 12 forwards (as listed above) the only F I have listed for my RE as less than 100% to be on the team is Rob Klinkhammer—and even that’s a fairly certain spot. Among the bubbling under forwards, I’ll have Leon Draisaitl, Iiro Pakarinen and Andrew Miller as the first callups from the forward group, maybe Yak 2.0 because centers are always in demand. On the blueline, it’s a completely different story. I’m not at all certain Niki Nikitin will be here (buyout window) and remain confident Darnell Nurse is on the club opening night. Also expect substantial GP from Griffin Reinhart, Brandon Davidson and Jordan Oesterle. Four of the five goalies will probably see NHL action in 2015-16, with only the Finn on the outside looking in.

 YOU CAN’T GO FAST ENOUGH TO GET THERE EARLY

The Talbot bet. The Reinhart addition. The Sekera procurement. All of these moves are logical as part of a ‘journey home’ to the playoffs and a Stanley window of several years. All of them. From the drafting of McDavid to the selection of Ziyat Paigin, it’s all one completely reasonable march (even if I object to the cost of Reinhart). Trading Boyd Gordon (31) for Lauri Korpikoski (28) fits the model, as does Anders Nilsson—in what I would suggest is the most unusual trade of the summer.

Brent Seabrook? He’s 30, has over 750 hard games (plus 112 in the playoffs) of NHL play behind him and we know that NHL defensemen fade as they approach the 1,000 mark. So, that’s what? Three years of good play? Maybe he’s a freak and you get four. It’s going to cost you six or seven years of six or seven million to get him signed PLUS it’s going to cost you a very dear asset plus some other stuff.

You can’t go fast enough to get there early, and you can’t buy Brent Seabrook at 25.

FILE PHOTO: LA County Sheriff To Reportedly Reopen Investigation Into Natalie Wood's Death - Press Conference Today

LOWDOWN WITH LOWETIDE

Big show today, moving parts so we’ll see how she goes. 10 this morning, TSN1260. Scheduled to appear:

  • Bruce McCurdy, Cult of Hockey. Seabrook, summer, McDavid changed everything.
  • Chris O’Leary, Edmonton Journal. HUGE game tomorrow night for the Eskimos, REDBLACKS are a powerhouse this year (!!!!!).
  • Tom Lynn, Veritas Hockey. Former NHL AGM and GM, current agent. We’ll talk about the free-agent crawl this summer, the cap and it’s impact and what hundreds of hockey players across NA are doing right now.

10-1260 text, @Lowetide twitter. If they trade for Seabrook, the schedule is flattened.

 

 

 

 

written by

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

213 Responses to "YOU CAN’T GO FAST ENOUGH TO GET THERE EARLY"

Newer Comments »
  1. frjohnk says:

    I love the idea of having Seabrook on our team.

    But there is a cost to get him AND a cost to keep him.

    Here we go.

    Chicago would be looking for a young player on a ELC or cap friendly hit
    Yak
    Drai
    Klefbom
    Nurse
    Reinart

    plus a prospect and a pick.
    Lets say its Yak, Chase and a 1st rounder just for spitballing.
    That would be the cost now.

    To keep Seabrook, its probably going to cost 7.5M for 6 years lets say.

    The Seabrook contract is fine on the McDavid ELC, but once McDavid gets off of that, we get into trouble because it is not just McDavid coming off his ELC, the rest of the core is coming off their ELC.

    Even if we get some value long term contracts with the core and depth players. Off course the numbers would be different if some of these guys get bridge contracts, but its seems that teams are not using them as much.
    Maybe something like ( Im just spitballing here, Lander might be too much, but whatever)

    Lander 3.5M for 5 years
    Draisaitl 4.5 for 6 years
    Yak 4.5M for 6 years
    Klefbom 4M for 7 years
    Nurse 5M for 8 years
    Reinhart 3.5M for 6 years
    McDavid is probably gonna get 9.7M for 8 years

    ………………….16-17..17-18..18-19..19-20..20-21..21-22..22-23..23-24..24-25

    Taylor Hall……..6.0…….6.0……6.0…….6.0…..ufa
    Jordan Eberle…6.0…….6.0……6.0…….ufa
    RNH……………6.0…….6.0……6.0…….6.0…..6.0…..ufa
    Benoit Pouliot….4.0……4.0……4.0……..ufa
    Connor ……….3.7…….3.7……9.7…….9.7…..9.7……9.7….9.7 …….9.7……9.7…….9.7
    Leon Draisaitl….0.9…….4.5…..4.5……..4.5…..4.5……4.5….4.5…….4.5……ufa
    Anton Lander….0.9…….3.5……3.5…….3.5……3.5…..3.5…..3.5…….ufa
    TOTAL…………30.0……38.2…44.2……34.2….28.2….22.2..17.7…..14.2…..9.7……9.7

    Andrej Sekera…5.5……5.5…….5.5……5.5…..5.5….UFA
    Oscar Klefbom .4.0…….4.0…….4.0……4.0…….4.0…..4.0….4.0……ufa
    Griffin Reinhart.0.9…….3.5……3.5…….3.5…….3.5…..3.5….ufa
    Darnell Nurse…0.9…….0.9…….5.0……5.0…….5.0…..5.0….5.0……5.0…….5.0…….ufa
    Brent Seabrook..7.5……..7.5……..7.5……..7.5…….7.5……7.5
    Total………………18.8…….21.4…..25.5……25.5……25.5….20

    For 16-17
    12 players signed for 48.8M

    For 17-18
    12 players signed for 59.6M

    For 18-19
    12 players signed for 69.7M

    Most likely were hooped in this year and would have to get rid of two core players. For this exercise, its Klefbom and Reinhart, who in 18-19 I believe will be really good number 2/3 and 3/4 D men respectively.

    The Oilers need to maximize the amount of core players that are going to be near and/or at their prime when McDavid is in his heyday.

    We are not winning the cup this year or next year. Getting Seabrook may help us make the playoffs this and next year. That is possible. But in 18-19, it is not out of the question that each of Klefbom and Reinhart are BOTH better than Seabrook. And if in 18-19, we are looking at being a perennial contender we can not be making decisions right now for short term gain.

    So the cost of getting Seabrook for right now is Yak, Chase and a 1st round pick and the future cost of keeping Seabrook is Klefbom and Reinhart minus the return of picks/prospects we get when trade them.

    In 18-19, Yak, Chase, Klefbom and Reinhart would all be in or close to their prime years and the 16 1st rounder could be in his first year of ELC. Put altogether with a cap hit of around 13M if Yak is on a 4M a year deal. All could be big contributers to a big Stanley push by the Oilers

    vs Seabrook who would be out of his prime years, some picks and prospects and cap space of 5.5M

    I absolutely love Seabrook but Im not sure Seabrook fits into this story.

  2. Lowetide says:

    I think the cost of getting him is Leon, Darnell or Oscar plus plus. I don’t think they need Nail.

  3. zatch says:

    I think has been noted by about a million people on this and other boards (and again above by FRJOHNK) Seabrook is pretty clearly a bad fit. He’s not as good as he looks and will cost too damn much over.

    I think this is one of the times we must trust Dellow in the player procurement role and hope he has managements ear.

  4. Bad Seed says:

    frjohnk,

    Perfectly explained, Father.

  5. Hall Awaits says:

    If Chia traded Klefbom for Seabrook people would shit themselves. It would almost be worth it just to see some heads explode.

    In any case I’d rather see Ehrhoff on a one year over pay. Then at least we can see what the hell we have.

  6. su_dhillon says:

    For me, the only way I give up major assets in trade AND pay major dollars is if the D coming back still has their prime in front of them while also being able to play up in order right away, so lets say 25-26 or younger, the Hamilton, OEL branch.

    Lets say the cost is something like Leon, prospect and 1st and then you pay Seabrook 7M x6. Aren’t you better off having Leon on his ELC, keeping the other assets and signing Franson who costs you less $ and term and zero assets? Is the gap between the 2 players great enough to justify the the major cost difference?

    I also don’t think Stauffer has the same level of inside info with PC as he did with the last group.

  7. Lowetide says:

    Hall Awaits:
    If Chia traded Klefbom for Seabrook people would shit themselves. It would almost be worth it just to see some heads explode.

    In any case I’d rather see Ehrhoff on a one year over pay. Then at least we can see what the hell we have.

    The key is term. Purcell and Nikitin come off the books next summer and you’re close enough to the end that a buyout of Ference is plausible. Seabrook may be a free agent by then, and we’ll know a helluva lot more about where the defense stands in regard to Nurse and Schultz, etc.

  8. leadfarmer says:

    Well we are still two top pairing defensemen short. Nurse may fill that spot in a couple years. Not going to be easy to find another.

  9. Rondo says:

    Seabrook is a top 4 D-man with a lot of miles on him, he is a diminishing asset. He would instantly be Oilers best D-man. Oilers are probably 3- 4 yrs ready to compete for a cup if things go well. Reinhart is not worth that much you would have to add something else. Only the Oilers valued Reinhart that high.

    As much as I would like Seabrook here, He is the wrong age for the Oilers.

  10. Ducey says:

    Glencross has a wonky back, I think. On top of that he is as streaky/ inconsistent as hell.

    He would also fill up any cap space the Oilers have. He doesn’t make sense on a team full with forwards..

    No thanks to Seabrook.

    I can’t see CHI trading him without making some major efforts to get rid of Sharp or Bickell. They could just buy out Bickell and clear out $2.5 million in cap space. I am not sure they took anyone to arbitration, but if they did not, it means they know they can clear space by trade.

  11. Mac07 says:

    Three things.
    If Seabrook can be a huge help for at least 3 of the contract years he signs and can be a second pairing for the remainder, Oilers win. Yak and Draisaitl would be good contracts to send back along with a first and second round next year. Could even include Ference and retain half salary to send a veteran back on defense.
    Also the TV deal kicks in next season. And expansion talks have officially opened. Add that to a possible cap increase over the next six years, and there should be minimum problem signing Seabrook and most of the core.
    And last. If Oilers are indeed still trying to get a top 1-2 Dman outside of UFA, I would be targeting Nashville. Doubtful Jones would be available,(Never know until you ask) but Josi would be a good Dman to try to get. Good contract and term. Would fit in top 2.

  12. Bryan says:

    It would be great to see Seabrook patrolling the Oiler blue line but it doesn’t take a genius to understand that short term and long term cost will be too high for the return. It makes much more sense to sign someone short term like Erhoff and see how the youngsters on the blue line develop.

  13. FTO says:

    Lowetide:
    I think the cost of getting him is Leon, Darnell or Oscar plus plus. I don’t think they need Nail.

    Is it just me being a total homer or does that look completely terrible, if that is truly the price I wouldn’t mind just staying away completely. Maybe he becomes a UFA next year anyways and we could grab him then?

    Again I could be totally underestimating Seabrook.

  14. blainer says:

    The ship sailed on a Seabrook trade the very minute we signed Sekera which was the better move anyway. Nobody seems to be talking much about how bad the dollar is and the fact it is only getting worse. With oil prices not rebounding anytime soon with all the fracking etc The cap could very well go down or stay the same.. getting seabrook now will put us in cap hell.. can’t see PC in that position again this fast..

  15. DBO says:

    I think he’s older and declining. But would Oduya look good on a 2 year overpay aka Nikitins money?

    Sekera – Fayne
    Klefbom – Oduya
    Reinhart or Nurse or Ference – Schultz
    Gryba

    That lineup could be good enough and balanced enough to have a shot at playoffs

  16. Kris11 says:

    How about Schultz ++ for Seabrook? Schultz can provide offense, plays the right side, is young, and will come cheap.

    We’re all assuming Chicago is too smart for that, but you never know…

    Schultz, Davidson, 2016 1st for Seabrook.

  17. Stanley 2018 says:

    If Seabrook was willing to do something like:
    yrs 1-4: $7MM
    yr 5: $5MM
    yr 6: $3.5MM
    yr 7: $2.5MM
    $38MM over 7yrs= AAV $5.4MM

    This gives Seabrook lots of money and makes him affordable in his later years, vital in still being wanted when you’re 35+. He may go for it. This season is definitely the year of being reasonable if you’re a big $$ name, unless you’re the Penguins.
    If the ask was say, Klefbom and the 2016 1st, that would suck but not be entirely horrible:

    Sekera Seabrook
    Nurse Fayne
    Reinhart Schultz

    It would require some savvy combo of trading or buying out Nikitin and Ference (Stauffer mentioned Nikitin to LA with 50% retained), and moving Scrivens or similar to free up the space this year, but after that it could work. I’m not saying I’m for this move, just giving a plausible scenario.

  18. Soup Fascist says:

    Mac07: Three things.If Seabrook can be a huge help for at least 3 of the contract years he signs and can be a second pairing for the remainder, Oilers win. Yak and Draisaitl would be good contracts to send back along with a first and second round next year. Could even include Ference and retain half salary to send a veteran back on defense.Also the TV deal kicks in next season. And expansion talks have officially opened. Add that to a possible cap increase over the next six years, and there should be minimum problem signing Seabrook and most of the core.And last. If Oilers are indeed still trying to get a top 1-2 Dman outside of UFA, I would be targeting Nashville. Doubtful Jones would be available,(Never know until you ask) but Josi would be a good Dman to try to get. Good contract and term. Would fit in top 2.

    I dont believe expansion fees are part of the cap calculation at all. I would love to have Seabrook here, but the cost and cap hit would be significant and debilitating, IMO. He is a diminishing asset, unfortunately.

  19. Kris11 says:

    I do think Chicago will get less than Nurse or Draisatl for one year of a guy who isn’t Duncan Keith.

  20. Rondo says:

    Kris11,

    Chicago would take Barzal for Seabrook.

  21. Soup Fascist says:

    Kris11: How about Schultz ++ for Seabrook? Schultz can provide offense, plays the right side, is young, and will come cheap.We’re all assuming Chicago is too smart for that, but you never know…Schultz, Davidson, 2016 1st for Seabrook.

    Stan Bowman was born AT night – but not LAST night.

  22. zatch says:

    DBO,

    No. Oduya makes Seabrook look like a fantastic bet. Of that top 4, he’s the decliningest, weakest link.

  23. Mac07 says:

    Soup Fascist,

    Ya. I’m not sure how expansion money would play into it, but if two teams enter, that would be $30-$40 million to the Oilers.
    The Only thing I have heard on Franson is he wants big bucks and term. If Franson would do a 1 to 3 year term, that would work. If not, I would be looking at Seabrook or Josi.

  24. The Finnish Flash says:

    blainer,

    How about the pulp prices?

    I agree with you that Sekera was a better deal. I would much rather see Erhoff on a short term 2 year deal than Seabrook and allow Nurse to develop on the third pairing at about ten to a dozen minutes a game under some more experienced D-men after 2 years he will be closer to the Pronger like player we are all hoping for.

  25. Visually better says:

    Mac07,

    Pretty sure Josi is the most desirable, therefore most untouchable Dman on the Preds. He’s only 25 and is on an unbelievable contract, I personally think he’s the best Dman on that team. Pretty sure they would look at trading Weber or Jones before Josi, he had 55 points in 81 games last year and was +15

  26. blainer says:

    The Finnish Flash:
    blainer,

    How about the pulp prices?

    I agree with you that Sekera was a better deal. I would much rather see Erhoff on a short term 2 year deal than Seabrook and allow Nurse to develop on the third pairing at about ten to adozen minutes a game under some more experienced D-men after 2 years he will be closer to the Pronger like player we are all hoping for.

    Perfect.. Would love Erhoff on a one year though…

  27. G Money says:

    Leaving aside the cost of signing him, the price people are proposing for acquiring Seabrook (for just a year mind you, after that he’s free to go anywhere) seems mighty high.

    Why are the Hawks even considering trading him? Because they’re desperate for cap space. They are already $2M over the cap, still haven’t signed Kruger, and even after that are still two players short of a full roster.

    Even if they trade Seabrook for a bag of pucks, they get $5.8M in cap space, their currently most valuable commodity. Not taking that into account and paying generously for Seabrook on top of that is just giving Chicago a get out of jail free card.

    That just perpetuates their dynasty and hinders the development of the next one. Don’t do it.

    Of course, the cost of Seabrook isn’t just dictated by the Hawks desperate cap situation. Its a supply-demand thing. What else is someone willing to pay?

    At this point, there are no teams that will have a problem reaching the cap floor.

    Just by eye, there are only three or four teams that have both the cap room and the need for a good top end defender. The remaining question for each of those is what they’re willing to pay for one year of a guy who is a top notch defender, but also hasn’t been facing the toughs for many years, and has been partnered with Duncan Keith.

    Is he a better and cheaper bet than Franson or Ehrhoff? Or Oduya for that matter, who has been one of the guys facing the toughs, and done well?

    I suspect in other words that a number of teams are talking to Chicago about Seabrook – but hopefully they’re all savvy enough to recognize that Chicago needs to trade way more desperately than anyone needs to trade with them.

    Don’t overpay. It’s dumb and almost certainly unnecessary.

  28. Soup Fascist says:

    Mac07: Soup Fascist, Ya. I’m not sure how expansion money would play into it, but if two teams enter, that would be $30-$40 million to the Oilers.The Only thing I have heard on Franson is he wants big bucks and term. If Franson would do a 1 to 3 year term, that would work. If not, I would be looking at Seabrook or Josi.

    Yes there is potentially $1B in expansion money that ends up in Mr. Katz and the other owner’s pockets. It will offer no cap relief at all. The CBA basically ensures that the players do not partake in expansion money – presumably the benefit being that it opens up 46 new jobs and will extend a few careers. I am not an economist but I don’t think the cap is going to go up substantially over the next few years.

    Josi is the closest thing to an untouchable that there is in the league, I would think. Big skill / reasonable contract / young.

  29. Mac07 says:

    Visually better,

    I would be happy with either of Jones or Josi. Webers cap hit is around the same that Seabrook is , but is paid more for two more years at around $12 mill per. Seabrook would still be the best option then.

  30. UnjustEnrichment says:

    I would say “no” to Seabrook. Klefbom is nearly as good as Seabrook already, and will likely be better than Seabrook in the near future. Nurse could end up being much better than Seabrook. I would not want to include Klefbom, Reinhart, or Nurse in any deal for Seabrook. A portion of the money that would be spent on Seabrook should be used to lock up Klefbom right now for the next 6 years. And we must not forget that we are headed for salary cap issues down the road if we do not allocate funds wisely right now.

    In getting Reinhart, Chirelli showed that he is focused on getting good younger players that will fit with the cluster(s). That requires choosing wisely and building a team brick by brick, not buying a team through one or two expensive and dramatic moves. If the team is built properly it could be a powerhouse for 7-10 years; if we seek quick and expensive fixes, we might have an upswing in performance for a year or two, but then a slow slide away from the promised land as aging players signed to ridiculous contracts begin to falter. Say “no” to Seabrook.

  31. Doug McLachlan says:

    I am looking at some of the packages being proposed for acquiring the rights to Seabrook and I don’t understand how he is perceived as being that expensive. He may not be available, and I don’t think he is, but if Chicago is deciding to trade him to create cap space then the price – for the one year on his contract – is NOT that high. A pick and Nikitin with salary retained. Maybe the addition of a prospect but not Nurse, Reinhart, or Drai.

    Bieksa (admittedly not as good a d-man) dealt in his last year for a 2nd
    Wiesniewsky (with 2 yrs left) traded for a #3 goalie

    The packages being suggested for this trade, were it to happen, are way too inflated for what is actually being exchanged. One year of a very solid, high profile, but expiring asset.

    The trade happens, if it happens, because the Hawks have exhausted their other options to create cap space.

  32. Mac07 says:

    Soup Fascist: Yes there is potentially $1B in expansion money that ends up in Mr. Katz and the other owner’spockets.It will offer no cap relief at all.The CBA basically ensures that the players do not partake in expansion money – presumably the benefit being that it opens up 46 new jobs and will extend a few careers. I am not an economist butI don’t think the cap is going to go up substantially over the next few years.

    Josi is the closest thing to an untouchable that there is in the league, I would think.Big skill / reasonable contract / young.

    That’s to bad about expansion money. But there will be an influx of $300 mill per year growing to $500 mill in the last year of that TV contract. That is tied to the cap.

  33. striatic says:

    G Money,

    Right. Use the Seabrook situation to pull something else out of there.

    The Nilsson trade is interesting in that it shows Chiarelli has been going through the Hawks roster and talking to them.

  34. Visually better says:

    Mac07,

    i am sure you would be haha, so would anyone. To get one of those guys Katz would have to give up rogers place and his for born child along with Hall Ebs and every first round pick until the next apocalypse

  35. Mac07 says:

    Doug McLachlan,

    You can talk to a player entering the final year of his contract before UFA. Anybody talking to Seabrook will most definitely be talking extension. Chicago will then ask for players and conditional picks. Depending on what he signs for.

  36. Bank Shot says:

    Bryan:
    It would be great to see Seabrook patrolling the Oiler blue line but it doesn’t take a genius to understand that short term and long term cost will be too high for the return.It makes much more sense to sign someone short term like Erhoff and see how the youngsters on the blue line develop.

    90% of the time, the youngsters don’t develop as well as you hoped.

    Gagner, Paajarvi, Nissan, Marc Poulot, Jacques and on and on and on.

    I keep hearing about the risk of a declining Seabrook, but the risk of Klefbom, Nurse and Reinhart never turning into the players we yearn for is so much greater.

    You’d think after waiting ten years for the prospects to develop, people would be sick of that song and dance.

    I don’t think we can afford to waste two seasons of McDavid’s ELC waiting for prospects to develop.

  37. LP says:

    Ya, I too would pass on Seabrook. 1 year left at 5M and after that he is going to get paid and will likely want 4 years plus.

    We should be aiming for Seabrook-lite and get a younger D that will not be a big salary cap hit in 2 years+.

    Last night I dreamt Anton Lander got traded. Don’t remember for who though.

    Let’s hope the Oilers don’t mess this up.

  38. Stanley 2018 says:

    Doug McLachlan,

    My suggestion (Klef + 1st): Overpay, admittedly. Depends on how many bidders, in the end.
    Nurse: 3 GM’s in 3 years, FFS
    Klefbom: This better work.
    Reinhart: Done, done, and done.
    Draft picks: Done.

  39. Mac07 says:

    Visually better,

    I know you joke. But in all seriousness. Hamilton was just traded for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd pick in this years draft. So I don’t think Jones or Josi would be much more than that. AS far as value goes. A few players traded due to fear of offer sheet. So I am sure Jones camp is talking to him about that for next year. If Nashville can get more value than Hamilton, which I am sure Edmonton would offer, a Deal could be done.

  40. G Money says:

    Mac07: Chicago will then ask for players and conditional picks. Depending on what he signs for.

    Enriching the deal with contingent picks is OK in my book.

    Enriching the deal up front under the assumption that Seabrook is signing another contract is not!

  41. Doug McLachlan says:

    I did not listen to Stauffer last night so if he said Seabrook by name, fair enough, but I was only able to review his tweet where in response to a query about Franson, he implied we should be looking at another Sports Corp client.

    LT, you mentioned Glencross. Reasonable speculation. Let me give you a different name. Versteeg.

    29 years old, last year of a deal in Chicago (which as per all the Seabrook speculation still hits the cap-crunch buttons). Chicago brought in Tikhonov to play RW, perhaps given the challenges of dealing Sharp and/of Bickell they try and nickel and dime there way down.

    At $2.2M for this year he is reasonably priced. He certainly got a serious OZ push in Chicago, 67.4% but seemed to make good use of the push potting 14 goals with a nice blue bubble (and some 134 shots) in only 15+ min of ice-time.

    We are all still focused on the defense but as with your Glencross suggestion, maybe the play is for another winger.

  42. robbiesdad says:

    Could some of the risk inherent in taking on Seabrook be mitigated by the inevitable expansion draft?

    Basically, assuming that Chicago doesn’t want the moon for Seabrook and the expansion draft takes place later than 2016, could the Oilers solve the problem of him falling down their depth chart in the future by leaving him exposed in the expansion draft?

    I guess more than anything I’m wondering if its a good bet that the next expansion draft is likely to work like the past ones and that the expansion teams would want an aging Seabrook.

  43. G Money says:

    striatic: Right. Use the Seabrook situation to pull something else out of there.

    That’s the challenge indeed.

    Once Chicago frees up Seabrook’s cap space, what other key pieces would they be willing to give up?

    Probably not many, Seabrook will already hurt a lot, and the current overage plus Kruger’s deal probably chews that up right away.

    That’s how bad their cap situation is – even if they deal Seabrook, they still need to free up another $2M to sign two remaining players, almost certainly two league minimum guys.

    The “something else” coming back would probably have to be prospects I imagine.

  44. Mac07 says:

    G Money,

    That’s why you see if Seabrook will extend first. And if a trade is made before OIlers can get a guarantee then the picks would be conditional. 2nd if he walks. 1st if he signs. Along that line. But Nobody will sign him without knowing he will resign.

  45. G Money says:

    Mac07: But in all seriousness. Hamilton was just traded for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd pick in this years draft. So I don’t think Jones or Josi would be much more than that. AS far as value goes. A few players traded due to fear of offer sheet.

    The Hamilton deal is widely acknowledged as being a way way below market value deal, done by a rookie GM apparently out of spite. It’s not going to set the value for ANY trade for any defender.

    There’s a lot of complaining about trading the 16 and 33 for Reinhart, but that’s way closer to established value (both on pick equivalency and a player stage basis) than the Hamilton deal, which will go in the record books as one of the great robberies of the year, maybe even the decade.

  46. Showerhead says:

    Seabrook is the type of gamble that worries me.

    Famous as hell, multiple Cups.
    Partnered with Duncan Keith.
    Huge zone start push.

    I worry he is only “most of” as good as we think he is, which would be fine because that’s still a good player.

    But with 1 year left on his deal, there is no way I trade any of Drai, Nurse, or Klefbom for him.

    I’d feel much better about Seabrook as a UFA. Why? From Sekera all of the way back through his Boston career, Chiarelli has done an excellent to very good job of limiting term on risky players (Iginla, for example) and giving it to his cornerstones (Chara). I trust his judgement on this.

    It’s just the asset cost that terrifies me, plus the fact that Seabrook’s resume slightly oversells his value.

  47. Hammers says:

    Not sure why your so hot for Glencross or Seabrook. I see potential in the players we have at forward. Leon , Sleppy, Iiro , Yak 2 . As for Seabrook the only way I do that deal is at a lower cost. Why give Chicago a couple of players like Yak and Leon . They are the ones in cap hell, leave them there no matter who they have to get rid off . We get Seabrook and yes we get in playoffs but in 3-4 years his going down as we are close to a cup. Because we sucked for ten years is no reason not to do this the right way . We potentially have in Nurse , Klef , Reinhart, Schultz 4 players who may all become top three D . Patience this year. Go for it next year as by then you have a better idea on exactly what you have and need .

  48. Soup Fascist says:

    Bank Shot: 90% of the time, the youngsters don’t develop as well as you hoped. Gagner, Paajarvi, Nissan, Marc Poulot, Jacques and on and on and on. I keep hearing about the risk of a declining Seabrook, but the risk of Klefbom, Nurse and Reinhart never turning into the players we yearn for is so much greater.You’d think after waiting ten years for the prospects to develop, people would be sick of that song and dance. I don’t think we can afford to waste two seasons of McDavid’s ELC waiting for prospects to develop.

    I would argue Klefbom is already a bona fide NHLer. Certainly not a top pair guy at this point, but no question he can play in the league. Great size / great skater – the guy will play in the league a long time. I am not sure what derails Nurse from being a very good NHL defenseman – again his size, skating plus mean streak ensures an NHL career. Only question may be how much offence he is capable of. I agree with you about Reinhart. While I think he is a good bet, there are a few places where is road to the NHL could get detoured.

    The one thing that is certain is that Seabrook WILL breakdown. Whether that is in 3 years or 7 years could be debated. He has been amazingly resiliant in terms of injuries. While that is a positive, it also means he has played a TON of games, especially considering playoffs, Olympics, etc. Again as a fan I would love to have him here for a couple of years, but how much would the Oilers be regretting a long term signing when all the young guys are looking for dollars over the next few years?

  49. UnjustEnrichment says:

    Given the numerous changes that Chirelli has already made to the team, it makes sense, now, to wait for training camp and the start of the new season to see what we actually have, rather than dreaming about having a team built with expensive-to-acquire older players who may be past their prime and unable to repeat past performances. We need to know whether what we have fits together (or does not) before making any further changes. Patience and caution are now required; fine tuning can come later, when one has more leverage to deal from a position of strength and knowledge.

  50. rickithebear says:

    Year (age) – comp – Ca/60 52.00 is good
    Ference
    07-08 (28) – 1st/2nd – 52.92
    08-09 (29) – 1st/2nd – 54.00
    ————————————- move to 2nd
    09-10 (30) – 2nd – 50.92
    10-11 (31) – 2nd – 56.87
    11-12 (32) – 2nd – 56.87
    ———————————— move to 3rd
    12-13 (33) – 3rd – 53.36
    ———————————– move to 1st WTF?
    13-14 (34) – 1st – 63.95
    ———————————- move to 2nd
    14-15 (35) – 2nd – 60.29

    Seabrook
    09-10 (24) – 1st – 46.76
    10-11 (25) – 1st – 50.27
    11-12 (26) – 1st – 51.17
    ———————————– move to 2nd
    12-13 (27) – 2nd – 51.44
    13-14 (28) – 2nd- 49,02
    14-15 (29) – 2nd- 56.19
    ———————————-
    wonder what comp he should be playing?
    Seabrooks 29 yr season was like Ferences 31
    Another 56.00+ CA/60 from seabrook in 15-16.
    a serouiusly declining asset!

    Fayne
    10-11 (23) – 2nd – 41.51
    11-12 (24) – 1st – 44.47
    12-13 (25) – 1st – 37.91
    13-14 (26) – 1st – 39.87
    ————————————— wonder if this about System (chirelli stated)
    14-15 (27) – 1st – 55.96
    w/ Marincin 2nd – 55.39
    w/ Nikitin 1st – 52.75
    w/ Klefbom 2nd – 58.00
    w/ Aulie 2nd – 67.11
    w/ Ference 1st – 51.25
    w/ Schultz – 2nd – 69.23

    Sebrook a good option?
    You pair him with Klef and Klef continues to score like Keith in an offensive role.
    that Pair will likely break even at even.

  51. G Money says:

    Mac07,

    And I’m pretty sure you can’t talk to him about a contract until after the trade has gone through (or in the unlikely case that Chicago gives permission).

    And I’m not sure how valuable that would be, you can’t actually sign him until January. So any agreement you make with him is verbal and non-binding. He could say “yeah that sounds good” – then still walk before signing his name.

    A contingent pick or player (payable after the actual signing has taken place) is really the only binding way to mitigate the risk.

    Which still doesn’t speak, it’s worth noting, of the contract risk. Seabrook has hard miles on him. I wouldn’t count on him being productive after 33 or 34, and his current productivity already has red flags given his QualComp and his partner (Keith is the undisputed alpha dog of that pairing). But he’s going to want a big dollar and long term contract, without question.

    You’d think a minimum of five years a la Petry and Sekera, but probably closer to $7.5M (because rings!). That takes you to some mighty big dollars well into the twilight of his career, not to mention well past the end of McDeity’s ELC.

    I’d very much like to see Seabrook in Oiler silks next year. As long as it isn’t one of the current Top 3 (Sek, Fay, Klef) going out, and not part of the long-term future (Nurse, Reinhart) going the other way.

    Otherwise, it’s just buying long-term mediocrity for a short-term boost.

    I’d say the play is to buy him cheap – the impetus for this trade is cap dump, nothing more – or don’t buy him at all.

  52. Mac07 says:

    G Money,

    It was a terrible deal. But that was my point. Josi would be in between that and what you suggest.
    I would say a player and a 1st round. Maybe a prospect. But Nashville has to resign Jones next year. and that will be upwards of the Hamilton contract, if not more. I think if the Oilers inquired, Preds would listen. but from what is being said today, Seabrook is the focus. for now anyway.

  53. GCW_69 says:

    If Glencross will sign for reasonable dollars and term, I think the play is to trade Hendricks. His value likely won’t be higher after his World Championship role. That bumps Korpse down to the fourth line and opens a space for Glencross.

  54. Mac07 says:

    G Money,

    When a player is entering his final year of his contract before he hits UFA, like Seabrook, you can talk to him about new contract if you are talking to Chicago on a trade.

  55. Oil2Oilers says:

    The cost of acquiring and retaining Seabrook seems too high versus an option of paying a little too much for a little too long to Ehrhoff.

    If the Oilers were to give up assets for a vetran defense man I would hope it would be to SJ who could provide a vet able to help deliver/explain the new defensive system.

    As it seems the Oilers are still determined to give Jultz another opertunity to prove he can be a top 4 defender my best guess is defensive moves are done until the season starts.

    A Patrik Hersley signing would be nice though. His shot would add a different tool the PP.

  56. Ducey says:

    Bank Shot: 90% of the time, the youngsters don’t develop as well as you hoped. Gagner, Paajarvi, Nissan, Marc Poulot, Jacques and on and on and on. I keep hearing about the risk of a declining Seabrook, but the risk of Klefbom, Nurse and Reinhart never turning into the players we yearn for is so much greater.You’d think after waiting ten years for the prospects to develop, people would be sick of that song and dance. I don’t think we can afford to waste two seasons of McDavid’s ELC waiting for prospects to develop.

    Seabrook is guaranteed to decline. Father time always wins.

    There is no such guarantee on the prospects NOT turning out. Having seen Klefbom and Nurse, I’d bet anyone they will be top 4 defensemen in 2 or 3 years time. Reinhart is harder to peg, though.

    Plus, presumably your rush to contend is because MCD will get a big RFA deal. Having a declining Seabrook at big bucks will just exacerbate the Cap problems. Having a guy like Reinhart (and the draft picks) ripening on the vine will alleviate them.

  57. Woodguy says:

    Here’s every CHI DMan who played at least 200 min last year.

    The number next to their name is their Fenwick Against/60 – Opposition’s Fenwick For/60 (when not playing against this particular player)

    If the number is a negative, then the opposition gets less un-blocked shot attempts against this player than their average..

    If the number is positve, then the opposition gets more un-blocked shot attempts against this player than their average.

    There are lots of team, deployment (sheltered or not, OZS) and partner effects here, but I’m finding this exercise interesting.

    VAN_RIEMSDYK, TREVOR -7.14
    HJALMARSSON, NIKLAS -3.79
    RUNDBLAD, DAVID -1.43
    ODUYA, JOHNNY -2.87
    KEITH, DUNCAN -0.64
    ROZSIVAL, MICHAL -0.35
    SEABROOK, BRENT 2.06

    Via this metric, Bowman looks to be very smart to be cashing in Seabrook if he can get nice haul for him and avoid having to pay him long term.

    For reference, here were the OIlers last year via the same metric:

    FAYNE, MARK -0.86
    KLEFBOM, OSCAR -0.64
    NIKITIN, NIKITA -0.4
    MARINCIN, MARTIN 1.21
    SCHULTZ, JUSTIN 1.22
    FERENCE, ANDREW 6.34
    AULIE, KEITH 6.34

  58. GCW_69 says:

    On Seabrook – I like the player today, but I don’t like the cap consequences. His next contract undoubtedly comes with a NMC and that would be disastrous for the Oilers.

    On the assets – if its Schultz and a conditional 2016 first on him re-signing, that’s interesting. If its Klefbom or Nurse, no way.

    Chia should work harder to get a Larsson, Severson, Shattenkirk type player and pass on Seabrook. Or, just sign Franson. Franson is Seabrook-lite. No cost and lowerbcap hit.

  59. Магия 10 says:

    Lowetide:
    I think the cost of getting him is Leon, Darnell or Oscar plus plus. I don’t think they need Nail.

    For one year of control? Don’t think Chia has any interest at all in that. Making the plus plus conditional is just lipstick on that pig.

  60. BlueNoteNorth says:

    Counting on Chia to stop the practice of trading the Oilers’ future for another team’s past.

    Pass on Seabrook.

  61. Jesse says:

    I have a hard time believing that Chiarelli would understand the goalie market as being a buyers market and not recognize the market for cap dumps a buyers market as well. He played hardball with Sather, I can’t see him forking over a big piece when Seabrook is far from the only solution out there and also a very imperfect solution when keeping age and likely contract length in mind. If they do get Seabrook, I would have to think it would be for a good deal or not at all.

  62. Soup Fascist says:

    Oil2Oilers: The cost of acquiring and retaining Seabrook seems to high versus an option of paying a little to much for a little to long to Ehrhoff.If the Oilers were to give up assets for a vetran defense man I would hope it would be to SJ who could provide a vet able to help deliver/explain the new defensive system.As it seems the Oilers are still determined to give Jultz another opertunity to prove he can be a top 4 defender my best guess is defensive moves are done until the season starts.A Patrik Hersley signing would be nice though. His shot would add a different tool the PP.

    Don’t know much about Hersley. What makes you believe that he will be any more effective in Edmonton than Belov was – other than receiving better coaching? Okay, other than receiving vastly better coaching.

    NVM.

  63. OF17 says:

    We may be looking at this wrong. Chicago wants to keep their team intact and likely will claw tooth and nail to keep Seabrook, hence the high acquisition price we’re projecting. Really, they’re going to be doing it for any roster player that brings value at a high salary, since they’re trying to ride the Stanley wave. So maybe we give them the cap relief they most need – a Bryan Bickell trade – and we take value in a different form – Ville Pokka.

    Trade them a mid-round pick, and maybe a guy like Khaira, for the two of them and use your Schultz buyouts to make it work. Adds a top-4 RHD of the future, and while it sucks to spend the cap space on Bickell rather than a top-4 D of the present, it could be a smart move for increasing overall value in the organization. If they don’t go for Pokka, maybe Schmaltz or Johns, maybe some combo of picks, would work too.

    I’m not sure it’s what I’d do, but playing through the thought experiment with it is interesting.

  64. Doug McLachlan says:

    Stanley 2018: Doug McLachlan, My suggestion (Klef + 1st): Overpay, admittedly. Depends on how many bidders, in the end.Nurse: 3 GM’s in 3 years, FFSKlefbom: This better work.Reinhart: Done, done, and done.Draft picks: Done.

    My inner-EA Commissioner declines this trade.

    One year! That is all you are trading for. Solid top pairing (for the Oilers) d-man, yes, but only one year. This is the Talbot dynamic people, except that Talbot wasn’t that big a hit to the Rangers’ cap space. If you add a conditional pick based on resigning, fair enough but still it is just one year.

    That said, can’t see Chicago having this as a top cap-relief option.

    Let’s play out Chicago’s dilemma.

    Need to sign Kruger – hopefully a slight raise from his $1.4M so let’s say$1.8-$2.0M (rings are nice)
    Need to re-sign Oduya – maybe he takes a hometown discount and agrees to $3 M(down from his AVV but more than his last year in reall $)
    Need to sign one more d man – say Irwin for $1.5M
    They are already about $750K over the cap but if Kruger signs they put an extra forward back in the AHL.

    They need to clear about $6.5M to do this.

    Options will involve more than one piece because you will need to back fill the hole you make with someone less expensive.

    Trade Sharp LW 33 yrs (2yrs at $5.9M)
    Trade Bickell LW 29 yrs (2yrs at $4M)
    Trade Versteeg RW 29 yrs (1yr at $2.2M)
    Trade Shaw C 23 yrs (1 yr at $2.0M still RFA at end)
    Trade Seabrook D 30 (1yr at $5.8M)
    Trade Crawford G (5yrs at $6.5M – included only because there had been some previous discussion)

    Shaw and Versteeg have no limits on their movement, everyone else has some form of NTC/NMC.

    Since Chia has obviously been looking at Chicago’s prospect list and because so many people are insisting on including one of Klefbom, Rienhart (and in some cases Nurse) in their plans, the Oilers should keep Ville Pokka, 6’0″ Finnish d-man coming of Rookie of the Year honous with the Ice Hogs of the AHL in mind. Currently entering year 2 of his ELC. Another piece coming back in the Leddy deal from the Island he was a second round pick (34th) in 2012.

  65. godot10 says:

    Seabrook is an eight or nine year (last year plus a new 7-8 year contract) commitment, which is a dumb move.

    I hope they don’t ruin a great summer.

    Anything else this summer (unless the deal is too good to be true) should be short term deals.

  66. Woodguy says:

    G Money,

    One of the brightest hockey-math minds out there is Micah McCurdy (no relation to Bruce)

    Great follow on twitter: @IneffectiveMath

    Great website too: http://hockeyviz.com/

    Very creative visualizations of WOWY’s and other info.

    Anyhow,

    He went on a twitter rant about how people too easily dismiss small samples sizes and I thought you might find it interesting:


    Micah Blake McCurdy ‏@IneffectiveMath Jul 6

    So I have a small rant about sample sizes.

    Samples don’t have sizes. There are measurements you take and then there are estimates of how good those measurements are.

    Whenever anybody says “oh but that sample is small” what they mean is “my intuition suggests a substantial uncertainty in that measurement”.

    I’m not suggesting that any of us should rely less on their intuition. Just the opposite, you should hone it on the whetstone of stats.

    But some measurements with very little support are very certain and some with what appear like lots are not at all sure.

    What we really need is error bars and/or confidence intervals, as appropriate, for measurements of various things, not larger samples.

    We expect that larger samples will invariably drive down the widths of intervals, but until we have error bars, crowing about “sss” is silly

    “I’m sure your error bars would be too big, if you had them!” is really all I ever hear from people complaining about “sample size”.

    There is only one proper way forward, of course: to form models which permit such estimation. I’m working on one for shots/min.

    I thought this line of thinking fit well with your “50 games IS a sufficient sample for goalies” post so I thought I’d share.

  67. Numenius says:

    frjohnk: For 18-19
    12 players signed for 69.7M

    That 4th year is going to be a killer cap-wise, even without Seabrook.

    It’s too bad Sekera’s NMC includes that year. Since you can’t trade Sekera, you’re likely going to have to trade Eberle (or equivalent) to make things work.

  68. striatic says:

    The team that is the best fit for Brent Seabrook next year is the Chicago Blackhawks.

    if they need to think of him as a rental, so be it. They have a shot at another cup next year – why scupper that by getting cute with contract management. Just build the best team possible. Seabrook if the best D Man they could get for his position next year.

  69. Richard S.S. says:

    ThIs Team is close to Cap-tight. Checking Fanager, calculating McDavid’s cap hit at max for bonuses adds $2.85 Million. Settling with Schulz at last year’s number, $3.765 Million and Pitlick at $800 K eliminates ANY cap space. The only two people worth buying out are Purcel and Nikitin as they both have a one year $4.5 Million Cap Hit. Without $5.0 – $6.0 Million in Cap Space from this point forward means problems for the Team.

  70. Showerhead says:

    Oil2Oilers:
    The cost of acquiring and retaining Seabrook seems too high versus an option of paying a little too much for a little too long to Ehrhoff.

    If the Oilers were to give up assets for a vetran defense man I would hope it would be to SJ who could provide a vet able to help deliver/explain the new defensive system.

    As it seems the Oilers are still determined to give Jultz another opertunity to prove he can be a top 4 defender my best guess is defensive moves are done until the season starts.

    I can’t help but agree with this. Ehrhoff, Franson, etc may not be as good as Seabrook but in terms of risk/reward and opportunity cost they are likely to be better bets.

    I’ve been preaching aggression since the lottery win, especially with respect to McDavid ELC year 3, but it has to be done in a way that doesn’t cripple the future. The only way to make this thing sustainable is to leave room for value contracts and Seabrook will a) not be a value contract but also b) cost players and picks who have the potential to become those value contracts.

    Sustainable aggression!

  71. G Money says:

    Mac07:
    When a player is entering his final year of his contract before he hits UFA, like Seabrook, you can talk to him about new contract if you are talking to Chicago on a trade.

    Anyone familiar enough with the CBA to pipe up on this one?

    I don’t think any of that is true.

    As an outside team, you can’t talk to a UFA until the last week of June in the year he becomes UFA.

    Does the mere act of discussing a trade with a team for a player circumvent that restriction, and give you the right to discuss a future contract with that player? No way that strikes me as true. That would be a huge end-run around the exclusivity of negotiating rights built into player contracts.

    As I understand it, if you do trade for someone who is in his final contract year, you as the team can discuss a contract all you want. But you can’t sign one until January.

    You could have a verbal agreement on what contract you’re going to sign, but by the terms of the CBA, that is inherently non-binding until January. Ordinarily, as I understand contract law, a verbal agreement can be binding though hard to prove. But by definition, if the CBA precludes an agreement until January, even the strongest verbal “I will sign” is non-binding, otherwise it is circumvention. The player is free not to sign in January, and hold out for UFA, even if he told you he would sign.

  72. OilCanFan says:

    I wouldn’t take Seabrook especially at these proposed costs. I wish people would stop trying to trade away Draisatl. I think he is going to be a great power forward that will put up points when he is finally on the team, preferably late this year or next year. I think his upside at ELC is much better than Seabrooks. I also think Klefbom will probably be as good as Seabrook is if he plays with players of similar ilk that Seabrook has. I think Nurse has a higher ceiling too

  73. LadiesloveSmid says:

    Richard S.S.:
    ThIs Team is close to Cap-tight. Checking Fanager, calculating McDavid’s cap hit at max for bonuses adds $2.85 Million.Settling with Schulz at last year’s number, $3.765 Million and Pitlick at $800 K eliminates ANY cap space.The only two people worth buying out are Purcel and Nikitin as they both have a one year $4.5 Million Cap Hit.Without $5.0 – $6.0 Million in Cap Space from this point forward means problems for the Team.

    I imagine Nikitin is gone, whether that creates 3M(buyout) or 2.25 (retained trade) or whatever in room this year. I also don’t imagine McDavid hits every bonus.

    Didn’t someone project the capspace number to be in the ~4.5M range?

  74. McSorley33 says:

    frjohnk,

    The Oilers need to maximize the amount of core players that are going to be near and/or at their prime when McDavid is in his heyday.
    ************************************************************************
    Great post…..x 1, 000

    Curtis Glencross is 32 ……so let us not even think about him.

    Matt Hendricks is 34 – anyone think he will be around when the Oilers compete for the cup?

    If there is any value to Hendricks at the deadline this year…please get a return on that asset

    Further – Christian Erhoff is 33 years old…

    I also agree with you we are not wining the cup next year or the year after….

  75. G Money says:

    Woodguy,

    Thanks WG. I do follow Micah on Twitter, he is without a doubt one of the sharper fancystats guys out there. (definitely more of a ‘deep math’ guy than am I, though I think based on his trials and tribulations, I might be a better coder, LOL!)

    I read his rant, and would be interested to hear what he has to say about my analysis (if anything).

    By the way, a little while back, I think you were part of a minor Twitter bickering session – someone was complaining that they didn’t like my conclusions because the r^2 value was too low. This was truly where the Twitter format became frustrating. He clearly didn’t understand what r, r^2, and p values imply, but trying to explain a nuance of statistics in 140-character bursts was just too trying.

    The high (or rather, low!) p values in the correlation tell you that the relationship is strong.
    The r value tells you what that relationship is.
    The low r^2 value tells you that the precision of the predictive relationship is not high. This is correct, and is consistent with what I said.

    My conclusion was less about predicting a direct sv% to sv% relationship, and more about the categorical result. If a goalie is elite at 1,300 svs, he is highly likely to be elite for his career. At worst, there was one goalie who fell to becoming a starter. None became backups. There is an incredibly good mapping of the tertiles (I use the words “remarkably stable”), which is what is reflected in the p value. Within the tertiles, there is a fair bit of jumping around in the actual sv%, which is why the r^2 value is low.

    I added an addendum to the blog post to explain that point, as well as a link to a good article explaining what p-value, r, r^2 means, and why r^2 is not particularly indicative of the quality of the model. If you recall that Twitter discussion, you might find it useful to read the addendum and the linked article.

  76. McSorley33 says:

    Either way – the return Chicago obtains for Seabrook ( assuming he is traded ) is very interesting…

    Winnipeg media is reporting ( from the draft floor ) the return for Dustin B would be a”Kings Ransom” …..and yet, he is only under control for 12 months as well.

    Very curious to see what the return is for these players in particular – given their age and their likely
    wants for a new contract.

    And how many teams can afford to take on Seabrook and Buff salary wise, period?

  77. Oil2Oilers says:

    Soup Fascist: Don’t know much about Hersley.What makes you believe that he will be any more effective in Edmonton than Belov was– other than receiving better coaching?Okay, other than receiving vastlybetter coaching.

    NVM.

    I miss the thing Belov did that kept the puck in the attacking zone when the other team tried to clear it. Man the Oilers defense has been so bad for so long.

    Hersley mave well be a bust, but I liked the bet made on Belov even though it did not turn out. Plus it would be fun for the Oilers to collect ALL the 6-7 Dmen available!

  78. Doug McLachlan says:

    OF17: We may be looking at this wrong. Chicago wants to keep their team intact and likely will claw tooth and nail to keep Seabrook, hence the high acquisition price we’re projecting. Really, they’re going to be doing it for any roster player that brings value at a high salary, since they’re trying to ride the Stanley wave. So maybe we give them the cap relief they most need – a Bryan Bickell trade – and we take value in a different form – Ville Pokka. Trade them a mid-round pick, and maybe a guy like Khaira, for the two of them and use your Schultz buyouts to make it work. Adds a top-4 RHD of the future, and while it sucks to spend the cap space on Bickell rather than a top-4 D of the present, it could be a smart move for increasing overall value in the organization. If they don’t go for Pokka, maybe Schmaltz or Johns, maybe some combo of picks, would work too. I’m not sure it’s what I’d do, but playing through the thought experiment with it is interesting.

    It is fun to plot to pillage a desperate team. Love the Pokka suggestion (not a Chicago pick so no emotional sentiment to get in the way) and, well, he’s a Finn so bonus.

    This has also got me thinking that we might want to see if, like Saad, unsigned RFA Kruger is no longer a player the Hawks can afford. He is only 25, was paid $1.4M last year and as an RFA the expected modest increase in salary is much more absorbable by the Oilers than the Hawks.

    The Hawks brought in Anisimov and Dano. Have Shaw and Teravainen under contract. Some guy called TAYVES who at $10.5M is a total deadweight on their cap 😉 Maybe Kruger is the short straw?

    Hmm, this if much more fun that beating up our own team.

  79. admiralmark says:

    I think we all have seen the way GM’s operate in this league. So, IF Seabrook is actually on the market we can guarantee at least 1 GM will astronomically pay to acquire him. Too much name cache and Stanley Cup experience. So these Yak + 1st or Schultz + Davidson + 2016 1st proposals is not close to cutting it. As LT said the price will be massive… Hopefully Chia passes?

    Small incremental improvements each year is how to build a “long” lasting contender. We have done that already this summer IMO. They should let this group marinate and reassess around xmas. Next year with a playoffs expected. This year playoffs attempted.

  80. LMHF#1 says:

    No need to chase a #2 big dog when there’s still so much value out there for $$$s only.

    Clear out the waste $$$s (in order – Ference, Nikitin, Purcell, Scrivens) and then spend it on useful pieces and you are fine.

    You hope that Nurse steps up going into next year and/or trade a surplus forward (you’re going to have at least one and maybe two) that other teams value and some picks you will no longer need for a #1. They do slip loose. Teams have cap problems. Be patient and make the right move here. You can have a strong team in the coming year without making your big attempt at an anchor Dman right this second.

  81. Visually better says:

    Would Winnipeg entertain anything revolving a Draisaitl for Buff trade? They have some players they need to sign and a need for a another talented forward, thoughts?

  82. LMHF#1 says:

    Oil2Oilers:
    Hersley mave well be a bust, but I liked the bet made on Belov even though it did not turn out. Plus it would be fun for the Oilers to collect ALL the 6-7 Dmen available!

    The thing is, Belov didn’t turn out because the Coach had no clue. There was a good player there and the well was poisoned.

  83. Oil2Oilers says:

    LMHF#1: The thing is, Belov didn’t turn out because the Coach had no clue. There was a good player there and the well was poisoned.

    Coach and management could not identify a good defender from a hole in the ground. While in the future I may not agree with the coaching and management decisions, hopefully it will not be so horrible ever again.

  84. ironsight says:

    I think I may be alone in this belief, but Oilers fans are seriously, seriously underrating Reinhart. He was the best defenseman in the WHL for consecutive seasons. As an objective measure, consider this from http://chlstats.pythonanywhere.com/

    2012-13 Reinhart – ESGF% 71% – ranks 1st among regular D in WHL
    2013-14 Reinhart – ESGF% 69% – ranks 4th among regular D in WHL

    2013-14 Nurse – ESGF% 52% – ranks 52nd among regular D in OHL
    2014-15 Nurse – ESGF% 62% – ranks 15th among regular D in OHL

    Obviously there are some massive context caveats to add and this is just one piece of the picture, but both players played on top tier teams in the Draft+2 years and Reinhart posted absolutely insane results at 5v5. Combine that with the anecdotal evidence that we know he was routinely playing major 5v5 minutes against the opposition’s best, and his results are even more impressive.

    Reinhart’s ability to be a huge part of this team’s future should not be dismissed lightly.

  85. Doug McLachlan says:

    Visually better: Would Winnipeg entertain anything revolving a Draisaitl for Buff trade? They have some players they need to sign and a need for a another talented forward, thoughts?

    Please stop trading Draisaitl!

    There is a sad day in our future (March or June of 2021), and hopefully after we hoist a Stanley (or two – or more), where a center will need to be dealt to keep the McDavid train running but that center will not be Driasaitl, it will be Nuge.

    Draisaitl is Mess to McDavid’s Gretz and so long as we all continue to buy lots and lots of drugs from Rexall we shouldn’t need to worry about a sell off of either to some huckster in the sunbelt – I’m looking at you Vegas!

  86. Mr. D. says:

    DBO,

    I don’t think we need another defensive specialist. I’d say no to Oduya.

  87. Numenius says:

    Doug McLachlan: Please stop trading Draisaitl!

    Hear, hear.

  88. vinotintazo says:

    Doug McLachlan: Please stop trading Draisaitl!

    There is a sad day in our future (March or June of 2021), and hopefully after we hoist a Stanley (or two – or more), where a center will need to be dealt to keep the McDavid train running but that center will not be Driasaitl, it will be Nuge.

    Draisaitl is Mess to McDavid’s Gretz and so long as we all continue to buy lots and lots of drugs from Rexall we shouldn’t need to worry about a sell off of either to some huckster in the sunbelt – I’m looking at you Vegas!

    Play drai @ Wing keep em both = win.

  89. Visually better says:

    Doug McLachlan,

    I’m actually in favor of trading Draisaitl, and its my fantasy gm life I’ll do what i want 😉 hehe, no I just honestly have a problem with his compete, I truly don’t believe he is that big western conference center people think he is going to be. I cannot see him matching up against the Backes, Getzlaf’s, and Kopitars. Atleast not for a long time.

    Don’t get me wrong, I really like him as a skilled player and think he is fantastic with the puck, but we don’t need anymore of those players who are skilled but aren’t willing to work for the puck. I think there is a deal to be made there and if I were in the position I would definitely consider it.

    If we are going to have as soft of a forward group as we have currently, we atleast need to have some size on the back end, or we are going to have problems when it comes down to those games in February and March. Look at Tampa, they have all that small skill up front, balanced out with Callahan, Boyle up front and Hedman, Garrison, Sustr, Coburn as anchors.

  90. Doug McLachlan says:

    Holy Crap, why are we NOT looking at Marcus Kruger??!!

    25% OZ start?!! and a nice blue bubble averaging 13 minutes?

  91. Younger Oil says:

    No way I want Seabrook for the price he will cost to acquire and keep.

    I’d be happy with Glencross and Erhoff if they are short term deals (2 years maximum) that don’t put us in any risk of going over the cap if bonuses were hit. They would just be stop gaps until some of our prospects were ready.

    I’d be thrilled with both of them if we could get them while simultaneously getting rid of Purcell and Nikitin/Ference, which is a tall order for sure. But it would be an upgrade on two positions which would be incredible.

  92. Doug McLachlan says:

    vinotintazo: Play drai @ Wing keep em both = win.

    Would love to but the reason you go out and get a Drai (and develop him smartly) is to go all Kopitar on the rest of your division, conference, cup final opponent.

    I am increasingly of the mind that Chiarelli is having a blast looking at his game pieces but knows from previous experience that you don’t give them away if you can and if you have to only for top value. Well, I live in hope that this is the case.

  93. Ryan says:

    Visually better:
    Would Winnipeg entertain anything revolving a Draisaitl for Buff trade? They have some players they need to sign and a need for a another talented forward, thoughts?

    I’ve always had time for Byfuglien, but how do you envision this trade ending well?

    Draisatl hasn’t even really got his career started and Byfuglien is nearing the end of the line.

    Byfuglien is 30 and he’s never had the reputation of being a fitness fanatic let lone a guy who even remotely takes care of himself in the offseason. The wheels could fall off at any time in the next few years.

    Never mind that you’d be trading Draisatl for one year of Byfuglien by contract…

  94. Drew says:

    Mr. D.,

    Question for all, is a defensive specialist someone who;
    takes the puck away from the other team in the defensive zone and gives it to their team?
    takes the puck away from the other team and then bakes a cake?
    What do the oilers need?

  95. GCW_69 says:

    G Money: Anyone familiar enough with the CBA to pipe up on this one?

    I don’t think any of that is true.

    As an outside team, you can’t talk to a UFA until the last week of June in the year he becomes UFA.

    Does the mere act of discussing a trade with a team for a player circumvent that restriction, and give you the right to discuss a future contract with that player?No way that strikes me as true.That would be a huge end-run around the exclusivity of negotiating rights built into player contracts.

    As I understand it, if you do trade for someone who is in his final contract year, you as the team can discuss a contract all you want.But you can’t sign one until January.

    You could have a verbal agreement on what contract you’re going to sign, but by the terms of the CBA, that is inherently non-binding until January.Ordinarily, as I understand contract law, a verbal agreement can be binding though hard to prove.But by definition, if the CBA precludes an agreement until January, even the strongest verbal “I will sign” is non-binding, otherwise it is circumvention.The player is free not to sign in January, and hold out for UFA, even if he told you he would sign.

    Two things as I understand them in the CBA.

    1) any player completing a multi year deal can begin negotiating a new deal Jul 1 of the final year of the deal. Only players on one year deals have to wait to January.

    2) The current team can grant permission to a potential acquiring team to negotiate with a player under contract. No permission, no contact.

  96. Woodguy says:

    G Money: Anyone familiar enough with the CBA to pipe up on this one?

    I don’t think any of that is true.

    As an outside team, you can’t talk to a UFA until the last week of June in the year he becomes UFA.

    Does the mere act of discussing a trade with a team for a player circumvent that restriction, and give you the right to discuss a future contract with that player?No way that strikes me as true.That would be a huge end-run around the exclusivity of negotiating rights built into player contracts.

    As I understand it, if you do trade for someone who is in his final contract year, you as the team can discuss a contract all you want.But you can’t sign one until January.

    You could have a verbal agreement on what contract you’re going to sign, but by the terms of the CBA, that is inherently non-binding until January.Ordinarily, as I understand contract law, a verbal agreement can be binding though hard to prove.But by definition, if the CBA precludes an agreement until January, even the strongest verbal “I will sign” is non-binding, otherwise it is circumvention.The player is free not to sign in January, and hold ou
    t for UFA, even if he told you he would sign.

    If a player is coming off a multi-year deal they can re-sign as early as July 1 before their last year.

    If a player is in a 1 year contract, the earliest they can sign is January 1st,

    The CBA only mentions “signing a SPC” and not negotiation. I’m sure they can talk, but can’t sign.

    Also,

    It’s pretty common for teams to allow the suitor to negotiate with the player before a trade if an extension is allowed under the CBA (like it is with Seabrook)

    Having the player agree to a contract is often the make/break part of a deal.

    Especially if a player is waiving a NTC/NMC to allow a trade. The player is very involved in whole process.

  97. Doug McLachlan says:

    Mr. D.: DBO, I don’t think we need another defensive specialist. I’d say no to Oduya.

    All indications are that Oduya is waiting patiently to re-sign with Chicago. UFA in name only at this point (obviously things can change, but…).

  98. Ray says:

    frjohnk,

    Sorry, late to the game on this one, but i’d like to make a small point that you may have a slight flaw in your analysis.

    Not every one of the teams top notch d or f need to be given a long term deal that inherently have higher cap hits in earlier years to save cap into the future.

    What if one or two of Draisaitl, Nurse, or Griff want or justify a Yak type bridge deal coming off their ELC’s?

    You still need to pay good players. Say optimistically Seabrook will sign for 5 years and Nurse finishes his ELC with a two year bridge deal.

    In CMD’s first ad second year out of his ELC you are probably paying that tandem of Nurse-Seabrook 9 million a year… i’d assume this is your top pair at this point.

    I think it can be done

  99. Pouzar says:

    Lowetide:
    I think the cost of getting him is Leon, Darnell or Oscar plus plus. I don’t think they need Nail.

    Jezzuz Gord help me if that deal goes down. That’s a horrible horrible deal.

  100. Optimism is Foolish says:

    Seeing as we are looking to try and make the dance next year and not contending for a few years. Might i suggest we allow our D to grow into their positions without the Seabrook add. He will just cost too much in terms of cap and assets. But if we are looking to add an asset for just money I think Semin might be an amazing one year add that could be cashed in at deadline for futures. Having McDavid will allow us to pump and dump many players over the next decade and Semin has stated he will take a 1 year contract.

  101. G Money says:

    GCW_69,

    Woodguy,

    OK. That was my comment earlier in the thread (the Oilers can talk contract to Seabrook prior to a trade ONLY if the Hawks give permission). The idea that just the act of discussing a trade automatically confers that right struck me as ludicrous.

    Given Seabrook is on a multi-year deal, I read this to mean he is free to negotiate an extension (with the Hawks, or another team IF the Hawks give permission).

  102. G Money says:

    Doug McLachlan: All indications are that Oduya is waiting patiently to re-sign with Chicago.UFA in name only at this point (obviously things can change, but…).

    The interesting thing is that people here have been downplaying Oduya’s skills, but if you look at the Vollman’s, Oduya is more important to their team than is Seabrook.

    A partner for Keith with generous ZS and facing second pairing comp is a far easier role to replace than the guy tasked with sawing off or better paired with Hjalmarsson facing the toughest comps and the toughest ZS every night.

  103. Halfwise says:

    There are two decisions and opportunities here. Why not keep them separate?

    1. Seabrook may be available this season because of cap space. Offer a Musil-level prospect in return. Chicago needs cap space above all. Take Seabrook for a year.
    2. A year from now Seabrook is UFA. Make a decision after watching the team play, and after watching Seabrook play, as to whether UFA Seabrook is worth blowing your brains out over.

  104. Mac07 says:

    Halfwise:
    There are two decisions and opportunities here. Why not keep them separate?

    1. Seabrook may be available this season because of cap space. Offer a Musil-level prospect in return. Chicago needs cap space above all. Take Seabrook for a year.
    2. A year from now Seabrook is UFA. Make a decision after watching the team play, and after watching Seabrook play, as to whether UFA Seabrook is worth blowing your brains out over.

    Seabrook has a NTC and will not allow a move like that. He will want to negotiate a new contract or stay in Chicago for a year.

  105. Pouzar says:

    G Money: The interesting thing is that people here have been downplaying Oduya’s skills, but if you look at the Vollman’s, Oduya is more important to their team than is Seabrook.

    A partner for Keith with generous ZS and facing second pairing comp is a far easier role to replace than the guy tasked with sawing off or better paired with Hjalmarsson facing the toughest comps and the toughest ZS every night.

    I always liked Oduya.
    His WOWY is pretty decent away from HJALMARSSON as well.
    Rumors are he is waiting for CHI to clear cap space.

  106. Ryan says:

    Halfwise:
    There are two decisions and opportunities here. Why not keep them separate?

    1. Seabrook may be available this season because of cap space. Offer a Musil-level prospect in return. Chicago needs cap space above all. Take Seabrook for a year.
    2. A year from now Seabrook is UFA. Make a decision after watching the team play, and after watching Seabrook play, as to whether UFA Seabrook is worth blowing your brains out over.

    I don’t usually comment during the day due to having to actually work… But you guys are killing me today.

    Seabrook for Musil? Good luck with that. 🙂

  107. Doug McLachlan says:

    G Money: The interesting thing is that people here have been downplaying Oduya’s skills, but if you look at the Vollman’s, Oduya is more important to their team than is Seabrook. A partner for Keith with generous ZS and facing second pairing comp is a far easier role to replace than the guy tasked with sawing off or better paired with Hjalmarsson facing the toughest comps and the toughest ZS every night.

    Yup, Oduya and Hjalmarsson are the two that stir the drinks.

    For some inexplicable reason the theme song for “The Unknown Stuntman” just floated into my head.

    These two have made Seabrook and Keith look that much better for the Coach’s Corner segments every spring for sure.

    Halfwise: There are two decisions and opportunities here. Why not keep them separate?1. Seabrook may be available this season because of cap space. Offer a Musil-level prospect in return. Chicago needs cap space above all. Take Seabrook for a year.2. A year from now Seabrook is UFA. Make a decision after watching the team play, and after watching Seabrook play, as to whether UFA Seabrook is worth blowing your brains out over.

    Ok, while I agree that the issue for Chicago is cap space and that some of these proposed offers for Seabrook are wildly high – this is not enough. Even for just one year of Seabrook.

  108. Rondo says:

    If your going offer that much to Seabrook I would rather have Vlasic .

  109. vinotintazo says:

    Rondo:
    If your going offer that much to Seabrook I would rather haveVlasic .

    no more Left shooting d-man pleeeeeaase.

  110. TheOtherJohn says:

    Trading for Seabrook would be very very expensive. Suspect they want 1 of 2 of our D going back: Klefbom or Nurse PLUS. That is one of those 2 plus more. Expect they’d start discussion with next years #1 too. Their ask on P Sharp is too expensive and Seabrook is a part of their inner core

    Do not understand the angst over the wear and tear on Seabrook nor the salary hit. Many here vigorously supported signing Boychuk if he went UFA. Boychukl is a year older and signed for 7 yrs and $42M

    My concern is the trade assets involved going the other way

    I would make a high value trade if OEL, Seth Jones or Ryan Ellis were coming back here— right age to grow with the cluster but not for someone in their 30’s. I’d much rather sign Oduya for ridiculous $$ for 2 years ($11m) than trade away very valuable assets for a 30 yr old D with lots of milers on the chassis wanting a 5-6 year deal

  111. Rondo says:

    TheOtherJohn,

    Seth Jones would be expensive probably a #16 and #33 .

  112. TheOtherJohn says:

    Seth Jones would be Klefbom or Nurse plus a high draft pick. If we had a 21 year old F in the AHL with 20+ goals and 50+ pts that would work in place of the high draft pick too

  113. Visually better says:

    Ryan,

    I’m sure Buff would enjoy his cup of coffee in Edmonton, didn’t you know this is the new exciting place to play 🙂 Like the Seabrook thing we could discuss contract options with him being one year away from UFA if that is in fact correct. I know Chris Pronger took us for a ride and that would be the concern, but look what he did for our team in one year…

  114. Woodguy says:

    G Money:

    Jezzuz Gord help me if

    Correct.

  115. Ducey says:

    Rondo: TheOtherJohn, Seth Jones would be expensive probably a #16 and #33 .

    ??

    #16 and #33 wouldn’t get you #4 in the same draft year.

    Now that Jones is an established NHL player with huge upside, well, it would have to be one of the Big 4 plus Klefbom plus some picks. Even, then NASH probably doesn’t pull the trigger.

  116. Lowetide says:

    ironsight:
    I think I may be alone in this belief, but Oilers fans are seriously, seriously underrating Reinhart.He was the best defenseman in the WHL for consecutive seasons.As an objective measure, consider this from http://chlstats.pythonanywhere.com/

    2012-13 Reinhart – ESGF% 71% – ranks 1st among regular D in WHL
    2013-14 Reinhart – ESGF% 69% – ranks 4th among regular D in WHL

    2013-14 Nurse – ESGF% 52% – ranks 52nd among regular D in OHL
    2014-15 Nurse – ESGF% 62% – ranks 15th among regular D in OHL

    Obviously there are some massive context caveats to add and this is just one piece of the picture, but both players played on top tier teams in the Draft+2 years and Reinhart posted absolutely insane results at 5v5.Combine that with the anecdotal evidence that we know he was routinely playing major 5v5 minutes against the opposition’s best, and his results are even more impressive.

    Reinhart’s ability to be a huge part of this team’s future should not be dismissed lightly.

    I don’t think anyone is dismissing Reinhart’s future value. Most of the push back (from what I’ve seen) has to do with his being ‘NHL-ready’ this fall. That’s not clear based on his limited run in the NHL.

  117. LMHF#1 says:

    When does the buyout window close? I’m starting to get alarmed.

  118. Ducey says:

    LMHF#1: When does the buyout window closed? I’m starting to get alarmed.

    48 hrs after they sign Schultz – I think.

  119. Halfwise says:

    Doug McLachlan: Yup, Oduya and Hjalmarsson are the two that stir the drinks.

    For some inexplicable reason the theme song for “The Unknown Stuntman” just floated into my head.

    These two have made Seabrook and Keith look that much better for the Coach’s Corner segments every spring for sure.

    Ok, while I agree that the issue for Chicago is cap space and that some of these proposed offers for Seabrook are wildly high – this is not enough.Even for just one year of Seabrook.

    I expect that Chicago would want way more. But you don’t have to go up the totem pole much past Musil before it isn’t worth it to the Oilers.

    This talk of Nurse + Draisaitl etc etc is nuts. I’m offering something equally nuts but leaning out the other side of the canoe.

    Balance. LT loves it…

  120. Adam Wu says:

    If PC refuse 3 picks plus Nurse for Hamilton, I doubt he’s bite at Nurse plus anything for Seabrook. But it would make sense to kick the tires and see if Chicago might do something rash out of desperation.

  121. Doug McLachlan says:

    Ducey: 48 hrs after they sign Schultz – I think.

    From the prose that is he CBA. I am a lawyer and the expression “artful drafting” does come to mind.

    The key timeline is 13(2)(ii) or within a 48 hours period of the third day folloing the Oilers last arbitration award or settlement. Don’t start your clocks until we hear there is a deal in place with Schultz.

    13. The Club, in addition to other rights hereunder, at its option, by written notice delivered
    to the Player in accordance with Exhibit 3, may terminate this SPC on the following conditions:
    (a) The Club shall offer the Player on Unconditional Waivers, either before or
    promptly after the notice of intention to exercise the Ordinary Course Buy-Out option (herein
    called “notice of termination”) is given.
    Player of the notice of termination and the Player clearing Unconditional Waivers pursuant to
    Paragraph 13(a) above.
    (c) The notice of termination shall be effective if given in the form attached as CBA
    Exhibit 20, with a copy to the NHLPA and Central Registry as follows:
    (i) beginning the later of June 15 or forty-eight (48) hours after the
    conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals and ending at 5:00 p.m. New York time on June 30; and
    (ii) For Clubs who have Club or Player elected Salary Arbitration filings
    pursuant to Article 12, within the forty-eight (48) hour period beginning on the third day
    following the later of: (i) the Club’s receipt of its last salary arbitration award; or (ii) settlement
    of its last case (provided such award was received or such settlement occurred prior to 7:00 p.m.
    New York time; awards or settlements that occurred or were received at or after 7:00 p.m. New
    York time will be deemed to have occurred or received the following business day for purposes
    of this provision).

  122. Rondo says:

    Ducey,

    Bit of joke.

  123. Lowetide says:

    Doug: Good info, thanks.

  124. LMHF#1 says:

    Okay, got it. So we wait to hear news on Schultz.

  125. Revolved says:

    ironsight:
    I think I may be alone in this belief, but Oilers fans are seriously, seriously underrating Reinhart.He was the best defenseman in the WHL for consecutive seasons.As an objective measure, consider this from http://chlstats.pythonanywhere.com/

    2012-13 Reinhart – ESGF% 71% – ranks 1st among regular D in WHL
    2013-14 Reinhart – ESGF% 69% – ranks 4th among regular D in WHL

    2013-14 Nurse – ESGF% 52% – ranks 52nd among regular D in OHL
    2014-15 Nurse – ESGF% 62% – ranks 15th among regular D in OHL

    Obviously there are some massive context caveats to add and this is just one piece of the picture, but both players played on top tier teams in the Draft+2 years and Reinhart posted absolutely insane results at 5v5.Combine that with the anecdotal evidence that we know he was routinely playing major 5v5 minutes against the opposition’s best, and his results are even more impressive.

    Reinhart’s ability to be a huge part of this team’s future should not be dismissed lightly.

    Thank you for this! I agree that Grif is not getting the love that a shiny new toy should, but I guess it is that he cost us TWO shiny new toys.

    G has said it before, but the only reason Nurse gets so much more love than Grif is because we havn’t seen what Nurse looks like as a rookie in the AHL for more than a few games.

    If either are making the team out of camp, I expect it to be Grif, but would be happy if we had 6 actual healthy NHL defenders to begin with at least. Ie. not Ference.

  126. godot10 says:

    Lowetide: I don’t think anyone is dismissing Reinhart’s future value. Most of the push back (from what I’ve seen) has to do with his being ‘NHL-ready’ this fall. That’s not clear based on his limited run in the NHL.

    Yet, so many are insisting that Nurse is NHL-ready. Reinhart has done pretty much everything Nurse has done, and has had a full year in the AHL, and a cup of coffee in the NHL,

    but so many are insisting that Nurse is NHL-ready, and Reinhart is not.

    Reinhart, a Memorial Cup championship. Nurse, no.
    Reinhart, main shutdown D for World Juniors. Nurse, yes.
    Reinhart, AHL experience. Nurse, no.

    Reinhart had a better first year in the AHL than Klefbom did.

    Nurse likely has far more upside, but Reinhart is likely more ready for NHL action in October.

  127. Lowetide says:

    godot10: Yet, so many are insisting that Nurse is NHL-ready.Reinhart has done pretty much everything Nurse has done, and has had a full year in the AHL, and a cup of coffee in the NHL,

    but so many are insisting that Nurse is NHL-ready, and Reinhart is not.

    Reinhart, a Memorial Cup championship.Nurse, no.
    Reinhart, main shutdown D for World Juniors.Nurse, yes.
    Reinhart, AHL experience. Nurse, no.

    Reinhart had a better first year in the AHL than Klefbom did.

    Nurse likely has far more upside, but Reinhart is likely more ready for NHL action in October.

    Meh. I don’t think people are pushing one over another to a great extent and it’s pretty clear both are close. I have Reinhart playing 49 games, Nurse 70, but it could easily be turned around and no one would say much (I don’t think).

    http://lowetide.ca/2015/07/03/oilers-sign-mcdavid/

  128. Younger Oil says:

    Didn’t Chia say that he expects Reinhart to play for the Oilers all season, or something along those lines?

    His interviews have also made it seem like Nurse will be hard pressed to start in the NHL, but he likes the player.

  129. AsiaOil says:

    Seabrook is just a bad fit – best years would be when we are not serious contenders. Declining asset years and his contract would debilitate the years when we are actually contenders. Just drop the whole idea – it makes no sense in terms of cap or assets lost now and later due to cap crunch.

    We need to pick up some good bridge players (1-2 year contracts) from the UFA/trade bargain bin this summer and find a way to creatively move out our own bad contracts (Ference, Nikitin, Purcell). It’s not sexy work – Chia has already made his big moves – but good teams are built with small positive moves like these.

  130. jerry says:

    I don’t think I can read you anymore. You’re constantly writing about players nobody cares about, who may or may not ever have an NHL career. Is this because you saw what Tyler Dellow did and are hoping for a job in amateur scouting? Isn’t that the beauty of analytics? You never have to look at a player! You can draw all sorts of conclusions based on where he took a face off and the shots his line mates took. Yay. Lowetide , after this last post of yours, I’m convinced you have contributed to the problem that was the last ten years of futility.

    “The cost to the franchise ten years out could be dear”. Really?!! After ten years of promises of “the future”, did you actually write that with a straight face? Again, this is MacTavish-Think. Properly run organizations don’t manage their hockey team like a retirement plan…”some day…”. Ten years from now is an eternity. Assets can be moved, traded, and acquired in minutes. Look at Boston. Look at Calgary. Rebuilds don’t have to take years and patience; assets can be moved quickly for draft picks or the other way around, and Chiarelli gets that. I’m convinced this massive obsession with prospects and the future, patience and analytics, not to mention also-ran fourth line defensive guys like Boyd Gordon and Shawn Horcoff is what has killed the Oil for the past ten years.

    You keep putting up boxes as if that’s the player. Are you aware Corsi is a group stat? It’s really a chicken and egg thing: did the player have a favourable Corsi because the line played well, or did the line play well because the player had a favourable Corsi? Or was it coaching? Eberle’s now infamous remarks betray what Corsi did for the almighty Eakins 2014-2015 oilers: shoot the puck from crappy spots to improve your Corsi. And can you believe contracts are being negotiated on this stat? No wonder the game has gotten boring and low scoring.

    Let’s address some facts. We didn’t trade for one year of Cam Talbot. We traded for an audition for a possible lengthy deal if he performs. And who did we trade? Late picks. The odds of any of these picks having a substantial NHL career is about one in five. Cam Talbot already has an NHL career. What exactly is wrong with trading a “hopefully” for a “likely”? Nothing.

    Same goes for Reinhart. Everyone on Planet Oiler agrees it’s time to put some actual players on the ice and stop dreaming four years into the possible. Griffin Reinhart may not be a veteran NHL defenceman, but he’s a whole lot closer than your list: Mathew Barzal, Mitchell Stephens, Jonas Siegenhalter, Sergey Vborvskiy and Adam Huska
    Matt Barzal. (Are there two Matt Barzals?)

    According to Pete Chiarelli (who last time I looked knows a whole lot more about winning Stanley cups than you do), Reinhart has a very good chance of playing in the NHL next year. Your list of misfits has a 20% chance of ever having a career, with the exception of Barzal. Honestly, though, Lowetide, if this organization went ahead and drafted yet another smallish skill forward with “vision”, I think we might see pitchforks and torches at Kingsway. But hey, who needs a big, mean, nicely ripened, likely NHL-ready defenseman with leadership qualities when we can draft another smallish forward and a bunch of maybes? Oiler nation is dying to be sold more hope, dontcha know?

    Here’s another list you made recently:
    No. 48— C Nathan Noel, Saint John Sea Dogs (QMJHL) Wide range of skills, undersized.
    No. 67— L Vladimir Tkachev, Quebec Remparts (QMJHL) Small W, extremely skilled.
    No. 74— G Michael McNiven, Owen Sound Attack (OHL) 23GP, 2.78 .914
    No. 75— C Tyler Soy, Victoria Royals (WHL) Lightning quick forward.
    No. 84— C Dante Salituro, Ottawa 67’s (OHL). Small forward, terrific skill.
    No. 86— D Sebastian Aho, Skelleftea (SHL). Undersized, puck mover.
    No. 92— C Sebastian Ohlsson, Skelleftea (SHL). Small skill center showed well at U18’s.
    No. 103— C Brett McKenzie, North Bay Battalion (OHL).Two-way C with skill.
    No. 116— R Kay Schweri, Sherbrooke Phoenix (QMJHL).Fantastic playmaker.
    No. 117— D Loik Leveille, Cape Breton (QMHL). I can’t keep him off the list. Ultimate boom/boom.
    No. 118— C Brayden Burke, Lethbridge Hurricanes (WHL). Was very good in half a season.
    No. 120— L Pius Suter, Guelph Storm (OHL). A small, older, highly skilled C, scored 72 points.
    Shot in the dark: you’ve seen exactly none of these players play hockey in person.

    Last season I watched a Winnipeg Jets broadcast, and was amused at how they brought up the subject: “let’s talk about prospects! Seems like we haven’t talked about the organizations prospects in weeks!”

    Exactly. The Edmonton Oilers are an NHL team. I repeat: the Edmonton Oilers are an NHL team. Talking endlessly about maybes is the poison that Mactavish fed us all, and you’re just feeding the beast.

    Honestly, only in Lowetide and MacT land would a guy like Boyd Gordon get so much press. In any competing market, he’s liked, but not revered, as he is in Oiler Nation.

    Which brings me to Brent Seabrook. You wrote a blog questioning the cost of Brent Seabrook. I think your issue is you value the possible much more than you do the actual. Peter Chiarelli has embarked upon an idea that seems lost upon you: now is good. Again, this is a sports team, not a long term retirement plan. Having good players on the ice is more fun than reading what Lowetide has to say about people he’s never watched or we’ve never heard of.

    News bulletin: when your NHL team has NHL players, it’s fun!

    The last ten years has really warped the perceptions of most of the writers in oilers nation. Lowetide is obsessed with crunching numbers on people who will likely never have an NHL career, and then thinks Brent Seabrook (Brent Seabrook!!) is a bad idea. Others mourn the loss of Boyd Gordon. Others still think of bringing back Horcoff.

    This is where we have arrived. Celebrating boredom, mediocrity, prospects, instead of excitement, excellence, and actual players. Thank you, Lowetide. You’ve guided us so well. This organization is starved for ten more Brett Mackenzies. Seabrook be damned!

    How did we get here, to this place where Leon Draisaitl matters more than Brent Seabrook?

    It lies in the need to be smarter than everyone else. Really, that’s the crux of it. It’s the mistake Kevin Lowe made. The same mistake Tambo made. And MacT. And Lowetide. “Pay no attention to the results, were smarter than you.”

    Lowetide likes to refer to analytics as “math”. Oh my, embarassing. Math is logic. Math is abstract thought. Analytics is not math. Well, let’s be straight, counting shots and zone starts is technically “math”, but that’s in the same vein as “2+3” is math. Bravo, you can count. But let’s not confuse this with calculus here. Five guys go on the ice in one of two zones and you count shots. Lines are sometimes matched and from this you project a career. Nice work if you can get it!

    Here my request: stop trying to pretend you’re smarter than the NHL. You make lists. That’s what you do. And then you look at great players and pontificate on why we shouldn’t obtain them, because we need more magic beans.

    So on magic beans, I propose a challenge:

    You count shots and pretend Jonas Seignehalter is a “dear” price for an NHL ready defenseman (gee the oilers don’t need any of those). In other words, you play “expert”, and I will throw darts. 2015 draft. I’ll throw some darts at a list of 2015 draft prospects, and you do your analytics. Let’s see who’s picks win! Could be fun 🙂

  131. rickithebear says:

    Zatch
    Droping from 1st comp to 2nd comp pair to get back to an elite Ca/60 rate for oduya
    rather than say
    Seabrook droping to 3rd’s like ference to get an average Ca/60 rate.

    Chia saw that from ference in 11-12; 12-13.

  132. admiralmark says:

    Ryan: I don’t usually comment during the day due to having to actually work… But you guys are killing me today.Seabrook for Musil? Good luck with that.

    I know hey?! I had to check I wasn’t on the ON Blog by accident with some of the proposals here today.

  133. rickithebear says:

    G Money: The interesting thing is that people here have been downplaying Oduya’s skills, but if you look at the Vollman’s, Oduya is more important to their team than is Seabrook.

    A partner for Keith with generous ZS and facing second pairing comp is a far easier role to replace than the guy tasked with sawing off or better paired with Hjalmarsson facing the toughest comps and the toughest ZS every night.

    Hello!

    No 2nd comp D man should win the Norris!

  134. linkfromhyrule says:

    jerry: I don’t think I can read you anymore.

    What an ugly, toxic comment. I know I won’t read your comments any more.

  135. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Doug McLachlan: I did not listen to Stauffer last night so if he said Seabrook by name, fair enough, but I was only able to review his tweet where in response to a query about Franson, he implied we should be looking at another Sports Corp client.

    In today’s show Stauffer mentioned Seabrook by name approximately 11,934 times.

  136. Woodguy says:

    jerry,

    I don’t think I can read you anymore

    *whew*

    Also,

    “The jerk store called…….”

  137. Showerhead says:

    jerry,

    When you dodge the sheer noise of “I can’t read you anymore”, “Peter Chiarelli knows more about winning than you do” and “you’re trying to get a job”, your post makes an argument or two.

    Those arguments tend to be decent and include some flaws.

    Gordon – LT had him traded as soon as he realized Todd McLellan doesn’t run zonestarts like the previous coaches did. I’d say he predicted that correctly without shedding tears, so I am confused by your anger.

    Horcoff – LT barely mentioned him, suggesting he’s a good guy whose wheels might be too far gone, so I don’t understand him being used as an example.

    Talbot – you’re exactly right. They traded picks for a one year audition. I seem to think Lowetide was as on-board for that as you are so I am confused by your anger.

    Draisaitl – it’s entirely possible that the next 7 years’ control of Draisaitl (or is it 6?) will be worth more to Edmonton than the next 7 years’ worth of Seabrook would be. Even if you completely disagree with this statement, you’re suggesting Edmonton trade 7 (or 6) years worth of Draisaitl for a one year “audition” of Brent Seabrook.

    In short, you said some things worth talking about and then coated them in a pile of anger, noise, and a rather confused argument wherein you and Lowetide actually agree on many things. Almost everything, actually – except Seabrook.

    Why? My guess is you’re a fan of BS.

  138. TheOtherJohn says:

    jerry,

    Jerry

    Do not mean to be unduly harsh but nobody forces you to come here. Nobody. Well unless you have made Lowtide your homepage and are not able to figure out how to change it. Ask for help there are lots of helpful people here.

    I disagree with lots of what is written here. Many disagree with my views but, again, if you don’t like the site do not come here. Again. Ever.

    I am offended because you have grouped Lowetide in with Lowe and Tambellini and MacT and the first 2 are unconscionable cheap shots. If anything LT is an optimistic.

    Hopefully by now you realize many of us read here because we like coming back. Fortunately, you need never come back

    Id tell you to F&&k off but LT doesn’t like swearing.

  139. Lowetide says:

    Jerry: Helluva post. I’m not trading Darnell Nurse or Oscar Klefbom for one year of Brent Seabrook. Hope you continue to read (and post) and thank you for dropping in. You should definitely post more.

  140. G Money says:

    jerry,

    Ya hear that LT!

    The last ten years are YOUR FAULT!

    If only you hadn’t distracted Lowe, Tambo, and MacT with all of your draft nonsense, we’d have a good team by now.

    DAMN YOU!

  141. TheOtherJohn says:

    Lowetide,

    See, both optimistic and a gentleman.

  142. GCW_69 says:

    Lowetide: Meh. I don’t think people are pushing one over another to a great extent and it’s pretty clear both are close. I have Reinhart playing 49 games, Nurse 70, but it could easily be turned around and no one would say much (I don’t think).

    http://lowetide.ca/2015/07/03/oilers-sign-mcdavid/

    I don’t think there is any substantial evidence that either are ready. I prefer the Detriot model of evidence. Give me a long stretch where the player dominates AHL competition. Until then, its nothing more than wishful thinking, especially for defenders.

    And yes, I know, DeKeyser was rushed. Exception, not the rule.

  143. G Money says:

    Lowetide,

    You, my good sir, have the skin of a bull elephant. And I truly mean that in a genuinely complimentary way!!

  144. TheOtherJohn says:

    G Money,

    In fairness to Jerry it’s only 9 years it just seems an awful lot longer

  145. admiralmark says:

    Lowetide: Jerry: Helluva post. I’m not trading Darnell Nurse or Oscar Klefbom for one year of Brent Seabrook. Hope you continue to read (and post) and thank you for dropping in. You should definitely post more.

    Once again. Class act. Through and through.

  146. GCW_69 says:

    Bruce McCurdy: In today’s show Stauffer mentioned Seabrook by name approximately 11,934 times.

    LT needs to get an upgrade to his site so it has threads like Reddit and CnB and ability to fav/rec like ON and CnB.

    Comments like this deserve a “fav” …

  147. Numenius says:

    jerry,

    Just… wow.

  148. Lowetide says:

    G Money:
    Lowetide,

    You, my good sir, have the skin of a bull elephant.And I truly mean that in a genuinely complimentary way!!

    Grew up Jehovah’s Witness, married a Catholic. After that, you fear machete’s and little else. 🙂 Seriously, and this is my combined experience running this blog talking, the chances of Jerry turning into an outstanding commenter here are quite high. If I added up all the posts like that one over the years, damn near every one of them is authored by someone who stuck around long enough to add genuine depth and clarity to our conversation.

  149. frjohnk says:

    jerry,

    Finally a poster that has the cojones to tell Lowetide what we are all thinking but the problem is that none of us are man enough.

    I think one of the issues is that there are no other blogs out there that all of us would feel welcome. We need a blog that is honest and cuts right to the point all the while that makes us feel its like home.

    We need a new blog home

    So you need to start a blog and tell it like it should be.

    And we will follow

    We promise.

  150. Soup Fascist says:

    Numenius: jerry, Just… wow.

    After reading that diatribe, I think the word everyone is searching for is ……. “ANYWAY …….”

  151. Bank Shot says:

    TheOtherJohn:
    Trading for Seabrook would be very very expensive. Suspect they want 1 of 2 of ourD going back: Klefbom or Nurse PLUS. That is one of those 2 plus more. Expect they’d start discussion with next years #1 too. Their ask on P Sharp is too expensive and Seabrook is a part of their inner core

    Do not understand the angst over the wear and tear on Seabrook nor the salary hit. Many here vigorously supported signingBoychuk if he went UFA. Boychukl is a year older and signed for 7 yrs and $42M

    My concern is the trade assets involved going the other way

    I would make a high value trade if OEL, Seth Jones or Ryan Ellis were coming back here— right age to grow with the cluster but not for someone in their 30’s. I’d much rather sign Oduya for ridiculous $$ for 2 years ($11m)than trade away very valuable assets for a 30 yr old D with lots of milers on the chassis wanting a 5-6 year deal

    Well you don’t trade for Seabrook if the cost is that high. He’s only avavilible if Chicago has no other choice. So you pay picks and B level prospects.

    The thing to remember though is that teams usually don’t win the cup by being patient. They are agressive and make trades that improve the team. Anaheim acquired Pronger. Old guy. Boston acquired Recchi. Old Guy. Chicago acquired Hossa. Old guy. Pittsburgh signed old guy Gonchar.

    There isn’t any correlation between size and winning in the NHL but there is one between age and winning. It’s not the youngest teams that win……

  152. frjohnk says:

    Lowetide: Grew up Jehovah’s Witness, married a Catholic. After that, you fear machete’s and little else.

    Holy crap. Exactly the same with me. Seriously.

  153. Lowetide says:

    frjohnk: Holy crap. Exactly the same with me.Seriously.

    NO WAY!!!! OMG!!!!

  154. Doug McLachlan says:

    Bruce McCurdy: In today’s show Stauffer mentioned Seabrook by name approximately 11,934 times.

    Oh sure, just undermine my premise with facts will you…

  155. Revolved says:

    Lowetide: Meh. I don’t think people are pushing one over another to a great extent and it’s pretty clear both are close. I have Reinhart playing 49 games, Nurse 70, but it could easily be turned around and no one would say much (I don’t think).

    http://lowetide.ca/2015/07/03/oilers-sign-mcdavid/

    Just to continue giving LT shit, we will all definitely remember if those numbers get turned around! Not necessarily just because every one of the opinions posted to this blog is archived forever, but because of the 5000 starting D pairings that have been posted here that include Nurse in the top 4.

    Also, just like we’ll never forget you did see Seabrook as the answer to our top pairing D problem not too long ago! Glad to hear the tune has changed on him.

    http://lowetide.ca/2015/06/16/sweet-home-chicago/

  156. commonfan14 says:

    G Money: Ya hear that LT!
    The last ten years are YOUR FAULT!
    If only you hadn’t distracted Lowe, Tambo, and MacT with all of your draft nonsense, we’d have a good team by now.
    DAMN YOU!

    I think LT may have traded Jay Buhner somewhere in there too.

    Something about Ken Phelps’ bat…

  157. TheOtherJohn says:

    Bank Shot,

    Ok, got it. We steal him for nothing. Realize we are now the smartest guys in the NHL but why wouldn’t other 28 teams try to get in on the FIRE SALE by Chicago. Don’t think our draft picks slot in 28th to 30th anymore so may be less attractive moving forward

    As to young people don’t win SC: Malkin, Crosby, Toews, Kane,Doughty Getzlaf/Perry not sure you are right

  158. Lowetide says:

    Blues signed Paajarvi. It’s a good day.

  159. Doug McLachlan says:

    Lowetide: Grew up Jehovah’s Witness, married a Catholic. After that, you fear machete’s and little else. Seriously, and this is my combined experience running this blog talking, the chances of Jerry turning into an outstanding commenter here are quite high. If I added up all the posts like that one over the years, damn near every one of them is authored by someone who stuck around long enough to add genuine depth and clarity to our conversation.

    So there’s hope for me too. Awesome.

    Seriously, hope we cross paths near a beer tap sometime. Would be proud to buy you a pint for all the great quenching posts you’ve given us through the this 9 year journey through the desert.

  160. Soup Fascist says:

    Would Chicago trade Bickell for Ference?

    While both players are overpriced it does address some needs for each team. The Oilers still need some grit in their top 9. And moving Ference allows Nikitin to be your #7 and you can hold your nose until his contract is done next year, without buying him out. May allow Oilers to move a Hendricks / Korpikoski / Purcell (if there is a market, even at salary retained).

    Minor cap hit savings for Chicago, but they get rid of an overpriced forward they HS’d in Finals and get a “character guy” that can play 10 – 12 mins a night in a 5/6 role. The Hawks ran perilously low on D last year during the playoffs and it buys them a year or two until their young D are ready. They do need to move Bickell and/or Sharp.

    Bad contract for bad contract that might help both teams – at least be easier to digest if it helps address a need. Also, both players may benefit from a fresh start.

    Not sure if Bickell has NMV – I am guessing Ference would waive his to go to Chicago.

  161. Ca$h-McMoney! says:

    This debate is ridiculous.

    Virtually no one is saying that they don’t want Seabrook on the team (maybe Ricki, but he has his reasons).

    It’s all about the price.

    The idea that paying ANY price to acquire an older player on a 1 year contract is stupid. Anyone arguing that is being reckless.

    On the flip side, if we can get him cheaply we should do it. He’s not so old that he won’t be useful. Worst case scenario we could flip him at the deadline for at least a 1st rounder, maybe more.

    As always, it’s all about price.

  162. Lowetide says:

    Revolved: Just to continue giving LT shit, we will all definitely remember if those numbers get turned around! Not necessarily just because every one of the opinions posted to this blog is archived forever, but because of the 5000 starting D pairings that have been posted here that include Nurse in the top 4.

    Also, just like we’ll never forget you did see Seabrook as the answer to our top pairing D problem not too long ago!Glad to hear the tune has changed on him.

    http://lowetide.ca/2015/06/16/sweet-home-chicago/

    Tune hasn’t changed on Seabrook, but Oilers acquired Sekera instead. Good call by PC.

  163. frjohnk says:

    Lowetide: NO WAY!!!! OMG!!!!

    Well I don’t fear machetes.

    But I did grow up JW, mom was, dad wasn’t. So kinda celebrated birthdays and holidays but felt it was bad because THE TRUTH said it was wrong. Glad I broke out of those chains.

    Wandered in the desert for quite a few years until I found a beauty gal who is Catholic.

    If not for her, oh boy, not sure where I would be right now.

  164. Ca$h-McMoney! says:

    Soup Fascist,

    I’m actually surprised a team like Buffalo hasn’t grabbed Bickell yet. I could see Buffalo offering a 4th round pick in exchange for Bickell and Chicago’s 2nd rounder.

    Bickell isn’t a terrible hockey player, he’s just overpaid. He would be one of the better wingers in Buffalo for the next couple of years. On top of that they would get themselves a nice boost at the draft.

    Chicago could then use Bickell’s money on Kruger.

    It’s a rare win-win.

  165. Lowetide says:

    frjohnk: Well I don’t fear machetes.

    But I did grow up JW, mom was, dad wasn’t.So kinda celebrated birthdays and holidays but felt it was bad because THE TRUTH said it was wrong.Glad I broke out of those chains.

    Wandered in the desert for quite a few years until I found a beauty gal who is Catholic.

    If not for her, oh boy, not sure where I would be right now.

    Good to hear. Kind of the same story, but I found her early on. I haven’t seen a truth book in 30 years!

  166. B S says:

    Showerhead: Why? My guess is you’re a fan of BS.

    I have a fan? I’m flattered. Tell them to donate their admiration and adoration to LT when I’m not around.

  167. Lowetide says:

    Ca$h-McMoney!:
    Soup Fascist,

    I’m actually surprised a team like Buffalo hasn’t grabbed Bickell yet.I could see Buffalo offering a 4th round pick in exchange for Bickell and Chicago’s 2nd rounder.

    Bickell isn’t a terrible hockey player, he’s just overpaid.He would be one of the better wingers in Buffalo for the next couple of years.On top of that they would get themselves a nice boost at the draft.

    Chicago could then use Bickell’s money on Kruger.

    It’s a rare win-win.

    I think teams may be squeezing Chicago. Agent Tom Lynn was on my show today and agreed.

  168. Younger Oil says:

    jerry,

    I have never seen so much contempt towards such a respectful, hard working man who everyone else on this blog respects, appreciates, and idolizes.

    What has Boyd Gordon ever done to you?!?!?!?

  169. dessert1111 says:

    I must echo the sentiments that some are vastly over estimating the cost of Seabrook.

    He’s essentially a one-year rental with a high cap hit on a team who can’t afford him.

    He gets an offensive push, so either his role in Edm would change or he’d replace Schultz. Would the cap savings in a swap like that be worth it to Chi if they thought he could put up points in their system?

    I think something like a B prospect (like Musil) + a 3rd + a conditional 2nd (on Seabrook resigning) would be close to fair value since Chi is doing this theoretical trade to save $.

    Or, Schultz + a mid round pick and maybe another smaller exchange of roster players (Edm takes Seabrook and a more expensive role player for Schultz and a less expensive role player, for example).

    In reality I don’t think Seabrook is a great fit because of age, cap hit, and the fact he doesn’t take the toughest assignments. Plus the acquisition cost is likely to be a lot higher than what I peg as fair value because another team will likely be willing to overpay.

    If Stauffer is mentioning it this much we have to pay attention, but unless the cost is very low, I’d look for a cheaper, younger guy if we are prepared to trade off real assets. There are better fits out there.

  170. Revolved says:

    Lowetide: Tune hasn’t changed on Seabrook, but Oilers acquired Sekera instead. Good call by PC.

    Agreed, good move. Always best when it just costs cash, and I think it’s important he’s used to playing the toughs.

    If the Oilers are going to improve the D any more before this season, I think it will just be to get the ball rolling a little faster. It’s got to be the kids that drive this one home.

  171. Doug McLachlan says:

    I get where all the Seabrook interest is coming from given the Hawks’ cap crunc.

    Don’t forget, Chia at his July 1st presser threw out this comment about Sekera “IF” he’s in the top pair. I agree, there are other things being looked at and maybe he’s just waiting to get the deal with Schultz done, do a buy-out or three and do some more shopping or, maybe, he has a couple more irons in the fire.

    But we’ve chewed on the Hawks for a long-enough. Let’s move on to Tampa.

    They are almost as tight to the cap as Chicago, General Fanager has it as $812K in the black, with young Vlaislav Namestikov still to sign. He was issued a Qualifying Offer but has not signed nor has he taken the Lightning to arbitration.

    Still would be surprised to see him get less than $1.4-$1.5M as his AVV was over $1M for his last deal and they liked him enough, he’s only 22, to get some ice-time in the Cup final.

    That would take them over the cap. Perhaps their cap problem is all resolvable ala Savard, Pronger and the LTIR solution (which I freely admit I don’t understand) as D Mattias Ohlund’s knees haven’t seen him play since May of 2011. Still, his $3.607,142 of NMC Cap space that needs to be addressed in some manner.

    Maybe Yzerman is content to let his Cup-finalists ride with an aim to get Drouin more ice-time but that is a very, very thin margin.

    Not a lot of obvious salary shift choices available either but one name that comes to mind is 30 year old Braydon Coburn’s $4.5M cap hit. He’s in the nice big blue circle right in the shut-down quadrant of the chart. Like Seabrook, he’s in the last year of his deal and while Chicago is dealing with max $ contracts on Toews and Kane this year – Stamkos will sign his monster extension once Yzerman can get him to sign.

    I know he’s a dreaded left-handed d-man but might Coburn be another Chia target?

  172. dessert1111 says:

    Ca$h-McMoney!:
    This debate is ridiculous.

    Virtually no one is saying that they don’t want Seabrook on the team (maybe Ricki, but he has his reasons).

    It’s all about the price.

    The idea that paying ANY price to acquire an older player on a 1 year contract is stupid.Anyone arguing that is being reckless.

    On the flip side, if we can get him cheaply we should do it.He’s not so old that he won’t be useful.Worst case scenario we could flip him at the deadline for at least a 1st rounder, maybe more.

    As always, it’s all about price.

    Just read this after posting my comment – I agree 100%.

  173. Lowetide says:

    Revolved: Agreed, good move.Always best when it just costs cash, and I think it’s important he’s used to playing the toughs.

    If the Oilers are going to improve the D any more before this season, I think it will just be to get the ball rolling a little faster.It’s got to be the kids that drive this one home.

    Yep. If it was a second and Dillon Simpson, it would be done. And dealing Nurse or Klefbom (or Leon) is a bad idea.

  174. commonfan14 says:

    Lowetide: I think teams may be squeezing Chicago.

    I wonder what would happen if all the other teams just refused to take any salary from them.

    They’re already over the cap and missed the buyout window. Is there even a rule in place to deal with something like that?

  175. stush18 says:

    Ca$h-McMoney!:
    Soup Fascist,

    I’m actually surprised a team like Buffalo hasn’t grabbed Bickell yet.I could see Buffalo offering a 4th round pick in exchange for Bickell and Chicago’s 2nd rounder.

    Bickell isn’t a terrible hockey player, he’s just overpaid.He would be one of the better wingers in Buffalo for the next couple of years.On top of that they would get themselves a nice boost at the draft.

    Chicago could then use Bickell’s money on Kruger.

    It’s a rare win-win.

    I think bickell is worth at least a fourth rounder, more likely a 3rd or even a second if a team gets desperate enough. He was good in the playoffs for a couple years, and power forwards carry a lot of value.

    No way Chicago adds a second rounder as well

  176. Bank Shot says:

    TheOtherJohn:
    Bank Shot,

    Ok, got it. We steal him for nothing. Realize we arenow the smartest guys in the NHL but why wouldn’t other 28 teams try to get in on the FIRE SALE by Chicago. Don’t think our draft picks slot in 28th to 30th anymore so may be less attractive moving forward

    As to young people don’t win SC: Malkin, Crosby, Toews, Kane,DoughtyGetzlaf/Perry not sure you are right

    The price given up for star players is almost always underwhelming. “A” prospects basically never go back the other way.

    So the Oilers could get him, and the price wouldn’t be franchise destroying. It wouldn’t include Nurse or Draisaitl guarenteed. It probably includes the 2016 first rounder. As it stands its going to be a rather high one.

    Funny you should mention names like Malkin, Getzlaf and the rest of those names. All of them with the excpetion of Doughty won cups on teams that had budding superstars on entry level contracts. That’s the surest way to win. We only have three years of McDavid at $4 million and I think Chia should make the most of it.

    BTW, I didn’t say that young guys don;t win the cup. I said there is a correlation in the NHL between age and winning and it favours the older teams.

  177. malinpaul says:

    Cap strategy will be crucial to this team. My vote is for a blockbuster trade to get a real deal #1D. I would move anyone except McDavid and pile on picks and prospects to get the deal done.

    Hall + Eberle + 1st pick in 2016 and 2017 – I am not for a million years saying we would need to offer that much, but it would be worth it.

    would that get you a Victor Hedman or a Erik Karlsson? A mid 20s bona fide Norris candidate… That is the ask and if you look at basically every stanley cup winning team you will see it is a REQUIREMENT.

    WE NEED A MID 20s norris candidate.

  178. Braden88 says:

    I give mad props to Jerry for making such a “challenging” comment. not all of us are scholars or great authors. we dont always seperate our emotions from our opinions. and that doesn’t mean that his opinions werent well though out. mabe he just didn’t convey them in the best way.

    As said by a few already. he does raise some very good points worth talking about. Heres one that peaked my interest.

    “Are you aware Corsi is a group stat? It’s really a chicken and egg thing: did the player have a favourable Corsi because the line played well, or did the line play well because the player had a favourable Corsi? Or was it coaching?”

    I have often thought about this. Heres my thought. If Hockey was simple enough that we could break it down into numbers, then it would simply be a rubicks cube or a soduku puzzle. As it stands, Hockey is a group sport played on Ice with equipment; utilizing individual skill and strategy as well as team skill and strategy. ON TOP OF THAT this group of players vary in their role(wing, center, defense, goalie). AND on top of that. each role breaksdown into niches( skilled forward, power forward, ulitity, enforcer, 2-way, defensize D, Offensive D, 2-way D, ETC). Beyond even all of this. we have each player varying in performance. and Beyond that what we are really talking about is CHOICE. what each player does at any given time on and off the ice in any shape, form, or fashion, is based on CHOICE. Stats calculate the trends of these choices, marking consistency. But Trends will not and cannot replace choice. and choice can never be calculated. if we can do that, we can predict the future.

    This game is so complex and nuanced that we all need to lean back and accept the fact that what we are REALLY doing here is indulging in a hobby. I can love my stamp collection, but that stamp collection isn’t going to solve world hunger or win a hockey team a stanley cup.

    Stats in sports ARE relevent, but I like to think of it as the frame around the picture, and not the picture itself.

    Love the post Jerry. I got respect for you being a man that puts himself out there as he is. good and bad. I just hope you understand that everyone is entitled to respect.

  179. Profit says:

    Jerry – I liked your comment, actually. Lose some of the insults and it’s a solid piece, which you obviously put some time into it. I echo LT’s comments that you should post more, it is nice to see a non-trolling counter point. But if you “can’t read it anymore” then don’t. Heaven knows during last season I couldn’t (not because of LT or the posters but I couldn’t take the flailing org).

    LT’s got a thick skin, he can take a well put together argument, and I compliment him on his respectful answer to your comment.

    Groupthink is a thing and no community no matter how savvy can say they don’t get infected. We have been infected here in the past and will be in the future. Whether that’s the relative value of future picks, the worth of Horc or the lengths of sideburns of player du jour (Marincin was the last, who’s next?).

    I like competing view points on here, makes reading the comments interesting. And as an aside, LT’s blog is the ONLY site on the entire internet where I read the comments.

    And my 2 cents on Seabrook like Ca$h-McMoney, it is all about price. Seabrook for Nurse, Drai + + no. Seabrook for Simpson + 2 third round picks? Of course! Everything else is arguing about the price.

  180. Soup Fascist says:

    IF – big if – the Oilers were to sign an early 30’s defenseman like Seabrook, would it make sense to front load the actual dollars to the front end of the contract to make him more palatable down the road to non-cap teams who may be more interested in getting to the cap floor while meeting team budgets?

    So if Seabrook was 6 years $42M $7M AAV for example, pay him $9M / $9M / $7M / $7M / $5M / $5M – or front end with a signing bonus. So if you want to move him at age 33 or 34 it is way easier to move him to a Nashville / Ottawa / Florida non-cap team? I know there are rules that limit the fluctuation year-over-year but at least you would have a chance to move the guy when you need the cap space as per FrJohnk’s handy dandy chart at the beginning of the thread.

    I realize I am pretty free with Mr. Katz’s money, but hey, that is the kind of guy I am.

  181. Soup Fascist says:

    malinpaul: Cap strategy will be crucial to this team. My vote is for a blockbuster trade to get a real deal #1D. I would move anyone except McDavid and pile on picks and prospects to get the deal done. Hall + Eberle + 1st pick in 2016 and 2017 – I am not for a million years saying we would need to offer that much, but it would be worth it. would that get you a Victor Hedman or a Erik Karlsson? A mid 20s bona fide Norris candidate… That is the ask and if you look at basically every stanley cup winning team you will see it is a REQUIREMENT.WE NEED A MID 20s norris candidate.

    Holy Overpay, Batman!

    Why would you want to pay more than you really have to? I have an ’04 Buick for sale. You are welcome to make me an offer ANYTIME!

  182. DocFan says:

    What happened to the need for balance?

    You can’t spend your days planning for 10 years out, but you can’t also mortgage the future for today. Gotta be something in between.

    We’ve changed/added 7 new players to the roster (maybe 8?). I think prudence dictates some time to see what we have.

    Then decide what we want to mortgage in order to improve. No rushing, take your time.

  183. Braden88 says:

    Profit,

    agreed.

    we all need to be reminded of the reasons why we love hockey, otherwise following it will wear you down, instead of build you up.

    I often take a step back from reading blogs. sometimes its more mind numbing than enlightening. but those are just seasons in life. Get refreshed and come back ready for more.

    I fell like im not really talking about hockey anymore. 🙂

  184. Магия 10 says:

    Lowetide: Seriously, and this is my combined experience running this blog talking, the chances of Jerry turning into an outstanding commenter here are quite high.

    Agreed.
    Gold , Jerry.

  185. spoiler says:

    Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, but maybe Stauffer is reading the smoke signals wrong. Maybe all the talk between Chia and Bowman is about trading them a spare defenseman on retained salary once they clear enough cap space.

  186. Revolved says:

    Braden88:
    I give mad props to Jerry for making such a “challenging” comment. not all of us are scholars or great authors. we dont always seperate our emotions from our opinions. and that doesn’t mean that his opinions werent well though out. mabe he just didn’t convey them in the best way.

    As said by a few already. he does raise some very good points worth talking about. Heres one thatpeaked my interest.

    “Are you aware Corsi is a group stat? It’s really a chicken and egg thing: did the player have a favourable Corsi because the line played well, or did the line play well because the player had a favourable Corsi? Or was it coaching?”

    I have often thought about this. Heres my thought. If Hockey was simple enough that we could break it down into numbers, then it would simply be a rubicks cube or a soduku puzzle. As it stands, Hockey is a group sport played on Ice with equipment; utilizing individual skill and strategy as well as team skill and strategy. ON TOP OF THAT this group of players vary in their role(wing, center, defense, goalie). AND on top of that. each role breaksdown into niches( skilled forward, power forward, ulitity, enforcer, 2-way, defensize D, Offensive D, 2-way D, ETC). Beyond even all of this. we have each player varying in performance. and Beyond that what we are really talking about is CHOICE. what each player does at any given time on and off the ice in any shape, form, or fashion, is based on CHOICE. Stats calculate the trends of these choices, marking consistency. But Trends will not and cannot replace choice. and choice can never be calculated. if we can do that, we can predict the future.

    This game is so complex and nuanced that we all need to lean back and accept the fact that what we are REALLY doing here is indulging in a hobby. I can love my stamp collection, but that stamp collection isn’t going to solve world hunger or win a hockey team a stanley cup.

    Stats in sports ARE relevent, but I like to think of it as the frame around the picture, and not the picture itself.

    Love the post Jerry. I got respect for you being a man that puts himself out there as he is. good and bad. I just hope you understand that everyone is entitled to respect.

    But the thing about stats, like corsi, are that they represent he outcomes of players choices. By building up enough different stats about a player, we can begin to separate their individual contributions and to try to predict how they will perform in the future.

    The thing I love about the stats world (and I definitely spend more time looking at the numbers than watching the games because I live in a very inconvenient time zone now) is that it is constantly improving and trying new ways to increase the predictability of the future. Turning something as chaotic and random as hockey into numbers that produce predictability is an amazing human feat.

  187. godot10 says:

    Soup Fascist:
    IF – big if – the Oilers were to sign an early 30’s defenseman like Seabrook, would it make sense to front load the actual dollars to the front end of the contractto make him more palatable down the road to non-cap teams who may be more interested in getting to the cap floor while meeting team budgets?

    So if Seabrook was 6 years $42M $7M AAV for example, pay him$9M / $9M / $7M / $7M / $5M / $5M – or front end with a signing bonus.So if you want to move him at age 33 or 34 it is way easier to move him to a Nashville / Ottawa / Florida non-capteam?I know there are rules that limit the fluctuation year-over-year but at least you would have a chance to move the guy when you need the cap space as per FrJohnk’shandy dandy chart at the beginning of the thread.

    I realize I am pretty free with Mr. Katz’s money, but hey, that is the kind of guy I am.

    Seabrook’s next contract will almost certainly come with a full NMC, or a very strong one.

    Plus there are now cap recapture penalties on front loaded contracts. You lose the ability to project your cap with front loaded contracts because the player might retire, and one will end up with heavy cap recapture charges.

    Plus, Seabrook is NOT likely to want to move to a remote hockey market for the last few years of his career playing for a non-playoff budget team.

    One shouldn’t use gimmicks or hope for long term cap planning. Gimmicks are only for the short term.

  188. Ca$h-McMoney! says:

    stush18: I think bickell is worth at least a fourth rounder, more likely a 3rd or even a second if a team gets desperate enough. He was good in the playoffs for a couple years, and power forwards carry a lot of value.

    No way Chicago adds a second rounder as well

    If that’s the best offer they’ll take it, and they won’t wait forever to do it. They need the cap space, no ifs ands or buts. If they don’t get a good offer they’ll take a bad one.

    They need cash to retain Seabrook, and while they’re at it they seem to be very interested in retaining Seabrook. Giving Bickell/Sharp/Crawford away for pennies on the dollar may be required to do that.

    I agree Bickell is worth more, but that assumes the seller has the option of not selling. I’m not sure Chicago is in that position with Bickell.

  189. book¡je says:

    jerry,

    Kids, pay attention, this post is a great example of the difference between reading something and comprehending it.

  190. Магия 10 says:

    spoiler:
    Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, but maybe Stauffer is reading the smoke signals wrong. Maybe all the talk between Chia and Bowman is about trading them a spare defenseman on retained salary once they clear enough cap space.

    smoke could just be Chia staying on top of the D market same way he stayed on top if the G market. patiently talking to everyone with a major piece. stauffer may connected enough to know who’s he talking to but what chia’s actually willing to roll the dice on may not get as far as garfield.

  191. spoiler says:

    Brent Seabrook

    OZ% — 34.9%

    This is scarcely a push. Don’t know who has been selling that narrative but it is wrong.

    Other than Rundblad, it looks like the coach just rolls the D pairings as everyone else is within 2% of 33.3%.

    Opp CF/60… Seabrook and Keith are about a half shot per 60 below Hjalmy and Oduya… which follows with the theory above, while once in a blue moon, either S/K are fed some butter or H/O are facing the heavies. OppCF% is all of 0.2% different.

    Seabrook has missed something like 4 games in the past 10 years, doesn’t play a rough and tumble style and is blessed with a beauty stride. HIs decline is likely to be very gradual. This is not a broken down body.

    That said, we already have him in Sekera, so for me his role is already taken. As has been mentioned many times above, it all depends on cost, but there is really no need for us to overpay or even pay market.

  192. thejonrmcleod says:

    Lowetide,

    They don’t knock on your door?

  193. oilswell says:

    Ca$h-McMoney!:
    It’s all about the price.

    I tried to subtract the frenzied slashing at Lowtide with a stick, and I think Jerry’s very nice rant had some substantive differences that go beyond price. I mean, I think we can assume that Jerry wouldn’t be in favour of trading McDavid for Jiri Hudler just because McDavid = worthless prospect and Hudler = proven talent in the NOW (top 8 in scoring in 2015). So the disagreements are lower level. I think I perceived a couple of possible differences raised by Jerry.

    Prospects are overvalued. Lots of merit in this complaint if you ask me. However I invite anyone to look at the development history of Duncan Keith (Conn Smythe winner 2015) and Jamie Benn (Art Ross winner 2015). What leagues did they play in, where were they drafted, and what time frame to get to be a winner? The point that prospects are overvalued commonly has some merit, but any winning team has to have a useful strategy of drafting and developing them because all winning teams ever have to have a number of great ones on their team. Must be balanced, can’t trade them all in.

    Asset liquidity. Is it always possible to trade without significant loss? The league is filled with other GMs that are directly in competition. It seems like a question about whether a team can win in the long run only with short term investments and rapid turnover.

    Urgency of improving the team. Jerry’s position seems different on success likelihood and team sustainment. The team could cash in some future for some now, and it already has. The dispute seems to revolve around balancing urgency and sustainability. Cash all the future in now for a glorious run? So many good teams don’t win (see Blackhawks last season, e.g.). How many years of contending is normal to win one Stanley? Why not shoot for multiple Stanleys, which seems to require sustainable top end core? Is there value in always keeping in the hunt rather than burning unsustainablly bright for a year and having to burn it all down due to cost and insufficient prospect pipeline?

    Yes, it’s cost, but it’s not cost too at the same time.

  194. jonrmcleod says:

    Testing to see if my old username will work here now.

    Edit: Success!

  195. spoiler says:

    book¡je:
    jerry,

    Kids, pay attention, this post is a great example of the difference between reading something and comprehending it.

    Thank you. I was thinking about some snarky response based on reading comprehension and you have saved me the effort.

    Unless I’m misreading you?

    Hard to focus on words with “Steve Smith’s” “stick” buried in my “eye”. Although I would like to “loan it” to Jerry.

  196. spoiler says:

    Магия 10,

    Yeah, I feel similarly.

  197. Doug McLachlan says:

    spoiler,

    I’m looking at http://www.hockeyabstract.com/playerusagecharts

    and I see Seabrook with a 54.5% OZ start. Not the push that Rundblad and Timmonen got, to be sure, but not in the 30’s. Am I misreading this?

  198. Soup Fascist says:

    godot10,

    The NMC is a valid point.

    However, I don’t see the front load contract strategy as a gimmick. Just a method to maintain as much “value” in an asset as possible. Not sure how old you are, but some of us old timers will remember the days of 15 % mortgages (hard to believe today), where if you had an “assumable” mortgage, substantially lower than the going rate, it added value to the property you were selling, especially if the purchaser was financially constrained.

    I guess I see a front loaded contract in somewhat the same way.

  199. oilswell says:

    Bank Shot: The price given up for star players is almost always underwhelming

    Well Heatley-Hossa trade and a bunch of others that were pretty fair at the time, but the observation is I think good for trades meant to reduce cap hit or cost. Which if you consider as valuable too (I think one should FWIW) then a lot of other deals join the “fair” pile even if player vales are unequal.

    But is the group think using outdated models? Are UFA players getting big paydays? Are the returns for good players under contract getting full value always here? I think one could be open to the idea that the cost of Seabrook for one season might not be that high, and the price to keep him might not be that high either.

    Say they get him for cheap. If they’re out by trade deadline then he can be flipped for a 1st in all likelihood and then maybe little overall loss. If they’re in then he is their playoff rental. If they extend him cheaply then great and if not they needed him to make Edmonton a viable destination.

    NTC though, could be wishful thinking.

Newer Comments »

Leave a Reply

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