Weird Business

There are some wonky items floating about in regard to the top of this year’s entry draft. Columbus is apparently interested in dealing the first overall pick should they win the lottery. Another rumor had them taking the Swede Forsberg if it can to actually making the #1 pick (Columbus hasn’t done well with Russians).

Now the Oilers don’t fly Aeroflot much either, but in the case of Nail Yakupov exceptions would have to be made. Yakupov’s scouting reports is an interesting one, and the comparables conjured up are fascinating:

  • Bob McKenzie: “You can’t say Ovechkin because he is not as physical or as powerful. He will get his nose dirty to score a goal. But he won’t necessarily overpower you the way Ovechkin did. The very first time you see Ovechkin, we saw him as a 17 year old, the thing that impressed you was not just that he was fast, he could score goals and had a great shot, but that he ran people over. There’s a difference in that. But I am not sure there is a Russian winger that he could be compared to. I don’t want to say Semin either. I don’t have a good answer for you on that.”
  • Russian National Junior Team head coach Valeri Bragin: “He reminds me of Bure. He is just as quick, a good goal-scoring winger. He is not as big as Ovechkin or Kovalchuk were when they were drafted, but he is very quick. I am really looking forward to playing him for the National Team after not having seen him play a year.”

Yakupov’s numbers suggest he’s a little shy of Hall (via Desjardins NHLE) but certainly an enormous prospect. Oilers should have him number one on the list.

After that, it’s a crap shoot. I’ve suggested they will take Ryan Murray for all kinds of reasons. It doesn’t mean I think they should take him, but the Oilers have the look of an organization that is ticking off the columns as they go–with “franchise defenseman” the major unassigned item.

What say you? Trade up for Nail? Take Murray? Deal the pick for an established blue? Deal down and take Reinhart? Opinions welcome.

written by

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

141 Responses to "Weird Business"

  1. DBO says:

    So LT, with the seeming emergence of Dubnyk, who has shown at least that with work he can be a solid starter, would it make sense to address top end Dman via trade? I know we all hate trade offers, but if Nashville is going to lose Suter, I expect them to also lose Weber and go into retool mode (they won’t rebuild, as they have cap space and always make solid moves). But if you are Nashville and Weber is not going to sign, would you deal him for the Oilers pick (where they could take Murray or another dman to replace their lost guys) and MPS? Would the Oil do it?

    A healthy forward corps equals not as much room for MPS. It would be our Kessel deal, in that we are dealing 2 firsts for an expensive player. Weber makes our backend a strength suddenly, and makes Dubnyk much better.

    Shultz-Weber
    Smid-Petry
    Whitney-Sutton
    Potter

    The real question then is whether our current forward group is enough to get it done?

  2. Zack says:

    It’s a tough call. I’m sure Stu and team will make the right choice. Do you pick Grigorenko, which would set us up really nice for our one/two center punch or do we select a young defensive stud in Ryan Murray. If I were an Oilers scout then that’s who I’d be trying to split the hairs in who has more potential between the two.

  3. Chris Hext---formerly EasyOil--- says:

    This draft is such an odd one, it hurts when I try and think about it. A lot of “buts”.

    Yakupov is a supreme talent, and I’d love to have him on the team… Imagine him and Hall as our 1-2 punch. BUT he’s been injured a couple of times this season, and lord knows the Oilers can’t be dealing with more injury-prone players. Plus, he’s another left winger. The Oilers only have one elite one so far in Hall, but Smyth, Paajarvi & Harski are all useful players who provide some variation in the skills in the Top 6.

    Grigorenko SOUNDS like the player every team wants, that big, rangy, toolsy centre. BUT he apparently has attitude problems and an inconsistent “give-a-damn”, and apparently only piles up the points against bad teams (although isn’t that what good players/teams do? Dominate bad teams and do enough to get past the good ones?).

    Murray is supposedly the most NHL ready guy (man if he could be the D version of Landeskog this year that would be awesome), and is seemingly the sort of player the Oilers need most long-term. BUT there are questions about his offensive upside (hit his peak or underrated? Although after his playoff series I would say I don’t have any worries about his upside.)

    Dumba is the most flashy D-man, with awesome O-skills, great skater and a penchant for wiping guys out. BUT he is small and could this negatively impact his effectiveness at the NHL level?

    Reinhart is big, gradually becoming more physical, has a developing offensive game and an already impressive defensive ability. BUT he is raw overall and might take a while to really blossom.

    Forsberg is an uber-talented RW, with great skills and skating ability. BUT he is skinny and putting up similar numbers to Paajarvi at the same age, yet in a lower league.

    For my money, I would go with one of the three D-men. They seem more like sure-fire guys than the others. May not turn into elite players like the 3 forwards might, but it seems to be less boom/bust with them. Regardless, whichever guy the Oilers take (with the possible exception of Yakupov), the Oilers MUST return them to junior for a year. They have to develop whichever guy they take the right way.

    If they’re picking at 2 or 3 LT, who would YOU take?

  4. icecastles says:

    Zack: Do you pick Grigorenko, which would set us up really nice for our one/two center

    Scouting seems to have a real eye to ‘character’ players lately, which I think is a wise move, especially after some of the recent washes in Edmonton in recent years where the skill may be there, but the battle level is presumably lacking.

    Given some of the warning flags about Grigorenko, I’d be very surprised to see MBS take him. If I were to place money, I’d say Grigorenko is going to be this year’s Couturier, and end up being an absolute steal (albeit a risk) for someone further down the draft order.

  5. Chris Hext---formerly EasyOil--- says:

    icecastles,

    Agreed. I think he’s the sort of player that I wouldn’t blame teams for passing on, but he WILL be a very good player and whoever takes him will be very pleased. It’s just a matter of whether him being a good player is enough to invalidate all the concerns about his character.

  6. Clay says:

    This draft, more than the last two, have me worried about hindsight. With Hall and RNH, there was a certain level of confidence that the Oilers were taking the player who had at least a very strong chance of turning out to be the best NHLer of their draft year.

    This year seems to have so many question marks at the top. I haven’t heard anyone anywhere say that any of these kids are sure bets. Pass on one of the Russians in favour of Murray, and you may have just picked Taylor Chorney over Pavel Bure and Gino Malkin. Or, it may turn out you’ve taken Scott Niedermayer over Valeri Bure and and Mikhail Zhukov.

    Plus, with Nail, there’s the issue of adding another talented hobbit winger. Will he better than Eberle?

    We’re definitely going to see how magnificent MBS is.

  7. rich says:

    I don’t see it making sense to trade up for the #1 pick and getting yet another smallish, highly skilled player. It’s the Omark thing all over again.

    Ultimately, I think it’s more likely that one of two things happen. We trade down or we trade out entirely. We trade down if we think we can get the person they’ve been targeting all along and pick up another chip/asset or, they trade out if they can get the right player coming back to address a need (top 4 d-man).

  8. gd says:

    Chris Hext—formerly EasyOil—:
    This draft is such an odd one, it hurts when I try and think about it.A lot of “buts”.

    Yakupov is a supreme talent, and I’d love to have him on the team… Imagine him and Hall as our 1-2 punch.BUT he’s been injured a couple of times this season, and lord knows the Oilers can’t be dealing with more injury-prone players.Plus, he’s another left winger.The Oilers only have one elite one so far in Hall, but Smyth, Paajarvi & Harski are all useful players who provide some variation in the skills in the Top 6.

    Grigorenko SOUNDS like the player every team wants, that big, rangy, toolsy centre.BUT he apparently has attitude problems and an inconsistent “give-a-damn”, and apparently only piles up the points against bad teams (although isn’t that what good players/teams do?Dominate bad teams and do enough to get past the good ones?).

    Murray is supposedly the most NHL ready guy (man if he could be the D version of Landeskog this year that would be awesome), and is seemingly the sort of player the Oilers need most long-term.BUT there are questions about his offensive upside (hit his peak or underrated? Although after his playoff series I would say I don’t have any worries about his upside.)

    Dumba is the most flashy D-man, with awesome O-skills, great skater and a penchant for wiping guys out.BUT he is small and could this negatively impact his effectiveness at the NHL level?

    Reinhart is big, gradually becoming more physical, has a developing offensive game and an already impressive defensive ability.BUT he is raw overall and might take a while to really blossom.

    Forsberg is an uber-talented RW, with great skills and skating ability.BUT he is skinny and putting up similar numbers to Paajarvi at the same age, yet in a lower league.

    For my money, I would go with one of the three D-men.They seem more like sure-fire guys than the others.May not turn into elite players like the 3 forwards might, but it seems to be less boom/bust with them.Regardless, whichever guy the Oilers take (with the possible exception of Yakupov), the Oilers MUST return them to junior for a year.They have to develop whichever guy they take the right way.

    If they’re picking at 2 or 3 LT, who would YOU take?

    You have summed up my feelings exactly. I think the Oil are in a position where they need the safest option and that seems to be Murray (though if Yakupov slips to them I think they have to take him or hopefully get a “godfather” offer for him). I know the history of dman in the draft, but I’m just not seeing enough from Grigerenko to make me think he is Malkin. I would love to be blown away by Grigerenko for the rest of the playoffs which would at least increase the value of the pick. I wish Galcynyuk had shown more in his return and Faksa hadn’t got injured as they were the guys I was targeting, but I don’t think there is any way to justify picking them in the top 5.

    I trust the Oil will know whether they are able to sign Justin Shultz or not by the draft as I would assume that could affect their strategy.

  9. nelson88 says:

    I hadn’t thought about the Mike Green trade angle until LT brought it up but it does have some intriguing plot lines.

    I doubt the Oilers trade up for Nail (too similar to current org. strengths and the russian factor) and don’t believe they will choose Grigorenko for the reasons mentioned above. So if they pick 1 or 2 and given that Washington has two picks that will likely be in the 10 – 15 range; and is desireable to russian players, maybe they trade the 1/2 for green and one of washington’s picks. Other spare parts like Linus and Theo can balance as necessary.

    Use the Washington pick to take Faksa (big, strong 2 way center) or one of the D men although I think that stable is pretty crowded already.

    I’m not much of a Mike Green fan as he is too one dimensional (albeit a good dimension) and injury prone. Having said that IF they could get him for a reasonable package and IF they can sign him to a reasonable deal (possible with injury history?) it would not be the worst D core we have seen. Good mix of puck movers, shooters and shutdown types.

  10. speeds says:

    I would at least explore the cost of trading up, if CLB is really looking to move it, lottery dependent. It would be unconventional given how most view EDM’s needs, but I think looking at it makes some sense.

  11. Ribs says:

    Just as quick as Bure? He must be talking Valeri.

  12. Chris Hext---formerly EasyOil--- says:

    gd,

    I actually meant to mention Galchenyuk in my post but forgot. The kid has undeniable talent and plays with passion, could be the best in the draft. BUT (!) he has just missed almost an entire year and how much of his offense comes from playing with Yakupov? (although in my opinion that’s a fairly lame argument against him). The Oilers absolutely have to go with the safest bet for a long and solid career, and in my opinion that guy is Murray.

    What I’m hoping though, and I don’t think I’ve seen anyone say this, is that the Blue Jackets don’t take Murray 1st Overall. Why do they HAVE to take a forward? I know the debate about his high-end makes him possibly one of the least “exciting” first overall picks in years, but he does at least seem like a safe bet – and Lord knows Columbus needs that, just as much as the Oilers.

    I really, really hope the Oilers can sign Schultz, a lot of sources are saying it could happen, and the Oilers lose nothing by signing him. Only costs dollars, two years and a contract spot, and if he doesn’t pan out, ship him out. Or, we get a potential top 2/4 d-man.

  13. Zack says:

    icecastles: Scouting seems to have a real eye to ‘character’ players lately, which I think is a wise move, especially after some of the recent washes in Edmonton in recent years where the skill may be there, but the battle level is presumably lacking.

    Given some of the warning flags about Grigorenko, I’d be very surprised to see MBS take him. If I were to place money, I’d say Grigorenko is going to be this year’s Couturier, and end up being an absolute steal (albeit a risk) for someone further down the draft order.

    Yes, that makes Ryan Murray seem like a home run prospect to draft. I’ve read multiple items on how team mates and brass praise his work ethic on and off the ice. He truly seems to be the full package.

    In regards to Grigorenko I never really heard to much in terms of lack of character until his ankle injury and questions about his character seem to spark after this article: http://tsn.ca/draftcentre/story/?id=388658 I have never seen him play live so I can’t tell you how accurate this assessment is but everything kind of blew up, with questions about his character (especially on forums) around that time. As for the people that have seen him play they say the exact opposite 9/10 and in the hilights I’ve seen from this kid, he LOVES scoring goals.

    Tough call though but I understand your concern, Stu and team seem to draft off of talent/skill and character.

  14. Jordan says:

    What the hell happened?

    For the last 5 years, there’s been no questioning the mantra,”Take the BPA, and try to get as many BPAs as you can, then trade and fill holes as necesary.”

    That was THE defining feature of all commentary regarding the best plan for the Oilers (long-term) that the talking heads in their mothers’ basements.

    The emphasis was on skill, and if you were a really good boy or girl, the hockey gods might give you a skilled quy who happened to be 6’3″ to boot.

    So, the Oilers get a pisscutter #1 in 2010, and the world is changed. in 2011, they get the second coming, and little Jordan goes supernova this season.

    I get that we have a nice #1 line, but isn’t the key to building a good NHL team to “aquire good NHL players”?

    I like what 4 – 93 – 14 do on the ice, but as has been point out by many, they’re doing it on REALLY slanted ice. Less so recently, but they’ve also been less effective recently too.

    When you bring kids into the NHL like that, and need to slant the ice that hard for them to be effective, can you really talk about them being NHL-calibre? I know I’m opening up a hornet’s nest by suggesting it, but what would Horcoff and Smyth’s numbers look like with a 60% OZ start? At what point does drafting more young offensive players become more of a hinderance to competing at the NHL level? Can you get UFA/RFA two-way talent that will allow your team to perform better?

    The Oilers have some supremely gifted offensive players who could develop into elite NHL players. I suppose what this boils down to is two different draft philosophies:
    1 – The Oilers’ draft strategy changes to draft more 2-way players now that the team has the potentially elite offensive players
    2 – The drafting strategy remains BPA regardless of team needs, and develops as much as they can as well as they can, and then try to trade for what they lack at the NHL level?

    If the Oilers’ pro scouts were better, I’d go with #2. But as there has been a near 80% failure rate with their signings over the last few summers, I think it would be safer for the Oilers to go with #1 rather than getting fleeced in a trade for a player they don’t understand.

  15. Ducey says:

    If its up to me, I trade Omark and the Cogliano pick to ANA for the rights to sign Justin Schultz.

    Then see if I can trade down a few slots and pick up Reinhart.

    I’d also try and turn Gagner into a top ten pick. I’d then sign a vet in FA to take over the second line center. I keep hearing Wellwood is good :)

    If you can walk away with the equivalent of three top 10 picks, the defence should be set for the next decade and you can start filling out the real problem on this team – the lack of support players with grit, size, speed and a little offence. This team needs more Troy Brouwer, Ryan Kesler types and only has around 5 in the system (Harsky, Pitlick, Hamilton, Czerwonka and Ewanyk). None of these guys are a lock.

  16. Clay says:

    Jordan:
    What the hell happened?

    For the last 5 years, there’s been no questioning the mantra,”Take the BPA, and try to get as many BPAs as you can, then trade and fill holes as necesary.”

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting they take anything other than the BPA. It’s just that it seems, with this draft class, the BPA amongst the top 5 or so prospects is not so clear as the past two drafts.

  17. Ribs says:

    To me, the draft is about Yakupov or Murray, and trying their damndest to pry Shea Weber away from Nashville.

  18. slopitch says:

    This is the one year I wish the draft was after free agency day. If the Oilers could get Justin Schultz (like Bobby Mac says they have a good shot at) or by chance get a top 2 dman as a UFA I’d be happier taking the best forward available. The Oilers should offer a 4th or whatever to get the rights to Schultz. Over the next couple years, if we keep drafting well, one of the d prospects will hopefully become a top 2 dman. The top defenders on the last several cup winners (Letang, Lidstrom, Keith, Chara) were all later drafted picks. There are too many high draft picks like JBo, Bogosian, Johnson, Gudbransson, Hedman, Barker, Hickey that IMO just haven’t developed like their draft status indicates. Even best one, Doughty, I would probably take Karlsson or Peiterangelo over.

    I guess the question is whether or not a franchise dman is necessary to win a cup (we don’t have one) and the chances of one of the d prospects this year being that guy is hard to know. MBS will earn his money this year. The other question is when your a lottery team (and hence you have many roster holes) can you really afford to not take the best player available?

    I’m running the team, Id trade for Yakapov or draft BPA (Grigorenko?).

  19. D says:

    LT,

    Gotta admit, those Russian rock songs are kind of cool.

  20. Ducey says:

    If the Oilers’ pro scouts were better, I’d go with #2. But as there has been a near 80% failure rate with their signings over the last few summers, I think it would be safer for the Oilers to go with #1 rather than getting fleeced in a trade for a player they don’t understand.

    How do you figure there has been an 80% failure rate? The Oiler’s scouts have been great. Last draft they pulled Gernat and Reider out of the late rounds and most of their prospects are trending well.

    We won’t be able to judge the last two summers for 3 or 4 years, but so far so good. If you get two NHL players out a draft, that is a good draft. If you get three its an outstanding one.

  21. Dipstick says:

    If the draft order is CLB and then EDM, would CLB switch for Omark? Yakupov is hands down the most talented prospect. Take him if you have the opportunity. BPA all the way!

  22. slopitch says:

    Our team mantra is sell low, buy high. Think we could reverse that an pry Ryan Getzlaf out of Anaheim? If Selanne retires and with Getzlaf/Perry going UFA after next season, the Ducks are a team that could have some major turnover over the next year. Getzlaf has 10 goals. 10. If he was playing in a hockey market there would be massive outrage.

    Getzlaf is over a ppg the last 4 years until this year. I have no idea what happened to him this year but Id be making calls.

    He’s also 6″4 and a good Canadian boy

  23. Dipstick says:

    slopitch:
    Our team mantra is sell low, buy high.Think we could reverse that an pry Ryan Getzlaf out of Anaheim?If Selanne retires and with Getzlaf/Perry going UFA after next season, the Ducks are a team that could have some major turnover over the next year.Getzlaf has 10 goals.10.If he was playing in a hockey market there would be massive outrage.

    Getzlaf is over a ppg the last 4 years until this year.I have no idea what happened to him this year but Id be making calls.

    He’s also 6″4 and a good Canadian boy

    What is his position on Donairs?

  24. gd says:

    I keep getting different info on when they can sign Shultz. I think he can be signed as of June 1st, but I’ve definitely seen some articles that say July 1st.

    My guess is if it is June 1st, than the Oil will know for sure before the draft, because if he is in on the Oilers situation he would understand that it makes sense to help them prep for the draft. If he is waiting for July 1st and see where Suter is going, he would seem to be more focused on going to teams like Detroit or Vancouver.

  25. slopitch says:

    If Schultz is potentially available June 1 thats a different story.

  26. mustang says:

    gd:
    I keep getting different info on when they can sign Shultz. I think he can be signed as of June 1st, but I’ve definitely seen some articlesthat say July 1st.

    My guess is if it is June 1st, than the Oil will know for sure before the draft, because if he is in on the Oilers situation he would understand that it makes sense to help them prep for the draft. If he is waiting for July 1st and see where Suter is going, he would seem to be more focused on going to teams like Detroit or Vancouver.

    I do believe the Ducks have to sign him on or before June 1, if not, then he becomes a UFA on July 1.

  27. Gerta Rauss says:

    gd,

    Gregor’s article a couple days ago stated he is available June 1-that’s good news in that we’ll know yeah or nay prior to the draft. I’d be willing to send an asset to Anaheim(Omark) in order to talk to the kid prior to that.

    Our choices will become clearer next Tuesday at the lottery draw-having the #1 pick gives us more leverage especially if we’re trading out…if we’re picking 2 or 3 or 4 I don’t think we get the same value/leverage if we’re trading out and it probably wouldn’t be worth the return.

  28. icecastles says:

    Ducey: How do you figure there has been an 80% failure rate? The Oiler’s scouts have been great. Last draft they pulled Gernat and Reider out of the late rounds and most of their prospects are trending well.

    Those are the amateur scouts, which has been great. Pro scouting is a different group, and their track record is not nearly so glowing.

  29. TheOtherJohn says:

    The playoffs are going to sort out the 2 potential Nashville FA D men: Suter and Weber. If that team goes deep in the playoffs, and it is possible, both will seriously consider resigning there. The real question is whether the Oiler braintrust truly believes Yakupov is truly that special. If (and it is a very big IF) so, we would be uniquely positioned to trade up for him. CBJ still get a absolute stud and will likely wan a very good prospect. So long as they do not ask for Klefbom, Tuebert (just kidding) or Plante (again, just kidding) I have no difficulty making such a trade. We would have 3 potentially elite goalscorers, a playmaking marvel in RNH and Hemsky in the top 6

    The reason the Oilers lack of size is so stark is that the complementary players, with the exception of Sutton, do no finsih their checks with any degree of authority. If a team knew that they would be punished physically for getting rambunctious with the Oiler finesse players, they would not do it. Ok, ok St Louis, PHI & Boston would still do it

  30. Jonathan Willis says:

    1) Scott Howson talked to Pierre LeBrun after these Forsberg/Yakupov rumours came out and said that avoiding a player because of nationality would border on stupidity. He further said that the Zherdev/Filatov busts would have no impact on their draft choice.

    2) It’s June 1 for Schultz. Direct from the CBA.

  31. Gerta Rauss says:

    TheOtherJohn,

    I agree regarding Nashville-a deep playoff run-or early flameout- will go a long way to determing what they do or don’t do wrt to Suter and Weber. The other thing to consider is Radulov and whether they decide to re-sign him.

    I wouldn’t trade up for Yakupov but that’s just me-if CBJ has a problem taking a Russian I would just sit tight and dare them to take another player at #1.

  32. LoDog says:

    Gerta Rauss: gd, Gregor’s article a couple days ago stated he is available June 1-that’s good news in that we’ll know yeah or nay prior to the draft. I’d be willing to send an asset to Anaheim(Omark) in order to talk to the kid prior to that.Our choices will become clearer next Tuesday at the lottery draw-having the #1 pick gives us more leverage especially if we’re trading out…if we’re picking 2 or 3 or 4 I don’t think we get the same value/leverage if we’re trading out and it probably wouldn’t be worth the return.

    I think if ANA doesn’t sign him by June 1 he becomes a free agent but still can’t be signed until July 1 like everyone else.

    As for the draft, trade the pick if you can get a very top end player now or take the BPA at 2-4 whoever is left.

  33. "Steve Smith" says:

    LoDog: I think if ANA doesn’t sign him by June 1 he becomes a free agent but still can’t be signed until July 1 like everyone else.

    Then in what sense would he be a free agent?

  34. Gerta Rauss says:

    LoDog,

    No offense LD but when Willis quotes from the CBA I take his word on it.

  35. Semenko and Troy says:

    No question the Oilers should take Yakupov if he is available to them. He’s a RW even though he shoots left. Tough to form a credible opinion by just reading others’ evaluations, but the WJC’s did give an opportunity to see him, (at least on TV), compared to other potential picks and I was able to go to all the games in Edmonton.

    RNH stood out in the Rookies Tournament in Kelowna. From his first shift, it was apparent how much better he was. Yakupov did the same in the WJC’s. Out of all the games I saw live, no one, drafted or undrafted came close to his speed and vision. (It also bodes well for the Oilers that whenever Yakupov was on the ice, Klefbom hopped the boards)

    Although a different position of course, Murray was not a standout, maybe good enough for a #3 pick, but not special enough that the Oilers should consider picking him as a #1 or trading down to pick him if they have the opportunity to take Yakupov.

  36. LoDog says:

    “Steve Smith”: Then in what sense would he be a free agent?

    Worded that badly. Meant ANA would lose his rights June 1 and be free agent July 1. But JW posted as I was typing and it would seem I was wrong. Several articles have stated what I wrote but I don’t have a copy of the CBA.

  37. Captain Obvious says:

    Character should be an irrelevant consideration. Not because character isn’t important but because NHL teams are horrible judges of character. For instance Elliotte Friedman had a thought about Tyler Ennis in his recent thirty thoughts column. I’ll quote:

    “Ennis confirmed a story written by The Hockey News’ Ryan Kennedy: that he had one awkward pre-draft interview, refusing to answer a question about taking a pill that would guarantee a Stanley Cup victory but kill you in a decade. “It was with Toronto,” he said. “I like my sleep and woke up about five minutes beforehand (8 a.m)…I said, ‘That’s ridiculous. I want to win the Cup, but I don’t want to die in 10 years.’” (Don’t think Ennis is a bad guy because of these stories. Very nice guy, just blunt.)”

    The people who run NHL organizations understanding of what it takes to win is fairy tale like. If they someone has a bad character I’ll just as soon believe the opposite. Oh, and Tyler Ennis is awesome. We could use a player like that.

    Finally, signing Justin Schultz would be fantastic. That said I don’t understand why teams trade so much for the right to talk to someone, when talking to someone doesn’t give them any leverage. Likewise, I don’t understand why players ever sign with a team that holds their rights one week before they hit the open market. Why would Schultz sign with Edmonton just because they have his rights. He can still sign with them after he listens to what other teams have to say. The entire enterprise is fundamentally irrational.

  38. Captain Obvious says:

    The last game was so boring I spent a couple of hours devising an adjusted +/- system that takes into consideration pts, shots for and against, zone start, quality of competition, and quality of teammates, all at even strength only. (I’m not going to get into the method but I’m sure the rationale is solid though I fudged the coefficients I used to adjust for zone start, quality of competition, and quality of teammates). The long of the short of it is that this works but I wouldn’t consider it refined.

    Notable Oilers:

    Eberle: +1.22/60 +21 on season (this means that Eberle has contributed 21 more goals than he has given up than an average player would over the same amount of playing time. \
    Hall: + 0.59/60, +9
    Gagner: +6 (I’ll just give the raw numbers from here on out)
    Smyth: +3
    Hopkins: +3 (remember this is just even strength)
    Hemsky: +1
    Horcoff: -9
    Lander: -10
    Belanger: -15 (tied for worst in the league)
    Sutton: +5 (has put up points in his limited playing time)
    Petry: +5
    Smid: +2
    Whitney: -8
    Peckham: -12 (tied for worst in the league despite limited playing time. He’s an AHL player at best)

    Other notables:

    Malkin: +36 (best player in the league this year)
    Stamkos: +30
    R. Whitney: +25
    Benn: +22
    Gaborik: +21

    That’s your top six forwards (along with Eberle)

    Seguin is a +16
    Couturier is a +10 in limited playing time
    Ennis is a +9 despite injury
    Landeskog is a +6 (I am now on the RNH for Calder bandwagon)
    Penner is a -5

    As for the D

    Karlsson is +29
    McDonagh is +24
    Weber is +23

    That’s your top three

    Trade targets:

    Yandle +17
    Ekman-Larsson +12
    Subban +7
    Hedman +7
    Phaneuf +3
    Souray +2
    Fowler 0
    Myers 0
    Alzner -1
    Schenn -7

    Free Agents:

    Suter +10 and +12 last year
    Garrison +10 and +4 last year (I think he’ll be overpaid)
    Carle +9 and +21 (this is the guy to go after if you assume he won’t get near Suter money)
    Wideman +4 and -7 (this is guy who is going to get overpaid)
    Campoli -2 and +6 (potential bargain)
    Grossman -3 and +2 (league average D)

  39. Jordan says:

    Ducey:
    If the Oilers’ pro scouts were better, I’d go with #2. But as there has been a near 80% failure rate with their signings over the last few summers, I think it would be safer for the Oilers to go with #1 rather than getting fleeced in a trade for a player they don’t understand.

    How do you figure there has been an 80% failure rate? The Oiler’s scouts have been great. Last draft they pulled Gernat and Reider out of the late rounds and most of their prospects are trending well.

    We won’t be able to judge the last two summers for 3 or 4 years, but so far so good. If you get two NHL players out a draft, that is a good draft. If you get three its an outstanding one.

    I have complete respect and appreciation for the job our amateur scouts are doing. They look to be doing okay/average in the early rounds, and finding diamonds in the late rounds. That’s awesome.

    icecastles: Those are the amateur scouts, which has been great. Pro scouting is a different group, and their track record is not nearly so glowing.

    Thanks for clarifying my point Icecastles. That’s exactly what I meant. =D

    Jonathan Willis:
    1) Scott Howson talked to Pierre LeBrun after these Forsberg/Yakupov rumours came out and said that avoiding a player because of nationality would border on stupidity.He further said that the Zherdev/Filatov busts would have no impact on their draft choice.

    2) It’s June 1 for Schultz.Direct from the CBA.

    Great info about CBJ and Schultz, JW.

    I’m curious – what exactly are the rules governing interacitons between players, agents, and the media? If JS is really going to go UFA (and why wouldn’t he? That’s a freaking excellent loophole to exploit and increase your earning potential early on in your career!) how much information is the agent able or even interested in passing on to members of the media?

    I mean, I know that there are tampering rules that govern how other GMs are allowed to contact players whose rights are owned by a given club. Does that go both ways? Is the Player and agent also bound not to discuss those kinds contract-related items with the media, or is that simply a convention or unwritten code of conduct thing?

    The reason I ask of course is I’m curious to know if you could interview the agent about his client, and whether that would violate any of the rules the NHL clubs have in place? Or could it make you a pariah when it comes to your coverage and contacts?

  40. admiralmark says:

    I have to think that if Grigorenko is comparable to say a Coutourier? Then Oilers have got to take him. Perfect 1-2 Centers to win a Stanley Cup with. Then package Gagner and whatever spare parts it takes to procure a top 4 D. Add in a Justin Schultz… And we have had a phenomenal off season,

  41. Beaker says:

    Jordan,

    JS isnt going to be a free agent in every sense of the word. He still has to sign an entry levelish contract. Like 875000 as his contract. It’s not a loophole in the money sense.

  42. ashley says:

    Remember from last year’s debate: “RNH is too small for the NHL. RNH is frail. A big center is far better than drafting a small skilled center”.

    Puck in the net is what matters the most to me. Many top scorers in the NHL have been and still are less than 6’2″ tall.

    In that vein, I think that Dumba will be the steal of this draft, and Reinhardt has the greatest possibility of not covering his bet. The size bias is so strong, but the smaller skilled guys often end up proving their value.

    Remember all the gushing over McIlrath some years ago? The Rangers took him 10th!

  43. Dalton says:

    Dumba is a bad bet no matter HOW big he plays because of his short reach. Can’t do nothin’ about that. Out-reached by nearly everyone, way below the bell curve. Next plz.

    MPS will not be traded for a D. MPS is undervalued.

  44. rickithebear says:

    Using Desjardins projection curves, league equivalencies and age.

    Here is the expected age 21 production rates;

    Grigorenko 6’3″ 200lb 35G 45A 80Pt rank #2
    Yakupov 5’11″ 190lb 35G 40A 75PT rank #1
    Hertl 6’2″ 200lb 30G 40A 70pt rank #23
    Galchenyk 6’2″ 205LB 25G 45A 70pt rank #6
    Samuelson 6’2″ 200lb 20G 40A 60Pt rank #43
    Gordon 6’1″ 190lb 30G 25A 55P rank #55
    Callberg 5’11″ 175Lb 27G 28A 55P rank #14
    Devin Shore 6’0″ 170lb 25G 30A rank #50
    Faksa 6’3″ 200lb 25G 30A 55P rank #16
    Gaunce 6’2″ 215lb 25G 30A 55P rank # 7
    Winther 5’11″ 28G 22A 50P rank #30
    Maidens 6’1″ 180lb 25G 25A 50P rank #31

    Hertl, Samuelson, Gordon ???????

  45. Ducey says:

    icecastles: Those are the amateur scouts, which has been great. Pro scouting is a different group, and their track record is not nearly so glowing.

    As stated by DD during those terrible safety commercials, “Oh”.

    Sorry about that Jordan.

  46. Jordan says:

    ashley,

    If there are two things you can guarantee will translate at the next level, it’s size, and skating. There’s always questions with skill, and how the players will perform as they play in the better leagues. Sometimes the skill is there, but the IQ isn’t. Sometimes the IQ is there, but there isn’t enough skill to put up cooked numbers. But if he’s got size, and can skate, you’ve got two elements that you absolutely need to have Elite defensemen in the NHL.

    You can get elite powerplay specialist at less than 6’2″, and good two way defensemen, but to get that elite defenseman who can do some of everything… you need to have the size to have the reach, have the strength, and the endurance to play the big minutes and excel. But I don’t think that’s what this team needs, nor would I call it a good use for a top 5 draft pick.

    But that’s just me – I like numbers that I can count on, and 6’2″+ is a very nice number.

    Also, considering the prospects we have coming, and the highly skilled D we have (with better size) I think the Oilers taking Dumba would be… pretty Dumba… D:

  47. bookje says:

    There are too many words here today. Words are hard. I want more pictures. I’m tired.

  48. Captain Obvious says:

    Jordan,

    The problem is that it is a fallacy that size is a number you can count on. In fact the preponderance of the evidence is that Ashley is correct and that the NHL overselects for size. Consequently value is to be found in drafting smaller players.

    That said, that doesn’t mean I think we should draft Dumba. The size bias is trumped by the highly important maxim of avoiding D in the first round, especially in the top 10. Take Grigorenko or trade the pick. Those are the moves to consider. If the Oilers draft third, I’d gamble on Grigorenko falling to me and then take Galchenyuk (spelling?) if he didn’t.

    The answer to the young D problem is Justin Schultz. He cannot be replaced in this draft (or any other).

  49. slopitch says:

    FWIW Millard was just on the Spector show and raved about Ryan Murray. Says he is Doughty good and the Oilers should absolutely take him.

    They also talked about how Gagner would not get a top 2 dman.

  50. sliderule says:

    I am not so sure we should draft a d in top five unless he is really special.If we do I feel that after his playoff Murray has shown he is better than the other ds available

    I thought in the WJC that Grigorenko was outstanding .in the four games I watched he was hard on the puck.He was also playing with an ankle injury incurred in exhibition games that sidelined him and affected his play.It just doesn’t look how a slacker would be.we have a good Q scout so if there are problems or not Stu will be able to figure it out.

    I watched the hii lites the Sarnia team had in the playoffs and just from that Yakupov didn’t dominateFrom the limited viewing I liked Galchenyuk a lot.He may have a Russian name but he was born in USA and is an American.
    The long and short of it is our scouts better know what they are doing and earn their money.

  51. ashley says:

    Agree. Taking a blueliner in the top 10 is risky and history proves this.

    Where we’ll be picking, I wouldn’t take Dumba either. I’m just saying he’s exactly the kind of “undersized” player that rips it up in the NHL and that teams who passed over him look back and wonder why they didn’t pick him. He’ll fall because of size, and someone will likely get a bargain.

    Reinhart is a very boring and risky pick. I would pick Dumba before Reinhart and Murray before either of those if it had to be blueliner. But we should take a forward with a top 5 pick. We’ve got a lot of D in the system, and trade options.

    I’m just an amateur though, obviously. No GM’s are pounding down my door for my opinion. ;)

  52. Jordan says:

    Captain Obvious,

    I absolutely agree that size is not a number that can be counted upon to predict NHL success. As I am sure you will note, I do not suggest it. Rather, my argument is that to be an elite defenseman in the NHL, the player needs to have at least average or better skating and above average size.

    As there is no clear-cut way to predict who will find success and develop into a bad, okay, good, great, elite defender, I simply state that Size is one trait that is guaranteed to translate 100% at the NHL level. So, while there may be more value in trying to pick the small guy with buckets of skill, odds are you will not be able to draft an elite NHL defensman that way. Erik Karlsson is of course the shiny new example of that. Whether he will sustain it and become more than a wonderkid remains to be seen.

  53. Jordan says:

    That sould read “Erik Karlsson is of course the shiny new exception to that”

  54. Captain Obvious says:

    I think Brian Rafalski was an elite defenceman.

    I also agree that Reinhart would be a bad pick. Going the safe route and selecting upon the size variable isn’t good enough when you are picking in the top five.

  55. Jordan says:

    Captain Obvious,

    Oh, for certain – Rafalski was great, and I wouldn’t take Reinhardt in the top 5 either. I’m not sure I’d take him in the top 15 to be honest. Based on what I’ve seen, he seems like he’d likely top out as a top 4 shutdown guy – not sure that’s worth a first rounder. But once again – I need to point out that most of the guys who are considered elite D-men have size. So if that’s what you are trying to draft… you’re better off betting on a guy who has some, as opposed to not.

    You know, thinking about the routes that Plante, Marincin, Gernat, Davidson, Bigos and Musil have taken to get to the point they could play in the pros has taught me one thing – if the guy isn’t 5 tool, ready for the NHL (a la Doughty), pick him after the first round and if he’s not there, then someone wasted a pick on him. I like Reinhardt a lot, because of a lot of his intangibles, but I’m starting to think he’s not worth a 1st.

  56. LoDog says:

    If JW is around or anyone else has a definitive link I would like to see where it says Justin Shultz can be signed before July 1. Every other article on the internet says July 1 and the other big name to go this route was Blake Wheeler who signed with Boston on July 1 2008.

  57. Woodguy says:

    Captain Obvious,

    I’m very interested in the thoughts and math behind your metric.

    Care to share it?

  58. bendelson says:

    LoDog,

    Your take on this is correct. AHM must sign him before June 1st. If they don’t he is a UFA on July 1st (like all the others). There is a month between important dates here which is clearly the confusion.

    Willis isn’t wrong per se (it is June 1 for AHM) but others have been after misinterpreting his words.

    Unless I’m wrong of course… And if that is the case, my apologies for wasted words.

  59. oilersfan says:

    Grigorenko had 1.68 ppg before the wjhc and 1.3 after. No doubt that high ankle sprain he played with affected his play. This series against Nathan Mackinnon and Martin Frk on a good Halifax team will tell us about Grigrenko’s character. Also taking a week off may help his ankle heal. What I like about him is his 40 goals in 59 games. Nice to have a goal scorer on a big frame. May be an excellent complement to Hemsky.

  60. vishcosity says:

    Did people talk of Getzlaf seeming uninspired during his last year of junior? If there is some concern about Grig, I hope they find out how similar those two examples are, if i have the fables so reconstructed, before passing on a centre with any thunder I his game.

  61. "Steve Smith" says:

    bendelson,

    I’m still confused about how this works in practice – for the month of June, Schultz is not able to negotiate or sign with any team? That’s just bizarre.

  62. Gerta Rauss says:

    LoDog:
    If JW is around or anyone else has a definitive link I would like to see where it says Justin Shultz can be signed before July 1. Every other article on the internet says July 1 and the other big name to go this route was Blake Wheeler who signed with Boston on July 1 2008.

    I got nothin’.
    I could be wrong,it wouldn’t be the first time.
    Anaheim definitely has to sign him before June 1 or they lose his rights.
    I can’t find anything that says he can sign another contract prior to July 1.

  63. bendelson says:

    “Steve Smith”,

    Bizarre yes – whether he is in limbo for month OR if he can sign as a UFA one month before anyone else. Either way it’s a little odd.

  64. Dipstick says:

    The big question. Do you believe that the Oiler “Braintrust” can figure this out?

  65. LoDog says:

    bendelson:
    LoDog,

    Your take on this is correct.AHM must sign him before June 1st. If they don’t he is a UFA on July 1st (like all the others).There is a month between important dates here which is clearly the confusion.

    Willis isn’t wrong per se (it is June 1 for AHM) but others have been after misinterpreting his words.

    Unless I’m wrong of course…And if that is the case, my apologies for wasted words.

    His post here was short and didn’t come right and say it but that is what he believes.

    He posted this in the comments of his article about it on the Journal site.:

    Schultz will become a free agent on June 1 if he so chooses, making it possible for the Oilers to sign him prior to the draft

  66. Ducey says:

    I also agree that Reinhart would be a bad pick. Going the safe route and selecting upon the size variable isn’t good enough when you are picking in the top five.

    Why is Reinhart a bad pick? Have you seen him play?

    It seems that you are going the other way – in your effort to show you know more than everyone, you are saying anyone with size is bad.

    This reminds me of JP Riccardi. He came to the Jays with the idea that he was not going to look at size or projection but at results/ math. He fired many of his scouts. He noted that projection on high school athletes was very risky and many pitching projects blew out their arms before they hit the majors. He concentrated on college players who were closer to the majors, less likely to get hurt and easier to assess/ project. The Moneyball approach. In the process he took a decent farm system and ran it into the ground. He got more guys to the upper minors/ majors per pick, but they had little upside and sucked.

    Now Alex Anthopoulus has taken the Jays back to projection on athletes and scouting, and less on math. Lo and behold they have one of the best farm systems in baseball. They will have more guys flame out along the way, but they guys that do make it are much better.

    Bottom line: I’ll trust Stu.

  67. commonfan14 says:

    bendelson: OR if he can sign as a UFA one month before anyone else

    Well, isn’t it that July 1st isn’t the date that teams start to be able to talk to UFAs, but that it’s the date that contracts end and players actually BECOME UFAs? I don’t think there’d be anything against signing some Euro player without an NHL deal prior to July 1st.

    So if Schultz becomes a UFA on June 1st, it would stand to reason that he could be signed then.

    In any case, I have a terrible feeling that he’s held out so that he can sign with his home-town Canucks anyway.

  68. "Steve Smith" says:

    commonfan14: Well, isn’t it that July 1st isn’t the date that teams start to be able to talk to UFAs, but that it’s the date that contracts end and players actually BECOME UFAs?I don’t think there’d be anything against signing some Euro player without an NHL deal prior to July 1st.

    So if Schultz becomes a UFA on June 1st, it would stand to reason that he could be signed then.

    That’s my thought, without reading the CBA.

    For that June 1 date to have any meaning, either Schultz has to be sign-able by any team during that period or no team (including Anaheim). The second just seems bizarre.

  69. Lowetide says:

    the NHL rules lacking clarity and reason? You don’t say. Kidding of course, but it’s true they just make it up as they go along. Do we have confirmation of this wonky rule?

  70. "Steve Smith" says:

    Looking into it now…

  71. gd says:

    “Steve Smith”,

    I tried reading the CBA and it looks to me like he is free to sign after June 1st, but it’s definitely not obvious. I swear this issue is just to torture us Oiler fans for heckling them for the Paarjarvi debacle.

  72. "Steve Smith" says:

    Relevant sections below and italicized, my analysis following, and not italicized:

    8.6 Reserve List-Exclusive Rights.

    [...]

    (c) College Players

    [...]

    (iv) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii) above, becomes a bona fide college student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft and does not remain a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive rights for the negotiation of his services until the fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft.

    [...]

    (e) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a claimed Player unsigned on the June 1 at 5:00 p.m. New York time next succeeding his draft shall be removed from the Reserve List of the Club that claimed him.

    This is the situation that applies to Schultz, right? He was drafted as a junior (in June 2008), the Ducks made the necessary offer to retain his rights, and then he became a college student for the 2009-2010 year? This would mean that he was a college student by June 1, 2010, which would be the second June 1 following his draft, which would trigger the first condition in (iv), and now he intends to leave college after three years, which would trigger the second condition. That means that he comes off the reserve list effective the fourth June 1 following his draft, which is June 1, 2012.

    8.4 Eligibility for Claim.

    (a) All Players age 18 or older are eligible for claim in the Entry Draft, except:

    (i) a Player on the Reserve List of a Club, other than as a try-out;
    (ii) a Player who has been claimed in two prior Entry Drafts;
    (iii) a Player who previously played in the League and became a Free Agent pursuant to this Agreement;
    (iv) a Player age 21 or older who: (A) has not been selected in a previous Entry Draft and (B) played hockey for at least one season in North America when he was age 18, 19, or 20 and shall be
    eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d); and
    (v) a Player age 22 or older who has not been selected in a previous Entry Draft and shall be eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d).

    Here’s where I get confused: if Schultz comes off the Ducks’ reserve list, why is he not eligible for the 2012 draft (or the 2013 draft, if he doesn’t come off until after the 2012 draft)? He is 18 or older. He will not be on a reserve list, so there goes (i). He will not have been previously drafted twice, so (ii)’s out. He will not have previously played in the NHL, so no (iii). And he has been selected in a previous entry draft, so (iv) and (v) don’t apply. So by my read, which I’m sure is wrong for reasons I can’t figure out, he goes back into the draft.

    In any event, let’s just assume that he’s not draft eligible, and proceed with the analysis.

    10.1 Unrestricted Free Agents.

    [...]

    (d) Draft Related Unrestricted Free Agents.

    (i) Any Player not eligible for claim in any future Entry Draft pursuant to this Agreement and not on a Club’s Reserve List shall be an Unrestricted Free Agent.

    There are two conditions needed to become a UFA under that section: first, he must not be eligible for claim in any future entry draft. Per the above, we’ll just assume that that condition is met, even if I don’t understand why or how. Second, he must not be in a Club’s Reserve List. As we established earlier, he will come off the Reserve List on the later date of when he leaves college or June 1. There’s nothing in the CBA about when a decision to leave college is deemed to be effective, so I would say that it would be effective as soon as he announces it, which would mean that if he announced it on or before June 1, he would become a UFA that day.

    An interesting side note, though:

    9.1 Applicability and Duration. Effective with SPCs entered into after the execution of this Agreement:

    (a) No Club may enter into an SPC with a Rookie that provides for compensation in excess of that permitted by this Article.

    (b) Subject to subsection (c) below, the period covered by the SPC for every Rookie, and the number of years that such Player will be in the Entry Level System and subject to the compensation limits set out in this Article, shall be as indicated on the chart immediately below, and during such period, the Player shall be deemed to be a “Group 1 Player”:

    [Removing table headings because I don't know how to format them, but the below specifies the duration of ELCs for rookies who sign at different ages. - "SS"]

    18-21 3 years
    22-23 2 years
    24 1 year
    25 and older No required number of years, not in the Entry Level System and not subject to limits on compensation

    As somebody else pointed out earlier, per 9.1 he would be subject to the ELC salary structure. He turns 22 on July 7, so if he didn’t sign until that day, he could limit his ELC to two years, which would presumably be in his interests.

    (The sharper among you are pointing out that under the CBA, a player’s age isn’t deemed to change right on his birthday, but through a complicated series of conditions. But the sharpest among you are pointing out that the relevant section – 8.10 – applies only to Article 8 of the CBA (Entry Draft).)

    Disclaimers:

    I am not a lawyer. To the extent that I am a lawyer, my expertise is in criminal law. There are almost certainly mistakes in the above analysis. Do not rely on it without consulting competent legal counsel – this means you, Rick Olczyk.

  73. Captain Obvious says:

    Woodguy,

    The idea is that hockey boils down to goals for and goals against. The regular +/- acknowledges this and captures it with an elegant simplicity. The problem with +/- is that it is oblivious to context and individual performance and focuses solely upon those plays that result in goals while ignoring all the others. The concept would be to stay with the +/- format while adjusting for all those things.

    So what I did was break individual performance down into a raw score for goals for and against and then adjust that score for context.

    For goals for instead of using GF/60 I use points and shot for. I re-weighted points to count goals more than second assists. For forwards this results in an adjusted points score that is almost exactly the same as real points (I multiply it by 1.01 to make it the same). Now you can’t use points/60 as a proxy for goals for because an individual forward only gets a point on 70% of goals. To get a number consistent with GF/60 I then took SF/60 and multiplied it by average save percentage and multiplied that by 30%. This gives you a raw goals for/60 number that relies only on empirically derived results and numerical coefficients derived from those results yet at the same time accounts for the individuals driving play (in the form of points) and all those plays that don’t necessarily result in goals but are nonetheless relevant (shots for).

    The problem with GA/60 is the problem of what control individuals have upon shot quality (as we saw in an earlier thread). My short hand “solution” to this problem is to weight this as 3 parts shots against (SA/60*league average shooting percentage*.75) and one part goals allowed (GA/60*.25). This division is arbitrary and can be changed depending on what you think the right mix is. I think 3 to 1 is a reasonable starting point and while it may advantage teams with good goaltending somewhat it doesn’t do so in an evident and dramatic manner. Perhaps 4 to 1 would be better.

    This gives you raw scores that then need to be adjusted for context. The underlying premise here is that there is a linear relationship between zone starts, quality of competition, and quality of teammates and goals for and against. (I got this idea from the driving play guys). On the basis of that assumption it is merely a manner of calculating the slope of that relationship. Now I don’t have the technical ability to run the regression so I made up coefficients and played around with the data until the coefficients no longer played an evident determining role (i.e. there was no evident bias in the results towards any single context factor). This part of the process could be improved by calculating actual coefficients but the intuitive way works well at providing a rough number. There is also some issue with what to use for quality of competition and teammates. I used the absolute corsi versions because the numbers have to be absolute (and not relative) and those were the only ones available to me. There is also the problem of scaling the numbers since the range for Qcomp is a lot smaller than Qteam but that also could be solved by actually running the regression instead of inducing it.

    So that’s basically what I came up with in two hours or so. It isn’t perfect but I think it is the best that can be done with the available data.

    If knew how I’d email you the spreadsheet so you can play around with it yourself.

    Note I know how to use email. I don’t know how to get an email address without broadcasting said email address to the world.

  74. Lowetide says:

    Steve Smith: I don’t think NHL teams draft anyone over 20 anymore. If you’re 21, they can’t draft you.

  75. "Steve Smith" says:

    Lowetide: If you’re 21, they can’t draft you.

    Why?

    That’s true of North American players who have not previously been drafted (it’s 22 for non-North American players), but not for players, like Schultz, who have previously been drafted exactly once. At least, that’s my read.

  76. Captain Obvious says:

    Ducey,

    I’ve seen Reinhart play but I wouldn’t base anything on that assessment. I’m basing this on my ability to read through the words of other people. Generally speaking the adjectives attached to Reinhart are words that don’t mean very much. I can’t find anyone who thinks he is notably better than his peers or that thinks he stands out in any tangible way (other than the fact that he literally stands out). In contrast to the other candidates for a top five pick who, by consensus, have elite skill. Moreover, the numbers don’t have him standing out very much either.

    There is a seismic chasm between the way people talked about Hall or Seguin or Hopkins or Landeskog or even a bad pick like Larson, and the way that people talk about Reinhart that there is no way to justify taking him in the top 5.

  77. Schitzo says:

    For what it’s worth, Blake Wheeler signed with Boston on July 1, 2008. That’s either a heck of a coincidence, or the answer to the question.

  78. "Steve Smith" says:

    My analysis on the bit about Schultz turning 22 on July 7 is incorrect: by virtue of section 9.2, he’s already deemed to be 22, and his ELC would run for only two years:

    9.2 Age of Players. As used in this Article, “age,” including “First SPC Signing Age,” means a Player’s age on September 15 of the calendar year in which he signs an SPC, regardless of his actual age on the date he signs such SPC.

  79. "Steve Smith" says:

    Schitzo,

    Yeah, I can’t figure out why Wheeler wasn’t draft-eligible in 2008, either. Anybody?

  80. Lowetide says:

    How many 22 year olds were drafted last season?

  81. "Steve Smith" says:

    Lowetide,

    Without looking, I’ll guess zero. My point is just that I can’t find anything prohibiting it in the CBA, and if there’s nothing prohibiting it, it’s allowed.

    (Part of the issue would be that by the time anybody worth drafting is 22, he’s probably no longer draft-eligible. But I can’t figure out why Schultz and Wheeler aren’t exceptions.)

  82. Schitzo says:

    Steve: I remember looking into those rules when it looked like we might not sign Riley Nash, and I agree… If you haven’t gone back in the draft a second time I have no idea why you get to skip straight to free agency.

  83. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    Schitzo,

    Yeah, I can’t figure out why Wheeler wasn’t draft-eligible in 2008, either.Anybody?

    College players are treated differently the junior players.

    Here’s a piece penned by the U of Wisc Badger’s blogger.

    http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/2012/3/13/2864094/schultz-forgoes-senior-season

    And a simple explanation.

    “Schultz is now 21 years old and will become 22 on July 6th. He has yet to sign an entry level contract. Under the current CBA rules in the NHL if a player does not sign a contract by 22 years old he becomes eligible or unrestricted free agency. But it is more complicated than that!

    The main factor for Schultz to consider is how soon he can sign his second contract and potentially begin to earn some serious salary. Players who sign entry level contract while under the age of 22 are required to sign for three years. If they are 22-23 they are required to sign for two years. If Schultz signs now with Anaheim he will insist on playing this season to burn off a year of his contract and qualify for RFA in 2014. If he holds out and signs after July 6th he will still become a RFA in 2014, but can sign with any team he chooses.”

    It would appear, if Shultz was going to sign with the Ducks, he would have done so by now and played in the few remaining games to burn off a year of his ELC.

    The betting is he goes to Toronto to play with former team mate and close friend, Jake Gardiner, or to Vancouver to be close to home.

    From what I’ve read, he can become a free agent on June 1st but can’t be signed until July 1st.

    Given that Blake Wheeler signed on July 1st, that would appear to be the case.

  84. "Steve Smith" says:

    DSF,

    That is totally unhelpful, in that
    i. it concludes its “explanation” of why Schultz isn’t draft-eligible with “But it is more complicated than that!”, and
    ii. makes no reference to the language of the CBA.

  85. delooper says:

    The Madonna of the Soviet Union!

    http://youtu.be/0Kmg9FBgwAI

  86. Ribs says:

    Can’t wait for the Double Schultz tandem on the blueline. So when does he get here….Like tomorrow? Great.

  87. BlacqueJacque says:

    If we win the lottery, trade the pick for a franchise d-man.

    If we lose the lottery, try to trade the pick for a franchise d-man.

    If we lose the lottery and can’t trade the pick for a franchise d-man, we pick Murray, and then try to trade him (+players/prospects/picks) for a franchise d-man.

    Because if we wait for Murray or Dumba or Reinhart to become franchise d-men, by that time Jordan Eberle will be halfway into his prime, Nuge will just be starting it, and Taylor Hall will be there at the first game of the season, in a wheeilchair, neckbrace, and awaiting three different surgeries.

  88. bendelson says:

    “Steve Smith”,

    Your take on this seems logical.
    It bodes well for the Oilers as well. If they were to sign Schultz on June 1st it would help determine whether management should draft a forward (which I would suggest they should do).

    Follow-up question: So the Oilers could be talking with Fasth and can sign him anytime or does the June 1st date exist in this situation as well?

  89. Lowetide says:

    I’m sure I read somewhere that you couldn’t draft kids who were 21.

  90. bendelson says:

    Lowetide,

    Why not just go to the premiere source on the many intricacies of the CBA?

    Ask Olczyk.

  91. Wolfie says:

    Well, I know the oldest player ever drafted was a Russian goalie at the age of 38, if I remember correctly. I’m not sure if they changed the rules since then.

  92. Ducey says:

    Big win by the Habs puts EDM in 29th

  93. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    DSF,

    That is totally unhelpful, in that
    i. it concludes its “explanation” of why Schultz isn’t draft-eligible with “But it is more complicated than that!”, and
    ii. makes no reference to the language of the CBA.

    If a drafted player hasn’t been signed 4 years after being drafted he becomes a UFA.

  94. Gerta Rauss says:

    Well there you go Steve-after several hours of discussion,with the help of DSF we’ve determined that Schultz is eligible to become a UFA.

  95. "Steve Smith" says:

    DSF,

    Feel free to source that to the CBA (which is widely considered more authoritative on these matters than college kids’ blogs).

  96. Schitzo says:

    The CBA states that:

    Eligibility for Claim.
    (a)
    All Players age 18 or older are eligible for claim in the Entry Draft,
    except:
    (i)
    a Player on the Reserve List of a Club, other than as a try-out;
    (ii)
    a Player who has been claimed in two prior Entry Drafts;
    (iii)
    a Player who previously played in the League and became a Free
    Agent pursuant to this Agreement;
    (iv)
    a Player age 21 or older who: (A) has not been selected in a
    previous Entry Draft and (B) played hockey for at least one season
    in North America when he was age 18, 19, or 20 and shall be
    eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant
    to Article 10.1(d); and
    (v)
    a Player age 22 or older who has not been selected in a previous
    Entry Draft and shall be eligible to enter the League as an
    Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d).

    I don’t see Schultz (or Wheeler, for that matter) meeting any of those exceptions. But if we conclude that he is draft-eligible, we run into this:


    8.9
    Eligibility for Play in the League. No Player shall be eligible for play in the
    League unless he:
    (a)
    had been claimed in the last Entry Draft, or was ineligible for claim under
    Section 8.4; or
    (b)
    had been eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft, but was unclaimed, and...

    So if he was eligible, he needs to go unclaimed…

    I suspect that the answer is that the CBA doesn’t reflect any amendments that may take place behind the scenes.

  97. Woodguy says:

    Re: Shultz

    I still think I had it right in my post March 3th at 10:56am

    SteveSmith,

    I don’t think Shultz has to wait until July 1st to sign either. Teams sign players out of college during the year at various times, never seems to be an issue.

    The July 1st is UFA day is because most NHL contracts end June 30th.

    If you do not have a contract you can sign anytime (barring stipulations in the CBA, none of which i know that would stop Shultz from signing June 2ndish, I could be wrong)

    Captain Obvious,

    Follow me on twitter, I’m @Woodguy55 I’ll follow you back and you can exchange direct messages there to exchange emails. I’ll send you that SA/60 vs. ExpSA/60 stuff.
    Ducey,

    I think Anthopolous is very strong on his math.

    He was on Gregor’s show today and was very impressive. Knew the stats of every player brought up, strengths/weakness from players in A-ball to the Jays.

    When asked about “moneyball”, he said that the Oakland A’s looked at OBP because it was one stat that was undervalued and they had a budget. He continued that if they weren’t a budget team, they would look at other stats first.

    He seems to select his players for power hitting and defense. He acknowledged that they lack base running and will lose some runs this year because of it, but views a running out as very bad as it represents a run if the current batter hit a home run.

    He knew his math and stats up down and sideways for everyone in the org top to bottom.

    Contrast this to v4.0 who looked like a deer in the headlights when informed that Tuebert had been a healthy scratch often in the AHL at the Penner trade presser.

    Different managers will use stats to different degrees.

    If the measuring scale is 1-5, I’d rather have a 5 GM who uses 1 Math, than a 1 GM who uses 3 Math.

    Optimal is 5 and 5 obviously.

    Having the metrics is one thing.

    Having the smarts to apply to your knowledge and incorporate it property into your decision making is something else entirely.

  98. Ducey says:

    Woodguy, I don’t doubt Alex A knows his stats and math, but he doesn’t make decisions based on it as much as the sabermatics guys would want. Here is a quote from a recent Jeff Blair article:

    Anthopoulos and LaCava do not deny there is now a prototypical player and pitcher that will catch the Blue Jays’ eyes at draft time. But they won’t go any further.

    “What I’d say is that more and more in the past couple of years, I realized how much I like athletes,” Anthopoulos said. LaCava isn’t all that forthcoming, either, beyond saying the player must be athletic, “a good size,” and be projectable: meaning a scout can make a case the player has a high ceiling that will not be maximized early in his development.

    So projection and ceiling matter. Size matters. Scouts matter. There is definitely a place for math too and presumably the Jays maximize both. But guys on the internet who run around like they know everything about a player because they have seen their stats make the same mistake as the scouts who ignore their stats.

    Alex A is a crackerjack GM. I’m generally a Tamby apologist, but I would drive him to the airport myself if we could get someone like Anthopoulos.

  99. Ducey says:

    Speaking of baseball, Votto gets a quarter billion dollar guaranteed contract – from a small market team! Wow.

  100. Jamie says:

    DSF:

    The betting is he goes to Toronto to play with former team mate and close friend, Jake Gardiner, or to Vancouver to be close to home.

    There is some logic to this but I can’t imagine it being the major factor. Landing in a situation where he has the best chance to play in the NHL and getting some time on the PP would surely be more important than hanging out with a buddy or being in the same area as his family would it not? Toronto seems to have an over abundance of defensemen as does Vancouver so I suspect they are not the ideal spot if you want to play now. Normally I wouldn’t believe that the Oiler’s would be able to sign a prominent FA, but if you are looking for a team where the opportunity is to step in, get some meaningful minutes and make an impact, this defence is the one I would look at.

  101. Woodguy says:

    The part of the CBA that deals with the June 1 thing is 8.6.c.ii

    If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at
    the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide
    college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in
    the Entry Draft, and does not remain a bona fide college student
    through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall
    retain exclusive rights for the negotiation of his services until the
    fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft. The Club
    need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such
    rights.

    Bonafide!

  102. DSF says:

    Woodguy:
    The part of the CBA that deals with the June 1 thing is 8.6.c.ii

    If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at
    the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide
    college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in
    the Entry Draft, and does not remain a bona fide college student
    through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall
    retain exclusive rights for the negotiation of his services until the
    fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft. The Club
    need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such
    rights.

    Bonafide!

    That’s what I said but SS is almost a lawyer.

    4 years!

    :)

  103. "Steve Smith" says:

    (None of you fuckers actually read my post where I discussed all this, did you?)

  104. "Steve Smith" says:

    DSF,

    DSF – where’s the part of that quote that says the player becomes a free agent?

  105. Lowetide says:

    it was long and had big words.

  106. DSF says:

    Jamie: There is some logic to this but I can’t imagine it being the major factor.Landing in a situation where he has the best chance to play in the NHL and getting some time on the PP would surely be more important than hanging out with a buddy or being in the same area as his family would it not?Toronto seems to have an over abundance of defensemen as does Vancouver so I suspect they are not the ideal spot if you want to play now.Normally I wouldn’t believe that the Oiler’s would be able to sign a prominent FA, but if you are looking for a team where the opportunity is to step in, get some meaningful minutes and make an impact, this defence is the one I would look at.

    Sami Salo is a UFA in Vancouver and his spot on the second pairing and 1st unit PP is up for grabs.

    In Toronto, expect the unexpected since Burke may make some interesting moves at the draft.

    Burke has a history with the Ducks and I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if there is a major deal between the two teams at the draft.

    Getzlaf needs a new address and Burke desperately needs a #1C.

    Lot’s of possibilities there.

  107. DSF says:

    "Steve Smith":
    (None of you fuckers actually read my post where I discussed all this, did you?)

    I did.

    But I nodded off in the middle.

    Better work on your “jury relations”.

  108. "Steve Smith" says:

    DSF,

    I shall call you “Challenge for Cause”.

  109. Woodguy says:

    "Steve Smith":
    (None of you fuckers actually read my post where I discussed all this, did you?)

    Didn’t go that far back up.

    Sorry.

    It was long and full of big italicized words.

  110. Schitzo says:

    Woodguy,

    I know an example isn’t proof of anything, but as I said above, Boston signed Wheeler July 1. Pretty sure it’s because they couldn’t do it sooner.

  111. Jamie says:

    DSF,

    Problem for Schultz is he is likely to make his decision before he knows if Salo is being retained or not. I tend to think the “wanting to play at home” argument doesn’t make much sense for younger players and finding a team that fits with their interests is more important.

    Agreed on the Anaheim and Maple Leafs intrigue, but again Schultz will likely be making a decision before the draft (but perhaps not).

  112. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    DSF,

    I shall call you “Challenge for Cause”.

    And so you should.

  113. Woodguy says:

    Schitzo:
    Woodguy,

    I know an example isn’t proof of anything, but as I said above, Boston signed Wheeler July 1.Pretty sure it’s because they couldn’t do it sooner.

    I was just reading about Wheeler trying to figure this out and the best I found in 5min was that it was due to a clause in the old CBA, not this one, as he was drafted under the old cba.

    Could be wrong:

    http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=485834

  114. Alice says:

    Ok, I’ll take a stab at it. Why does the first team lose his rights June 1?

    Because that date allows him back into the Draft, which is usually held in June.

    Schitzo’s worry,
    (a)
    had been claimed in the last Entry Draft, or was ineligible for claim under
    Section 8.4; or
    (b)
    had been eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft, but was unclaimed, and…

    shouldn’t be an issue, in fact the entire piece is somewhat pointless. It says you can only play if you were a) drafted or ineligible to be drafted, or b) not drafted. Since that covers all possible states it’s superfluous, at least if I’m reading it correctly.

    Take JS 32nd?

  115. DSF says:

    Jamie:
    DSF,

    Problem for Schultz is he is likely to make his decision before he knows if Salo is being retained or not.I tend to think the “wanting to play at home” argument doesn’t make much sense for younger players and finding a team that fits with their interests is more important.

    Agreed on the Anaheim and Maple Leafs intrigue, but again Schultz will likely be making a decision before the draft (but perhaps not).

    As we all know, UFA’s tend to be signed about 32 seconds after free agency is open so one would have to assume there has been some contact between their agents and the team that signs them.

    I would be shocked if Shutlz hadn’t already made a decision.

    Both Gillis and Burke have a track record of signing college free agents (Tanev, Cannata, Bozak, Frattin) so you have to think they are all over this.

  116. DSF says:

    Alice:
    Ok, I’ll take a stab at it. Why does the first team lose his rights June 1?

    Because that date allows him back into the Draft, which is usually held in June.

    Schitzo’s worry,
    (a)
    had been claimed in the last Entry Draft, or was ineligible for claim under
    Section 8.4; or
    (b)
    had been eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft, but was unclaimed, and…

    shouldn’t be an issue, in fact the entire piece is somewhat pointless. It says you can only play if you were a) drafted or ineligible to be drafted, or b) not drafted. Since that covers all possible states it’s superfluous, at least if I’m reading it correctly.

    Take JS 32nd?

    1) He’s too old for the draft.

    2) He hasn’t been signed within 4 years by the team that drafted him’

  117. DSF says:

    Woodguy: I was just reading about Wheeler trying to figure this out and the best I found in 5min was that it was due to a clause in the old CBA, not this one, as he was drafted under the old cba.

    Could be wrong:

    http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=485834

    That clause was rolled over unchanged in the new CBA,

  118. "Steve Smith" says:

    Exhibit 15 includes a “critical date calendar”, that includes the following:

    Later of June 15 or 48 hours after conclusion of Stanley Cup Finals:

    Moratorium on New SPCs Begins

    [...]

    July 1:

    Moratorium on New SPCs Ends

    So that’s a partial explanation, but leaves a couple of questions:
    1. What is the source for this alleged moratorium? It doesn’t appear elsewhere in the CBA, and if that calendar is supposed to be prescriptive, it’s certainly haphazard.
    2. Why can’t Schultz sign between June 1 and June 15?

  119. "Steve Smith" says:

    DSF,

    The issue with those clauses, as I pointed out earlier, is that they don’t say anything about the players becoming free agents. They say that the player comes off the reserve list. That does not equate to free agency: to be a free agent, a player must be on no club’s reserve list and also not be draft-eligible. I’m trying to figure out why Schultz isn’t draft-eligible.

  120. Ducey says:

    If only we knew someone with a radio show that could interview someone in authority on this.

  121. Gerta Rauss says:

    Ducey,

    Ha!
    Awesome…if I didn’t know any better I’d swear you were bookie

  122. Gerta Rauss says:

    Ken Campbell from the Hockey news dated May 2008 regarding the Wheeler story. No smoking gun but it’s curious he comments on the 30 days notice and that Wheeler became a UFA June 8.
    He also mentions the old CBA but he was referring to the salary structure.
    He also mentions compensation of the 35th pick for Phoenix.

  123. Lowetide says:

    Ducey:
    If only we knew someone with a radio show that could interview someone in authority on this.

    I’m not interviewing “Steve Smith” on the radio. He’ll be charming and funny and then I’ll be back to cleaning toilets.

  124. "Steve Smith" says:

    Lowetide,

    I truly am unspeakably charming, in a borderline autistic sort of a way.

    But I think Ducey was proposing somebody who would know the answers to the questions I’ve been asking. Almost by definition, that’s not me.

  125. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    DSF,

    The issue with those clauses, as I pointed out earlier, is that they don’t say anything about the players becoming free agents.They say that the player comes off the reserve list.That does not equate to free agency: to be a free agent, a player must be on no club’s reserve list and also not be draft-eligible.I’m trying to figure out why Schultz isn’t draft-eligible.

    “Steve Smith”:
    DSF,

    The issue with those clauses, as I pointed out earlier, is that they don’t say anything about the players becoming free agents.They say that the player comes off the reserve list.That does not equate to free agency: to be a free agent, a player must be on no club’s reserve list and also not be draft-eligible.I’m trying to figure out why Schultz isn’t draft-eligible.

    He’s too old. Period.

    “All players who will be 18 years old before September 15 and not older than 20 years old before December 31 are eligible for selection for that year’s NHL Entry Draft. In addition, non-North American players over the age of 20 are eligible”

  126. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    Lowetide,

    I truly am unspeakably charming, in a borderline autistic sort of a way.

    But I think Ducey was proposing somebody who would know the answers to the questions I’ve been asking.Almost by definition, that’s not me.

    Maybe Rick Olczyk…although apparently he can’t count to four.

  127. Gerta Rauss says:

    LT could get to the bottom of this in 3 questions or less.

  128. Lowetide says:

    The best source of this stuff I know is speeds. Maybe I’ll get him on.

  129. regwald says:

    vishcosity:
    Did people talk of Getzlaf seeming uninspired during his last year of junior?If there is some concern about Grig, I hope they find out how similar those two examples are, if i have the fables so reconstructed, before passing on a centre with any thunder I his game.

    The story about Getzlaf was that it was post draft. After being drafted by the Ducks in coasted the next season in junior and was such a problem they stripped him of his captaincy. So, Grig’s issue is pre-draft. There was some talk about Getzlaf as being lazy prior to his draft, don’t have any references. He was not a slam-dunk prospect going into his draft.

  130. TheOtherJohn says:

    Realize that simplicity is scary but is not the answer that you are on someone’s list until you are not. That is Schultz is on Ana list until June 1 and then he falls outside that restriction. If so he would be capable of being signed on June 2 subject to other specific restrictions in the CBA.

    CBA’a are not typically drafted with complexity in mind, N/w/s the Oilers difficulty in comprehending it’s apparent complexities

    Speeds will, as always, have given the issue lots of thought and undoubtedly know the correct answer

    P.S. DSF why would Schultz want to tie himself to an aging team whose SCF window is closing? Or does VCR,along with a series of Stanley Cup wins that none of us are aware of, also have access to a time machine that turns back time for Sedin, Sedin, Bieksa, Burrows, Malhotra,,Luongo, etc

  131. Schitzo says:

    DSF:
    He’s too old. Period.

    “All players who will be 18 years old before September 15 and not older than 20 years old before December 31 are eligible for selection for that year’s NHL Entry Draft. In addition, non-North American players over the age of 20 are eligible”

    Interesting – where did you find that?

  132. "Steve Smith" says:

    TheOtherJohn:
    Realize that simplicity is scary but is not the answer that you are on someone’s list until you are not.

    Yes, but not being on somebody’s list does not make you a free agent.

    Additionally, there is some evidence to suggest that there is a period during which no contracts can be signed, which would help explain why somebody who becomes a free agent June 1 cannot be signed until July 1.

  133. FPB94 says:

    I don’t understand the buzz around FOrsberg.

    The kid is scoring at a slower clip than Paajarvi in the JUNIOR SEL! His scoring is comparable to Lars Eller but worse.

    wtf?!

    Fail for Nail, Or Grigorenko, or defensemen.

    If you look at F’s it’s probably the worst draft in the decade.

  134. "Steve Smith" says:

    Schitzo,

    Wikipedia. Which sources it to this page, which in turn says nothing of the sort.

    [Edit: My bad, actually: exception (iv) on that page does say what DSF is claiming. Mind you, it also misspells the word "player". And in any event, where the text of the CBA and the NHL's website differ, the former shall prevail, at least according to my understanding of the law.]

    Seriously, this isn’t complicated: either the CBA provides for Schultz to be draft-ineligible, or it doesn’t. And if it does, somebody should be able to point to language in the CBA that actually says that.

  135. FPB94 says:

    SS: Haha. That reminds of my philosophy class.

    ”You’re either right or wrong. You don’t get respect from having an opinion, you get it from having a good one”

  136. Schitzo says:

    "Steve Smith",

    I went back and forth with Mike Russo, the Minnesota beat writer, re: something to do with waivers once upon a time. He basically told me that “you won’t find an answer in the CBA but there are periodic unpublished changes to the CBA that will dictate the result”.

    So now i get lazy and just assume that there’s some internal document that resolves this issue the way the newspapers suggest.

  137. "Steve Smith" says:

    Another possibility, which at this point seems to me to be favoured by Occam’s Razor (not just for shaving fourteenth century logicians!), is that the version of the CBA I’m using – this one – is inaccurate or somehow outdated. It would explain why the rules that the NHL follows and posts on its website differ from those in the CBA.

  138. "Steve Smith" says:

    Schitzo,

    Huh – didn’t see that before I made my last comment. It would explain everything, but also rather call into question why they publish the damned thing in the first place, if they’re going to make unpublished changes.

  139. speeds says:

    I don’t have any answers here either, because like “Steve Smith” I can’t figure out why he isn’t eligible for claim in the draft.

    I never did fully understand what happened with Wheeler, but figured it might have had something to do with him being drafted in the old CBA.

    I started a thread on HF, maybe someone will pop by with an answer that fills in the gaps?

  140. Braintrust says:

    #1) I would draft Murray at #2 or trade down (a slot or two) and get additional compensation (IF the next team (or two) promised not to take him;

    #2) I agree with trading Sam Gagner. I loved him as a player ever since he played with the London Knights, but now is the time to upgrade at the #2 Centre position. We need a POWER FORWARD there and not a “Smurf”. I still like the idea of sending him to Anaheim for Cam Fowler (if they would do that deal).; and

    #3) The solution to the #2 Centreman comes from within our own organization. It’s either going to be Tyler Pitlick or Ryan Martindale. You can’t judge either one yet because they need another 2 years of development, however, my personal choice would be to give the edge to Martindale. He has excellent size, a fantastic talent level and a high hockey I.Q. The only question is whether he has the “drive” or “fire in the belly” that is necessary to compete successfully at the NHL level.

    We will see what happens, but at the very least, we MUST draft Murray and go from there.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca