OILERS SIGN NAIL

The Edmonton Oilers have signed #1 overall pick Nail Yakupov to his entry level deal. Details are here.

written by

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

96 Responses to "OILERS SIGN NAIL"

  1. Bar_Qu says:

    Well, that was an effusive press release. Positively ebullient.

  2. bookje says:

    This sucks, I tell you, the drama has simply left this team. Where is Lowe demanding $20,000 cash back on the deal? Why is there not more dithering pushing this back well into training camp? How come Nail’s agent isn’t casually discussing how nice the summers are in Omsk?

    Next thing you know, the team is going to trade for a defenseman and improve the fourth line and then what are we going to talk about?

    Sigh.

  3. Dipstick says:

    bookje,

    There is always the Eskies. Oh wait, forget that

  4. nathan says:

    bookje,

    The only drama left is finding out whether Yak is pitching for the Rexall Family of Pharmacies, Molson Canadian, ATB Financial, Cenovus Energy or Ford. I guess ATB is already spoken for.

  5. Beaker says:

    nathan,

    Can Yak say “oh”?

  6. remlap says:

    nathan,

    I’d like to see him replace Dubnyk as the clueless guy going to work for ATCO.

  7. nathan says:

    Beaker,
    remlap,

    I assumed Capital Power already renewed that guy for another 2 years.

  8. nathan says:

    bookje,

    Looks like the Journal is cornering the drama market:

    ‏@MitchMoroz: Lots of craziness in the world today.. Cam Tait being let go by the journal adds to it. Brought nothing but smiles! http://pic.twitter.com/2mIDbHHj

    ‏@lchodan Editor in chief of the Edmonton Journal

    @dantencer @camtait Glad to report that Cam will continue to write his column at the Journal.
    @eskinator Cam is indeed amazing; glad to say he’ll continue to write a column for the Journal.
    @MitchMoroz Glad to say Cam will continue to write his column for the Journal, Mitch.
    @mastermaq @camtait @RobWilliamsCTV Hey guys, glad to say Cam will continue to write a column @gjmventures @edmontonjournal @EdmontonUrinal Cam is still writing columns for the Journal; hope @nielson1260 Cam will still be writing for the Journal every week.
    @GordWhitehead49 Hey Gord, Cam is going to continue writing a weekly column for us.
    @Klowe4 Happy to say Cam will continue to write a weekly column for us.
    @sunterryjones Glad to say Cam will continue to write a column for the Journal every week.

  9. Ribs says:

    Maybe he can be the new nib or nub guy. Boy, do I ever wish they’re making different commercials this season.

  10. sliderule says:

    Nice!
    Now we can continue to bitch about our second round pick or maybe no trades for D or Bulin not a good enough backup .

  11. delooper says:

    I bet he could do a killer Shipley Photo add, like how Kurri used to do them. Is Shipley Photo still around?

  12. bookje says:

    That Cam Tait tweet shows one of the challanges of editing down a social media comment to 140 characters. The first read suggests that Mitch Moroz is ‘nothing but smiles’ because Cam Tait is being let go by the Journal. However, I am pretty sure the intent is to say “It’s crazy that Cam Tait is being let go by the Journal, the guy brought nothing but smiles”

    Tough times for newspapers, I hope the journal manages to stick around and maintain a decent level of quality.

  13. delooper says:

    Newspapers for not-quite-giant cities (giants being NYC, LA, London, Sydney, etc) have some tricky decisions ahead. One model I haven’t seen would be to go more towards a condensed “hard news” format. Perhaps making the newspaper just once or twice a week, more of a magazine format. Cut out advertisement dependency and go subscriptions as the primary income machine, sort of like the Economist. It would be nice to have a paper that covers things like local politics in more detail, and with less advertiser input it might be easier to be more critical and independent.

  14. Doug McLachlan says:

    There has been a methodical approach to the Oiler’s to-do list this off season that is very encouraging – guess the season will be lost to the CBA fight.

  15. Mr DeBakey says:

    Just some more background on yesterday’s discussion of 30-something draft picks

    Looking at 10 years starting 2007
    Picks 30 – 35, 60 picks total
    Of the 60:
    Average GP 104
    Average Pts 33

    17 of 60, zero NHL games.

    4 of 60 beat average GP – goalie Neuwirth, goons Peat & Peters, and inoffensive D-man Brendan Mikkelson.

    12 of 60 beat average GP & Pts:
    …………….. GP – PTS
    Derek Roy… 549 - 427
    Loui Eriksson 453 - 328
    Nick Schultz 763 - 132
    James Neal… 314 - 218
    Marc Vlasic.. 471 - 133
    Jim Slater … 449 - 121
    Dave Bolland 297 - 154
    Blair Betts … 477 - 78
    Dave Steckel 385 - 72
    Brad Winchester 390 - 68
    Artem Chubarov 228 - 58
    Jeff Taffe …. 180 – 46

  16. nathan says:

    Mr DeBakey,

    Another 1 in 5 stat. In this case tied to 30-35 playing 104 NHL games. I liked the little I saw of Moroz late last year and in the cup run. If I was as close as these guys were to the Oil King bench I might like those odds a lot.

  17. bookje says:

    delooper:
    Newspapers for not-quite-giant cities (giants being NYC, LA, London, Sydney, etc) have some tricky decisions ahead. One model I haven’t seen would be to go more towards a condensed “hard news” format.Perhaps making the newspaper just once or twice a week, more of a magazine format.Cut out advertisement dependency and go subscriptions as the primary income machine, sort of like the Economist.It would be nice to have a paper that covers things like local politics in more detail, and with less advertiser input it might be easier to be more critical and independent.

    I actually think the solution will be to focus on local news and on significantly dropping the number of high paid professional reporters, many of whom have taken a ‘tenured’ approach to their positions and who haven’t put in a good effort in decades. In some areas of news, you have guys like Bruce who are contributing great articles to the sports section for probably about 1/30th the annual pay of a ‘real’ reporter like Terry Jones. I think there is still room for some top notch journalists who put out daily columns, but I also think that integrating more top notch bloggers who do it out of interest goes a long ways to making for a good paper. You can do this in gardening, sports, education, etc…

    Reducing the number of hard copy papers is also a likely step (as we see with the drop of sunday delivery for the journal). A leaner, smaller paper, more akin to tabloid papers is also likely in the long term.

    Basically, I eventually see it shifting to an online presence that organizes and coordinates locally focused information delivery.

  18. FPB94 says:

    nathan,

    Still. Not a single CHL/USHL/NCAA kid was under 0,5 PPG in the lot.

    Blair Betts was a scoring dynamo in Junior.

    Mitch Moroz has virtually 0 chance of becoming good… in the AHL.

  19. Downright Fierce says:

    Predicting a graceful transition for print media is like predicting a 3-for-1 trade for blueline depth by the Oilers in July.

  20. Dipstick says:

    I did not see a lot of OK games last season, so my viewing was limited. Comparing the two somewhat similar prospects against each other, I can not understand how Moroz was within 5 picks of Samuelsson. I may very likely be proved wrong, but that was my impression.

  21. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    So where’s the pomp and circumstance I was promised (not really).

  22. nathan says:

    FPB94,

    Yup. And Bob McKenzie and the scouts he surveyed routinely put guys like that in their 2nd round. Very interesting WHL rookie.

  23. nathan says:

    Dipstick,

    Moroz went half a round early because Samuelson was gone. Moroz’s 2nd WHL year is next year. We’ll all see soon enough whether they were close enough to see what this kid will do with top 6 time or they were close enough to get too attached.

  24. FPB94 says:

    Out of the 100 or so fowards who scored 40 points in the NHL last year, here are the guys with Moroz’s scoring range:

    Brooks Laich (30 points in 71 games, 6th round)
    Burrows (30 points in 65 games, Undrafted)
    Lucic (20 points in 60 games or so, 2nd round)

    What good company. Let’s say the odds are very, very low.

    Even those dudes’ scoring pace is higher than Moroz.

    And if you’re not going to expect 40 points out of a 2nd rounder, you probably can trade him for better value than the final product you want.

  25. FPB94 says:

    nathan,

    No. Lucic is the only 20 point guy to ever have any relevence in the modern NHL. So he’s really just a terribly low odds pick.

  26. nathan says:

    FPB94,

    How the hell do you know the projected scoring range of a WHL rookie on a stacked WHL Cup winner? Do fill me on his ice time, in-season role progress. McKenzie, the scouts he surveyed, Stu etc. all know more than your tip toeing through the tulip fields. I’ll entertain your opinion when we see what he makes of top 6 time in his 2nd season. All I know now is what the market says: picked half a round to a round early.

  27. FPB94 says:

    nathan,

    Nathan: Well if absolutely NOBODY except Milan Lucic in FORTY YEARS, has ever become relevant after scoring in the range of Moroz. I would assume all the other criterias matter not much. Or in fact are irrelevant, seeing there’s only one guy who’s ever recovered from such a shitty draft season, there isn’t a pattern to observ, so unless they’re trying to see if he comes off exactly like Lucic, there isn’t much to observ here.

    99,9% of the time, dropping acid in your eyes will render you blind or partially blind. If someone drops acid just well enough so his cataractes gets burned and nothing else, we should not begin to all drop acid on our eyes, just so 999 guys will go blind, and one will be fine.

  28. wordbird says:

    Nash to NYR… tweets Dreger.

  29. nathan says:

    FPB94,

    Still waiting for your TOI and rookie season splits. Too busy dropping acid? Nothing like that stuff to makes you feel smarter than McKenzie and the scouts.

  30. FPB94 says:

    nathan,

    I think you don’t understand the analogy.

    How do you sort down ”up arrows” on guys like this, if nobody’s ever made it? (Except Lucic).

    There’s no trend. His TOI doesn’t fucking matter. Because regardless of what TOI all the kids had, they all failed. So you can’t say that having this or that is good, because in the end, nothing indicates that it’s a factor that matters with these type of guys, cause they just don’t make it.

    So even if you get out all the factors, what do you do with them? You can’t say there’s something there, because there’s nothing to take conclusion from. (Or would you say, Lucic is a big enough database out of 120401 failed hocked players).

    Jesus christ. It’s not because one person was succesful at doing a stupid thing one time, that it now becomes worth it.

    You know what’s funny? You don’t even bother to prove what you’re requesting is actually useful.

  31. nathan says:

    I think you’re lost in your analogy. TOI does not matter. Season splits on a rookie do not matter. What he did on real ice with the ice time and spots he earned on a stacked team as he progressed do not matter. But you’ve got a number in your grill that makes him a bad pick for 4th round. Good work.

  32. nathan says:

    ‏@DarrenDreger: Columbus will get s pieces in return for Nash. Details to follow.

    Wonder which species?

  33. billymadison says:

    FPB94,

    You sound like DSF right now.

    Absolutely i agree that based on past history the odds are not in his favor. BUT you can’t write off the kid either.

    You are just spewing numbers and making assumptions. You have nothing concrete about the player himself, just what other players who were not named Mitch Moroz have done.

    You can disagree with the pick but you cant state for a fact he’ll never be good even in the AHL because it hasn’t happened yet. Every situation for every player is different.

    It’s like stating Paajarvi is a bust already. Having your opinion is one thing, but stating your opinion as if it is a bona fide fact is another

  34. FPB94 says:

    nathan,

    Not really. In 40 years only one man became useful after having scoring in the 20′s on his draft year. (Or let’s say, 13 points on 40 games in NCAA/USHL) to include all the americans.

    So in 40 years of drafting north american players, (IIRC compose somewhat 45% of the NHL), only a single guy made it, I think it’s pretty fair to assess this normally doesn’t work. And unless YOU prove that Lucic had all of the components that the others didn’t have in whatever (TOI, splits) and YOU prove that actually matters, then it does not.

  35. FPB94 says:

    billymadison,

    I’ve never said he never could become anything. Just that the odds he would are stupidly low.

  36. nathan says:

    FPB94,

    You really need to get onto twitter and let McKenzie and the scouting fraternity know how stupid they all are to think this WHL ROOKIE in his draft year is even worth a 4th round pick let alone a 2nd. If it’s so clear cut 140 characters should do it.

  37. billymadison says:

    FPB94,

    Yeah and they are, completely agreed but your arguing like you know for a fact the kids a bust exactly one month after he was drafted?

    In 3 years, if Moroz is struggling in the ECHL, then you can say I told you so, i told you so all you want. But stating random numbers about percentages of players who made it in the past 15 years means absolutely nothing.

    Those numbers have no impact on what Mitch Moroz will do because as of right now he is completely separate from all of those players as he hasn’t played a single second since he was drafted

  38. Woodguy says:

    Duninsky, Anisimov, Erixon, 1st for Nash.

    Stauffer says he thinks Erixon will get flipped for a forward.

    Erixon refuses to sign with CAL and engineered a trade to NYR and gets traded to CBJ. Shitty.

  39. Woodguy says:

    I have to say that return in a little underwhelming.

    A function of Nash’s huge Cap hit?

  40. Lucinius says:

    Wow. That’s all they got for Nash?

    Seriously?

  41. nathan says:

    Next up. What Nashville gets for 2 or 3 of those Flyer #1s. Or do they not get enough and match?

  42. OilClog says:

    Any pick after the first few are a gamble, writing Moroz off because he wasn’t a superstar on the 4th line in his rookie season on a stacked WHL championship team, is blind negativity. Picking a kid half a round early on the local junior team, being able to closely groom, monitor and help the kids progress actually sounds like smart long term agenda accomplishing feat.

  43. Doug McLachlan says:

    Woodguy,

    Hmm, we could always use a defenseman – any relationship between Klefbaum and Erixon?

  44. DSF says:

    billymadison:
    FPB94,

    You sound like DSF right now.

    Absolutely i agree that based on past history the odds are not in his favor. BUT you can’t write off the kid either.

    You are just spewing numbers and making assumptions. You have nothing concrete about the player himself, just what other players who were not named Mitch Moroz have done.

    You can disagree with the pick but you cant state for a fact he’ll never be good even in the AHL because it hasn’t happened yet. Every situation for every player is different.

    It’s like stating Paajarvi is a bust already. Having your opinion is one thing, but stating your opinion as if it is a bona fide fact is another

    My voice is much deeper and I have an Anatolian accent.

  45. DSF says:

    Tracy ‏@TreenasOil

    Look for Oiler CBJ to make deal possibly with one of the pieces coming from NYR. A P G

  46. DSF says:

    Gagner for Erixon?

  47. nathan says:

    Grandma’s knickers is listening to St@uffer again. Unless s-he-it is St@uffer.

  48. commonfan14 says:

    DSF: My voice is much deeper and I have an Anatolian accent.

    Ah, so DSF is Anatoli Semenov.

    Noted.

  49. FPB94 says:

    OilClog,

    That worked a grand number of 0 times. It sounds good. Sounds.

    nathan,

    I dislike twitter. So no thanks. I’ve never been afraid of saying I don’t much more of scouts than Snake Oil vendors until they prove themselves or back themselves with facts.

    I’ve glorified some scouting teams (MTL, NSH, WSH) because they seemed to know what they were doing, and trends established. At the same time i dissed a lot of scouting teams for stupid trends leading them to dismal drafts. (MIN, TOR as primetime exemples)

  50. Rondo says:

    DSF,

    Eberle for Adam Larsson

  51. nathan says:

    FPB94,

    What a shame. 140 characters is perfect for the depth of your reasoning.

  52. FPB94 says:

    nathan,

    Well well. Honeslty that’s ironic for a guy who proposes absolute 0 rationale behind the importance of the stats he wants (And doesn’t even post).’

    You’re just being lazy, not thinking for yourself, and then attack a guy who actually advances facts, accusing him of not having enough, then offering absolute zero facts in return that would somehow discredit them.

  53. gcw_rocks says:

    Woodguy,

    wrt Erixon, I would argue poetic justice…

  54. gcw_rocks says:

    DSF,

    MPS for Erixon, not Gagner. Gagner is a proven NHL player and Erixon is not.

  55. nathan says:

    FPB94,

    You have no context. You want no context. Nothing for you could overrule your context-less stat. So who would waste breath giving you any context? Points total for a WHL rookie on a stacked team is your entire rationale. That’s twitter deep.

  56. FPB94 says:

    nathan,

    That’s absolutely not what i’ve said.

    First off did you prove that :

    A: Being on a stacked team matters
    B: Being a WHL rookie matters
    C: There’s a pattern in context that make low end NA junior players more succesful than their other low-end counterpart.

    No. You didn’t. You’re just nitpicking at what i advance while proposing jackshit. Before criticizing what someone advances, do some research yourself if you want to get at it, instead of just blabbing the common tought back. Use your brain a little.

  57. Undisclosed_Personal_Reasons says:

    At the time of the trade, who did better given the similar circumstances: EDM with Pronger or CBJ with Nash?

    I’d argue that Pronger had higher value than Nash when he was traded and the return was less (again, at the time, not considering that the conditional pick turned into eberle, etc.)

  58. TheOtherJohn says:

    How does the Nash deal return compare to Pronger. paronger better player on slightly better contract

  59. nathan says:

    “That’s absolutely not what i’ve said.”

    In your own words. “I would assume all the other criterias matter not much. Or in fact are irrelevant”

    The only folks that can prove the other criteria were relevant are the folks who have ALL the data. I don’t so the scouts get another year.

  60. FPB94 says:

    nathan,

    Assume is the key word. That is unless you’ve proved otherwise. Which you didn’t.

  61. nathan says:

    FPB94,

    Be very careful with assumptions that deny all context is irrelevant.

  62. nathan says:

    @thenyrangers

    Along with Rick Nash, #NYR acquire D Steven Delisle and a conditional third round pick in the 2013 #NHL Draft…

    The #NYR have traded forwards Brandon Dubinsky & Artem Anisimov, & D Tim Erixon, along with a 2013 first round pick to Columbus in Nash deal.

  63. Bar_Qu says:

    The Nash return is vastly superior to the Pronger trade. The presence of Dubinsky alone makes it better.
    Add in Anisimov and a tweeter like Erixon and it is that much better again than O’Marra et al.

  64. FPB94 says:

    Anisimov is a 6”3 40 points guy who plays PK, and mostly been stuck at 3rd line. DUbinsky on a season low, Erixon tracking well and a 1st.

    Nash was just 30-30 this year.

  65. shawnmullin says:

    O’Marra? You’re talking about the Smyth trade I think.

  66. Bar_Qu says:

    shawnmullin,

    Lol, mea culpa.

    So, to revise, the Nash trade beats the Smyth trade hands down, but is roughly equivalent to the Pronger trade in that Edm got great value for the futures acquired, but it took 6 years to realise them. CBJ won’t have to wait so long as that, even though the ceiling is lower.

  67. PaperDesigner says:

    They got two first round draft picks, a second, and they successfully identified two players who, while not quite elite players, ended up being very, very good NHL players once they got going. Lupul is a top line winger if not a brilliant one, and Smid is now a very strong shut-down player, especially considering the weakness of the team he is on. I think they’re better players than Dubinsky and Anisimov.

    Erixon is a bit more of a proven commodity than the draft picks, and the Rangers can probably be counted on to return, like the Ducks did, a low first round draft pick. Call those two a saw-off, and you end up comparing Erixson to a late first round pick and a second. I’d probably take Erixson over that.

    Overall, though, I think the return for Pronger was better, even if Edmonton badly mismanaged Lupul as an asset (and Lupul begat PItkanen, and Pitkanen begat Cole, and Cole begat the most useless of hockey players, who begat a year of a replaceable bottom pairing defenceman…). But if you want to start factoring what actually happened with the assets, then you have to take into consideration the Jordan Eberle selection who turns it into a highly favourable return for Edmonton in comparison.

    Eberle aside, I still think the Oilers got a better package of assets back, but relative to actual NHL quality of the player leaving, I think Howson got better bang for his buck. That may have to do with NHL general managers overvaluing how good a player Nash is.

  68. Rondo says:

    Erixon would be an interesting player for the Oilers if he was in play.

    I suspect Columbus would be looking for a lot since the deal with Nash looks weak.

    They would be looking for a proven forward.

  69. commonfan14 says:

    Do we know why Erixon didn’t want to sign in Calgary?

    It’s one thing if it was about the team make-up or the fact that he just really wanted to play in NY. Quite another if he didn’t like the prospect of playing in Western Canada.

  70. Wes Mantooth-11 says:

    DSF,

    Gagner + Hemsky for Johansen and Tyutin?

  71. art vandelay says:

    I hope the journal manages to stick around and maintain a decent level of quality.

    Maintain what now?

  72. Undisclosed_Personal_Reasons says:

    PaperDesigner:
    They got two first round draft picks, a second, and they successfully identified two players who, while not quite elite players, ended up being very, very good NHL players once they got going. Lupul is a top line winger if not a brilliant one, and Smid is now a very strong shut-down player, especially considering the weakness of the team he is on. I think they’re better players than Dubinsky and Anisimov.

    Erixon is a bit more of a proven commodity than the draft picks, and the Rangers can probably be counted on to return, like the Ducks did, a low first round draft pick. Call those two a saw-off, and you end up comparing Erixson to a late first round pick and a second. I’d probably take Erixson over that.

    Overall, though, I think the return for Pronger was better, even if Edmonton badly mismanaged Lupul as an asset (and Lupul begat PItkanen, and Pitkanen begat Cole, and Cole begat the most useless of hockey players, who begat a year of a replaceable bottom pairing defenceman…). But if you want to start factoring what actually happened with the assets, then you have to take into consideration the Jordan Eberle selection who turns it into a highly favourable return for Edmonton in comparison.

    Eberle aside, I still think the Oilers got a better package of assets back, but relative to actual NHL quality of the player leaving, I think Howson got better bang for his buck. That may have to do with NHL general managers overvaluing how good a player Nash is.

    At the time, though, Lupul was a winger with upside. Not quite the same style as Anisimov, but similar in terms of value–in the same ball park at least. Smid was an unknown much like Erixon and one of the first rounders was conditional on a cup appearance, which seemed unlikely (thank goodness it happened though).

    The key here is the value at the time of the trade. I don’t think CBJ did too bad to get who they did given the circumstances.

  73. DSF says:

    Wes Mantooth-11:
    DSF,

    Gagner + Hemsky for Johansen and Tyutin?

    That would work for both teams.

    Columbus is going to be desperately in need of a “face” of the franchise and now has an excess of defensemen.

  74. Wes Mantooth-11 says:

    DSF,

    Would the Oilers would have to take some salary back? I would think to compensate For the Hemsky contract.

  75. Rondo says:

    This is all for fun and fantasy but which one would you take?

    1. Gagner + Hemsky for Johansen and Tyutin

    2. Gagner for Erixon

    3. Eberle for Adam Larsson

  76. PaperDesigner says:

    Undisclosed_Personal_Reasons: At the time, though, Lupul was a winger with upside. Not quite the same style as Anisimov, but similar in terms of value–in the same ball park at least. Smid was an unknown much like Erixon and one of the first rounders was conditional on a cup appearance, which seemed unlikely (thank goodness it happened though).

    The key here is the value at the time of the trade. I don’t think CBJ did too bad to get who they did given the circumstances.

    They were talking about Lupul as a player with first line upside then, coming off a 28 goal season, and Smid was expected to be a top four player eventually given his pedigree and reportedly a pretty successful rookie AHL season. I don’t know if they were… as unknown of assets as you suggest, but it’s still a fair point–what the Rangers have given up is a much more known quantity.

    But really, I don’t see either of those players as top line players. If you could do some kind of time fabric twisty-thingy, and have Lupul + Smid circa summer 2006 knowing only what those players had done up to that point versus Anisimov and Dubinsky, I think the team with Lupul and Smid would pull out of that deal. And I certainly wouldn’t do that trade now. The reason I and comparing Lupul and Smid to Anisimov and Dubinsky is that those four players were the most known quantities at the time of the trade. It’s a little difficult to compare, because I think Columbus has, shockingly, a much more “win now” flavour to it than the Pronger deal (if you just looked at the return, it’d be easy to confuse the team that was coming off a dead last finish with the team that was coming off a Stanley Cup finals appearance). But I think the Oilers got better assets. More expected upside at the time than what, at 26 and 24, are the relatively known Dubinsky and Anisimov. Erixson is a much better sweetener than an extra first and second round pick (better to get a first round talent that is trending well than giving your scouts, especially if they are Blue Jackets scouts, a chance to miss), but he only goes so far.

    But again, in terms of bang for the buck, given how vastly superior Pronger was as a player to Nash at the times of their respective trades, I give Howson credit for getting what he did. I think this sets up another deal for him, and if he picks the right defenceman to move out for another quality forward, either Erixson or someone else, he may end up with a better roster after dealing Nash than before.

  77. remlap says:

    Rondo: This is all for fun and fantasy but which one would you take?1. Gagner + Hemsky for Johansen and Tyutin2. Gagner for Erixon3. Eberle for Adam Larsson

    1) Probably the most realistic.

    2) Only if this was NHL13, and we could be counted on that Erixon would be fine playing here (remember, he didn’t like Calgary.. what makes us think he would like Edmonton anymore).

    3) Never.

  78. VOR says:

    The problem FPB94 is as follows:

    Lets ignore the context issue for a moment and focus on your much bigger problems. 1. You have a terribly small sample size. 2. You haven’t proposed a testable hypothesis. 3. You haven’t given us a definition of how good a player has to be in order to disprove your contention. Dave Scatchard at draft had even worse numbers than Moroz and had a pretty good NHL career. So how absurdly high are you setting the bar? 4. Apples to apples dude. I get you are just looking at year drafted and missing the little thing about age. A lot of guys with comparable stats at the same age have had good to even great NHL careers. How about we use rookie WHL careers, now we have even more. So you have made an arbitrary line in the sand and said only the year of draft counts. 5. You have in fact, beyond his age, ignored a great number of other contextural issues. That would include time on ice, line mates, etc. 6. Most importantly you have fundamentally misapplied the stats. You could have safely said that it appears Oilers scouts continue to ignore statistical models and use a “seen him good” approach and Mitch Moroz is proof for your argument. Instead you are predicting how the kid will do by claiming the stats let you say for a certainty he won’t even have an AHL career. So 56 games played 10 17 27 would by your argument be a shit player. Now before you answer this guy is also a May birthday and played Junior in the west so is a true head to head comparable. He must be shit, your stats, all 40 years of them say so and they can’t be wrong. Danny Gare says hi!

    The truth is this pick flies in the face of statistics and you are clearly a moneyball guy. However, you have made it look worse every way possible and then applied your analysis totally inappropriately or can’t you see Gare’s existence means there is no way on Earth you can say that a guy with those counting numbers can’t play NHL hockey, as does Scatchard, as does Lucic and so on. Because here is the thing, you need to go back and ask the question differently, “how many forwards with terrible counting numbers (lets say sub 30 points in junior at 18) that were drafted in the second round haven’t gone on to successful NHL careers?” The answer, as far as I can tell, is none! So Moroz is a sure thing!

  79. TheOtherJohn says:

    Vor

    Your argument in a nutshell is that he can an awful lot better than he has shown so far.

    That is an entirely reasonable argument to make right up until someone picking behind us selects a Bergeron, Louie Erickson, etc. or worse 4 or 5 of those guys are selected after Moroz . Because then Moroz looks much worse if his ceiling is like JFJ

    We would like Moroz to become Tonelli or Nystrom (the original) in which case we have a very very good player but those guys were far out scoring Moroz in his draft year

  80. commonfan14 says:

    Undisclosed_Personal_Reasons,

    “At the time, though, Lupul was a winger with upside. Not quite the same style as Anisimov, but similar in terms of value–in the same ball park at least.”

    Absurd.

    There’s a better argument to be made that 2006 Lupul was a better piece than 2012 Dubinsky.

    Lupul was coming off , as PAPERDEIGNER points out above, a 28 goal second year in which he also led the Ducks in playoff goals with 9 in 16 games. He was definitely thought of as a sure-fire 1st line elite scorer in the making.

    He certainly hasn’t fulfilled that promise, but he did outscore Nash last year.

    The Oil getting ’06 Lupul in that deal would be roughly equivalent to CLB getting Kreider from the Rangers in this one, which they weren’t able to do.

  81. Woodguy says:

    Stauffer was all over Paajarvi for Erixon.

    Hinted that Howson likes Paajarvi.

    I like Paajarvi a lot and I do that in a heartbeat.

    I’d even throw in Omark.

  82. Undisclosed_Personal_Reasons says:

    commonfan14:
    He was definitely thought of as a sure-fire 1st line elite scorer in the making.

    That’s absurd.

  83. commonfan14 says:

    Undisclosed_Personal_Reasons: commonfan14:
    He was definitely thought of as a sure-fire 1st line elite scorer in the making.
    That’s absurd.

    It’s revisionist to suggest otherwise. Just because it didn’t happen (at least right away, that’s technically what he was last year), doesn’t mean it wasn’t the thinking at the time.

    Once upon a time, Jimmy Carson was an absolute lock to be a perennial all-star if not a superstar. No sense in denying that certain past expectations existed just because we ended up getting burned by them.

  84. OilClog says:

    4. None.

  85. FPB94 says:

    VOR,

    1. When i talk about 40 years of draft, it means i’ve gone trough them. So the pool size is post-expansion hockey.

    2. I’ve said in the twenties. So let’s say 20-29 points, with a full season (60 and upwards) If you find me some useful guys tell me.

    3. Scatchard had similar numbers. He just played less games. I set the bar with what the pick can fetch. If you don’t think what you’re drafting will ever outvalue a 2nd pick, (say Dave Scatchard) then there’s no reason not to use it to trade for a Dave Scatchard + .

    4. Let’s say 1st year of draft eligibility then.

    5. No one has actually proved the importance of context, Unless you can form a pattern out of Lucic and Scatchard.

    6. He played 66.
    Danny Gare scored upwards of a 100 points?

    Fair enough at Scatchard. He had 2 forty points season.

    2 Isn’t really near enough either.

  86. nathan says:

    TheOtherJohn,

    Tonelli’s 2nd year CHL point total was 250% of his rookie year with the Marlies. Half of Tonelli’s output across the board would be fine especially post-season when the whistles vanish.

  87. VOR says:

    TOJ,

    Here we go again. Did you not read my response to FPB94? Bob Nystrom at the same age in the WJHL was 15-16-31 in 66 games. Stats at time of draft say something about the person who drafted you and their ogranization but they clearly aren’t as predictive of the probabilities as age to age. Or experience to experience. The truth is we don’t know much about what is predictive beyond performance against age expectation and what you’ve done with the same number of games in the same league.

    My argument has nothing to do, nor is it invalidated by whom comes later. Using your own comparable if Moroz is Nystrom then I don’t give a shit who else might have great careers but that we could have taken. You could argue then, once you knew the outcome, if he was the best pick for the spot. That isn’t the same as my saying you don’t know anything about what the future holds for Moroz? Please show me how it is?

    My argument simply is you can’t tell diddly about his prospects of success, much as all of you are trying. The future isn’t written yet. You are trying to take absurdly small, biased sample sizes, and make a prediction for a flesh and blood human being and say with certainty what a dog he is which rather raises issues about why you feel the need to be so negative and so presumptious.

    As I told FPB94 you can make a great argument for things that taking Moroz in that slot says about the Oilers but you can’t say anything about Moroz. What if he is Bob Nystrom? Think he was a bad choice?

    What I am saying is you can argue there were better choices, that this wasn’t a smart pick by the Oilers, and that their scouting staff isn’t paying enough attention to math. What you cannot do is, with any degree of certainty, say anything about Moroz’s specific future. The thing is in trying to make the first three arguments a number of posters have taken to saying things about Moroz’s future. You don’t know. It is hubris to think otherwise. When you can give me a meaningful sample size, a testable hypothesis, a reliable statistic test, and eye popping results we might be able to predict a range of outcomes for Moroz with some sort of confidence interval.

    I get that this sort of rigor doesn’t seem required intuitively by many of you. It wouldn’t be for some of the arguments about the pick as indicator of Oilers behaviour and thinking. When you are posting in a public place your own beliefs (notice not knowledge) about a young man who is still euphoric that he was drafted at all then I think common decency requires you to at least have a sound argument. Which none of you do as far as I can tell. Feel free to blow me away. Or ignore me. I get haters hate, it is what they do, it is why they come online in the first place. You and FPB94 often say things I agree with and would endorse and are quite balanced which makes it hard for me to understand why you have chosen such a poorly reasoned position.

    Try trashing the pick without trashing Moroz. It seems the argument that they could have waited to the next round has been discredited but that doesn’t make him the right pick at that spot or anything close to it. Yes, the odds of any second round draft pick working out are somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 making it a bit of a crap shoot. On the other hand many of the players left had much stronger resumes and seemed to fit organizational need. Did the Oilers panic in their determination to get a Frank Beaton, Georges Laracque, Dave Semenko, etc.? It sure looks like it. Or they think fighters are going to very valuable three to five years from now. If they thought it was immediate fighters they needed they could have signed Prust or McLeod as UFAs. That sort of argument, notice how my opnion of Moroz doesn’t enter into it?

  88. LMHF#1 says:

    In Seattle tonight for Yankees vs. Mariners on the day we trade for Ichiro Suzuki. This should be fun. Quick trip to watch the 3 game set with my dad and my wife’s dad. Looking like a great couple days.

  89. FPB94 says:

    VOR: I’m not bashing Moroz the person, saying he can’t skate or anything. Just that at his level of play he has ridiculously small odds.

    My king command with draft picks is : Can you fetch better than your top expectations for a draft pick?

  90. Lowetide says:

    LMHF#1:
    In Seattle tonight for Yankees vs. Mariners on the day we trade for Ichiro Suzuki. This should be fun. Quick trip to watch the 3 game set with my dad and my wife’s dad. Looking like a great couple days.

    Wonderful city, great ballpark. Heart breaks for Mariners fans but good for Ichiro. Tim Raines is my alltime favourite player as a Yankee so I won’t complain if this great player does it just this way.

  91. DSF says:

    Wes Mantooth-11:
    DSF,

    Wouldthe Oilers would have to take some salary back?I would think to compensateFor the Hemsky contract.

    Don’t think so.

    Tyutin has a cap hit of $4.5M to Hemsky’s $5.0M

    Johansen is at $2M and Gagner at $3.2M.

    So, it could happen if Columbus can handle an extra $1.5M in the budget.

    They have almost $14M in cap space with Nash off the books.

    Perhaps the Oilers could also take Aucoin off their hands for one season at $2.25M.

  92. LMHF#1 says:

    Lowetide: Wonderful city, great ballpark. Heart breaks for Mariners fans but good for Ichiro. Tim Raines is my alltime favourite player as a Yankee so I won’t complain if this great player does it just this way.

    The lineup implications are very interesting, but I’m guessing Ichiro gets going and provides a boost. Sad I don’t get to see Rivera, but nothing’s perfect I guess.

  93. Wolfie says:

    VOR has it right. Moroz at this point in time has as good a chance as any 2nd round draft pick at making the NHL. There are a ton of factors we have no clue about. Just looking at the numbers might tell us what we can expect but the numbers don’t know everything.

    I played high school hockey with a guy who did not get drafted to the CHL. Was not drafted into the MJHL. Did not play AAA midget hockey. Made an MJHL team as a walk-on. Was not drafted into the NHL. Played 4 years at University of Western Michigan on a full scholarship and signed a free agent contract with the Atlanta Thrashers. He did not have a lengthy career but he still played over 200 NHL games.

    I don’t think in his draft year you could have predicted he would have the career he did. And then there’s Jason Bonsignore.

  94. TheOtherJohn says:

    Vor

    Making definitive statements about the future are difficult to do. Particularly before the event. You are being asked to predict the future. Right.

    But the totality of your argument is, n/w/s Moroz’s performance to date, that he will be better than he has played and projected so far. It is not, howver, related in anyway to his past performance. The system of drafting NHL players is predicated on taking past performance and projecting it into the future. The Oilers by selecting him 31st are saying that notwithstanding that he has never scored at a competitive level, that his “potential” projects such that he will become a decent 3rd or 4th line winger. Huge difference between projecting past performance and projecting potential. By his performance Moroz as a early 2nd round pick is an outlierTo the extent you are using Scatchrd and Lucic, they too were ultimate outliers. Could also use Joe Pavelski albeit with a different skillset.

    I hope he works out. Seriously! We need big bodies that can win puck battles and grind. But guys that fill those roles were usually 40-50 point scorers in the Dub and they simply cannot continue to score at the NHL level.

    Oilers might be right. That still doesn’t make the pick a reach

  95. Wolfie says:

    TOJ:

    The draft isn’t just about taking past performances and projecting. Lucic in a redraft would be inside the top 10. However, even at 50 statistically he was a reach.

    Did the Bruins get lucky? I don’t know, maybe. Maybe their scouts saw something nobody else did. That’s why I think scouts will always be needed.

  96. VOR says:

    TOJ,

    Wolfie gets what I am trying to say. We know nothing about Moroz’s future. I am not projecting him as anything. I think the Oilers took him looking for an outlier. They were swinging for the fences at a point in the draft where I personally think the math says you should be playing the averages. If the Oilers turn out to be right they will be hailed as geniuses. Whereas me, I think they will just have been lucky. But luck is important in assembling winning teams.

    That said I think you and FPB94 need to realize that a) you keep assigning odds to Moroz’s success, b) you have not practiced the statistical rigor of argument needed to say even that he has bad odds, and c) you are saying he won’t make it which is just a bit mean as well as logically wrong.

    As I said earlier, every single comparable I have been able to find, every time some team took this sort of gamble this high in the draft it has paid off. Small sample size. I can’t help wondering if it is like this business partner of mine who would go to the track with me and every two or three nights of racing he would bet, and big. It was always on the halt and the lame, the underdog. Eventually, I had to concede he knew something, he tried to convince me was a horse whisperer but they made him allergic.

    Turns out his brother was both the track vet and a former trainer, all these horses were in his expert care, when he knew one was healed and ready to run he tipped his brother who bet big for both of them. There may have been some lasix involved as well. I think teams may not go for these guys when they don’t have inside knowledge. In which case if the Oilers hit a gusher with Moroz then it wasn’t luck at all but insider trading.

    I can’t see any reason for your insistence Moroz was a bad pick rather than the legitimate argument that it wasn’t a good strategy based on what we know to move away from consensus pick/BPA. You keep trying to say I am projecting he will be far better in the future than he has been in the past. I was meerly pointing out that your arguments, those of all the Moroz bashers, are unsound and created by confirmation bias.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca