2013 NHL ENTRY DRAFT POST 7: IT’S BEEN YEARS SINCE WE’VE BEEN HERE

The 2001-02 Hamilton Bulldogs sent several quality players to the NHL, and now that the EIG ‘loaner era’ appears to be finally over, we can expect a return to the days when players graduate at a normal clip.

2001-02 Bulldogs

  1. Jason Chimera (22 that year): Led the Bulldogs in points that season and he would graduate to an NHL career (710 games and counting) the following season.
  2. Fernando Pisani (24 that year): Had a strong season in 01-02, taking a huge step forward in points (25 to 60) AHL season over season. He would make his NHL debut the following season.
  3. Marc-Andre Bergeron (20 that year): The orginal Mr. Chaos arrived as an undrafted junior and began an NHL journey that continues.
  4. Ty Conklin (25 that year): College free agent signing (Oilers were in competition with Detroit but won the day) and Conklin would have an NHL career of some noteriety.

What do these four have in common? They were either undrafted (Bergeron and Conklin) or selected miles and miles from the first round (Chimera #121 in 1997 and Pisani #195 in 1996). That Bulldog club included some draft disappointments (Chris Hajt–32nd in 1996; Michael Henrich–13th in 1998; Jani Rita–13th in 1999; Alexei Semenov–36th in 1999) and the actual NHL players who did emerge were role players.

This marches is lock step with our findings in the Farm Workers post:

Here’s a look at some of the players we’ll be talking about based on their spring performances:

EARNED A LOOK THIS FALL

  1. L Toni Rajala (17, 4-12-16). A splendid run, absolutely splendid. This is a player who drives offensive opportunities in the AHL. Can he do it in the NHL? Only one way to find out, and MacT is on record as saying he wants players who don’t fit the “best they were going to be in any given game was a non-factor” definition.
  2. L Teemu Hartikainen (17, 7-8-15). I know it seems like slow going, and I do understand exactly what people mean when they say he’s never going to make it on a skill line. However, there are a LOT of effective NHL players who wouldn’t be able to replace Hall, Eberle, Yakupov and Hemsky on a skill line. If the Oilers can get him coached up to a level where he can be a consistent pain in the ass (that’s what is left to do) Harski should have a solid career in the bottom 6.
  3. D Taylor Fedun (17, 3-3-6). A strong season gave way to a terrific post-season and I do believe he’ll get some consideration for an end of the roster role this summer. I don’t have any idea if there’s a gap between Potter and Fedun, and the speed issue remains until we see him tested (and he passes), but he’s in that range where an opportunity has been earned.
  4. C Mark Arcobello (17, 12-8-20). Plenty of talk about the Nordics but for me this guy keeps showing up in the good parts of the boxscore. I think he might be able to find his way as a utility forward (center-wing) and a 14F this fall. I was not a fan of this player for the longest time, but there’s just too much. When we look at the names above who endured–Brodziak, etc–Arcobello’s resume has some similarities.

And once again, not a high pick in the bunch. I expect that will change in coming seasons.

GOOD ARROWS, NEED MORE TIME

  1. D Martin Marincin (17, 1-6-7). A smart step forward this season, I don’t think he’ll get a long look in the fall nor do I think he’ll be the first callup when someone gets hurt next season. I’ll say this, though: when he comes, he’s going to stay.
  2. D Brandon Davidson (17, 0-6-6). It’s funny. This is the ONE GUY in the organizatio who you could reasonably forgive a sideways or down season, but the guy overcame all obstacles to have a fine run and moved up the post season depth chart. I didn’t think he could do any more to get people on his side, but clearly miscalculated. He’s an amazing story.
  3. C Anton Lander (8, 5-3-8). Had a really nice run toward the end of the season and then through the playoffs when healthy. I don’t really know what to say about him–I’ve been cheering like hell for him to be Doug Jarvis but that old Hab could hit a little–Lander just doesn’t have the bat. Or maybe he was just chasing the puck all last year and finally found his groove. We’d need to see a strong, strong 2013-14 season in OKC before getting excited about him.
  4. R Tyler Pitlick (16, 2-4-6). I’ve been met with no small amount of resistance on Pitlick, but am unsure why. The health of the man was the issue, and he was healthy down the stretch and into the playoffs. The issue of whether he would ever own a job on an Oiler skill line has been long ago answered (his position boasts Eberle, Yakupov and Hemsky) so we’re talking about him as a 2-way depth option. He has a year to prove he can do something, and I think this run of good health after a pretty severe injury is worthy of note.

eetu

 

The pruning of the RFA list begins with a player we discussed as a likely candidate in the Farm Workers post:

  • If we make a list of the minor league RFA’s each summer we can probably pick the cuts and be fairly closeThat 50 man list gets a haircut every summer. Barons 12-13: Obvious flushes would appear to be Antti Tyrvainen, Alex Plante, Niko Hovinen, Colten Teubert. They haven’t completely cut ties with Linus Omark, but that’s likely to happen this summer too.  

Tyvainen and Nokinen are gone, Plante and Teubert are likely headed down the road; Taylor Fedun and others have eaten their lunch. Next year’s RFA list from the minor leagues involves Tyler Pitlick, Curtis Hamilton, Ryan Martindale, Olivier Roy and Cameron Abney–all of whom need strong seasons in 2013-14 to get above the cut line. I wonder if the Oilers will consider finding some of these guys Euro jobs over the summer in order to gain some freedom on the 50 mission cap.

stand by me

This morning at 10 on Team 1260, The Lowdown with Lowetide hits the air. You can comment at 10-1260, send me a message on twitter @Lowetide_ or post comments here. Scheduled to appear:

  • Tom Lynn, player agent and former NHL manager. We’ll talk about player movement at this time of year (things like Tyrvainen) and then about draft prep and how much an agent can do behind the scenes to drum up interest in his player. 
  • Lisa McRitchie from Kukla’s Korner. Lisa is looking into the minor league seasons of some of the Oiler prospects, we’ll check in on what she’s seeing.
  • Guy Flaming from the Pipeline Show. Guy will discuss this year’s draft and some of the late breakers.
  • Patricia Teter from Artful Puck. A brilliant and thrilling season came to an end last night, Patricia has been following the club all year and we’ll discuss a season to remember.

written by

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

106 Responses to "2013 NHL ENTRY DRAFT POST 7: IT’S BEEN YEARS SINCE WE’VE BEEN HERE"

  1. sliderule says:

    I think if Marincin can get his weight up to 215 he will play with the oil next year.

    If he is still under 200 lbs he won’t get a sniff.Tough to win board battles if you are skinny.

  2. Lowetide says:

    sliderule:
    I think if Marincin can get his weight up to 215 he will play with the oil next year.

    If he is still under 200 lbs he won’t get a sniff.Tough to win board battles if you are skinny.

    It’s going to be difficult, depending on who the Oilers add. You’d have to slot Smid, Belov and N Schultz ahead of him on LD and from what we know they aren’t finished. I don’t think Klefbom will start behind Marincin (could be wrong), so he’d be 5 LD as best case.

  3. cc says:

    You brought up some great things; Arcobello might be a good option for 14 forward (cheap, likely wouldnt get claimed if they sent him down & can play center or wing), it would be interesting to see if Lander and/or Pitlick could have a similar season that Pisani had in 01/02. If they have seasons of around .7 PPG in ths AHL we could have two options for the bottom 6, also look at the ages Chimera and Pisani made it. Giving up on some of these guys, as some people are suggesting, is crazy.

  4. Vaclav says:

    CVV is a group IV UFA. Do they re-sign him for depth or is he done?

  5. DBO says:

    Been impressed more and more with Nurse. Big, mean, smart, good skating dman with some offense seems like the missing dman in our system. I know he’s a few years away but he is a perfect partner for Shultz. Hard to pass up. Comparisons to the rake make it even more appealing.

  6. commonfan14 says:

    Thanks to VOR for posting about the value of trading down last night. Interesting historical data.

    There have clrealy been some drafts where trading down would be worth it, so they need to figure out if this is going to be one of them. I guess it all comes down to analyzing your draft board and figuring out where the significant drop-offs are.

  7. borisnikov says:

    I recently sat down with my 6 year old to watch parts of Stand by Me (some parts a little too dark so…) so he could see what it was like when kids had a little autonomy in their lives. I’m a child of the 80′s so I had a little taste. But the kids and the era depicted in the movie? Those must have been golden days:)

  8. Lowetide says:

    Commonfan: I think the only way they trade down is if they feel there’s a gap of players that are interchangeable (sp? that doesn’t look right). Oilers may have a list that has 6 names on it:

    1. MacKinnon
    2. Jones
    3. Drouing
    4. Nichushkin
    5. Barkov
    6. Monahan

    And after that a drop—maybe 6 more names. If they deal down to 12 and get a guy on their secondary list and a second rounder? I think that’s value.

    Of couse, that’s EXACTLY the thinking that got us Pouliot and Jacques :-)

  9. Rondo says:

    Lowetide,

    LT,

    Would you be disappointed if Oilers picked Nurse at #7

  10. Vaclav says:

    Lowetide,

    But if the scouts had actually gotten it right and taken Perry and MacArthur, Pavelski or Enstrom we’d be singing a different tune today. Hindsight being 20/20 ;)

  11. Lowetide says:

    Rondo:

    Lowetide,

    LT,

    Would you be disappointed if Oilers picked Nurse at #7

    Generally speaking, I would prefer they stay away from a defenseman. Nurse is an interesting prospect, though. I wouldn’t be disappointed per se, but would be surprised.

  12. Smarmy says:

    If Nurse is the best player I’m fine with taking him. Hall and the Nuge are here for as long as they want to be. Probably Yak too so we need the pipe to have all kinds of talent when the secondary scorers and dmen become too expensive.

  13. FrankenOil says:

    Lowetide,

    Though, if they repeated that mindset, maybe that is construed as bold to the fanbase? :)

    In all seriousness, I have advocated moving down and picking up more picks because I really wonder what the talent difference is between a guy like Nurse and Pulock and Morrissey? Being able to walk out of the first 2 rounds with a combination along the lines of Pulock(or Morrissey or Zadorov or Horvat) early, big forward like Rychel or Gautheir or Dauphin, a pure skill player like Petan, and a Shea Theodore (or Eric Roy or Mirco Muller or that massive kid Samuel Morin) would be an impressive haul. Address the goaltending later on again and look at a guy like Bartosak late. If one of these guys turns out to be a Jack or higher, great. But to me, this draft looks like there are a lot of guys who will be 7′s, 8′s or 9′s at a minimum and this is the major deficiency within the organization imo.

  14. BlacqueJacque says:

    If Barkov, Monahan, and Lindholm are gone, I want Nurse. Don’t trade down for Lazar. Actually I’d take the Russian winger, too.

  15. Rondo says:

    Lowetide,

    I wonder if this type of thinking goes in to picking #7.

    We will pick Nurse at #7 because there are quite a few centers at the 37 spot we would be happy with or vice versa picking Lindholm because there are D men available in the 2nd round.

  16. slopitch says:

    Dregor was mentioning that the Penguins may look at moving Malkin this summer. It would take at least Eberle or Gagner, 1st, Marincin or Klefbom. I wouldn’t move any of our top 3 I don’t think. A 1-2 c of Malkin and Nuge would be insane!

  17. FrankenOil says:

    BlacqueJacque,

    I don’t think anyone here is advocating trading down for a specific player. VOR presented it best though, outside of the top-5 in most drafts the value of picks is comparable from 6-30. Also, if Dithers didn’t burn our 3rd and 4th rounders in a deep draft on (below) replacement-level players, maybe the chatter for trading down wouldn’t be so loud and pronounced.

  18. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    I’m going to miss watching this video with Oiler purposes in mind:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sECQ6uE3WDM

    For that video alone, AT reaches near my personal “Sail On” threshold.

    Say hi to Petrell for me.

  19. FrankenOil says:

    slopitch,

    For a player like Malkin (presuming he signs an extension), it would probably have to be two young NHL players (MPS and Gags or Ebs), the #7 this year, a draft pick next year ( 1st or 2nd), and a prospect.

  20. Beaker says:

    FrankenOil,

    If the penguins could be interested in MPS, Gags, this and next years first and Klefbom I’d do that. I dont care thats is hell of a lot.

    I know its probably not enough of roster players to make it interesting for them.

  21. dulock says:

    I think something most people don’t realize about the Pouliot/Parise thing is that the OIlers were going to pick Pouliot anyways. KLowe said they were going to pick him in that spot anyways (whether that’s true is debatable) but they didn’t pick any small players in that draft because they were looking for size (sound familiar?). Parise wasn’t going to be an Oiler either way.

  22. FrankenOil says:

    dulock,

    I do remember something to that effect as well. I think though that it has to be remembered that: 1)KP is no longer here and (2) MacT is the GM who has said in almost every interview/presser/etc that he places a strong value on being able to play the game. I think the Coke Machine shopping was done the past 2 entry drafts and we will see a shift to BPA.

    As for picking Poo, how much the repeated injuries affected his development we’ll never know. He wasn’t a reach pick like Jesse Niinimäki or Mikhonov. LT has mentioned this time and time again that injuries can be devastating to a prospects development and Lord knows, Poo suffered a ton of them.

  23. FrankenOil says:

    Beaker,

    I’m not sure Pittsburgh has an interest in D prospects since they may have the most impressive stable of young d-men around (outside of the Oilers of course :) ). I do agree that I’d pay a premium for a big, art ross, stanley, and conn smythe winning player. I don’t know what prospect may interest the Pens if they don’t want a D. Maybe they’ll take more draft picks?

  24. Bag of Pucks says:

    For all the talk of trading this #7 pick, it’s amazing what the Oil could accomplish in this draft if they can just properly identify the best prospect in a draft deep with Cs.

    The 2007 draft is very illustrative in this regard. While teams above them were picking lesser Cs (Sam Gagner, Zach Hamill), the Sharks correctly identified Couture as the best of the bunch (this despite concerns over his skating entering the draft) and then decisively moved up the board to get him. Some redrafts now have Couture going as high as #2 behind Kane only http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=634928

    Turns out there’s a good reason some teams remain competitive year in and year out ; )

    This is the crux of it. The Oil cannot afford a Hamill pick here or even another Gagner for that matter.

    Does MBS know for certain who gives them best value at #7? If MacT’s unconvinced, he should move up for more certainty or trade the pick for a proven player(s). Picking a dud in this draft would really set the rebuild timeline back significantly.

    One item of note that’s interesting to me is how a lot of the same commentary around Monahan seems to mirror that of Couture entering the draft.

    For all the talk of Parise/Pouliout, just imagine what this team would look like with Couture in the lineup instead of Gagner? Huge whiff.

  25. russ99 says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    Barkov is the best center in this draft, and that’s assuming MacKinnon will be no slouch.

    Monahan is ranked 4th for a reason. You can find players to compare any pick to make a case. How’s about Turris? ;)

  26. VOR says:

    I have also looked at the possibility of trading down with Buffalo. You’d want to get back 16, 38, 55, and a prospect (maybe Luke Adam). Not as obvious as Columbus but not impossible.

    The reason I think it would be a very good year to try it is that the picks 8-60 at least are seen as a complete lottery. There is elite talent in this range, of that everyone is sure, but which players will have careers and how to rank them against each other has never been less clear. Thus, the comparative safety of the 7OV has appeal to NHL GMs who tend to be conservative.

    The strategies I am talking about the Oilers using to trade down or meant as tools to increase the odds of finding an Alex Steen, Tyler Kennedy, or Pavel Datysuk. What we are looking for is a THOR killer.

    THOR is a way of rating players in terms of their effect on winning games.

    http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=10193

    If you go to this link and click on the link that says full paper here then you can read all about it. Steen, taken at 24 OV is one of those unsung players who simply makes his team better, a lot better. The strategy I am suggesting is just meant to optimize the odds of getting such a player.

    To my Columbus idea I would add that we should pay a tremendous amount of attention to the combine and each time we go to pick we should reference how the kid did at the combine – some of those tests are predictive and a few players produced results there that suggest they are possible THOR players of the future.

    As an example a kid shooting up Button’s list and probably Mackenzie’s is Samuel Morin. Massive D, slight frame, incredible power and spring, but most importantly he killed all of Peak Power, VO2 max endurance, and vertical jump. He was moving up before he had really good results on some of the most predictive tests at he combine. He has probably moved into to top 10 on some scouts lists. Sean Monahan did well enough he is almost certainly now top 5.

    So if I were the Oilers my list if I traded down would be Zykov, Lazar, Theodore, Bigras, Rychel, Dano, and Bjorkstand (I am assuming Morin is long gone otherwise he would slot in ahead of Lazar but not Zykov). That is a combination of all the lists available up to this moment in time and the limited combine results the NHL has made public. I have heard from some of the testers that Nichushkin impressed the crap out of them and the scouts.

    I think what trading down means is do you think missing out at a shot at Lindholm is made up for by getting Zykov, Lazar, and Dano which is probably what it would come down to in the real world.

  27. VOR says:

    Bagofpucks,

    Gagner is 2nd in games, 2nd points, and 3rd in points per game, and 2nd in goals in his draft year – definitely the Oilers can’t afford another pick like that.

  28. Mr DeBakey says:

    Kudos, to the Sharks for recognizing an opportunity and acting to move up to Couture in a draft perceived as weak.

    But,
    Couture fell for a reason.
    Ranked at one point in the Top-3,
    his game flattened out after an illness.
    Hence uncertainty and the drop.

  29. Bag of Pucks says:

    The Combine results may have predictive power but it is one day in the life of a prospect. Aren’t we all about larger sample sizes? Adding on to the post I’d made a couple days back about Tom Brady showing poorly at the NFL Combine, I’d be concerned about the Oil missing out on a potential Hall of Famer simply because he had the flu the day of the combine.

    I think the overall body of work, particularly on ice, still has to rank as the most important evaluation criteria. After all, you are drafting them for their ability to play hockey not hold their breath. Go too far in this other direction and you start looking at prospects purely as pieces of meat again. Plenty of evidence shows the folly of that approach.

    Extolling the virtues of staying ‘risk adverse,’ LT seems to be a big advocate of conventional wisdom particularly as it relates to adhering to consensus rankings in the early rounds. What is interesting is how often conventional wisdom gives way to herd mentality and the impact this has on the draft.

    Case in point, the Anaheim Ducks and the 2010 draft. At a certain point on Day 1, Cam Fowler and Emersom Etem both started to slide in that draft. I think teams see this playing out and they start to buy into the herd mentality that believes these previously highly touted prospects are in fact flawed and should be avoided at all costs.

    The Ducks in many ways validate LT’s approach. In both cases, they ignore the creeping herd mentality, stay focused on the player’s actual production and rankings entering the draft and as a result acquire two top prospects at bargain prices. Both of whom are tracking well in their development – Fowler’s +- deficiencies acknowledged.

    IMO, #7 is a tough slot because you’re just on the cusp of landing a blue chipper that may slide out of the Top 4 but chances are he won’t last until your pick. For the sake of argument, if Lindholm is their man. The Oil shouldn’t actively avoid talking about him. In fact, they should be engaging in some properly placed Chinese whispers in the hopes that they facilitate a value slider. If they can’t trade up, negative PR is the next best weapon at their disposal.

  30. Bag of Pucks says:

    VOR:
    Bagofpucks,

    Gagner is 2nd in games, 2nd points, and 3rd in points per game, and 2nd in goals in his draft year – definitely the Oilers can’t afford another pick like that.

    Smart move not mentioning his FO% or +\-

    Still rather have Couture.

  31. fuzzy muppet says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    I’m sure 99% of people would take couture over 89.

  32. Jordan says:

    Beaker:
    FrankenOil,
    If the penguins could be interested in MPS, Gags, this and next years first and Klefbom I’d do that. I dont care thats is hell of a lot.

    I know its probably not enough of roster players to make it interesting for them.

    FrankenOil:
    slopitch,
    For a player like Malkin (presuming he signs an extension), it would probably have to be two young NHL players (MPS and Gags or Ebs), the #7 this year, a draft pick next year ( 1st or 2nd), and a prospect.

    slopitch:
    Dregor was mentioning that the Penguins may look at moving Malkin this summer.It would take at least Eberle or Gagner, 1st, Marincin or Klefbom.I wouldn’t move any of our top 3 I don’t think.A 1-2 c of Malkin and Nuge would be insane!

    Here’s the deal:

    If Malkin were willing to sign an extension to get traded here, and Gagner were willing to sign an extension to go and play in Pittsburg, there is no way I would be giving up another player (MPS), our best D prospect (Oscar) and our first this year for him.

    No way in Hell I’d give up that much. Especially if he still wanted to be making 8.7M per.

    With that salary, I’d give up Gagner and next year’s first, or this year’s second, and a second tier prospect. At most.

    Giving up more than that for Malkin, is terrible asset management. Guy’s good, but he dissapears for stretches just like Gagner. He’s can be a great player, but isn’t consistent. I also question how he’d hold up with all the western travel.

    If the Oilers had to give up all that you have suggested for him, I’d rather not make the trade.

  33. gcw_rocks says:

    Lowetide,

    “And after that a drop—maybe 6 more names. If they deal down to 12 and get a guy on their secondary list and a second rounder? I think that’s value.

    Of couse, that’s EXACTLY the thinking that got us Pouliot and Jacques”

    And you know it will be the same result this year if they pass on Lindholm. Because Oilers

  34. FrankenOil says:

    Jordan,

    Ok…so for a guy with 2!! art ross trophies, hart, ted lindsay, and a conn smythe (in his prime btw) isn’t wortjh a 2nd line C and a draft pick and a middling prospect? Ohhhhhhkayyyyy. That resume doesn’t scram “just like Gagner” to me.

  35. Bag of Pucks says:

    fuzzy muppet:
    Bag of Pucks,

    I’m sure 99% of people would take couture over 89.

    Too bad Oiler management were in the other 1 percentile. Oh right, that’s my point.

  36. fuzzy muppet says:

    Jordan,

    No offense but are you you insane?

    Malkin is a Hart trophy winner, a Conn Smythe winner and a top 5 player in this league. If you wouldn’t trade Gagner and #7 for him, then you are crazy.

  37. Spydyr says:

    VOR:
    Bagofpucks,

    Gagner is 2nd in games, 2nd points, and 3rd in points per game, and 2nd in goals in his draft year – definitely the Oilers can’t afford another pick like that.

    Too bad costing your team goals count as much as scoring them.

  38. FrankenOil says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    I think your comments are a reflection of a fan who believes his team has to draft the best player in the draft every year at the spot they are drafting and what happens when they don’t. 8!! other teams passed on Couture and a few of them would be pleased as punch to at least have Gags to show for a top-10 selection.The draft is an inexact science.

  39. Bag of Pucks says:

    fuzzy muppet:
    Jordan,

    No offense but are you you insane?

    Malkin is a Hart trophy winner, a Conn Smythe winner and a top5 player in this league.If you wouldn’t trade Gagner and #7 for him, then you are crazy.

    I would move heaven or earth to get Gino if he’s in fact available. People seem to forget that it was he and not Crosby who won the Conn Smythe and he’s certainly the more durable of the two.

    That said, Jordan said he wouldn’t give up Gagner, MPS AND Klefbom for him.

  40. BlacqueJacque says:

    Coppernblue has a good series on draft comparables.

    I think I’m off the Russian bandwagon.

    http://www.coppernblue.com/2013/6/5/4397856/valeri-nichushkin-comparables

  41. VOR says:

    Guys, Gagner was not taken 2nd overall. He was taken 6th. I’d take Couture now over Gagner knowing what we know now. Neither I or any of you would have taken Couture over Gagner then. You said it yourself bagofpucks on ice performance matters. Gagner in his draft year 118 pts, Couture – 78 points. By your own argument you would have made the exact same mistake.

    By the way, I also said my list merged the combine results with their on ice results. I have also said repeatedly that you need to pay more attention to results than what you think the players potential might be. It would be hypocritical of me to now say I knew Couture was better than Gagner. In fact, I’d love the group of you who think the Oilers should have taken Couture over Gagner (and I don’t disagree) to prove any of you thought it at the time.

    What I am saying about combine results is that it is a useful way of making decisions between players whose on ice performance is really close. Say Zykov and Rychel or Lazar and Zykov.

  42. Bag of Pucks says:

    FrankenOil:
    Bag of Pucks,

    I think your comments are a reflection of a fan who believes his team has to draft the best player in the draft every year at the spot they are drafting and what happens when they don’t. 8!! other teams passed on Couture and a few of them would be pleased as punch to at least have Gags to show for a top-10 selection.The draft is an inexact science.

    Frankenoil, I fully appreciate and acknowledge that the draft is an inexact science and I’m not expecting that the Oil get it right every year. But to be fair, other than when they’re picking 1OV or 22, they get it wrong more often than they get it right.

    This team’s whole mission objective now is to build through the draft and to do that, you have to excel at it. Otherwise, you’re just another bubble team making reasonable excuses for the fact that you passed on Couture, Parise, etc.

    Cup winners find the jewels in the river bed. That is what separates them from the rest. Look at the Hawks roster right now. It’s literally littered with solid players that they found in later rounds. Same with the Wings. Some teams find a way to excel. Some teams find convenient excuses.

    #7 in a deep draft should garner you a true impact player. I think that’s a reasonable expectation. If they whiff on this pick, that should give us a very strong indicator on whether this org is truly capable of excelling at building through the draft (when they’re not finishing last).

    If I’m MacT though and my scouting department can’t convince me they’ve solved this particular equation, I’m packaging the pick along with Gagner and/or Hemsky for proven roster players elsewhere to get this rebuild back on track.

  43. Spydyr says:

    VOR:
    Guys, Gagner was not taken 2nd overall. He was taken 6th. I’d take Couture now over Gagner knowing what we know now. Neither I or any of you would have taken Couture over Gagner then. You said it yourself bagofpucks on ice performance matters. Gagner in his draft year 118 pts, Couture – 78 points. By your own argument you would have made the exact same mistake.

    By the way, I also said my list merged the combine results with their on ice results. I have also said repeatedly that you need to pay more attention to results than what you think the players potential might be. It would be hypocritical of me to now say I knew Couture was better than Gagner. In fact, I’d love the group of you who think the Oilers should have taken Couture over Gagner (and I don’t disagree) to prove any of you thought it at the time.

    What I am saying about combine results is that it is a useful way of making decisions between players whose on ice performance is really close. Say Zykov and Rychel or Lazar and Zykov.

    Gagner rode Kane’s coattails.Like Pouliot rode Crosby’s.The Oilers did not pick that up.

  44. Bag of Pucks says:

    VOR:
    Guys, Gagner was not taken 2nd overall. He was taken 6th. I’d take Couture now over Gagner knowing what we know now. Neither I or any of you would have taken Couture over Gagner then. You said it yourself bagofpucks on ice performance matters. Gagner in his draft year 118 pts, Couture – 78 points. By your own argument you would have made the exact same mistake.

    Whether I would make the same mistake is immaterial. The question is why can SJ scouts figure this out while the EDM scouts can’t?

    As per the post above, it’s easy to find the excuses and it’s easy to make these mistakes. That IS why it’s so hard to win the Cup. If MBS finds another blue chipper with this pick, I’ll be the first to get behind the movement to anoint him. If he whiffs though, you start to make the case that the Eberle pick was luck.

  45. VOR says:

    spydyr,

    There is an opportunity factor you are not allowing for and it is a huge factor. Who has Gagner played with, and in what circumstances? That is where something like THOR, WAR, point share, GVT, adjusted plus minus, Neilson =/- for goals and scoring chances or PPI comes in. We know Gagner does pretty well on PPI and point share. 2nd in his draft class in both. His adjusted plus minus in the first 3 years of his career was staggeringly better than his actual plus minus and for 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 his Neilson numbers say he has been a plus player and often a big one when you isolate Gagner from his teammates. His corsi relative has always been better than his corsi on, meaning his teammates pull him down.

    In other words both the box cars and the underlying math say Gagner is well on base of justify his 6th OV pick.

  46. godot10 says:

    Doug Wilson did NOT have the choice between Gagner and Couture. We don’t have a clue if he preferred Gagner or Turris or Couture as a centre in that draft. Or if he prefered Alzsner or JVR etc.

    Getting Malkin without fixing the defense and the team overall first is not a winning strategy.

    Malkin is going to be fully paid, and is will not be a value-for-money contract. One should only pay full value for a player when one is a contender looking for the final pieces. The foundation of a team should be build on value-for-money contracts so the upside potential of the team is maximized.

    One caps the upside potential of the team if the foundation is NOT build on value-for-money contracts.

    One also wants to build in sustainable competitiveness and contention into the rebuild.

    The Oilers already have high octane high end talent. They need to focus on the nuts-and-bolts players and the defense instead of swapping in and out high end talent.

    I would only consider paying full value for an established mid-career defensemen at this point.

    One can significantly improve the Oilers properly and in proper sequence without whale hunting. One is as likely to end up with Dany Heatley as one is likely to end up with Chris Pronger.

  47. FastOil says:

    Malkin is 27 this year. He is at his peak (the tall foreheads say 26 is the average peak for forwards) and even though he is a great player he will begin a decline soon. He would cost a king’s ransom. We have a soft minutes centre already who has some mileage left and likely will be on par in points as Malkin tails off. It would be smarter to keep Gagner and look for a centre to play the toughs for him and get him some nasty wingers.

  48. godot10 says:

    Spydyr: Gagner rode Kane’s coattails.Like Pouliot rode Crosby’s.The Oilers did not pick that up.

    The Oilers drafted Pouliot before he had ever played a shift with Sydney Crosby.

  49. Mr DeBakey says:

    The Oilers drafted Pouliot before he had ever played a shift with Sydney Crosby

    How many times I’ve gotten to read that.

    The question is why can SJ scouts figure this out while the EDM scouts can’t?

    But, the Oilers weren’t drafting 9th [maybe they should've traded up to 9th from 15th]

  50. Bag of Pucks says:

    VOR:

    What I am saying about combine results is that it is a useful way of making decisions between players whose on ice performance is really close. Say Zykov and Rychel or Lazar and Zykov.

    Fully agree with this as the proper application of the combine results. Would also expand it to include proper personality and behavioral testing to gauge traits like intelligence, rapid decision making output, willingness to sacrifice for the team, etc. The Patriots provide a viable case study for gaining competitive advantage doing this in a professional sports environment.

    As heartwarming as Tambellini’s anecdote was about Hall impressing him with his confidence in their predraft interview, there’s legitimate and much more accurate scientific approaches available to evaluate these traits. Eventually such tests may become a mandatory part of the combine process. Would be nice if the Oil can take advantage of the small competitive advantage window open to them now while they are not.

    People who write off psychology as pseudo science do so at their own folly. Numerous Fortune 500 companies are building personality and psychological evaluation criteria into their recruitment practices now. They can do it because candidates will jump through hoops to work for them. Google is particularly onerous and notorious for this. Bad news kids, it’s not enough to just lie on your resume anymore. lol

  51. TheOtherJohn says:

    I agree with Vor/Godot that its unlikely that SJS takes Couture over Gagner. No question Couture is the better player now but that is 4-5-6 years later

    Hindsight….thats easy. Peredictions are difficult, particularly before the fact.

  52. Captain Obvious says:

    Trading for Malkin would be great, but only if he was signed and if the price was Gagner, #7, and Marincin.

    But it’s all talk. They don’t need to trade Malkin. They”ll buy out Fleury and then be fine under the cap for next year. If they trade him it will be for a ransom that would ruin the OIlers.

    It’s the Flyers and the Blackhawks that are in deep for the cap. If I’m the Blackhawks I’d try and trade either Seabrook or Keith for a pick in the top six and a young Dman. They should also trade Bolland.

    Would you trade the #7 and Petry for Seabrook or Keith?

  53. Bag of Pucks says:

    Mr DeBakey:

    The question is why can SJ scouts figure this out while the EDM scouts can’t?

    But, the Oilers weren’t drafting 9th [maybe they should've traded up to 9th from 15th]

    You’re giving the Oil a free pass for missing Couture because they were 3 spots higher? Take the BPA. Isn’t that the mantra? While SJ was trading up to get the best C in the draft, the Oil were missing an opportunity to trade down to select the same player.

    This is the kind of behavior that separates the contenders from the pretenders.

  54. Bag of Pucks says:

    Captain Obvious:

    Would you trade the #7 and Petry for Seabrook or Keith?

    For Keith yes, for Seabrook no.

  55. Bag of Pucks says:

    TheOtherJohn:
    I agree with Vor/Godot that its unlikely thatSJS takes Couture over Gagner. No question Couture is the better player now but that is 4-5-6 years later

    Hindsight….thats easy. Peredictions are difficult, particularly before the fact.

    SJ traded up to pick Couture. I think you can make the case that they saw something in this player and targeted him on the basis of that. You’re right, we’ll never know if they thought he was better than Gagner.

    We do know the Oil thought Gagner was better than Couture though. Which again, remains my point.

  56. Jordan says:

    FastOil:
    Malkin is 27 this year. He is at his peak (the tall foreheads say 26 is the average peak for forwards) and even though he is a great player he will begin a decline soon. He would cost a king’s ransom. We have a soft minutes centre already who has some mileage left and likely will be on par in points as Malkin tails off. It would be smarter to keep Gagner and look for a centre to play the toughs for him and get him some nasty wingers.

    This sounds very sensible, and would do a lot to assist in building a deep team that will be able to manage when injuries strike. It would also better address the actual issues this team has, instead of throwing most of the most valuable moveable pieces to acquire a wonderful player without the supporting cast needed to win with him.

    —-

    On a related note, I’d be willing to trade for Malkin unsigned, as long as the asking price is reduced. Hell, I’d trade Gagner unsigned for Malkin unsigned – give the pens some added flexibility and the opportunity to sign a gifted offensive dynamo to a long contract. I’d do that from the Oilers perspective because even if they didn’t re-sign Gino, they could trade him for a mountain of assets at the deadline in 2014 – much more than Gagner himself would provide. I doubt the trade would happen, but… it’s worth considering for sure.

    On that same line of thought, why not keep Hemsky? And better yet, go out and bring in Jagr to play some hard minutes for the Oilers too? That way if they are out of the mix (as unusual as that would be) come february, they ahve two high skill forwards on expiring contracts available to trade to contenders or desperate teams who think they can still make it…

    fuzzy muppet:
    Jordan,

    No offense but are you you insane?

    Malkin is a Hart trophy winner, a Conn Smythe winner and a top5 player in this league.If you wouldn’t trade Gagner and #7 for him, then you are crazy.

    Maybe I am a little unorthodox in how I approach player value in the NHL. That’s fine. Hell, maybe if I thought better of the man instead of remembering that slapping ma… oh wait… sorry I was thinking of Semin’s slaping match with Staal. Hockey Fights actually has Malkin being a not terrible fighter.

    If all I was giving up with Gagner and the first, I’d probably make that trade, presuming there was a contract agreement in place. I just wouldn’t give up every one of the Oilers most tradable assets to get him.

  57. GordM says:

    alright then:

    Mark Spector ‏@SportsnetSpec 40s “I have a lot of allegiance, loyalty for both Horc and Hemmer … ideal scenario would be to move them on. to (other) horizons.” — MacT

    Mark Spector ‏@SportsnetSpec 2m “Sometimes change is good for both the org and the player.” — Craig MacTavish on Hemsky and Horcoff.

  58. RickDeckard says:

    Are the people talking about malkin serious? Have you seen nyr after they traded their depth for an overpriced star?

  59. Henry says:

    Spydyr: Gagner rode Kane’s coattails.Like Pouliot rode Crosby’s.The Oilers did not pick that up.

    Drafting MacKinnon or Drouin is interesting with this context.

  60. Vaclav says:

    Bag of Pucks: Whether I would make the same mistake is immaterial. The question is why can SJ scouts figure this out while the EDM scouts can’t?

    San Jose may have figured it out in 2007 but in 2006 they selected D Ty Wishart at #16 while the Oilers took Jeff Petry at #45. In 2008 San Jose traded their 1st round pick in what was well known as one of the strongest drafts in years for 33 games of Brian Campbell. And the Oilers selected a player at #22 that at least 16 other organizations shouldn’t have passed on.

    Even if SJ scouts figured it out for one draft they’re hardly the gold standard for NHL drafting.

  61. VOR says:

    bagofpucks,

    First off, you are taking one decision and ignoring bigger data sets.

    From 2000 to 2012 each teams scouts produced

    Games Goals Assists Points Penalty Minutes

    San Jose – 6495 1049 1691 2740 3528

    Edmonton 6849 985 1686 2671 4917

    In the last seven years the following San Jose draft choices have played any games in the NHL

    Charlie Coyle, Tommy Wingels, Logan Couture, Nick Bonino, Justin Braun, Frazer McLaren, Ty Wishart, Jamie McGinn, and John McCarthy.

    That is 1 NHL first liner or above, 3 average or above, and 2 utility or above players using my score system from last night that is a WAR of 100 minimally.

    For the same seven years the following Edmonton draft choices have played any games

    Yak, RNH, Hall, MPS, Lander, Ebs, Motin, Cornet, Hartikainen, Gagner, Plante, Nash, Omark, Kytnar, Petry, and Peckham. That is 3 first line NHL players or above, 3 average or above, and 3 utility or above, for a total WAR of 195 minimally.

    I am not sure you should be holding up San Jose as a beacon of brilliant drafting the Oilers should emulate.

    You also still haven’t shown that you knew that Couture was better in 2007 than Gagner or that the scouts should have. Hindsight is 20/20. Neither you nor the San Jose scouts knew Couture was better in 2007 or why didn’t San Jose trade up higher? So how exactly did the Oilers do anything wrong either than get caught in the grinding teeth of luck. They drafted high and got an elite player. San Jose made a very clever move. One of only two they have made in 7 years.

  62. VOR says:

    Re Kane’s coat tails –

    Gagner had been a great player in the GTHL and then the USHL before he ever met Kane. Plus nobody believed he was better than Kane so it is irrelevant. How Gagner relative to Kane says anything about Gagner and Couture is less than clear to me.

  63. Vaclav says:

    GordM:
    alright then:

    Mark Spector ‏@SportsnetSpec 40s “I have a lot of allegiance, loyalty for both Horc and Hemmer … ideal scenario would be to move them on. to (other) horizons.” — MacT

    Mark Spector ‏@SportsnetSpec 2m “Sometimes change is good for both the org and the player.” — Craig MacTavish on Hemsky and Horcoff.

    Very interesting. He had previously dropped hints that they would look to move Hemsky but not Horcoff. MacTavish also mentions that they will go in a different direction from Khabibulin.

  64. regwald says:

    Henry: Drafting MacKinnon or Drouin is interesting with this context.

    Just to clear up this piece of fiction. Pouliot was Selected by Edmonton Oilers round 1 #22 overall 2003 NHL Entry Draft. (June 2003)

    Crosby played for Rimouski from 2003-2005. (Sept. 2003).

    One season of overlap after Pouliot was drafted. Pouliot had 73 points in 65 games in his draft year which was followed up by 58 pts in 42 games and then 114 pts in 70 games with the last two seasons being played with Crosby on the team.

    All facts from hockeydb.com

  65. regwald says:

    If you want an older example of who was driving the bus, go look up Propp, Boschman and Allison.

    The top 3 WHL scorers were all Wheat Kings: Brian Propp (71 GP 94 G 100 A 194 PTS 127 PIM), Ray Allison (62 GP 60 G 93 A 153 PTS 191 PIM) and Laurie Boschman (65 GP 66 G 83 A 149 PTS 215 PIM). The team set WHL records with Most Points (125), Fewest Losses (5), Longest Unbeaten Streak overall (49 games) and in one season (29), and a remarkable record of only 3 losses on the road.

  66. russ99 says:

    Vaclav,

    MacT has been dropping hints about Horcoff since he took the job, and pretty much out and said he’s not going to be back during the ST-holders conference call.

    Gonna miss Hemsky… hope we can get something good for him.

  67. Bag of Pucks says:

    VOR, If I’m ignoring bigger data sets, than you’re ignoring the larger context. Comparing the two team’s draft performance side by side when one is a perennial contender and the other a perennial lottery pick recipient. Really?

    RE Couture v Gagner. The different development approaches towards these prospects are as interesting in hindsight as are the player’s respective merits. One of these teams is not like the other, one of these teams just don’t belong…in the playoffs.

    Finally, my argument isn’t contingent on me proving that Couture was the better pick in 2007. Straw man. My argument is contingent upon proving the Oiler scouts didn’t know better, a fact that’s been demonstrably proven already. I’m not paid to get these decisions right. They are.

  68. Mr DeBakey says:

    My argument is contingent upon proving the Oiler scouts didn’t know better

    Due to illness and a drop-off in production, Couture had dropped out of the Elie 6 at that draft.
    Gagner was the right choice at 6.

    The Oilers could have traded down, or
    instead of trading 30 & 36 for 21 [Nash}, they should've traded 15 & 30 for 9 before SJ got in there with 13 & 44

  69. OilClog says:

    Bag of Pucks:
    VOR, If I’m ignoring bigger data sets, than you’re ignoring the larger context. Comparing the two team’s draft performance side by side when one is a perennial contender and the other a perennial lottery pick recipient. Really?

    RE Couture v Gagner. The different development approaches towards these prospects are as interesting in hindsight as are the player’s respective merits. One of these teams is not like the other, one of these teams just don’t belong…in the playoffs.

    Finally, my argument isn’t contingent on me proving that Couture was the better pick in 2007. Straw man. My argument is contingent upon proving the Oiler scouts didn’t know better, a fact that’s been demonstrably proven already. I’m not paid to get these decisions right. They are.

    Nope, Sorry. After reading all this bantering on if Gagner or Couture was a better draft choice.. If Edmonton had any sort of defence, commitment to winning the last few years.. Guess what. Gagner’s number as far as +/-, FO, and anything else anyone wants to pick apart, these stats would all be much more improved. Everytime Gagner is on the ice, it isn’t his fault they get scored on. 5 guys are on the ice, yes Sam has missed assignments.. but show me a player that hasn’t.
    Only Sam’s jr teammate has out played him from his draft year.. I don’t think it is actually a slam dunk that Logan would be picked ahead of Gagner. Gagner is one of the oldest players we have now, Logan is one of San jose’s youngest.. Do you see what I’m trying to say here??

  70. jfry says:

    https://soundcloud.com/theteam1260/craig-mactavish-with-mark

    at the 13 minute mark he basically says he’s trading horcoff and hemsky

  71. Нинтендо⁶⁴ says:

    2006 Pronger nukes his trade value and Edmonton burns cribs.
    2013 MacT nukes Hemsky’s trade value and Edmonton burns bridges.

    OK. This might be an overstatement. The lines of communication might be great and Hemsky and the team may be fine with plan B another year in Edmonton.

    But why play to the gallery rather than maximizing trade value?

  72. Bag of Pucks says:

    Debakey, am I to insinuate from your post that the Oilers are absolved from any mistake in not picking Couture because that jibes with the conventional wisdom of the day (i.e. pre-draft rankings of Couture being lower than Gagner?).

    If yes, this is entirely my larger point. LT advocates conventional wisdom as a sound ‘risk adverse’ draft strategy particularly in the early rounds.

    I would argue that following conventional wisdom is in fact a better strategy in later rounds when teams tend towards reach or need picks and go on walkabouts (to use LT’s parlance) that completely ignore and invalidate the prospect’s historic production (i.e. placing their faith in their ability to groom the ‘project’ pick in the hopes of hitting that late round home run). By staying disciplined in your selection criteria, it virtually assures that value picks will slide to you as other teams start reaching willy nilly.

    With blue chip picks however, particularly those high in the 1st round, a scouting department HAS to land true impact players. Teams that run with the pack and follow conventional wisdom will likely STAY middle of the pack as there’s simply no competitive advantage being exercised in this mindset or methodology. You’re literally just taking what the other team’s leave you. The worst part is mediocrity here can deceive you into thinking you’re doing a good enough job to win the Cup when you’re not because you’re getting good players instead of great ones (i.e. Gagner instead of Couture).

    This was problematic in the days of Lawton, Daigle, Stefan when the consensus rankings were far less accurate as projections than they are now. But you can almost make the argument that it’s even more problematic now. With these players under the microscope more than ever, the true whiffs are fewer and far between but therein lies the competitive advantage for those that seize it. If you can be one of the few teams that consistently identify these value sliders that outperform their draft position (and again to Frankenoil’s point, I’m not suggesting they have to outperform the entire draft), than chances are that you’ll be one of the lucky few that consistently stays in contention year in and year out.

    Honestly, I can’ even see how anyone can argue this point. The only way you can consistently stay atop the standings AND consistently procure top talent in the draft is by identifying players that other orgs have passed on while consistently identifying valid criteria to support drafting them (i.e. identifying the winning traits the conventional talent assessors have missed). This approach is contrarian not conventional. Or, at the very least, it’s being more thorough. Something the NE Patriots have proven is effective in achieving competitive advantage. Does Morley Gare or Dave Semenko strike anyone as the ‘doing their homework’ type?

  73. Bag of Pucks says:

    I should mention as well that I’m hopeful the Magnificent Bastard is this rare contrarian as well, secure enough to stay committed to his evaluation criterion despite where the herd is going.

    Plus 1 he didn’t draft Gagner. That’s a condemnation of the scout team that was there then and is still there now.

    Plus 2 he drafted Eberle, when all around him where letting him slide. Huge props.

    Plus 3 There seems to be a lot of indication that he rated Klefbom higher than most orgs as well, and were that draft redone now, Stu’d rankings of Oscar would seemingly be validated.

    Fingers crossed. We need the Couture pick this time around. Not Prendergast/Gagner redux.

  74. Kris11 says:

    Spector: So what about Hemsky and Horcoff

    MacT: Well, basically the Oilers have been such total losers that the loser-cooties rubbed off on them and they suck.

    Spector: Really?

    MacT: Yes, we want to trade them because they are losers. Teams are lined up for our losers.

    Spector: But what happens if you can’t trade them?

    MacT: Then we would welcome those losers back.

    Spector: Huh.

  75. Kris11 says:

    Also, I think regardless of whether Horcoff gets moved, Taylor Hall is now the captain of the Oilers.

    At the end of the interview, Horcoff says they aren’t kids anymore, and that means -I think- that they will be given letters and then eventually traded for draft picks and Bernie Nicholls.

  76. fuzzy muppet says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    The problem wasn’t that the Oilers drafted Gagner, the problem was that he wasn’t developed properly like Couture was.

    The OIlers throw their shiny things in the deep end at 18. Clearly this hasn’t had the best results .

    Couture got to go back to juniors for 2 years and then 3/4 a season in the AHL and learn the game while Gagner was playing against professionals and expected to help a team that was shitty and outmanned on a nightly basis. Who knows what would have happened if they’d developed Gagner properly.

    Gagner wasn’t a “bad” pick Thomas Hickey was a bad pick.

  77. Kris11 says:

    I wish Spector would’ve asked if the lack of competitiveness rubbed off on the coaches and GM’s, too, as it did Hemsky and Horcoff.

  78. Kris11 says:

    I mean MacT says.

  79. VOR says:

    NHL Draft 30 team league 2000-2012

    Team Games Goals Assists Points Pen Min

    Anaheim 6240 997 1572 2569 4262
    Atlanta/Win 6132 1226 1599 2825 4516
    Boston 6479 964 1612 2576 4255
    Buffalo 8276 1374 2264 3638 5536
    Calgary 5710 767 1232 1999 4675
    Carolina 4487 696 1021 1717 2389
    Chicago 7474 1115 2067 3182 5046
    Colorado 6560 1007 1728 2735 3364
    Columbus 7665 1015 1490 2505 6481
    Dallas 6123 841 1379 2220 4533
    Vancouver 5164 759 1213 1972 2548
    Edmonton 6849 985 1686 2671 4917
    Florida 6023 831 1387 2218 3926
    LA Kings 7959 1289 2072 3361 4348
    Minnesota 7145 1055 1738 2793 4596
    Montreal 7693 1088 1791 2879 5059
    Nashville 6984 977 1638 2615 5131
    New Jersey 4889 589 1014 1603 3863
    NYI 5628 763 1244 2007 3054
    NYR 6846 835 1485 2320 3948
    Ottawa 7553 982 1797 2779 4472
    Phil 6682 1225 1989 3214 4730
    Phoenix 4630 622 998 1620 3041
    Pittsburgh 7499 1355 2296 3651 6251
    San Jose 6495 1049 1691 2740 3528
    St Louis 5297 819 1357 2176 3331
    Tampa Bay 3144 391 577 968 2426
    Toronto 6557 939 1646 2585 2670
    Vancouver 3762 683 988 1671 2760
    Washington 6967 1181 1937 3118 3791

    188912 28419 46508 74927 123447

    6297 947 1550 2498 4115

  80. VOR says:

    The numbers at the bottom, and then those #s divided by thirty (ie. the expected performance of an average team.)

    Next up I am going to weight them by draft opportunity.

    That said, did anyone expect Buffalo to be #1?

  81. FrankenOil says:

    Нинтендо⁶⁴,

    Kris11,

    I think MacT is just saying, again, we’re open for business and let’s get things moving in terms of dialogue with other GMs. I know at some point MacT mentioned that a lot of GMs are rather ambivalent right now about talking trades, etc. If anything, he is letting all the GM’s know who’s available. When Smytty was dealt, there was a lot of criticism (and rightly so) directed at K-Lowe for not shopping him around. Many GM’s expressed surprise and disappointment that they didn’t get a chance to make an offer. I’d be willing to wager that Hemsky gets dealt on or after July 5th to a team that doesn’t get a shiny new toy in free agency. Horcoff will probaqbly be traded at the draft if as long as the Oilers eat a percentage of the cap hit – which I believe they will.

  82. regwald says:

    VOR:
    The numbers at the bottom, and then those #s divided by thirty (ie. the expected performance of an average team.)

    Next up I am going to weight them by draft opportunity.

    That said, did anyone expect Buffalo to be #1?

    A few years back they went through some cost cutting in Buffalo and started employing more video evaluation of players instead of sending scouts out on the road. They spent hours watching footage and rating players more on video review than one on one scouting. Maybe this was a factor during this time period.

  83. Ribs says:

    All I can say is, if you remove two actual NHL players from the lineup, you sure as hell had better add two more.

  84. fifthcartel says:

    If MacT is willing to say this on the radio, it certainly feels like he already has plans/deals in place to move these two.

  85. Bag of Pucks says:

    fuzzy muppet:
    Bag of Pucks,

    Gagner wasn’t a “bad” pickThomas Hickey was a bad pick.

    I’m not saying Gagner was a bad pick. I’m saying Couture was a better one. And if you want to be a Cup winner, your scouting staff needs to be able to make that differentiation.

    It’e entirely possible that differences in development processes led to Couture being the better player and thus it’s not Sam’s fault. I also acknowledge the ‘opportunity cost’ that Sams pays (i.e. Couture has benefited from playing with much better players and on a much better team). Sam’s shooting% this year nearly equaled Couture’s rookie season % when he potted potted 32Gs so maybe Sam’s production will eventually equal Couture’s GPG as the team improves around him.

    Defensively and on the dot however, Couture appears the much superior player now (and thus the much more complete player overall), and this despite, Gagner being in the bigs much longer which you would think would be an advantage for these types of ‘learned’ skills. Honestly, we’ve been told before that Gags has worked on his faceoffs a lot in the offseason and he never gets appreciably better. This is an important metric because it’s an individual skill and stat that he can markedly influence without the team bogging him down. And yet, the weakness persists. As does his continually failing to mark his man in the D zone.

    Chicken and egg. Are the Oil mediocre because they have mediocre players or are the players mediocre because of the team? This is one of the real upsides of the current talent infusion. If you plug in enough Halls, Yakupovs & Schultz’, eventually the fingers start pointing in the right direction. Hence why it’s not a good time to be a Horcoff or Hemsky. They were good players 7 years ago, but the new hot rods have exposed the reality that the old runners have some bare tires and rust on them now. A Bill Belichik type GM would’ve spotted that 2 or 3 years ago, but…Because Oilers.

  86. GordM says:

    fifthcartel: If MacT is willing to say this on the radio, it certainly feels like he already has plans/deals in place to move these two.

    Completely agree. The way he is talking he must have some deals lined up in his back pocket. Or he’s a complete idiot and is going to look like a damn fool this summer (my bet is on the former).

  87. Mr DeBakey says:

    Fun Fact,
    Shawn Horcoff killed it last year.
    5v5,
    GF on divided by GF + GA on:

    ……………………………. GF%
    SHAWNHORCOFF * 0.63
    TAYLORHALL * 0.54
    RYANNUGENT-HOPKINS * 0.53
    NAILYAKUPOV * 0.50
    RYANJONES * 0.50
    JORDANEBERLE * 0.49
    MAGNUSPAAJARVI * 0.49
    ERICBELANGER * 0.47
    SAMGAGNER * 0.46
    ALESHEMSKY * 0.43
    JERREDSMITHSON * 0.41
    RYANSMYTH * 0.41
    LENNARTPETRELL * 0.36
    BENEAGER * 0.29
    MIKEBROWN * 0.27
    CHRISVANDEVELDE * 0.20
    ANTONLANDER * 0.00
    TEEMUHARTIKAINEN * 0.00

  88. FrankenOil says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    Just admit it, you don’t like Gagner and wish the Oilers had Couture. Heck, by 1994, I wished the Oilers took Marty Brodeur or Keith Tkachuk instead of Scott Allison in the 1990 first round. But I wouldn’t be berating the amateur scouts in 2013 over what happened in 1990. Gagner is an NHL player and an above average (and improving) one at that. He wasn’t a bad pick or a reach or a reason the Oilers are bad. The reasons the Oilers are bad is because they made mistakes with some trades (Ryan Smyth, Erik Cole for POS, Vis for Whitney), KP whiffing on the other 2 first rounders in the 2007 draft, trading emerging forwards for more magic beans (Brodziak, Cogs),overpaying the wrong free agents, letting guys they should keep walk for nothing (GlenX, Hejda,Rolie) and forgetting that you are allowed to make moves during the season. Gags isn’t a reason for why this team is bad. If anything, he’s been a beacon in a sh*tstorm. Blaming the amateur scouting is a cop-out and using Gagner as an example is just plain wrong.

  89. Henry says:

    Ribs:
    All I can say is, if you remove two actual NHL players from the lineup, you sure as hell had better add two more.

    fifthcartel:
    If MacT is willing to say this on the radio, it certainly feels like he already has plans/deals in place to move these two.

    I think you both are right. Bums me out though.

  90. VOR says:

    That should have said the numbers at the bottom are the totals for all 30 teams.

  91. Rondo says:

    Sounds like MacT is very open in the draft 2013 . Again he said they could take a Dman or Center at #7.

    My guess is he would trade up for Barkov , and pick either Monahan or Nurse at #7. If they are both gone he may trade down.

  92. leadfarmer says:

    MacT sure talks a lot, lets see if he can deliver. Would have to retain at least a million per year of Horcoff’s salary to even get anything back of value, and Hemsky will only be worth anything more than a 2nd at the trade deadline and thats if he has a good year. Hopefully he is planning on filling those holes and not with rookies

  93. prairieschooner says:

    If the draft generally produces players who are not NHL ready then it would seem that for the Oilers to see immediate improvement the will need to trade a prospect and or a pick for an NHL player.
    The deal should probably be for a D man.
    The talk about Horc and Hemmer is fine but I do not think Horc is an easy replacement and an even tougher upgrade.

  94. namflashback says:

    Bag of Pucks

    Most readers of this blog would agree that Gagner’s accelerated development path (play and stay in the bigs at 18) was a bad idea. If he had been held back in jr, could he have done any more than 118 points offensively.

    Over the long run, and certainly by eye today – Logan Couture would’ve been a super choice. It would have been contrarian (choosing him at 6), or generally lambasted by the fanbase (trading down) after the worst losing streak. Good for San Jose. Couture was highly rated, but his draft year injury made him slide.

    Why don’t you analyze Jordan Eberle versus other choices in the 08 draft? MInd you, it was the year of many D getting chosen in the top 20 – but just comparing him to the other forwards taken is insightful. He was the 11th forward selected, and trails only Stamkos in total points in the NHL, and is well ahead of Josh Bailey in points earned over games played. Evidence that Edmonton’s scouts and system were better than 9 other teams.

    (and NYR even more awesome with Steppan at 51)

  95. Bag of Pucks says:

    FrankenOil:
    Bag of Pucks,
    Gags isn’t a reason for why this team is bad. If anything, he’s been a beacon in a sh*tstorm. Blaming the amateur scouting is a cop-out and using Gagner as an example is just plain wrong.

    Again with the straw men. Where did I say drafting Gagner is the reason the Oil are bad?

    What I said is that teams that want to build through the draft to win the Cup must EXCEL at drafting for that plan to reach fruition. Preferably in spots other than 1OV so they don’t have to finish dead last every year. Getting Couture with a lower pick than Gagner is an example of EXCELLING at the draft. As is picking up Fowler and Etem as value draft sliders. Passing on Couture in favour of Gagner is possibly a red flag that some of the scouts that remain from that tenure aren’t top shelf?

    Poor amateur drafting is definitely one of the reasons this franchise went in the toilet and the current team is bad. If the team drafts well through the whole Pronger/Smyth/Whitney debacle, the team still has a viable procurement mechanism – maybe even one that’s strong enough to make up for deficiencies on the pro player procurement side. For example, while Dale Tallon was overpaying for player like Khabibulin, Lapointe, Aucoin and Campbell, he was also drafting players like Keith, Toews and Kane.

    Eberle is the first indication the ship is righted on this front. Hopefully this next drafts confirm Stu as a true genius once and for all. Too bad Klefbom couldn’t play this year or the argument might already have been proven moot.

    In an ideal world, we would just access some definitive metrics on Gagner v Couture head to head. By my eye, Logan typically eats Sam’s lunch on those occasions. As far as ‘liking’ or ‘not liking’ a player, that’s all I care about. A player is either part of the solution (i.e. winning the Cup) or part of the problem (i.e not winning the Cup). As a defensively deficient 2C with a poor FO%, Sam is part of the problem IMHO. Couture gets you closer to winning the Cup than Sam does. That’s all I care about, and I’m hopeful that’s all that MacT cares about.

  96. melancholyculkin says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    How do you know the Sharks weren’t targeting Zach Hammil and only took Couture because Hammil was off the board?

  97. BlacqueJacque says:

    Bag, let it go. I don’t think anyone here agrees with you, and whether you post one more wall of text or a dozen, you’re not going to convince people. Your point isn’t terrible,it just isn’t good. The only thing you’ve remained consistent on is that Couture is better (this year) than Gagner. Everything else – San Jose scouting vs our scouting, or San Jose management vs our management, has had pretty significant holes poked in it. So we get it, you don’t like Gagner and wish we had Couture. Point made.

  98. rickithebear says:

    The last 2 years Hemsky returned to his 71 game per seaon pace he had before the two lost sreasons in 09-10 10-11.

    Problem is he was a 12G 25A per season player rather than the 17G 42A player the 5 years before the 2 years of injuries.

    the last coupel of seasons EVP average.
    Eberle 51 EVp 6M 22nd annually for FWD upper first
    Hall 48 6M 28th upper first
    Gagner 35 RFA 90th lower 1st
    Yakupov 3,775M 35 90th lower 1st
    Smyth 2.25M 30 130th mid 2nd
    RNH 29 3.775M 140th Mid 2nd
    MP 25 RFA 168th Lower 2nd
    ——————
    Hemsky 23 #188 upper 3rd 5M
    Jones 22 #201 upper 3rd UFA
    Horcoff 21 #209 Upper third 5.5M

    Rajalas LW/RW 73% of points @ even in reg season and 83% in the playoffs.
    @ .8M
    Harti’s 23EVP pace @ QO of 1.1M
    the cap math is clear.

  99. BlacqueJacque says:

    Wow, sorry,that came across way more dickish than I meant it to be.

  100. Bag of Pucks says:

    melancholyculkin:
    Bag of Pucks,

    How do you know the Sharks weren’t targeting Zach Hammil and only took Couture because Hammil was off the board?

    They traded up when they saw he was still available at 9 because they were worried the Panthers were going to take him at #10.

  101. Gordies Elbow says:

    @VOR, thanks for the post of the stats! Posts like these are why this is one of the best sports blogs I’ve had the pleasure to visit.

    Wow, would never have picked Buffalo, but looking at the stats, really impressive. Also shows that just “amateur” is not the direct path to success. Drafting well helps (and IMO, is the only way to add top skill players,) but there’s more to this than meets the eye.

    Outside of that, Edmonton’s results are decidedly middle of the pack, but the 2010+ group will skew the results soon.

    Thanks again!

  102. melancholyculkin says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    Ok, but was that before or after Gagner, Voracek, and Hammil were already gone (this is a legitimate question, I didn’t watch the 2007 draft so I have no idea when any of these trades were made)?

  103. VOR says:

    I am reposting the first table again because there was an error.

    Anaheim 6240 997 1572 2569 4262
    Atlanta/Win 6132 1226 1599 2825 4516
    Boston 6479 964 1612 2576 4255
    Buffalo 8276 1374 2264 3638 5536
    Calgary 5710 767 1232 1999 4675
    Carolina 4487 696 1021 1717 2389
    Chicago 7474 1115 2067 3182 5046
    Colorado 6560 1007 1728 2735 3364
    Columbus 7665 1015 1490 2505 6481
    Dallas 6123 841 1379 2220 4533
    Detroit 5164 759 1213 1972 2548
    Edmonton 6849 985 1686 2671 4917
    Florida 6023 831 1387 2218 3926
    LA Kings 7959 1289 2072 3361 4348
    Minnesota 7145 1055 1738 2793 4596
    Montreal 7693 1088 1791 2879 5059
    Nashville 6984 977 1638 2615 5131
    New Jersey 4889 589 1014 1603 3863
    NYI 5628 763 1244 2007 3054
    NYR 6846 835 1485 2320 3948
    Ottawa 7553 982 1797 2779 4472
    Phil 6682 1225 1989 3214 4730
    Phoenix 4630 622 998 1620 3041
    Pittsburgh 7499 1355 2296 3651 6251
    San Jose 6495 1049 1691 2740 3528
    St Louis 5297 819 1357 2176 3331
    Tampa Bay 3144 391 577 968 2426
    Toronto 6557 939 1646 2585 2670
    Vancouver 3762 683 988 1671 2760
    Washington 6967 1181 1937 3118 3791

    188912 28419 46508 74927 123447

    6297 947 1550 2498 4115

  104. VOR says:

    This one is organized from most goals drafted to least. Buffalo by the way leads this category as well. I can also say now it isn’t draft opportunity that created Buffalo’s great draft outcome. It is 4% above league average opportunity but 31% above in games drafted and 45% above in goals drafted. It looks like they were third in penalty minutes drafted and 2nd in assists and points.

    Buffalo 8276 1374 2264 3638 5536
    Pittsburgh 7499 1355 2296 3651 6251
    LA Kings 7959 1289 2072 3361 4348
    Atlanta/Win 6132 1226 1599 2825 4516
    Phil 6682 1225 1989 3214 4730
    Washington 6967 1181 1937 3118 3791
    Chicago 7474 1115 2067 3182 5046
    Montreal 7693 1088 1791 2879 5059
    Minnesota 7145 1055 1738 2793 4596
    San Jose 6495 1049 1691 2740 3528
    Columbus 7665 1015 1490 2505 6481
    Colorado 6560 1007 1728 2735 3364
    Anaheim 6240 997 1572 2569 4262
    Edmonton 6849 985 1686 2671 4917
    Ottawa 7553 982 1797 2779 4472
    Nashville 6984 977 1638 2615 5131
    Boston 6479 964 1612 2576 4255
    Toronto 6557 939 1646 2585 2670
    Dallas 6123 841 1379 2220 4533
    NYR 6846 835 1485 2320 3948
    Florida 6023 831 1387 2218 3926
    St Louis 5297 819 1357 2176 3331
    Calgary 5710 767 1232 1999 4675
    NYI 5628 763 1244 2007 3054
    Detroit 5164 759 1213 1972 2548
    Carolina 4487 696 1021 1717 2389
    Vancouver 3762 683 988 1671 2760
    Phoenix 4630 622 998 1620 3041
    New Jersey 4889 589 1014 1603 3863
    Tampa Bay 3144 391 577 968 2426

  105. VOR says:

    Gordies Elbow,

    Thank you. I find it fascinating that Tampa Bay, who arguably drafted the greatest scorer of the modern period is dead last in goals drafted.

    Regwald, I do remember reading that somewhere. I was wondering if you remember when that happened. I am having a hard time finding any reference to it online

  106. Gordies Elbow says:

    VOR,

    No problem – thanks for all of the hard work!

    The lowest for number of games played:
    - Tampa
    - Vancouver
    - Carolina
    - Phoenix
    - New Jersey
    - Detriot

    Goals:
    - Tampa
    - New Jersey
    - Phoenix
    - Vancouver
    - Carolina
    - Detriot

    Points:
    - Tampa
    - New Jersey
    - Phoenix
    - Vancouver
    - Carolina
    - Detriot
    - Calgary

    Wow, would have expected Detroit to be better in terms of stats. Tampa and Phoenix are a shock.

    Teams to emulate: Pittsburgh, Buffalo, LA, Philly, Chicago.

    Which one of these is not like the others?

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca