LOUD NOISES 2: ARE YOU EXPERIENCED?

The Oilers are going to market with another long shopping list and some nice bags of gold that should bring a handsome return. One of the worries for fans is new GM Craig MacTavish’s lack of experience dealing with pirates one on one. NHL General Managers are a salty lot, used to pushing and swindling and the kind of behaviour that can get you arrested unless you’re in a private club of 30 and everyone agrees to the rules.

Case in point: Glen Sather and the NY Rangers. Slats showed this week that he can find a way to get his own way, as Alain Vigneault turned down Dallas at the last minute to take a job in Manhattan (which is probably a huge calling card for the Rangers). MacT held his own too last week, acquiring the best young star in the coaching ranks in Dallas Eakins. Most Oiler fans believe MacT can do the job, but they’ll feel a lot better after the first shipment arrives on time and intact.

The first time Kevin Lowe made a trade, he went to New York–the Island and Mike Milbury. Lowe sent Roman Hamrlik over for Eric Brewer, Josh Green and the pick that turned into Brad Winchester (this was the 2000 entry draft). Now, 13 years later, Craig MacTavish will go to market in search of a quality defenseman who is mobile, can make decisions and plays the left side.

His old coach and GM Glen Sather has Michael Del Zotto, a 22-year old defender who has all kinds of ability but took a small step backwards this past season. Should Del Zotto come available, he might be a perfect fit for the Oilers. Del Zotto would be an ideal add to that young group of blue that includes Jeff Petry, Justin Schultz, Oscar Klefbom and others.

Here’s the question: what if the price includes Sam Gagner, as suggested by this article? What if Slats asks after Smid and Paajarvi (obviously a bigger deal)? Del Zotto struggled down the stretch this past season and had off-season surgery–does that impact the decision?

It’s a tough decision to make. For me, I wouldn’t deal Gagner or Paajarvi or any of the young cluster, hoping instead for a deal that could be made for the 7th pick and prospects and or role players. Dreaming? Probably. However, I’d rather go a full season without filling the hole than pull the chute too soon on Gagner or Paajarvi. The Oilers and their fans have invested all the time and endured the growing pains, best to stay for the feature presentation.

Thoughts?

LINE CHANGES

New coach Dallas Eakins is going to need some help with things behind the bench this winter in Edmonton. A lot of folks have been suggesting Eakins needs to clean house, but for me the main issue is this: having someone to help with  the in-game decision making. Line changes, matchups, identifying which lines or specific players are humming any given night. Eakins is a smart guy but Mike Babcock is a smart guy with experience and that makes a difference.

Derek King is apparently the right hand man for the new coach, so bring him in along with Mark Lamb or Paul Maurice. After that, I don’t really care if they keep Steve Smith and Kelly Buchberger–it doesn’t sound like they had much to do with in game management anyway.

I think MacT gets all that stuff, and suspect we’re going to see a veteran coach helping out behind the bench.

 LOWDOWN WITH LOWETIDE

die_hard_image29

Today at 10am on Team 1260 we hit the air. Scheduled to appear:

These are terrific guests, I hope you’ll send your questions and comments to 10-1260 or on twitter to @Lowetide_. The best questions are always yours.

written by

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

135 Responses to "LOUD NOISES 2: ARE YOU EXPERIENCED?"

  1. Bar_Qu says:

    I am not entirely sold on Gagner, though he scores which is kind of an important part of the game, but the line which mentions him in that article seems like a throwaway guess. He would fit their need for offense, but I think the Oilers are higher on Gagner than on getting a non-top 4 option.

  2. theres oil in virginia says:

    Sending 2 young NHLers away in exchange for 1 young NHLer seems to me like going the wrong direction (unless it’s a top notch guy coming back). After reading your Top 30 Prospects post, I’d say where our excess lies is in D-men not quite in the NHL yet. I wonder if we’re going to see one of them moved?

  3. oilabroad says:

    I do that trade all day long… the young core that we want to keep does not include gagner, so its either him or one of the fab 5… del zotto would be a nice fit for our blue, and if we can move up to grab barkov, we have our number 2 center. I would much rather see us trade for a good young blue than spend ridiculous money on a 36 year old who is looking for a retirement contract.

  4. Cobbler says:

    Was expecting to see Jimmy in the post, classic song! This was my immediate thought anyway….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft5HvrkHMAc

    The addition of Del Zotto on D makes great sense, but with the lack of depth at center as underscored in your recent top 30 Prospects article makes sending Gagner away a bit too steep a price for the organization. The notion of replacing Gagner with a Barkov/Monahan, etc (if that is attainable) and have this team compete next year doesn’t compute in my books. Would love to have Barkov/Monahan and they will be the future 2C, but someone will need to bridge the gap while the newcomer gets adjusted. So dealing Gagner if no experienced C is coming back (or free agent signing) sounds like another year of failure to me, despite adding quality on the back end.

    Now if we can use a winger (e.g. Paajarvi) and a pick to bring Del Zotto in I do that all day long. Not that I want to give up on Magnus as I think he will be a top 6 player, but this classifies under the “give up quality to get quality” file.

    Would Paajarvi and a high pick (2013 2nd or 2014 1st) get you Del Zotto?

    I expect that Eakins will bring in his own staff, would be happy with Maurice.

  5. Woodguy says:

    No thank you to Del Zotto.

    Looked at his WOWY for the last 3 years and almost every line mate of significant TOI together is better without him than with him. Never a good thing.

    Couple that with the fact that he saw mostly 3rd pairing and some 2nd pairing minutes makes me run faster in the other direction.

    He’s a destitute man’s Yandle with much worse results.

    A trade with NYR makes sense as they have a lot of D and a need to dump salary (even if they buy out Richards)

    If its Del Zotto coming back then MacT will have fallen victim to what many new GM’s fall victim to, trading a boat for an anchor.

  6. mumbai max says:

    I would move Gagner if it was required to get Barkov or even Johansen ( in a package).
    I am also okay to take Nikushkin and move Eberle to get 1/2 D. I am NOT okay with
    moving Marincin or Paajarvi. Big mistake.

    So….move Gagner or Ebs for need, Hemsky, Old Shultz, Omark, Smyth or other spare parts or lower prospects. DO NOT move Petry, Smid, Klefbom, New Shultz, Paajarvi, Gernat or the obvious Terrific Three forwards.

    The success of this summer will be managing a win without ‘throwing in’ top prospects.

    The key is going to be managing the draft, picking up some cheap and short term compliance buyouts,and one or two shot term UFA overpays.

  7. Radman says:

    High on the list of MacT’s priorities should be sorting out center. Sounds like Horcoff is heading down the road. Maybe (hopefully) Belanger. Smithson likely not resigned. Better hope Nuge is ready to go by the start of the season as well. Trade Gagner ?

    I know the Oil are in a bad bargaining position with Gagner and I am not totally against trading him. Solid centers are harder to acquire than a 3/4 Dman so the deal would have to be right and you definitely would need to address the center position with other moves/FA signings.

    Tread carefully while being aggressive MacT.

  8. jonrmcleod says:

    mumbai max,

    Sounds like you want to do another rebuild. You’re OK with moving Gagner and Eberle but not Marincin and Paajarvi?

  9. Woodguy says:

    Here’s a closer look at Del Zottos last 3 years.

    His WOWYs look better than I thought, but the point stands:

    All stats in terms of NYR Dmen.

    Corsi QC (how the coach deployed him)

    12/13 7/10
    11/12 4/9
    10/11 5/8

    Relative Corsi (shot attempt ration on/off)

    12/13 7/10
    11/12 6/9
    10/11 1/8

    Zone Starts

    12/13 1/7 (highest percentage offensive zone starts)
    11/12 5/9 (NOTE: 1/5 of players with 54+ games)
    10/11 3/8

    WOWY

    12/13 4 of 15 players better with
    11/12 9 of 15 players better with
    10/11 11 of 15 players better with

    Most common D partners

    12/13 Giardi/Strallman/Staal
    11/12 Strallman/Sauer/Staal
    10/11 Giardi/Rozsival/Eminger

    Del Zotto’s last decent season was 10/11

    He has still been given the zone start push against softer comp and not produced.

    A destitute man’s Yandle indeed.

    A boat anchor, stay away.

    I’m sure Sather would just love to trade him and make you feel like you were robbing him in the process.

    He’s only 23 and *may* improve over time, but that is not what they Oilers need.

    They have that type 5 deep right now and need a Tyutin type.

    Someone who has track record of playing 1LD and succeeding. If Tyutin were 3 years younger he’d be near perfect.

  10. jonrmcleod says:

    Woodguy,

    What do you think of using the #7 pick + ? to try and acquire Tyutin and Johansen?

  11. Ryan says:

    I’m curious if Dellow has had an offers from NHL teams. I’d be surprised if Tambo had the depth of understanding of this organization that yourself, Dellow, and Parkatti do. Looking at the fine work you guys do for free, I couldn’t imagine what you guys would produce if you were paid a salary. :)

    I wonder, in particular, if Dellow and Parkatti’s work cost Krueger his job in part.

  12. Ryan says:

    Dellow’s a brilliant guy, I for one would be more optimistic about the future of this team if he was working for it.

  13. DBO says:

    Doubt it would be Gagner for Del Zotto, as the Rangers have cap issues and Gagner will cost too much. I would consider it if it was a package for McDonough, who will get around $5 mill. But doubt Sather considers it.

    I do wonder if we could pry Hagelin out of there if he wants too much money. He would be a solid addition. Hagelin along with Boyle would solve a few issues. What would it take? Would we do Paajarvi and someone/pick for those two? Saves NYR money (which they desperately need), upgrades us right now at centre (Hagelin for Paajarvi seems like a wash).

  14. Henry says:

    Woodguy:
    No thank you to Del Zotto.

    Looked at his WOWY for the last 3 years and almost every line mate of significant TOI together is better without him than with him.Never a good thing.

    Couple that with the fact that he saw mostly 3rd pairing and some 2nd pairing minutes makes me run faster in the other direction.

    He’s a destitute man’s Yandle with much worse results.

    A trade with NYR makes sense as they have a lot of D and a need to dump salary (even if they buy out Richards)

    If its Del Zotto coming back then MacT will have fallen victim to what many new GM’s fall victim to, trading a boat for an anchor.

    Woodguy,

    I agree with Del Zotto. Chaos in his own end.

    How do you feel about Staal though?

  15. Woodguy says:

    jonrmcleod:
    Woodguy,

    What do you think of using the #7 pick + ? to try and acquire Tyutin and Johansen?

    Really depends on the whole package.

    I’d want to see if I could turn #7 + N.Shultz + another pick into #5 and get Barkov.

    Johansen had every opportunity to grab a C spot on CBJ and hasn’t done it.

    HIs attitude got him scratched in the AHL playoffs.

    Not sold on him at all.

    If you are going to trade #7 its probably best to trade with a cap strung team who won’t want a lot of immediate salary coming back in a deal, but will deal a Real NHL Player to free up cap space.

  16. Woodguy says:

    Henry: Woodguy,

    I agree with Del Zotto.Chaos in his own end.

    How do you feel about Staal though?

    I like Staal a lot.

    Would have to make sure his eye is healed.

    He’s got two years left and he *probably* signs with CAR after, so you don’t want to pay too much.

  17. Mr DeBakey says:

    I don’t know about trading for Staal this summer:

    “The good news: Staal believes he can come back and play at a high level as he was when he was injured. The bad news: Stall doubts that his eye will ever recover fully.

    “It’s probably not going to be 100%,” Staal said in an interview with Newsday, “but that’s not to say it’s not going to get a lot better. It’s still improving.”

    http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/27/marc-staal-right-eye-never-will-be-100

    Moreau’s eye
    Whitney’s ankle

  18. Woodguy says:

    DBO,

    NYR are ripe for offer sheets.

    I think they almost *have* to buy out Richards just to sign McDonagh, Stepan, Hagelin and Sauer.

    Glen Sather – Great batting average with trades, below replacement with FAs.

  19. Jesse says:

    Another good sign that MacT is doing his due dilligence (just in case no-one’s seen this):

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/edmonton-oilers/Gregor+centre+Corban+Knight+could+really/8533403/story.html

    Oilers are reportedly one of the teams in on trying to acquire top college FA C Corban Knight, a 22 year old NCAA prospect whom Corey Pronman seems to be very high on. I think last night Pronman described signing him as being not quite as big of a deal as getting Justin Schultz, but close.

    Pronman’s writeup on him is here:

    http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=355

    It’s just… nice to hear that the Oilers are in on the hunt for these guys. It’s just nice.

  20. JorgeR04 says:

    I’ve been out of the country for a little while so I must have missed something. What happened to Ralph? I thought at the end of the season there was talk that he would stay on because he was good for the young guys and maybe they would bring in a vet coach to help him? Did I miss a firing press conference?

    Thanks

  21. jonrmcleod says:

    Any rumblings about Stepan? If the Oilers are going to try to do a deal with the Rangers, he’s the forward I might target (RFA, C). I wouldn’t trade Gagner for him as I’m not sure Stepan is an upgrade. Perhaps the Oilers wouldn’t be interest since they’re probably looking for a C with size.

  22. dessert1111 says:

    I would do that deal for Giradi, McDonagh, Stepan…not Del Zotto. He was hugely disappointing on my fantasy team this year and I may never forgive him for that.

  23. tsunami says:

    Agreed… Girardi, McDonagh or Stepan… But that’s not going to happen…

    Or MDZ + Boyle for Gagner… Like this we get a center back…

  24. Bar_Qu says:

    Jesse:
    Another good sign that MacT is doing his due dilligence (just in case no-one’s seen this):

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/edmonton-oilers/Gregor+centre+Corban+Knight+could+really/8533403/story.html

    Oilers are reportedly one of the teams in on trying to acquire top college FA C Corban Knight, a 22 year old NCAA prospect whom Corey Pronman seems to be very high on. I think last night Pronman described signing him as being not quite as big of a deal as getting Justin Schultz, but close.

    Pronman’s writeup on him is here:

    http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=355

    It’s just… nice to hear that the Oilers are in on the hunt for these guys. It’s just nice.

    That is an encouraging piece. Can’t have enough skilled, big-brained centres, especially for the Oil. Hopefully he can come to this org, at least to fill the ranks in OKC to start with, or try to win a job in training camp.

  25. Lois Lowe says:

    If Knight could come into the Jarrett Stoll/Riley Nash role he could find his way on the team in a hurry. He’s more physically imposing than Arcobello and has more going for him than Andrew Miller, signing him would be a coup.

  26. SK Oiler Fan says:

    Ryan Jones made a few line changes like that last year. Better get off in a hurry, pucks going the wrong way, don’t want the minus.

  27. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    JorgeR04:
    I’ve been out of the country for a little while so I must have missed something.What happened to Ralph?I thought at the end of the season there was talk that he would stay on because he was good for the young guys and maybe they would bring in a vet coach to help him?Did I miss a firing press conference?

    Thanks

    You’ve missed a lot.

    Here’s the initial press conference:

    http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=673322

    It blindsided everyone.

    Couple of days later Eakins was hired:

    http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=673469

    In other news. A russian D was picked up; we whiffed on 2 Euro Gs; Harti is off to the KHL; Gernat got his ELC; Arco was re-signed; we are looking into Paul Ranger and some college Centre named Knight.

    And, tragically Pelss died.

    I think that’s it so far.

  28. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    On this Knight issue, it is worth recalling that before MacT took over he described his job (in part) as scouting US College players.

    They seem to value this pursuit highly now. since the Fedun and Arco pick ups, the attempts have been upped a lot it seems.

    Here’s a CBA question though…

    from Gregor’s article:

    “We told Florida we were going to wait until free agency (Aug. 15) or a trade,” explained Knight.”

    Why is FA so late for him?

  29. jonrmcleod says:

    I just completed a blog post (first one in a while) that sums up what Gregor and Pronman have written about Corban Knight.

    http://oilonwhyte.com/2013/06/17/rumour-the-oilers-would-like-to-sign-college-free-agent-center-corban-knight/

  30. JorgeR04 says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Thanks for the update. I managed to catch most of that, Just missed the Kreuger dismisal. I was very confused about how Eakins was going to fit in. How was the reaction of hiring another coach with no nhl coaching experience? What is this, 4th coach in 4 years?

  31. slopitch says:

    Id pass on MDZ as well (as Woodguy covered nicely). Although NYR does have some other D I’d be interested in. Hello Ryan McDonough (pipe dream but still).

    I’m hoping the Oilers get Knight. The fact he is training with Eberle means it has to have been brought up.

  32. OilTastic says:

    i’m willing to trade Gagner and Paajarvi in a deal for Del Zotto, plus?….only problem is, with Horc apparently gone, who would we replace Sam and Horc with? we’d be mighty thin at center!

  33. Cameron says:

    For all those who think that the Oilers can move up in the draft to select Barkov, it has been reported that Calgary offered it’s three first round picks to Colorado in an attempt to do something similar and were rebuffed, with rumours of similar offers to Fla, TBay and Nsh not getting anywhere.

    So for the Oilers to move up will cost more than the equivalent of 3 first round picks, and they would have to beat a Calgary offer that includes the #6.

  34. fuzzy muppet says:

    Cameron,

    Moving from sixth to 1st overall and acquire an elite talent is MUCH harder than moving 2 spots, if the guy you want is there and Carolina wants a defenseman.

  35. slopitch says:

    From Elliot Friedmans latest 30 thoughts:

    “You better draft centers because its impossible to get them.” – Mike Gillis

    A summer of Mohanan, Knight and resigning Gagner long term sounds ideal to me.

  36. fifthcartel says:

    If Carolina wants a good defensemen to move up, I have no idea who the Oilers can part with.

  37. gogliano says:

    slopitch:
    From Elliot Friedmans latest 30 thoughts:

    “You better draft centers because its impossible to get them.” – Mike Gillis

    A summer of Mohanan, Knight and resigning Gagner long term sounds ideal to me.

    I think this is basically right. How many top flight centers have moved in the past 2-3 years?

    Drafting BPA sounds great until you have to deal some of your BPAs. Then you have to worry about (1) the discount you need to offer on any BPA because others will suspect damaged goods (Nichushkin is worth more the day before the draft than the day after) and (2) the premium demanded for certain positions and player types.

    Hall and Yakupov were both the right picks but this is a center heavy draft. We don’t have a chance at MacKinnon–I’d take him #1–but I’ll be pretty disappoint if we don’t walk out of this draft with a great center. Keep Gagner, add one of the centers, and we’re looking at a nice 1C – 3C depth chart in a few years.

  38. Vaclav says:

    Woodguy:
    DBO,

    NYR are ripe for offer sheets.

    I think they almost *have* to buy out Richards just to sign McDonagh, Stepan, Hagelin and Sauer.

    Glen Sather – Great batting average with trades, below replacement with FAs.

    Beware Glen Sather in a trade, MacT!! Even at 69 he is as guileful as they come. And I’m sure Slats would like nothing more than to “welcome” MacTavish to the job by offering a Gomez for McDonagh type of trade. One hand on your wallet at all times.

  39. Jordan says:

    fifthcartel,

    There’s two options I see:

    1 – Offer N. Schultz, Gernat & the 7th for the 5th and a salary dump (Jokinen?)
    2 – Arrange a 3 way that gets the Oilers the 5th. Maybe they like Del Zotto better than the numbers do, but the Oilers have better assets that the Rags crave?

  40. Captain Happy says:

    gogliano: I think this is basically right.How many top flight centers have moved in the past 2-3 years?

    Drafting BPA sounds great until you have to deal some of your BPAs.Then you have to worry about (1) the discount you need to offer on any BPA because others will suspect damaged goods (Nichushkin is worth more the day before the draft than the day after) and (2) the premium demanded for certain positions and player types.

    Hall and Yakupov were both the right picks but this is a center heavy draft.We don’t have a chance at MacKinnon–I’d take him #1–but I’ll be pretty disappoint if we don’t walk out of this draft with a great center.Keep Gagner, add one of the centers, and we’re looking at a nice 1C – 3C depth chart in a few years.

    Problem is, with so much cap space invested in wingers, the Oilers won’t be able to afford 3 expensive centres in 2-3 years.

    If it takes $5M to get Gagner signed long term, if Hopkins gets the the $6M S.O.P., if Yakupov follows suit and the new guy is going to be pulling in hefty coin even on his ELC, you’re hooped.

    The Penguins had 3 top end centres but had to move Staal even though their wingers are paid nowhere near what the Oilers wingers are or will being paid.

    With the extension to Malkin, the Penguins will likely have to move their highest paid winger, James Neal, and he only makes $5M.

  41. Woodguy says:

    The first person I thought of when I heard about Knight was Chris Vande Velde

    Here’s both player’s career box cards at UND:

    Both players are 6’2″ about 200lbs

    Knight

    2009-10 37 6 7 13
    2010-11 44 14 30 44
    2011-12 39 16 24 40
    2012-13 41 16 33 49

    Vande Velde

    2006-07 38 3 6 9
    2007-08 43 15 17 32
    2008-09 43 18 17 35
    2009-10 42 16 25 41

    Knight shows slightly better offensively.

    Might be a good depth pick up.

    You never know.

  42. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Before we get too excited over this 5th pick, are we convinced that Barkov is still going to be on the table?

    Taking Monahan at 5th after giving up some prize pieces to move up two spots wouldn’t look great to me. If Barkov is gone, I really hope we pass on any deal for 5th and simply accept whomever remains at 7 (or, trade down or for a player).

  43. Doug McLachlan says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    This is my thinking. Barkov is there only if Tampa goes off the board to take the Russian and Nashville takes the Moosehead’s winger. Buy a lotto ticket odds.

    You keep talking but expect nothing.

  44. Jordan says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    If it were me organizing the trade, the understanding would be the trade is dependent on Barkov being available.

    If he’s not there at 5, then there’s no trade.

  45. jonrmcleod says:

    Woodguy,

    In August, Pronman ranked Knight as the Panthers’ fourth-best prospect. He’s projected to be a 2nd or 3rd line center.

  46. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Jordan:
    Romulus Apotheosis,

    If it were me organizing the trade, the understanding would be the trade is dependent on Barkov being available.

    If he’s not there at 5, then there’s no trade.

    I hope that is right. I assume regardless they don’t do a deal until draft day to see who is still available.

    My worry isn’t that they do a deal early, but that they

    1) get caught up in a bidding war with Calgary for Monahan and the haze of draft day gets the better of them

    2) overvalue Monahan such that they chase him at 5th.

  47. commonfan14 says:

    slopitch: From Elliot Friedmans latest 30 thoughts:
    “You better draft centers because its impossible to get them.” – Mike Gillis

    This means that we can expect a huge return for Horcoff, right?

    Right?

  48. hefe667 says:

    Jesse,

    This is my first time posting here, but I visit the site often.

    A friend of mine is a family member of Knight’s, and knows him quite well (he had just returned from a trip to ND to visit him when we spoke). He told me that Knight was likely not going to sign with Florida partially due to a desire to play closer to home. This friend (a big Flames fan), said that he would likely end up with either Calgary or Edmonton. Knight’s father is apparently the Flames team chaplin, so there is a connection to that organization. Knight also grew up as (and still is) a huge Oilers fan, so my friend thought that would likely be his preference.

    I know that you guys frown on anecdotal information like this, so please take it for what it is worth.

  49. RickDeckard says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    That is the standard date for ncaa players that graduate and remain unsigned.

  50. godot10 says:

    Why trade for an inferior defensemen, when one can offer sheet the superior defenseman, Ryan McDonagh, at the 1st and 3rd compensation level? Or offer sheet a better defensemen than Del Zotto in Gunnarsson at the 2nd round compensation level.

    (One should offer sheet McDonagh, even if one thinks the Rangers match, to make LA and St. Louis feel the pain with Voynov, Pieterangelo, and Shattenkirk).

    The value in the defense market right now (with the cap coming down) is in the RFA/offer sheet market. By next season, it will be arbitraged away. This is the year to take advantage of it.

    Carolina will go for a legit top 4 defensemen (if someone offers it) for the #5. The trade down to #6 or #7 will be the backup option.

    It is really hard to see Barkov getting past #4. Tampa would have to take Nichushkin, and Drouin would have to be sitting there for Nashville.

    Monahan (or Horvat) and Knight would be a nice centre haul for one summer.

  51. jesse r says:

    However, I’d rather go a full season without filling the hole than pull the chute too soon on Gagner or Paajarvi. The Oilers and their fans have invested all the time and endured the growing pains, best to stay for the feature presentation.

    It’s a little off-topic, and it kind of misses your point, but this type of thinking is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Yes, the Oilers have invested a lot of time, money, and points in the standings trying to turn these teenagers into NHL players. No, that shouldn’t have any bearing on what they do moving forward.

    What happened yesterday is in the past. That time, money, and roster space is already spent. Sunk costs, as they say in economics. The only relevant question is whether the team is better moving forward if they keep the players, or if they cash them in for other assets. And this is from someone who bought a Paajarvi jersey.

    Again, I know this wasn’t really the point of the post, but framing the question of a player’s future value with what they’ve cost you in the past will only muddy the water and lead to worse decisions. I assume that Craig MacTavish, MBA knows this, and we should all probably keep it in mind as we evaluate his work moving forward.

  52. hodgkins says:

    I think that the ship has sailed, but, any chance that Omark returns to NA as a result of the new GM and coach?

    If not, would he be an asset that could be traded? Not sure what kind of rights the Oilers have or if they have an expiration date.

  53. meanashell11 says:

    I am going to suggest this again although a different forum but how about Horcof and Hemmer for Brad Richards. He had a horrible year, has a contract that runs for ever but I think he has gas left in the tank, just a poor season for him. As For MDZ and Staal, no to both. Staal because he is on his way to play with his brothers regardless of the injury, MDZ because his is a DB, nevermind his poor play!

  54. VOR says:

    Jordan,

    I am afraid I don’t get the love with trading up to #5. At this time of year draft picks get massively overvalued. So minimally you are going to overpay.

    Examining it in the cold light of day it is easy to see the difference in outcome between 5 and 7OV in terms of games played, goals, points, and penalty minutes, even impact players, is not statistically significant. In fact, in the 33 drafts up to and including 2010 depending on which of Ryan Suter or Thomas Vanek you think is the better player 16 times #5 gives you the better player and 17 times (I took Suter) #7 does.

    I understand that you may think Barkov is going to be great and perhaps you are right (though the deterioration in the SM-Liga would give me cause for concern). My problem is you are far too confident about the supposed drop off in talent after Barkov. The history of the draft would suggest there is no drop off in talent – just a drop off in consensus. People keep claiming this draft is like 2003. Well in 2003 after Vanek was taken at 5 arguably the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best players in the draft were still on the board (Suter, Getzlaf, and Weber). I am saying Eric Stall was the best player taken but you could argue even that.

    I can not see a reasonable argument that giving up meaningful assets to trade up makes sense.

  55. leadfarmer says:

    A team with this much young talent that is likely picking top 10 next year is probably not too keen on using offer sheets.

  56. Captain Happy says:

    godot10:
    Why trade for an inferior defensemen, when one can offer sheet the superior defenseman, Ryan McDonagh, at the 1st and 3rd compensation level?Or offer sheet a better defensemen than Del Zotto in Gunnarsson at the 2nd round compensation level.

    (One should offer sheet McDonagh, even if one thinks the Rangers match,to make LA and St. Louis feel the pain with Voynov, Pieterangelo, and Shattenkirk).

    The value in the defense market right now (with the cap coming down) is in the RFA/offer sheet market.By next season, it will be arbitraged away.This is the year to take advantage of it.

    Carolina will go for a legit top 4 defensemen (if someone offers it) for the #5.The trade down to #6 or #7 will be the backup option.

    It is really hard to see Barkov getting past #4.Tampa would have to take Nichushkin, and Drouin would have to be sitting there for Nashville.

    Monahan (or Horvat) and Knight would be a nice centre haul for one summer.

    The problem with your offer sheet strategy in the cases of Toronto, LAK and STL is that they have all the cap space in the world to match those offers unless they are huge overpays.

    Might work on NYR but not the others.

  57. Young Oil says:

    I’d much prefer to take a run at someone like Kulikov rather than Del Zotto. Looking at the Florida depth chart, they don’t have much depth at RW…could a package be put around Hemsky in order to get him, retaining some salary if necessary? Hemsky (salary reduced)+Anaheim 2nd for Kulikov maybe?

    Hell, I’d even be willing to trade a package centered around Eberle/Yakupov if we could get Kulikov and the 2nd OV coming back.

  58. nelson88 says:

    Woodguy,

    Good point. My immediate thought was Tyler Bozak but the VDV comparisons maybe more apt. Let’s hope he is closer to the former than the latter. Unless of course he joins the Flames. Being from High River you would think Knight and his agent also see that organization as having a few holes to fill.

  59. Captain Obvious says:

    I’m with VOR, trading up for Barkov is a fool’s gambit, especially if it costs roster players. The Oilers need more good players not fewer.

    The more interesting deal is the one that Lowetide proposed at oilersnation:

    Gagner, Hemsky, and Marincin, for Tyutin, Umberger, and Johansen.

    That’s a tough one.

    The length of Umberger’s contracts means that he has negative value even if he might help in the short term. Even if you call him even with Hemsky (which I doubt) I’d rather have the shorter contract.

    Johansen was an overdraft at the time and has never put up numbers that would justify the hype. He still has a good chance to be a solid #3 center in the NHL but hoping for more than that would be foolish. I’d rather have Marincin I think.

    Tyutin is very good, better than Gagner in my opinion even though I like Gagner a lot.

    In the short term I think this makes the Oilers better but there is significant risk involved with Umberger’s contract.

    On the other hand, the window for the Oilers is already closing. They need to add multiple NHL players right away, and this accomplishes that goal without giving up anything super significant. If the Oilers made this trade I wouldn’t cry about it.

  60. slopitch says:

    commonfan14,

    Lol perhaps. I actually think this is a brutal year to be moving Horcoff. His list of 10 contending teams are likely all at a cap crunch and wont want to acquire an overpaid player.

    That said, if you could make an argument that in the UFA market you have to overpay by 1.5 million and 3 years, then Horcoff could be attractive because his contract is almost up and his salary is less then the cap hit. In theory your getting a 4 million dollar player for less term (and at a discount). But I don’t consider it that likely since he’s best case a 2nd line C and of the 10 contending teams, I doubt he’s an upgrade on any of their 2C. I can only think of 3 teams who might be interested – Ana, NYR and Det. Maybe Dallas but I don’t see Dallas being on his list of 10 contenders.

    I suspect the return is minimal.

  61. regwald says:

    From Elliote Friedman’s post today:

    The Calgary Flames and Colorado Avalanche refuse to confirm it, but the source is excellent: Flames general manager Jay Feaster recently made a bold move, offering his three first-round draft picks (sixth, 22nd, 28th) to Colorado for the No. 1 overall selection. The Avalanche said no. And the rebuff came fast.

  62. Vaclav says:

    regwald:
    From Elliote Friedman’s post today:

    The Calgary Flames and Colorado Avalanche refuse to confirm it, but the source is excellent: Flames general manager Jay Feaster recently made a bold move, offering his three first-round draft picks (sixth, 22nd, 28th) to Colorado for the No. 1 overall selection. The Avalanche said no. And the rebuff came fast.

    Even if Colorado were to consider the trade there are likely still some bad feelings from the O’Reilly offer sheet.

    How great would this draft be had Colorado not matched the offer and O’Reilly was lost on waivers to another club. They’d have #1 and #6 while the Flames would be toiling at the bottom of the 1st round with their deadline deal draft picks.

  63. misfit says:

    regwald: From Elliote Friedman’s post today:The Calgary Flames and Colorado Avalanche refuse to confirm it, but the source is excellent: Flames general manager Jay Feaster recently made a bold move, offering his three first-round draft picks (sixth, 22nd, 28th) to Colorado for the No. 1 overall selection. The Avalanche said no. And the rebuff came fast.

    As it should have. 3 1st round picks sounds impressive, but the value in the players you end up with isn’t close. The #6 should get you a sure-fire NHLer, but the other two are a coin-flip and the ones that make it from the bottom of the round are rarely impact players worthy of moving a 1st overall for.

  64. Young Oil says:

    Captain Obvious:
    I’m with VOR, trading up for Barkov is a fool’s gambit, especially if it costs roster players.The Oilers need more good players not fewer.

    The more interesting deal is the one that Lowetide proposed at oilersnation:

    Gagner, Hemsky, and Marincin, for Tyutin, Umberger, and Johansen.

    That’s a tough one.

    The length of Umberger’s contracts means that he has negative value even if he might help in the short term.Even if you call him even with Hemsky (which I doubt) I’d rather have the shorter contract.

    Johansen was an overdraft at the time and has never put up numbers that would justify the hype.He still has a good chance to be a solid #3 center in the NHL but hoping for more than that would be foolish.I’d rather have Marincin I think.

    Tyutin is very good, better than Gagner in my opinion even though I like Gagner a lot.

    In the short term I think this makes the Oilers better but there is significant risk involved with Umberger’s contract.

    On the other hand, the window for the Oilers is already closing.They need to add multiple NHL players right away, and this accomplishes that goal without giving up anything super significant.If the Oilers made this trade I wouldn’t cry about it.

    I think that trade is a possibility, but personally I’d like to keep Marincin, he did really well as a rookie in OKC, and I think he would pair well with Gernat in a couple of years. Maybe replace him in that trade with Musil?

    However, I think CBJ are very attached to Tyutin, and the Oilers would have to do a huge overpay in order to get them. Also, that Umberger contract could bite us in the ass. I think a better series of moves would be:

    1. Gagner, N. Schultz, Musil, and 1st round pick 2014 for Dubinski, Nikitin, and Johansen.
    2. As I suggested above, Hemsky (salary retained) and 2nd round 2013 for Kulikov.
    3. Sign Stalberg, Gordon/Steckel, and Ranger if the price is right.
    4. Draft Monohan/Nichushkin/Lindholm, one of them will be available.

    That gives us:

    RNH-Hall-Eberle
    Dubinski-Stalberg-Yakupov
    Johansen-Paajarvi-Monohan/Nichushkin/Lindholm
    Gordon/Steckel-Smyth-Brown

    Petry-Smid
    J. Schultz-Kulikov
    Belov-Nikitin
    Ranger/Potter/Klefbom

    This gives the chance for Dubinski to mentor our younger centers in playing a two way game, lets Eakins influence and drive the youth of the team, Nikitin will ease belov’s transition to the NHL, and allows Klefbom to get a full season in the AHL. Are those all plausible/smart moves?

  65. Captain Obvious says:

    Young Oil,

    Of course those are better moves, which is why Columbus and Florida would never do them.

  66. LMHF#1 says:

    So, I went to that Oilers season ticket holder lunch thing today. The food was good, which is a change from the rest of the bun-throw lunch circuit type events.

    After an oddly long and strange business/sociology “lecture” from Laforge (and an audience oddly obsessed with the season ticket card/printed tickets), MacTavish showed us the presentation they supposedly give to players they’re recruiting.

    If that’s the package they show, the chat afterwards must be nothing short of heroic for us to sign anyone. After a way-too-long and cheesy Aquila video, the players are shown a powerpoint presentation that has all the production value of a 12 year old’s C grade homework assignment. I sure hope that wasn’t the real thing. Good enough points, but man you make your company look like it’s some one-off hobby shop with work like that.

  67. Young Oil says:

    Captain Obvious,

    What do you suggest could be done to get those players then? I agree the Florida deal would be a hard sell, even though Hemsky could be their #1 RW, definitely their #2, while Kulikov has been mentioned on the trade block a few times, and currently is a 3/4 defender. But personally, I think the Columbus deal is fair. Gagner is younger and has more offensive upside than Dubinski, Gagner could be the #1C for CBJ, and the two have comparable cap hits. N. Schultz is more expensive and older than Nikitin, but is a better defensive defender. As for Johansen, CBJ likely has Jenner coming in, which makes Johansen expendable. It has also been said that he needs a change of scenery, and a 1st round pick (which one would expect to be top 10 due to the Oilers’ recent performance) and a prospect (Musil) would be a fair compensation for that.

  68. LostBoy says:

    Captain Obvious,

    Johansen was an “overdraft”? How, exactly? McKenzie had him 6th on his final list and he went 4th, but the two guys in between (Gormley and Fowler) were major sliders, going 13th and 12th, respectively. Given that, he went exactly where Bob had him.

    He hasn’t found the offense at the NHL level, but the guy can’t buy a beer in the US until next month. Getting benched in the AHL playoffs was eyebrow raising and a possible red flag. Still, he put up decent offensive numbers in the AHL during the lockout and he led Columbus in draws taken this year. He carried a similar amount of water this season as Sean Couturier, a reasonable comparable in draft pedigree and player type. Math indicates Couturier had clearly superior results, though the offense was about the same (although it’s true Couturier put up much better numbers in his rookie year). Still, Johansen was trusted with some pretty tough minutes (they both plot in the upper left quadrant in the Vollman chart, but Couturier has a CorsiRel of 1.6, Johansen -4.7), and he’s a plus faceoff guy while Couturier has been weak so far. Couturier is clearly tracking ahead, but they’re swimming in the same waters.

    I wouldn’t be even slightly comfortable exchanging Gagner for Johansen as the 2C at this point, regardless of whatever else it might accomplish on the trade front, but if nobody’s writing off the offensive potential of a 20 year old Sean Couturier and his 4 goals and 44% faceoffs, I’m not really prepared to write off a 20 year old Ryan Johansen and his 5 goals and 51% faceoffs.

  69. slopitch says:

    Calgary offered 6, 21 and 28 for the 1st overall? Gagner, Plant and Riley Nash anyone? lol

    Even with mulligans on the picks, you’d be crazy to take that offer.

  70. JohnnyRocket says:

    LMHF#1:
    So, I went to that Oilers season ticket holder lunch thing today. The food was good, which is a change from the rest of the bun-throw lunch circuit type events.

    After an oddly long and strange business/sociology “lecture” from Laforge (and an audience oddly obsessed with the season ticket card/printed tickets), MacTavish showed us the presentation they supposedly give to players they’re recruiting.

    If that’s the package they show, the chat afterwards must be nothing short of heroic for us to sign anyone. After a way-too-long and cheesy Aquila video, the players are shown a powerpoint presentation that has all the production value of a 12 year old’s C grade homework assignment. I sure hope that wasn’t the real thing. Good enough points, but man you make your company look like it’s some one-off hobby shop with work like that.

    This frightens me.

  71. Jordan says:

    JohnnyRocket: This frightens me.

    LMHF#1:
    So, I went to that Oilers season ticket holder lunch thing today. The food was good, which is a change from the rest of the bun-throw lunch circuit type events.

    After an oddly long and strange business/sociology “lecture” from Laforge (and an audience oddly obsessed with the season ticket card/printed tickets), MacTavish showed us the presentation they supposedly give to players they’re recruiting.

    If that’s the package they show, the chat afterwards must be nothing short of heroic for us to sign anyone. After a way-too-long and cheesy Aquila video, the players are shown a powerpoint presentation that has all the production value of a 12 year old’s C grade homework assignment. I sure hope that wasn’t the real thing. Good enough points, but man you make your company look like it’s some one-off hobby shop with work like that.

    I agree – that is disturbing. However….

    Makes me wonder what the other guys are presenting, if the Oilers are actually succeeeding…

  72. VOR says:

    slopitch,

    Marc-Andre Fleury for Milan Michalek, MAP, and Corey Perry anyone? I think I take that trade.

  73. Bag of Pucks says:

    LMHF#1:
    Good enough points, but man you make your company look like it’s some one-off hobby shop with work like that.

    Doesn’t surprise me in the least. Seems like the entire org’s hiring practices are based on ‘friend of a friend’ rather than merit. Senior positions in Oiler management (hockey operations and elsewhere) are like plum political patronage appointments. The mediocrity rises to the top.

  74. Captain Obvious says:

    LostBoy,

    Johansen was a good but not great scorer in junior and he was less than a pt/game as a 20yr old in the AHL. He’s below the benchmarks for being able to be a genuine scoring threat in the NHL.
    Young Oil,

    Dubinsky is better and cheaper than Gagner. Nikitin is better and cheaper than Schultz. Johansen is better than Musil and mid round first round pick. Tell me why Columbus would do this deal again?

    Your trade would transform the Oilers in a single stroke but it would never happen.

  75. regwald says:

    4 yr deal for Streit in Philly signed. No $$ as of yet.

  76. Bar_Qu says:

    regwald:
    4 yr deal for Streit in Philly signed. No $$ as of yet.

    Thank goodness that was a guy the Oilers never had an opportunity to pursue.

    Blech, at least 2 yrs of that contract will be wasted.

  77. Woodguy says:

    VOR:
    Jordan,

    I am afraid I don’t get the love with trading up to #5. At this time of year draft picks get massively overvalued. So minimally you are going to overpay.

    Examining it in the cold light of day it is easy to see the difference in outcome between 5 and 7OV in terms of games played, goals, points, and penalty minutes, even impact players, is not statistically significant. In fact, in the 33 drafts up to and including 2010 depending on which of Ryan Suter or Thomas Vanek you think is the better player 16 times #5 gives you the better player and 17 times (I took Suter) #7 does.

    I understand that you may think Barkov is going to be great and perhaps you are right (though the deterioration in the SM-Liga would give me cause for concern). My problem is you are far too confident about the supposed drop off in talentafter Barkov. The history of the draft would suggest there is no drop off in talent – just a drop off in consensus. People keep claiming this draft is like 2003. Well in 2003 after Vanek was taken at 5 arguably the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best players in the draft were still on the board (Suter, Getzlaf, and Weber). I am saying Eric Stall was the best player taken but you could argue even that.

    I can not see a reasonable argument that giving up meaningful assets to trade up makes sense.

    Barkov has better numbers as a teenager than anyone else to come out of the SEL other than Peter Forsberg.

    He also put up those numbers being almost a full year younger than Forsburg, Sedins, etc.

    It was this article by Willis that got everyone salivating : http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/04/27/statistically-aleksander-barkov-is-the-most-promising-nordic-forward-since-peter-forsberg/

    6’2″ 205;bs as a 17 year old.

    Solves 2C for the next 10 years.

    That’s why paying a player who can be replaced though trade or FA is worth it, because getting a Barkov type is next to impossible outside the draft.

    i”ve heard a few draft guru’s (including Pronman) say that if any of the top 4, maybe even 5 with Nichuskin came out last year, they all would have been rated #1 over Yak.

    Its like trading up for a #1, except this year he happens to be #5 and he *might* be available.

  78. regwald says:

    Bar_Qu,

    Agreed a 4 yr 35+ contract. Glad that wasn’t the Oilers.

  79. Woodguy says:

    regwald:
    4 yr deal for Streit in Philly signed. No $$ as of yet.

    I love Holmgren.

  80. regwald says:

    Woodguy: I love Holmgren.

    Does he know when the next lockout is and he’s pre-planning ? for his next set of buyouts ? LOL

  81. WeridAl says:

    Sounds like Mark Streit has signed with Philly 22M for 4yrs

  82. OilLeak says:

    Woodguy,

    22 million over 4 years is the rumor, getting a defensman in the off-season just got expensive. Absolutely ridiculous.

  83. WeridAl says:

    OilLeak,

    When teams are desperate, they tend to do stupid things.

  84. OilLeak says:

    WeridAl,

    Holmgren tends to do a lot of stupid/insane things.

  85. melancholyculkin says:

    VOR,

    I’ve got a script that I’m just polishing that grabs all the draft information from the hockeydb archives and can spit it out in an excel readable format. I was thinking I might also throw it all in a database for further querying and research purposes that I could make publicly available. Right now I just have draft number, round, drafting team, team drafted from, GP, G, A, Pts, PIM. Is there any other data you think would be useful for doing draft studies? Assuming it’s available somewhere on the internet it shouldn’t be too difficult to grab and add to the pile.

    I don’t know how much programming experience you have, but it wouldn’t be difficult to slap together a GUI if needed.

  86. Woodguy says:

    Proman tweet:

    Corey Pronman ‏@coreypronman 8m
    With Nichushkin announcing he’s coming to NA (with stipluation he makes an NHL team) scouts I’ve talked to feel “big 3″ is a “big 4″ now.

    NAS might be shy of taking him after the Radulov stuff.

    Also, Nichuskin “spit the bit” during the VO2 max test and refused to continue on with it at the combine and many people relate that to being a quitter.

    So basically TBY has to take Nicushkin, then NAS taking Drouin/McKinnon for Barkov to be available at #5, but its much more plausible than some are suggesting.

  87. Woodguy says:

    OilLeak:
    Woodguy,

    22 million over 4 years is the rumor, getting a defensman in the off-season just got expensive. Absolutely ridiculous.

    Twitter sez 5.75 x 4 = $23MM

    El-Oh-El

    I would have done $5MM x 2, but that’s a stretch.

  88. WeridAl says:

    Woodguy:
    Proman tweet:

    Corey Pronman ‏@coreypronman 8m
    With Nichushkin announcing he’s coming to NA (with stipluation he makes an NHL team) scouts I’ve talked to feel “big 3″ is a “big 4″ now.

    NAS might be shy of taking him after the Radulov stuff.

    Also, Nichuskin “spit the bit” during the VO2 max test and refused to continueon with it at the combine and many people relate that to being a quitter.

    So basically TBY has to take Nicushkin, then NAS taking Drouin/McKinnon for Barkov to be available at #5, but its much more plausible than some are suggesting.

    Nashville needs the big C, IMO they pass on Drouin and take Barkov if this scenario happened.

  89. Thor762 says:

    I actually heard Craig Button on another radio show say that Nichuskin didn’t spit the bit and refuse to continue as some have reported. He commented that he was there and he gave the actual numbers from the test. Saying that Nichuskin scored average for time spent and above average for capacity.

  90. DBO says:

    a few things:
    1. thank you Holmgren. I mean really??? So happy we dodged that grenade.
    2. If we are keeping the 7th to draft either Lindholm or Monahan, and feel he is an upgrade on Gagner, do you do Del Zotto and Boyle for Gagner (someone mentioned that kind of offer earlier)? top 4 dman (albeit marginally as per Woodguy) and a 3rd line centre. Not sure if that works for us, but it goes with the puck moving dman and need for more grit and sandpaper to go with enough skill in Boyle.
    3. The UFA route, after the buyouts will be crazy. And by crazy I don’t mean the number of guys bought out, but the size of the new deals I expect they’ll sign. Seriously, A 36 yr old dman for 4 years at $5.25 per year?!? Why the hell did we have a lockout again.
    4. i expect a trade from the Oil at or pre draft, then nothing until free agency after we see the buyouts. And if MacT does what he says he is going to do, i do not expect any overpay at all, for anyone. And that alone would make it a solid off season.

  91. Gerta Rauss says:

    Woodguy: Twitter sez 5.75 x 4 = $23MM

    El-Oh-El

    I would have done $5MM x 2, but that’s a stretch.

    TSN has 4 x $5.25 = $21M, but what’s 2 million between friends right..?

    I wonder if Lubo is kicking himself right now-he left money on the table by signing early, and would have had his pick of teams, including a sunny spot for the wife and kid(s).

  92. LostBoy says:

    Captain Obvious:

    I guess it depends what you mean by “a genuine scoring threat”. Johansen’s draft year numbers in the WHL are almost identical to the draft year junior seasons of, e.g., Ryan Getzlaf, Brandon Dubinsky, Ryan O’Reilly, and Jordan Staal..

    Johansen covered the bet in his post-draft season, with the requisite improvement to 92 pts in 63 games (very similar to Getzlaf again).

    Do I think he’s Ryan Getzlaf? Uh, no (for one thing, Getzlaf blew the doors off the AHL as a 21 year old and was elevated to the NHL a quarter way through the season), but Johansen’s junior numbers are fully in line with those of lots of young top six C with size and decent scoring in the league today.

  93. prairieschooner says:

    Oilers spend huge bucks in their IT Department
    This may be a slipped through the cracks aspect of player procurement.
    Not good.

  94. godot10 says:

    Woodguy:

    So basically TBY has to take Nicushkin, then NAS taking Drouin/McKinnon for Barkov to be available at #5, but its much more plausible than some are suggesting.

    So then Toronto steps up and offers Gardiner and their 1st round pick to Carolina.

    If Barkov is available at #5, teams will be offering Carolina real defensemen.

    The probability that the OIlers can get Barkov is extremely low, because Nashville will pick him over Nichushkin, and they don’t have a legit proven defensemen they can spare to trade Carolina.

  95. DBO says:

    Good piece on Paul Ranger at COH. If a player is on an AHL only deal, can they sign right now for an NHL deal? Or do they have to wait for free agency? Ranger would be a solid addition to go with Belov. A better, bigger, more mobile and younger d corps to start the year. No big stud dman, but at the cost of someone like Streit, here’s hoping we avoid that cap death.

  96. VOR says:

    Woodguy,

    No disrespect but Barkov didn’t play in the SEL he played in the SM-Liga. There is some question if the SM-Liga is even in the top 5 leagues in the world anymore. Consider Barkov put up these numbers in a year when Eric Perrin outscored him. At 38 Perrin is having his best years in the SM-Liga. This is Perrin’s second tour of duty in the SM-Liga. In his first, in his prime, Perrin scored 46 points. Last year Perrin had 59 and this year 53 points. This is happening at a time in his career where Perrin is four year’s past having had 23 points for the Atlanta Thrashers.

    Additionally, Barkov played 19 minutes a game according to SM-Liga records. Then there is the shoulder injury. Hardly the slam dunk you all keep saying he is and not worth the assets you would have to give up. Sounds a lot like you guys are all drafting for need and size not for BPA.

    By the way I will be impressed when any of the talking heads post a list where they get the top 30 players in the order of their subsequent NHL performance. Heck I will take getting the top 10 right. I am not saying you are wrong that Barkov is a strong consensus top 5 pick. I am saying the odds are that the consensus is wrong.

    The math continues to say trading up is not a good move at this time.

    On top of which, my original point was that the player at 7OV is likely to be just as good on average as the one taken at 5OV. Forget what the talking heads say, the math says it is the equivalent of a 6th round draft choice between them over time. I can’t say that I see some big difference between Lindholm, Nichushkin, Monahan, and Barkov.

  97. Smarmy says:

    Bar_Qu: Thank goodness that was a guy the Oilers never had an opportunity to pursue.

    Blech, at least 2 yrs of that contract will be wasted.

    Better have another lockout these salaries are out of control!

  98. Woodguy says:

    godot10,

    So then Toronto steps up and offers Gardiner and their 1st round pick to Carolina.

    Well that’s a ridiculous offer.

    That’s like trading J.Shultz.

    Do you really think that happens?

    I’m talking about N.Shultz and maybe something else.

    No where near Gardiner.

  99. Woodguy says:

    VOR,

    No disrespect but Barkov didn’t play in the SEL he played in the SM-Liga. There is some question if the SM-Liga is even in the top 5 leagues in the world anymore. Consider Barkov put up these numbers in a year when Eric Perrin outscored him. At 38 Perrin is having his best years in the SM-Liga. This is Perrin’s second tour of duty in the SM-Liga. In his first, in his prime, Perrin scored 46 points. Last year Perrin had 59 and this year 53 points. This is happening at a time in his career where Perrin is four year’s past having had 23 points for the Atlanta Thrashers.

    I thought it was SEL, I missed that.

    I’m not a draft guy, but I know generally who to trust and those people say Barkov is the real deal as a NHL C, so I trust that.

    As far as finding random player who did better, that means nothing.

    Jeff Jaffe (32 years old) was 2nd in AHL scoring this year.

    Do you think he’s beter than every kid who played in the AHL this year?

    This argument is a strawman, old vets outscore kids on a regular basis in all leagues, doesn’t mean the kids will grow into more.

    Additionally, Barkov played 19 minutes a game according to SM-Liga records. Then there is the shoulder injury. Hardly the slam dunk you all keep saying he is and not worth the assets you would have to give up. Sounds a lot like you guys are all drafting for need and size not for BPA.

    3 quetsions:

    1) What assets have I suggested giving up?

    2) Who are “you guys”?

    3) He is BPA at #5 and its not close. (assuming the top 3 + Nichuskin are gone) Every list has him that high. The future may tell us different, but you have to make that decision in a week.

    On top of which, my original point was that the player at 7OV is likely to be just as good on average as the one taken at 5OV. Forget what the talking heads say, the math says it is the equivalent of a 6th round draft choice between them over time. I can’t say that I see some big difference between Lindholm, Nichushkin, Monahan, and Barkov.

    That’s the crux of the debate.

    I have no idea, neither do you, neither does anyone else who makes lists.

    The people with pretty good track records say Barkov goes #1 in many other drafts, and I listen.

  100. dangilitis says:

    Someone above suggested #7, N Schultz and a D prospect for #5. I would boldly make that trade, mostly because N Schultz is useless and he needs to be sold before everyone figures out how useless he is. He is easily replaceable through UFA by signing Clitsome at half the price. Marincin would be a loss, but Barkov is a big upgrade on Monahan and D prospect pool is our strength.

    Captain Obvious,

    We can’t do this trade (Gagner, Hemsky, and Marincin, for Tyutin, Umberger, and Johansen)
    #2C is an important role and it can not be replaced by an underwhelming prospect in Johansen. Obviously Marincin to Tyutin would be an upgrade but in the new CBA RFA years are useful to have and Marincin has plenty of them. Umberger’s contract is just awful. It is CBJ’s cross to bear, much like ours with Horcoff, and any deal that takes him to Edmonton is a loss. Full stop.

    Also, I find it funny that on the one hand everyone is proposing a trade for Gagner, while on the other hand, MacT has been pretty forthright in his assessments of other players’ future in Edmonton, and says that Gagner’s future in Edmonton is in the cards. That is, unless a wow trade comes along, and the trade that LT proposes ain’t it.

    Sign Gagner unless you can bring someone better back, and as Gillis/Friedman point out, centers are a hot commodity. So, even if Barkov can step in sooner that expected in the future, centers with Gagner’s age, skill, and experience don’t grow on trees. Even at 5 mil/season, he will find a home if they later decide to trade him.

  101. VOR says:

    Woodguy,

    You using argumentum ad verecundiam on me in the same blog where you reposted Corey Pronman’s tweet about Nichushkin’s spitting the bit, is truly priceless.

  102. Lowetide says:

    If the Oilers can get Tyutin here without giving up Gagner or Paajarvi then God love them. I don’t think they can.

  103. Rebilled says:

    Hopefully this is the year Slats retires and makes insane boys on the bus trades with the Oilers.

    Nash for Horcoff would do.

  104. Captain Happy says:

    Lowetide:
    If the Oilers can get Tyutin here without giving up Gagner or Paajarvi then God love them. I don’t think they can.

    The Oilers have drafted themselves into a horrible corner.

    They have no centres, top pairing D or goaltenders in the system.

    At some point, they will have to trade their excess of scoring wingers to solve that problem.

    They can’t afford to wait to deliver those assets.

    Their window will close.

  105. RickDeckard says:

    Rebilled,

    You mean McDonagh for Horcoff, right?

  106. RickDeckard says:

    Captain Happy,

    You can do better than that. You should try again.

  107. Lowetide says:

    RickDeckard:
    Captain Happy,

    You can do better than that. You should try again.

    Can I try?

    The Oilers window has closed. fin

  108. VOR says:

    melancholyculkin,

    That would be so neat. I would think one of the things you want, and it is possible to calculate, it how many years it took for the player to reach the NHL. It would be fascinating to be able to explore the issue of opportunity as a factor in outcome. This will be harder but I think I can explain it simply enough.

    Many people who do research on drafts in pro sports have noted that some years there is more opportunity than other years. If you are drafted in a year that is followed by a shortage of players at the pro level clearly your chances of a pro career increase. So for the 2003 and to a lesser extent the 2004 draft years in the NHL there was unusual opportunity because of the 2003-2004 lockout. I have seen estimates of as high as 210 players who never played another game in the NHL post lockout. That was a massive opportunity.

    Distributions would be good. That and some sort of team opportunity index using something like Schucker’s table would be great. Mostly you need to be able to expand the database to allow for insertion of things like PPI, and THOR, maybe GVT, Adjusted +/- and PPS. That way we can test player measurement tools against draft classes.

    I’d need to think about it more and get back to you.

  109. RickDeckard says:

    Lowetide,

    Now that’s how it is done. Short, simple, provocative.

  110. VOR says:

    rickdeckard,

    There is a window? Where!

  111. Captain Happy says:

    Lowetide: Can I try?

    The Oilers window has closed. fin

    Nope.

    But the window will close when Yakupov needs to get paid.

    Then another rebuild will be in order.

  112. RickDeckard says:

    VOR,

    There was a window but Tambo kept trying to prove that you can’t run through one and then they needed to promote MacTavish and get some bleach.

    On a side note, the kerning in MacTavish is driving me crazy.

  113. Lowetide says:

    Captain Happy: Nope.

    But the window will close when Yakupov needs to get paid.

    Then another rebuild will be in order.

    The day is ruined. Sad rain.

  114. gr8one says:

    Woodguy:
    The first person I thought of when I heard about Knight was Chris Vande Velde

    Here’s both player’s career box cards at UND:

    Both players are 6’2″ about 200lbs

    Knight

    2009-10376713
    2010-1144143044
    2011-1239162440
    2012-1341163349

    Vande Velde

    2006-0738369
    2007-0843151732
    2008-0943181735
    2009-1042162541

    Knight shows slightly better offensively.

    Might be a good depth pick up.

    You never know.

    I actually had the same thought, but then on the flipside of that comparison is that Knight’s boxcar’s are actually closer to Toews’ than CVV’s are to Knight’s.

    Either way though, very interesting prospect if we can nab him.

  115. VOR says:

    Captain Happy,

    I thought the Oilers were already paying Yakupov. You mean he is playing for free? First it was all these windows nobody told me about and now it is free players.

    All joking aside, you do understand that the bizarre set of rhetorical and logical fallacies that you seem to save specifically for the Oilers appear to all of us here as both absurdly draconian and staggeringly tendentious?

  116. "Steve Smith" says:

    VOR: All joking aside, you do understand that the bizarre set of rhetorical and logical fallacies that you seem to save specifically for the Oilers appear to all of us here as both absurdly draconian and staggeringly tendentious?

    He does not; thank you for asking.

  117. RickDeckard says:

    Captain Happy,

    Just heard that Yakupov converted to Buddhism. He’s going to be making league minimum and donating it to addicts in Vancouver.

  118. art vandelay says:

    VOR,
    Latin major? Underutilized lawyer?
    CH is right: The Oilers have under-sized C, porous D and marginal G.
    And their window is closing.
    But keep believing. Hope sells tickets. Esp when the rubes have money to burn.

  119. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    art vandelay,

    Hi Art!

  120. VOR says:

    Art,

    While I use Latin and the law everyday at work I am neither a Latin major or an underutilized lawyer. Sometimes Latin can convey in a few simple words a very complex idea that would take pages to say in modern English. However, the thing I like most about it is that Latin gave us powerful tools for making up new words. The two I used above, tendentious and draconian, are great examples. Both were coined in the 1800s by taking a Latin root, tendenti (slanted) and Dracon (referring to Draco the Greek who created a law code where the punishment for everything was death – a bit like modern Singapore) and added the endings to create new words.

    I hope that clarifies things for you. I like words. I believe we live in a complex world where we can’t afford to handicap ourselves by limiting the words we use to talk about that world.

  121. Woodguy says:

    VOR: and staggeringly tendentious?

    The crux of my whole argument is that when it comes to the draft, the experts have been getting it right at the top, so appealing to authority is a big part of my argument.

    Your inability to refute my points and move the goalposts is very D.S.Fian

    Oh, and Pronman didn’t mention him spitting the bit, I did. Pronman’s tweet only involves teams valuing Nicuskin in the top 4.

    Well done.

  122. VOR says:

    Woodguy,

    Oh it isn’t that I can’t refute your points – Cam Barker, Benoit Pouliot, Phil Kessel, Kyle Turris, Zach Bogosian, Matt Duchene, and Erik Gudbranson do that for me. They are McKenzie’s consensus 3rd OV from 2004 through 2010. How many do you think would still be considered consensus 3rds at this point? So the best known consensus list doesn’t get 3OV right. Doesn’t that make it unlikely to get the difference between 5 and 7OV correct? You also didn’t provide a single “authority” that has said trading up would be the correct. Don’t remember seeing anybody cited as the source for Barkov is great. Please provide one then we will have a look at how they have done in predicting the draft.

  123. Woodguy says:

    VOR,

    I linked to Jon Willis’ evaluation of Barkov.

    When I’m on a desk top, I’ll dig up some others.

    What I am contending is that many people who who have excellent track records say that the top 5 in this draft go #1/#2 in many other drafts.

    Cam Barker being consensus #3 in his draft has nothing to do with this draft.

    Think of it this way:

    Let’s say only 50% of the male population can benchpress 150lbs.

    You take a sample of 20 men and you expect about 10 who can do it.

    Then 20 6’4″ 250″lb men walk into the room.

    Is the standard 50% going to apply?

    Over a large sample, I see what you are trying to get at, but you ignore the plethora of people saying the top 5 group this year is very special and that most would go #1/#2 in most other drafts.

  124. VOR says:

    Woodguy,

    I feel like you are confounding four separate statements.

    1. This years draft is very rich at the top end – that all of the top four are as good or better than Yakupov.

    2. Barkov tore up the SM-Liga, unreal numbers for a 17 year old.

    3. There is drop off after the top four, perhaps five players in this draft.

    4. The people saying 1-3 are credible “authorities”.

    My counter argument to four is that none of the people you would say are credible authorities has a track record of picking the best players in the draft particularly not over multiple years. Many years they don’t get close. Nor for that matter do scouts – look at any draft. Against that I offer up Michael Schuckers who is a credible authority who has studied and successfully predicted other professional sports drafts. He says the difference between 5 and 7OV is razor thin.

    Your response to the extent you’ve given one is, “this time is different.” You know so because the authorities tell you so. You have offered up Jon Willis’ as the source for Barkov. That said, you do understand he equivocates in that article? Not to mention to the best of my knowledge Willis has no proven track record for predicting the future of drafted players that we can use to ascertain any degree of authority. His is a think piece not a prediction.

    I don’t know what all other people are included in the plethora of people in your last statement. I do however know something about them. None of them have proven to be good at figuring out which player should go where in a draft year never mind judging one draft year against another. If you wish to challenge that statement and the person has at least five years of public lists for us to use name them and we can see if they are an “authority” or not. They won’t be because picking the winners in successive drafts has proven nearly impossible which is why other sports actually listen to guys like Schuckers and don’t get caught up in the annual “buzz” which often gets magnified far out of all proportion.

    In fact, here is a simple one for you. Find me somebody who both declared the 2003 NHL draft a great one before the fact and got over 50% of the top 30 players based on what we know now in their top 30 list. They have to have done it publically. I will accept that person as an expert and if they say all the top 4 this year are as good or better than Yakupov I will take it as gospel.

    Right now it is at least even money that your plethora are all spouting nonsense in pursuit of ratings and public attention.

  125. Woodguy says:


    My counter argument to four is that none of the people you would say are credible authorities has a track record of picking the best players in the draft particularly not over multiple years. Many years they don’t get close. Nor for that matter do scouts – look at any draft.

    What exactly is your criteria for this statement?

    Where is your line in the sand?

    I do not believe your statement, please prove it.

    Against that I offer up Michael Schuckers who is a credible authority who has studied and successfully predicted other professional sports drafts. He says the difference between 5 and 7OV is razor thin.

    Is he basing this on a large sample?

    I would assume so, and he would be right over a large sample.

    I am contending that when the “experts” name the top echelon of most drafts they hit .700

    Your response to the extent you’ve given one is, “this time is different.” You know so because the authorities tell you so. You have offered up Jon Willis’ as the source for Barkov. That said, you do understand he equivocates in that article? Not to mention to the best of my knowledge Willis has no proven track record for predicting the future of drafted players that we can use to ascertain any degree of authority. His is a think piece not a prediction.

    Jon compares NHLE’s as described by Gabriel D @ BTN

    The argument is compelling.

    I have no idea if Jon has predicted drafts.

    I base Barkov being a top 5 and a #1/#2 in many other drafts on other.

    I don’t know what all other people are included in the plethora of people in your last statement. I do however know something about them. None of them have proven to be good at figuring out which player should go where in a draft year never mind judging one draft year against another. If you wish to challenge that statement and the person has at least five years of public lists for us to use name them and we can see if they are an “authority” or not.

    Another 1000lb statement.

    Name your criteria please.

    Your statement is empty without it.

    Lordy.

    They won’t be because picking the winners in successive drafts has proven nearly impossible which is why other sports actually listen to guys like Schuckers and don’t get caught up in the annual “buzz” which often gets magnified far out of all proportion.

    I have never read Schuckers, he probably looks at big samples and says “meh, not much difference”, and he’d be right.

    In fact, here is a simple one for you. Find me somebody who both declared the 2003 NHL draft a great one before the fact and got over 50% of the top 30 players based on what we know now in their top 30 list. They have to have done it publically. I will accept that person as an expert and if they say all the top 4 this year are as good or better than Yakupov I will take it as gospel.

    2003?

    Why this date?

    Right now it is at least even money that your plethora are all spouting nonsense in pursuit of ratings and public attention.

    I am always willing to back my opinion with a wager.

    Last wage here I made I lost to DS.F, so its probably a lock.

  126. VOR says:

    Well Woodguy,

    Before we could bet I need to know who it is you are attributing these statements do, a question you never get around to answering. We need the actual wording.

  127. Woodguy says:

    VOR,

    Its more a conglomeration of what I have read and heard.

    Still haven’t googled it, but I still feel the way I do.

    I would really like you to define your parameters like I asked you to.

    Makes it easier to argue.

  128. VOR says:

    1) A good draft prediction would be, upon a reasonable re-draft, that the prediction got above 85% of the top ten and above 50% of the top 30 correct.

    2) Do experts get it right, well the scouts sure don’t.

    This from SFU’s website

    “Picking quality players in the NHL

    Sidney Crosby may be an exception, but predicting player success in the National Hockey League is no easy feat, according to a pair of Simon Fraser University researchers, who have conducted an analysis of NHL draft decisions and subsequent “errors.” In their paper, Aiming for the Mean: Why Isn’t Drafting Better Than Guessing?, Michael Brydon and Peter Tingling, both professors in the Beedie School of Business, say few teams are able to identify more than two successful career players per year. Further, no team has significantly outperformed any of the others. “The general point of view seems to be to hope that they are not unlucky in the first round and hope to be lucky in the later rounds,” says Tingling, who has previously studied teams’ spending on innovation and scouting success.

    The pair examined the quality of the decisions made by NHL teams during the 1995-2003 entry drafts, and after determining measurements of draft errors, found that player selection “may be influenced by widespread and systematic decision biases.” They’ll present their paper July 1 at the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (ASAC) annual meeting in Montreal. The NHL draft is Friday.”

    If scouts can’t predict it why would talking heads be any better?

    3) Why 2003? Because most people who post here seem to think this draft is like 2003 and that is their support for the idea that this time is different. If it isn’t different then Schuckers math, by your own admission would apply. The evidence for it being different comes down to the idea that 2003 was different and special so this draft could be different and special. If somebody knew that 2003 was going to be different and special before that draft they would have a track record of knowing special and different drafts and have some credible basis for saying that this year is special and different. However, if your experts, who you still haven’t identified, the ones who are supporting your argument that these top four guys would be #1 in any normal year, have never predicted a unique draft before the fact then there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are right this time.

    4) I see you are now saying that it is just your opinion that this draft is special and that #5OV is significantly better than #7 OV and also just you saying how great the top four are. You really believe that all four are better than Hall, Yakupov, RNH, Ovechkin, etc. You’re sure?

    So what you are saying is because you know nothing about a subject but believe something to be true I should bow to your obviously superior thought processes. Seems to me you are well down the Captain Not Sad tracks and the train is gaining speed.

  129. Woodguy says:

    VOR,

    1) A good draft prediction would be, upon a reasonable re-draft, that the prediction got above 85% of the top ten and above 50% of the top 30 correct.

    Well, here is why we differ.

    I’m not saying anyone can do that.

    I am contending that the crowd gets it right on the elite players in the draft about 70% of the time (see my batting .700 statement)

    I was contending that Barkov is in the elite company this year so it is worth it to give up a player to get him.

    Most years only 1 or 2 players are tagged as “elite” (see Barker’s draft), this year there are 4.

    To appeal to authority again, we see that again in the Sakic article about not going for the Dman, but looking at the 3 elite forwards, McKinnon, Drouin and Barkov:

    Sakic told Adrian Dater of the Denver Post on Tuesday night that Colorado is leaning toward one of the top-three forwards in the draft — Nathan Mackinon, Jonathan Drouin, or Alexander Barkov — instead of Jones, a defenseman.

    http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/22469216/joe-sakic-says-avalanche-considering-taking-forward-over-seth-jones

    To the rest of your points:

    2) They sure hit it hard at the top of draft, which is all I have ever contended..

    3) Ok fine, but this doesn’t apply to what I have written.

    4) 4) I see you are now saying that it is just your opinion that this draft is special and that #5OV is significantly better than #7 OV and also just you saying how great the top four are. You really believe that all four are better than Hall, Yakupov, RNH, Ovechkin, etc. You’re sure?

    Again you are putting words in my mouth. Stop it.

    I mentioned that I have read/heard that the top 4 this year would have a good chance of going 1st/2nd in many years, including last year above Yakupov.

    I never mentioned Hall, RNH, or Ovechkin.

    Ever single argument you are refuting are strawmen built by you, either out of whole cloth or extrapolating and adding to what I said with something I didn’t say.

    I’ll restate it again to limit your confusion:

    Barkov is an elite talent who may be a #1/ or #2 in many drafts, including the Yak draft. He is worth spending a roster player +7th to get.

    On average there is little difference between #5 and #7, but this is not one of these years”

    Please stick to what I actually write instead of grinding a bunch of axes to chop down your strawmen.

  130. VOR says:

    You have offered to date the sum total of Willis’ thought piece to support your contention that Barkov is an elite talent. We have no idea if he is any good at making such assessments. Thus, you haven’t met the burden of proof that he is an authority. Additionally, I am not saying Barkov is crap. I am saying the drop off from the player taken at 5OV to 7OV has been shown using robust statistical analysis to be small.

    Where we appear to differ is that you think this year is special and this player (Barkov) is special and this the math doesn’t apply. It should be easy to settle that dispute it you can name an “authority” that agrees with you. You asked me to define my terms and I did. Now you’ve challenged my criteria of 85% – you have suggested we use 70% of the top ten in a redraft were predicted by that expert. Lets go with that standard – whose your expert and what is they said that you took to mean Barkov is special and this year is special? Once you’ve stated that then all you have to do is prove they get better than 70% when they predict a draft.

    Now having agreed to the terms of how you win this argument lets move on to the fringe issues you keep raising.

    So which years are “many years” Woddguy. You really think all four of these guys are better than Yakupov? Also where is your “authority” for that statement.

    Speaking of strawmen, define elite for me. Without an agreed upon definition of elite we have nothing to discuss regarding whether Barkov is elite or not.

    Also, please explain where in the article about the Avalanche’s possible draft strategies Sakic or anyone else refers to Barkov as “elite” or worth trading a 7th OV and a roster player for. I must have missed that part of the article.

  131. Woodguy says:

    VOR,

    – you have suggested we use 70% of the top ten in a redraft were predicted by that expert. Lets go with that standard – whose your expert and what is they said that you took to mean Barkov is special and this year is special? Once you’ve stated that then all you have to do is prove they get better than 70% when they predict a draft.

    No, not top 10, top 1-3 who are called “elite”

    I guess I would define a correct prediction when the consensus top 1-3 forwards (depending on how many are pegged as “elite” before the draft) end up having the most pts/gm in the NHL from their draft class.

    Sure, Sakic might be posturing, but when he mentioned they are going with a forward, he mentioned 3 forwards. Not 1, 2, 4, 5 etc.

    He identified Barkov in the same group as McKinnon and Drouin, which is my whole argument.

    It is my contention that Barkov, along with McKinnon and Drouin will have the most pts/gm of this draft class among forwards and are all worth spending a roster player and #7 to move up and get.

    I am also suggesting that over time the widsom of the crowd gets is right 70%+ of the time when naming the elite forwards, as they end up having the most pts/gm in their draft class 70% of the time.

    The “elite” players are identified as being “in the top group”

    i.e. In RNH’s year it was RNH, Landeskog and Larsen as “the top group”, so we would pull those forwards out as the ones identified as “elite”

  132. VOR says:

    The problem with your argument Woodguy, beyond that it is irrelevant to the point I was making, beyond that you keep changing it, is that the consensus and the scouts don’t get it right even 70% of the time in either the top three or the top three forwards.

    Not to mention your definition of elite seems to be that a talking head, or a GM calls them elite. The thing you keep doing is referring to authority in a general sense. I will ask again for a specific authority who has said Barkov is great and has a history of being right about such things. However, that would only be a trivial irrelevance to the point of mine you claim you are refuting.

    I will restate my position: the math says that trading up from 7OV to 5OV is a mugs game (you haven’t even managed to convince me that Barkov will be available at 5OV) if you give up more than a 6th round draft choice in compensation. In order to disprove my position you would have to prove the math is wrong or that the value of the player(s) likely to be available at 7OV is significantly less than of the player(s) available at 5OV in this particular year.

    An argument of, “well I sort of remember hearing somebody saying that Barkov is “elite”, a word that I can’t define but sounds impressive, and they haven’t said that about the other people available at 7″ isn’t going to cut it. Not for me and not for anyone still reading this exchange.

  133. Woodguy says:

    , is that the consensus and the scouts don’t get it right even 70% of the time in either the top three or the top three forwards.

    I disagree.

    Not to mention your definition of elite seems to be that a talking head, or a GM calls them elite. The thing you keep doing is referring to authority in a general sense. I will ask again for a specific authority who has said Barkov is great and has a history of being right about such things. However, that would only be a trivial irrelevance to the point of mine you claim you are refuting.

    I described my criteria in the post right above yours:

    I guess I would define a correct prediction when the consensus top 1-3 forwards (depending on how many are pegged as “elite” before the draft) end up having the most pts/gm in the NHL from their draft class.

    Most pts/gm in the NHL from their draft class.

    As for the specific authority, I will give you that I have not been clear. I’m mostly refering to the wisdom of the crowd. I read so many different things, its tough to remember who said what and googling is no help, there are millions of hits.

    If you follow hockey at all, you know what I am referring to.

    Every year there is a “first tier” “elite group”, “top echelon”

    I posit that among this first tier the forwards will get more pts/gm than the other forwards from that class and that the “first tier” as its mutally agreed upon, will end up doing just that 70%+ of the time.

    If you really want me to be more clear, you are being obtuse, unless English isn’t your first language, then I apologize. Let me know your native tongue I will have someone translate.

    Last year’s top tier was generally accepted to be Yak and the Dman.

    Year before was RNH, Larsen and Landeskog.

    Year before that was Hall and Seguin.

    Year before that was Tavares alone.

    I will get quotes to this effect if you wish, but I know you know what I am talking about.

    I will restate my position: the math says that trading up from 7OV to 5OV is a mugs game (you haven’t even managed to convince me that Barkov will be available at 5OV) if you give up more than a 6th round draft choice in compensation. In order to disprove my position you would have to prove the math is wrong or that the value of the player(s) likely to be available at 7OV is significantly less than of the player(s) available at 5OV in this particular year.

    First you are not convinced that Barkov isn’t top 3 among the F’s and now you want me to prove he’ll still be there??

    Really????

    Really?

    Now you’re just trolling.


    In order to disprove my position you would have to prove the math is wrong or that the value of the player(s) likely to be available at 7OV is significantly less than of the player(s) available at 5OV in this particular year.

    That’s something only time will prove (re: who was the best)

    I’ve been clear on who I think that is.

    As far as your large sample math, I’ve agreed with you all the way, however to ignore the short term is incorrect.

    I used to make a significant amount of my income playing poker, so I understand playing correctly because the long term dictates that you make the correct moves, regardless of the short term variance.

    But inside of that when the game changed, usually due to the appearance of an inexperienced player, or someone playing above their bankroll, you changed your game to maximize your return in the short term.

    This is the same.

    On the whole, the 5th isn’t worth much more than a 7th.

    However, this year, if Barkov is available, it is, and you change your game accordingly.

    An argument of, “well I sort of remember hearing somebody saying that Barkov is “elite”, a word that I can’t define but sounds impressive, and they haven’t said that about the other people available at 7″ isn’t going to cut it. Not for me and not for anyone still reading this exchange.

    I am postulating that Barkov is elite, top tier, top echelon, part of the big banana bunch, the guy who knows a guy based on the conglomeration of everything I have read.

    Also,

    This is interesting reading:

    http://whl-from-above.blogspot.ca/

    Tiers:

    http://www.defendingbigd.com/2013/6/19/4444996/trades-nhl-draft-2013-seth-jones-barkov-nichushkin

    Kyle Woodlief Red LIne Report:

    We have Seth Jones number one at Red Line Report, with Jonathan Drouin two and Nathan MacKinnon three. You can argue any order for those three, really. You mentioned Valeri Nichushkin before, I know there are several teams that have Nichushkin number two overall on their board. That’s what makes it a very special draft year – you look at those four guys, plus Aleksander Barkov over in Finland, and any one of those five guys in a normal draft year would be considered a legitimate number one overall pick. You’ve got five guys! Some team drafting down at three or four is going to be really happy this year.

    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/05/29/the-edmonton-oilers-are-picking-just-outside-the-top-tier-of-the-2013-nhl-draft/

  134. VOR says:

    Woodguy,

    I am going to leave it here because I get tired of arguing with somebody who refuses to actually address the point I am making. You claim to have played poker seriously. Then you would know poker is only partly odds, in no small part it is reading people. In any pro sport drafting is all odds. Whether you want to admit it or not no expert has ever gotten the top three right on a consistent basis. Numerous studies, one of which I cited above prove that no team gets it right on a consistent basis. In fact, most would do better just going with Bob McKenzie’s list and he is brutal if you take his list as a prediction. I think you should be able to see, and probably do, that if nobody can predict the the top 3 in the draft correctly and they can’t (Cam Barker for example), never mind the top 7, then you should stick with the math when picking players.

    Your current counter argument to my stance that 5OV and 7OV are interchangeable parts needs you to prove Barkov will go 5OV, that Barkov is a wonderful player, and that he is significantly better than the player who will be available at 7OV. You’ve failed on count one, taken a stab at point 2 – though I would have thought the studies that show SM-Liiga at .42 NHLE would really be giving you pause, and not even attempted 3. All the rest of what you say is just noise and utterly irrelevant to any challenge to my point. My position that trading anything more than a 6th rounder to move from 7OV to 5OV stands until you can prove that in this special case the general case doesn’t apply. In order to do that you have to show how bad the player at 7OV is relative to the person at 5OV. It sounds like even you would admit that if Barkov is gone by 5 my argument applies, so you also have to prove Barkov will be there at 5. Until you do my original statement remains by far the more compelling argument.

  135. Woodguy says:

    VOR,

    When I have some time I’ll show you want I’m talking about.

    Let’s leave it there.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca