59 and 65 for 89?

Last draft day, Craig MacTavish dealt down in order to pick up extra picks. It made sense based on the quality of the draft (it had sustain through the 90th pick), and it looks like they got good to great value. As an indicator, Red Line Report said in July 2013 “they landed their 5th prospect in our top 76, even though they had only two picks in the top 80.”

How did they do that? Let’s reconstruct the draft trades.

  • First trade: Edmonton trades 37th overall (Valentin Zykov) to Los Angeles for 57th overall (William Carrier), 88th overall (Anton Slephyshev) and 96th overall (Kyle Platzer).
  • Second trade: Oilers trade 57th overall (William Carrier) to St. Louis for 83rd overall (Bogdan Yakimov), 94th overall (Jackson Houck) and 113th overall (Aidain Muir).

Edmonton had the #7 pick (Darnell Nurse), #56 (Marco Roy—this was payment for Andrew Cogliano), #128 (Evan Campbell), #158 (Ben Betker) and #188 (Greg Chase). They had 7 picks, and ended up with 10. I’d say good arrows (Nurse, Yakimov, Houck, Betker, Chase) after year one can give us the general feeling things are going very well. That Roy selection is a concern because of injury, but the player himself was a house on fire when healthy (before the in-season injury) during the fall.

2014 PICKS (OILERS EDITION)

  • #3 overall (first round)
  • #91 overall (fourth round, this is the Bryzgalov return)
  • #111 overall (fourth round, this is the Mike Brown return)
  • #130 overall (fifth round, this is the first pick of the Ales Hemsky return)
  • #137 overall (fifth round, this is the Nick Schultz return)
  • #153 overall (sixth round)
  • #183 overall (seventh round)

The Oilers couldn’t get another pick inside the top 100 during 2008, MacT already managed it with the Bryzgalov deal (and the Wild got their money’s worth for sure). Edmonton has 7 picks, but you’d have to believe the club would like to add a second and a third round selection. The depth in goal and on the wing suggests that one pick inside the top 90 won’t allow Edmonton to keep up with the Jones’s, so it’s probably a good bet they’ll make a deal.

gagner111

I think it’s going to be Gagner. The contracts Edmonton gets offered will be bloated, and chances are Edmonton can do just as well in free agency with the cash. Oiler fans are down on 89, but he has value—consider Buffalo and their 150 goals, or Florida and whatever the hell they’re doing—and those teams have stockpiled draft picks. Would you be satisfied with Gagner going to the Islanders for 59 and 65?

written by

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

92 Responses to "59 and 65 for 89?"

  1. Zangetsu says:

    I do that. Pick up grabovski. Then use the picks to take the falling sting players (goldobin and deangelo) if they are still there.

    This isn’t the season to make big Trades or FA signings. The players available are too old to help us when we are actually ready to compete.

  2. WeirsBeard says:

    No, I wouldn’t do that. What are the percentages on that late a pick ever becoming something? I’d rather try to get a wam body back, even if it is a checker or less than ideal contract. Or hell, keep 89.

  3. OilClog says:

    Why can’t we have nice things

  4. Mr DeBakey says:

    and chances are Edmonton can do just as well in free agency with the cash.

    Hmmmm

    Mike Santorelli and……
    I don’t know,
    Derek Roy could be available

  5. Woodguy says:

    This team just traded Hemsky.

    The right wing depth Eberle and Yak, which is ridiculous when you think about it, but it falls off a cliff after that.

    At worst Gagner fits as a RW until his value improves.

    I don’t want to see him play C for the Oilers ever again, but I see no reason why he can’t play RW.

    Cogliano never played C again and he’s a pretty good 3LW and Gagner has way more offence.

    With Yak and Hall both being LHS on the PP, you need RH shots to pass to them for the best SH%.

    RNH is force fed in there, but he’s best passing to RHS.

    Gagner has more use than 59 and 65.

  6. slopitch says:

    I’m still not sure about moving Gagner. But if so, I’d expect him to move to a Canadian city. His fiancé just finished med school. Would that transfer to the states?

    Anyways. If Florida, get the 1st in a swap for the 3rd. And Nick Bjugstad ;)

  7. russ99 says:

    I prefer the idea of Gagner for a second rounder and a near NHL prospect with some skill., someone who can hold down a first line role at OKC and help out the big club on the top six in case of injury.

    Not sure we’ll get that either without eating some salary. His contract and impending NTC are a big stumbling block to getting fair value.

    Most teams want to kick the tires before accepting an NTC, and I still think the deadline was the best time to move him.

    For the Oilers, the cleared cap space should be a significant part of the return.

  8. Zangetsu says:

    Woodguy,

    I’m not paying gagner 4.8 to cost us goals from the 3line. I know this is the oilers, but we can’t keep having 3rd and 4th lines that bleed. Not to mention gagner can’t score when he is on and island (That was not mathy though). Sorry, I’d do math, but I’m too tired today.

  9. spoiler says:

    Woodguy: With Yak and Hall both being LHS on the PP, you need RH shots to pass to them for the best SH%.

    They play on the PP on their off-wings. It’s an easier pass for a LHS.

    I believe in trading Gagner if they can find value for him. I think his value will improve with the summer. There may be an opportunity for a fresh start next season whereas the past season no one wanted him while he was struggling. GMs recognize that players can have down years and obviously the more distance from the injury, the better.

    But they cannot trade him for draft picks. This is the time to hang onto as many actual NHL players as possible. This is the time to spend picks, if they can bring back what you need.

  10. Racki says:

    I’ll agree with those saying no to dumping Gagner for more scratch tickets. I do like the idea of Bailey though, that has been mentioned.. or someone along those lines. But keeping him at RW is the worst case scenario, and it’s really not that bad at all. I’d only say dump Gagner if the top 9 issues are cleared up.

  11. Racki says:

    slopitch:
    I’m still not sure about moving Gagner. But if so, I’d expect him to move to a Canadian city. His fiancé just finished med school. Would that transfer to the states?

    Anyways. If Florida, get the 1st in a swap for the 3rd. And Nick Bjugstad

    The Panthers like Bjugstad, unfortunately.. so don’t think he’d be going anywhere, especially for Gagner, and losing draft position. But I would like to have him here though.

  12. sliderule says:

    Gagner will have bounce back year.

    He has very little value in the market but with a bounce you will get value.

    Perron has the most value and it will be hard to repeat his year so move him for Double D or Coburn.

  13. Woodguy says:

    Zangetsu:
    Woodguy,

    I’m not paying gagner 4.8 to cost us goals from the 3line. I know this is the oilers, but we can’t keep having 3rd and 4th lines that bleed. Not to mention gagner can’t score when he is on and island (That was not mathy though). Sorry, I’d do math, but I’m too tired today.

    You’re right.

    You’re not paying him.

  14. Zangetsu says:

    Woodguy,

    Probably hang myself if I was Katz. I could buy people with that money.

  15. Woodguy says:

    spoiler,

    They play on the PP on their off-wings. It’s an easier pass for a LHS.

    I think you’re great Spoiler, but this is wrong.

    RHS has feet towards the goal line and has the whole ice to pass to on the LW half wall.

    LHS like Hall and Yak play the right side on PP for their off wing like you said.

    RNH (correctly) plays the RW half wall and the RW low guy and high guy are not one time options, the other side of the ice is.

  16. tubes says:

    I wouldn’t do the trade. Not at gunpoint. We already got raped on the Cogliano deal, please not another actual NHL player for two mediocre picks.

    I would give up two middling picks for Gagner or equivalent in a heartbeat. Put 89 on a half decent team and watch him shine.

  17. Ribs says:

    Would you be satisfied with Gagner going to the Islanders for 59 and 65?

    Nope.

  18. slopitch says:

    Racki,

    I was kidding about Bjugstad in that trade. But not kidding that I want him on the Oilers. Solves a ton of problems.

  19. Woodguy says:

    Racki:
    I’ll agree with those saying no to dumping Gagner for more scratch tickets. I do like the idea of Bailey though, that has been mentioned.. or someone along those lines. But keeping him at RW is the worst case scenario, and it’s really not that bad at all. I’d only say dump Gagner if the top 9 issues are cleared up.

    Warm body like Bailey for sure.

    Agreed with no more scratch and wins that don’t get drawn for 4 years.

  20. Younger Oil says:

    I love the idea of trading Gagner to the Islanders, and like the idea of a 2nd and a 3rd for Gagner, but not from the Islanders. They have too many players that we could really use on the team.

    I’d be targeting Brock Nelson and Matt Martin from the Islanders for Gagner and a D prospect, or something along those lines. Two high quality bottom 6 energy players who have big bodies, can hit, and chip in on offence. Nelson could move up and down the lineup, and Martin is a huge upgrade on Gazdic.

    Could sign somebody like Kulemin with the cap space from that deal as well.

    Using Willis. model from his ON article, that would give us:

    Power vs Power: Hall-Nuge-Ebs
    Second Toughs: Perron-Arco/Lander-Kulemin
    Sheltered Scorers: Nelson-Draisaitl-Yakupov
    Defensive Zone: Hendricks-Gordon-Martin
    Spares: Arco/Lander, Pitlick.

    Ideally we could get a 2C like Stastny to put on the second toughs, which would move Arco to the sheltered scorers, and Draisaitl back to the WHL, but even though it’s best for the team sending the #3 back to junior, based on team and NHL history it is unlikely to happen.

  21. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    To the question: depends entirely on how the cap space is spent.

    If not for a clear upgrade, it’s a wasted effort.

  22. jfry says:

    what happened, to “have good players, keep good players?”

    why not keep samwise and add grabbo. worst case scenario, we have a back up top 6 c, who we convert to wing and is a PP wizard.

    trading gags for magic beans seems more inline with drafting first overall next year than finishing 20th.

    can we trade sam for hemsky?!! gah.

  23. anonymous says:

    Rather trade for another bad contract and hope for a rebound.

  24. spoiler says:

    Woodguy: think you’re great Spoiler, but this is wrong.
    RHS has feet towards the goal line and has the whole ice to pass to on the LW half wall.
    LHS like Hall and Yak play the right side on PP for their off wing like you said.
    RNH (correctly) plays the RW half wall and the RW low guy and high guy are not one time options, the other side of the ice is.

    Love you too, but I don’t believe you are correct with your first sentence. A RHS’s forehand is naturally closed off to the right side of the ice when he is facing the opposing team’s goal line. He can still pass to the right side, because he will not normally be facing the goal line as you describe, but rather facing straight out from the boards. His most difficult pass will be to anyone posted high. It’s tougher for the shooter to time too. And easier to defend. Yak and Hall are normally posted up high. It’s easier for a leftie on the left wall to make that particular play. Not to mention easier on zone entries and rushes. The biggest advantage of playing the off-wing half wall is to create more of a shooting threat.

  25. Racki says:

    Some names I don’t really here mentioned for possible C…

    Lars Eller (pending RFA)? I had heard a while back there was some sort of stall in talks. Not sure if that’s still the case, but he has good size and is a 2-way guy.

    Anders Lee (also pending RFA).. We know the Islanders are big on the pump and dump trades (although they haven’t pumped him yet, really) with young players. What if the Oilers did some sort of big swap that involved Gagner + D prospect + 3OV, for 5OV + Lee + the Big Cat? With #5 there is even a possibility of getting the big German still.

  26. RexLibris says:

    Derrick Pouliot and Olli Maatta both undergoing shoulder surgery.

    Only a matter of time before one of them becomes an Oiler now.

  27. RexLibris says:

    Racki,

    Eller is interesting. But I can’t see him fitting in on a junior team like the Oilers.

  28. vesci says:

    Romulus Apotheosis:
    To the question: depends entirely on how the cap space is spent.

    If not for a clear upgrade, it’s a wasted effort.

    I am not sure that’s correct. We all hope for a clear upgrade but if the Oilers use the money they would have paid Gagner to obtain even an equivalent player and bank 2 reasonably high draft picks they are ahead aren’t they?

  29. Woodguy says:

    spoiler: Love you too, but I don’t believe you are correct with your first sentence.A RHS’s forehand is naturally closed off to the right side of the ice when he is facing the opposing team’s goal line.He can still pass to the right side, because he will not normally be facing the goal line as you describe, but rather facingstraight out from the boards. His most difficult pass will be to anyone posted high. It’s tougher for the shooter to time too. And easier to defend.Yak and Hall are normally posted up high. It’s easier for a leftie on the left wall to make that particular play. Not to mention easier on zone entries and rushes.The advantage of playing the off-wing half wall is to create more of a shooting threat.

    Want you to be the godfather of any future children.

    You’re wrong.

  30. Oilanderp says:

    Sometimes when you are wandering in the desert you see mirages. It would be prudent not to take off running down the sand dune full tilt. Especially after you’ve done this many times in the past and all you got in return was a mouth full of sand.

    Trading Gagner for picks is a mouthful of sand. Sand that some lizard probably shit in… if there were any lizards this far out.

    Go pound sand. There’s lots around. Jeesh.

  31. Woodguy says:

    spoiler: Love you too, but I don’t believe you are correct with your first sentence.A RHS’s forehand is naturally closed off to the right side of the ice when he is facing the opposing team’s goal line.He can still pass to the right side, because he will not normally be facing the goal line as you describe, but rather facingstraight out from the boards. His most difficult pass will be to anyone posted high. It’s tougher for the shooter to time too. And easier to defend.Yak and Hall are normally posted up high. It’s easier for a leftie on the left wall to make that particular play. Not to mention easier on zone entries and rushes.The biggest advantage of playing the off-wing half wall is to create more of a shooting threat.

    The key to what you are missing is that a LHS has a much, much more difficult time setting up one timers to a LHS.

    RNH plays the right half wall. Hall is below him and someone is above him.

    Neither is getting a one timer from RNH.

    That’s the problem.

  32. Lowetide says:

    Trading Cogliano meant a guy making $1M was flushed for a long distance pick (Tambellini, being of sound mind and body, ASKED for the most distant pick available). You’re trading Gagner AND $4.8M beans you can spend on another useful player—one who is better able to help the Oilers as they are now constructed.

  33. Racki says:

    Oilanderp:
    Sometimes when you are wandering in the desert you see mirages.It would be prudent not to take off running down the sand dune full tilt.Especially after you’ve done this many times in the past and all you got in return was a mouth full of sand.

    Trading Gagner for picks is a mouthful of sand.Sand that some lizard probably shit in… if there were any lizards this far out.

    Go pound sand.There’s lots around. Jeesh.

    A turd in the sand is worth…..

    Sorry, channeling Gene there.

  34. Racki says:

    Lowetide:
    Trading Cogliano meant a guy making $1M was flushed for a long distance pick (Tambellini, being of sound mind and body, ASKED for the most distant pick available). You’re trading Gagner AND $4.8M beans you can spend on another useful player—one who is better able to help the Oilers as they are now constructed.

    This is a pretty fair point…

    I don’t think the Oilers can make it happen, but would you trade Gagner for Stastny + a 2nd and 3rd? Hell yes. Gagner for Grabovski and a 2nd and 3rd? Hell yes. That said though, you better hope you get something though. Even so, if the Oilers don’t get a 2nd center, they still are f—ed with Gagner at 2C, so they aren’t worse off by moving him and signing one of the other winger commodities out there (there is enough they should be able to land something).

  35. nelson88 says:

    Too bad the Hawks are so stacked there is likely no room for Sam to be reunited with Kane. Chicago is also cap hamstrung but the OIl could eat some of Gagner’s salary or take back a bad contract (oops, not one to be found).

    Would love to see the oilers target a player close to being able to play the #2 C role. Someone like this guy

    http://thehockeywriters.com/the-next-ones-mark-mcneill-2011-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-the-forward-you-can-count-on/

  36. godot10 says:

    Lowetide:
    Trading Cogliano meant a guy making $1M was flushed for a long distance pick (Tambellini, being of sound mind and body, ASKED for the most distant pick available). You’re trading Gagner AND $4.8M beans you can spend on another useful player—one who is better able to help the Oilers as they are now constructed.

    So one ends up flushing Glencross because the coach (MacT) and Lowe prefer Nilsson and pursuing white whales.

    MacT and Lowe flushed Stoll, because they liked their new shiny Gagner and Cogliano.

    So one ends of flushing Brodziak because the new coach (Quinn) and Lowe want to try Brule (his player from the Giants), and the former head scout (Prendergast) and Lowe want to try Pouliot.

    So one ends up flushing Cogliano, because of a poor coach (Renney) who doesn’t know how to use him.

    And now one ends up flushing Gagner, because of a horrible coach (Eakins) who doesn’t know how to use him.

  37. G Money says:

    If you trade Gagner for magic beans, you do get cap space as part of the deal, yes.

    So the trade might work if you can do something smart with the cap space, like bring in Stastny or Grabo or ROR.

    Suggestion for MacT: hold off on doing the first thing *until you actually do* the second thing.

    NOTE: I recognize that the draft pick numbers of 59 and 65 are arbitrary, but just for gits and shiggles and for those who support the trade because you believe those picks are worth more than Gagner, here are the actual success rates (1998-2009) for these picks: 0% and 0%.

    Specifically I mean:
    #59:
    Forwards picked: 6
    Forwards > 200 games: 0
    Forwards scoring > 40 pts in a season: 0
    Players > 200 career games: 0
    Players > 80 career games: 0

    #65:
    Forwards picked: 7
    Forwards > 200 games: 0
    Forwards scoring > 40 pts in a season: 0
    Players > 200 career games: 0
    Players > 80 career games: 2

    Magic beans.

  38. OilClog says:

    Why are people trading Perron?! Madness.

  39. Oilanderp says:

    Doesn’t the math suggest Gagner will rebound? Why can’t we wait until then to trade him, if we must?

  40. Lowetide says:

    godot10: So one ends up flushing Glencross because the coach (MacT) and Lowe prefer Nilsson and pursuing white whales.

    MacT and Lowe flushed Stoll, because they liked their new shiny Gagner and Cogliano.

    So one ends of flushing Brodziak because the new coach (Quinn) and Lowe want to try Brule (his player from the Giants), and the former head scout (Prendergast) and Lowe want to try Pouliot.

    So one ends up flushing Cogliano, because of a poor coach (Renney) who doesn’t know how to use him.

    And now one ends up flushing Gagner, because of a horrible coach (Eakins) who doesn’t know how to use him.

    They flushed Stoll because another team offered them Lubo, who was an is a beautiful hockey player.

  41. Racki says:

    godot10: So one ends up flushing Glencross because the coach (MacT) and Lowe prefer Nilsson and pursuing white whales.

    MacT and Lowe flushed Stoll, because they liked their new shiny Gagner and Cogliano.

    So one ends of flushing Brodziak because the new coach (Quinn) and Lowe want to try Brule (his player from the Giants), and the former head scout (Prendergast) and Lowe want to try Pouliot.

    So one ends up flushing Cogliano, because of a poor coach (Renney) who doesn’t know how to use him.

    And now one ends up flushing Gagner, because of a horrible coach (Eakins) who doesn’t know how to use him.

    Being one of very few people who liked Stoll at the time and not just after, I felt like the fans flushed Stoll. Most people forget, at the time, Stoll was struggling offensively and having problems scoring like he was in the past. The fans seemed to want him gone. That said, I don’t think it’s a good idea to always placate the fans. But this is one of those ones where I have to say Oilers fans got what they deserved here.

    However, as LT noted, getting Vis in return was wonderful as heck.. but not replacing Stoll.. that was pretty stupid.

  42. Lowetide says:

    Let me ask this another way. How far can you get toward signing BOTH Kulemin and Grabovski with Gagner and Jones’ money? And if you add in Smyth, how close do you get to Moss? I trust MacTavish with free agency money, I like the Gordon money and understand the Ference signing.

    A lot of people here don’t agree. That’s fine. I want a veteran two-way third line, bring me some Pisani’s.

  43. godot10 says:

    Lowetide: They flushed Stoll because another team offered them Lubo, who was an is a beautiful hockey player.

    They needed Lubo because they flushed Pitkanen (like they flushed Poti, like they flushed Gilbert, like they will likely soon flush Petry). Lowe has been here through all the flushing.

    They gutted the mid-career player with the Visnovsky trade. Created the doughnut hole agewise in the roster that persists to this day.

  44. Lowetide says:

    godot10: They needed Lubo because they flushed Pitkanen (like they flushed Poti, like they flushed Gilbert, like they will likely soon flush Petry).Lowe has been here through all the flushing.

    They gutted the mid-career player with the Visnovsky trade.Created the doughnut hole agewise in the roster that persists to this day.

    You’re blaming a lot on one trade. The deal for Lubo—Stoll and Greene—was outstanding. It just was. The crap that happened afterward doesn’t change that fact.

  45. Racki says:

    Lowetide:
    Let me ask this another way. How far can you get toward signing BOTH Kulemin and Grabovski with Gagner and Jones’ money? And if you add in Smyth, how close do you get to Moss? I trust MacTavish with free agency money, I like the Gordon money and understand the Ference signing.

    A lot of people here don’t agree. That’s fine. I want a veteran two-way third line, bring me some Pisani’s.

    I think it just wasn’t immediately obvious that you could go grab some good players with that free cash. When you look at it as Gagner for two scratch tickets, it isn’t that great an idea (although it would be nice to have a 2nd rounder in this draft).

    However, when you look at it as Gagner + loads of cash to try and sign Stastny or Grabovski (who probably shouldn’t be receiving loads, but still lets you put money to others) that sounds a lot better. So I like the idea. A warm body in return would be preferred though if it also helps address a need. The Islanders seem to have no shortage of bigger young centremen… Lee, Nelson, Strome, Bailey, in addition to of course Tavares and Cizikas (not big, but part of their centre future). Maybe you could pry one away…. perhaps with a little extra on Oilers side you could get Lee + 2nd for Gagner.

  46. G Money says:

    Oilanderp:
    Doesn’t the math suggest Gagner will rebound?Why can’t we wait until then to trade him, if we must?

    If one is to consider trading Gagner, this is certainly a question that needs to be considered. It is very much the Oiler way to sell low and then watch a player rebound elsewhere.

    Unfortunately, the math doesn’t help me draw much of a conclusion on Gagner’s future. I recently deconstructed his career thusly:
    http://i.imgur.com/6CLnBEy.png
    and
    - yes, he’ll rebound if you believe his past history is indicative and he will revert to that mean (or even improve on it)
    - no, he won’t rebound if his last three years are a defining trend.

    I’m inclined to think rebound because 24 is simply too young to be three years into a decline (and there are lots of exogenous factors to blame, like 5-coaches-in-six and fuck-you-Kassian), but man, when you look at that pts/60 and Corsi over time, it is very much a trend that is not our friend.

    On the other hand, I know what the math/interpretive dance on Gagner tells Godot: “It’s Eakins’ fault!”

  47. Lowetide says:

    Racki: I think it just wasn’t immediately obvious that you could go grab some good players with that free cash. When you look at it as Gagner for two scratch tickets, it isn’t that great an idea (although it would be nice to have a 2nd rounder in this draft).

    However, when you look at it as Gagner + loads of cash to try and sign Stastny or Grabovski (who probably shouldn’t be receiving loads, but still lets you put money to others) that sounds a lot better. So I like the idea. A warm body in return would be preferred though if it also helps address a need. The Islanders seem to have no shortage of bigger young centremen… Lee, Nelson, Strome, Bailey, in addition to of course Tavares and Cizikas (not big, but part of their centre future). Maybe you could pry one away…. perhaps with a little extra on Oilers side you could get Lee + 2nd for Gagner.

    Sure. If the Oilers can trade Gagner for Kulikov, I’m for it. However, it’s a tough thing to do, and if EDM can gather a strong option for that third line or top 4D I’m for it. Kulikov might have more value a year from now. We can pretend that Gagner will thrive on the 3RW as we pretended Hemsky would this past season.

    Doesn’t work. Three scoring lines, unicorns, free love. Riiiiiiight.

  48. Racki says:

    Lowetide: Sure. If the Oilers can trade Gagner for Kulikov, I’m for it. However, it’s a tough thing to do, and if EDM can gather a strong option for that third line or top 4D I’m for it. Kulikov might have more value a year from now. We can pretend that Gagner will thrive on the 3RW as we pretended Hemsky would this past season.

    Doesn’t work. Three scoring lines, unicorns, free love. Riiiiiiight.

    I don’t believe that was what I was saying at all…

  49. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    vesci: I am not sure that’s correct. We all hope for a clear upgrade but if the Oilers use the money they would have paid Gagner to obtain even an equivalent player and bank 2 reasonably high draft picks they are ahead aren’t they?

    I’m not sure what this means.

    I’m saying Gagner for a pair of picks and then sitting on the cash or spending it on something not near as good as Gagner = bad.

    Obviously, if they get the picks and spend the money on say Grabo… that’s great! wasn’t I clear on this score? (I guess not)

  50. steveb12344 says:

    Racki,

    I do Gagner for Lee + 2nd np.

    Lee is a very nice young player. He shoots the puck a lot. I’m sure he would show well in the Corsi metrics.

  51. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Lowetide:
    Trading Cogliano meant a guy making $1M was flushed for a long distance pick (Tambellini, being of sound mind and body, ASKED for the most distant pick available). You’re trading Gagner AND $4.8M beans you can spend on another useful player—one who is better able to help the Oilers as they are now constructed.

    priceless.

    But this also raises an interesting question for me… is there some kind of limit on how far in the future the picks you trade can be?

    ie., could you trade a 2020 pick?

  52. steveb12344 says:

    I thought you guys might be interested in this…

    http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2013/03/08/nhl_teams_starting_to_pay_attention_to_statistical_analysis_feschuk.html

    Apparently some guy made some program to evaluate players called “THoR” Total Hockey Ratings.

    They introduced it at MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference last year

    It was attended by The Oilers, among a few other teams.

  53. Lowetide says:

    Romulus Apotheosis: priceless.

    But this also raises an interesting question for me… is there some kind of limit on how far in the future the picks you trade can be?

    ie., could you trade a 2020 pick?

    I don’t think there is, the Horcoff return was 2016 iirc. Could ahve made it 2017 no throw.

  54. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    steveb12344:
    I thought you guys might be interested in this…

    http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2013/03/08/nhl_teams_starting_to_pay_attention_to_statistical_analysis_feschuk.html

    Apparently some guy made some program to evaluate players called “THoR”Total Hockey Ratings.

    They introduced it recently at MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference.

    It was attended by The Oilers, among a few other teams.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2014/05/08/are-crosby-and-ovechkin-top-150-players-in-the-nhl-not-according-to-thor/

  55. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Lowetide: I don’t think there is, the Horcoff return was 2016 iirc. Could ahve made it 2017 no throw.

    I wonder if “future considerations” really just means “a draft pick in 2234″?

  56. Lowetide says:

    Romulus Apotheosis: I wonder if “future considerations” really just means “a draft pick in 2234″?

    I’m sure that’s true. Lots of paper transactions over the years. Oil dealt some guy to NJD a few years ago, his brother was a D for maybe CBJ, they didn’t get a thing.

  57. Woodguy says:

    Lowetide: Sure. If the Oilers can trade Gagner for Kulikov, I’m for it. However, it’s a tough thing to do, and if EDM can gather a strong option for that third line or top 4D I’m for it. Kulikov might have more value a year from now. We can pretend that Gagner will thrive on the 3RW as we pretended Hemsky would this past season.

    Doesn’t work. Three scoring lines, unicorns, free love. Riiiiiiight.

    Perhaps seeing the final 4 teams have 3 scoring lines and a checking line will wake MacT up?

    Probably not.

  58. Woodguy says:

    Lowetide:
    Let me ask this another way. How far can you get toward signing BOTH Kulemin and Grabovski with Gagner and Jones’ money? And if you add in Smyth, how close do you get to Moss? I trust MacTavish with free agency money, I like the Gordon money and understand the Ference signing.

    A lot of people here don’t agree. That’s fine. I want a veteran two-way third line, bring me some Pisani’s.

    Sure, if dumping 89 means you sign Graboo and Kulimen, then every sane person is for it.

    What will probably happen is that MacT gives that money to Orpik.

  59. PunjabiOil says:

    I’d prefer a Gagner for Colin Wilson deal.

  60. godot10 says:

    Lowetide:
    Trading Cogliano meant a guy making $1M was flushed for a long distance pick (Tambellini, being of sound mind and body, ASKED for the most distant pick available). You’re trading Gagner AND $4.8M beans you can spend on another useful player—one who is better able to help the Oilers as they are now constructed.

    Romulus Apotheosis: priceless.

    But this also raises an interesting question for me… is there some kind of limit on how far in the future the picks you trade can be?

    ie., could you trade a 2020 pick?

    The 2013 draft was far stronger than the weak 2012 draft (where 2nd year draft eligibles were selected in record numbers).

    Tambellini made the correct decision to take the 2nd in the 2013 draft over the 2012.

    He can be blamed for a lot of things, but this is not one of them.

  61. Dicky94 says:

    If we were to trade down with New Jersey along with Gagner do you think we could pry both Henrique and Larsson out of there. Might have to sweeten the deal a bit.

  62. Wild Bill Hunter says:

    Not in a million years should that deal be made for several reasons. 1. Buy low sell high…not the time to deal Gagner. 2. The last time I looked the Oilers were not in trouble with the cap. 3. $4.8 mil on the free agent market is not guaranteed to bring back something better than Gagner once you have added $2 mil to get anyone worthwhile to come to Edmonton (just sayin’) 4. This is not an especially deep draft and the Oilers scouts don’t seem to have a clue outside of the top 10.

    I think the thing to do is put Gagner in a position to succeed and then see what he can bring back in a trade. If you want a fair return, offer up Perron, a guy coming off a career year. Sometimes you have to give up quality to get quality in return.

  63. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Lowetide: I’m sure that’s true. Lots of paper transactions over the years. Oil dealt some guy to NJD a few years ago, his brother was a D for maybe CBJ, they didn’t get a thing.

    IIRC Labarbera to the Hawks was an FC trade.

    also, IIRC, there was some noise that the Pirri trade was some kind of payback for the cheap deal the Panthers gave the Hawks on Versteeg

    Maybe FC is something like that… a kind or “I’ll sweeten your pot down the road” or “I’ll at least answer the phone” kind of deal.

  64. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    hahaha.

    this kills me.

    Cogliano, a first round pick (25th overall) in 2005, had back-to-back 18 goal seasons in 2007-08 and 2008-09 and scored overtime winners in an NHL record three consecutive games, but with the Oilers loading up on draft picks and adding three more forwards on July 1, fell victim to a numbers game.

    “We’ve been acquiring assets for some time and the result of that is we have a lot of players,” said general manager Steve Tambellini. “We can’t keep everyone.”

    yep, let’s defend Tambo here… the cupboards are overflowing with talent! He just signed Belanger! Eager! Hordichuk!

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/07/12/oilers-cogliano-traded-to-ducks

  65. Racki says:

    Romulus Apotheosis: IIRC Labarbera to the Hawks was an FC trade.

    also, IIRC, there was some noise that the Pirri trade was some kind of payback for the cheap deal the Panthers gave the Hawks on Versteeg

    Maybe FC is something like that… a kind or “I’ll sweeten your pot down the road” or “I’ll at least answer the phone” kind of deal.

    It just simply means they’ll hammer out the rest of the particulars later. You shouldn’t ever see something like “Joe Thornton for Future Considerations”, but the future considerations is typically chump change on the deal. Ex., we aren’t sure if we want your 5th rounder, or the guy who’s barely a 4th liner… we’ll figure it out later…

    Sometimes it’s just simply “OK, well we replaced that turd with a better turd anyways, so we’ll call it even”.

  66. LostBoy says:

    Trading Gagner just so totally depends on a plan for his replacement that it’s hard to answer these kinds of questions. I think given Gagner’s current value that’s about as good a deal as you could make. No, I wouldn’t make it. It’s dreaming in technicolour that this team is set up to transform itself, and arguably that the owner/management even want it to right now. There is almost no way Gagner will ever have less value than he has right now. Guarantee Stastny comes to market and for some bizarre reason signs in Edmonton, fine, whatever, cash Gagner for whatever little you can get. Failing that, this is insanity.

    A year ago it was Get Gagner signed for less than $5m, whee it happened, yay. Now it’s flush Gagner for peanuts. It’s the same dude. He didn’t suddenly become trash, he got injured and had a crap season.

    Hemsky was run into a ditch in Edmonton and showed in Ottawa he can easily score 70 points if deployed properly. What did we do? Announced to the world last summer that he had Loser Cooties and must go (while at the same time announcing that Dubnyk, well, if you have to ask the question…). Then found out that that’s not the best trading strategy and showed up for the inevitable Actually Loser Cooties, Did We Say Loser Cooties? press availability. And so ultimately we get a third and a fifth. Last season only three RW in the NHL scored 70 points or more (four more had 69). It’s a 20 game sample, but anyone really want to bet against Ales putting up 65-70 on a real team next year? A potential top ten RW evaporated.

    Now we want to evaporate a career average 50 pt per 82 GP center (this is actually true, surprised me). Yes, he has hideous defensive issues, but that’s upper echelon 2C NHL production.

    Only Edmonton.

    ps Moss Moss Moss. David Moss will turn 33 in December. No possible contract the Edmonton Oilers can sign David Moss to will make sense. He has maybe a year left as the guy he’s been. We won’t be challenging for the cup in that year.

  67. Racki says:

    LostBoy,

    There is definitely a lot of risk that comes with moving Gagner.. you might not get a 2C down the road, for sure. I don’t think anyone is complaining about his offense production. While 50 pts is definitely nice, what isn’t nice is when you are on the ice for more of that going in your own net. That’s the problem. I do think if he’s moved to wing though, that problem is fairly solvable.

    Gagner is one of few trade assets here for good players (well, I believe he is anyways, I guess some others think he’s crap though). I think it would be well worth it to move him for a centreman who’s a drop off in offense if they are responsible defensively and can keep up to the play, like the Josh Bailey talk.

    The safe move would be to not do anything with Gagner until you secure someone like Grabo/Stastny/other. Of course if you do it for picks though, that will add another year onto when we see the fruits of them, since the draft is before July 1st (this is assuming Gagner isn’t moved for the center the Oil need).

  68. LostBoy says:

    godot10: They needed Lubo because they flushed Pitkanen (like they flushed Poti, like they flushed Gilbert, like they will likely soon flush Petry).Lowe has been here through all the flushing.

    They gutted the mid-career player with the Visnovsky trade.Created the doughnut hole agewise in the roster that persists to this day.

    There’s some truth to this – it was just cringeworthy to hear Lowe explain in retrospect that Pitkanen was an “only child” but my best guess at the time was that it spoke to serious character/fit/dressing room/whatever issues.

    I can’t really agree on Visnovsky. That could have been very different. Instead we installed Tambellini and Tambellini made the WTF decision to install Pat Quinn, a man who the game had passed by.

    We had one of the best mobile, puck rushing defensemen of his generation. He put up 68 points to lead the NHL D the following season. The trade looks bad in retrospect, but the Oilers were at that point in ostensible Win Now mode, still feeling some glow from the cup finals run.

    The problem was the coach. JF Jacques and Ryan Stone in the top six and Lubo in his second season in Edmonton told to get the puck up to the forwards.

    If I could have a do over on trading for him, as things were in 2008, I’d still make the trade.

  69. LostBoy says:

    Racki:
    LostBoy,

    There is definitely a lot of risk that comes with moving Gagner.. you might not get a 2C down the road, for sure. I don’t think anyone is complaining about his offense production. While 50 pts is definitely nice, what isn’t nice is when you are on the ice for more of that going in your own net. That’s the problem. I do think if he’s moved to wing though, that problem is fairly solvable.

    I just think this is a general opinion among Oiler fans that has developed this past season, easily his worst defensively of his career. He wasn’t this bad in earlier seasons, by traditional or advanced stats (the previous two seasons combined he was -1 versus -29 last year). A year ago Lowetide was hailing his signing.

    The guy got his face scrambled and came back too soon. (And I’ll refrain from going in the direction of Eakins and coaching in general. Defense is actually coachable, Sam wasn’t as bad as this earlier, and Sam isn’t stupid.) Few people had given up on him a year ago. Most wanted him signed. It’s the same guy. It isn’t true that he’s been this season’s level of coverage disaster in his career. This was by FAR his worst season ever.

    I just don’t buy that he’ll be a net liability going forward.

  70. commonfan14 says:

    Lowetide: You’re blaming a lot on one trade. The deal for Lubo—Stoll and Greene—was outstanding. It just was. The crap that happened afterward doesn’t change that fact.

    To say nothing of the fact that Stoll at the time was an RFA who’d been significantly affected by concussions – it wasn’t at all clear if he’d ever be the same. I, for one, remember being very nervous about re-signing him to any kind of significant dollars or term.

  71. godot10 says:

    commonfan14: To say nothing of the fact that Stoll at the time was an RFA who’d been significantly affected by concussions – it wasn’t at all clear if he’d ever be the same. I, for one, remember being very nervous about re-signing him to any kind of significant dollars or term.

    Perron’s concussion history was far worse than Stoll’s. One cannot laud the Perron deal and then say signing Stoll to a new contract would have been a bad idea.

    Stoll, arguably, was traded because he challenged MacT over how he was being used, and MacT viewed an independent mind as insubordination.

    Stoll, Greene, Pitkanen…three players entering the prime of their career for 30-something Visnovsky and one year (till UFA) of Erik Cole

  72. nycoil says:

    59 and 65? Nope. Wouldn’t even consider it. Not even close. That’s worse than the Brodziak trade by a country mile. And no, signing Grabovski and Kulemin doesn’t make this awful trade any better.

    If Gagner gets moved it is for a similarly flawed player with potential to grow with the cluster. 59 and 65 would be an unforgivable return for Gagner.

  73. nycoil says:

    Heck, if we are talking hypothetical trades with the Islanders I offer Snow Gagner (25% retained) and #3 for #5 and Strome. Gagner gets to play with JT, Isles also get a second Sam, Oilers get Strome and still pick Dal Colle, Kapanen, Ritchie, Nylander, or heck there is a half decent chance Draisaitl is still there if Burke indeed doesn’t like him.

  74. Lowetide says:

    nycoil:
    Heck, if we are talking hypothetical trades with the Islanders I offer Snow Gagner (25% retained) and #3 for #5 and Strome. Gagner gets to play with JT, Isles also get a second Sam, Oilers get Strome and still pick Dal Colle, Kapanen, Ritchie, Nylander, or heck there is a half decent chance Draisaitl is still there if Burke indeed doesn’t like him.

    Why would the Islanders deal Strome? He’s $863,333 times two seasons and he’s a faster Gagner now. Josh Bailey is a possibility, and an attractive one, but Strome seems a distant bell. imo you’d have to give much more than 89, especially considering the season he just endured.

  75. maudite says:

    If I can manage to be assured I can sign Grabo + Kulemin for 3 years (at something like 1 mil overpays with some of the money left over from Gagner). Done in a heartbeat.

    Without some actual solutions involving the use of that contract value of money it’s not really worth it for later picks though.

  76. Hammers says:

    There has to be better ways to save 4.8 than this idea . My guess is 3 out of 4 people won’t forgive him . I would sooner trade for a higher contract if the player has a year or 2 left . Umberger keep him 2 years then buy him out . A player like that fits our 3rd line needs until someone else either makes it or comes along .Its not like he doesn’t have cap space for his $ 7-7.5 mill “D” and also paying the RFA’s he wants to keep .

  77. dessert1111 says:

    I would support a trade that nets something similar to the perron return (pajaarvi and 2nd), not much less. If that’s not available, I think he should stay. Either start him at wing or give him a short leash at centre and switch him to wing if unsuccessful.

  78. nycoil says:

    Lowetide,

    I don’t think they will. It was just in case they really coveted, say, Sam Bennett and still wanted to improve the team around Tavares for next year. Could see the Bailey deal without picks involved. I think a Gagner for Bailey swap means Gagner is at a bigger discount to full value by a lot. I hope the Oilers do not trade Sam for a late 2nd and early 3rd in a weak draft, especially not knowing who they might be able to sign come July 1. They could trade Gagner, miss out on Stastny and Grabo and really be in trouble throwing Leon in the deep end. I hope Gagner for middling picks is as unlikely to happen as Strome getting traded.

  79. mumbai max says:

    Nope, I do not do that deal. Established 3rd line winger (25-29 yo) and 3rd round pick would do it for me though.

  80. nycoil says:

    Lowetide,

    By the way, I really enjoyed your draft preview post on ON. I don’t comment over there, but read all your work there, too. Thank you for your efforts.

    I think there are some trades to be made this year. A few unhappy/antsy Eastern teams to dance with. I just hope the deals are packages for upgrades on players like the Perron deal rather than the flawed players for lesser picks like the Brodziak deal or even Cogliano.

    Islanders, Sabres (Ehrhoff), Flyers (B. Schenn?- Couturier going to cost too much), Pens (Letang), Leafs (Gardiner, Kadri, etc), Bruins (Marchand), Panthers(Kulikov), Blue Jackets (Anisimov), etc. all worth kicking the tires on at least. As you say, teams need scoring in the NHL, and if the Gomez for McDonagh trade can happen, maybe Gagner for Despres or de Haan can, too instead of picks? Or so I pray.

  81. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Hammers:
    There has to be better ways to save 4.8 than this idea . My guess is 3 out of 4 people won’t forgive him . I would sooner trade for a higher contract if the player has a year or 2 left . Umbergerkeep him 2 years then buy him out . A player like that fits our 3rd line needs until someone else either makes it or comes along .Its not like he doesn’t have cap space for his $ 7-7.5 mill “D” and also paying the RFA’s he wants to keep .

    no to Umberger.

  82. frjohnk says:

    This rebuild will continue to spin its wheels if we continually trade NHL players for spare parts lose the asset for nothing.
    In the last 5 years
    Cogliano, Smid, Brodziak, Hemsky, and now possibly Gagner traded for spare parts.

    The asset of Erik Cole turned into nothing
    The asset of Lubomir Visnovsky turned into nothing
    The asset of Sheldon Souray turned into nothing

    That’s just off the top of my head.

    Other than the Perron trade, the Scriven trade, and the Marincin pick, which makes the 2007 draft hurt less, we have lost so many deals its not even funny.

    We are not contending this year, and even if we try I doubt we would get Grabo in FA. How many other teams will be after him? And where is Edmonton on his list? And if it is an overpayment in money and term to get him here, how many people are comfortably giving him Taylor Hall like money and term?

    Keep Gagner, he will rebound somewhat, which will help the team and increase his value. We need to stop trading NHL players for spare parts.

  83. John Chambers says:

    Do the deal. Free up the cap space and give Markov and Grabovski filthy money on 2-year terms.

    Draft a centre :)

  84. hags9k says:

    Has to be a warm body in return. Gagner is still one of our best 4 Cs. And he could be moved to wing. Keep him around, if all you can get is mid round picks.
    Very unlikely we can land a better C in FA.

  85. jake70 says:

    You want a Stanley Cup.

    When Bettman hands over the Stanley cup to the captain of the winning team for the remainder of the years he is commissioner, Gagner will not, IMO, ever be the 2C on that team, Oilers or other. Now, a 2C on a playoff team, team winning 1 round? Maybe.

    If, if….like the previous blog suggested, they are willing to allow next year to be flushed, keep Gagner, he cannot be worse, and likely improves, then deal him for a better return next deadline or summer. If he plays so well, he “ruins” any chances for McDavid, good, you get a better return for him if need be.

    I pass on that deal.

  86. kdunbar says:

    I don’t like this idea. We have too long given serviceable NHLers for promise. Sam Gagner is a serviceable NHLer (especially on the RW).

    Even if we get a bloated contract back. Maybe something like this Sam Gagner and a 4th for “Big Bloated Contract on serviceable NHLer” and a 3rd.

  87. kdunbar says:

    Or trade Gagner for a 2nd in 2015 after Free agency starts (assuming he waves his NT clause)

  88. prairieschooner says:

    We can not keep looking at the future, we need more NHL players on the team.
    We need a 1 or 2 Dman to give us 3-4 years
    We need another NHL D man to push Jeff Petry down a notch.
    The D man is a free agent or a Gagner trade
    The centre can be improved through free agency
    I worry about Mac T shopping in the clearance items section as he did with Grebs & co.
    He needs to shop for NHL players not projects and not guys playing centre for the French Foreign Legion all stars

  89. PerryK says:

    Zangetsu:
    Woodguy,

    I’m not paying gagner 4.8 to cost us goals from the 3line. I know this is the oilers, but we can’t keep having 3rd and 4th lines that bleed. Not to mention gagner can’t score when he is on and island (That was not mathy though). Sorry, I’d do math, but I’m too tired today.

    You have no choice in the payment; guaranteed contracts! To make the best of a bad situation, it still doesn’t make sense to take a top 10 pick with offense and package him for a bad contract for a dud and 2 picks that late!

    What does make sense is to have the man play where he can help, not hurt the team; that would be RW. Our depth at RW would look like Eberle, Gagner, ?, ?. LW would be Hall, Perron, Yakupov, ?.

    There is no real reason to play Perron at RW except that after Hemsky left, there was a large hole at that position with Yak also hurt. Perron does his best work playing his off-wing, and there really isn’t a defensive issue due to RHS / LHS situation with him.

  90. PerryK says:

    godot10: So one ends up flushing Glencross because the coach (MacT) and Lowe prefer Nilsson and pursuing white whales.

    MacT and Lowe flushed Stoll, because they liked their new shiny Gagner and Cogliano.

    So one ends of flushing Brodziak because the new coach (Quinn) and Lowe want to try Brule (his player from the Giants), and the former head scout (Prendergast) and Lowe want to try Pouliot.

    So one ends up flushing Cogliano, because of a poor coach (Renney) who doesn’t know how to use him.

    And now one ends up flushing Gagner, because of a horrible coach (Eakins) who doesn’t know how to use him.

    Amen, Brother!

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca