Saturday, March 06, 2010

Trade Deadline 2010 - Visnovsky and Staios

"Analysis" of the Grebeshkov trade and the Jones waiver claim are found here.

(3) To ANA: Visnovsky
To EDM: Whitney, 2010 6th round pick (ANA?)

Never let it be said that the Oilogosphere is overrun by like-minded group-think; there are those both satisfied and unsatisfied with the deal. Myself, I don't really understand the trade. I can see some advantages to it, but I see more disadvantages; I wouldn't have made the deal at this point unless there is some reason to believe Visnovsky is unmovable this summer. And even that assumes I'm set on moving Visnovsky, which I'm not, although I can see the arguments for such a position.

To me, there's a lot of strange things about this deal:

- If the team is rebuilding, the return doesn't really make sense. Both Whitney and Visnovsky have their contracts expire after the 2012/13 season. Acquiring a bad contract along with a prospect and 1st/2nd round pick makes more sense to me as a rebuilding club. Neither guy is expected to be around once the team is really coming together, at least not without a fair market value extension. Say what you will about the return of Grebeshkov (and I don't think it was enough given my perception of the market, but my perception should be less informed than Tambellini's), a 2nd rounder while dumping salary fits the general rebuild strategy. I'm not as sure with the Visnovsky trade. I understand the argument that Whitney may well be the better player in the last year or two of the contract, but I think you can argue this both ways.

- The trade wasn't done to save money, a normal motivation for a rebuilding team. Whitney costs $0.25 mil more than Visnovsky over the remainder of the contracts. The Oilers save $0.75 mil over the remainder of this season by paying Whitney instead of Visnovsky , while over the last 3 seasons Whitney earns an extra million dollars. I suppose if the plan is to acquire Whitney with an eye to moving him before the 2011 draft, maybe they'll pump Whitney's stats next season with PP time and softer ES time, then maybe it would be about creating value and saving money?

- What is with the inclusion of the 6th rounder? What was the conversation here?

" Nah, we can't move Visnovsky for Whitney, he's a way better player. You've got to a throw in a 5th round pick."

" No way, a 5th is too much. How about a 7th?"


"Yeah, I'll go for that. Deal?"


- The trade saves cap room, but I'm not sure it increases cap efficiency. If you're trying to make the playoffs next season, then seemingly Visnovsky at 5.6 mil is more valuable than Whitney at 4.0 mil. If you're not trying to make the playoffs, then who cares about cap efficiency? If you're moving Visnovsky because you're trying to rebuild, the return of Whitney doesn't really fit that plan. If you don't want the team to be too good next season, if you're trying to tank, it arguably makes more sense to trade him at the draft for a draft pick or two. Having moved Grebeshkov's money, and presumably having the Staios trade lined up, it doesn't really make sense to me that the trade HAD to be made to clear cap room.

(4) To CAL: Staios
To EDM: Johnson, 2010 or 2011 3rd round pick, Calgary's option (CAL)

This is an absolutely fantastic trade for the Oilers. Great move by Tambellini. I haven't gone through the Oilers transaction wire over the time frame, but this might well be the best trade the Oilers have made since either the Spacek or Roloson trades of 2006.


Of the 4 moves, all but the Visnovsky trade make general sense to me as part of a rebuild. I would have happily made the Staios trade as is. And, sure, I wouldn't have claimed Jones on waivers, or traded Grebeshkov for a 2nd round pick, but I can easily understand those moves as part of a rebuild. Maybe Jones works out, maybe you draft something good with the 2nd, and the cap room helps going forward. The Visnosky trade confuses me because it doesn't fit, exactly, with the other trades, but like most moves I don't think it's impossible it works out. I would have rather found a return that fits the future goals of the team if I were set on moving Visnovsky, failing that I'd have rather kept him than trade him.


YKOil said...

Great post speeds.

One of the problems I have with the Grebs trade is the Vis trade. If I know I am trading Vis then I make sure I trade him BEFORE I move a guy like Grebs.

With Vis gone, even if I don't really want Grebs, Grebs becomes my pump and dump guy via Vis' PP minutes.

speeds said...

I kind of wonder about that myself. Did they think Grebeshkov would have less value in the summer? Maybe, if they had some reason to believe Grebeshkov plans to go back to Russia?

PDO said...

Great post.

I'm thinking similarly to YKOil... the combination of the Grebs AND Lubo trades makes it amazingly confusing, because it eventually became:

Grebeshkov, Visnovsky, for Whitney, Jones, 2nd, 6th.

I don't think it's that insane to say that Grebeshkov and Whitney are practically a wash (nearly identical offense and GP's the past 3 seasons, Whitney might be better overall, but Grebeshkov is also younger and cheaper).

So Lubo for Jones, 2nd and a 6th?


Agreed on the Staios deal, amazing value.