The Hockey Symposium

Consistency and Fairness

2011-10-19T19:44:00.004-06:00

I was a bit disappointed today to see Jeff Petry assigned to the AHL. Just my opinion, but I thought he's played well enough to deserve regular time in the top 6D for the Oilers, at this point.

That said, I also have no problem understanding the argument that playing 25 min per game in the minors, with significant PP and PK time, does more to develop his long term potential than does 12-14 minutes per game at the NHL level, with little special teams time. I don't know if that is the case, but if it is, it seems like a sensible approach to developing your players.

The problem comes if and when you handle different players differently, because I'm sure players want to feel the organization is being fair, and not playing favorites. If you are looking more towards development than you are to wins, is there just as good an argument for demoting Lander and Paajarvi as there is for Petry? Could both of those players see their long term development assisted by first line PP and PK minutes at the AHL level?

I have a similar position when it comes to the "RNH back to junior" debate. I was of the opinion last year that Hall should probably have been sent back to junior at the 9 game mark, and maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, who knows? But to me the team has to be consistent, in that if you gave Hall a chance to make the team, provided he can contribute, it's only fair to do the same with Nugent Hopkins. That isn't to say that if the team goals change, the decision can't change; I wouldn't have found it indefensible to have sent Hall back to junior last year, even if he was one of the 12 best forwards, provided you thought development was paramount*, and then keep RNH the following season if the overriding goal that year was to make the playoffs and you were of the opinion that keeping RNH helped you do that.

Obviously there are a lot of different variables in play here, and that makes comparing Petry's situation to that of Lander/Omark/Paajarvi somewhat difficult, but if you were Jeff Petry, might you wonder just why you were sent down and those guys weren't? If the argument is that Petry simply was the 8th best D, well, that's a different story, but I'm not sure that's the argument here.

* And assuming you thought development would have been better served by another season in the OHL.

Managing Martindale

2011-09-17T19:04:00.010-06:00

While it's true that Edmonton's selections from the 2010 draft class are looking promising at the moment, that promise loses its meaning if you are unable to get the players under contract. So far the Oilers have signed Hall, Pitlick, Marincin, and Hamilton, the first four picks from the 2010 Oilers draft class - no small feat. However, there are still a few players the Oilers will probably look to keep within the organization, and most of them need to be signed by June 1, 2012 for the Oilers to retain them. Of those players, and for a few reasons, Ryan Martindale is probably the one most important to sign at this moment. The Oilers might really like to have Bunz and Blain under contract, but since neither is AHL eligible nor is either going to play in the NHL to start the season, there is no pressing need to sign the player.

Based on his age, Martindale is AHL eligible, and based on his performance (both last season and thus far at camp) I think one could make a case he's worth serious consideration at the AHL level this season, as opposed to a fifth season in the OHL. The carrot the Oilers can dangle to Martindale, to convince him to sign, is to have him play in the AHL in 2011/12, making 60-70K, instead of nearly nothing in junior, along with burning a year from his entry level contract. If he’s assigned to junior, unsigned, those carrots are gone, and the Oilers lose some leverage because they can offer no immediately tangible reason for Martindale as it affects his play for the 11/12 season. The fact that they didn’t sign him in the fall would have demonstrated to him that he’s a ways down the depth chart, so why would he sign with EDM when he could go back into the draft, potentially go higher, and hopefully go to a team with less forward prospect depth that he’d have to battle for future NHL employment?

It's true that the Oilers could sign Martindale even after they assign him to the OHL, but I think the Oilers would be taking a pretty serious risk by allowing him to return, unsigned, to junior.

Entry Level Contracts and the "Arbitrary" Slide Rule

2011-07-12T09:14:00.001-06:00

One of the more unusual items from Edmonton's 2010 draft class was the number of players eligible to play in the AHL for the 2011/12 season. Ordinarily a team might have 3 or 4 of their 9 players eligible for the AHL the second year after the draft. As it happens, the Oilers have 8 (Hall, Pitlick, Hamilton, Marincin, Martindale, Davidson, Pelss, and Jones) of their 11 2010 draft picks eligible to play in the AHL this coming season. We can be pretty certain that each ofPelss and Jones will be heading back to their teams from last season, and even more certain that Hall will be dressing for the Oilers this coming season.

Early indications would seem to be that Pitlick, Hamilton, and Marincin are, at least tentatively, slated for the AHL next season, based on the fact that they have been signed to their Entry Level Contracts. However, due to the following paragraph, Article 9.1.(d).(i) of the CBA, the "slide rule" appears to only apply to Marincin:

In the event that an 18 year old or 19 year old Player signs an SPC with a Club but does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the first season under that SPC, the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for a period of one (1) year, except that this automatic extension will not apply to a Player who is 19 according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September 16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC. Unless a Player and Club expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an additional year in accordance with this subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the exception of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary, games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses, shall be extended; provided, however, that the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all circumstances.

My interpretation of the wording in Article 9.1.(d).(i) suggests the first year of Hamilton and Pitlick's Entry Level Contract (ELC) will be burned without regard to where they play next season, whether that be the WHL, AHL, or NHL. Because of that, I think we can be fairly sure the Oilers are planning (at this time) to have both players play in the AHL. If they were unsure, it might arguably have made sense to leave both players unsigned until after the 2011/12 season, because that way their ELC's would run for three years starting next season, instead of only having 2 seasons left as seems to be the case now*.

Practically speaking, I think this means both Martindale and Davidson are likely slated to return to the CHL next season, unsigned. First of all, the Oilers are very near the contract limit at this time. According to capgeek, the Oilers are currently at 50 contracts and couldn't sign these players to ELC's even if they wanted to**. Secondly, why sign them now if you're going to assign them to CHL anyways, provided it burns one of the 3 ELC seasons to sign them now? Why not just wait until next spring, sign them, and have 3 years remaining on their ELC's starting next fall, instead of signing them now and having only 2 years remaining come next fall?

After all that, the interesting thing to note here (in my opinion), and the "arbitrary" part mentioned in the title, is that next year would be a slide year for Hamilton and Pitlick, according to Article 9.1.(d).(ii), had been signed in the calendar year of 2010, instead of the calendar year of 2011:

In the event that a Player signs his first SPC at age 18 and has had his SPC extended pursuant to Subsection (i), and such Player does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the second season under that SPC, then the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for one (1) additional year. Unless a Player and Club expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an additional year in accordance with this Subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the exception of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary, games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses, shall be extended; provided, however, that the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all circumstances.

This is kind of an odd situation, I'm not entirely sure if this is by design, or just a "flaw", or oversight, that no one caught at the time the CBA was ratified. Why should Hamilton have seen his ELC contract last(after sliding twice) until the end of the 2014/15 season if he signed on Sept. 30, 2010, but only until the end of the 2013/14 season if he signed in April of 2011, provided he plays less than 10 NHL games in the 2011/12 season in both cases? I do understand that the motivation towards that rule as it relates to Sept.16-Dec. 31 born players, but it just seems kind of silly that the same player is treated differently based on when he's signed, even if he's assigned to the same leagues in both situations.

So, why didn't the Oilers sign Hamilton and Pitlick at some point in the calendar year of 2010 instead of waiting for 2011? We don't know for sure, but here are a couple guesses:

(1) The 50 contract limit - I'm not sure exactly how the slide rule works with a player you've already assigned to junior, perhaps they "slide" the second the sign the contract, but maybe that situation is dealt with differently? Part of the reason the Oilers may not have signed Pitlick and Hamilton in the summer/fall of 2010 might be that those players would have counted towards the 50 contracts until they were assigned to junior, and perhaps the Oilers decided that would limit their ability to sign some other players they wanted to sign to NHL contracts? I suppose they could have reached agreements with a couple of players, and formally signed them once Pitlick and Hamilton were returned to junior and opened a couple spots in the 50 contract list.

(2) Both Parties need to be interested in signing. Players have agents, and I'm sure the agents would know about this wrinkle. Why would Pitlick sign a contract in 2010 unless he were about to make the team? It makes more sense for him (and Hamilton) to wait until the 2011 year to sign, precisely because his ELC would end one year sooner if he waits to sign, provided he doesn't play in the NHL in 10/11.

After the 2010 draft, I was idly wondering if it was just coincidence, or if it might be a new strategy of the Oilers to select late birthday players, trying to get their prospects to the AHL as soon as possible. The 2011 draft doesn't prove anything, but does seem to suggest it might have just been the way it worked out with the NA players they selected in 2010, as none of their 2011 NA draftees were born in that Sept.16-Dec.31 window.

NOTE: This was a CBA wrinkle I hadn't heard even mentioned until recently. In doing some research I found this thread at HF which would seem to be support for this interpretation. I can't remember where I first read about this (I think it might have been somewhere where I was first reading about the Flames trying to sign Bartschi), I would (and will) provide a link if I can recall where I first saw this noted.

* It might still have made sense to sign them at that time, even if it potentially burns a year while they are in the WHL, if the team thought returning the player to the WHL could result in the player deciding they are unhappy with the organization and re-entering the draft. The same line of reasoning could apply to Martindale and Davidson, as well.

** That said, the room could potentially be created depending on what happens with Marincin and Nugent Hopkins. Should those players be returned to junior, it would create a contract spot or two for Martindale or Davidson should their play warrant it. This might make more sense for Davidson, should he outplay Marincin in camp, in that Davidson could take the AHL spot that has probably been provisionally kept for Marincin should the Oilers feel Marincin would be better served by another year in the WHL, and Davidson by moving on to the AHL.

2011 Top 31: 1 - 9

2011-06-24T07:33:00.003-06:00

I don't think I actually look at this tier as 9 more or less equal talents, but it does look murky in the middle. I'd be surprised to see Zibanejad, Hamilton, or Murphy go top 3, or Nugent Hopkins, Landeskog, or Larsson go 7-9, but other than that, I don't know where to break this group into tiers.

9 Zibanejad: Sure sounds like he'll go higher than this, I would like to see a bit more offence but if he had it he'd probably jump way up the list, as close as it seems these top 9 are grouped.

8 Murphy: The ultimate high risk/high reward. Craig Button says he sees a Zubov like player. That would work.

7 Hamilton: Very complete sounding player, with more than enough offensive to potentially play on a top pair at some point down the road.

6 Landeskog: I have him sliding just a little bit because I think his offence might be a little shy of the other forwards.

5 Strome: Not much to say here, I don't really understand why he's not generally ranked a little bit higher, but it's so tight I guess it's not that surprising. Very good numbers, young player for the draft, I think he's a bit underrated.

4 Larsson: I sure wish he'd brought more offence this year. I know he's in a men's league,and apparently moved up the depth chart, but it's still a little bit disconcerting.

3 Huberdeau: He had a fantastic season. I'm not sure how much The Memorial Cup plays into a team's evaluation, but it can't have hurt his ranking in this draft.

2 Couturier: I decided there were just too many scouting reports in favour of RNH to ignore. I don't mind abandoning consensus a little bit when it comes to defencemen like Gudbranson since I think those types of D are generally overrated by NHL teams. But, NHL teams are generally pretty good at assessing forwards. Given that, it's fair to ask why I still have Couturier as high as I do. I think his offensive upside is under-appreciated, and if it's really close between the 4 forwards after RNH, he has the best track record.

1 Nugent Hopkins: Interested to see what he looks like in EDM, I will be more surprised if the Oilers pass on Nugent Hopkins than I would have been last year if the Oilers selected Seguin. Fantastic hockey sense.

2011 Top 31: 10 - 24

2011-06-23T21:15:00.000-06:00

I have this tier a little bit bigger than most pundits, who generally say the draft drops off around 20. I must say, I'm more comfortable with that assessment having read Dave Shoalts's article, in which Brian Burke suggests he sees it much the same way.

24 Morrow

23 Rattie: Which Rattie is the real one, the guy who seemingly struggled after the arrival of Johansen and Niederreiter, or the guy scoring at a torrid pace before they returned? If Rattie's stats took a dip because the returning players started to receive the PP ice-time that Rattie had been using, he might be undervalued even at this spot.

22 Phillips

21 Beaulieu: I have him a bit lower than most, but within this tier I'm not sure it means all this much. His hockey sense has been questioned, and for me that's a big factor.

20 Siemens*: The perfect argument for a 19 year old draft. How much of his success is due to playing on a powerhouse team with one of the best D in the WHL? I'm not sure, and that's why he's a little lower down the list.

19 Klefbom*

18 Brodin*: Love hockey sense in players, if I rated D as highly as many seem to he'd be higher in my rankings.

17 Puempel

16 Grimaldi: Talk about a tough guy to rank. By the time you get to this point in the draft, you start to have to decide between high risk/high reward vs. lower risk/smaller reward. Grimaldi sounds like he'd be on the higher risk side of the ledger.

15 Scheifele

14 McNeill: Not too much separates McNeill from Scheifele in my rankings. I rate Scheifele just below because I think teams tend to overvalue the U-18's.

13 Oleksiak: This represents a bit of a gamble, but his offensive production in the NCAA is better than one would normally imagine for a 6'7" D.

12 Khokhlachev*: My guess is Khokhlachev won't go this high, and there are sensible reasons to have him lower than this. I'm not sure how relevant the "Russian" factor is, so I'll give it less weight than I'm sure the teams do. He did come over to play in the CHL, so that would seem to suggest he's willing to give the NHL a better chance than some, but one does wonder what his options might look like in two years if he hasn't yet cracked the NHL.

11 Armia

10 Bartschi

2011 Top 31: 25 - 31

2011-06-23T08:48:00.002-06:00

One of the problems with doing these lists annually is that I know I'm doing so missing some pieces of information that could cause players to move a fair bit. Player X isn't coach-able, Y will do whatever it takes to make it, Z has some personal problem. I think, for the most part, this stuff doesn't make a big difference as to where each player is ranked, but in the cases where it makes a sizable difference, I'm out of the loop and that's going to hurt the quality of the list. I hope that by nicking the types of players I think NHL organizations generally overvalue, I can post a list that at least makes for interesting conversation, but I do so knowing it's not without its drawbacks.

This year, I'm not going to bother with too many comments on the player's game and style. There are a number of lists detailing that information and I'm sure they do a better job than I would. Instead, I'll write some comments regarding particular players of interest and/or players where my ranking is a little different than the general consensus.

I believe 25th overall, more or less, represents the start of the next tier of talent in this draft, but I'm having a difficult time ranking these guys within the tiers, at least below the first tier. It's a bit of a cop out, but depending on the day I can make arguments for different players at different slots. I arbitrarily cut the list at 31, EDM's pick in the 2nd round, but in my mind the difference in player quality from 31 to 40 is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. Players with an * beside their name are the "late birthday" players I mentioned yesterday. I'll have another section tonight, with the top 9 posted Friday morning.

31 Ritchie*: Ritchie is the first of a few players here that I think represent risky picks, but I believe at this point of the draft it makes sense to select a more risky player provided he has enough upside to compensate the increased chance of a miss. I’d happily take 1 top 3/6F and 3 busts vs. 1 top 6/9F, 2 4th line players, and 1 bust, but others may disagree.

30 Nieto: There’s a not bad chance that Matt Nieto has fallen a bit further down the rankings he should. The year prior to this, he recorded a team-leading 29 points in 24 games for the NTDP, with a team leading +20. For comparison, some teammates were Brandon Saad (26 pts in 24 games, +15), Nick Shore (20 pts in 26 games, +14) and Rocco Grimaldi (20 pts in 32 games, -19). Nieto recorded 23 points in 39 games for Boston University this past, certainly not stunning offensive totals. A lot can change in a year, perhaps has hasn’t developed exactly as planned, but he did jump to college while some of the other US players either went to the CHL or stayed with the NTDP. He might be a bit of a sleeper.

29 Saad

28 Namestnikov

27 Connor Murphy: Murphy is a role of the dice, he offers an intriguing upside for a player this late but he’s had such injury problems it’s not all that surprising he isn’t considered a top 20 pick. His upside may be too enticing to ignore, it’ll be interesting to see who takes a gamble.

26 Prince: That is a lot of offense to let slide.

25 Miller

The "Late Birthday" Advantage

2011-06-22T20:29:00.005-06:00

I have been meaning to post something about the late birthday advantage for awhile, but I had kind of forgotten about that idea until I read this interesting article over at Oilersnation. Cam Charron's piece looks at the July 1st - Sept 15th players from a slightly different perspective than mine, but it's well worth the read for anyone who's interested in the minutia of draft decision making.

The advantage I'm speaking of doesn't refer to the "more upside" angle*, it refers to an edge which is a result of the current CBA. Currently, teams hold the rights to a drafted player for 7 accrued seasons, or until age 27, whichever comes first. The interesting part, as it relates to the draft, is that "Age" is calculated based on a player's age as of June 30th. What this means for 2011 draftees (any year, really) is that two players who reach the NHL 3 years after their draft could be treated differently with respect to UFA age, depending on their birthday. If Connor Murphy (DOB: March 26, 1993) plays 2 years of college hockey followed by one year in the AHL before joining the NHL at the start of the 2014/15 season, he will be eligible for UFA status July 1, 2020. However, should Duncan Siemens (DOB: September 7, 1993) play 2 years of in the WHL followed by one year in the AHL before joining the NHL at the start of the 2014/15 season, he will be eligible for UFA status July 1, 2021.

I think this is a less significant element for players at the top of the draft, because they will be probably be in the NHL early enough that "7 accrued years" will be the determining factor, not the "age 27" option. I would tend to imagine this would be a more significant consideration as you get later in the draft and you don't expect the players to be NHL ready for 3 or 4 years anyways**. By no means am I suggesting a team should pass on a superior prospect because of a birthday, but when you've got a couple guys rated evenly and you're picking at 98 OV, I think it's a factor at least meriting consideration.

Some of the notable players with a late birthday in this draft are:

Ryan Strome, F (July 11, 1993)
Duncan Siemens, D (Sept 7, 1993)
Jonas Brodin, D (July 12, 1993)
Oskar Klefbom, D (July 20, 1993)
John Gibson, G (July 14, 1993)
Alexander Khokhlachev, F (Sept 9, 1993)
Brett Ritchie, F (July 1, 1993)
Jeremy Boyce, F (Aug 28, 1993)
Mario Lucia, LW (Aug 25, 1993)
Myles Bell, D (Aug 19, 1993)
Vincent Trocheck, F (July 11, 1993)
Mike Reilly, D (July 13, 1993)
Xavier Oullette, D (July 29, 1993)
Nick Cousins, F (July 20, 1993)
Sergei Shmelev, F (Aug 28, 1993)
Alessio Bertaggia, F (July 30, 1993)
Jordan Binnington, G (July 11, 1993)
Stephen Michalek, G (Aug 6, 1993)
Jaroslav Pavelka, G (Sept 12, 1993)

* Although, this angle seems to make a lot of sense to me. I've done no investigation, but it "feels right" that a player born Sept 12, 1993 might have more opportunity to grow than a player born Sept 17, 1992.

** Additionally, a somewhat more important factor for D and G in the first and second rounds than it would be for forwards.

The Need for Defensive Depth

2011-06-18T11:15:00.002-06:00

Many fans seem to be of the opinion that the Oilers should, or will, draft a defenseman with their 2nd first round pick should they select Nugent Hopkins. I don't share that sentiment, but I thought I would explore the idea that the Oilers "need" to add to their defensive depth chart in this year's draft.

Before the 2010 draft, the defensive depth chart looked something like:

Peckham
Plante
Petry
Motin
Chorney
Hesketh
Bigos

I'll get to the current depth chart in a bit, but I think everyone would agree that the defensive depth chart at the time of the 2010 draft looked weaker than it does now, prior to the 2011 draft. Even so, the team was so concerned with their depth chart on defence at the 2010 draft that they used 4 of their 1st 5 picks on forwards. If there were ever a time for the Oilers to "draft for need" and address their defense, it was then. But they didn't.

Three drafts have passed since the Oilers named Stu MacGregor their head scout. In that time, the Oilers have had 3 first round picks along with 4 second round picks. They have selected 6 forwards and one defenceman (Marincin). I don't think we should try to read too much into that, but at the same time it probably shows us that the Oilers are willing to take the BPA regardless of position. Unless they are of the same mindset as me, preferring F's unless the BPA is clearly a D or G.

Right now, the Oilers depth chart might look something like:

Petry
Marincin
Peckham
Teubert
Plante
Chorney
Blain
Davidson
Fedun
Motin
Bigos
Hesketh

I think you could make a good argument that the depth chart looks much better now than a year ago. All of the 2010 D draftees (Marincin, Blain, and Davidson) had very good seasons. Petry and Peckham showed better at the NHL level than I, and probably most, were expecting. They added Teubert (and Fedun, no idea where to slot him but I'll go with 9th). Chorney was better than he had been the previous two seasons. The only top prospects on D to apparently stagnate or move backwards were Plante and Motin.

Of course the depth chart could be improved by adding a D at 1,19, and/or 31, but recent history suggests the Oilers won't necessarily draft for need, and even if they are interested in doing so, the "need" isn't as big as it was at the 2010 draft.

How Much Rebuilding is Too Much?

2011-06-09T09:14:00.004-06:00

In the old CBA, I was a big proponent of the Oilers rebuilding. I believed the Oilers were stuck in a cycle of finishing 7th-10th in the West and weren't likely to have future success without dropping to the bottom for a couple of seasons. Even with that background, I have not been the most vocal fan of the Edmonton rebuild over the past year and a half. I don't doubt that rebuilding can work in this CBA, but I'm less sure it's worth* all the on-ice losing in a CBA that makes it very difficult for a team to keep its core together over the long term.

Daryl Katz was on "Oilers Lunch" a week or two ago and suggested it's a luxury to own a team in such a sophisticated hockey market. As mentioned, I'm generally not an advocate for rebuilding in this CBA, but if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing "right". Especially if your market is as savvy as Daryl Katz believes, and will continue to support a 30th place team as long as there is the promise of a future contender.

So, the question becomes, how much rebuilding is too much? How many older player with value should the team trade, if they can get a reasonable return? What follows is an example of what the Oilers may be able to do, and what the roster might look like, if they are willing to jump over the cliff. The trades specifically aren't meant to be perfect assessments of value; if you disagree with the value the Oilers are getting back, or giving, in one of the hypothetical trades by all means mention it and maybe we can fine tune it in the comments, but this post is more directed at the general idea and not so much as the specific players and picks returning.

I chose not to have any players waive NMC's to come to EDM since there's not much reason to think they'd want to play here. But, if it's true that EDM could acquire a guy like Drury in exchange for some valuable picks from NYR, and Drury was willing to waive his NMC (maybe he thinks that's better than being bought out, as has been rumored?), then that might be something to look at as well. Campbell has a NTC, but because the Oilers are first in the waiver claim priority list, they could probably work something out even if he doesn't really want to waive his NTC to go to Edmonton. If he were going to have such a big problem coming to Edmonton you probably wouldn't want to make the deal, so this assumes that you know Campbell would handle the trade or waive as professionally as one could hope. Thanks to capgeek for helping me put together the final roster so easily!

To CHI: Whitney
To EDM: Campbell, Leddy, Frolik, 18 OV, 36 OV, 2012 CHI 1st

To CLB: Gilbert, 31 OV
To EDM: Commodore, 8 OV

To VAN: 61 OV
To EDM: 29/30OV, Ballard

To BOS: Hemsky, 19 OV
To EDM: 9 OV, 2012 BOS 1st

This would leave the Oilers with 6 picks in the first 2 rounds (1st, 8th, 9th, 18th, 29/30th, and 36th picks) of the 2011 draft and 3 picks in the first round of the 2012 draft.

CAPGEEK.COM CAP CALCULATOR

FORWARDS
Taylor Hall ($3.750m) / Shawn Horcoff ($5.500m) / Jordan Eberle ($1.158m)
Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson ($1.525m) / Sam Gagner ($2.275m) / Linus Omark ($0.875m)
Michael Frolik ($2.500m) / Andrew Cogliano ($1.500m) / Ryan Jones ($1.500m)
Teemu Hartikainen ($0.875m) / Colin Fraser ($0.825m) / Gilbert Brule ($1.850m)
/ Anton Lander ($0.880m)

DEFENSEMEN
Kurtis Foster ($1.800m) / Brian Campbell ($7.142m)
Keith Ballard ($4.200m) / Nick Leddy ($1.116m)
Jeff Petry ($1.000m) / Ladislav Smid ($1.300m)
Mike Commodore ($3.750m) / Theo Peckham ($0.550m)

GOALTENDERS
Nikolai Khabibulin ($3.750m) / Devan Dubnyk ($0.800m)

BUYOUTS: Robert Nilsson ($0.416m)

CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $59,400,000; CAP PAYROLL: $50,839,541; BONUSES: $4,262,500
CAP SPACE (23-man roster): $8,560,459

Would it be wise for the Oilers to go in this direction, since they are rebuilding anyways? Do Hemsky and Whitney want to stay? The Oilers certainly have better information than I do, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were willing to take their chances going UFA in the next year or two.

* I'm talking about worth for fans of the team, not the off-ice business for the Oilers organization. As long as people still keep paying to come out, even if the team is terrible, losing money isn't a concern with Edmonton's rebuild.

Early 2011 Top 30

2011-06-02T23:27:00.003-06:00

With as little as there is to choose between some players, don't be too surprised to see some significant movement between this and my final list. I wouldn't find it terribly surprising if more research between now and the time of the draft sees some players move up and down, especially the players I'm less familiar with.

I have not included any detailed comments here, I'll be saving those for posts leading up to my final list and to the draft itself. That said, if you are curious why I have some players ranked in the positions I do (at this time), ask away and I'll do my best to answer!

Top 30:

Couturier
Nugent-Hopkins
Huberdeau
Strome
Larsson
Landeskog
Hamilton
Ryan Murphy
Bartschi
Zibanejad
Khokhlachev
Grimaldi
Phillips
Armia
Puempel
Rattie
Beaulieu
Scheifele
McNeil
Morrow
Oleksiak
Miller
Brodin
Namestnikov
Siemens
Rask
Prince
St. Croix
Klefbom
Noesen

Leverage, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, and the Edmonton Oil Kings

2011-06-01T09:30:00.003-06:00

While it’s yet to be revealed who the Oilers will select with the 1st overall pick, the name most frequently hinted has been Ryan Nugent Hopkins. Many have suggested that Nugent Hopkins would benefit from another year in the WHL, both to add some size and continue to round out his game before plying his trade in the NHL. I wonder if the Oilers would agree that it's probably in their best interest, should they be planning on selecting and returning Hopkins to the WHL, to find a way to orchestrate a trade of Nugent Hopkins to the Oil Kings from the Rebels? But why would Red Deer entertain the idea of moving their best and most marketable player?

Due to the NHL/CHL agreement, a player Nugent Hopkins's age is not eligible to play in the AHL; he must either be returned to his junior team or stay in the NHL. The Oilers have shown they have no problem with keeping an 18 year old player on the NHL roster, so the idea that Nugent Hopkins won't be returned to junior has surely crossed the minds of Red Deer’s management. Given that information, and assuming the Oilers would ideally like to see Nugent Hopkins playing for the Oil Kings*, I wonder if the Oilers (and Oil Kings) might consider approaching Red Deer management and saying something like:

"We want to control the development of our prospect. We are likely to prefer developing him either at the NHL level, or if we send him back to the WHL, with the Oil Kings as opposed to with the Rebels. That is not us taking a shot at your developmental skills, we just want to do things our way if we can, have more control than we would if he were in Red Deer. So, your can either trade him to the Oil Kings, for something, or take your chances that we'll send him back to Red Deer with the understanding that you are likely to lose him to the NHL for nothing. Your call..."

There is little chance this conversation would be received well by Red Deer, so I would imagine the key to making it work would would be to offer at least a not terrible trade package. This approach might not be terribly popular within the WHL, but since it would be a unique opportunity for the Katz Group to directly control the development of a future Oiler as well as potentially boost their WHL season ticket base, I don’t know why they wouldn’t at least consider it internally.**

One reason the Oilers might consider this tactic would be to more carefully manage the development of their most valuable prospect. Is he better in Red Deer where they are playing him to optimize their chances to win, or Edmonton where they would be playing him to optimize his long term potential? Many reports suggest Ryan Nugent Hopkins didn't kill many penalties last season as Red Deer judged it more important to give him PP minutes. But, if the Oilers/Oil Kings were in charge, they may decide it makes more sense to look to the future and work on his defensive skills, penalty killing, own zone coverage, than Red Deer, a team I'd imagine to be primarily looking at wins. Maybe Red Deer would give Nugent Hopkins 22 minutes of ice per game, 16 at even strength and 6 on the PP, while the Oilers/Oil Kings might be looking at 22 minutes with 15 at ES, 4 on the PP, and 3 on the PK? Additionally, by having Nugent Hopkins in Edmonton, it would be easier for the Edmonton coaching and management staff to watch more of his games and give him feedback on the areas he needs to improve. Depending on NHL and CHL rules, they may even be able to get him on ice with the Oilers from time to time, and see the pace and skill of NHL practices.

A second reason to consider trading for Nugent Hopkins would be the potential spike in tickets sold by the Oil Kings. The Oil Kings are a business, and adding a player like Nugent Hopkins, especially one affiliated with the Oilers, would almost certainly improve attendance, perhaps even sell some season's tickets if you acquire him early enough. The Oil Kings may be of the belief that once they expose fans to the WHL product, they are much more likely to come back for future seasons. So if bringing in Nugent Hopkins can significantly increase their attendance for one season, maybe that one season can be a catalyst to substantially improving their season ticket base going forward, once Nugent-Hopkins is gone?

Interestingly, if the Oilers felt like it, perhaps they could approach Saskatoon, Medicine Hat, Prince George, and Regina to see what they think about moving Hamilton, Pitlick, Marincin, and Davidson, respectively. This maneuver only has the potential to work when the other WHL teams know you have the realistic option of keeping the player at the NHL or AHL level; there is no way to convince the Tigers into trading you Bunz in this fashion, because they know you won’t keep him in the NHL for the 2011/12 season and he isn’t AHL eligible. However, with the four other players mentioned above, Edmonton can send them to the AHL if they desire, leaving them in the same position as with Nugent Hopkins.*** If there is some reason they’d prefer to have those guys in the WHL, but under their control in EDM, maybe that’s an avenue they’d consider pursuing as well?

* It's too early to tell what the Oilers would do with Nugent Hopkins IF they draft him, but I would think they'd be in a better position to know after they see him at the combine and after rookie camp (should they draft him). If he puts on enough weight and looks ready for the NHL level, then they will probably keep him in the NHL, making this idea moot. Even if they are riding the fence on what to do with Nugent Hopkins, I can see why they wouldn't make this deal since there's no point in giving up value for a player only to keep him in the NHL anyways. And if you decide to to send him back to junior in early November after 7 or 8 or 9 games, all the developmental reasons for moving him to Edmonton still apply, but the chance to market around Nugent Hopkins for a couple of months and sell season tickets is gone - although I'm sure it would still help ticket sales to acquire him.

**If this falls directly against WHL rules, then obviously it's a not workable option.

*** Should the Oilers prefer the AHL over the Oil Kings for those four player, it’s a moot point.

Changes to the ELC System

2010-10-14T09:31:00.004-06:00

One thing has become clear through the vigorous debate surrounding Hall and Paajarvi this season, and that is the need for revision to the ELC system. Setting aside the question of whether there is a need for an ELC system at all in a capped league, what can be done to improve the current system?

Currently, situations can arise where the team would ideally like a player to be in the NHL, but decides to keep them out for contractual reasons. I’m assuming that the player would also rather be in the NHL at 18 or 19, instead of sent back to junior because of the current ELC system. By changing the ELC system for 18 and 19 year old players, both the player and the team can be helped. Eliminating the “slide rule”, and altering the ELC system such that an 18 year old player receives a 5 year ELC, and a 19 year old player receives a 4 year ELC would remove the incentive teams have to send an “NHL ready” player back to junior to massage the contract situation.

In negotiations, it is often important to consider the transaction from the perspective of the opposing party. It’s easy to see why the owners might like to control top rookies for a little bit longer, but the reason this could be a slam dunk is that it is (arguably) in the interests of the majority of players as well. When you want something, and realize the other party is either largely indifferent to, or mildly in favour of, that point of negotiation, often you can find a way to get the issue resolved at a lower cost to yourself than you might have initially thought. It is true that this change would be a further restriction on the earning potential of top end players early in their careers, but I believe the NHLPA would probably accept such a restriction; they’ve had no problem sacrificing the earning power of young players in the past. In fact, they’ve thrown rookies under the bus twice in the past 20 years: by allowing a rookie cap to be implemented, and allowing for further rookie restrictions in the most recent CBA. I would be surprised if many union members were particularly concerned with helping the few 18 and 19 year old players reach RFA status one or two years earlier than they would by sticking with the current system, if it were something the owners requested. After all, every dollar the rookies are denied is a dollar for everyone else, due to linkage.

For that matter, I don’t think the owners would have much of a problem convincing the players to remove the “7 years service” requirement for UFA status, which would change the UFA requirements to be a flat age 27 for all players. For a large majority of union members, the 7 year clause has no relevance so there’s no reason for them to get too concerned about keeping it for the small number of players that benefit from the “7 years service” rule.

So, if I'm the owners heading into the next CBA negotiation, I don't think I would have overly strong opposition if I were to ask for those changes to the ELC system, and that minor change to UFA qualifications.

Western Conference Projections

2010-10-07T11:37:00.002-06:00

Having tackled the Eastern conference, it is time to move on to the West. Again, division winners are noted by an asterisk.

Vancouver Canucks* - Art Ross winner, very deep group of defencemen, one of the best goalies in the league. A nice combination, in (at least arguably) the weakest division would seem to be a recipe for a great regular season.
San Jose Sharks* - I suppose it’s possible the Kings could pass them, but I need to see it before I’m confident enough to put them ahead of a regular season juggernaut like the Sharks.
Detroit Red Wings* - Everyone’s rested and healthy, Hudler’s back to add some depth. I wouldn’t count on another couple of 70 point seasons from Datsyuk and Zetterberg. The question is Howard, in my mind.
Chicago Blackhawks – They’ve lost some depth, but the young core should still be improving.
Los Angeles Kings – I look at the Kings as a pretty good bet to make the playoffs, but they’ve got a bunch of young players so they could take a leap forward or a slight step back. So I’ll split the difference and project them as the 5th team in the West
Nashville Predators – this team is consistently underrated by many, myself included. But they’ve got good goaltending, a good D core, and a solid if not spectacular forward core. Looks like a playoff team, or failing that a team that’s close.
Calgary Flames - I’m not nearly as pessimistic about this team as most. I don’t think they’ll challenge Vancouver, but I’d be surprised if they fall down the standings like some, barring injuries to Iginla, Bouwmeester and/or Kiprusoff. Then again, maybe I should be given the current injury problems?
Anaheim Ducks – The defence might be a bit weak, but they’ve got a good goalie and pretty decent forwards. PP of Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, Selanne, and Visnovsky should be very good. Can that carry a team through the regular season?
Phoenix Coyotes – I need to see it again before I believe it, as far being a slam dunk for the playoffs. Their goaltending might regress a little, and with LA coming on, we’ll see.
St. Louis Blues – Halak seems like he might be an upgrade, but a look at last year’s stats suggests this team already had pretty good goaltending, so I’m not sure they’ll get quite the boost some might think, even if Halak is a 0.920 sv% goalie, unless the rest of the roster performs better.
Colorado Avalanche – Like many, I expect this team to step back a little bit, but I don’t expect them to slip all the way back to the lottery.
Minnesota Wild – Not too much to say, but they don’t look quite as raw as the three teams remaining, and would appear to have better goaltending provided BAckstrom stays healthy.
Dallas Stars – None of the three remaining teams have very good defences, on paper. Dal probably has the best forwards.
Edmonton Oilers – I had a difficult time deciding between Edmonton and Columbus. Ultimately, my tiebreaker is that I project the NW to be an easier division. They could shoot quite a bit higher if a couple of the rookies are better than I’m expecting.
Columbus Blue Jackets – I don’t really like having them this low, because I think they've certainly got the potential to be better than last. But, someone has to be. I’m not sure what to expect out of Mason.

Eastern Conference Projections

2010-10-06T11:48:00.002-06:00

On paper I think the teams group, loosely, from 1-2, 3-7, 8-12, 13-15. Obviously it’s highly unlikely that’s how it will turn out, but I do think there is a bigger divide to start the year between 7 and 8 than between 5 and 6, or 9 and 10, or 14 and 15. Division Winners are noted by an asterisk.

Washington Capitals* - I don’t think they’ll be quite as dominant this season as last, but still good enough to win the Eastern conference.
New Jersey Devils* -Superior depth should help them edge out the Penguins, who I think will be second in this division. I’m not sure that, on paper, the Capitals are better than the Devils, but the Devils have a more difficult looking schedule so I’ll give the regular season edge to Washington.
Boston Bruins* - I see the NE as being a relatively tight division, but I like the Bruins depth at forward, provided Savard returns at some point.
Pittsburgh Penguins – It’ll be interesting to see what kind of numbers Comrie and Kunitz are able to post this season. Maybe it’s not surprising given the importance of goaltending, but to win the division I think they’ll need a great year out of Fleury.
Buffalo Sabres - somehow I ended up with both Pominville and Vanek in my draft, so consider this pick a reach if you will. I don’t think Miller projects to be as good as last season, but I also expect more (perhaps erroneously) out of some of BUF’s forwards
Ottawa Senators –incredible PP potential in Ottawa this season, with the addition of Gonchar and the potential maturation of Erik Karlsson, along with Spezza, Alfredsson, and the mercurial Kovalev. I would rank them ahead of Buffalo were it not for the difference in projected quality of goaltending.
Philadelphia Flyers – The goaltending is a bit of a concern, but I suppose it’s not impossible that they make a trade relatively early if the goaltending is a problem.
Tampa Bay Lightning – I don’t know that I see them as a markedly better team than those in this tier, but I like what Yzerman’s done so I’ll project them as the last playoff team. Kind of surprised Pouliot didn’t crack the team.
Montreal Canadiens – Price will be one to watch this year. I’m also curious to see Eller and Subban, MON might be a fun team to watch this season.
New York Rangers – If Gaborik’s groin acts up, this team could fall pretty sharply.
Carolina Hurricanes – Not much to say with this team, hopefully for Carolina guys like Skinner and Boychuk can step up because the forward depth isn’t looking all that great past Staal and maybe Jussi Jokinen.
Toronto Maple Leafs – How many games will Kadri play this season? I’ll go with 48.
Atlanta Thrashers – Not really sure who’s going to score the goals for this team.
New York Islanders – At least another year until this team pushes for the playoffs, especially with Streit and Okposo out for awhile. I think it’s “flip a coin” territory between NYI and FLA for last in the East, I went with FLA because I’m not sure what team looks like if/once Vokoun is traded, and I think that trade comes as soon as Tallon gets what he think is a decent offer.
Florida Panthers – I think this team could surprise depending on Vokoun, but I also think if Vokoun is keeping them from falling right into the basement, Tallon may try to move him earlier than the deadline to ensure FLA finishes with a top 3 pick again this season.

What to do with Paajarvi and Hall?

2010-09-30T10:59:00.009-06:00

Over the past couple days, there have been numerous articles discussing the potential demotions of Hall to the OHL, and Paajarvi to the AHL, in an effort to maximize the value of their ELC’s. It’s fair to say that, in general, I tend to be a believer that 18 and 19 year old players should be demoted barring the situation where they can be a true contributor to a team. That said, it’s not hard to see why this is potentially a pretty complicated issue for a GM; there are many angles to consider: Is the player’s development likely to be better, or worse, at the NHL level when compared to the alternative? Can the player still learn more at a lower level while retaining the ELC year? What is the current quality of the team? Can the player help improve a team? Is it in the team’s best interest to start this player now, or one (or two) years later? Does the team risk damaging its relationship with the player if they demote a “clearly ready” player? Is that risk worth delaying the contract? Do you need the player around to sell tickets?

I don’t know the answer to all these questions, though I have my opinions. I think if the Oilers had handled this a bit differently over the summer, they would be in a better position to frame a potential demotion. They never really came out and said something like “We’re happy to keep Hall and Paajarvi at the NHL level provided they can be positive, two-way contributors to our line-up. If they aren’t ready to play 16-18 minutes a night, we don’t think it will hurt Hall to go back to Windsor for a year and shift to C, or hurt Paajarvi to play in Sweden or the AHL for another year to improve the weaker areas of his game.” On the other hand, were they able to retain/sell 1,500-2,000 season tickets, by pushing the hype, the rebuild, and the “new direction”, that they wouldn’t have been able to otherwise sell? If so, at $100 a seat, you’re looking at something like $6 – 8 million they’d have been without, PLUS they then have to try to generate new season ticket holders, which most people would agree is harder to do than retaining the ones you already have. It’s easy to see the hockey argument for sending these players out, but teams aren’t necessarily run with hockey matters as the only consideration.

I think the argument that you might get a more team-friendly deal with a player that starts in the NHL at 18, instead of at 20, is with, at least some, merit. It’s true that the agent might advise the player not to sign a long term deal, but for a lot of people there’s value in certainty. If Taylor Hall starts this year and posts 40, 50 and 60 point seasons on his ELC, ending at age 20, he could conceivably have hit very few of his performance bonuses, let’s say 800 K-1.3 mil. That would put the player at $3.5-4 mil in salary earned over 3 seasons. Sure, it’s a lot of money, but a player would have to be pretty confident in his future ability to turn down roughly $25 mil in a 6 year deal. What if he stagnates, or regresses? What about injury risk? Is it that hard to imagine a player willing to trade some future earning potential for the certainty of $25,000,000 now? If he continues progressing and becomes a superstar, he’ll be a UFA again at 28 and can make his mint at that time. Yes, it’s speculation. No, we don’t know what sort of long term deal Gagner would have been willing to sign this summer. Would he have been willing to sign the sort of long-term deal Tyler had proposed earlier this summer? I don’t know, but I have to think it’s more likely he would than if he had started in the NHL during the 09/10 season and posted 55-60 points during years 2-3 of his ELC (which would have been the upcoming 2010/11 and 2011/12 seasons) than the ~45 point seasons he actually recorded during seasons 2 and 3 of his ELC.

I also can’t say I fully agree with Dellow’s apparent assumption that New Jersey and Detroit would send Hall back to junior, or send Paajarvi to the AHL. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t, but I don’t think it’s certain either way. If the argument is that Detroit’s management, were they in Edmonton’s position, might choose a different approach (perhaps roughly approximating Dellow’s approach), I can get behind that argument. But what would a team like DET be saving Hall for? It’s not like Detroit is going to have Lidstrom forever, and it’s unlikely that Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Rafalski, and Franzen have their best years ahead of them – one could easily argue that their time to win is now. In an efficiency contest, with a team willing to spend above the cap, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to guess they might keep Hall in the NHL this season. Can a team trying to win the Cup right now, a team arguably with an aging core, do much better than Hall at 900K (Hall’s salary after removing his bonus cushion) in the market? Hall is a player that could be much better by the time the playoffs arrive than he is now, for the playoffs, and “flags fly forever”.

If the Oilers were in a position to compete for a playoff spot, I think it would be easier to justify keeping them. Once you’re in the playoffs, who knows what crazy things could happen? It’s a poker cliché that “all you need is a chip and a chair”, to be alive in a tournament, and have a chance at winning, but the recent history of the NHL playoffs suggests it’s not impossible for a lower seed to run a couple of upsets together in the playoffs. Had the Oilers found a way to fix things with Souray, chose to sign some veteran NHL players to address needs instead of signing some of the players they did, and spent above the cap (using at least a chunk of their ~$3.5 mil bonus cushion), I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest they’d have been , at worst, a playoff contender in 2010/11. I might well be less inclined to send guys like Hall and Paajarvi away, in that case.

Between the two players, I believe the argument for keeping Paajarvi down might actually be stronger than the argument for Hall. If you rate both players as equals at the moment, you probably gain more by delaying Paajarvi since his cap hit is 2.225 mil less than Hall’s. If both players are “worth” 6 mil each in 2012/13 and 2013/14, you have more surplus value by delaying Paajarvi than you do Hall.

Interestingly, another argument for rebuilding teams playing 18 and 19 year forwards for 14-16 minutes a night is that they may make the team worse in the short run. And, if you’re going to miss the playoffs anyways, you create value by improving the quality of your draft pick. If you’re a top team like NJ, your first round pick only carries enough value to be of one of 3 or 4 pieces when you trade for Kovalchuk at the deadline. If you’re EDM, your draft pick (Hall) is more valuable than any other asset in the organization. It’s true that you could, in theory, ice a bad team and get a top 2 pick any time you feel like it. However, in reality, it’s probably pretty tough to do that while convincing your fans there is a reason to shell out for tickets. Maybe Edmonton’s management thinks that, by keeping Hall and Paajarvi here this season, they’ll sell some tickets they otherwise wouldn’t, aid their long-term development, all while potentially not helping, or even hurting, the team on ice. If you can make some money, help develop both players PLUS gain the difference in value between a 3^rd overall pick and a 10^th overall draft pick, maybe that’s not such a bad idea, in particular in years where there's a seemingly big dropoff from 1, 2, and 3 overall to 9, 10 and 11 overall?

Ultimately, if I were the Oilers, I would have built things differently this summer and been kind of looking for a reason to demote these players away unless they look truly ready. However, the problem with this is shown by Gagner, who posted 7 points in his first 9 games, at which point EDM had to decide what to do. They decided to keep him, and after the 9 game mark I think he had something like 4 points in his next 20 games. It’s, in a way, just a bad case of bad luck/small sample size that led to Edmonton keeping Gagner; had he posted 2 points in his first 9 games instead of 7, he’d likely have been demoted and never had a chance to turn things around. In this case, I think the Oilers have kind of backed themselves into a corner with their hype and roster construction, and will have a harder time demoting the future than they might have with lowered expectations. However, I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine that the Oilers might, in some corner of their mind, not be altogether disappointed if Hall posts 3 points and a -5 in his first 8 games, something concrete they could point to when demoting him to Windsor to play C.

What is the Plan? A Prelude

2010-08-26T13:27:00.008-06:00

Over the next week or so, I’ll be posting a two or three part series titled “What is the Plan?”, trying to discover exactly what Edmonton is trying to accomplish this coming season. I had planned to have the first part posted earlier this week, but decided to wait upon hearing Edmonton’s GM was going to be appearing on “Oilers Lunch”, with host Bob Stauffer. That interview occurred yesterday, with Bob having Steve Tambellini on for an 18 minute interview, always a welcome event for ravenous Oilers fans looking for tidbits of additional information regarding the team. The entire interview is worth a listen, but being the self-important guy I am, I was most interested with a question near the end of the interview, since it (sort of) came from me. Bob was kind enough to ask a question paraphrased from an e-mail I had sent earlier in the day, and I thank him for that.

Bob paraphrased (1) my question as follows:

"How do you, do you have goals for this season coming up? And is there a concern that maybe goals for this season might be short term when you've got a long term vision planned for the organization?"

Tambellini’s response was:

"No, I think that you have to be aggressive and the fact that we were obviously, we've made numerous changes on and off the ice, and I really believe this has just, this has given the organization a chance to start again. And, will we be young in some places? Yes. Do we want to make the playoffs? Absolutely, that should be your goal every year. So, our goals are to be better at developing, more consistently obviously throughout the year, and we're going to demand a lot more of our people. And young people are going to be put into spots that maybe they will not be ready for, but maybe they will be by Christmastime. It's going to be exciting. I kind of wish it was a little closer to the start of camp, but I guess maybe I should relax and just wait."

I thought that was kind of an interesting response for a couple of reasons. First of all, Tambellini seemed to suggest that making the playoffs was a goal this season, (although he didn’t explicitly state it was, he suggested it should be). I’m not sure I understand all his transactions this summer if making the playoffs is a primary goal for the Oilers this season. In fact, and I truly understand Bob doesn’t conduct these interviews simply to ask the questions I submit, though it would be nice, I did also submit a follow-up question (2), essentially asking how signing some of the end of the roster players they did contributed more towards a playoff team than some of the (at the time) available UFA’s? I’d have like to hear his response, although to be fair I’m not sure what Tambellini could have told me that would have convinced me Jason Strudwick is a more valuable player for a team looking to make a playoff push than some of the players available.

Secondly, he mentions putting young players into positions where they may be above their head. This is interesting, and potentially troubling to me, since it goes against what I seem to recall reading this past spring about the AHL being an important learning ground and not wanting to rush prospects. I understand that it isn’t all that often a team has three forward prospects as promising as Edmonton’s well-publicized trio, so maybe we’ll see all three forwards even though there is a renewed commitment to seasoning prospects in the AHL. I think there are arguments for keeping each of them (3) away from the NHL, at least for a little bit. Now, one doesn’t necessarily want to read too much into one or two sentences, I just find the potential shift interesting. Given that quote, and earlier in the interview where Tambellini pretty much said the Oilers were done adding forwards, I think we can count on seeing more rookies this season than I might have guessed when Tambellini arguably “slow-tracked” Eberle in March and April by leaving him in the AHL.

(1) - This is the question as submitted to Bob via e-mail:

“We often hear about the Oilers having this long term plan to "rebuild" the franchise, I'm wondering if you can articulate the plan for us. What are the organization’s goals for this season? Beyond this season? Are you trying to make the playoffs this season, or are you more concerned with development of your existing young players, and if that focus results in another top 3 draft pick, so be it?”

I don’t know if the way Bob paraphrased my question materially changed the answer Tambellini gave. Maybe the way the question was paraphrased changed the nuance enough that the question Tambellini asked wasn’t necessarily what I asked in e-mail? He did say one of the goals is to develop better. I can certainly appreciate that I may have sent in a longer question than it needed to be, but paraphrasing it did cut off the last question which would have been interesting to have heard answered directly from Tambellini.

Bob, if you’re reading this, I know this might appear to read as ungrateful - I don’t mean it that way, I’m glad at least part of the question was asked, thanks again for doing so. So maybe this is “biting that hand that feeds you” and all of that, if so I apologize. I’m glad you read questions from people like myself (and others, when their questions are better than mine ;) ) because it provides about as much access as a fan like myself is able to get.

I’m not sure if the last question was cut due to time constraints or because Bob felt it was not good enough, too pointed, not relevant, etc. I’m mentioning it because, while we’ve heard a lot of general talk about things like better development, and improvement within the organization, we haven’t heard all that much about the specifics, even after that interview. So, it would have been nice to continue in that vein and hear Tambellini go a little bit further towards describing how they’ll improve development.

I don’t think the follow-up question I included in my e-mail was overly harsh (see footnote 2 ) – a GM should be able to defend his signings. I do understand that Bob Stauffer is employed by the Oilers and it’s not Bob Stauffer’s job to hold Steve Tambellini’s feet to the fire, so this paragraph isn’t meant to be critical of Bob, it’s just general commentary on the Edmonton media. I guess I just wish, like many others, that the media in general would ask more interesting questions of guys like Steve Tambellini because it would give the fans better information and would give the blog world more to talk about. If the Oilers were willing to credential some respectable blogs, this would be a moot point, but until they do so, “it is what it is”, and I’m not meaning to crack on Bob just because he has access.

(2) - The follow-up question submitted to Bob was:

“ If you are trying to make the playoffs this season, can you explain how some of the players you've signed this summer, like Jacques, Deslauriers, MacIntyre, and Strudwick, contribute more to that goal than some of the many reasonably priced, apparently superior players that are or were available as UFA's this summer?”

(3) - I think the arguments are better for Hall, and particularly Paajarvi, than for Eberle, but here are a couple potential reasons to send these players away from EDM, at least to start the year in the case of Paajarvi and Eberle.

Hall: preserve a year of ELC, preserve a year towards UFA, chance to play C in junior and play on a less stacked team.

Paajarvi: preserve a year of ELC, preserve a year towards UFA, chance to adjust to NA lifestyle, size of ice, etc, more ice time than in NHL and against lesser competition that might avoid stunting growth.

Eberle: more ice time, in particular on PP, than in NHL and against lesser competition that might avoid stunting growth in that area.

Pining for Pisani

2010-08-19T12:37:00.005-06:00

Yesterday, Fernando Pisani signed with the Chicago Blackhawks, crushing the (perhaps unwarranted?) hopes of many, myself included, that would see Pisani return for another season with the Oilers. Other than a need for change, it’s kind of hard to figure out why management wouldn’t have re-signed him. He seemed like a great fit for many of Edmonton’s current needs at forward. Pisani is able to kill penalties, would improve the RW depth, and provide a veteran who can handle top opposition players. Further, he’s a player that, by all accounts, is well liked and considered a good teammate - he doesn’t really seem like someone management might consider a locker room problem.

I think it would be hard to argue he’s not a better player than some of Edmonton’s current top 14F, so what exactly is going on here? Was he not willing to sign in Edmonton for 700K or so? Or did the Oilers simply decide they didn’t want to have him back? I have a hard time believing he wouldn’t have been willing to play in Edmonton – he’s from here, he’s used to the organization. If the Oilers offer him $700,000 on a one year, one way deal on August 1st, I’d have been kind of surprised if Pisani passed on it given the apparent lack of interest in him on the UFA market. But, maybe he felt he’d be able to get the type of deal he did from someone, so no rush to sign that hypothetical offer from Edmonton?

Assuming Pisani was willing to sign, I’m not really sure why Edmonton wouldn’t have signed him. If the plan is to put the best possible team on the ice and try to finish as high as you can, I’m not sure how Strudwick, Jacques, etc help you reach that goal any more than Pisani at a reasonable price, given that he fills some of the needs mentioned earlier. Tambellini has talked about how important he feels the AHL is in the development for younger players, but it sure seems like he’s leaving an easier path to the NHL for Eberle and Paajarvi* than many might. Couldn’t Pisani have helped provide depth, and given Edmonton some flexibility to send Paajarvi and/or Eberle to the AHL if they’re close, but not quite as ready as you’d like them to be?

If the plan is to throw away the season**, then I think Pisani still should have been retained because he’s a reasonable gamble as a potential player to move at the deadline. Obviously that depends on his health in addition to his performance, but it seems like a smart calculated gamble if you only have to commit a year and 700K on that sort of contract. He’s not a player that would single-handedly move EDM from last to 4th last in the standings, so I don’t know if that’s a concern given the goal of a top 3-5 draft pick in 2011. If he stays healthy and starts to play too well for your team goals (assuming management is looking to finish at the bottom of the standings), then he’s probably making himself more valuable on the trade market and easier to move.

I understand the injury concern with Pisani, but as mentioned earlier I don’t think it’s a very big concern on a one year deal $200,000 above the league minimum. If that’s the reason Edmonton avoided re-signing him, it’s even harder to figure out how they decided to commit 20 times more money over 3 extra seasons to Khabibulin only one summer earlier.

I think this was an opportunity missed for the Oilers.

* I left Hall off the list, as he’s not AHL eligible.

** And that’s starting to seem like the best explanation for this summer’s activity.
Legitimate question: What are the alternatives? My next post is titled "What is the plan?", and I'm not entirely sure I've found an answer that satisfies me, to this point.

What Counts as "Circumvention"?

2010-08-11T08:42:00.002-06:00

According to the arbitration decision arbitrated by Richard I. Bloch, it was the position of the NHL that the last 6 years of the voided Kovalchuk deal constituted a circumvention of the salary cap, even though according to the letter of the CBA there was no single part of the contract that specifically contradicted the agreement. This is interesting, to me, as it might suggest the NHL was arguably more worried about the structure of the deal than it was with the length. What I mean is, they specifically mention the last 6 years, not just the 2 years that takes this deal beyond the Hossa contract. The arbitrator noted that all the factors (length, structure, NMC/NTC) combined to allow him to reject the deal, but in reading the document it seemed to me that the structure was his biggest problem with the deal. I could be mistaken on that, but that was my sense in reading the decision.

The NHL may be able to pick and choose what they pursue as far as circumvention goes, going forward. I'm not exactly sure what they will, or even should, do as far as somewhat similar contracts like those mentioned in footnote 23 of the brief, but it doesn't feel quite "right", to me, to allow the Savard deal after having pointed out that it wasn't only the last year or two of the Kovalchuk deal that bothered you, but the last six years.

I’m also interested in exactly how “competitive fairness” or “competitive balance” factors into circumvention - I don’t know how I feel about Bloch potentially opening that Pandora’s Box. Who is to judge which cap manipulating manoeuvres qualify as “circumvention”, and which ones don’t, if contracts that act in opposition to “competitive balance” and reduce a player’s cap hit are deemed to be circumvention? If a player and team agree to sign a contract for far less than market value in an effort to give the team more cap room, does this represent “circumvention”? Suppose it’s a certainty that the other 29 teams would have offered Sidney Crosby a max contract if he went RFA in the summer of 2008. Does that mean, based on the NHL’s rationale - with which the arbitrator apparently agreed, Crosby and the Penguins are both equally guilty of cap circumvention since they signed Crosby for less than his market worth in an effort to “artificially” create more cap room for the Penguins to fill out their roster?

Are teams guilty of circumventing the salary cap when they send a waiver-ineligible player on an ELC to the AHL 30 times in a season to avoid having their full salary count against the cap? Sure, that team might have followed the letter of the CBA by moving a player between the AHL and NHL 50+ times in a season, as they have that right under the current waiver system., but why did they do it? I think it’s reasonable to suggest they did so with the intention of reducing their cap hit, keeping them below an upper limit they would have otherwise exceeded. Is this not somewhat analogous to the NHL’s position with Kovalchuk? That they followed the letter of the law, but they did so while trying to game/circumvent the upper limit of the Salary Cap?

What other moves affecting "competitive balance" could be looked at as circumvention in this way? Does the Malakhov trade count as an "artificial" reduction meant to circumvent the Upper Limit?

The Art of Negotiation

2010-07-14T23:39:00.000-06:00

Last summer, I wrote a brief post mildly lamenting a small overpay I felt the Oilers made with Jason Strudwick, and instead of re-posting the thing I've chosen to save a bit of time by providing a link here.

I guess I just don't understand this sort of deal. I'm not sure why management gives a raise to this type of player. Was it REALLY necessary to give Strudwick a $25,000 raise to retain his services for next season? I'm not in the Oilers room, or Strudwick's agent, but I have a hard time seeing which other NHL team would have even given him a one-way contract, nevermind a raise to $725,000. He played the 10th most TOI per game among Edmonton defencemen last season. Admittedly, one could make an argument that he was more like 8th in ATOI, since the Johnson/Staois and Whitney/Visnovsky pairings were never on the team at the same time. Even given that, why did the 8th defenceman on the worst team in the league deserve a raise?

Maybe I'm way off in assuming the Oilers could have signed Strudwick for $500,000 as a UFA, or signed Jacques for $550,000 and Deslauriers for $700,000 on one-way deals if they had declined to qualify both players and looked to re-sign them as UFA's. Or used their leverage with Dubnyk to get him signed for $700,000, given that he had no guarantee of a one way contract, Khabibulin and Deslauriers (in this hypothetical) ahead of him on one-way deals, and isn't a stone cold lock to get picked up on waivers this fall. But that represents a real savings of $690,000, and it seems to me that money that could be better used than giving end of the roster players slight overpays that don't seem particularly likely to generate enough goodwill to influence potential future contract negotiations. Better used for things like signing a couple college free agents, hiring more scouts, signing higher quality AHL veterans, or incremental money that could be used to sign a UFA F or D this summer for 2.2 mil instead of 1.5 mil, with an eye towards getting a better quality player that can be flipped for a 2nd at the deadline.

Creating Your Own Problem & The Return Of The Three Headed Monster?

2010-07-12T23:26:00.000-06:00

It sounds like the Oilers have come to terms on a two year deal with goaltender Devan Dubnyk, on a one way deal with a cap hit around $800,000 per season. IF the Oilers have decided Dubnyk is their guy, a two year deal is not unreasonable since it can potentially help the Oilers avoid a Group VI free agency with Dubnyk in the event he doesn't play enough games this season (like Schneider in VAN). That said, there are two problems with the deal in my opinion: the yearly amount, and the timing of this deal.

The main problem here is you've created a favorable comparable in arbitration for Deslauriers. If I'm JDD's agent, I don't think I need to work very hard to show that (a) Edmonton thinks Deslauriers is better, since they gave him the majority of starts last year after Khabibulin went down and (b) Deslauriers had a better performance last season than Dubnyk, by whatever measure you want to use (Wins, starts, SV%, SO) in the best environment possible for a direct comparison - the same team. His agent has another decent comparable in the aforementioned Schneider, a goalie with 10 career starts that was given a one way deal at $900,000 for the 2010/11 season.

The other problem I have with this deal is that $0.8 million is more than the Oilers probably should have needed to spend to get Dubnyk under contract for two seasons. Dubnyk and his agent have surely seen the market - there are a lot of goalies available for nothing. Yes, it's possible he could be claimed on waivers this fall if EDM were to send him down, but it's not a certainty. You'd think management would have been able to leverage that uncertainty to get Dubnyk to take a lower wage than $800,000 for the certainty of a one way deal, but perhaps his wage suggests that both parties feel his value around the league is higher than I imagine it to be?

As noted at the fantastic CopperNBlue, it's not impossible that the arbitrator listens to one of the strangers hearings imaginable, in that the Oilers might be arguing for a higher award so they'll be able to walk away, while Deslauriers seeks an award just below the amount required for Edmonton to have walk-away rights. CopperNBlue suggests that somewhere around $1.3 million is the line above which the Oilers could theoretically walk away from Deslauriers, and I, more or less, agree. If anything, I think the magic number might be more like $1.4 million. That would be right around the salary of another potential comparable, Jonas Gustavsson. So, if Deslauriers is awarded a salary above the walk away point, the Oilers might be able to get out of this problem unscathed, but it would seem to be an unintentional "victory" - if the Oilers were worried about this possibility, you'd think they'd have either (a) not qualified Deslauriers, and tried to sign him as a UFA afterwards if they wanted him back, on their own terms or (b) waited to sign Dubnyk until they find out exactly what happens with Deslauriers.

One reason that many suggested as a possible rational for the decision to not qualify Potulny was the unwillingness to get stuck with an arbitration award that was perceived to be worth more than Potulny could negotiate on the open market. I have no idea if that's why the Oilers decided against qualifying Potulny (and perhaps Pouliot), but if that was part of their reasoning, I don't see why they wouldn't have extended that reasoning to include Deslauriers, and chosen not to qualify him either. Presumably the Oilers knew two weeks ago that Dubnyk was in their future plans, there is/was no reason to get stuck with a ~ $1.1 million contract for a goalie you don't really want when you can just sign a comparable replacement on the UFA market for $0.6 million if you develop a need for another goaltender.

So, it wouldn't be terribly shocking, if after Deslauriers' arbitration hearing in a couple of weeks, the Oilers have the following three goalies on one way contracts:

Khabibulin - 3.75 mil
Dubnyk - 0.8 mil
Deslauriers - 1.1 mil

2010 Draft Top 40: 18-40

2010-06-24T22:39:00.003-06:00

18) Etem
19) Pysyk
20) Howden
21) Schwartz
22) Sheahan
23) Pitlick
24) Merrill
25) Weal
26) McIlrath
27) Tinordi
28) Nelson
29) Coyle
30) Toffoli
31) McFarland
32) Faulk
33) Bennett
34) McKegg
35) Galiev
36) Pickard
37) Petrovic
38) Kabanov
39) Spooner
40) Marincin

2010 Draft Top 40: 11- 17

2010-06-23T22:20:00.001-06:00

I never mentioned why I put an * beside both Johansen and Niederreiter in the 3-10 list, so I'll mention here that the * refers to a player with a "late birthday" (in this year's draft, those born between July 1st, 1992 and Sept 15th, 1992), who in my opinion can carry a bit of extra value over a roughly equivalent prospect that doesn't have a late birthday, since the team can theoretically have that player play his 20 year old season in the AHL while controlling his rights for 7 years before he hits UFA status, while a player with an "early birthday" (a first year eligible player born before July 1, 1992) would be down to 6 years of controlled rights before hitting UFA. This doesn't matter too much earlier in the draft, when you might project a player to be ready for the NHL less than 3 years after the draft, but for the longer term prospects, the extra year down the line can't hurt.

2010 rankings: 11-17

11) Jeff Skinner - There's a lot there, hard to believe THN has him at 25 OV while RLR has him as the 5th best F and ISS at 9 OV; that's a lot of variation for a guy that early that plays in the OHL, you'd expect that more from a Russian, for example. Skating would appear to be a concern, but that's an awful lot of production to ignore once you get past pick 10 or so, IMO.

12) Jack Campbell - I agree with YKOil, this goalie appears to be a better prospect than the top goalies the past couple seasons. I hesitate a bit having him even this high, but I think most of the "sure things" are gone by this point already; he's probably worth the risk and time invested in a goalie at this point.

13) Derek Forbort - He kind of reminds me of Oliver Ekman-Larsson when I read about him, not sure how accurate that is having never seen either player pre-draft. Maybe OEL's ceiling was seen to be higher in his draft, although, I have read Redline suggesting that Forbort might have the highest potential of any D in the draft.

14) Evgeny Kuznetsov - really like the sound of this player, I don't actually expect him to go this high.

15) Alex Burmistrov - It's one thing to expect a player to put on 10-15 lbs post draft. 30 lbs is a different story.

16) Nick Bjugstad* - This is a projection pick, but there's a lot of potential to project. Bjugstad is a late birthday, July 17, 1992, meaning he won't be a UFA until the summer of 2020 instead of 2019 like the majority of his draft class, so a team can be patient with him, leave him in college for 3 years, and see what develops.

17) Austin Watson - This is another projection pick, it really depends how much you take from his time in Peterborough after the move from Windsor. I like the sounds of the player, but am a bit hesitant because, while 20 pts in 10 games is great (22 pts. in 14 games including playoffs), it's a pretty small sample size.

The rest of the top 40 will come in one grouping, I think it's a bit muddy beyond this point. That makes it sound like I think there's a notable difference between 17 and 18, which I guess isn't really the case, but I do think there's a better case for Watson to go nearer the front of this group than the players who will follow him.

2010 Draft Top 40: 3-10

2010-06-21T22:22:00.004-06:00

It seems like a strange second tier, roughly 9 players deep, this season, in that each guy has a question mark or two, but in this group I think you could make some kind of argument for any of these guys to be picked as high as 3. Having said that, certain guys appear likely to be selected higher (Gudbranson, Gormley, Fowler) than others (Granlund, Tarasenko, Connolly).

Fair warning: every year I underrate D and G relative to F, in terms of where they are actually drafted, because I’m of the opinion that forwards are generally better value from the draft than defence or goaltending.

2010 rankings: 3-10

3) Mikael Granlund – I'm a total sucker for hockey sense, and I probably overrate small players, but what a player!

4) Vladimir Tarasenko – Doesn't seem like an awful lot to dislike about this player. I don't necessarily think any of the three forwards grouped here will go top 5, but wouldn't be shocked if any did; I think they represent good value if they are still kicking around at 10.

5) Brett Connolly – I think this ranking is too high, but I'm largely ignoring the "injury factor" here, with the caveat that if there are injury concerns he drops. He's only rated five-ish with a clean bill of health, and I'm not sure if that outlook is grounded in reality.

6) Brandon Gormley – As mentioned earlier, I generally rate D and G lower than most, but even given that I'm of the opinion that the D are a little bit overrated this season. That said, the consensus group (if Gormley, Fowler, and Gudbranson are the consensus top 3 D) do seem to have less "bust potential" from what I've read than the 3 forwards I've rated ahead of them, but I'm not sure their upside is high enough to justify passing on potential star forwards.

7) Cam Fowler – love the sound of this player, but do get a bit worried about the reported lack of willingness to battle physically. I'm fine with that if it's because he's positionally sound and doesn't really need to, but if he "plays scared", maybe it's a reasonable concern?

8) Nino Niederreiter*
9) Ryan Johansen* - I grouped these two together because I'm not really sure how to break them apart. I gave the tiebreaker to Niederreiter, I think largely because he came less out of nowhere than Johansen.

10) Eric Gudbranson – Everything I read about him makes it sound like he's a pretty good bet to be a solid NHL D, but IF that's his upside, I don't know that I like passing on potential top 2 line F's to select him. I kind of don't like having him even this high, but I think he's too consistently highly thought of in the various rankings for me to feel comfortable dropping him much past this, especially when coupled with the mono he suffered from this season, which could be a mitigating factor in his play this year vs. pre-season expectations.

2010 Draft Top 40: 1-2

2010-06-20T08:18:00.008-06:00

This has been talked to death around the various Oilers blogs, so I'm not gonna continue with an overly long post here. But to start my top 40, I might as well post a couple Hall/Seguin thoughts, as these two players seem to constitute the first tier of talent in the 2010 draft.

Taylor Hall was the favorite to go #1 overall at the start of this season, and is still the player favoured by most scouting agencies. He has a fierce determination to win puck battles. He is a fantastic skater, fun to watch, and often described as "dynamic" and "explosive". I don't know how much weight I put into a player being "clutch", but Hall is the kind of guy who might convert skeptics. He certainly hasn't had any trouble producing in "big games" so far in his career. Taylor has the reputation of being a better goal scorer, though in fact Seguin scored more goals this past season. I suppose there might be some concerns that the player has stagnated, but I'm not sure how well founded they are given the increase in his offensive production, season over season. His goalscoring certainly hasn't increased, it has been more or less flat over his 3 OHL seasons, but his assist totals have steadily risen. Hall is sometimes knocked in terms of hockey sense, relative to Seguin, but then again I would guess that pretty good hockey sense would be a needed for a player to be able to lead a league like the OHL in assists. Some observers suggest that there is a nagging question regarding Hall's projected long-term health, given his (reckless?) style of play. I'm not sure exactly how much one should worry about that, but I do agree it's something to consider.

Seguin was slated to be a first rounder in 2010 draft, at this time last year, but he has climbed the charts considerably since. Most accounts suggest a cerebral player with great hockey IQ, capable of making the players around him better. He differs from Hall in that Seguin is seen to be more calculating and methodical in assessing a given play than Hall. That is, Seguin prefers to wait for an opening while Hall tries to create the opening. I have some reservations about Seguin's huge offensive spike this season. I certainly wouldn't suggest that Seguin's season is simply the product of an unsustainable shooting percentage spike, but he did increase from 21 to 47 goals, and as I have no shot data I don't think it unreasonable to at least wonder what's going on. Seguin is supposed to be the better playmaker, though in fact Hall had more assists. However, that may not be too surprising given that Windsor scored 86 more goals than Plymouth this past season.

Choosing between these two players is probably more difficult than the decision at #1 most years, and is interesting because there are so many different ways to compare these players. Center vs. Wing (although both have played a bit of both)? Upside vs. Established level of Talent? 3 years junior vs. 2 years junior?

Personally, all else equal, I generally prefer a center over a wing, and the player with better hockey sense, which would appear to be Seguin. But with Hall, I think there's simply too much proven to ignore. Seguin may end up the better player, but he may not, and the general consensus seems to be that Hall's downside is higher than Seguin's.

1) Taylor Hall
2) Tyler Seguin

That said, if the Oilers go with Seguin, I think the pick is defensible. If the Oilers pass on Hall, they must see one heck of a player in Seguin. I don't know that either one is well clear of the other, so given the right offer, moving down could be reasonable even if you don't get the guy at the top of your list, or if you aren't really sure which guy heads your list. I do however think there's probably a slight separation here, if not a major one. Of course, since BOS probably also has them rated fairly evenly, it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't terribly willing to pay much to secure whichever player they prefer. Additionally, Hall is the easier pick to sell, and while that's not necessarily a good reason to pick him, if all else is equal, you have to use something to break the tie.

Why the Oilers should trade up for a late first round pick

2010-06-18T21:07:00.000-06:00

In my mind, there could be a couple of motivations for the Oilers management in moving up from #31 at this year's draft.

First of all, the most obvious motivation would be selecting a player they are concerned might get snapped up in the late first round picks, before they start day 2 of the draft on Saturday. They do have a bunch of picks beyond the 2nd round if they want to move up to secure such a player. This is just a guess, but it wouldn't surprise me if the teams that trade up in any given draft are the teams that have extra picks, which the Oilers do.

Secondly, I think trading up from 31 to 29 or 30 is a wise move, depending on cost, since the 29th and 30th overall picks have insurance the 31st pick does not. Drafting, but not signing, a player selected 30th results in compensation to the tune of #60 overall in a later draft, while drafting, but not signing, a player selected 31st results only in heartache and woe.

I don't know if the following is truly a "reason" to move up, but another (very minor?) benefit the Oilers might receive from trading up would be to give the rabid fanbase something else to watch during the broadcast. This would seem to be pretty flimsy rationale for trading up, on its own, but there is likely to be more Oilers fans watching this draft that any other, and if they can generate some goodwill by moving up into the first and picking again, at a reasonable cost, I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea provided they're considering it anyways. Maybe it's better to think of it as a nice bonus in the event they do decide to move up, for one of the other reasons?

At the 2009 draft last June, TB traded up from 32 OV into the late first, 29 OV, at the cost of a 3rd round pick (75 OV). Would it be worth it for the Oilers to move 31 OV along with their 4th round pick (91 OV) to move up to 29th or 30th? Depending who they want, I think a decent case could be made.

Trading for Spezza?

2010-06-14T21:58:00.001-06:00

Last summer, I was somewhat opposed to the rumored Heatley deal, though not as strenuously as some. This season, all considered, I think I would tend to be more in favour of a similar deal involving Spezza.

If the trade package rumoured in the Heatley deal summer were enough to land Spezza this summer, the Oilers would be giving up a little bit less value now than they would have been then. Yes, Penner had a very good season last year, but he's only got 2 years left instead of 3. Cogliano's ELC is over(and he didn't appear to take any huge steps forward in development), leaving him an RFA under team control for 4 years instead of 5. Smid is signed for one more year, after which he'll be a UFA in the summer of 2013. In exchange, the Oilers would get a 27 year old C at a 7.0 mil cap hit vs. a 28 year old LW at a 7.5 mil cap hit, both signed for 5 years at the time of the deal. Pretty similar players that way, but I like watching Spezza more. Very informed and educational, I know.

If you could get him with Souray in the deal and keep Penner, that would be even better, but I'm not sure there's a deal to be made with Ottawa in that case. At least, not one that doesn't keep all the players Edmonton would presumably want to keep. I don't know that OTT goes for a Souray, Nash, Cogliano, choice of O'Sullivan/Nilsson, EDM 2010 2nd (31 OV) for Spezza and Cheechoo deal, and I'm not sure if EDM can do any better without giving up players they'd prefer not to give up in a rebuild.

An additional reason that I potentially like the timing of such a deal more with Spezza than I did with Heatley is the prospective outlook of the team in a year or two. Even though the team was significantly worse in the 2009/10 season than in 2008/9, I believe an argument that the team is in better shape looking forward than it was one year ago is fair, if you feel particularly confident in Eberle, Paajarvi, and Hall/Seguin as prospects. At this time last year Eberle looked like a good prospect, but since then has had as good an individual season as one could have been hoped. Paajarvi slipped in the draft to #10, EDM picked him up, and he had a great 18 year old. I don't know what the expectations were for EDM's 2010 1st round pick a year ago, but I doubt if it was the #1 overall pick. If someone tried to sell me that Edmonton's best opportunity to compete over the next 5 seasons would be the 2011/12 season, with Eberle, Paajarvi, Hall, Gagner, Penner*, Hemsky all still potentially in Edmonton on relatively cheap contracts and, barring buyouts, Edmonton will open up 7 million dollars in cap room between Nilsson, O'Sullivan, and Moreau, none of whom figure to be deals at their current cap hits.

Ok, upon further review, maybe these arguments are a bit tenuous. I can see why the team both would, and wouldn't, want to make a "win now", "whale hunting"** move, and certainly concede it could blow up in Edmonton's face, especially if Spezza can't stay healthy going forward**. All that said, mark me down as philosophically in favour of trading for Spezza, given a deal that doesn't get rid of any players the team is planning to build around.

* assuming you can trade for Spezza while keeping Penner.

** I don't know that I like terming a potential trade for Spezza as a "whale hunt", I think that worked better for the Heatley situation than this. It seems far less likely that there would be ano indefinite timeline to this like the Heatley situation; if he's going to be traded it would probably happen at or before the draft and should be done with by the time free agency starts at the latest given Spezza's impending NTC/NMC.

I'm not sure what counts as "whale hunting" these days for the Oilers. Is it acquiring any big name player making big name money? Obviously no one's going to be saying the Oilers shouldn't trade 31 and 48 OV for Crosby given the opportunity, even though that doesn't count as building through the draft the traditional way.

*** This is an issue I should have touched on earlier. Any acquiring team would want to take a pretty good look at his injury history, I don't know much about it offhand but he's missed 10+ games in half his full NHL seasons.

Is It Too Late In The Rebuild Cycle To Draft For Defence?

2010-06-12T20:55:00.003-06:00

It has become apparent to many Oilers fans that there is a glaring need for defencemen within the Oilers organization. Some have suggested that EDM might want to use their two 2nd round picks (31 and 48 OV) to shore up that area of need, or even trade up into another first round slot, maybe 10-15 OV. Myself, I'm opposed to that strategy for the Oilers, even though I agree that defence (and goal, I suppose) is the area most lacking depth in Edmonton's prospect pool. I don't think the Oilers should necessarily be targeting defenders with their 2nd round picks, or 1st round pick next year - in fact, I think they should continue to select forwards because I think drafting forwards, at this point, fits better with the "cluster" of upcoming talent in Edmonton's organization.

It's extremely likely that, by the time any D drafted in 2010 and 2011 are ready to be positive contributors to the top 4 of the Oilers, all EDM's top F prospects will be finished their ELC. I'm not necessarily one to jump on the bandwagon of "assemble your team in the mold of the current Stanley Cup winner/finalist", but given EDM's current organizational strengths and weaknesses, if they are planning to follow one of PHI or CHI's defence building strategies, I think it would make more sense to go the PHI route. Of the Flyers top 4 D, none were drafted by PHI. Coburn, Carle, and Pronger came via trade, as did Timonen (though he was a trade-and-sign just before July 1st as a pending UFA).

There is no real way for EDM to follow the CHI strategy, because Chicago's most significant drafted defencemen, Keith and Seabrook, were drafted 3 or 4 years before they drafted two of the key components in their top 6 forwards (Keith 02, Seabrook 03 vs. Toews 06, Kane 07), which allowed the forwards and the defence to mature at the same time. The Oilers aren't as likely to have that luxury, since players like McIlrath and Pysyk might not be positive contributors to the top 4 D for 4 or 5 years, by which time (hopefully) players like Hall, Paajarvi, and Eberle will cost much more than their combined cap hits for the next 3 seasons.

The advantage of continuing to draft forwards is that they, generally, arrive quicker than do defencemen, and I think that is somewhat important if Edmonton is going to try to compete at some point in the near future. They already have two of the top four defencemen they'll need to compete relatively soon, in Gilbert and Whitney. I think it would be easier to trade for the other defencemen they need, and continue to draft forwards, hoping that the forwards you draft now can fill F lineup spots earlier as necessary going forward. If the Oilers really want to use a 2nd round draft pick on a defenceman, it might make more sense to sign a guy like Hjalmarsson to an offer sheet at ~3.1 mil, and fill one of their D slots that way.

Detroit's Development - Defence

2010-05-09T14:22:00.004-06:00

In reading comments and posts throughout the Oilogosphere, one recurring theme I have seen over the last year or so has been shifting to the "Detroit model" of developing prospects slowly. A recent, brief exchange at Lowetide's has inspired me to investigate a bit further into Detroit's reputation as a team that brings their prospects along slowly. I wanted to see if that is indeed an accurate assessment of their development model, so I have examined Detroit's handling of their prospects (in this post, their defense), and in a future post will compare it with Edmonton's, to see if the prospects have been handled differently, or if they have instead simply turned out differently.

LT wrote: ... One of the things the Detroit model shows us is the value of developing defensemen by sundial.

I replied:

I don't know about that LT. Can't we just as easily argue they've had some late developing prospects and a pretty good D on a pretty good team, making it tough for youngsters to crack? As opposed to some conscious choice to hold players in the minors longer than some might deem necessary for development purposes?

Looking back, I don't think my reply to LT in any way addressed the value of developing defenseman slowly or quickly. That said, what I meant was that I was unsure whether Detroit was specifically bringing their D along slowly, or if it just seemed like they were because their D is deep and hard to crack.

I think one could reasonably argue that their defense hasn't been built according to some master plan where they season their prospects on defense slowly before inserting them into their top 6. Of DET's top 4 D, one is Nicklas Lidstrom, who they drafted at age 19, 53rd overall (at that time, that was a third round pick, would be a late 2nd now). He stays in SWE until 21, then they stuck him straight into the NHL and he posts 60 points. Seventeen years and six Norris trophies later, he remains arguably the best defenceman in the league. It would be an understatement to term Lidstrom an astute draft selection, but I don't know how strenuously we can argue DET did much to develop Lidstrom pre-NHL. Even if they did, it's now 20 years later, maybe things have changed within DET's development since that time? Two of the other top 4 D are Rafalski and Stuart, both of whom signed as UFA's.

Rounding out the top 4 is Niklas Kronwall, a player drafted by DET 29th overall in the 2000 entry draft. He was drafted a year late at 19, spent 3 years post draft in Sweden and headed across the pond at age 22. He spent the first two months and 25 games in the AHL during the 2003/4 season before he was recalled to the NHL. After 20 NHL games he was injured and missed the rest of the season with a broken leg. He spent the lockout season in the AHL where he won the Eddie Shore Award for most outstanding defenseman in the AHL, and has been an NHL regular since except for one AHL game, on a conditioning stint post knee injury, in 05/6. It might or might not be reasonable to argue that the Kronwall's 2004/5 AHL season was of huge importance to his development, but I don't know that we can argue he'd have been there were it not for the lockout; it's not like he was bouncing between the NHL and AHL before he broke his leg. He spent two months in the AHL acclimatizing to the NA game, and after that it was off to the NHL. Should we credit DET for that AHL development if it only came about because of a work stoppage?

If we look at defensemen taken near Kronwall in the 2000 draft, I don't get a sense that Kronwall was treated much differently by DET than were the players selected by other teams. The first 10 defensemen selected in that draft were (selection number in brackets):

Klesla (4) - one year in OHL, NHL regular since 2001/2.
Lars Jonsson (8) - NHL bust, 8 NHL games with PHI 6 years after the draft, now in Europe.
Hainsey (13) - 1 year college, 2 years AHL, played most of 2003/4 in the NHL, AHL in the lockout season, NHL regular since except for 22 games in 2005/6.
Orpik (18) - 1 year college, 2 years AHL, NHL regular since 2003/4 (DNP during lockout)
Volchenkov (21) - 2 years in Russia, NHL regular since 2002/3 (AHL during lockout)
Hale (22) - 3 years college, 2003/4 season as NHL regular, lockout season in AHL, mostly AHL in 2005/6, NHL regular since.
Kronwall (29) - drafted at 19, 3 years Sweden, 2003/4 year split (but promoted to NHL in DEC and ned never demoted), lockout in AHL, NHL regular since.
Nikulin (31) - NHL bust, has never come over but last I read is reportedly an NHL calibre player.
Schultz (33) - one year in WHL, NHL regular since 2001/2.
Foster(40) - drafted at 19, one year junior, one year OHL/AHL split, two years AHL, lockout in AHL, NHL regular after 2005/6 except for 19 AHL games in 2005/6.

Most of those players drafted somewhat near Kronwall were handled similarly by their respective teams - roughly 3 years somewhere before the NHL. Schultz moved much more quickly to the NHL, and I suppose one might argue that his development (in terms of upside) was "hurt" by that - he certainly never brought his WHL offence to the NHL. Maybe he would have if he'd spent two years in junior and one in the AHL before hitting the NHL, as opposed to one year in junior and two years in the NHL? In any case, I don't see a lot in Kronwall's handling that suggests Detroit did anything particularly different from any other NHL team that drafted a D at that point in the draft, outside of MIN with Schultz.

DET's 5th and 7th D, Ericsson and Lebda, were both developed, to some extent, within the Detroit system. Jonathan Ericsson was drafted in the 9th round by the Wings in 2002, so I'm not sure it's surprising he took awhile to become a player. Does it count as taking your time to slowly develop a player when the guy was simply that far away when drafted? Ericsson spent 4 years in Sweden post draft, so he came over to NA at 22. Very similar to Kronwall, except Kronwall as previously mentioned was drafted at 19 and spent 3 years post draft in Sweden. He then came over to NA in the summer of 2006, signing a 2 year ELC with the Red Wings. He played the next two seasons in the AHL, and became an RFA in the summer of 2008. The Red Wings signed him to a 3 year, 2.7 mil, one way contract that summer. Ericsson still had one year of waiver ineligibility remaining, and Detroit used this to send him to the minors for 40 games of AHL seasoning in 2008/9. I believe Ericsson is the best example of Detroit bringing a defenseman along more slowly than most/any other teams would. I'm not sure how much can be gleaned either way from a sample size of one, but the results for Ericsson appear to be mixed. The Wings have taken a slow path with Ericsson. He's 26 years old, and he will be a UFA in the summer of 2011 if he doesn't re-sign before that date.

Brett Lebda was signed as a college free agent in 2004 after he had played 4 seasons for Notre Dame. He played in the AHL during the lockout season, and played 25 AHL games during the 2005/6 while appearing in 46 NHL games. He has been an NHL regular since. Lebda certainly isn't an example of a player DET brought along slowly, but then again he didn't join the organization until age 22.

Their 6th D, Andreas Lilja, was signed as a UFA.

After looking at the defensemen currently on Detroit's roster, I'm not sure that they truly handle their defense all that differently from anyone else. Three of their defensemen were signed as UFA's. One was a generational player brought into the NHL as a 21 year old two CBA's ago - I don't think Lidstrom's development is instructive, or relevant, in assessing Detroit's current development philosophies. Lebda and Kronwall don't seem to have been handled differently when compared to how other organizations tend to handle these players. I do think Ericsson IS an example of a player brought along more slowly than most organizations might have. But, he was a 9th round draft pick, so you wouldn't really have expected him to come along as quickly as a 1st round pick. He was also trying to crack a very good team in an organization that could afford to pay him one way money to play in the AHL in exchange for getting him signed to a 3 year deal that took him to UFA age.

To look at their development system, we need also consider a couple of prospects in the AHL. Before that, I do want to briefly mention Jiri Fischer, a player who might still be playing for Detroit were it not for his heart problems. Fischer was drafted 25th overall in the 1998 draft, roughly the same area of the draft Kronwall was selected. Fischer played one year post draft in junior, and was in the NHL at age 19. He certainly does not fit the mold of a player brought along slowly by DET, but then again that was 10 years ago. Maybe they would have handled Fischer differently had he been drafted in 2007?

Jakub Kindl was drafted 19th overall in 2005. Kindl had two very good post draft seasons in the OHL. I think one could make an argument that other teams might have put Kindl in the NHL at 20, but then again I don't know how he looked at camp. Maybe he looked close to ready but Detroit demoted him anyways? Maybe it was clear he wasn't ready to be in the NHL? In any case, in his first AHL season he performed abysmally, with a (by far) team worst -34. Not surprisingly, he was sent back to the AHL for a second season in 2008/9, where his offence improved from 17 to 33 points, but his plus minus remained the worst on the team (actually, this kind of sounds like Detroit's version of Chorney, also a 2005 draftee). This past season, 2009/10, Kindl's offense stagnated but his plus minus did improve to -4, roughly in the middle of the pack for Grand Rapids defensemen. Kindl may well be an example of a prospect DET has been handling extremely slowly, but then again the line between "prospect handled slowly" and "suspect" can be blurry. He is still said to be very much in Detroit's plans, and appears to be waiver eligible next season. Based on what I've read, my guess is Kindl will be brought up to the NHL to replace whichever of Lebda or Lilja DET lets hit UFA this summer, and the returns might start to come in at that point.

Derek Meech was drafted in the 7th round in 2002, and his development looks pretty typical of a 7th round pick that eventually cracks the NHL - two years post draft back in the WHL, all 3 years of his ELC in the AHL. At that point, he was waiver eligible and signed a 3 year deal, which appears to have been a two way deal, but at the league minimum. He has spent all three years of that deal in the NHL, except for a brief conditioning stint, as a 7th D. Meech has been brought along slowly, but turning into a 7th D is a pretty decent outcome for a 7th round pick. He is an RFA this summer, UFA summer 2011.

Kyle Quincey is the one that got away for Detroit, but they were deep on defence and it wasn't easy to see it coming when looking at Quincey's history. Quincey was drafted in the 4th round of the 2003 draft, 132nd overall. Statistics don't tell us everything about defencemen, but offensively he looked pretty decent in his two post draft OHL seasons. At 20 he signed his 3 year ELC, where he spent the vast majority of his time in the AHL, playing 13 NHL games over the course of his contract. Quincey was now waiver eligible, and the Wings decided to try sending Quincey through waivers, apparently instead of Meech. LA claimed him, and he has established himself as an NHL defenceman in the two seasons since. Quincey has brought slightly more offence to the NHL level than he had at the AHL level, in what I would guess is a rarity. Maybe all he was missing was an opportunity, and maybe he'd have never turned out as well if he'd been in Detroit, playing 40 games a season on the 3rd pair?

******

After looking at Detroit's handling of their defencemen, I'm not really sure that they are handling their prospects much differently from other teams, with the possible exception of Ericsson (and maybe Kindl). I'll have to go through and compare their development with a team like the Oilers, but I think it looks more like a situation where their D prospects haven't been particularly strong, and simply haven't forced their way onto a quality NHL roster, as opposed to clearly holding NHL-ready prospects back for developmental purposes.

Backstrom an Offer Sheet Candidate?

2010-03-17T23:31:00.006-06:00

A couple days ago I had suggested, at MC79's site, that a team (not necessarily the Oilers but some team) might be interested in signing Capitals C Niklas Backstrom to an offer sheet. I had been thinking that Washington would be pinched to the cap and might not be able/willing to keep Backstrom at a price of, say, $8,500,000. I can't speak towards their willingness to spend that much on Backstrom, but a quick look at their cap position for next season suggests they could indeed fit Backstrom at that price, but probably not while keeping everyone they'd like. WSH currently has 36.7 mil committed for the 2010/11 season, on 7 F, 5 D, and Varlamov. So, including Backstrom at 8.5 mil, they would have 45.2 mil committed while still needing to sign 4 F, 2 D, and a G, with notable unsigned players including Fleischman, Fehr, Morrisonn, Jurcina, and Schultz. So they can keep Backstrom, but it would cost them a chunk of that depth (barring other moves they might like to make). So, I don't think the Capitals are as vulnerable to an offer sheet as I had thought before really examining their cap situation.

That said, if he remains unsigned come July 1st I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a team or two takes a run at him. We are talking about a 22 year old C currently 4th in NHL scoring; a player whose previous two years were a 69 point rookie campaign followed by an 88 point season as a sophomore.

One might expect that the only teams willing to sign Backstrom to an offer sheet, given the compensation cost of 4 - 1st round picks, would be the teams that project themselves to finish near the top of the standings in the near future. However, projecting the future isn't an exact science, so who knows exactly which teams might look at themselves as division contenders with Backstrom. Any team signing Backstrom to an offer sheet would require both the cap AND budget room, along with the necessary compensation. At the moment, all 29 other teams have the required compensation for such an offer sheet, including Toronto.

Some teams that might contemplate an offer sheet for Backstrom:

ANA - The Ducks are clearing up a bunch of money this summer and have some pretty good pieces in place. Adding Backstrom would give them 4 good, young players to spread around their top 2 lines in Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, and Backstrom.

COL - They have the cap room and the budget. If they project that they won't be near the bottom of the league with Backstrom, they might be a bit of a darkhorse. Then again, it's not hard to see them passing if they are worried about coming up with money for some of their young players over the next couple of seasons. And they may well be happy with Stastny and Duchene as their top 2 C's, and think that 8.5 mil could be put to better use elsewhere in the lineup.

DAL - My understanding is that the Stars will be looking to cut payroll, so maybe I should just skip them. That said, they only have Richards on the payroll for one more year, so it's certainly possible in terms of budget and cap room going forward if they are willing to spend.

DET - have the cap room, but I'm not sure DET would be willing to give Backstrom the kind of contract it would probably take for WSH to decline matching. The same holds true for NJD.

EDM - I would be surprised if the Oilers would offer sheet Backstrom, but I'll take a guess at EDM's hypothetical lineup having signed Backstrom at the end.

LAK - might have the cap room, but it'd be tight and I think they re more likely to look at a UFA for free and on a shorter term, if possible, because they've got a lot of young guys who might need raises fairly soon. That said, Backstrom would fit in VERY well with LA's core in terms of age.

NYR - they look pretty tight to the cap to be attempting to sign Backstrom, but Sather was able to move Gomez when I didn't think he'd be able to, so who knows?

STL - This is actually a decent fit if STL is so inclined. He fits with their younger players, they seemingly have decent young talent coming in. That said, like LA it appears they like building through the draft , so maybe they'd rather spend money on Kovalchuk and keep their picks if they're going to sign a big ticket player?

SJS - Could, in theory, let Marleau go, opening up 6.3 mil in cap room. If they can get Nabokov back at a pay decrease, they might open up the cap room right there. Is it worth the 4 - 1sts to do so?

TOR - Fan revolt if Burke were to take this route?

With regards to Edmonton, they do have the budget room, and could make the cap space, but it's questionable if they'd be willing to sacrifice 4 1st round picks to acquire Backstrom given how they finished this season. But, for fun, here's a hypothetical roster that fits (maybe? - see below) under the cap, provided they trade Souray for a pick or D making 3 mil or less, and trade or bury Nilsson, Moreau, and O'Sullivan. Given the following roster, would you have any interest in signing Backstrom to an offer sheet that costs Edmonton 4 1st round picks?

Penner Backstrom (8.5) Hemsky
Hall (3.0) Horcoff New F (1.25)
Cogliano (1.5) Gagner (3.0) Eberle
Potulny (0.7) Pouliot (0.7) Stortini
Jones, Brule (1.2)

Whitney Gilbert
New D (3.0) New D (1.5)
Smid Johnson (0.6)
Peckham (0.6)

Khabibulin
New G (1.5)

This hypothetical roster has a cap hit of 58.1 mil, with roughly 3 mil in bonuses. It would leave the Oilers below the current cap number of 56.8 mil, so they Oilers would comply with the cap provided the cap doesn't decrease, and provided teams are allowed to exceed the cap with their bonuses which may be unlikely at this point.

Bring Paajarvi over to end the season?

2010-03-12T09:00:00.001-07:00

There has been a lot of talk of bringing Eberle up for 9 games or less this season, but I think it would be good idea, if Paajarvi is interested, to sign Paajarvi and bring him over to the NHL/AHL for the remainder of this season. Paajarvi's season could potentially be over this weekend; Timra needs to win its last game to qualify for the playoffs. Provided you can play him in the NHL or AHL without exposing him to waivers, it seems like a no lose proposition to bring him over for the rest of the season if Timra's season is over shortly.

Article 13 of the CBA is the section discussing Waivers. 13.1 says that there are three kinds of waivers: Regular Waivers, Re-Entry Waivers, and Unconditional Waivers. 13.4 of the CBA has a chart explaining which young players are exempt from Regular and Re-Entry waivers. If Paajarvi (and Lander, for that matter) were to sign NHL contracts tomorrow, then according to this article they should be ineligible for waivers. However, perhaps contradicting this is Article 13.23, which says, more or less, that players who have played in Europe during the NHL season must clear Waivers before they are eligible to play in the NHL, where "NHL" is specifically written (not NHL or AHL). This section does not distinguish between the three waiver types, it merely refers to "Waivers". I think it's reasonable to guess that they mean "Regular" and/or "Re-Entry" waivers in this context, since "Unconditional" waivers seems to be a formal step taken only before completing a buyout of a player's Standard Players Contract, but it is just a guess.

My understanding of all this information suggests that Paajarvi would indeed be eligible to play in the NHL this season. And if not the NHL because of 13.23, then perhaps he's still eligible for AHL play?. Obviously you need to know with certainty before bringing him over, since losing him to waivers accidentally would be disastrous.

There would seem to be many positives in bringing him over this season.

Get him under contract to remove any draft re-entry concerns.
Assess his AHL and/or NHL "readiness" in that league.
See how his game adapts to NA ice size.
Test Paajarvi's fitness, see which areas you can maybe improve with an off-ice workout plan taliored specifically to Paajarvi.
A chance to sit down with Paajarvi and go over the areas of his game you'd like to improve.
Get to know him personally, introduce him to the city and people and players within the organization.

I'm sure there would be potential negatives. For one, burnout after a long season might be a concern. That said, there's no reason he'd have to play every game in the AHL or NHL; obviously you wouldn't play him more than 9 games in the NHL anyways, to avoid starting his NHL ELC. I'm not seeing a ton of downside compared to the potential upside, provided Paajarvi is interested and provided there's no risk of losing Paajarvi to waivers.

Tyler Seguin's Shooting Percentage

2010-03-10T21:40:00.011-07:00

In July of 2009 I wrote a post musing about Magnus Paajarvi Svensson's shooting percentage. Paajarvi recorded a 6.8% shooting percentage (SH%) in 2008/9*, and I hypothesized that the scouting reports suggesting he had "an inability to finish" could have been mistaking "bad luck" for such an inability; it was possible that Paajarvi's true talent for finishing was higher than it appeared based on last season's SH%. This season's shooting percentage* of 7.8% isn't suggestive of Paajarvi having a much better true talent SH% than his 6.8% from the previous season (although it doesn't conclusively disprove the theory either), but quickly revisiting this topic for Paajarvi allows me to point out an opposite possibility for potential Oiler Tyler Seguin.

I want to start by saying that I do not have any shot data for the OHL, as it isn't on their website***; what follows is speculation only. So this may be academic pretty soon if the stats turn up and disprove anything beyond this point. But, I do idly wonder what it might mean that Tyler Seguin has gone from 21 goals in 61 GP last year to 47 goals in 60GP this year. I am NOT saying this jump in production is, without question, a product of an extremely high SH% this season, or a combination of a below average SH% last season and an above average SH% this season, but I am suggesting it's a possibility the Oilers (or any drafting team) should investigate. It's possible that he's simply taking many more shots this year, or that he's actually improved his true talent SH% from last season. The shot data would be nice to have for Taylor Hall as well, but it's probably less critical with him because he has established himself as a great goal scorer at the OHL level prior to this season.

I don't know whether a high shooting percentage would be enough to "knock" Seguin from the top 2 in this year's draft. Even if you find that Seguin was "lucky" to score as many goals as he has this season, and decide to take away 10 goals as a correction, he'd still be sitting at 37 goals and 95 points, 2nd in the OHL in scoring. That said, shot totals and SH% information could be extremely useful in helping a team make a more informed selection should their draft decision be between Hall and Seguin.

* 7 goals on 103 shots

** 12 goals on 154 shots

*** Neither the WHL or OHL list shot data on their site. I've looked around for it, somewhat briefly perhaps, and haven't been able to find it. I have heard that they may not collect shot data, which would surprise me since the QMJHL does have shots and shooting percentage listed as part of the stats on their site.

Trade Deadline 2010 - Visnovsky and Staios

2010-03-06T21:01:00.004-07:00

"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?"

"6th?"

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

"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.

Trade Deadline 2010 - Grebeshkov and Jones

2010-03-05T09:17:00.002-07:00

(1) To NSH: Grebeshkov
To EDM: 2010 2nd round pick (NSH)

This is a bit of an odd deal to me, in that I'm surprised Grebeshkov could only garner a 2nd on the trade market. Like MC79, I'm not as opposed to this trade as many seem to be. I don't think the value is actually that far from Grebeshkov's "true" worth (if such a thing exists), I'm simply surprised someone wasn't willing to pay more in the (sometimes) seemingly irrational NHL trade market.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm coming around on the deal because I think it is beneficial for the Oilers in potentially unintentional ways. First of all, I don't precisely know how much it will/would cost to buy a replacement for Grebeshkov on the UFA market , but I don't think it would be sizeably more than Grebeshkov's 3.15 mil QO. For that matter, maybe they'll get lucky and find a Jan Hejda? Secondly, dumping Grebeshkov for a pick hurts the current team which should help the team finish last, ensuring a first or second overall draft pick. They probably will finish last anyways, but the marginal drop in expected points must have some indeterminate value to the Oilers. Lastly, replacing Grebeshkov with Peckham for the rest of the season saves the team ~$530,000, which is obviously valuable in and of itself. But, instead of depositing the money in the bank, the savings could be spent on the signing bonuses for a couple additional NCAA UFA prospects. This seems like a reasonable use of money for a rebuilding team. Alternatively, the money could be spent on a couple other high priced AHL veteran talents to help the AHL team improve next season, if you think that improves the development of all your AHL prospects enough to be worth the increased spending.

(2) EDM claims F Ryan Jones from NSH on waivers

The praise for this move has been, pretty universally, positive, but I'm going to be a contrarian here. I wouldn't have made this pickup, because I don't think the upside is as high as most seem to think. Jones is due to make $0.975 mil next season on a one way contract, and will be a UFA in the summer of 2011. If Jones plays really well, he's a UFA and will want a raise towards market value; maybe you've built some goodwill and can sign him cheaper than if he were a UFA. If he plays poorly, he'll go UFA and you aren't tied into him.

You can probably get a better player, as a UFA, for less money and/or longer term. Maybe you don't, but I think that would have been a risk worth taking for the Oilers. I don't think it's a move that costs you much if it doesn't work out, and spending your salary efficiently doesn't matter if you are rebuilding/tanking. I'm just not sure the Oilers are ahead here vs. simply signing a UFA. Or, for that matter, using the roster spot to re-sign one of their own players for less money.

All that said, I'm not terribly familiar with Jones, so maybe I'm simply off the mark regarding this player. The stats certainly don't suggest the Oilers would have been missing out on much had they passed on Jones, but we'll see.

Coming soon:

The Visnovsky and Staios deals

A Preliminary Look at the 2010/11 Oilers Roster: An Overview and the Defence

2010-02-25T21:21:00.007-07:00

One of the benefits to managing a rebuilding team is the lack of immediate expectations. If the team performs poorly, one can suggest that was the plan. If the team surprises and makes the playoffs, even better. Talk about a no-lose situation!

I've mentioned earlier that the Oilers should clear as much cap room as possible in any case. Tambellini has two potential avenues before him. One, he can plan for a longer term rebuild, which would involve positioning the team for another* top 3 pick in the 2011 draft. Two, he can attempt to "reload" and make the playoffs next season. Both plans would likely involve shedding a ton of payroll, if possible, this summer. I like the second alternative, because I think it's possible for the Oilers to make the playoffs, but also because once you've cleared as much salary as possible, if it looks like the UFA markets won't allow you to make the moves you need to be a playoff team, you can always just go with what you've got and say that you're rebuilding.

As for the defence specifically, I think one can make pretty good arguments for dealing any or all of Visnovsky, Souray, and Staios. All three are older, somewhat injury prone, and make a lot of money. Souray and Staios are, IMO, easier to replace than Visnovsky so if the team can start by moving them, that seems like a good idea.

Visnovsky is a valuable player to the Oilers, and on one hand shouldn't be moved if Edmonton is trying to compete over the next season or two. Then again, Visnovsky is somewhat of an injury concern, so keeping him isn't without risk. He has been very good over the last couple of seasons, but those seasons are in the past; I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what your expectations are for him over the next 3 years. I can see both sides when it comes to dealing Visnovsky; it's a move I wouldn't be making until I see what's happened with Souray and Staios barring a great offer at the deadline.

Grebeshkov's situation is vexing for the Oilers. The Oilers management may have to decide if Grebeshkov is a core player this summer, as he's only one year from being a UFA. If he is, and if the Oilers can get him signed to a longer term deal at terms they like, great. If they decide he isn't a guy they want long term, or he is but they can't sign him at terms then view as reasonable, a summer trade is probably the best solution**.In some ways he's a good illustration of why I think teams should generally shy away from drafting defencemen if a similar forward is available.

Gilbert and Smid both seem like players Edmonton should keep. Smid is well priced, and young enough to still be worth developing. Gilbert is signed to a longer term deal that will cover his prime as the now younger forwards mature.

I'm assuming Strudwick is a no-brainer to be let go as a UFA.

Moving 5 defencemen would be a lot, and I certainly don't expect all 5 to be moved. If Edmonton is able to replace Staios, Strudwick and Souray heading into next season, I think that would be a pretty reasonable turnover.

A depth chart of:

Visnovsky
Gilbert
new defensive D
Grebeshkov
Smid
veteran D
veteran D

might not be too bad for a rebuilding Oilers club next season. Depending what sort of bargains are available, maybe you lock a guy like Seidenberg or Hamhuis up if the price is right, but if the public is fine with a rebuild you aren't under any pressure to sign a player for more money or term than you consider reasonable. I don't mind the idea of carrying 8 D and 13 F, if a team is planning to carry 23 players. That may be something the Oilers consider for next season, with Peckham as the 8th. He's waiver eligible next season, and over the past couple of years the Oilers haven't seemed interested in risking a guy like him to waivers.

* = assuming they get a top 3 pick in this year's 2010 draft

** = unless, for some reason, Grebeshkov's value is so low on the trade market this summer the team thinks it makes more sense to play his value up and move him at the deadline 2011 as a pending UFA.

A Preliminary Look at the 2010/11 Oilers Roster: Goaltending

2010-02-22T13:01:00.001-07:00

I will be assuming the Oilers are trying to make the playoffs next season in projecting their roster. This may be an erroneous assumption, but it's what I would be doing if I were in charge, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think it's attainable. With a few solid moves I think the Oilers are at least in the hunt for a playoff spot. Secondly, I'm not convinced the Oilers are likely to be as bad next year as they have been this year. "Tanking" makes more sense when you are a projecting to be an awful team, worse than I would guess the Oilers are projecting to be next season anyways. Admittedly, that prediction for the team might change, depending on the deadline and early offseason moves. If the team can't get any UFA's to sign, except on longer term and higher priced contracts, maybe it makes sense to use what you have and let things play out. But, at this point, I don't think the Oilers should be planning to be awful again next season.

To improve Edmonton's goaltending for the upcoming season, I think the Oilers would be wise to find a “1B” goalie at a cost of $2.0 mil or less on a short term deal. That type of goalie could be reasonably expected to be available come July 1st, given the NHL's current goaltending market. There’s too much risk going with Deslauriers or Dubnyk as a backup, given the situation with Khabibulin. Of course, that’s assuming the team is serious about competing for a playoff spot next season. I would be, but if the plan is to tank, I suppose I can see the argument for re-signing Deslauriers or Dubnyk to be Khabibulin’s backup. In that case, I think it might make more sense to trade for a different, younger goalie with more potential. It would depend on the perceived upside of Deslauriers and Dubnyk going forward. Of the two, I think there’s a better argument for developing Dubnyk than Deslauriers, given age and proximity to UFA status. But acquiring a 1B goalie, one that can play up to 50 games, would be a priority for me this offseason, were I the general manager.

The Oilers are in a bit of an awkward position, contractually, with Deslauriers. He’s old enough that any future development won’t help the Oilers going forward unless they re-sign him to a longer term; he’s scheduled to be a UFA in the summer 2011. This makes Deslauriers an effective UFA, in a way, since there is no developmental benefit to re-signing Deslauriers. Therefore, his value to the Oilers, as an RFA, is reduced to the theoretical RFA discount for him relative to the available UFA class. I don’t think that there is a discount in price for Deslauriers vs. the UFA market, given the number of similar UFA goalies the Oilers could sign as replacements or superior goalies they could sign for somewhat more money. Given that information, I think the right course of action for the Oilers is to not qualify him, and allow him to become an UFA.

Dubnyk seems unlikely to be claimed if waived. His numbers this season don’t sparkle enough that a team would replace their own backup with him. Many teams have their own goalies to develop, and that goalie is probably about as good as Dubnyk anyways, so why not just stick with the guy you have? And if they have a veteran, Dubnyk probably isn't any better at the moment. Dubnyk is a good AHL goalie, a decent #3 goalie, would help Oklahoma City, and isn’t blocking any goalie in the system. I would send Dubnyk his QO, and risk waiving him to the AHL in the fall.

Following that plan would leave Oilers carrying 2 goaltenders, Khabibulin at $3.75 mil and a UFA 1B Goalie at $1.2-$2.0 mil, with a combined cap hit of $4.95 – $5.75 mil. That seems like a pretty reasonable total for the (projected) improvement in goaltending vs. the status quo.

The Power of the One Way Contract

2010-02-16T23:15:00.005-07:00

One approach the Oilers might take to determine whether they can expect to qualify for the playoffs next season would be to slot their players into the hypothetical positions they would fill on a true playoff team. Take a realistic view of their team and players, and designate those players into the role they might fill on a current Cup contender - not a borderline playoff team. Don't base the assignment upon vastly improved projections, or how good the player was 5 years ago. I plan to go through the roster in this fashion over the Olympic break, to see if it's reasonable to expect the Oilers can become a playoff team for next season.

For now, I want to examine the end of the roster in terms of forwards. Just one man's opinion, but I think if your 12-14 forwards are three of Potulny, Stortini, Stone, Pouliot, you aren't eliminating yourself from playoff contention. As such, if they can be signed for reasonable, or better yet cheap, terms, I don't think it would be a horrible plan to lock a couple of these players up for 2 or 3 years. This idea isn't new, in fact YK Oil wrote about this general idea in a fantastic article about a year ago*. Maybe there's an argument to be made that the Oilers would be better off to clear out the one-way contracts and let players battle for the spots. Or that they should bring in some veterans for at least one of those roster spots. I think it depends how much money the above players are willing to sign for (Stortini excepted, as he's already under contract for a 700K cap hit next season).

Since these player types can be pretty replaceable league wide, I don't know how much it matters that you hold on to any of these 4 players, specifically. Sure, Pouliot could find his offence from junior, but so could another similar player from a different team.

The three unsigned players represent a place where the Oilers could start structuring their roster and cap room for next season. It might be unusual to start from the bottom of your roster, but those are RFA players who may be more receptive to doing something contractually before some of the other RFA's. By starting with these players you might get a more concrete picture of exactly how many roster spots and exactly how much money you have to work with to fill those remaining roster spots.

Something I would consider is to approach the agents of the three players and say something along the lines of** "We are happy with the performance of your player, and these other two players, but aren't sure that we necessarily want all three signed to one-way contracts. We would be quite happy to have two of them signed to one way contracts, and maybe all three, but it's possible one of the three guy could be left hanging as far as a one-way contract when July 1st rolls around. So, we are going to each agent now, with our offers for two (maybe three, this might vary for each player) year one-way contracts. If you want to negotiate on term or amount, that's fine, but be aware that if the other players sign one way contracts first, it's possible your client's roster spot may be spoken for."

This approach will likely only work with those players who believe you will walk away from them. And you may only be willing to take this approach with a player that you are prepared to walk away from, one that you think is more or less replaceable via the UFA market for similar money.

I would offer Stone a 3 year deal worth 500-550K per season. Maybe he takes it, maybe he doesn't. The power of the one way contract comes from guaranteeing money to a player that hasn't seen a ton thus far from his hockey career. 1.5 mil is a lot of money for a guy like Stone, who's been up and down between the minors since turning professional. I wouldn't be surprised if he took that, or tried to negotiate for more per season, but would be willing to take something slightly more than that amount.

The Oilers have been willing to do so in recent years for players about to become waiver eligible, but they haven't yet used this approach (as far as we know, maybe they have and we haven't heard about it?) for players that have established themselves, at least a little bit, at the NHL level.

I think the negotiations would likely be more contentious with Pouliot and Potulny, for somewhat different reasons. Pouliot has been in the NHL for awhile on a one way contract, and may feel insulted by something like that, no matter how nicely you phrase your position.

Meanwhile, Potulny has performed so well this season that your position of power re: the one-way contract may have been eroded. His agent may well convince Potulny that (a) you will qualify him, and any suggestion otherwise is an empty threat (b) even if you walk away, some other team will offer him a one way deal. I'm not sure that teams realize how valuable the offer of a one way contract might be to a player like Potulny. Sure he's put up some goals with Edmonton, but how sure is he that if he goes UFA he'll get a one way contract for more than Edmonton's offering? If you offer him, a player who hasn't spent a full season in the NHL yet at age 25, a three year, one-way deal for 600-700K per season, you'd imagine that like Stone it would appear like a lot of money to turn down. Maybe he can get more, but it's a lot to turn down.

I think that, in spite of the number crunch up front, if you could get Stone signed for 550K, Potulny, Pouliot, and Stortini for 700K each, you'd have started to achieve what Edmonton needs to start doing at the bottom of their roster - finding competent players that do not cost much more than the league minimum. There may be a side benefit to taking this approach over the Olympic break. If you start to crystalize next year's roster now, it may increase your clarity with respect to decision making at this season's trade deadline.

* = In the initial posting of this piece, I had not mentioned that YK Oil wrote about this about a year ago. I had forgotten that I'd read his article, or I'd have included a link to his material mentioning his post in my initial piece. My apologies YK, it was absolutely not intentional on my part to not give credit where it was due.

** = You might need to word things somewhat differently, more or less aggressively, with each player/agent, as the Oilers don't have identical leverage/situations with each player.

Kovalchuk’s Next Contract and the Max Salary Debate

2010-02-10T22:35:00.004-07:00

There has been considerable discussion regarding what exactly might have led to Kovalchuk turning down Atlanta's 12 year, $101 million offer. Some have hypothesized that he was more than willing to play in Atlanta, but not without making as much as he could over as long a term as possible to compensate for the team's lack of projected near-future competitiveness. Others have suggested that he simply didn't want to play for the Thrashers any longer, but also didn't want to unnecessarily burn any bridges. Instead, he simply asked for a number Atlanta wouldn’t pay so he could turn around and say “I wanted to stay, but we couldn’t make the money work." I like option "C", the “I’d like to play for a winner, but I’d also like to make as much money as possible so why sign with ATL now before I hear whatever other options might exist. I can probably go back to ATL if I don’t receive a better offer from some other team, and if some team in the KHL throws $15 million per year at me I wouldn't mind living back home either.”, but then again I’m not a mind reader.

I'm not sure what I'd be willing to pay Kovalchuk if I were an NHL GM, but I'll suggest that Kovalchuk* would not necessarily be overpaid if he signs for more money than Crosby or Ovechkin. To be fair, I’m not really arguing that Kovalchuk is worth $11 million per season (maybe he is, maybe he isn’t, but I’m ignoring that discussion here), but more for the general case that a player can, in theory, be paid more than Crosby or Ovechkin and still be worth his money. Being worth that money would only require that Crosby and Ovechkin are underpaid at their current salaries. My guess would be that they are. That said, how much are they “really” worth? Is Ovechkin worth $13 million/season? $15 million/season? Even more?

Elliot Friedman, in discussing Atlanta's options when it came to Kovalchuk**, wrote " Plus, it’s borderline impossible to win with one guy taking that much of your space." This bit of conventional wisdom has been circulating for awhile now, probably since the lockout, and I'm not really sure why. In fact, I think the suggestion is kind of bizarre when you consider how easily it can be dismissed with a simple look to the top of the NHL's standings. The 1st overall team in the NHL, the Washington Capitals, have the highest cap hit player (Ovechkin at ~9.6 mil) in the league. True, he's isn't making the max, but the Capitals aren't spending to the cap either. If Ovechkin were paid 2 mil more per season to bring him up to the current maximum salary, the Caps still wouldn't be over the cap. If Friedman meant Kovalchuk specifically when he wrote "one guy", maybe that's fair enough, but don't the 2009/10 Capitals "prove" that a team can be competitive paying one player the 20% maximum?

I don't know exactly how to quantify the worth of the superstar class player, if such a thing is possible. I also don't know how many players in the league (if any) may be worth the 20% max. All this Kovalchuk contract talk did lead me to wonder about the following questions, none of which I see any easy answers for.

What compensation is appropriate for a star player?

How much do they have to be paid before it's too much?

What factors, besides on ice production, affect "reasonable compensation" for a star player?

Can a truly elite forward be overpaid in this CBA?

*Kovalchuk is probably a poor example because I don’t think he’s as good a player as Crosby, Ovechkin, or Malkin at making his linemates better.

** This article was, I believe, written just before Kovalchuk was traded to the New Jersey Devils.

Waivers prior to the Olympic break

2010-02-06T14:40:00.004-07:00

WAIVERS

I don't expect to see the Oilers to make much use of the waiver wire before the Olympic break, but I think it would be an interesting approach for the Oilers nearing the deadline. Maybe they can get ahead of the trading and move a player through waivers while not having to pay them over the Olympic break.

The two players I'm looking at are Staios and Moreau. Obviously if Tambellini has heard that there's a positive trade market for either of these players, waiving them doesn't make much sense, so I'm assuming there may not appear to be much interest in either player. I'm not sure either player would be claimed on waivers, but I think it's worth it to find out. Who knows, maybe there's a team out there that would claim one of them, but are just trying to get as good a deal as possible and don't think EDM would waive one/either of them. If EDM management is concerned about public perception, maybe it wouldn't hurt to send the message to fans that the Oilers are serious about remaking the roster, by waivers if necessary.

DOWNGRADING A PICK vs. RE-ENTRY WAIVERS vs. BUY-OUT

Depending how bad the trade offers are for Moreau, re-entry waivers might be a decent option. I'm not sure it makes as much sense with Staios, but with Moreau perhaps re-entry waivers, prior to this season's deadline, makes sense when compared to buying the player out this summer or keeping him for next season?

It would probably make more cap and financial sense to lose him on re-entry waivers than with a buy-out. It would cost an extra 333K in cap room next season, vs. a buyout, but the cost in actual cash is lower and there would be no 667K buyout cap charge in 11/12. That assumes that someone would claim him on re-entry, but if they don't you could always buy him out come the summer.

Before it gets to that stage, Edmonton will likely consider the option brought up by Darren Dreger of TSN, but they should be considering the options in their back pocket (buyout, re-entry waivers in the summer)

I would guess, financially, it probably makes sense to deal Moreau and a 3rd for Exelby and a 7th; the value of moving 4 rounds down in the draft is likely not worth keeping Moreau for another season if he can be replaced with a player making 700K for 10/11. But it may be a tough sell for the fans if they are giving up a third round pick, roughly 61st-65th, while a big chunk of fans are antsy for a rebuild. If the best offer they receive for Moreau were something like Moreau and 2nd/3rd for Exelby and 7th, I'm not sure the Oilers would make that deal even if it makes marginal financial sense, preferring to keep the pick for drafting. In that case, the decision to buyout, place on re-entry waivers, or keep Moreau for another season becomes more relevant.

* - Does anyone have a link to an article that monetizes the value of each draft pick?

Oilers at the Deadline: Part 4 - The Rest of the Roster/Summary

2010-02-03T22:38:00.003-07:00

In parts 1, 2 and 3, I assessed the majority of the Oilers roster with respect to classes of "tradeability" for the upcoming deadline. This brief, final section will feature those who are not easily tradeable (for one reason or another) along with players who have little trade value coupled with a low cap hit. I'd be pretty surprised to see the Oilers move any of them.

Horcoff and Khabibulin are players that probably generate no interest on the trade market, due to their cap hits and health. Hemsky is out for the year and therefore unlikely to be of interest at the deadline.

The remaining roster players (Stone, Potulny, Pouliot, Jacques, Deslauriers, Dubnyk) group fairly similarly, in that none of them seem like players you'd really expect to see a contender pick up, and aren't the kind of guy you expect to see moved at the deadline. I suppose it's possible that one of them might be a body moving back in some sort of deal, but they are unlikely candidates for a move since they are probably more valuable to the Oilers going forward than they would be to an aspiring Cup contender at the deadline.

To summarize all 4 parts, it would be in the best interests of the Oilers to discover whether they can re-sign Pisani and Comrie to reasonable extensions. If they can, great, if not move them at the deadline along with whichever of Moreau, Souray, O'Sullivan, Staios, and Nilsson prove movable. Moving all 7 would be a difficult, if not impossible, task (as MC suggests here), even if it were management's goal, but doing so would open up ~17.5 mil in cap room heading into the summer.

Oilers at the Deadline: Part 3 - Value Players of Interest Around the League

2010-01-30T11:04:00.004-07:00

The players mentioned in Part 3 are those I would expect other teams may call about, but aren't players EDM really needs to actively shop in an effort to clear cap room at the moment. I think one could make a reasonable argument that O'Sullivan fits in this group. I think it's more clear that these players are either more worth their money, or are younger and therefore have a bit more potential for the Oilers to extract value from going forward.

Penner
Visnovsky

Penner and Visnovsky are players that Edmonton should hold onto for next season if they plan on competing for a playoff spot. They are positive difference makers producing, at the least, a reasonable contribution to the team given their salary/cap hit. I don't think it's clear that either could be replaced, bang for buck, on the UFA market next summer, and the Oilers clearly don't have an internal replacements at the ready. That said, they are close enough to UFA, and have enough potential warts that if the price were right, moving them at the deadline might be advantageous long term, even if it hurts the team next season.

Brule
Cogliano
Gagner
Smid

These 4 players may or may not be considered core players by the Oilers brass, but I'm not sure any of them are likely to carry higher value now than they will in the summer. I wouldn't be surprised if the Oilers received calls about all these players somewhat regularly, and one wouldn't be terribly surpried to find they are considered part of the core. Even if they aren't, you don't ordinarily see need-based trades made between clubs at this point in the season. If the Oilers are planning to move Cogliano for a D, or a bigger forward, or as part of a package, it would seem more likely to be consummated in the summer than now, IMO.

Gilbert
Grebeshkov

I'm tempted to group these players with the 4 forwards above; I'm probably oversorting by separating these two defencemen. I would guess it's a bit more likely that one of them/they move vs. the 4 players above IF the team acquiring them is looking to add a D for a playoff run. Generally veterans, both at F and D, are more likely to move as deadline deals, but these two D are a bit older and more seasoned than those listed above, and may hold more appeal to a team both looking at bolstering this year's D for a cup run AND their D going forward.

Oilers at the Deadline: Part 2 - Moving Contracts

2010-01-27T22:10:00.000-07:00

Many Oilers fans seem to be of the opinion that a 3 or 4 year rebuild is required for Edmonton to become a “true contender”. I don’t believe it has to take that long, generally agreeing with Lowetide's take. With the right moves at the deadline and this summer, Edmonton can reasonably expect to be in the playoff hunt next season with an eye towards continually improvement over the next 3-4 seasons. It remains to be seen which approach the Oilers will take; they generally seem to take a different route than I would were I in charge. For instance, I was a big proponent of completely rebuilding under the old CBA when the Oilers were locked in their seemingly endless series of 7th thru 10th finishes. I’m not a fan of a complete rebuild through youth in this CBA. As I have previously stated (how time flies!), I think it’s a strategy that cannot work as well as it did under the old CBA. Actually, I probably need some clarification here. A team forced to operate at the cap floor, with the liberalized free agency in the current CBA, may have a difficult time competing without some sort of old-CBA style rebuild, even though it won't be as effective as it would have been in the old CBA. A team that is spending at the cap ceiling has no reason to rebuild like that in the current CBA. It is unnecessary at best, and at worst a way for management to set low expectations and shrug away poor results for the next season or two. That isn't to say that it couldn't work, of course it can - just that it takes longer than I think is necessary for a team willing to spend to the cap.

I agree with the general consensus amongst fans of the Oilers that gaining cap space for this summer/next season is paramount. To do so would require moving a bunch of players, perhaps more than the Oilers will be able to move at the deadline. In addition, it’s probably an open question whether it makes more sense to move some of the following players now or in the summer. I would move all of these players now if I could; it's not worth the risk of being unable to move them later IMO.

Two questions Oilers management should consider asking themselves about each of their non-core players heading into the deadline are:

"Do I have an internal replacement ready for next season?"

and

"Can I reasonably expect to replace this player for similar money (or less) on the UFA market this summer?"

If the answer to either question is yes, this player should be traded before the deadline, should they prove tradeable.

To my mind, the players that qualify are:

Moreau (2.0)
Souray (5.4)
Staios (2.7)
O'Sullivan (2.9)
Nilsson (2.0)

Obviously the more you can get in return for each player, the better, and some of these players would seem to be worth more in trade than others. But I would prefer to have the cap room (15.0 mil) over the players. I don't expect the Oilers to move all five, along with Pisani and Comrie - I don't know that a team has ever moved out 7 players at the deadline. But a year with many teams in the race and few sellers is as good a year as any...

Oilers at the Deadline: Part 1 - Pending UFA's

2010-01-26T20:18:00.005-07:00

Over the next week or so, I'll be sifting through the Oilers roster, explaining how I would approach the deadline if I were the Oilers management. I'll do so by grouping the players, and hopefully will cover most of the team in 3-5 groupings.

The first group will be the most traditional deadline group for NHL teams, the pending UFA's. The Oilers have 3 such players:

(1) Mike Comrie
(2) Fernando Pisani
(3) Jason Strudwick

Jason Strudwick will presumably have no value on the trade market, and as such is an unlikely candidate for a trade prior to the deadline.

Comrie and Pisani are both unrestricted this summer, and both could potentially be "value" signings for the Oilers if the team is trying to make the playoffs next season, as I would be if I were GM. Pisani in particular, as he isn't currently duplicated on the roster in the same way Comrie is. In trading either player, the Oilers would need to balance the potential return from a deadline trade vs. the potential value in extending the player at X dollars for Y years. Obviously there's no need to weigh those factors against each other if the player won't sign an extension, or has no trade value. But, if you can only get a 6th for each player at the deadline, and can get them signed for ~ 1mil each for a year or two, I'm not sure dumping them at the deadline would be the best move. With Comrie, it may depend on your other moves; you may not choose to keep Comrie if you are planning on keeping Nilsson, Cogliano, Gagner, bringing in Omark and Eberle, etc.

To summarize, I would certainly be on the phone to see what (if anything) would be available for each of the three players. I wouldn't expect to move Strudwick, and would expect to be able to move Pisani and Comrie. That said, I probably wouldn't move Comrie or Pisani if I could extend them at favorable terms AND wouldn't get much for them in a trade. Even if I ended up trading them, I suppose talking about an extension would give me a chance to let them know I'd be interested in re-signing them in the summer, at the right price.

Warming to Waging War on Wasted Wages with Waivers?

2009-09-25T18:42:00.005-06:00

I certainly don't expect the Oilers to make much use of the waiver wire this week in terms of shedding multi-year contracts, but it would be interesting to see them try. Obviously with the three players to be mentioned one would attempt to get a positive return via trade before waiving them, but if that avenue didn't result in any offers, what would your opinion be of Edmonton waiving Moreau, Nilsson, and Staois? If not all three, which, if any, would you waive? Who would be expect to be picked up?

How much worse is the team this year if those three are all claimed, and how much better/worse do you like the cap situation next season if you move all three now? Is a better plan to hope they play their value up this year, and move them next summer? Or simply to keep them for the remaining 2 years on their contracts?

Is it worth the reduction in quality of team this season to open up 7.7 mil in cap room next season*?

* - assuming all three would be claimed, a big assumption to be sure.

Projecting the Opening Roster of the Oilers

2009-09-24T21:19:00.004-06:00

Lineup and Roster for game 1*:

Penner-Horcoff-Hemsky

These guys still haven't played together much (if at all?) this preseason, but my hunch at this point is still that we'll see that line on the ice to start game 1. I'm guessing that Quinn has watched enough tape to know what he had in that line, and thus didn't really need to play them together in preseason until he sees if some other combination might allow for more team success.

That said, it's not hard to see why one would hope Jacques works out on the first line. It would be outstanding if Jacques could be a reasonably facsimile of the player Lowe imagined he was receiving when he signed Penner, since that would leave Penner for another line.

O'Sullivan-Comrie-Pisani

The chemistry between O'Sullivan and Comrie seems strong enough to keep together into the regular season. Combine that chemistry with the "instant chemistry" that has been Pisani over the past couple of seasons, and this seems like a line worth a look. Not terribly big guys, but all these players will battle for the puck and maybe that's enough.

Nilsson-Gagner-Cogliano

Why not give it another go? All three players are older, see what they look like under a new coach, in a new system. If it doesn't work, mix things up.

I'm a bit surprised so many fans want to send Nilsson to the minors this year. While he may have been inconsistent last season, I still wouldn't mind seeing him with a new coach. How much is lost by seeing how he plays until December, hoping he works out with a new coaching staff? If he's not working out, maybe you waive or trade him at that time.

From a cap standpoint, it's pretty risky to waive him if you have any plans to recall him this season. Maybe he clears, maybe he doesn't, but if he does clear and you try to recall him he is very likely to be claimed, thus giving the Oilers a 1 mil cap hit for this season and next. Not a huge problem this year, but given the projected cap drop and the impending Edmonton cap problems for next season, wasting 1 mil of it on dead cap space seems like a pretty bad idea. It's not like you're going to do much better, in terms of quality of player, with the saved 1 mil in cap room replacing Nilsson than you would have done keeping Nilsson and hoping he rounds into form with a new coach, etc.

For all the complaints about Nilsson's two way game, only two Edmonton forwards have been plus players the past two seasons: Horcoff and Nilsson.

That said, given the coach's usage of Jacques in the preseason I wouldn't be very surprised to see him draw into Nilsson's spot. But Nilsson's been no statistical slouch this preseason, with 3 points in 3 games (before tonight's action).

Moreau-Pouliot-Stortini

Seems like a respectable enough 4th line, all of the players can play up the roster in a pinch. Of course I'm a huge Pouliot fan, I don't know if he's as physical a guy as Quinn might have in mind with Brule, but that's why you have the extra guys - switch them up if things aren't working.

Jacques, Brule

I wouldn't be willing to dump either of these players to hang onto MacIntyre, but it remains to be seen what the Oilers do.

Jacques seems to be playing well this camp, and is playing pretty high up the roster for a guy who won't even be on the opening night lineup, wouldn't surprise me at all to see him slot in. Same story for Brule, if they are looking for physicality vs. CAL in game 1; they may well feel Brule gives the Oilers more in that department than Pouliot.

Souray-Gilbert
Visnovsky-Grebeshkov
Staios-Smid
Strudwick

Not much to say here, this seems to have been settled from the moment camp started.

Khabibulin
Deslauriers

* - the roster and line combinations, along with some of the writing, was done before tonight's game, so any performances from tonight's EDM/TB preseason game in Winnipeg haven't been considered.

Comrie signs with the Oilers

2009-09-10T23:40:00.001-06:00

I can't say this is the most shocking event in Oilers history, but I'd have never believed you if you told me on June 29th that Comrie would be playing for the Oilers in 2009/10. Never a boring moment to be an Oilers fans since the lockout.

I will say that I think some fans are too concerned with the size of the forwards on Edmonton's roster - that the players are too small. I agree that one would prefer a forward to be 6'2" vs. 5'10", all else equal, but I think a team can win with small players up front, provided they are of a high enough quality. And quality, not size, is the issue most fans have with the Edmonton's roster; those issues are, unreasonably in my opinion, conflated by many.

So Comrie is another "small, skilled forward who doesn't throw his body around", but that doesn't make him a useless player. In terms of positives, Comrie's on a favorable, cap-friendly contract, a reported 1.125 mil. He's versatile, in that he can play C or the wing (LW at least, not sure how much RW he's played, if any). He may not be a PP star, but he's another guy in the mix, which, on a side note,doesn't help Schremp graduate to the NHL roster. If the team isn't looking good come the trade deadline, but Comrie produces, he'll carry at least some value on the trade market.

There isn't a ton of downside to this deal in terms of projected production vs. cost. You could make a reasonable argument that his money would have been better spent on some of the other available UFA's. Not that those players, necessarily, would be better value on average, but that those players fit Edmonton's perceived holes better than does Comrie. Additionally, it is possible that the addition of Comrie causes the Oilers to dump a player for less than he's worth, one that they'd have otherwise kept if they hadn't signed Comrie.

Obviously there's no crystal ball here, and I could hold a more concrete opinion if I knew this was the last move before the season starts. Without any other moves, there is potential for this signing to help the Oilers' 2nd and 3rd lines in terms of offensive production, provided Comrie can be a "50 point player", a step up on his most recent seasons but not a level he hasn't reached before. Overall, I am more for this move than I am against it, though I'm not convinced Comrie was necessarily the best option.

The Oilers Powerplay for 2009/10

2009-08-12T23:31:00.000-06:00

Assuming no more roster changes, I think some potential shuffling of the Oilers PP personnel could help make a difference in improving the Oilers PP for the upcoming season. I will use some stats (mainly from BehindTheNet - min 40GP + 1.5 PP ATOI/game, but some of my "reasoning" is probably more anecdotal in nature.

(1) Hemsky needs to play more.

He has led the team in PPP/60 for the past two seasons, and either was or was near the team lead in 06/7 (Smyth and Stoll were also close). Last season, Hemsky was t-22nd in PPP, but was 54th in total PP TOI.

(2) Souray and Visnovsky are not well clear of Gilbert and Grebeshkov as PP performers, and should not see as much extra ice, vs. Gilbert and Grebeshkov, on the PP next season as they did this past season.

Both Gilbert (3.91) and Grebeshkov (3.75) outproduced both of Souray (2.95) and Visnovsky (3.07) in terms of PPP/60. This kind of surprised me, I'd love to hear some theories explaining why this happened if Souray and Visnovsky and both vastly superior PP performers to the other two. One might initially theorize that, even if all four players were of equal PP quality in terms of ability to generate their own PPP/60, the two players who played a larger proportion of their time on the 1st PP unit would have superior numbers. This didn't prove to be the case. Is it something to do with Hemsky's style, him being the guy handling the puck for a seeming majority of the time? Just a one season fluke? Is PPP/60 not a reasonably sound way to compare between defencemen on the PP?

(3) The difference in quality between defencemen in terms of power play performance, among the top 4, is not enough to break up pairings.

If EDM is running ES pairings of Gilbert and Souray along with Grebeshkov and Visnovsky, the increase in PP performance may not be worth the "problems" that come with mixing and matching the pairs. It may well help the ES performance to keep the pairings the same on the PP, if it means you can play your top 4 an extra shift or two perr game instead of some filler variation spotting in Smid and Staois until players are back in their pairing.

That said, this may not be a big problem to begin with, and if it isn't then I don't think it's a bad idea to break up the pairings if you feel it gives you a much better power play. I'm straddling the fence here, I know, and not committing either way, but it's hard to know how the Oilers will approach things without seeing what the new coaches do for ES pairings, the PP pairings, if they are willing to go with a 4th F, etc.

(4) Robert Nilsson may have the potential to be a much better PP performer than he seems to be given credit for.

Last year was only one season, but Nilsson was 2nd in PPP/60 among Oilers who played in 5 or more games (I set this arbitrary 5 GP min to exclude Schremp, who led the Oilers in PPP/60 - 5.31 - in an extremely small sample size of 4 games and 11:18 PP TOI). I don't recall much for 1st unit PP time either. I'm not sure how well he would work with Hemsky on the PP, but I think it's at least worth a look for a couple of preseason games in training camp. His previous year wasn't nearly as strong, and it may be that the bounces were simply going Nilsson's way last year (can I check that with Vic's site? Is there some other way to check that?), but he's also probably around the age where some NHL players see their PP production start to rise. Maybe there's potential for him to be a strong PP performer at the NHL level; it would make sense given his draft day scouting report.

(5) It's not impossible the Oilers see both units increase in production if Souray is separated from Hemsky.

Actually, that's a bit of an overstatement/misrepresentation, since if Hemsky is playing as much as I'd like he will be on both units, coming off the ice after 75-90 seconds of PP time when available to start the PP, he would still be playing some with Souray. I guess what I really mean is that the PP tends to become static around the perimeter of the box when Hemsky and Souray are playing together. Or maybe that's just how I remember it, but my impression of that PP unit is that it does not look enough to the other three options.

When playing together, I think the Oilers PP unit would produce better if Souray's slapshot were coming from 5 feet closer after the Oilers look to attack a bit more frequently down low.

When playing apart, I don't think the Souray unit (potentially) loses as much, if Souray's point shot is the focal point, as the Hemsky unit gains by using, say, Grebeshkov and Visnovsky and trying to get players creating motion in the offensive zone.

(6) O'Sullivan and Cogliano may be decent candidates for cut minutes on the PP.

Neither player has a great track record in terms of PP production. This isn't to say that they are awful, can't improve, or that they wouldn't be respectable fill-ins if someone I might currently play ahead of them struggles or is injured. But in some ways cutting their PP minutes is just as much a function of these players being PK options, in my mind.

(7) I like Penner as a PP option, and I like him on the same unit as Souray, but I'd be curious just how much his production would drop if he played on the second unit with the half Hemsky, half O'Sullivan/Cogliano in place of his first PP production. My guess is he is less dependent on playing with Hemsky, if that proves correct I think it might well make sense to move him to the 2nd unit with Souray, which could theoretically improve both PP lines.

So, to sum, here are two PP units I wouldn't mind seeing get a couple of exhibition games, not set in stone, but IMO worth a look:

(1) Nilsson Hemsky Horcoff Grebeshkov Visnovsky, changing when the puck is iced after 50-60 seconds, except for Hemsky.

(2) Penner Gagner Hemsky/Cogliano/O'Sullivan Souray Gilbert, where Cogliano/O'Sullivan replace Hemsky, when the puck is iced, around the 1:20-1:30 mark.

Nikolai Khabibulin and the Shootout

2009-08-09T20:14:00.005-06:00

I'm sure the above is not an entirely fair picture of Khabibulin's complete shootout skillset, but it happen to be my only memory involving Khabibulin and the shootout.

I decided to look a little bit deeper than one youtube clip and see what Khabibulin's shootout numbers look like.

Khabibulin has a lifetime 0.628 save % in the shootout, with 32 GA on 86 shots. For context, this is 12th out of the 14 goalies who have faces 80 or more shootout chances. Among the 23 who have faced 60 or more shots, Khabibulin ranks 17th.

For Khabibulin to move up to the middle of the pack, let's say 7th among that group of 14 goalies (that spot occupied by the previous Edmonton starter, Dwayne Roloson. Roloson has a career 0.706 shootout save %, 30 GA on 102 shots), he would have had to make between 6 and 7 more saves than he did in 86 shots.

That said, the sample size here is fairly small - in baseball I think most would agree that a chunk of 60 or 80 PA's is not enough to give you an indication of a player's "true" on-base percentage. How big does the sample size need to be with the shootout before we can have confidence that the goalie's shootout save percentage is likely to be reasonably close to his "true talent" shootout save percentage?

Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson's Shooting Percentage

2009-07-19T10:14:00.005-06:00

In the comments of a recent Lowetide post, looking for a comparable for recent first round draft pick Paajarvi-Svensson, commenter PunjabiOil posted the following:

There are concerns about MPS:

1. He fell down to 10th because scouts questioned his ability to translate offence to the professionals. The rebuttal to this would be Kopitar, Anze
2. His shooting % numbers were low in comparison to SEL peers.

The shooting % comment is pretty interesting to me.

There are two trains of thought I'm having here:

(1) His shooting percentage numbers are low because he's a "true talent" finisher at about that level. He might generate more shots than some guys, but he's not going to be shooting at 20%.

(2) He had an "unlucky" year in terms of shooting percentage, and perhaps that led some to think he's a questionable finisher. In that case, perhaps EDM got a steal at 10 OV?

Naturally I'm hoping for (2), not that I have any basis to think it more likely than (1).

Signing Strudwick

2009-07-15T21:54:00.006-06:00

Re-signing Jason Strudwick wasn't a signing that came with a ton of coverage. It was more or less expected, I think, that Edmonton would bring him back for another season as the 7th D/extra forward in a pinch. I can't say he played much differently from my expectations, except to say that I wouldn't have guessed he would appear in 71 games.

Jason Strudwick made 650K last year on a one way deal, and signed a one year deal on July 1st worth a reported 700K. I'm kind of curious how this negotiation transpired, and wonder why the Oilers felt the need to give him a raise. Was he going to sign elsewhere if they offered a 600K, one way deal? The league minimum of 500K on a one way deal? If he were to leave, could they really not find a reasonable replacement for similar money?

Don't get me wrong, there is value in knowing your 7th D firsthand before signing him to a one deal, but it does kind of surprise me that he was able to get the same salary he made last year. Even further, he got a small raise.

I'm only talking about 100K or so here, so it's not really the end of the world in terms of the Oilers budget or salary cap, but I don't see the reason to spend it if you don't have to. I also don't like rationalizing/justify a decision by saying "Ah, it's not THAT bad, could have been worse."

Oiler News From The Past Week

2009-07-12T22:33:00.005-06:00

Been a while since I've posted, but not much has gone happened, Oiler related, in that time.

(1) Grebeshkov opts for arbitration.

In a way this is a strange development considering how close the Oilers and Grebeshkov were supposed to be to a 3 year contract. But it does put some pressure on getting a deal done relatively soon, and I'd be shocked if it all the way to a hearing given how few players have gone to a hearing lately and how close the sides are reported to be. Obviously there's some distance since a deal hasn't been completed, but it's hard to imagine it wouldn't be resolved before arbitration.

(2) Sestito for a conditional pick.

Pretty minor move on the face, if it turns out that Sestito becomes a Pisani type I don't think anyone will be able to say they certainly saw it coming. Opens up a contract spot, which the Oilers management must have felt they needed.

One thing I do wish the NHL would do is publish the conditions for conditional picks in these sorts of trades. What's the harm in making that information public

(3) Kotalik signs with NYR, 9 mil over 3 years

I wouldn't have been against bringing him back, but not at that price. I don't think he'll be a horrible burden at that price, but I'm not sure it would project to be a steal or anything.

****

I'm still not entirely sure what is going on with the waiver status of the three players I mentioned in this previous post. But I think I may have found something that indicates all 3 players have to clear waivers, though I'm not certain on it and invite others to correct me if my guess is wrong.

The NHL lists each team's "current roster", with current roster in quotes because it clearly doesn't refer to a real roster given its 31 names. I'm not sure what the criteria is for each team's listing, but my guess is that it consists of everyone on a team's year end roster from the year previous along with anyone who has to clear waivers before going to the minors this coming season.

My basis for assuming the roster includes all those on the year end roster last season has to do with the inclusion of Chorney and Peckham. They don't have to clear waivers, yet are listed; being on the roster to end last season is one possible reason for their inclusion. I'm sure there are other possibilities as well, please feel free to point them out if you've got a better explanation.

My guess is that every other player listed has to clear waivers this fall to be sent to the AHL this fall, which if that guess is right, would include Brule, Reddox, and Schremp.

The Khabibulin Contract

2009-07-04T18:45:00.000-06:00

Like a number of other bloggers, I have strong reservations regarding the Khabibulin contract. I don't think I'm writing anything new, but the following are some of my concerns with the deal.

I have a hard understanding why the Oilers felt it imperative to move so quickly when they appeared to be the only team in serious need of a starting goaltender.

I am generally against the idea of signing a 36 year old player to a 4 year deal to begin with, but particularly in this case with Edmonton tight to the cap and Khabibulin, in my mind, not a clearly better option than Biron who doesn't have the same 35+ contract issue. For a non cap team like NYI this risk doesn't exist, since dead cap space doesn't hurt them; if anything, a retirement by Roloson next summer is desirable if they don't want to spend to the cap floor in 2010/11 since they could charge 2.5 mil against next season's cap without having to spend a cent. In the case of a potential retirement, I'll be the first to admit the Oilers could probably trade Khabibulin to a cap floor team just before he retires, cheaply in theory, to remove the cap hit. But why take on the additional problems that come with the cap hit for a 35+ year old player when there is a roughly equivalent option available without that concern? Why take that risk? The only answer is that you think he's CLEARLY the best option available.

I don't know that I agree with the assessment that Khabibulin was the best goalie, currently, among those who were available. Even if he was, I don't know that means he's a better bet over the next 4 years vs. every other goalie available, in particular Biron.

So, with this particular deal, I'm not sure I agree with the player evaluation, the cap management, the evaluation of the free agent market for goaltending as it pertains to supply and demand, and the identification and use of one's leverage in the negotiations. That is a long list that leads me to the same conclusion as the above writers. This does not appear, to me, to be a great signing for the Oilers.

That is not to say that the signing can't work out, or that Khabibulin is guaranteed to fail, or anything like that. I think there is certainly a non-zero chance that Khabibulin can be worth more than this deal to the Oilers. However, even in that case, that will not mean the deal was a good signing at the time it was signed.

If you receive a 4 when hitting a 17 against a dealer's 6, that does not make your decision to hit correct.

Bizarre Night in Edmonton

2009-07-01T00:50:00.002-06:00

I'm kind of glad I wasn't following it through the night even though it might have been a fun ride.

Some thoughts:

(1) The Oilers should give OTT a firm deadline, probably around 9:30 am EDM time. They can't get let themselves get sucked around into waiting only to to not get Heatley and then see many quality UFA's sign elsewhere while they are in a holding pattern. Will they do so? Who knows?

(2) The proposed trade. I wouldn't do it as is, but I don't think it's awful; it certainly seems like a better deal, to me, than the Pronger trade was for PHI.

The team is already pinched to the cap, this trade would only exacerbate the problem if they can't move some guys. We'll see how that plays out. I don't like giving up two young players that seem like good chances to outperform their cap number in exchange for a player who is:

-a goalscorer just getting to an age where he probably (but may) will lose some scoring over the course of the deal
-making 7.5 mil
-coming from the Eastern conference, playing with Spezza and Alfredsson
-may not really want to be in EDM

(3) If you have a huge desire to get a "superstar" and UFA's wont' sign here, what other option is available? I disagree with the superstar or bust mindset myself, but it doesn't seem like the Oilers do.

(4) Gomez to Montreal - I know they could use a center, but it seems like they paid way too much to acquire a player with a questionable contract the day before UFA season. Maybe they are convinced that players don't want to sign in Montreal, I'm not sure why else they make that deal. Who else was offering up a prospect like McDonaugh and a player like Higgins to pick up Gomez a day before UFA season starts?

Edmonton Oilers Free Agency Preview

2009-06-29T21:25:00.001-06:00

I don't see Edmonton as a team particularly well positioned for a busy, big spending UFA season, but I suppose it depends which players are movable for a quality return, a decent return, or prove movable at all.

There isn't a ton of money available until players are traded, claimed through waivers, or stashed in the minors.

As currently constructed, the Oilers roster looks something like:

Penner(4.25)-Horcoff(5.5)-Hemsky(4.1) = 13.85
O'Sullivan(2.93)-Gagner(1.63)-Cogliano(1.13) = 5.69
Moreau(2.0)-Pouliot(0.83)-Pisani(2.5) = 5.33
Nilsson(2.0)-Stortini(0.7)-Jacques(0.53) = 3.77
MacIntyre(0.54)

Visnovsky(5.6)-Souray(5.4) = 11
Gilbert(4.0)-Grebeshkov(3.3*) = 7.3
Smid(1.3*)-Staios(2.7) = 4.6
Peckham(0.6)

Roloson^(3.0) = 3.63
Deslauriers(0.63)

For a total cap hit of ~ 55.2 mil, which leaves EDM roughly 1.6 mil in cap room.

My guess would be that EDM uses that cap space plus Jacques or MacIntyre's salary (after waiving one of them) to find a 3rd line C at ~ 2mil cap hit, taking them right to the cap. Beyond that, how can one guess?

If they are to make more moves, it will have to involve trades, waivers, or demotion of one way contracts to the minors which will be difficult/impossible for me to guess given my lack of information regarding the options available to Tambellini. Is there a market for Penner, Moreau, Nilsson, and/or Staios? What other trade options are available? How many, if any, dollars will ownership allow to be buried in the minors?

That said, there are a number of players I think might be nice additions/replacements for many teams, depending on their cost (EDM being one of them if they have room to manoeuvre via trade etc), including but probably not limited to:

Gaborik, Tanguay, Havlat, Montador, Seidenberg, Connolly, Tjarnqvist, Hossa, Kotalik, Dvorak, Leopold, Bergeron, Bonk, Sullivan, Nichol, Fiddler, Betts, Mara, Morris, Knuble, Scuderi, and Moen.

I tried not to list 3rd line C candidates since I think EDM will probably get one of them anyways, the above are players I'd be interested in the Oilers signing as value buys, if they can move the player being replaced from the current roster.

* - estimates
^ - assuming the rumors EDM has made Roloson a one year offer around 3 mil are true. I would imagine he'd take that, but perhaps he'll look at the market first.

Edmonton Oilers 2009 Draft Review

2009-06-28T19:44:00.010-06:00

It was an interesting couple of draft days for the Oilers. I can't say I completely agree with all of Edmonton's selections, but like every draft, the picks begin to make more sense once you hear the rationale behind the decisions.

#10 - F Magnus Paajarvi Svensson:

I'm quite pleased with the choice of Paajarvi Svensson. There are some concerns, I suppose, with regards to the prospect's ability to finish, but it's hard to know what to make of that. His offensive numbers are fairly modest, but historically Swedish prospects don't generally have overwhelming totals as 18 year olds playing in the SEL, even the ones selected in the 1st round. Regularly playing in the SEL at 18 is pretty uncommon on its own. One promising sign was his production at tournaments within his age group.

I would have selected F Schroeder based on my list [and I kind of wonder about that having read Gare Joyce's comments in a thread on HF (comment #711)], but Paajarvi was 2nd on my list at that point so I'm not particularly disappointed with his selection. If one was picking using the THN draft preview top 100, the selection at 10 would also have been F Paajarvi, with Schroeder the 2nd highest prospect remaining on their list.

#40 - F Anton Lander:

At the time of the pick I was ambivalent, but I like the pick more as I hear and read more about Lander, which reminds me of the 2005 draft and Taylor Chorney. I am a fan of Lander, and in retrospect think I had him a bit low on my final list (he was #30 and #35 in two earlier versions). There were 2 players I consistently liked a little bit more, Werek and Morin. To be honest though I didn't really like anyone in this range significantly more than Lander, it was just one of those drafts where the guys in that range seemed, to me, like roughly equivalent prospects.

I'd have selected F Werek, and using the THN guide would have resulted in Edmonton drafting F Morin.

#71 - D Troy Hesketh:

I hadn't heard anything about this player before he was drafted. And to be honest, when he was drafted I mistakenly thought, for a minute or so, it was Seth Helgeson (THN #58) Edmonton had picked. My memory said, "Oh, a Matt Greene type", so I just figured they were looking for another Matt Greene-type prospect. It was only after I went to re-read his THN profile that I realized they had drafted a different player.

I actually like what I've read about Hesketh. It seems to have been a little bit early to select him, but they were worried other teams were interested and maybe they were. That said, I don't really like his projected timeline, which currently sits at one more year at Minnetonka, one year in the USHL, finally followed by starting college in 2011/12.

I'd have selected F Rajala in this spot, and the THN guide had G Roy as the BPA at this point. Interesting that both players were later selected by the Oilers anyways.

#82 - F Cameron Abney:

I really don't know what to make of this pick; the adage "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" comes to mind. On the surface it looks like a poor, at best, third round selection, given the other players available. They must see something in him to take him in the 3rd round, as it's hard to believe they'd take him this early if they project his upside as a 4th line fighter. Having read Guy Flaming's excellent Oilers draft review, it sounds like he's grown a bunch in the last couple of years, so they must anticipate huge improvement over the next 2 WHL seasons.

I would have selected F Alex Hutchings at 82, while following the THN draft guide would have seen Edmonton select a second goalie in Edward Pasquale. It may be pushing it to have a team pick a second goalie, but I'll do so for the purposes of this post. If the BPA were to be a goalie for any of THN's remaining picks, I'll skip him and take the next best available skater.

Abney's stat line: 48GP 1G 3A 4pts -17 (the team wasn't great, but this was still the seventh worst minus on the team)
Hutchings' stats: 63GP 34G 34A 68pts +27 (team leading, next highest player was +17)

Admittedly the two players are projected to have very different roles as pros, but it looks to me like Abney's got some serious ground to make up.

#99 - D Kyle Bigos:

I don't have a lot to say about Bigos, as I don't know much about him. I don't like his age or his projected timeline (similar to Hesketh, but Bigos has already played his 18 and 19 year old seasons), but he looks like a reasonable pick at this point due to his apparent late development. One advantage to selecting Bigos is the ability to stash him in the NCAA for a while and see what happens. Doesn't cost you any money to develop for the next couple of years or take up an AHL spot. His age at 20 is worrisome in the sense that if he pans out you're probably only going to get something like 4 years out of him before he's a UFA. Hopefully he'll turn out as well as the only other Oiler to be drafted in the 99 slot.

At this point the highest player left on my list was F Anton Burdasov, but I can't say with certainty I would have picked him. It depends if there was any indication he would prove to be signable going forward. That said, I'll say Burdasov (who actually went undrafted, which would seem to indicate there are signability concerns) would have been my pick at this point, while THN would have picked F Erik Haula.

#101 - F Toni Rajala:

Very happy with this pick, I think he was CLEARLY the BPA at this point in the draft. In fact, I think he was the BPA for at least a round by this point. I understand the size issues, and the concern over his willingness to go into traffic, but the reward is so much greater than most/all players at this point that I think the pick is a no-brainer. Very similar to the feel I got about Trukhno at the 2005 draft, in that I don't think Rajala necessarily fit what they were trying to do this draft but the potential upside was simply too great to pass on him at 101.

I would have already selected Rajala, so my pick at this point would have been D Tommi Kivisto. THN's pick would have been F David Gilbert.

#133 - G Olivier Roy:

I really like this pick, but I'm not sure I understand Tambellini when he said that part of the rationale for the Brodziak trade was their desire to draft Roy. I don't think that makes a lot of sense given that they could have selected Roy with the 4th round pick they acquired from MIN (Bigos) or their own 4th (Rajala). They liked him so much they took those two guys first and then waited a round to hope he was still there? I guess that's possible, but I think it's more likely that they liked a bunch of goalies fairly similarly, and wanted to take whichever one of them was highest on their list once they got to a certain point in the draft. And that turned out to be Olivier Roy.

I think the remaining goalies were pretty reasonable value at this point, Roy would have been my pick here as well. THN's next highest on their list was G Conz, who went undrafted, but already having two goalies using their list I'll skip him and move to the next available skater, which was F Burdasov.

EDM's picks:

F Paajarvi Svensson
F Lander
D Hesketh
F Abney
D Bigos
F Rajala
G Roy

speeds' picks:

F Schroeder
F Werek
F Rajala
F Hutchings
F Burdasov
D Kivisto
G Roy

THN's picks:

F Paajarvi
F Morin
G Roy
G Pascuale
F Haula
F Gilbert
F Burdasov

Having read Gare Joyce's comment, I am tempering my enthusiasm for Schroeder just a little bit. That said, of the two I still prefer Schroeder at this time, but perhaps the margin is a bit smaller than before I saw that quote. I did see another article about Schroeder that suggests a lack of confidence won't be a problem for him, and while his "confidence" shines through it doesn't read quite the same way Joyce's comments do. I do wonder a little bit how much editorializing has gone on in each instance, not with Joyce necessarily but maybe how the information was passed along to Joyce, if he wasn't in the room for the interview.

Overall I'm quite pleased EDM was able to land Paajarvi, Lander, Rajala, and Roy. The others weren't players I would really have considered at the point they were drafted, but I am hoping they work out nonetheless. I think the two defenseman are more likely to pan out than the F, but I'll hope I'm wrong and all three become NHL contributors.

Final 2009 top 40

2009-06-26T07:51:00.004-06:00

1. Victor Hedman
2. John Tavares
3. Matt Duchene
4. Evander Kane
5. Jordan Schroeder
6. Brayden Schenn
7. Magnus Paajarvi Svensson
8. Scott Glennie
9. Jared Cowen
10. Dmitri Kulikov
11. Ryan Ellis
12. Oliver Ekman-Larsson
13. John Moore
14. David Rundblad
15. Peter Holland
16. Jacob Josefson
17. Nazem Kadri
18. Chris Kreider
19. Calvin De Haan
20. Louis Leblanc
21. Tim Erixon
22. Ethan Werek
23. Zach Kassian
24. Jeremy Morin
25. Landon Ferraro
26. Zach Budish
27. Toni Rajala
28. Stefan Elliot
29. Carl Klingberg
30. Simon Despres
31. Kyle Palmieri
32. Nick Leddy
33. Richard Panik
34. Charles-Olivier Roussel
35. Dmitri Orlov
36. Jordan Caron
37. Alex Hutchings
38. Tomas Tatar
39. Carter Ashton
40. Ryan O’Reilly

General 2009 Draft Thoughts

2009-06-23T20:58:00.005-06:00

The Oilers are in a good/bad spot in this draft. They miss out on the top two tiers of players, which IMO include Hedman and Tavares, followed by 3-8 from my top 40 list. After 8, I see a big grouping of players from 9 to 17-21, and I'm not sure just how different one player is from another. There is a not bad chance that at least one of top eight players will be available at 10 based on the various differing rankings and mock drafts that seem to be going around. Even if all of those players are gone, it still leaves EDM well positioned to take whichever of the next grouping they like best, if someone in particular stands out. The two players I'm most hoping for at #10, which are somewhat likely to be available, are:

Jordan Schroeder

-player who has everything except height. Good skater, great vision, can shoot but is known more for playmaking, has some awareness of his own zone. Very strong on his skates, tested highly at the combine.
-Great scoring numbers in his history, 2nd in both team scoring for MIN (to 22 year old 2005 34th overall pick teammate Ryan Stoa) and WCHA scoring. T-1st in team +/- at +17 (with Stoa). Next highest forward was +5. Led Team USA in WJHC scoring this past season, was 2nd the year previous when very few other 2009 draft eligible players had even cracked their team's U-20 roster.

Scott Glennie

-another player with great hockey sense, great speed and skating.
-also has very good scoring stats, he is said to not be as physical as Schenn, not nearly as strong either. That said, he supposedly played more physically last year, so it could be that playing with Schenn he simply didn't think he needed to play as physical as year's previous. Very good +/- as well, in fact he rates ahead of Schenn here but without having seen him play it's hard to exactly know why that might be. Schenn is said to be the better two way player, but Glennie did kill penalties this season so he's not completely without defensive talent.

A player I'm not hoping for at #10:

Zach Kassian:

I actually like the player OK, I just don't see quite enough upside to take him at #10 relative to the two forwards above.

This is an interesting draft in that there are a lot of players I like about the same where EDM is picking (maybe down to about 15), so there aren't actually many guys I've heard rumored to EDM that I wouldn't like to see picked at 10. Obviously the Oilers could go off the board which I might not be a big fan of (depending who it is), but I wouldn't be displeased with any of the 5 or 7 guys I've seen rumored at that spot, outside of Kassian. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily be against or surprised by the Oilers trading down if they can pick up a 2nd rounder, depending on their list and how far down they'd have to move.

Updated 2009 Top 40

2009-06-20T20:54:00.004-06:00

First of all, tip of the cap to Guy Flaming for his show and blog, both are outstanding resources for any prospect junkie. If you have yet to do so, check it out! Additionally, YKOil has a terrific post up regarding this year's draft.

As for the updated top 40, if anyone has questions about why I have a certain player where, feel free to ask and I'll answer away.

1. Victor Hedman
2. John Tavares
3. Matt Duchene
4. Evander Kane
5. Jordan Schroeder
6. Brayden Schenn
7. Magnus Paajarvi Svensson
8. Jared Cowen
9. Scott Glennie
10. Dmitri Kulikov
11. Ryan Ellis
12. Oliver Ekman-Larsson
13. David Rundblad
14. Peter Holland
15. John Moore
16. Jacob Josefson
17. Nazem Kadri
18. Chris Kreider
19. Calvin De Haan
20. Louis Leblanc
21. Tim Erixon
22. Ethan Werek
23. Zach Kassian
24. Kyle Palmieri
25. Jeremy Morin
26. Landon Ferraro
27. Zach Budish
28. Toni Rajala
29. Stefan Elliot
30. Carl Klingberg
31. Simon Despres
32. Richard Panik
33. Dmitri Orlov
34. Jordan Caron
35. Anton Lander
36. Tomas Tatar
37. Nick Leddy
38. Drew Shore
39. Carter Ashton
40. Ryan O’Reilly

I will be writing a little bit more in depth about a couple of guys I'd like to see Edmonton draft, a couple of guys I'm not as anxious to see drafted by the Oilers at 10 OV, and where I guess the talent tiers to be, in the next couple of days. After that, it's on to free agency!

Expectations for Bouwmeester's Contract

2009-06-18T12:31:00.007-06:00

Jay Bouwmeester is a 25 year old #1 D that has led the league in minutes for 2 years straight, and hasn't missed a game since the lockout. A player like this has never been available as a UFA, and there's probably not that great a chance another one will be any time soon. The confluence of events that see a player end up in Bouwmeester's position would seem to be exceedingly rare. Very few players have, or will, become a UFA at 25. To have established yourself as a, without question, #1D by age 25 is also uncommon. There are few players with the durability and ability/talent to lead the league in minutes two seasons in a row. For such a player to have not already locked up an extension with his team would also seem to be rare as teams generally find a way to sign such players.

Because of Bouwmeester's age, a 10 year deal would not necessarily extend late into his decline years. While Bouwmeester maybe be regressing by 35, he probably will not be completely falling off a cliff either. Lidstrom's 39. Niedermayer's 35. Pronger's 34. Bouwmeester would be 7 years into a hypothetical 10 year deal before he would even be Chara's current age. For Bouwmeester to sign a long term deal taking him to the same age Zetterberg will be after his 12 year deal, Bouwmeester would need to sign a 15 year contract.

I will not be shocked if a team signs Bouwmeester to a 10 year 80 mil deal, or a 15 year 100 mil deal to cut the cap cost a bit.

Bouwmeester could be such a long term signing that conventional roster analysis for a team like the Oilers might not make sense. They would have to move some salary to make it work, but if they are willing to stash a player or two in the minors and move one of the 3 D making big money (preferably one of the two older ones IMO) it is workable for next season.

How far should EDM be willing to go? I'll cheat and say it depends what the market is like for their players in trades. If they can't move Souray or Visnovsky then they'd probably need to move Gilbert, Moreau and Staios (or equivalently paid players) to make it work. Not that they need to get a ton in return while clearing cap space for Bouwmeester, but they probably need to be able to move a player or two even if the return is only futures, or minimal, or both. Burying a bit of money in the minors is one thing, but burying 10 is probably more than Katz would like to spend, and also, depending on the timing in signing players, perhaps impossible since they'd be carrying over 110% of the salary cap in the summer.

Ideal Roster Number for a Team Spending to the Cap

2009-06-16T18:41:00.000-06:00

I'm sure most people have their own opinion, I'm kind of curious to hear which number of players most think to be optimal? 20, 21, 22, or the max of 23?

I think 21 is a decent number, with a mix of 12F, 7D, and 2G. It leaves you protection in case of an injury in the pregame skate, and it saves 1.0 mil in cap room (NHL minimum salary is $0.500 mil for the 09/10 season), relative to the same roster with 2 additional, league minimum salaried players. It's the cap room argument that most intrigues me, as I'm not sure how important it is to have extra players on your roster if you can simply replace them via LTIR when injuries hit. The problems come when players are injured, but not so seriously injured that they need to go on LTIR. In that case though you can just call a player up,provided you have cap room, and I wonder how that trades off with having 1 mil extra to spend elsewhere in your roste?.

Additionally, one's decision regarding the roster number depends on the team's player mix and waiver situation. Do you want to have 3 extra players to give match-up flexibility vs different teams? Are there players that you value enough to not risk waiving, even if they aren't line-up regulars?

I guess it goes to the larger question "How closely should a team willing to spend to the cap actually get before they are cutting too fine a line?" And what is too fine a line?

Heatley's Production Over The Next Five Years

2009-06-13T13:46:00.008-06:00

Unquestionably, Dany Heatley has been an outstanding goal scorer since the NHL's lockout. Only two players, Alex Ovechkin (219) and Ilya Kovalchuk (189) have scored more than Heatley's 180 goals. The fourth highest goal scorer, Jarome Iginla, is 21 behind Heatley over that 4 season time frame.

Having said that, an acquiring team would be wise to consider that the Dany Heatley playing for them is not the age 25-28 Heatley; it will be the age 29-34 Dany Heatley. What age do you goal scorers generally start losing their scoring? I would guess somewhere between 28 and 30, but decided to look at some past players as examples. I arbitrarily decided to go back 10 years and look at the top 10 players in goal scoring from 95/96 to 98/99, for no reason other than thinking this might, and I stress might, give examples of players somewhat similar to Heatley in terms of goal scoring over a 4 year period. I decided to look at when in their careers these 10 players had their 7 best goal scoring seasons:

(1) John Leclair - His 7 best goal scoring seasons occurred at ages 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32.
(2) Teemu Selanne - 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 35, 36
(3) Jaromir Jagr - 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33
(4) Petr Bondra - 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33
(5) Keith Tkachuk - 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29
(6) Zigmund Palffy - 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30
(7) Paul Kariya - 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31
(8) Brendan Shanahan - 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 37
(9) Eric Lindros - 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28
(10)Tony Amonte - 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (had 31 goal seasons at 25 and 27, only counted the age 27 season)

Now, two of these "comparables" may not be particularly reasonable as comparables for Heatley, due to injuries (Lindros and Palffy).

That said, I do find it interesting that, of the 70 goal scoring seasons considered, only 10 occurred after a player was older than 30 years old. There is, on average, only one season in a player's top 7 seasons after age 30.

I’m sure there are more examples of players that peak later, but my point is that it doesn't seem to be particularly common, as illustrated by Dan Tolensky in this article. One of the arguments I've heard people make, in terms of the Oilers acquiring Heatley, is that you don't often get the opportunity to get a top goal scorer in the prime of his career. I contend it's unlikely that the Oilers, or any team trading for Heatley, would be getting a player in the middle of his prime; it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Heatley’s best goal scoring days are behind him. That is not to say that Heatley will certainly have his goal scoring fall off the map any time soon, but it is likely that he's not as prolific over the next 5 years as he has been over the previous four.

Oiler Prospects and their waiver situations

2009-06-09T21:55:00.002-06:00

In the last couple of summers we have seen the Oilers offer one way contracts, at somewhat reduced rates, to some of their about-to-be waiver eligible players. Marc Pouliot, Kyle Brodziak, JF Jacques, Mathieu Roy and Jeff Deslauriers have all been given one way contracts in some form or another prior to becoming waiver eligible.

It remains to be seen whether EDM will do the same with any of their notable players/prospects this summer, but here are the notable players who will have to clear waivers to go to the AHL for the 2009/10 season (last season's NHL salaries in brackets):

Liam Reddox (515K)

Rob Schremp (650K)

Ryan Stone (550K)

Ryan Potulny (645K)

Gilbert Brule (765K)

Note: I bumped this post after re-reading the CBA section in question, having found I made a mistake. Brule clearly DOES have to clear waivers to go to the minors for the 2009/10 season. As soon as you play 11 or more NHL games as an 18 or 19 year old, your ELC starts to tick and you only have 3 seasons of waiver ineligiblity, even if you don't play in the NHL in seasons 2 and 3 of your ELC. Brule played 78 NHL games in 06/7, meaning that he has played all 3 seasons of his ELC and he now has to clear waivers to be sent to the AHL. Sorry for any confusion.

Heatley on the market?

2009-06-09T11:42:00.004-06:00

TSN is reporting that Dany Heatley has asked for a trade. Sportsnet suggests Heatley may want to move to the Western conference.

I definitely expect the Oilers to make a push for Heatley, and I expect that push to be more aggressive than I would like to see. I like Heatley fine as a hockey player, but I'm not sure I hold as high an opinion of his play as do others. Like Lecavalier, I think it's highly possible that whoever acquires him will pay too much. Unlike Lecavalier, I do think trading for Heatley is a move worth investigating; I just think I personally wouldn't be willing to pay what I imagine it will cost to acquire him. For instance, I would rather have Gaborik and he would cost nothing but money, probably quite similar money (Heatley has a 7.5 mil cap hit) with term being unknown for Gaborik. That said, there's no guarantee you are successful in acquiring Gaborik, and Heatley seems to be less of an injury risk going forward.

To use a baseball analogy, I think it makes more sense for the Oilers to play small ball this summer, as opposed too swinging for a home run. That said, if someone's grooving fastballs down the middle of the plate I'm not opposed to swinging away.

Selection vs. Development

2009-06-07T11:29:00.002-06:00

As much as some, myself included, love to criticize draft selections, I sometimes wonder if too little emphasis is placed on the development of the prospect after the draft. To what extent should teams factor the expected post-draft developmental environment into their draft selections? How do you weigh the importance of their league, their team, and potentially their age-19 AHL eligibility?

If I'm given a choice between four prospects, considered more or less equal in quality at the time of selection, is it wrong to choose between them based on which one appears to be in the best situation to develop over the next year or two? Here are 4 players that illustrate some of the different environments post-draft. I selected all forwards to help simplify matters, all of whom I've seen as possible selections for the Edmonton Oilers at 10 overall.

(1) Scott Glennie
(2) Jordan Schroeder
(3) Zach Kassian
(4) Jacob Josefson*

Glennie and Kassian are both Canadian CHL players, and at this point I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that both will be back in the CHL for the season after the draft. Ideally, you'd be looking for full seasons, making the WJHC (probably less likely for Kassian given his player type), improvements in production and +/- while rounding out the weaker parts of their games.

I'm not particularly well versed in the quality of each player's team, but my understanding is that Glennie's Brandon Wheat Kings are expected to be a much better team than Kassian's Peterborough Petes. Brandon is the Memorial Cup host next season and one generally sees the hosting team try to be competitive for their league title in the season they are hosting the event. Most importantly, it appears that both have a chance to be on their team's top line, presumably competing against the best the other team's have to offer.

The downside to playing in the CHL, post draft, is that instead of being the young player improving quickly by playing against older, bigger, stronger players, you are now the older, bigger, stronger player. It's probably true that as you get older you tend to be matched against lines with older, bigger players, but it is situational, coach dependent, and wouldn't be true for each and every shift.

With a college player like Schroeder you have the benefit of being the younger player, and getting to improve your skills against older more mature players than you would in the CHL. This is taken even a step further, perhaps too far, for a European like Josefson, who is playing in the Swedish Elite League against professional hockey players. If the prospect is good enough, and trusted enough by his coach, it might be preferable to have the player playing professionally in Europe instead of against 18-24 year olds in college. However, if the player is not good enough, something fairly common for Europeans drafted 10-20 overall, it has the potential of stunting the European player's growth since they may receive very little ice time in their elite league.

The player's progress will also depend on the team. If you're playing on a bad SEL team, maybe you get more ice time. If you're playing on a good team, maybe you learn a lot in practice but don't get as much game action as you would on a worse team. For college players, their conference is another consideration. You might be quite happy to have your player committed to Michigan or North Dakota, but not as happy with an Ivy League school since they don't play as many games in the Ivies, and when they do the competition isn't necessarily as strong as in other conferences.

For the age of 18, in my opinion, it is probably best for the prospect to play in the CHL or NCAA. They would likely have a better combination of ice time and quality of opposition than would the average European; more ice time than a European, and lesser quality opposition than the pro European would seem to allow the prospect more time to handle the puck and improve their game skills. The differences between the CHL and college seem more difficult to compare. The player would probably get more ice time in the CHL, but may not be challenged in the same way as a college player. Maybe there are no easy, sweeping generalities to be made with respect to college vs. CHL at age 18; perhaps the best we can say is that it depends on the player?

So now the post-draft season has passed, and the player is 19. We have a new potential problem with a CHL draftee which, oddly enough, occurs when things go as planned. If the prospect develops quickly, but not quickly enough to be completely ready for the NHL, a CHL player can be "stuck" in a non-ideal league. With the European or college player we have an easy answer: sign the player and play him in the AHL. To the European this is a chance to familiarize themselves with North America, the NA style and size of rinks, all while holding the calibre of hockey roughly equivalent to that which they are leaving back home. For the college player the AHL is a chance to play against professionals and experience the more intense schedule. With both college players and Europeans the year in the AHL at 19 does not count as one of the three years on their entry level contract provided they don't play more than 9 NHL games.

CHL players are stuck in the CHL at 19 if they can't crack the NHL due to an NHL/AHL/CHL agreement which doesn't allow CHL eligible players to play in the AHL unless they are 20 years old (with a few, rare exceptions). I don't know if it's fair to say this causes a player to stagnate, but I don't think it's unfair to suggest it has the potential to not challenge a player as much as the team would prefer if he were AHL eligible.

If the player isn't ready for the AHL at 19 there is no harm in staying in his respective league, but I think it's a significant developmental advantage to drafting a collegian or European in the middle stages of the first round, since those are the quality of players that would most probably benefit from playing in the AHL at 19, if they develop as hoped post-draft.

This is a long way to go to talk about this year's draft as it pertains to the Edmonton Oilers selection at #10. It's tough to say who Edmonton will pick, but there's some chance that all 4 of these players might be available to the Oilers at 10 overall. Given that choice, my guess would be that they end up choosing between Glennie and Schroeder. At this time I prefer Schroeder, Lowetide prefers Glennie, but I think both of us, and probably most draft observers, don't feel that either one would be a terrible pick at 10. One of the reasons I prefer Schroeder over Glennie is their respective developmental situations and the drafting team's control thereof. I think both will gain quality experience from their next season, Glennie in the CHL and Schroeder in the NCAA. The year after it is possible that neither,either, or both will be NHL ready, but failing that I would rather have Schroeder in the AHL (Springfield last year aside) than have Glennie playing a 4th year in the CHL. There is the additional advantage of being able to send Schroeder to the AHL until he's adjusted to the pro game. The decision must be made with Glennie before the season starts. If you send him back and he's getting his points, but not learning much, there's nothing you can do to improve the quality of his competition. With Schroeder you can start him in the AHL at age 19, play him there all year (again, without burning an ELC year as long as he plays 9 NHL games or less) or call him up whenever you want. If Schroeder plays between 10 and 39 NHL games, you burn an ELC year but it does NOT count as a year towards UFA status. Meaning that you could have him play over half the year in the AHL, check on his progress, and get him into some games down the playoff stretch drive without the cost of bringing him a year closer to unrestricted free agency.

Lacking a crystal ball, I can't definitively say that post-draft development will be better for Schroeder. That said, I do think it's reasonable to suggest there are advantages Schroeder will have in that regard over Glennie, Kassian, or Josefson. I also can't say those advantages in and of themselves are a reason to draft Schroeder, but I do think it's a factor that the Oilers should seriously consider as part of the decision at 10 overall.

* - You could accuse me, probably fairly, of cheating to include Josefson, in that I haven't specifically seen him slotted to the Oilers. I do think he could be, roughly, "in the range" at #10. Additionally, I needed him to include a prospect type.

Early 2009 Top 40

2009-06-04T23:22:00.000-06:00

1. Victor Hedman
2. John Tavares
3. Matt Duchene
4. Evander Kane
5. Jordan Schroeder
6. Brayden Schenn
7. Magnus Paajarvi Svensson
8. Jared Cowen
9. Scott Glennie
10. Dmitri Kulikov
11. Ryan Ellis
12. Nazem Kadri
13. Oliver Ekman-Larsson
14. David Rundblad
15. Jacob Josefson
16. Peter Holland
17. John Moore
18. Chris Kreider
19. Louis Leblanc
20. Calvin De Haan
21. Landon Ferraro
22. Kyle Palmieri
23. Tim Erixon
24. Stefan Elliot
25. Ethan Werek
26. Jeremy Morin
27. Zach Kassian
28. Toni Rajala
29. Carl Klingberg
30. Anton Lander
31. Simon Despres
32. Richard Panik
33. Dmitri Orlov
34. Jordan Caron
35. Tomas Tatar
36. Zach Budish
37. Nick Leddy
38. Drew Shore
39. Carter Ashton
40. Ryan O’Reilly

2005 Top 36

2007-06-22T15:55:00.000-06:00

I selected that number given the number of picks EDM has in the first 2 rounds, but it will probably end up covering me fairly deeply into the draft this year - someone I have ranked this high will almost surely fall a long way.

I'll be honest, this is my least complete ranking since I've started doing this, but I've been compiling it for a bit so I thought I might as well post what I have before the draft starts in ~ 1 hour. At least, it feels incomplete, but I'm starting to wonder if that's just because everyone has their warts. Some guys read the play well, some are big and strong, some can pass, etc, but something seems to be missing from everyone once you get to the bottom half of the first round. I guess it's probably always like that, but it has seemed more apparent to me this year than in previous years.

Some thoughts before the list - I think the top 4 is a tier, 5-7 the second tier (I have no idea where to place Cherepanov?), and then 8 - ~15 is a tier. After that I just don't know what to make of it, very hard to get any sort of solid read IMO.

1. Jakub Voracek
2. Patrick Kane
3. James VanRiemsdyk
4. Kyle Turris
5. Sam Gagner
6. Alexei Cherepanov
7. Logan Couture
8. Karl Alzner
9. Angelo Esposito
10. Ryan McDonagh
11. Zach Hamill
12. Kevin Shattenkirk
13. Lars Eller
14. Mickael Backlund
15. Maxim Mayorov
16. Patrick White
17. Jonathon Blum
18. David Perron
19. Bill Sweatt
20. Ian Cole
21. Nick Petricki
22. Max Pacioretty
23. Logan MacMillan
24. Simon Hjalrmarsson
25. Keaton Ellerby
26. Alex Plante
27. Thomas Hickey
28. Jim O’Brien
29. Brett McLean
30. Colton Gillies
31. Brandon Sutter
32. Dana Tyrell
33. Riley Nash
34. Tommy Cross
35. Oscar Moller
36. Michal Repik

Trade Deadline Coverage

2007-02-27T09:59:00.000-07:00

I'll be providing some brief analysis of each trade, which I'm sure will be no different than the 34 other sites doing much the same :)

***************************

To BUF: Zubrus
To WSH: 2007 1st, Novotny

I hope there is some kind of plan for Sykora in EDM, this seems like a deal they could have jumped upon.

***************************

To TOR: Perrault
To PHX: Bell, 2nd rounder

Can't say PHX doesn't know how to sell at the deadline. Perrault gone, Saprykin, Laraque, Nagy a couple weeks back.

***************************
To DET: Bertuzzi
To FLA: conditional pick, unnamed prospect

A healthy Bertuzzi would be a nice addition to the Red Wings. Coupled with the addition of Calder DET will now have a top 6 including Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Holmstrom, Lang, Bertuzzi, and Calder. Not bad.
***************************

To SJ: Guerin
To STL: Nieminen, 2007 1st NJ, Jay Barriball (2006 7th round pick)

Well, starting to look like a pretty crazy top 6/9 in SJ. I would love dearly for them to take the division, if only to improve the Oilers draft pick in the Pronger trade. I would guess SJ is pretty much done, there is a team that either thinks their time is now, or have given up on the 2007 draft having moved 2 first round picks in the last couple of days.

***************************

To PHI: Biron
To BUF: 2007 1st ( NSH)

Now I'm hearing on SN that this deal is not for a first, but this seems kind of strange to me unless PHI already had a chance to talk with Biron about an extension. SN speculates that it could be a conditional pick, that makes sense to me in that PHI gives something up if they get him signed.

But what is BUF's angle if they don't get something decent in return for Biron? Is it as simple as clearing cap room for upcoming moves today?
***************************

Laraque for Carcillo and an 8th

This trade is interesting, long rumored, Laraque fits a toughness need for PIT but more importantly is a real upgrade for PIT on the 4th line. His ability to draw penalties will be big for a PIT team with a top end PP. Throw Laraque on a line with Crosby a couple shifts per game, and if they get cycling the puck in the offensive zone how can the opposing team NOT take some sort of penalty?

Anyways this "rumor" is particularly interesting to me because the draft is only 7 rounds long now. Bizarre.
NOTE: sportsnet or tsn (sorry, I'm flipping channels, can't remember which) says this deal isn't done, but could well still happen

December 2006 Top 11

2006-12-16T00:00:00.000-07:00

Here goes:

(1) MA Pouliot – One of my two favorite prospects in the Oilers system (Pouliot, and Trukhno). Underrated offensively, a smart player and that can’t hurt with the adjustment to the NHL. Terrific goal scorer’s goal tonight.

(2) Slava Trukhno – having read Guy’s top 20, I think the Oilers just lucked into this guy. He’s nothing like the typical Oilers pick, he screams “Sens draftee” to me. I think they still don’t know what they have in him. This is a guy that some had ranked in the late 1st/early 2nd of the 2005 draft, personally I think he had a better season last year than Cogliano and that’s why he gets the bump. On the other hand, Cogliano’s WJHC camp gets me a smidge excited, along with his recent play.Trukhno was 20th in the Q in scoring last season, 96 points in his team's 221 goals. No one on the team who played serious minutes was really close in +/-, to Trukhno’s -1. F Danny Stewart was at -10, and the other players in the top 5 in scoring were -20 or worse. He had a torrid start to this season, and has recently slumped. Were there no slump I’d have him at #1.

(3) Rob Schremp – All kinds of tools, they don’t seem to be translating as seamlessly as some may have hoped. Still though, 18 points thru 24 games isn’t awful production given that not many are saying he’s had an easy adjustment. I could make a case to have him first, and I could probably make a case to have him 6th or 7th if I were in a bad mood. Still has enormous potential.

(4) Andrew Cogliano – has recently caught fire, I think he can move to the top of this list if his offence improves over the rest of this season, and hopefully we’ll see a strong WJHC from Cogliano as well. Hopefully he will turn pro this summer, but that remains to be seen. If he’s truly not seeing the kind of icetime one would expect in college, maybe spending a year in Michigan next season where he’d be given more responsibility wouldn’t be a bad idea. On the other hand if he looks to be pretty much ready to play at a more competitive level, there’s no sense holding him back to play in college. EDM can control Cogliano’s rights for a maximum of seven seasons starting 07/08, and they don’t receive an extension by leaving him in college for another season. If he goes back to college next year, then EDM will only control his rights for six seasons starting 08/9. He can be #1 on this list in a month, and I hope he is, because the more good F prospects that turn into great F prospects, the merrier.

(5) JF Jacques – If he’s not NHL ready, he’s pretty close. The big question with him is offensive upside, but he answered some questions well last year in that regard with his AHL performance. However, there hasn’t been much shown at the NHL level, and even though he’s young you’d still like to see a bit more offensive awareness.

(6) Tom Gilbert – He has adapted very well to the AHL level from the sounds of things, I’m more excited about him as a prospect at this stage than I was with Greene last season. With Smid and Greene ahead of Gilbert on the depth chart Gilbert may end up getting stunted within the Oilers organization, if that is going to be the case maybe we’ll see him moved sooner rather than later?

(7) Devan Dubnyk – Not much to say about him, obviously we’ll need to see how he translates to the AHL, except he may not get a chance to play there this season. Give how much they had to pay in signing bonus to get this guy signed, maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to pay an AHL team some money to guarantee starts? Can they do that?

(8) Alexei Mikhnov – I would have put him higher before camp, but a couple factors hurt his prospect value. He’s only 4 years from UFA, and I don’t know if he can play away from the puck well enough at this NHL level. Time’s ticking on Mikhnov.

(9) Taylor Chorney – At the time of the draft I was none too pleased with Chorney’s selection, mainly because I haven’t heard much about him. The more I hear, the more I like with the exception of the report that he’s a little bit soft. Can’t wait to hear how his WJHC goes.

(10) Kyle Brodziak – the results are starting to speak for themselves, Brodziak sounds like he’s having quite the season with Wilkes Barre. Not a tremendous year for Iowa last year. Since November 15th Brodziak has posted 11 pts in 12 games to go along with a +4 rating.

(11) Mathieu Roy – simply having too good a season to have him lower IMO, and he may still be too low. *edit* Everything previous I typed prior to his callup, which again leads me to believe I may have him too low. Same problem as Gilbert (and to a lesser extent Chorney) in that he’s blocked by Smid and Greene. The Oilers might have one or two of those guys bust largely because they are blocked within the organization, only to blossom elsewhere, so perhaps moving one of them (or Greene or Smid, who knows?) might be an option in the right deal?

After this point I think the prospect pool starts to become a bit more murky. Yes there is still a reasonable amount of talent, but to me the top 11 stand out as a bit more “proven”, I suppose with the exceptions of Trukhno and Cogliano but I’ve liked enough of what I’ve heard and seen about the two of them to include them with this group.

Outstanding start guys!!!

2005-10-11T09:01:00.000-06:00

3-0-0, nice way for the Oilers to start the season. Yes there will be up and downs but always nicer to start the year 3-0 than to not.

Couple things I've noticed so far (caveat - only 3 games):

(1) Hemsky - controls a line, is making some great puck possession plays on the PP where before he might lose it. Still turning the puck over, but not in as poor locations as before.

(2) Torres - I thought he might have trouble scoring 20 again (assuming scoring at an 03/4 level) because he got some lucky goals last season, but he's looked good the last 2 games.

For tonight's game, I'm hoping for a 5-3 or 5-4 Oilers win, with 3 or 4 points out of Frolov for my hockey pool.

Here's to hoping the momentum continues.

Congratulations Andrej Meszaros!!!

2005-10-04T21:04:00.000-06:00

Here it is, roughly 16 months after the 2004 Entry Draft, and perhaps it's time to reflect upon the Oilers selection of Devyn Dubnyk at 14 overall when Meszaros was still on board (eventually selected at 23 overall by Ottawa). Meszaros has cracked the Ottawa blueline at the age of 20, fairly impressive given that the Senators are considered, more or less unanimously, one of the top 5 teams in the NHL for the upcoming season. Not that one would expect Dubnyk to be anywhere but back in the WHL this year, regardless of his performance. stil though, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, at this point, Meszaros is looking like the better bet. It's pretty unlikely Edm will end up getting more time out of Dubnyk than they would have from Meszaros, with the UFA age now set at 27. True, Lowe and the Oilers staff didn't know that the UFA age would be reduced to 27, but it seemed pretty likely that the UFA age would be reduced.

I'm not writing this entry to trash Dubnyk , but rather to laud Meszaros, a defenceman I really liked at the time of the 2004 draft, as my 2004 draft rankings attest (Pre-draft I had Meszaros ranked 4th, and Dubnyk 54th. As I'm sure one can guess, I was pretty happy at that point on draft day 2004). Meszaros is just a really smart, skilled player, which can only be an outstanding skillset should penalties continue to be called as they have been this preseason. In time he should be able to quarterback a PP, maybe not as early as this year, but it won't take much longer

I kind of wonder what it means that I can make up these sorts of rankings thru reading about prospects, and seemingly perform as well as actual NHL teams. Maybe I've just been lucky, and it's a fluke that I would have picked Meszaros over Dubnyk in 2004. Personally, I think it speaks to a systemic flaw in the scouting system - overvaluing the opinion of scouts who see a limited sample of games.

When you see a player 8-10 times in his draft year how can you possibly expect to have a great read on him? Perhaps team A sees player X (on average) on better days than team B sees him, thus player X is higher on team A's ranking than on team B's?

Maybe that is mainly what accounts for much of the variation among scouting rankings, and scouting staffs. (I first posted on the matter in reply 15 of this HF thread, from where I'm more or less stealing now)

If so, maybe it does make sense that I can create as good a list, or better, simply by reading a bunch of opinions to make sure I get sufficient coverage of the good and bad games each player plays? Maybe all the money spent on scouting could be redistributed elsewhere in the organization, and someone could make a team's draft list by compiling the rankings from various scouting services, perhaps supplementing it with scouts of my own, to get a more comprehensive view of each year's draft pool?

Can the Oilers repeat their scoring from 2003/4?

2005-10-02T21:49:00.000-06:00

In the 2003/4 season the Oilers finished 9th overall in GF.

Here is a list of the Oilers about to play the upcoming season (assuming Schremp, Syvret, and D.Smith are sent out)

Forwards that had a career high in goals (brackets are next best year) in 2003/4:

Pisani - 16 (8)
Horcoff - 15 (12)
Torres - 20 (0)
Hemsky - 12 (6)
Moreau - 20 (17)
Stoll - 10 (10) * rookie*

Forwards without a career year (brackets represents career high):

Smyth - 23 (39)
Laraque - 6 (13)
Dvorak - 15 (31)
Reasoner - 2 (11)
Rita - 0 (3)
Harvey - 4 (11)
Peca - 11 (27)
Winchester - ROOKIE

Defensemen that had a career high in goals (brackets are next best year) in 2003/4:

Bergeron - 9 (1)
Cross - 7 (4)
Smith - 7 (5)
Semenov - 2 (1)
Ulanov - 5 (3)
Pronger - 14 (14)

Defensemen without a career year (brackets represents career high):

Staios - 6 (9)

In terms of incoming vs. outgoing regulars:

the Oilers have lost the following goals:

Oates - 2
York - 16
Brewer - 7
Isbister - 10
Chimera - 4
Ferguson - 1
Sarno - 1

for a total of 41 goals lost

And have brought in:

Peca - 11
Pronger - 14
Harvey - 4

With Peca more or less taking York's time, Pronger Brewer's, and Harvey Chimera's. That leaves the Oilers 11 goals shy of last season, with some forwards having to pick up the ice time of Isbister and Oates.

Can they score as many this year?

Rita - the odd man out?

2005-09-27T16:26:00.000-06:00

There's no question that over the past couple seasons I have been a Rita supporter; a guy who thinks he should have been given a better opportunity to stick in Edmonton. I can say that from what I've heard it sounds like he's done enough to not be farmed out, especially being on a one-way deal for the league min.

But if they have to clear a roster spot (and they will if they decide to keep Schremp, unless someone gets injured in the last 3 pre-season games) he seems like the likely guy given that they can ship him to Europe, but also because he might still have a bit of trade value. On a team like WSH one would have to think he'd easily make the lineup as a regular, he's still somewhat young, and makes the league minimum. Perfect for a rebuilding team, or maybe even a team tight against the cap who wants a cheap 13th forward that they think has some upside.

My vote is that he stays, and starts the year on the 4th line LW with Stoll and Laraque. I don't think that's in the cards, both because it sounds like they have been playing him mostly at RW to start the year, and also because I think the EDM coaching staff likes Winchester and Harvey a bit more. But supposedly he'll be on a line with Smyth and Horcoff tonight, so no time like the present to impress the coaching staff.

Speaking of, were I coach, I think I wouldn't mind seeing lines something like:

Smyth Peca Dvorak
Moreau Horcoff Pisani
Torres Reasoner Hemsky
Rita Stoll Laraque

Pronger Semenov
Smith Staios
Ulanov Bergeron

to start the season.

With a PP unit something like:

Smyth Horcoff Hemsky Bergeron Pronger

So, how does one pick players for a hockey pool this year?

2005-09-26T22:49:00.000-06:00

So much has changed it feels impossible to get an accurate gauge on the players for the upcoming season. How has the missed season affected previous star players, now 2 years older? What about the 21 year olds now 23? Or 19 year olds now 21? How have teams themselves changed? How will that affect the production of players on teams that have undergone big shifts in player personel? Add to that the rule changes, which themselves will increase the value of some players, and decrease the value of others.

Tons of questions, no solid answers. Nonetheless, I'm compelled to enter some drafts for "fun" anyways, so I'll try and make the best guesses I can. Here are a couple names that I think might be worth watching, in any event:

Milan Michalek - My favorite player from the 2003 draft, has been plagued by injuries but reportedly has started well for the Sharks in pre-season. Who knows where to rank this guy, if he's worth a pick at all. I think I'll take a leap of faith though, if I can find him in the later rounds.

Jason Spezza - Is he ready to be a top 10 scorer? Would anyone be surprised?

Ziggy Palffy - Health is such a conern here, but IF he plays 70 games he looks like a good pick to me. A dynamo when healthy, he's now surrounded with great offensive talent, if a ton of PP's are awarded to PIT you have to like his odds of putting up some numbers, potentially on a PP with some of the likes of Lemieux, Crosby, Recchi, Gonchar, Tarnstrom, Leclair

HOMER ALERT - Ales Hemsky - I know, I know, risky homer pick, but by all accounts his game has improved since the last time int he NHL. With a more open game is there any way he doesn't greatly improve upon his previous totals?

Ilya Kovalchuk - if you knew he was playing he's a legitiimate candidate for the Art Ross, but how serious is he about playing in Russia? How much should he be discounted because of that risk?

Anyone else got some sleepers they don't mind disclosing ?

Oilers season opening roster

2005-09-25T17:58:00.000-06:00

At the start of training camp, I'd have guessed they'd simply go with everyone on a one way contract, which convieniently broke down to 14F, 7D, and 2G - making it more or less seem as though the team was set before training camp. Which more often that not, it is, aside from a spot or two.

With training camp winding down (even though there are still 3 games to go) I'm not sure things have much changed. To me, the safest guess still looks very much like a 23 man roster to open the season, consisting of:

Smyth Peca Hemsky
Moreau Horcoff Dvorak
Torres Reasoner Pisani
Harvey/Rita/Winchester Stoll Laraque

extras: two of Harvey, Rita, and Winchester

Pronger
Smith
Staios
Cross
Ulanov
Bergeron
Semenov

Conklin
Morrison

IR: Markkanen

I'm not sure if EDM would mind an injury to one ofRita/Harvey allowing them to get a longer look at Schremp, but it wouldn't surprise me that they'd seen enough of Schremp to either send him back, or keep him. If they decide to keep him, it's hard to know who they'd move to do so. There's no one left who could be sent down without having to pay them their NHL salary, so a trade would probably be the best option were one available. In that case it depends on who's worth what to other teams, and who is more expendable, etc. My guess would be Rita as the odd man out, especially if no trade can be worked out and it's true that EDM could send him back to Europe while retaining his future rights.

I'm also hopeful that we'll see Pouliot become a permanent member of the Oilers by the end of the season, but this would depend both upon his performance with the Bulldogs and also how the 3rd and 4th line Oilers adjust to the new NHL rules, assuming they are called as they are being called now, going forward. Additionally, if they decide to keep Schremp, it's hard to imigine room being available for Pouliot as well, unless there are a bunch of injuries (knock on wood).

On defence, Syvret has had a solid first training camp, but would benefit from AHL time - if they can find a spot for him. I'd have to think they will find one for him now, given his performance in training camp. The Oilers certainly won't want to stunt his development if they can avoid doing so.

Semenov's Spot Up For Grabs???

2005-09-21T22:12:00.000-06:00

Really? Anyone actually believe this? Every year you can count on a coach at training camp to say something like "Everyone will earn their spot onto this team." The truth is contract status matters.

7 D on one way contracts - 7 spots. But you need guys like Syvret and Greene to play their hardest, thinking they have a shot at making the team so that you can see them trying their hardest. Maybe their best is good enough to force the tem to trade one of the 7 D on one way deals? That's unlikely, but at least this way you get a better look at Syvret, Greene, etc against some NHL calibre players.

I'll be extraordinarily surprised if the Oilers don't start the year with the following 7 D on the roster (barring injury):

Smith
Staios
Pronger
Ulanov
Cross
Bergeron
Semenov

Now, of all the players, why has MacT chosen Semenov? Probably just because he thinks Semenov would get the most out looking over his shoulder a bit, a way of sending a message that you could be dealt/the 7th D if you don't change certain things about your game.

Pronger, Smith, Staios, Bereron are all on longer term deals, that leaves Ulanov, Cross and Semenov. MacT probably just doesn't think that kind of motivation would help Cross or Ulanov, but that it might with Semenov. That would be my guess, anyways.

Schremp? Really?

2005-09-20T09:11:00.000-06:00

By all accounts Rob Schremp has had an impressive beginning to training camp. The question on the mind of Oilers management has to be:

Is Schremp enough of an upgrade to be worth keeping over any of the 14 forwards on one-way deals?

Pro:

- seems like he can help the powerplay
- he may develop into a "better" player down the line if he plays in the NHL this season
- to make the team he'd have to be signed, it would be one draft re-entry worry avoided

Con:

- defense is his reported question mark (though he's supposedly not been near as bad in this regard as expected), EDM has reliable options already in the lineup and may not have time to develop him this year if they are competing for the Cup if he's not ready
- playing him this year would make him a UFA at age 26, while sending him back to junior would see him a RFA until 27

Additionally, it's worth asking whether he can help the PP more than, say, Pouliot would. Schremp had 23G,23A on the PP for London last year, on a team that scored 310 goals of which 97 were on the PP. By comparison Pouliot scored 22 PP goals (I can't find PP assists on the Q's stats site, or Pouliots PPA numbers anywhere. Schremp has 23 A on the PP, it seems reasonable to guess that Pouliot would have had more than 23 PP assists given that Schremp had 49 A on the year vs. Pouliots 69, but it would only be a guess) on a team that scored 333 goals of which 109 were on the PP.

It seems the Oilers value Schremp's PP skill set more so than they do Pouliot's, from the PP time they seem to be offering (again, from the hearsay I've read, haven't seen any PP IT stats) to Schremp, but I wouldn't mind seeing Pouliot be given the same opportunities in a pre season game or two to see how it goes.

I always like to look for complicated reasoning when the simplest is probably more likely - in this case the simplest being that MacT really does think Schremp can add to the team and honestly hopes he can force his way onto the team. One more interesting theory might be that the Oilers are concerned about Schremp re-entering, and want to get him signed before they send him back to junior. We haven't heard much on this front, but the Oilers would still need to sign him were he to make the team.

My opinion, from what I've read to this point, is that Pouliot is the better player now, and may not be any worse on the PP than Schremp would be. It seems to be commonly accepted that Schremp is the superior PP player, but I don't think it's clear from what I've read. Schremp as a better PP shooter, I could believe that, even better overall , sure, but is it truly a slam dunk that Schremp would be a significantly better PP performer than Stoll? Horcoff? Peca? Pouliot? Reasoner? He has to be to stick.

And should I be convinced that the Oilers coaching staff can perfectly identify the best PP players to begin with? The fact that they had an awful PP last season doesn't necessarily mean they don't know how to pick the right guys, but I can't say it excludes that possibility either.

Ryan Smyth's contract

2005-09-19T16:41:00.000-06:00

2 year deal, 3.5 mil per.

This deal amounts to something along the lines of Edmonton paying Smyth 2.9 this year, his last year as an RFA, and paying him 4.1 mil to buy his first year of unrestricted free agency. That's probably about fair. But, were I Smyth, I wouldn't have gone that route. I'd have either gone for a one year deal (and made sure I had it by filing for arbitration) or signed for 4 years. I think his best time to leverage a UFA deal will likely be next summer, not the 2007 summer when the UFA age has dropped to 28 and who knows who else is available.

The trade out East

2005-08-24T09:31:00.000-06:00

To ATL: Hossa + De Vries

To OTT: Heatley

*****************************

From OTT's perspective they shed 3.5 mil in cap room, both this year and next which should help them to retain Chara and Redden, or maybe only one of those two plus Spezza and Havlat.going forward.

Their defensive depth now looks something like:

Chara
Redden
Phillips
Volchenkov
Pothier
Meszaros
Schubert

They would still like to add another depth D, I'm sure. They'll have the money to do so as well, definitely on a one year deal and perhaps longer if someone suits their eye at a reasonable price.

For ATL, they move a player who requested, and probably needed, a trade for a great player in Hossa and a depth defenceman they can use. I'm not sure I'd like this trade for ATL if they just made it out of the blue, but on the other hand I think they did pretty well to trade a guy who didn't want to be in ATL for this much value. Devries will add stability on the blueline, which will be nice in front of the likely Hurme/Lehtonen tandem, if the rumors are true that Nurminen injured his knee and will have to retire.

It will be interesting to see how ATL handles the Kovalchuk contract, will they go longer term like Nash, or 3 year term like OTT with Heatley, taking him to UFA age in 3 years time? In any case the Heatley contract sets a reasonable expectation for Kovalchuk, who might want more, and perhaps get it, but probably not by much.

Horcoff settles before Arbitration

2005-08-20T13:06:00.000-06:00

reportedly at 1 million USD.

It's better than I thought it would be, from the team's standpoint. I still think Horcoff would have received more going to arbitration, but not much more.

I can look at Stefan's contract and perhaps argue that Horcoff is better than him, and should get more. I can look at the Sedin contract's and say Horcoff isn't as good and deserves less, I could also probably reasonably say he isn't as good as Cole, so he deserves less than him. But I think it was close enough for both sides that they decided on a nice round number, and it's not worth the hassle to negotiate any more.

Were I Horcoff, I'd have gone thru with arbitration though unless I got a bit more, and taken my chances.With regards to next year's qualifying offer, it's interesting (to me anyways) to note that had Horcoff been paid one cent more his qualifier would have been 100% next summer, and now with his salary at 1 mil his qualifier will be 1.05 mil next summer.

In any case, this leaves Ryan Smyth as the only unsigned player left, and from the sounds of things he'll be signed to a one year deal at something slightly higher than his QO if a longer term deal cannot be worked out before the season starts. I'd like to see Smyth signed for 3 or 4 years, the cheaper the better from a team standpoint but I can't reasonably see him signing for less than, say, 3.25 mil per on a 4 year deal

Horcoff Arbitration Comparables

2005-08-11T15:57:00.000-06:00

I don't think Horcoff actually plans on going to arbitration; I believe he and his agent think the threat of arbitration will help them get a slightly more generous deal than if they didn't opt for arbitration.

From an Oilers perspective, I don't want horcoff to go to arbitration because I want him signed longer term. He'll go UFA in 2 years, and were I the GM I'd like him locked up for 4 years. I would be doing so imagining his offensive production to take a bit of a jump this year, but I would also figure that even if it doesn't Horcoff is valuable with MacTavish as a coach.

Comparables:

The first one that jumps out to me is Mike Fisher, who just signed a 3 year 4.5 mil deal. He is on the high side of what I think Horcoff could get, partially because OTT got him locked up for 3 years, one of which would have been his first eligible UFA season. Fisher is an interesting case to look at should the Oilers go the longer term contract route.

Other comparables, probably more applicable to a one or two year arbitration award:

Mark Bell - also from the 1998 draft class, Bell has within the last couple of days signed for one year, at 1.06 mil.

Henrik Sedin - from the 1999 draft class, he is 2 years younger than Horcoff, but also has slightly better career numbers. It will be interesting to see how Horcoff's age is accounted for by the arbitrator (if it gets that far), but he's been in the NHL for 4 seasons as has Sedin. Sedin just signed for 1.25 mil.

Patrik Stefan - he has an extra year played on Horcoff, but is two years younger as well. His counting nubers are very similar to Horcoff's, and Stefan is scheduled to make 1.064 mil this season.

Justin Williams - 1.225 mil per year, he has consistently outpointed Horcoff, and has played the same 4 NHL seasons as Horcoff. 2 years younger as well.

Kyle Calder - 1.331 mil. He has definitely scored more points over the last 3 NHL seasons than has Horcoff, I'm not sure they are great comparables other than their numbers were somewhat similar last year. Ordinarily arbitration seems to value the counting numbers somewhat higher than perhaps they should, so I would think this Calder contract would set a cap to what Horcoff could receive in arbitration.

In looking at all of these players it will be interesting to see how the arbitrator factors in Horcoff ony having the one 40 point season. I would think that would help the Oilers, had he done it twice in a row he'd be worth more I think.

On a one year arbitration award I would expect Horcoff to get something like 1.1 mil, Bell is a pretty close comparable it looks like, and his contract is signed in the new CBA era, that might weigh more heavily in the arbitraotr's mind. But I think EDM will probaly try to get him to a deal similar to Fisher's, perhaps cheaper. Horcoff may well be willing to take that path; he could be leaving some money on the table, but it woud also be a rich enough contract to set himself up for life - that is pretty nice security to me, who knows he it factors to him but you never know when that career ending injury might occur.

So, I'd expect something like the following:

One year deal - 1.1 mil
two year deal - 1.1 mil, 1.3 mil

3 year deal - 1.2 - 1.4 - 1.5
4 year deal - 1.2 - 1.5 - 1.5 - 1.5

Peca as well? My my...

2005-08-04T01:09:00.000-06:00

I must say, I'm pretty surprised by this deal, but it's tough to see how it doesn't help the Oilers for next year. With the additions of Pronger and Peca the Oilers are fast becoming a difficult team to play against. I would imagine they'll be better at ES, and on the PK. For that matter, how can the PP be worse with Pronger replacing Brewer?

One might argue that the offense isn't improved, and it may not be. Did it need to be? They were 9th in the NHL for goals scored in 03/4. York to Peca may be a slight offensive downgrade, maybe not. Brewer to Pronger should clearly be an improvement offensively. But it would seem unlikely that the combination of Peca, Pronger, and Conklin/Markkanen all year will see the goals against rise (relative to last year, who knows where the rules will take league-wide GF)

Who knows how good the Oilers will be next year, maybe I'm a pie-eyed optimist but I think they're looking pretty good for a playoff spot, and with some "luck" is home ice out of the question? Maybe not.

I can't deny wondering if the team would have been better off having signed Holik and Gonchar instead, but it's hard to know just how good those guys will be in 2 years when you're still on the hook for their contracts. Pronger as well, for that matter, though as long as his wrist hold up he seems like more of a sure bet - or am I just hoping for that to be the case?

If we assume that the Oilers currently line-up something like:

Smyth Horcoff Hemsky
Torres Peca Dvorak
Moreau Reasoner Pisani
Harvey Stoll Laraque

Pronger Semenov
Smith Staios
Cross Bergeron

I wonder, how does that compare to:

Smyth Horcoff Hemsky
York Holik Dvorak
Moreau Reasoner Pisani
Torres Stoll Laraque

Gonchar Smith
Staios Brewer
Semenov Bergeron

The second team is about 3-4 mil more expensive; is it that much better so as to be worth it? If that blew the budget then I guess it was always impossible. Also, I'm assuming both Holik and Gonchar would sign for the same amounts they signed for, respectively, in ATL and BOS, which may not be the case.

I suppose the first lineup - the current lineup - still would have 3 or 4 mil in spending room to get on par with the 2nd lineup, theoretically. If so, maybe that is the better way to go, depending what 3 mil buys on the UFA market.

Speaking of, how much money will Lowe have left after signing his RFA's? Doesn't look like much, but it sure would be nice to see Lowe take a run at Clarke while he's a bit vulnerable to an RFA offer sheet, on a player like Johnsson or Gagne, if that extra 3-4 mil is available.

Pronger an Oiler!!!

2005-08-03T12:32:00.000-06:00

I decided to hold off commenting on this trade until the terms of the contract had come in, which are now reported as 6.25 per for 5 years.

Hmmm, how to feel about this deal?

On the one hand, they got Chris Pronger.

On the other, one imagines that they might have been able to sign Niedermayer for around the same kind of money, and used Brewer, Lynch , and Woywitka to help out in other areas.

For the moment, I'm glad they have Pronger, because he's clearly one of the best 5 defnesemen in the NHL, a "true #1" D, whatever that is.

He'll take over Brewer's minutes, perform better offensively on the PP, and be more competant as a shut down guy. He will improve the Oilers, unless he gets injured.

Will he help them more than if they had signed Niedermayer and traded Brewer etc for other help? I guess it's irrelevant at this point.

As for the pieces traded away, it's no secret that I am not the biggest fan of Brewer. But he's clearly not a garbage defenceman either. He was unsigned, and historically Lowe has been willing to overpay him. He was probalby going to get something like 2.1 mil this upcoming year, and would be unrestricted next summer. So losing him isn't nice, but it's unlikely they had him for a long time anyways. Even if they had been able to sign him longer term, I can't think of much reason to think he'd have signed for less than 3.5 mil, in EDM or elsewhere, come next summer when he's a UFA.

I have never been a big fan of Woywitka, but everyone always said he'd turn out so I was hoping. Lynch on the other hand I like more to become a regular top 4 guy. I don't know that EDM will regret trading him, but I could see him playing on STL's 2nd pair for a long while. Obviously the Oilers felt comfortable moving the three D; they must like some of the other D in the system (Gilbert, Tesliuk, Greene, Chorney, Syvret, Roy).

I think Pronger's acquisition signifies an attempt to win now, which is fine by me as I think now is as good a time as any as well. Overall, I like the deal, probably mostly because it's interesting to have an elite player playing for the Oilers, but I'm not convinced I'll like it so much in 2-3 years.

Oilers move Isbister

2005-08-01T12:42:00.000-06:00

Isbister has been traded to Boston for a 4th round pick.

The return seems low to me, but I'm sure Lowe shopped around and this was the best he could do.

I think they can use his 1.1 mil better on the UFA market to fill some holes, so I like the move. It's unlikely he would have been playing on the top 2 lines in Edmonton, and at that money I don't think he's enough of an upgrade to be worth keeping on the 3rd/4th lines, not when his roster spot can be filled for a half a million bucks less.

Oilers Draft Review

2005-07-31T09:59:00.000-06:00

Definitely a different draft for the Oilers than we’ve seen the past couple of years; one suspects there was some sort of shift in organizational philosophy with regards to the draft, but we’ll need to see future results to be sure. It could be a coincidence that EDM drafted mostly college bound players, at the same time that the new CBA allows the rights to collegiate players to be held for far longer than either CHL or European players. One can only hope that the Oilers weren’t passing up a chance to draft "better" players just so they could draft NCAA players. It’s worth noting however that "better" means better in the minds of the EDM scouting staff, and not better in any objective sense. Edmonton went with college bound players for their 1st 2 picks, but these were the picks with which Edmonton should be drafting purely based on BPA with less factoring of issues such as duration of player rights. Of course, if you have 2 guys roughly equal it still probably makes sense to take the college player, but in the earlier picks of the draft you are less likely to have players equal to each other than you are later in the draft.

In creating my top 50 list it’s clear that I had undersold players about to enter college, and I must confess to ignorance as the reason. I had thought, for some reason, that Europeans rights were to be held for 4 years post-draft, not the 2 years that I am now hearing. Obviously that can’t help but hurt the value of Europeans, relative to the old CBA when their rights could be held indefinitely, and even to the 4 years I had thought they could be held when creating my top 50 list.

I’m not going to comment too much on the style and player comparisions for the Oilers draftess, but here are a couple thoughts anyways:

#25 – Andrew Colgiano – this is a player I do like, and can’t complain about Edmonton selecting. I had wondered if teams might be willing to draft smaller players in anticipation of the rule changes, this could answer that the Oilers certainly are willing to especially when one looks at the last 2 years of Oilers draft picks in comparison to the size of the guys drafted this year. It appears as though the Oilers went for skill this year, a bunch of boom/bust players that will get time to develop in college, Cogliano being the first.

My pick: Having said that, were I in charge I wouldn’t have taken Cogliano, though he was close to the top of my list. I’d have taken Guillaume Latendresse, but thought seriously about Bertram. I think I would have gone with Latendresse in believing there to be a better chance Bertram would still be around at 36. Again though, no real complaint in Cogliano.

#36 – Taylor Chorney – at first I didn’t much like this pick, I thought there were better guys on board. And maybe there were. But I do like him much more now that I’ve read more about him.

My pick: I guess it wouldn’t have mattered which one I’d have taken at 25, since I’d have taken the other here at 36, in this case Dan Bertram (note – I know the entire path of the draft changes if EDM doesn’t take Cogliano at 25 etc, but this is just as a rough guide for comparison)

#81 – Danny Syvret – an overager who will likely step into the AHL, complicating matters for a player like Mathieu Roy who seemingly stepped up last year but may see his minutes taken by Syvret. If Syvret produces, and is big enough for the NHL game, then no complaints. Obviously he had an exceptional season with London, I’m unsure what his ultimate upside will be as a pro, but clearly Edmonton thinks he can adapt.

My pick: I would have selected Jakub Vojta. Istomin was the highest on my list, but I would have decided the odds of Istomin, Mikus, or Trunkho sliding until my next pick at 86 were good enough that I should take Vojta at 81.

#86 – Robby Dee – haven’t heard barely anything about this player, but I like his pick for a couple reasons. First, he’s a draft and follow type, who EDM will have the rights to for a little bit longer than an equivalent CHL or European prospect. Second, he has great stats. I know, I know, "you can’t judge a prospect by his scoring numbers", but I still say it’s better to have numbers in your corner than not, and I like the idea of going boom/bust once you get to this point in the draft.

My pick: Denis Istomin.

#97 – Chris Vande Velde – see comments on Dee.

My pick: I’d have selected Slava Trukhno. Mikus was one spot higher on the list I had posted earlier, but I had re-adjusted my rankings again since I posted my first set of "top 50" rankings, with Trukhno moving ahead, slightly, of Mikus. Though Mikus was still the next available player on my list, so it was pretty close in my mind.

#120 – Slava Trukhno – I think of this player as somewhat of an oddball in Edmonton’s day. He’s pretty much the only player one might say Edmont took after having a big slide, he’s 18 and from the CHL so his rights will only be held for 2 years, he’s Russian, I don’t think the Oilers like any of those things about him. I think they thought his skill and talent was simply too good to pass on, even though he doesn’t fit what they were trying to do.

My pick: Juraj Mikus

#157 – Fredrik Pettersson – I hadn’t heard much about him before the draft, but liked the little I had heard. I like the pick.

My pick: Risto Korhonen sure tumbled down the rankings, I like the sounds of him though and would have taken a shot.

#220 – Matthew Glasser – I know nothing about this guy, his numbers aren’t very impressive for a player his size coming from the AJHL, but it sounds like he’s a project, and he’ll have time to either develop or not at low cost. Another draft and follow, for a7th rounder that’s probalby just good sense.

My pick: I liked Mathieu Roy, he put up good numbers on a bad team in the Q, I’d have preferred him.

I actually like the idea behind the strategy of the Oilers, provided it doesn’t mean they are passing on clearly better players just to get college guys – if indeed a strategic shift has occurred, it could theoretically be a coincidence. It looks they they tried to stay away from Europe on the surface, but it’s hard to know for sure given that it was a weak year for Europeans. With the possibiity of losing Europeans after 2 years perhaps shying away from Europeans makes sense. On the other hand, one team who has a reputation of draft success, the Senators, selected 5 of their 8 players from Europe, obviously a sign that they aren’t too concerned about getting those players signed going forward.

Final comparison:

EDM’s picks:
Cogliano
Chorney
Syvret
Dee
Vande Velde
Trukhno
Pettersson
Glasser

My picks:

Latendresse
Bertram
Vojta
Istomin
Trukhno
Mikus
Korhonen
Roy

I like my list better, no surprise of course as it’s my list. Though I must say when I look at the final shape I’m somewhat concerned to see so many Europeans that I could lose in 2 years.
Overall I think Edmonton had a pretty solid draft, though I’d have made a bunch of different picks I don’t much mind the direction Edmonton ended up going. It’s too early to judge, but at the moment I give the EDM draft a B.

Potential RFA targets for the Oilers

2005-07-26T15:59:00.000-06:00

Here are some players that it might make sense for EDM to go after with RFA offer sheets, assuming the compensation reported by Tom Benjamin is indeed accurate (which I have no reason to doubt). Deciding which players to go after will likely depend upon which teams have cap room, which don't, which are against their self imposed budgets, and how much better the player you would sign to an offer sheet is than whatever UFA you can sign in his place.

All of the following are players that I believe Edmonton could use, but it's not going to be easy to get any of them unless they play on a team that will be pressed up against the cap and forced to make a difficult decision on which players to trade if they match, or whether they should simply let the player go. Additionally, any team that is close to their self imposed budget and not willing to spend above could be at risk to an offer sheet. One team in particular worth considering will be Ottawa with Spezza, Hossa, Havlat and potentially Vermette as notable RFA's. It wouldn't be surprising to see some team be able to pluck one of these players away from the Senators.

Jason Spezza - He is on the upswing, he's likely to be better than anything EDM can get on the UFA market unless for some reason they can sign Demitra or Forsberg. In either case, having Spezza as well wouldn't hurt either, if there's budget room. OTT appears to be close to the cap, that should help EDM in trying to sign Spezza away. Perhaps something like a 4 year deal averaging 4.99 mil - cost in compensation 2-1sts, 1-2nd, and 1-3rd.

In particular I think teams might look to target players in the 1.99-2.99 mil range, because teams close to the cap may not be able to match with these guys and the compensation isn't enough to stop a team from poaching these players with offer sheets. Any successful player who has finished his entry level contract would seem to make sense for GM's to contemplate signing, in particular those who play for teams close to the cap. One example might be a guy like Havlat, but it's hard to know how far OTT would be willing to go to keep him? At 1.99 mil, for sure they match. 2.99 mil? Yeah, if they have cap room? 3.99? I don't know if they have that kind of cap room.

Another example could be Mark Bell, who would seem to suit the Oilers well. Unfortunately, I don't think CHI would let him go, but it couldn't hurt to throw an offer sheet at him for 1.99 mil, compensation cost is merely a 2nd rounder. It would probably take more like 2.99 mil, with comp of a 1st + a 3rd to even get CHI to consider not matching. Is he worth it, even at that price? Would CHI still match?

Ideally one would like to "attack" tems within the division, because you play them so often and are competing directly with them for the division crown. For the Oilers that means looking to sign players from CAL, COL, VAN or MIN in particular.

Minnesota will be a particularly invulnerable team as they have tons of cap room and enough revenue to match any offer EDM might make. Nonetheless, maybe it wouldn't hurt to force them to match an offer to PM Bouchard, instead of allowing them to spend the money they'd save from a cheaper Bouchard on UFA's that EDM might be competing for with the Wild. It is worth noting that MIN, or any team, might "retaliate" and try to sign the Oilers players, and perhaps that's a reason not to try to sign RFA's. On the other hand, you can respect the previous convention of not signing offer sheets and STILL have someone else attack yours, so maybe it's prudent to just make whatever decisions make sense for you and worry about the retribution when it comes, and not before?

CAL might be easier to steal from as they reportedly won't stray very far from their budget, whatever it is. Perhaps Langkow is a decent target? Kobasew? Iginla?

VAN could be near the cap. What about guys like D.Sedin, H.Sedin?

COL will be near the cap. The Oilers want to add a puckmover. JM Liles to a 1.99 mil offer sheet? Would COL match that? Would they have the necessary cap room? What about Tanguay - can you make offer he would accept? Hejduk might be too close to UFA age to convince him to sign an offer sheet, but Tanguay might be a chance to hurt the Avalanche while improving the Oilers.

Some other possibilities, league wide:

Datsyuk and Zetterburg in Detroit - have they opened enough cap room to be able to match your offer sheets?

Luongo, VanRyn, and Weiss in FLA - they would seem to be longshots, as one might expect FLA to match. Maybe not with Weiss, depending on cost and projection?

Legwand, Hartnell, and Hamhuis in NSH- Edmonton could definitely use Legwand, what kind of offer might he take for NSH to let him go?

Mara in PHX - puckmoving defenceman, how much cap room does PHX have available? Would a 1.9 mil offer sheet do the trick with Mara? What about 2.9 mil? Is he even worth that, financially?

Tons of intriguing possibilities, all of which also make a guy ask "Which Oilers could be signed away?"

Brewer?
York?
Smyth?
Torres?
Horcoff?

And what about Hemsky? Edmonton probably had planned on getting him signed for 1.0 mil, or thereabouts. Under these RFA rules, it wouldn't be that hard to believe Hemsky's agent can find a team willing to bid 1.99 mil in an attempt to win Hemsky's services, at a compensation cost of a 2nd rounder. Even though EDM would match it would still take 1 mil out of their UFA spending money. Would they match at 2.99 mil, or take the 1st and 3rd, thinking that 2.99 mil can be better spent on UFA's? How about at 3.99 mil, or take the 1st and 2nd and 3rd?

I had predicted Edmonton could sign their remaining RFA's for ~12 mil before the news of these RFA compensation levels, leaving them something like 8 mil to spend on UFA's (assuming a 33 mil budget). Maybe it will cost them more like 16 mil if teams start to throw a couple RFA offer sheets at EDM RFA's, cutting EDM's UFA budget in half.

I can't wait for August 1st to arrive, just to see how this new CBA initially pans out...

Top 50 draft prospects

2005-07-25T10:57:00.000-06:00

It's hard to know what impact the changes in draft rules and UFA age will have on the way teams operate at the draft, but here's my draft list nonetheless. I reserve the right to revise this list, and probably will, just in case I feel like changing my mind but also because of any potential draft re-entries.

Top 50

Sidney Crosby
Jack Johnson
Benoit Pouliot
Bobby Ryan
Gilbert Brule
Anze Kopitar
Ryan O’Marra
Alex Bourret
Marek Zagrapan
Martin Hanzal

Jack Skille
Marc Staal
Guillaume Latendresse
Nicklas Bergfors
Carey Price
Dan Bertram
Ryan Stoa
Devin Setoguchi
Kenndal McArdle
Tuukka Rask

Radek Smolenak
Ryan Parent
Chris Durand
Andrew Cogliano
Luc Bourdon
Dennis Istomin
Jakub Kindl
Jakub Vojta
Juraj Mikus
Slava Trukhno

Brendan Mikkelson
Brian Lee
Michael Blunden
Matt Lashoff
Risto Korhonen
Ondrej Pavelec
Justin Abdelkader
Paul Stastny
Mathieu Roy
Patrick Davis

Mikko Lehtonen
Daniel Ryder
Mathieu Aubin
Vyacheslav Buravchikov
Blair Jones
Matt Niskanen
TJ Hensick
Petr Kalus
Ilja Zubov
Mason Raymond

HM:

Matt Pelech
Evan Brophey
James Neal
Sasha Pokulok
Dustin Kohn
Chris Lawrence
Scott Jackson
Vitaly Anikeenko
Adam McQuaid
Vladimir Karpov
Joe Barnes

On the off chance the Oilers win the lottery...

2005-07-21T18:02:00.000-06:00

I wonder how it might affect their decisions regarding which UFA's to sign?

IF they win the lottery, I suppose they might line up their forwards something like:

Smyth Horcoff Dvorak
York Crosby Hemsky
Moreau Reasoner Pisani
Isbister Stoll Laraque

- Torres, Harvey, and maybe Rita could be candidates for the pressbox, though instead I'd imagine Lowe to trade someone and make room for Torres

In that case I think it would be hard to argue that whatever UFA money they spend will likely go towards defence, getting the puckmover they seem to desire. Who knows exactly what they mean by "puckmover", maybe it's not the same as "offensive defenceman"? I'm not particularly sure they need to come up with an offensive defenceman, but since MacT ices 2 D on the PP more than most it only makes sense for Lowe to acquire a D, of whatever type, that can perform on the powerplay. For example, not Brewer.

There have been rumors about Niedermayer. In order to sign him I think it will cost more than he's worth, and they'll probably have to sign him for a longer term than is advisable, given how many teams will likely be trying to sign him. For the 7+ mil you'd have to spend on Niedermayer I think the Oilers would be better off trying to sign 2 defenceman (I'm specifically thinking of Hamrlik and Rathje, but I'm sure there are other guys who would fit as well) coupled with trading Brewer - a player I feel is overrated, not to mention close to UFA (isn't everyone now, maybe it's unimportant that he's only got 2 RFA years left with the Oilers) and not really a guy that seems like he'd like to stick around (my uninformed gut feeling, and nothing more. I could well be mistaken) - for another C. I'm not sure what kind of C the Oilers could get for Brewer, would Handzus be setting the bar too high? Low? No matter, I'll use him as an example for the purposes of this hypothetical lineup:

Smyth Handzus Dvorak
Horcoff Crosby York
Moreau Reasoner Pisani
Isbister Stoll Hemsky

Torres, Harvey, Laraque

Hamrlik Smith
Rathje Staios
Bergeron Semenov

Lowered UFA age as it relates to the draft

2005-07-19T15:21:00.000-06:00

Even before the old CBA had expired I had some questions about how teams approached the entry draft. I had wondered if having amateur scouts was truly any more productive that taking an average of whatever publicly ranking sources one could find available, Central Scouting, Redline, and ISS. And whether the investment in amateur scouting could be better spent elsewhere within an orgainzation.

Those questions become more pointed with the drop in UFA age from 31 to 27. Any investment in a draft pick will now result in, at most, 7 years of service before UFA , as opposed to the potential for 13 under the old CBA. As a practical matter few draft picks cracked the NHL before 22 under the old CBA, meaning that most successful draft picks had their rights held by the team who drafted them for 9-11 years before UFA; under the new CBA that would change to 5-7 years. It's hard to see how this could increase the value of any given draft pick, pre-draft. I suppose one could argue that when you are successful in drafting a player, given the draconian entry level cap, the player is worth more now than under the old CBA. I don't know how one would go about testing such a scenario, I can't imagine how it could be true, but I haven't tested it or seen anyone do such an examiniation (how could anyone at this point?).

But what about when you draft a player in the 2nd round, he joins the NHL at age 21, plays on your 3rd/4th line until UFA age? Under the old CBA this player still had good value to you, because you couldn't find a replacement on the UFA market for anything close to the rookie's salary. Will this be true in the new CBA? It's still unknown how teams will structure their payroll. Personally, I imagine the top players to still continue to get their money, and the 7-14th forwards squeezed, along with the 4th-7th D, will be squeezed. What if his replacement, as a UFA, costs 800-900K? Does that change your approach to the draft ? Is the home run swing now more viable in the first 3 rounds of the draft than before, given how much easier it would be (under those assumptions) to replace 3rd/4th line players?

And in the scenario where a team evaluates a player pre-draft and is "convinced" this guy will, in 3 or 4 years, be a solid 3rd line guy who can maybe play 2nd line, what round is he worth a pick? That player used to easily be worth a 2nd round pick, in the new CBA he will cost you at least 450K no matter where you select him, probably something like 600K in the 2nd round. If a capable 3rd line equivalent only costs 800K-900K mil as a UFA, where do you take him?

What about F vs. D vs. G? Most would agree that, on average, a forward will enter the NHL earlier than a defenceman or goalie, and will play to his peak potential earlier. If you have a forward and defenceman ranked evenly in the first round, how can you take the defenceman higher if you project him to be a year or two behind an equivalent forward in both reaching the NHL and playing up to his potential? When deciding between 9 years of a D and 10-11 of a forward under the old CBA one might have been more willing to look past "projected years played before UFA", but if the trade-off is between 4 years of a D and 5-6 of a forward one might imagine you will be leaning towards taking the forward more so than before.

RFA offer sheets

2005-07-19T12:54:00.000-06:00

One aspect of the new CBA that we haven't heard anything from the media about has been RFA compensation if there is an offer sheet? Will offer sheets be a part of the new CBA, and if so are there any changes to RFA compensation? Will those changes, combined with the rest of the changes to the CBA, either increase the number of offer sheets we will see going forward?

If teams value their 1st round draft picks less than before perhaps we will see an rash of RFA offer sheets, assuming compensation rates remain the same as under the previous CBA? Might there be a team that evaluates the worth of first round draft picks and decides that, unless they project their team to the bottom 5 within the next year or two, there is no reason to use their1st round picks selecting players in the draft again? That they would receive better value finding teams pressed to the cap, or unable/unwilling to spend, with high quality RFA talent and using their first rounders to acquire them instead of selecting players in the draft. Alternatively, perhaps RFA offer sheets will still be infrequent/non-existent given the drop in UFA age? Not only would you be giving up 5 1st rounders to sign, say, Spezza, away from OTT, but you'd also have to pay him enough so that OTT wouldn't match (I've picked them as an example given that they look to be pressed against the cap). Meaning that Spezza costs you 5 first rounders in addition to his salary which could be spent on UFA's. Given what Spezza would cost, perhaps teams would decide that yes he is incrementally better than the UFA they can get for the same 5 or so mil, but not so much so that he's worth 5 - 1st round picks in addition to his salary.

Under the old CBA some said the reason teams didn't offer more offer sheets was that it wasn't worth 5 1sts in addition to what you'd have to pay the player (when you could sign someone else for the same money from the UFA market). Others said it was because teams would always match your offer, meaning that 5 1sts wasn't enough. These don't seem to mesh very well, but I suppose when teams hold different goals they will act differently, and not unreasonably, even if both were faced having to match identical offer sheets.

Budgeting with Escrow

2005-07-18T09:52:00.000-06:00

Let's pretend the Oilers plan on spending 33 mil over the year. Let's also imagine they have some opinion about how much league revenues will be, and how much teams will spend on players. Perhaps they project Revenues of 1.7 B, as the league does, meaning that teams will collective spend 918 mil, after escrow adjustment.

Suppose the Oilers actually believe team spending around the NHL will total 968 mil (before the escrow adjustment dropping salaries to 918mil) . That means that 50 mil will be returned, collectively, to the owners. The Oilers portion would likely be their payroll divided by the total league payroll, multiplid by the total amount overspent. (33mil/968mil)*50 mil, or 1.7 mil.

Under those circumstances, if the Oilers could forecast them, the Oilers could budget and spend about 34.7 mil on salaries during the year, and receive enough back at the end of the year through escrow redistribution to bring their true budget in line at 33 mil.

That all leads to a question, which is:

In the case of the upcoming season specifically, can the Oilers, actually go ahead and spend 35 mil or so and REASONABLY assume they'll get a 2 mil check at the end of the year so that they'll have spent their budgeted 33 mil? That would require as mentioned above an escrow check returning about 5% of their payroll at the end of the year.

I can already hear the objection that this would be too "risky". "Why should we risk projecting, let's just play it conservative, spend what we spend and if we get money back at the end of the year, great. "

The problem with this approach is you are implicitly making a projection, by not projecting. You would be speculating that, league wide, teams will spend exactly 54% of revenue on player salaries. To relate it to the forecast above, not factoring escrow into your budget calculations would be exactly the same as saying " I believe revenues will be 1.7 B, and teams will spend 918 mil. This means that my 33 mil actually spent on players will be corrected via escrow to 33 mil. Another way of saying no escrow alteration is required, and the players get all their money back".

Furthermore, how conservative would it be to spend your budget without concern for how others are spending in a linked world? What happens if all teams combined pay 53% of league revenue to the players? Wouldn't that would mean (with the caveat that I don't know the exact details of the linkage at this point) that the owners still owe the players money, forcing Edmonton over their 33 mil budget?

I am not saying that projecting both league revenues and league wide salaries would be easy. But just because it's hard to predict doesn't mean one shoud bury his head in the sand and ignore the problem. For revenues the team might well be best off by simply using the league's revenue forecast. Player salaries shouldn't be as hard for a GM to forecast. It might be hard to forecast particularly accurately in July, before UFA season, but come January it should be fairly clear what teams will spend, collectively, on players. This will allow an astute GM to factor escrow into his budget, and affect his decisions with regards to adding/removing salary from his payroll as the season progresses, and as his team's place in the standings and chances of winning the Cup become more apparent.

I stand corrected

2005-07-18T09:22:00.000-06:00

Edmonton Sun article

"We'll have every opportunity to compete for the $7.8-million player," Nichols said, talking about the maximum salary under the cap.

Proves me wrong. Brownlee states that the Oilers wil have a 33-35 mil budget, but I notice that isn't a direct quote from Nichols. One might assume that's where Brownlee got the budget information, but perhaps not.

In any case, I still don't like the artificiality of the 20% cap on an individual salary; I don't really like the idea of a salary cap either.

But if the Oilers are wiling to go far enough to spend the cap on a player then the 20% rule will not harm them. In fact it could well help them. Suppose there is a player who would, in the case of equal offers, choose Edmonton. If he were able to be offered 10 mil by some other team while EDM wouldn't go past 7.8 mil, Edmonton might be out of luck. In that case, the artificial cap would probably deliver said player to the Oilers.

20% cap on individual player salary? Why?

2005-07-16T14:13:00.000-06:00

How can this sort of restriction help the Oilers, or any lower payroll team, that can't (won't) spend up to the 20% cap maximum on a single player?

Toronto Star Article

According to the above link, Joe Thornton will be unrestricted next summer, I'll use him as an example to illustrate.

If EDM can't afford to sign Thornton next summer for 8.3 mil (I will assume that to be the 20% cap figure) it would be better for the Oilers if there were no limit on what an individual player can be paid. If the team who successfully lands Thornton was willing to go to 10 mil, but is capped at 8.3 mil, that will open 1.7 mil in payroll/cap room to spend on other players they would not have available without that artificial restriction of 20%.

They will offer that "extra" money to players the Oilers can afford, and need, like Pisani, Dvorak, Markkanen, etc, perhaps poaching these players when the Oilers would otherwise be able to sign them.

Welcome

2005-07-16T13:46:00.000-06:00

With a new CBA seemingly (hopefully? begrudgingly?) to be signed by Friday, now appears to be a great time to start my blog, given that it will primarily relate to the Edmonton Oilers and the National Hockey League. But when other topics arise in my mind I'm not sure I'll be afraid to post them as well.