2017-2018 NHL Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
Frank E
Active member
herman said:
Well, you're making the assumption that such a player was available for trade for Hall.
Also, to Nik's post, the evaluation that includes signing a good UFA defenseman to an affordable cap hit wasn't really an option for the Oilers...it was a "hope that we can sign", not a concrete option. Good/great UFA defensemen don't sign in Edmonton, historically.
Kin
New member
herman said:
I'm not sure about that. I agree that Lucic was always a dicey decision but with Hall, McDavid, Draisaitl, RNH, Eberle and Puljujarvi it made a lot of sense to trade someone for a defenseman. I think a compelling case could be made they should have moved the Puljujarvi pick instead but I keep thinking that the fact that they didn't, and the fact that the Hall return was so mediocre, is more just about the realities of the market they were dealing with.
If they'd kept McDavid, Hall and Draisaitl without making a significant move to improve their defense(and I don't think that's possible without moving one of those three) I don't really buy that we'd be talking about them as being significantly better than they are now anyway.
bustaheims
Active member
herman said:
No, he is not. The Oilers had better scoring depth last season with Eberle. So, a little better offence and significantly better goaltending is what really got them into the playoffs.
Larsson was a steady force for the Oilers last year and all of their D stayed in the lineup. It's silly to suggest they miss Eberle, they missed Sekera a lot more this season. And when you have no top line D you really need your group of 2nd pairing guys to play well like they did last season.
herman said:
L K
Active member
bustaheims said:
On pace to score 15 fewer goals and give up 52 more goals. It's a combination of all problems. Their goaltending is worse. Their defense is bad and their scoring depth means teams can focus in on McDavid more and not have to worry about their other lines as much.
herman
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
For the most part, I agree here. The part I laugh about is that they obviously wanted a defenseman and basically forced a deal when conditions weren't really there yet.
It's a bit like how the Leafs handled the Kessel deal: yes that return was a bit of a downer and was technically the best they could've received given the circumstances. Would it have been better to wait? It was a similar 'culture' move, but also a low-key tank play, so I don't really know how to measure that.
Chiarelli's was a let's-win-now move and I get that he was using an excess asset to fill a position of need (good), but he let go of a game breaker for a safe player (less good). Not only that, he basically only dealt with one team on purpose; I recall an anonymous GM immediately piped up after the trade went down that he'd have offered way more for Hall had he known the player was available (granted it might not have been a cost-controlled RHD).
Moving Hall money out for Lucic also smells a bit like buying out Grabovski for Clarkson.
Kin
New member
herman said:
I talked about that at the time but that's still something that's easy for a anonymous GM to say but is largely meaningless. Like if you're a GM of a team with scoring issues and that deal goes down and a reporter asks you why you didn't get in on that...again, it costs you nothing to say that you were prepared to offer the moon so you don't look like you're letting opportunities pass you by.
But even still I just think too many people look at that deal from a "Well, if I were a GM of a hypothetical team with an unlimited payroll and no UFA-signing issues, I'd have done much better" sort of attitude when that's clearly not the situation in Edmonton. You could maybe argue in the Kessel case that coming off a better season you could have created more of a bidding war among teams Kessel was willing to go to and the Leafs could have gotten a better package of picks/prospects. The sort of defensemen Edmonton was looking for isn't analogous to that.
Like, right now, if New Jersey wanted to trade Hall when he's playing really well, what young, very good cost controlled defensemen are you sure would be available?
herman
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
I appreciate the perspective in any case.
I think NJD could conceivably get a cost controlled defender + more (picks, prospects) for Hall; Nashville or Minnesota would appreciate some brand name scoring. In season at the deadline, they could also take salary cap dumps that can be parlayed into additional picks for the trouble.
Kin
New member
herman said:
All due respect, I didn't ask whether or not NJD could hypothetically get a better total package(I generally agree they could). I asked what specific defensemen you're sure another team would trade for Hall. Would Nashville trade Ekholm or Ellis for Hall? Probably. Would Minnesota trade Spurgeon or Brodin, again probably. Personally, I'm not sure they'd move Dumba.
But none of those guys move the needle in a hugely significant way in a way Larsson wouldn't. Some would probably be better overall but others wouldn't fit the mold Edmonton really wanted to stick to(convincing Ellis to re-sign in a year, is a real concern).
So, yeah, could Edmonton have conceivably added some other assets or done marginally better in terms of the guy they added? Maybe. But I don't buy that it's a sure thing that they ever could have gotten a much better player than they did.
Kin
New member
herman said:
I wasn't trying to be pedantic, I was just making the point that no matter when Edmonton might have tried to move Hall good young defensemen are hard to trade for regardless. I mean, take the example of Morgan Rielly. I don't know that he's significantly better than Larsson but would we trade him straight up for Hall? Maybe but then the Leafs have a big hole on their defense that they have to fill and ultimately it may not be worth it.
So I think there are two separate issues here. One is you saying that the Oilers shouldn't have made a trade at all or, at least, should have been less rigid about getting something specific(young defenseman with control) that would have allowed them to get a more valuable package overall. I think that's a fair stance to take and while we could go back and forth on whether or not that Oilers team would be any better...that's a fair difference of opinion.
The other issue is the idea that working within the framework that they were, the Oilers should have gotten a better return. That I don't agree with. That, to me, seems like an unfair criticism.
And I think you'll take me at my word that I'm not all that motivated by a desire to be kind to the Oilers or to somehow not take the full amount of schaedenfreude I'm entitled to by their bad decisions. Just, you know, you defend Erik Karlsson too.
herman
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
That's a good breakdown of what I was getting at in the first point, which dovetails into the second, where my take is, if nothing fits your framework at the right value prop, should you find a new framework or take the L on value?
So that comes back a bit to what would've made the Oilers better. Is the framework they were operating under for this particular trade worth pursuing?
Anyway, it's fun, and somewhat pointless, to mull over because it's a pretty similar situation to what the Leafs are operating under at this time where it appears they are taking the opposite bet. Again, thanks for breaking it down so I could see what you were saying more clearly.
https://twitter.com/ArponBasu/status/950151559823978497
The Habs are now saying that BOTH their young star forwards aren't long-term centres. Amazing.
The Habs are now saying that BOTH their young star forwards aren't long-term centres. Amazing.
dappleganger
Active member
Zee said:
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard.