Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
herman said:Lucic + RH defenseman from trade > Hall + UFA D is really, really bad evaluation.
Trading Hall for any defenseman that's not even 40% Karlsson 1 for 1 is what makes it worse.
Ultimately, it was just a bad decision in a series of bad decisions.
Frank E said:herman said:Lucic + RH defenseman from trade > Hall + UFA D is really, really bad evaluation.
Trading Hall for any defenseman that's not even 40% Karlsson 1 for 1 is what makes it worse.
Ultimately, it was just a bad decision in a series of bad decisions.
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.
herman said:Frank E said:herman said:Lucic + RH defenseman from trade > Hall + UFA D is really, really bad evaluation.
Trading Hall for any defenseman that's not even 40% Karlsson 1 for 1 is what makes it worse.
Ultimately, it was just a bad decision in a series of bad decisions.
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.
The correct answer here would've been to simply not trade Hall and definitely not sign Lucic. Literally doing nothing would've left them in a better position.
herman said:The correct answer here would've been to simply not trade Hall and definitely not sign Lucic. Literally doing nothing would've left them in a better position.
herman said:Wasn?t Edmonton?s playoff season largely due to Talbot and McDavid? Is Larsson that much of a difference maker?
herman said:Wasn?t Edmonton?s playoff season largely due to Talbot and McDavid? Is Larsson that much of a difference maker?
bustaheims said:herman said:Wasn?t Edmonton?s playoff season largely due to Talbot and McDavid? Is Larsson that much of a difference maker?
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.
Nik the Trik said:herman said:The correct answer here would've been to simply not trade Hall and definitely not sign Lucic. Literally doing nothing would've left them in a better position.
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.
herman said: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).
Nik the Trik 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 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.
herman said:My bad for not reading your post clearly.
I thought my initial argument was that Edmonton shouldn?t have made a move if that?s all the return they could get for Hall at that time. The sure thing there is they already had the better player in Hall.
Nik the Trik said: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.
Zee said:Cody Franson (CHI) has been placed on waivers.
Upgrade over Polak? Discuss.
Polak only because we have 4 Franson types already... not that Polak is a good option either.Dappleganger said:Zee said:Cody Franson (CHI) has been placed on waivers.
Upgrade over Polak? Discuss.
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard.