NHL Entry Draft (2010)

For archive purposes I am compiling my NHL Entry Draft (2010) stuff here. As with last year's NHL Entry Draft (2009) archive, this first post acts as a primer that contains the set-up info of interest going into the draft.

Links to the other two articles in this series:

NHL Entry Draft 2010 - Rockin' the BMc

NHL Entry Draft 2010 - First Round Review (to come)

NHL Entry Draft 2010 - Oiler Picks (to come)

------

Personal Thoughts

Kind of fond of this draft group. Deep in numbers but shallow in terms of true top-end talent (both Hall and Seguin will probably require long, long careers for either to get any HOF buzz). That said, LOTS of team building talent here, some of them will surprise (Niederreiter and Tarasenko) and one of them (Campbell) might even be swimming upstream of the conventional wisdom of the sphere.

-- Hall or Seguin - can't go wrong either way
-- Fowler, Gormley, Gudbranson - shades of 2008, 2002 and 1998; who is who?
-- Granlund - how important are smrts?
-- Niederreiter - if CSB gives him top-10 status he ranks just behind Granlund; top-5 talent imo
-- Connolly - on points the injuries aren't an issue, except he only made 3 top-10 lists so I guess they do matter
-- Campbell - goalies get no love here but I think, contrary to my own beliefs, he will be the steal of the draft
-- CSB - amalgamate your NA and Euro listings; just no good excuse for not doing it

After the top-2 a lot of these guys are one thing away from being viewed as sure-thing all-stars (Connolly/injury and Granlund/size and Tarasenko/Russian) so, normally, I wouldn't anticipate ANY team trading out of the top-12 (i.e. an honest shot at Skinner or Burmistrov? Sign me up!) and would expect all the action to start with St. Louis at pick #14 (just got their goalie and they KNOW how to play a draft)...

except that...

well...

This is a VERY motivated draft year. Aside from the usual suspects (Islanders, Blue Jackets, Coyotes, Ducks, Blues and Sharks) there are a bunch of teams that will have something going on:

1. Several teams have new management and one of them will want to make a splash
2. It's a deep draft with loads of desirable talent that will be available late
3. Chicago - their assets are good enough to entice competitive bids
4. Toronto - Kaberle should be moved this time around
5. Phoenix - Maloney is a player AND he has TWO mid-round picks
6. Florida - has declared they are open for business

etc.

Don't see all of that come up every year.

Why don't I have Edmonton listed above? They don't have a lot of chips that would bring back a 1st rounder in this draft. Simple as that. Heck, they don't have the assets to bring back 2nd round picks. Unless they are willing to trade Gagner, Penner or Hemsky this team is stuck to staying where it is.

Best, realistic, bet?

Cogliano and Nash are used to bring back something in the 16-20 range.

Best, fantasy, bet?

Penner, Brule and a pick (or Nash I guess) for Boston's #2 overall.

Here's a wierd thing I guess: don't like any of Fowler, Gormley or Gudbranson well enough to expend major assets to get them - regardless of how badly the Oilers need defensemen - rather try to get later round picks and select from McIrath, Tinordi, Pysyk, et al. If I'm Florida I'm trying to stepladder my way down this draft.

Somehow, knowing the Islanders have the #5, I'm a little scared.

Miracles would include coming out of this draft with two of Hall, Seguin, Niederreiter or Tarasenko. Happiness means adding one of McIlrath, Burmistrov to the haul. I like Seguin but expect Hall and I figure that one of the bad contracts will be unloaded, but only one. Nilsson.

Without further ado...

------

Oiler Draft Picks (for use or trade)

01 -- __1
02 -- _31
02 -- _48 ... Trade with Nashville
03 -- _61
04 -- _91
05 -- 121
06 -- 151
06 -- 162 ... Trade with Anaheim
06 -- 166 ... Trade with Ottawa
07 -- 181

Remember to adjust for compensation picks.


Team Order - 1st Round

01.. Edmonton
02.. Boston ........ via ... Toronto
03.. Florida
04.. Columbus
05.. NY Islanders
06.. Tampa Bay
07.. Carolina
08.. Atlanta
09.. Minnesota
10.. NY Rangers
11.. Dallas
12.. Anaheim
13.. Phoenix ....... via ... Calgary
14.. St. Louis
15.. Boston
16.. Ottawa
17.. Colorado
18.. Nashville
19.. Los Angeles
20.. Pittsburgh
21.. Detroit
22.. Phoenix
23.. Buffalo
24.. Atlanta ....... via ... New Jersey
25.. Vancouver
26.. Washington
27.. Montreal
28.. San Jose
29.. Anaheim ....... via ... Philadelphia
30.. Chicago


Top-15 Player Rankings (aggregated)

Below are the listings of the top-15 picks of each of the different, and independent, scouting bureau's. They are: McKeen's, ISS (International Scouting Service), Redline (Woodlief), The Hockey News and the CSB (Central Scouting Bureau).

Below that is an aggregated listing of those datasets after they have been fed through a scoring system. The scoring system simply reverses the order on the list (i.e. a player ranked #1 on the list scores 15 points while a player ranked #15 scores 1 point) and then adds ALL the points that player generates from the different lists.

Note that I counted the number of times a draftee made the top-10 of a list. This is to help add perspective. Prospect 'A' may have fewer points than prospect 'B' but if prospect 'A' shows as top-10 on all 5 lists then prospect 'A' may be seen as a safer pick to make.


The Scouts Recommend (Final Lists)

... McKeens* .... ISS ......... Redline* .... Hockey News . CSB**

1.. Hall ........ Hall ........ Hall ........ Hall ........ Seguin
2.. Seguin ...... Seguin ...... Seguin ...... Seguin ...... Hall
3.. Campbell .... Gormley ..... Granlund .... Fowler ...... Granlund
4.. Gudbranson .. Tarasenko ... Tarasenko ... Connolly .... Connolly
5.. Gormley ..... Fowler ...... Gormley ..... Gudbranson .. Gudbranson
6.. Fowler ...... Niederreiter. Fowler ...... Burmistrov .. Tarasenko
7.. Connolly .... Gudbranson .. Skinner ..... Gormley ..... Fowler
8.. Johansen .... Johansen .... Niederreiter. Niederreiter. Gormley
9.. Granlund .... Skinner ..... Johansen .... Bjugstad .... Kuznetsov
10. Niederreiter. Forbort ..... Campbell .... Granlund .... Pysyk
11. Kuznetsov ... Merrill ..... Forbort ..... Forbort ..... Etem
12. Skinner ..... Watson ...... Gudbranson .. Johansen .... Forbort
13. Burmistrov .. Connolly .... Burmistrov... Campbell .... Johansen
14. Bjugstad .... Burmistrov .. Connolly .... Tarasenko ... Burmistrov
15. McIlrath .... Granlund .... Faulk ....... Watson ...... Niederreiter



Graded Rankings

.................... Top-10 . Scoring

Hall .................. 5 ___ 15 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 14 = 74
Seguin ................ 5 ___ 14 + 14 + 14 + 14 + 15 = 71
Fowler ................ 5 ___ 10 + 11 + 10 + 13 + 09 = 53
Gormley ............... 5 ___ 11 + 13 + 11 + 09 + 08 = 52
Gudbranson ............ 4 ___ 12 + 09 + 04 + 11 + 11 = 47
Granlund .............. 4 ___ 07 + 01 + 13 + 06 + 13 = 40
Connolly .............. 3 ___ 09 + 03 + 02 + 12 + 12 = 38
Tarasenko ............. 3 ___ 00 + 12 + 12 + 02 + 10 = 36
Niederreiter .......... 4 ___ 06 + 10 + 08 + 08 + 01 = 33
Johansen .............. 3 ___ 08 + 08 + 07 + 04 + 03 = 30
Campbell .............. 2 ___ 13 + 00 + 06 + 03 + 00 = 22
Skinner ............... 2 ___ 04 + 07 + 09 + 00 + 00 = 20
Burmistrov ............ 1 ___ 03 + 02 + 03 + 10 + 02 = 20
Forbort ............... 1 ___ 00 + 06 + 05 + 05 + 04 = 20
Kuznetsov ............. 1 ___ 05 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 07 = 12
Bjugstad .............. 1 ___ 02 + 00 + 00 + 07 + 00 = 09
Pysyk ................. 0 ___ 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 06 = 06
Watson ................ 0 ___ 00 + 04 + 00 + 01 + 00 = 05
Etem .................. 0 ___ 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 05 = 05
Merrill ............... 0 ___ 00 + 05 + 00 + 00 + 00 = 05
Faulk, McIlrath (2 pts or less).


The big two: Hall, Seguin
Next best thing: Fowler, Gormley, Gudbranson
Should be Good: Granlund, Connolly, Tarasenko, Niederreiter, Johansen
Consolation Prizes: Campbell, Skinner, Burmistrov, Forbort
Afterthoughts: Kuznetsov and everyone else


A Rule Of Thumb

When looking at the list I tend to apply an arbitrary rule of thumb: any draftee within 10 points of another draftee is at threat to be picked ahead or behind that draftee. This is to recognize, in part, the modestly random (to me) aspect of what teams prefer in their players. It is also a measure of reasonableness.

Connolly has 38 pts - it would not be a big surprise to see him preferred over Gudbranson by any number of teams. It would also, however, be a surprise to see him picked ahead of Fowler or Gormley.

Using that rule of thumb I can expect that:

-- Hall and Seguin will take the top 2 spots
-- Tarasenko could overtake Connolly and Granlund but not Gudbranson
-- If anyone ranked below Johansen is chosen in the top-8 it SHOULD be a surprise
-- If anyone ranked below Forbort is taken in the top-9, the team making that call probably just made a big mistake

------

* McKeen's and Redline only release, for free, their top-10. I found the other 5 names, using various other websites, but cannot completely verify for accuracy. If you have the goods please feel free to self-correct while you read.

I will update as the information becomes public.

** CSB does not aggregate their European and North American lists. So I did it. Given the weakness of the Old World's offerings this year I started the highest CSS ranked Euro two spots behind and followed on from there.

------

Have a great evening everyone, and enjoy the draft. I will as I will be there :-)

The Never Evers

Some things I thought would never, ever...

... and have (or not as the case may be):

Bruce

One of the great, great people I know goes by the name of Bruce. To my knowledge it is also his real name (then again... there was that time a bunch of us were headed to a wedding in Regina and stopped in Edmonton for a night and a game - where they raised #31 to the rafters - and he wouldn't let us drive all the way to his "aunt's" place and had us drop him off a block or two away so as to reduce the chance we would 'wake her up'... heh).

Anyways.

Bruce is a Canucks fan. As far back as he can remember.

He is also one of the best sports fans I know and, I suspect, will ever know.

Hence I have resolved that IF:

-- the Canucks make the make the play-offs AND
-- there are, literally, no other teams I like better than the Canucks still in the play-offs THEN

I will cheer for the Canucks.

In the meantime I will pray that such an event never, ever happens.

Entry Draft(s)

Last time I went to an NHL Entry Draft it was 1995. I still remember the chants of the crowd for Doan! Doan! DOAN! Doan! Doan! KELLY?!? WTF?

I still have the booklet from that draft.

Anyways, I am now - officially - headed to the 2010 NHL Entry Draft being held in Los Angeles this June 25.

Never, ever thought I would get two of those in.

The Arena

Just to clarify, my true preferences in regards to the arena are these (in order):

1. That Northlands is renovated and all that money being thrown at a development downtown actually goes into the community surrounding Northlands. History, tradition and heritage mean a lot to me and, for what it's worth, I think that area could become something truly spectacular were equivalent energies expended.

2. That IF a new arena must be built then it be built where in the same area as where the Stadium is. Move the Linen plant et al (gotta be cheaper than downtown land), one eyesore is better than two and parking can be shared. Move the entire Northlands complex and pass the old one to the developers (part and parcel).

Never, ever happen.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Some Simple Thoughts

(picture via Steve Russell, Toronto Star)

THE PICK

If the Oilers can get Boston to throw in their two 2nd round picks (the 2010 Toronto 2nd and their own) - or something equivalent/better - they should, happily, accept the compensation and take Seguin at 2nd overall.

If not, then they should probably take Hall.

Barring a trade for the actual 2nd pick, in a best worlds scenario Boston flips their own 1st and 2nd (not Toronto's 2nd) for a 3rd and 5th and the privilege of taking Hall 1st overall. Don't see it.

I say that only because I am fairly ambivalent as to the difference in value of Hall and Seguin. However, if the Oilers are similarly ambivalent they shouldn't be as obvious about it as I am.

THE ARENA

If the cost to renovate/expand the Colisseum is around $250 million then, and if their bargaining position matches mine, then that is what the City of Edmonton should expect to pony up for a new Arena.

My bargaining position is simple:

1. Maximum contribution, to arena, is $250 million; this money would be borrowed

2. The arena remains the property of the City of Edmonton

3. Other area infrastructure upgrades are estimated and tallied and paid and exactly one-half of those costs would be borrowed and tied to the same instrument used to fund the arena (the other half being considered a cost of doing business to revitalize an area)

4. Debt servicing and repayment for all amounts borrowed is paid for:

..... a. first, by any super-increases* in the targeted area's tax collection over and beyond the last established tax collection for that area, and

..... b. secondly, by ancillary revenues** generated by the new arena

5. Once the debt is paid off the ancillary revenues, as established and referenced, are then paid to the team

* increases over and above standard increases city-wide - this is for the sake of tax payer transparency (i.e. pre-arena the area was worth 'x' and paid 'x' in taxes and now it is worth 'y' and pays 'y' in taxes; y - x is what is gained by taking part in the exercise)
** parking and the like; pretty much anything that will result in an increase in revenues for the Oilers via the new arena is up for negotiation imo - though I expect that only those revenue streams currently gifted the Oilers would end up being hassled over

The upshot being that the City will allow the developers to leverage city dollars into making the development a go AND, once the debts are paid off, gift the Oilers with much larger revenue streams (with the issue being the payment of the debts incurred).

STEVE NASH

Very proud of him.

Update to add a nice G&M story (per Michael Grange):

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Hypothermetically Speaking

So... question...

Given that you, as the GM of an NHL team are SERIOUS about rebuilding your club - from the ground up no less - do you make this trade:

Souray, O'Sullivan, Nilsson and Moreau
FOR
Redden, 2010 1st, 2011 2nd and 2012 1st

------

The Salary Grid* looks like so:

2010-11: EDM = -4.6 = 4.5 + 2.4 + 2.5 + 1.7 - 6.5
2010-11: NYR = +4.6

2011-12: EDM = +2.0 = 4.5 - 6.5
2011-12: NYR = -2.0

2012-13: EDM = +5.0
2012-13: NYR = -5.0

2013-14: EDM = +5.0
2013-14: NYR = -5.0

* With buy-outs the absolute cost to the Rangers goes down substantially while the relative value of benefits received by the Oilers go down

------

The Cap Grid looks like so:

2010-11: EDM = -5.8 = 5.4 + 2.9 + 2.0 + 2.0 - 6.5
2010-11: NYR = +5.8

2011-12: EDM = +1.1 = 5.4 - 6.5
2011-12: NYR = -1.1

2012-13: EDM = +6.5
2012-13: NYR = -6.5

2013-14: EDM = +6.5
2013-14: NYR = -6.5

Surprisingly, the big hit to the Oilers - in regards to the Cap - don't really occur until the 2012-13 season as the two year stretch per the Nilsson and O'Sullivan buy-outs is avoided.

------

This is, basically a cash for picks deal with the variables being value received by the Rangers from Souray's play (fight! fight! fight!) and the value received from by the Oilers from Redden's play (doh!).

So:

- is it worth it to you to dump all of your problem contracts/players at once AND get some nice draft picks in exchange for a player on the downslope with a nut-crushing contract?

- is it worth it to the Rangers to get a player(s) they might want AND save their future Cap and cash positions in exchange for being able to dump a Cap and cash killing contract?

------

So what do you imagine/mean/believe when you say the words 'rebuild'?

------

Have a great evening everyone.

It's A Bird, It's a Plane... It's a Draft Pick?

Photo is picked up from Faceoff.com, an Edmonton Journal blog

So. Let's say that this team really IS in for the long rebuild. Cool.

Hey! Look! Ottawa is thinking of buying out Cheechoo's contract! I guess that looks kinda like so (feel free to check my math):

JONATHAN CHEECHOO

Salary: $3.5 million
Cap hit: $3.0 million
Buyout: $1,155,000 or $577,500 per year in budget costs
2010-2011: $ 77,500
2011-2012: $577,500

Hrmmm... ain't that a coincidence... the Oilers are looking/rumored to be buying out Nilsson and/or O'Sullivan...

ROBERT NILSSON BUYOUT FROM CAPGEEK.COM

2010-2011: $-83,333 ($416,667 in budget costs)
2011-2012: $416,667 ($416,667 in budget costs)

PATRICK O'SULLIVAN BUYOUT FROM CAPGEEK.COM

2010-2011: $935,417 ($397,917 in budget costs)
2011-2012: $397,917 ($397,917 in budget costs)

Gee, what kind of draft pick would Ottawa give up to save approximately $323,000 in budget costs and somewhere from to $238,000 to $321,000 in Cap hits (think Nilsson)?

Guess we'll never know.

------

Edit to add: If Tambellini really did have a Penner & Gilbert for the TO 1st on the table (per Dupont at the Boston Globe)... and Chiarelli couldn't get that to go... then they are both idiots. Tambs for offering and Chiarelli for not closing. Just a stupid, stupid deal to even offer!

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild - Rebuild It Is Then

Well, THAT was underwhelming.

The Trades

Did like the Staois trade straight up. Johnson is gone end of the year so this is purely about trimming next years Cap hit and getting a 3rd round pick.

Did not like the Grebeshkov trade before and it makes even less sense now. If Visnovsky was a trade target then keeping Grebs makes a lot of sense - pump his value with powerplay and butter minutes and trade him NEXT year.

Did not like the Visnovsky trade. I haven't liked Whitney since his full-on regression in Pittsburgh and I liked him less once he signed an inflated deal based on best before dated play (which makes him an Oiler by default I guess). No draft pick? Dear god.

The Waiver

Ryan Jones will be a better NHL player than JF Jacques. whoop-de-freaking-do

The Trades Not Made

How many smallish, duplicate skill-set forwards do we have on this team? How many were traded today. Reason enough to fire Tambellini right there. Moreau still with the team? And Pisani and Comrie are still with the team?

Epic failure. Epic. No excuse good enough for that.

One (Possible) Saving Grace

Of 3 trades made, only 1 makes any sense IF Tambellini is actually planning on the buy-outs (Nilsson, POS) and the reloading of the roster (Jagr) for next year - which I believe to be true btw. If, however, this is the start of a full on rebuild (which I will believe when seen) then the trades make some sort of sense.

Look, the total possible Cap dump here is around $7.5 million less a few replacements (I would probably keep Johnson just so that I can retain a veneer of respectability - he is a 'veteran' defenseman after all). Drop Pisani and Comrie and the savings are now in excess of $10 million - even factoring in some replacements.

Tambellini now has a chance to dump/trade any/all of the remaining forwards that have to go. I figure that one, maybe two, can be legitimately traded.

Using a ratio of 1/2 (half of what goes out comes back in; i.e. Moreau for a 4th and some scrub with a guaranteed one-way contract) the resulting Cap savings could be as much as another $2 million.

With any luck Khabby doesn't come back (another $3+ million) and Souray becomes another off-season casualty/trade (using the 1/2 ratio that is another $2.7 million).

So here's the trick - use what you have. And what you have is a team as bad as it will ever get (I hope), a few decent veteran pieces, some good prospects and a whack of Cap space and budget play.

THAT first part (the bad team bit) is the one, possible, saving grace that comes out of a day like today.

Given that Visnovsky, Grebeshkov and, even, Staois aren't easy pieces to replace on this team (mostly because they comprised some of the few quality pieces on it), don't try to replace them.

At least not yet. Make signing, or trading for, ONE decent player the goal of the off-season (Seidenburg maybe?) - it worked for Phoenix (Sauer) and go from there.

Keep Eberle and co. off the roster for now and let Nilsson/POS/Brule et al play out their contracts or become trade deadline tradebait. The in-season goal is to collect ONE more decent player and collect another top-3 pick in 2011.

Hemsky is the only real question mark in this whole process and I have to hope that even Tambellini can't screw that trade up.

A decent management team could make lemonade out of this fiasco.

Hence my hopes aren't all that high.

F&*k me.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild

Hrmmmm....

This team isn't that good. Hasn't been for a long, long time. Makes it hard to write about. Even harder when I can't see where it will get any better any time sooner, or later.

So I will keep this short.

SHOULD MAKE PLAYOFFS

IF this is my goal - to build a team that should make the playoffs and then hope for some quality time with my Fairy Godmother at a Shnapp's Shooter party come said playoffs - then:

Step 1: Moreau goes, Souray goes, Pisani goes, etc.
Step 2: Dump any four of the munchkins
Step 3: Do everything I can, short of giving up the 1st, for Weiss

If Step 2 and Step 3 aren't mutually exclusive then all the better.

i.e.

Brule, Cogliano & Plante
FOR
Weiss

Works just fine for me.

Given that goaltending may be plentiful yet again, I wait for the off-season to fix that problem.

Given that my team isn't deep enough to overcome mediocrity I wouldn't hold my breath as to 'fixing' the problem.

Given the state of the team's goaltending right now... maybe mediocrity isn't so bad after all.

heh

WILL MAKE PLAYOFFS

IF this is my goal - to build a team that will make the playoffs and should be a year-to-year contender for the Stanley Cup then:

Step 1: Moreau goes, Souray goes, Pisani goes, etc.
Step 2: Dump any three of the munchkins
Step 3: Do everything I can, short of giving up the 1st, for Toronto's 1st

If Step 2 and Step 3 aren't mutually exclusive then all the better.

i.e.

Penner/Visnovsky/Gilbert (one of), Brule/Cogliano & 2nd
FOR
Ryder (or equivalent salary) & TO 1st

Works just fine for me. Hell, Penner and Gilbert could work if the salaries match up.

If I can follow that up with a trade of Souray and assets to Dallas for Turco, their 1st and assets then all the better.

Given that 'bad' goaltending is a key, positive, factor in any successful rebuilding I am already set with current assets. No chance I keep Turco.

Given that I am committing to a full rebuild then all I have to worry about is getting assets with a good work ethic - so that is my major worry.

That and Hemsky. Would hate to lose him.... and with this I probably would.

UPDATE (from when written):

GREBESHKOV TRADE

Grebs for a Nashville 2nd. Tambs is in for the long haul.

Unless Nashville collapses, not a great trade.

Edit to add:

I am reading in numerous comments (made elsewhere of course :-) ) that this trade makes sense:

1. as a salary dump and

2. as a value trade because he was set to earn too much if qualified

Utter f&*king hogwash.

1. Katz has the cash to stash so if this was about the salary dump then it puts to lie every claim made that he was/is willing to spend to build a winner*

2. As an RFA every team that wanted him to stay could qualify to stay and every team that wanted him to go could just not qualify - just like a UFA**

* and sometimes that means spending on a loser so as not to get less than fair value
** which means the team that trades for him has the advantage of being to keep him - regardless of all other factors not involving not playing in the NHL - which is BETTER than UFA

I repeat: not a great trade.

More to come.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild - NBA Edition

As mentioned before I have started to follow the NBA. The ability to reshape a team, almost overnight, is pretty interesting stuff.

However, I also follow it, in part, because I believe that the NBA's management know-how, when it comes to Cap managing a team at least, is far ahead of that of most NHL general managers. There are lessons there to be learned.

What Matters in the NBA

What matters are these four things (in order):

1. Acquiring superior talent;
2. Having money and spending it wisely;
3. Well rounded roster; and
4. Coaching well-matched to the talent

Not much different from any sport really (shoulda known!).

The Salary Cap and Luxury Tax issues only matter on the way to, and at the close of, the accomplishment of those four things.

One area where the two sports differ, markedly, is the extent to which the possession of superior talent affects the record of a team. Because the NBA game is only 48 minutes long and most starters play 30+ mins a night a top-tier player will affect as much as (and sometimes more) two-thirds of a teams 'game'.

In the NHL, other than the goalie (who plays the entire game), only a handful of players will log more than 25 minutes a game over the course of a season. Given an NHL game is 60 minutes long the math says that no matter how good a player like Ovechkin is he will put less time in on the ice than a Kobe or Lebron.

Which means that in the NBA there are few things more important than acquiring superior talent. #1 with a bullet.

Now We Talk Money

Much like in the NHL superior talent will only show up in one of three ways:

1. Top-end draft picks
2. Lucky draft picks
3. Smart, aggressive management with money

As the first two options are pretty standard I will spare a few more moments to discuss the last - smart, aggressive management WITH money.

The NBA Salary Cap sits around $57.3 million while the Luxury Tax kicks in (dollar for dollar) at roughly $69.9 million. The Luxury Tax threshold comes with an extra kick however - teams under the Tax get as much as $4.5 million as part of a share of the taxes paid by those over the Tax.

i.e. Salaries totalling $69.9 million have an effective cost of $65.4 million while Salaries totalling $70 million have an effective cost of $70.1 million.

That last $100k is a killer.

However. The correlation between paying the Tax and being a play-off bound team is pretty strong (I use hoopshype). Check the link.

Excepting the Knicks and the Wizards almost all the teams listed (15 in all) as paying the Tax are either IN the play-offs or probable for it.

Excepting the Raptors, Bobcats, Hawks, Blazers and Grizzlies most teams listed (15 in all) as not paying the Tax are out of the play-offs.

To be fair, that Western Conference is nuts.

Why?

Go back to what I said about smart, aggressive management with money.

Sooner or later one of the teams that doesn't like to, or cannot, pay the Tax will HAVE to dump a good player. And that is where a team WITH money can come in and get said player.

That isn't always easy however. The NBA has a trade kicker (actually, there are several) wherein salaries have to, more or less, match up. So the trick is being able to match up.

Much easier to do that if you are already spending more than you need to. The key is having expiring contracts available.

Expiring contracts - contracts that end in the current year - can have a lot of value in the NBA. Houston, a team that is paying Tracy McGrady $23 million NOT to play may be able to improve their team by trading him to Philadelphia or Chicago - teams that want to dump NEXT year's salary.

Want to build a winner in the NBA - spend the cash.

Reload or Rebuild?

Okay, granted, while the margin for error is much higher in the NHL (larger rosters, well paid middle class and no skater plays 60%+ of the available ice-time), the NHL isn't all that different from the NBA.

Next post will be the final one of this series.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild - The Revisits - #1

As mentioned just previous, and as alluded to in the title, I am now re-visiting the topic of what I would (if it mattered and if you cared and even if you cared that it mattered I guess) do: reload or rebuild?

First, however, a quick post on luck and why it matters, to me, in this case.

If any of you recall there was a time when I was doing a series of Franchise 101 posts. For the purpose of this post the relevant post to reference is this one:

Franchise 101 - Part 05 - Objectivity

------

For those of you who don't want to take the link elsewhere (Too late for some. I know. Sorry) I will quote the relevant portion below:

A quick lesson on Objectivity and Subjectivity:

Objectivity

Yes. Halle Berry is better looking than my wife.

Subjectivity

My wife is every good thing for me. She rocks my world in every way. Absolutely gorgeous. Get lost Halle.

The Goal

There is the rub. As long as the topic, or goal, is simply that of 'who is most attractive' then my example stands, if however, the issue is that of lifemate and compatibility then my example is stood on its head (pointed as it may be).

Does luck play a role? Of course. Is some subjectivity a good thing? Of course. Too much of either however is, typically, a bad thing.

The lesson - as important as it is to objectively classify the competitive standing of a team it is even more important to understand the goal at hand. Ostensibly this is to win the Stanley Cup.

------

In the NHL there are, really, only four categories needed to classify the competitive standing of each team: Play-off Longshot, Play-off Bubble Team, Play-off Probable and Cup Contender.

Play-off Longshot

The team, as currently constituted, won't be in the play-off chase. Too young, too injured, too dysfunctional, too short on talent in key spots and/or too much of any combination of the items already mentioned - it just isn't a play-off team.

Everything would have to break right for this team to make a run.

Play-off Bubble Team

The team, as currently constituted, has some issues but is strong enough in other areas to compensate. If the team can avoid the injury bug and/or long-term slumps from key players then they should be competitive most nights and right in the thick of it.

Throw in a career year from a key player and/or a rookie that blows the doors off and this team is in and may be making a run.

Play-off Probable

The team, as currently constituted, has few issues and a lot of strengths. Barring impairment caused by long-term injuries to, or unexplicable drops in performance from, key players or a total break-down in team chemistry this team will be 'in' the play-offs, not 'trying' to get in.

If a few things break right this team will be competing for a top-4 conference finish and can be considered a Cup contender.

Cup Contender

The team, as currently constituted, is a powerhouse that only total catastrophe can derail from a play-off berth. A solid team without any real weaknesses the roster will have players whose talent is undeniable, players whose performance is dependable, and players who know how to compete night after night. The team probably has a few players who have all three of those qualities.

These are strong teams that can survive the odd set-back quite easily and if players play like they should they will be in it to the end.

------

A GM who has an accurate gauge of the competitive standing of their team should have an advantage over the GM's who do not. I said 'should' because other factors may be in play; the most common being, of course, interference from higher management.

------

You will find this kind of talk in other posts of mine, in the recent past the most notable would be this one:

A Plan

So. That gives you a sense of my starting frame of reference as far as these sorts of things go.

What About 'Luck' Then?

Well:

1. Luck exists;

2. Luck exists on a micro level;

3. Luck exists on a macro level; and

4. Regardless of any mitigations undertaken, see also #1

So I think there is such a thing as luck. 'kay.

In terms of 'micro-level' I am talking about certain individual things that can be done, on a person by person basis, to mitigate the chance that bad things happen or increase the chance that good things happen.

i.e. an NHL-level shooter should be able to, fairly reliably, hit the net with a certain level of accuracy at a certain level of speed. Practicing a type of shot (wrist shot, slap shot, one timer, point shot, etc) should improve a players ability to maintain, and maybe even improve, their level of proficiency with that shot to an extent the 'un'lucky effects are minimized or eliminated in some cases.

In terms of 'macro-level' I am talking about all, or at least a large combination of all, the individual things that can be done, on a person by person basis, to mitigate the chance that bad things happen or good things happen.

i.e. not just practicing a shot but practicing many types of shots, practicing stick-handling and pass reception, studying goalie tendencies and increasing ice awareness, maintaining physical fitness levels and optimizing the mental and emotional approach to the game, etc.

And lest I haven't made the point clear enough before - sometimes 'luck' just 'happens'.

What Direction The Wind?

I also look at things in a reference or direction mode. Which is to say, when I add everything up do I (or 'you', or 'whomever' for that matter) need:

-- luck to work with me for me to succeed or
-- luck to work against for me NOT to succeed

Think about that for a second. If I am a NHL level shooter and I have:

-- maximized, to the best of my ability, every talent and skill I have; and
-- allowed for the talent of the opposing team to alter or block my shot

Then I know that I should be scoring some goals. If I am scoring less than I should then odds are good I am not getting lucky or I should review my mitigation efforts and if I am scoring more than I should then luck is with me.

HOWEVER

If I am a NHL level shooter and I'm not practicing and doing all sorts of other good things then there comes a point in time where - just to maintain status quo - luck HAS to be working in my favor. Over time my ability to successfully do things, at a certain level of predictability, will decrease.

The Oilers

I would propose to you that the problem with the Oilers the last few years is that team management has, serially, constructed rosters that required luck to be working in their favor in order for the team to succeed:

- certain players HAD to stay healthy
- certain players could NOT have off years
- certain players HAD to improve their productivity a great deal (not just a bit)
etc.

And all that, obviously, hasn't happened.

Start To Put It Together

So, put it all together and you should, now, have an idea of what I think about the question of reload vs. rebuild.

It's all about competitive level and requirements for luck. Until the next post in this series, take care.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

2010 Reload or Rebuild - To Be Revisited

I will post more on this on a later date but for the record my decision on whether or not to try for a 1 year reload versus a 3 to 5 year rebuild rests on three unknowns:

1. If Boston wants Penner;

2. If they would give up the Toronto 1st rounder for him and be willing to wait to the last hour of trade deadline day to do it; and

3. Where Toronto is in the standings

My reasoning revolves around the concept of 'luck' and whether or not your success or lack of success depends on it working for you or against you, respectively.

The dots aren't hard to connect.

Not that it matters.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Trades (and a little NBA stuff)

(just to prove I have it)

Souray

Has indicated he's okay if he sees a plane ticket he likes. West coast kind of guy.

- be shocked if Phoenix makes the move (too smart there)
- be surprised if Anaheim makes a move (team fit is poor - may be a replacement for Nieds?)
- be surprised if San Jose makes a move (team fit is poor and Blake is playing well)
- be expecting to see a low-ball bid from Los Angeles (Lombardi is pretty smart)
- be expecting to see a deal made with Dallas (best combo of need, talent to offer, Cap space and budget flex)

As I mentioned elsewhere I like the idea of:

Benn, Skrastins and 1st
FOR
Souray and ??

------

That NBA Stuff

Word is that Houston wants to make a big push for Bosh.

Okay. Fine.

Bosh (PF), Turkoglu (SF) and Calderon (PG)
FOR
McGrady (SG), Ariza (SF) and Scola (PF)

Salaries work per the trade machine but a trade like this never happens - trading Bosh means a rethink of the entire team and such a rethink means a restart. Hence the expiring contracts of McGrady and the now, not needed, contracts of Turkoglu and Calderon.

Next year the rotation is: Jack, DeRozan, Ariza, Scola (if re-signed) and Bargnani

Lottery - but not a bad place to start from. Drop in salary would be amazing.

Next.

Don't mind the talk on trading Calderon. Two best trades I see there:

Calderon and DeRozan (or Wright, if god blows sunshine up BC's ass)
FOR
Iguodala

Calderon and Wright
FOR
Morrison, Vujacic, Farmar, $3 million cash and a pick

This trade has been out there for a while and many serious pundits say LA wouldn't do it Vujacic was involved. Fair enough. Morrison is an expiring contract in 2010 while Vujacic's expires in 2011.

Vujacic's contract is costly, no way around it, but in 2011 the Raptors would have 3 expiring contracts (Vujacic, Evans and Banks) cumulatively worth just over $15 million - nice set of trade chips to have.

NBA... a pretty wild place to GM, even when stuck in the armchair.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Yay! 2010!

(can't get the pic of my MAP jersey to load so I went this direction)

Next verse! Same as the first! A little bit louder and a little bit worse!

A few things with which to start the New Year:

Don't Second Guess

Look. IF Moreau, Staios, Nilsson or POS get traded (heck, include Brule and Cogliano in there if you want) DO NOT be surprised or, worse, second guess yourself IF they happen to do well in their new home.

Performance if a function of three things (I had four in my head when I started typing this section but I'll be damned as to where the fourth one went, so three is what you get):

1. Skills and ability (inherent or learned)
2. Use
3. Luck
4. ... heh ...

Where-ever those players go you can rest assured that #2 will most probably change and #3 may as well. Right here, right now, these guys (Brule excepted) aren't having any luck and their usage is debateable.

That is just the way it is.

Ad Nauseum

For the first time in a long time I was lost as to what to do with this team - either to improve it from what we have now or to rebuild it. Usually I have a pretty good idea of what can be done (sans actual inside knowledge) but now, right now, not so much.

In a macro sense the issue is that too many of the team contracts are too big and too long (hah!) to be easily tradeable in a Cap system where most of the other teams are maxed out or almost maxed out. Dealing in the smaller contracts won't yield much and the few value contracts that are there are tied to players you don't want to deal.

A reasonable man looks at the roster and sees that:

-- there are players that you keep (almost regardless): Gagner and .... Gagner

-- those you trade only if there is a clear upgrade possibility or you want to change the direction the team is headed: Hemsky, Horcoff, Penner and Gilbert;

-- a couple that you keep if they stay cheap enough: Potulny, Stone, Stortini and Smid;

-- and a few pick 'ems (keep one): Pouliot or Brule, Souray or Visnovsky and Deslauriers or Dubnyk.

That leaves:

-- Grebeshkov (RFA / 3.15 / 0 yr)
-- O'Sullivan (RFA / 2.95 / 1 yr)
-- Nilsson (RFA / 2.00 / 1 yr)
-- Cogliano (RFA / 1.13 / 0 yr)
-- Khabibulin (UFA / 3.75 / 3 yr)
-- Staios (UFA / 2.70 / 1 yr)
-- Moreau (UFA / 2.00 / 1 yr)
-- Comrie (UFA / 1.25 / 0 yr)
-- Strudwick (UFA / 0.70 / 0 yr)
-- one of Pouliot (RFA / 0.83 / 0 yr) or Brule (RFA / 0.80 / 0 yr)
-- one of Visnovsky (UFA / 5.60 / 3 yr) or Souray (UFA / 5.40 / 2 yr)
-- one of Deslauriers (RFA) or Dubnyk (RFA)

Myself, being less than reasonable, would trade four of the six pick 'ems but that's just me.

FTR: I keep Pouliot because a) Brule is a prime pump and dump candidate so I get more out of him and b) if I can't squeeze Pouliot into a supercheap contract after YET ONE MORE shyte year (his fault or not) then I just let him go (i.e. trade in the off-season).

Having been on the Pouliot bandwagon from the start you have to believe me when I say - that last bit hurt to say it.

Looking at a lot of roster turn-over there, but that's okay. As being good right now isn't an option, and neither is being good right away, we are left with being good one day much sooner than never but much later than now.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am absolutely certain that many of those names are moveable THIS year.

Goaltender Interference

I wrote this pre-injury but the idea remains the same - there is always a way.

Khabibulin's contract will be almost impossible to move this... err... next year... err... ever. The term and the amount are just too long and too large (I flatter) to be easily absorbed. This leaves just two possibilities:

1. Send him to Russia for a year or so and hope he likes it

2. Find a GM that is either a) desperate b) stupid or c) both

Option 1 will probably be the easier solution to implement. Outlets for that contract are very few (in no particular order):

a. Chicago makes some sense, depending on whether or not they actually want Khabibulin back, as $2 million in Cap relief is significant;

b. Philadelphia isn't a bad bet if Emery/Boucher continue to struggle but the lack of salary fill, from Philly, makes this a hard trade to complete;

c. Ottawa isn't getting much from Leclaire or Elliot but, as managment isn't under the gun to 'win-now', only an 'outta-here' trade makes sense;

d. Los Angeles, as with Ottawa, isn't getting much out its goalies but the team does have a winning record and has played a lot of raod games early; and

e. Washington has the pressure to win so they might throw a look at him (using Theodore and Nylander) but Varlamov is just playing too well right now

For the record I think the Washington deal may have been the easiest (though it would have required Katz eat some salary).

For The Record: Boston

I have seen some suggestions about trading Visnovsky to the Bruins for the Leafs #1 pick. Trading to get that pick IS freaking brilliant if it can be pulled off.

Visnovsky won't make that happen. The Bruins have few REALLY bad contracts and the one they have they like (Lucic). Morris and Ference are both done after this year so that leaves Wideman, Krejci, Ryder and Sturm as the only decent sized contracts the Bruins would have to trade in order to take on a contract the size of Visnovsky's.

(Yes. They could trade Morris. But odds are good that space is already spoken for. Ference, I will admit, is a maybe/probable.)

Taking a look at boxcars and details I am thinking that if Visnovsky (if healthy) is going to Boston for that pick the trade looks a lot like:

Visnovsky & Brule/Cogliano
FOR
Wideman, Krejci & TO 1st?

Think about that for a second. A lot of noise in Boston. Krejci isn't having a great year but his boxcars are okay while Wideman is a fair bit younger than Visnovsky and was signed as one of that teams d-men of the future.

Which means that Visnovsky to Boston just isn't an easy trade to visualize happening. Visnovsky only works if Boston really wants to make a Cup run, wants to dump salary and can't find a cheaper offer elsewhere.

Hence my point - you want to talk the Toronto pick out of Boston... talk Penner. That'll make 'em cream their pants.

Penner
FOR
Krejci and the TO 1st

Would probably work. And I don't even like Krejci that much.

For The Record: Pittsburgh

Want to trade Visnovsky? Send a glance Pittsburgh's way. Gonchar is making noise about his payday and he will be 36 next year. Me? I say pay the man (and I do think he will stay). But if Pittsburgh is thinking different then they may take a look at Vis. Regardless of the play of Letang

The guy you want is, of course, Staal. If not Staal then target the best selection of Goligoski, Tangradi, Depres and picks you can get. I wanted Letang last year but... well... good luck with that now.

Full disclosure: Tangradi and Depres are listed only by virtue of the listing at HF, and I haven't spent any time scouting or watching Goligoski. I don't know any of their games at all. Sorry.

Of course... that means that none of the guys you actually WANT to trade are traded yet.

Yay.

Be an interesting trade deadline to be sure.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

(New) Last Post of 2009

My apologies to those who thought I was done for the year.

Blame Scott. His response to my 'Last' (now '(Second) Last') post of the year got me to thinking; first, his post verbatim:

"We can only hope that the result of the low finish is a change (hopefully for the better) in upper management of the hockey club. Unfortunately, I figure Tambellini will get one more year no matter the finish this season and will feel that he needs to make the playoffs to keep his job (and he'd probably be right) and do further damage to the long-term future of the team."

Mostly right Scott.

There are three possible ways for Tambellini to keep his job longer than the end of this year (in no particular order):

1. Katz mulligans Tambellini for Lowe's team build and his own (Katz's) sanctioning of Tambellini's management strategy; major changes could take place but this would be the put-up or shut-up year for Tambellini and Jagr (you heard me)

i.e. everyone agrees it was a f^&ck-up by all and Tambellini gets one more year to turn it around; note that this

2. The team goes on enough of a tear in the new year that the team sacrifices some young talent (not named Eberle or MPS) in order to secure enough veteran talent to make a run that takes them into, or just barely out of, the play-offs

i.e. this cluster-f^&k that we call a roster gets another year older but not another year better and Tambellini will dodge the bullet for one more year

3. Tambellini starts the rebuild; in this case the blame falls on Lowe's team build and all agree the team needs a rebuild. Moreau, Staios, Souray and others head out the door while Horcoff goes in for surgery and gets the 'C' for 2010-11

i.e. what should have started in 2006-07 (Pronger) and must have started in 2007-08 (Smyth) will finally start now and Tambellini will get to do it

Dammit

The problem with these scenarios are three fold:

1. in each case Tambellini, and Lowe, get to keep their jobs

2. the obvious scenario is the third

3. in the case of third scenario Tambellini, and Lowe will get far more than one more year in which to produce results

I may not think much of Lowe and Tambellini's managerial skills but they aren't stupid people.

-- Lowe was smart enough to get out of the way just before it became obvious to joe-everyfan (not just the Oilogosphere) that he was the problem and

-- Tambellini was smart enough to pull the trigger on MacTavish while the paint used to draw the face was still fresh

Think about that for a second. The rebuild is becoming obvious. So much so that it may be impossible, even for those with the hubris that is the calling card of Oilers team management, to avoid.

Do you know any GM's who only get one year to rebuild a team? When it is universally acknowledged as being one?

I don't believe there are any such names out there.

And that is the problem.

Lowebellini will start the rebuild, be lauded for seeing the light and for being courageous enough to do so - despite the rabid fan base the Oilers have - and it will be years before their failings will be found out.

Again.

You don't always get what you want.

And sometimes when you do, it isn't what you need.

I think this team needs a seachange in its management group. If they take the path of the rebuild, something I have wanted them to do for a while now, I won't get to see it.

For years.

My great fear is that they try to short-circuit the whole thing. Draft top-3 this year and then spend all their money on Jagr, Redden and whoever else they can max Cap on. My call? It won't work... it may get me the management turnover I want but it will set this team far, far back of where a proper rebuild would take them.

We are about to see our very own, homegrown, version of Mike Milbury in action. Draft well and then shit the bed, rinse, repeat.

wheeee

------

Have a great evening everyone. And a wonderful new year :-)

(Second) Last Post of 2009

Before the year began most Oilogosphere posters had the Oilers as placing out of the play-offs with some, myself included, positing that they had a chance IF everything (in my case: EVERYTHING) went right for them. There were a few who pegged this for a team that could, on its own merits, finish 6th to 8th but even those posters didn't sound too enthusiastic about it.

Kind of a sad thing when internet bloggers have a better grasp of the capabilities of a team than masters of the trade like Kevin Lowe and Steve Tambellini. Let me come right out and say this clearly:

I don't actually think most NHL general managers are all that good at their jobs.

A Qualification

The one qualification I will allow for being this: I don't always know what those jobs are. Some GM's live to serve their master and if their master values ticket sales over all else then expect big names, regardless of team fit or need, to feature prominently on the menu.

The same sort of mechanic will follow depending on the goal - whether the goal be a new arena or the maximization of profits or just being able to meet the budget.

So maybe a GM is, actually, good at their job - we just don't know what that job is all the time.

And How it Applies to the Oilers

One can laud the competitive instincts of Tambellini, Lowe and Katz all they want, it doesn't really matter, competitive instinct doesn't mean dick when two lack capability and the third has other agendas in play.

For the record - while I believe the Oilers may have lost money last year I also believe they would only have done so in an accounting sense (wherein Katz is using the dollars generated by the team to pay himself back the purchase price of the team thus generating a 'loss' by the team) and in my world, only a weasel pulls that trick with a straight face.

There is, absolutely, nothing wrong with such an approach. Just don't try to tell me that fielding a winning team is your priority. Apparently the priorities list like so:

1. new arena
2. recoup investment through team generated cash flow
3. field a winning team

Back To Point

Spend enough years watching the NHL management teams at work and two things come quickly to the fore:

a. to become a GM in the NHL you generally have to be part of the family to start
b. as noted, most of these guys should not be GMs

Look. When I see a guy like Dawes, who had some very good underlying numbers the last few years, sign with a team, WITHOUT obvious holes that he would fill, for minimal money, at the end of the offseason, then it is clear that many of these guys don't know jack shit about putting teams together.

And you see that every year.

There are some good GMs out there. We know who they are. We also know who are not.

Kevin Lowe and Steve Tambellini are not good NHL general managers.

The Runs

Had a quick case of the runs recently. Luckily, as we know these things go, the runs usually - no pun intended - run their course fairly quickly and the body recovers. Painful and inconvenient? Yes. But only for a short while.

The Oiler will have another good run or two in them. In the long run this will not be a good thing. The team needs a rebuild in the worst way but I fear that won't happen with these jokers in charge.

For 2010 I predict the only runs you are guaranteed to continue to see are these:

1. The Oilers won't make the play-offs
2. Lowebellini will not turn this team around
3. Those inherent in my sentence structure

------

Have a great evening and a wonderful holiday season everyone.

Seriously

I used to live and die by the Edmonton Journal sportspage so, in that spirit, and knowing the photo is actually from there (I do try to credit where credit is known btw - though I should be more diligent in doing so):

Photograph by: Chris Schwarz, Edmonton Journal

------

So.

Being Serious

If you were serious about rebuilding this team would you not - and I am looking at this in a RIGHT NOW kind of way:

a. Waive Robert Nilsson and, also use re-entry waivers? Basically use every avenue available until he is gone?

b. Use Cogliano and Grebeshkov in an upgrade trade? Together or alone.

Of course, one would dump any of Moreau, Khabibulin, Staois, Strudwick and Comrie first chance they got (think trade deadline).

How long would it take you to slam the door on Brule?

And Pisani?


Being Absolutely Serious

If you were absolutely serious about making the play-offs and you were GM of the Edmonton Oilers would you not:

a. waive Robert Nilsson

and

b. (seriously) make a pitch to Burke along the lines of:

Cogliano, Brule and picks
FOR
Ponikarovsky & Stajan

If you had to pick up the salary of a Wayne Primeau or a Garnet Exelby - would you blink?

And if 'picks' meant a 2nd and 3rd instead of a 4th and 5th would you do it?

And if 'picks' meant a 1st... would you still do it?

------

IMO, Robert still being here has more to do with Kent than anything else; also, I would actually offer Pisani another contract - 3 yrs at $600,000 /year - if he genuinely wanted to retire an Oiler and I thought guaranteeing his pension was something one did for loyal, hardworking employees who didn't make a career out of taking aggressive penalties.

Which I do think is something one would do.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Who Needs 'Em?

Conventional wisdom generally holds that there is little value in a team tanking a season. It doesn't guarantee a Cup win, it aggravates a fanbase and leaves the players disillusioned and unmotivated.

Fair enough.

Last 10 Stanley's

2009 - Pittsburgh
2008 - Detroit
2007 - Anaheim
2006 - Carolina
2004 - Tampa Bay
2003 - New Jersey
2002 - Detroit
2001 - Colorado
2000 - New Jersey
1999 - Dallas

Nice list of teams.

A Road Less Travelled?

Interesting thing though, of those teams that have won the Cup in the last 10 years, no less than 6 teams owe significant debt to having been horrible teams at one time (or several times as the case may be):

2009 - Pittsburgh ... Crosby, Malkin, Fleury
2006 - Carolina ..... Staal ....... 2003, 2nd overall
2004 - Tampa Bay .... Lecavalier .. 1998, 1st overall
2002 - Detroit ...... Yzerman ..... 1983, 4th overall
2001 - Colorado ..... Forsberg .... 1991, 1st overall (Lindros)
1999 - Dallas ....... Modano ...... 1988, 1st overall

So that is 6 of 10.

Sidedoors

Of the other 4 teams:

2007 - Anaheim ...... Pronger (1993, 2nd overall) & Niedermayer
2003 - New Jersey ... Niedermayer
2000 - New Jersey ... Niedermayer .. 1991, 3rd overall

So, even if by way of Hartford and Toronto, 3 more teams needed players picked high in draft by teams that had, once upon a time, horrible, horrible seasons.

Righteousness

That leaves the 2008 Detroit Red Wings. They would be the anomaly.

They are the only team that has won the Cup in the last 10 years without a player who was chosen in the top-4 of a draft year.

Good for them!

Well, except for Brad Stuart maybe (1998, 3rd overall, San Jose)?

As he wasn't a key component of that team making the play-offs, winning a round or winning the Cup I guess we can ignore his contributions in the context of this post.

So. Still. Good for them.

Mostly.

Morality Play?

Don't kid yourself. Sometimes it takes a crawl through a river of shit.

While poor timing, poor drafting and poor management can ruin a good wallow in the muck of awfulness NOTHING can goose a team's chance to win it all like having one, or (even better) multiple, top-4 draft pick selections on the roster.

It's almost a pre-req.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Swimming in Cash

You are a billionaire who has decided your team needs to be gutted and started from scratch.

So, from one billionaire to another...

Khabibulin
FOR
Theodore and Nylander

While you may have to swallow Nylander's salary for this year and the next you do get out from under Khabibulin's next three. In the mean time Washington shores up their long-term goaltending and cuts cash outlay in prep for the Semin/Backstrom contracts.

What do you know - there ARE trade options for this team that might make some sense.

Just gotta be swimming in cash and be ready to dive. Wasn't that one of the perks that came with having a rich owner?

Oh right. I forgot. This is a real estate play. Sorry.

Maybe it'll come with a pool?

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Not a Joke

A few posts ago, before it became a rather heated topic over at LT's even (in a calendar sense), I mentioned a trade:

Hemsky & Grebeshkov
FOR
Weiss & Ballard

For the record. Not joking.

The fact is that this is an 'okay' team IF everything is firing. That means key players have to remain healthy AND they have to performing to, or above, spec.

The Oilers lack quality depth. From what I have seen over the years only a few things overcome a lack of quality depth on the skating roster; some of those include:

1. Phenomenal talent at key positions (see also: Buffalo, Hasek)
2. Phenomenal luck from key players (see also: LA Kings, Potvin)
3. Absolute crap for opposition (see also: SE Division)

Goaltending can mean a lot.

If Horcoff really is injured then this team is in a great deal of trouble. In years past there was always a Stoll or a Reasoner around to carry the heavy freight for a while; not so much in 2009-10. A few more weeks of this and 'rebuild' becomes the operative word (you know... except maybe for that whole Khabibulin contract thingie).

So back to the trade idea. The key words being: 'trade idea'.

I named the names I named for two reasons:

1. They weren't completely out of the realm of reason insofar as the value is there on both sides, and
2. There comes a time when teams have the change direction, sometimes drastically, and this trade would do that

Think about the 2nd line of the roster for second. Probable/possible candidates include Gagner, Cogliano, Nilsson, O'Sullivan, Comrie and Brule. Of those Gagner OR Cogliano (at this stage in their careers) OR Comrie OR Nilsson make a lot of sense if the pieces are there for a soft-minutes scoring line or if a babysitter is secured to watch over them when playing tougher minutes.

But the pieces aren't there. Hence Jacques is on the 1st line.

heh

Think about the O'Sullivan trade for a second. Makes a lot more sense if the team is willing to trade some combination of Cogliano and/or Nilsson in a package for a 2nd line cornerstone doesn't it? Not in Edmonton.

Is this about a sports team or a fucking real estate development?

Oilers team management left MacT to hangdry. Looks like Quinn is holding on to leftover line.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Another Mish-Mash of Stuff

DEFENSE! . . DEFENSE!!

I have always categorized defensemen into four broad categories:

1. Those who play best staying in defensive position
2. Those who contribute most leaving defensive position
3. Those who try to do both
4. Those who can do both

Simple enough. There may be a hundred descriptors I can graft onto to those categories but it all starts there. The trick, imo, is to always have a 2 or 3 playing with a 1 or 4. When teams screw these combo's up they generally get into trouble.

The 2nd group is the most varied of the four categories as it includes offensive defensemen (say, Ozolinsh) and 'hitters' (say, Ulanov). This is the chaos group because players in this category tend to leave position in order to make their play.

Chaos doesn't necessarily mean 'bad' btw. Gains made can be worth losses incurred. I would suppose the 3rd group is generally the 'most bad' group. Not sound enough defensively to hold the fort and not good enough in other areas to make up the losses. Lots of rookies in that group.

That said, Seidenberg has rounded into a decent defenseman by my eye.

As you can imagine, the 4th group is (by far) the most rare. And please note, except in the case of the 4th group, I have not made any indication of ability.

Thinking of all of that the other day I spared a thought for Phaneuf. Group 2 player who is a threat to leave position at any time as he is both a hitter and an offensive defenseman. That isn't going to help Kipper any.

LAFFS AND LAFFS

Following up on a David Staples post (Cult of Hockey) that echoed my own empty headed thoughts - that post is here - I am one of those who think Burke started his rebuild way too soon.

He didn't quite have the wonderful off-season I predicted for him (or, at least, that he should have had)**.

This isn't rocket science folks.

Valuable pieces available to unload? Check.

Bad goaltending? Check.

Patient fan base? Check.

Full budget and full Cap capability? Check.

A few good young prospects/players already in place? Check.

Damn. I cannot think of a higher profile team that had a better opportunity, in my lifetime, to enter a rebuild and come out of it pre-forgiven and shining like roses. Even Blake's contract was finally getting to the point where it was a value asset (next year the Cap hit is a cool mill higher than actual salary).

It's like Lowe and Burke got together in the little boys room, kissed and made up and somewhere in the spit they exchanged mojo's. The risk factors for the Leafs are all so high it beggars my imagination.

Kessel was the wrong the move to make THIS year. That 2010 1st rounder should be a top-8 marker and it will, of course, be paired with a 2nd rounder in the top-38. Barring a great off-season in the summer of 2010, the second (2011) 1st round pick should be in the top-10.

And that is WITH Kessel, Beauchemin, Komisarek, et al added to the team.

Think about that for a second. It isn't a matter of Kessel outperforming what Boston receives in the trade - it's about Kessel outperforming what Toronto would have gotten if they hadn't done the trade.

Burke's real mistake was that of putting too much value on the incoming defensmen. Niether Beauchemin nor Komisarek was a driver back there on defense - on those teams it was Neidermayer/Pronger and Markov - but Burke treated them as being such.

Then made all his bets accordingly.

Oops.

If he had just stuck with a rebuild plan:

- stay with Toskala for 2009/10 (at least) and bring the new guy in slow;
- do NOT pick up Komisarek
- pimp Stempniak and Blake near the deadline
- if the price is right find a taker for Poni and Kaberle
etc

Then two top-3 picks over the next two years aren't out of the question; good draft year or bad, top-3 is generally where you get your winners.

Given Toronto's ability to pay for trade deadline mercs, and pick up UFA's when ready, there is no reason why Toronto should not have been a major force as early as 2014/15. Maybe even earlier given the right UFA signings.

You think Kovalchuk's agent wouldn't have pointed a finger at Toronto's marketability, Cap space, ability to spend, Burke's track record and the fcat that the team would have more talent faster than Atlanta could ever hope to produce?

And now? With the rebuild ending with Kadri?

The Laffs never end. Hyuck Hyuck.

PROMISE AND PROMISES

One part of me says: 'homegames' and 'shooting percentages' and nothing changes.

Another part of me says: 'Penner is ready to play this year', 'Smid has graduated' and 'We just might have a scoring line featuring Gagner as center'.

Oh yeah: 'small sample sizes'

heh

------

** Also feel free to read this post on rebuilding a team and this post on the Kings (Lombardi to be specific).

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Early Returns

It's how you finish that matters. Fair enough.

A season start is what it is and, given the laugh-a-thon that was the netminding in games 1 and 2, it can be said that the points were, at the least, earned. Well-earned being a label to save for another day.

Some thoughts.

Do You?

An interesting thing, for me, is the play of Horcoff and Hemsky. Dudes are having some issues. Can't all be JFJ. Question becomes, if (and this is a 'just saying' moment) a package like, say, Weiss and Ballard came available for, say, Hemsky and Grebeshkov with draft picks to balance - do you?

I don't believe the Oilers are going to get any 'luck' - in terms of trades of spare pieces (teams really shouldn't waste gift-of-god trades like Hejda and Glencross, they just shouldn't) for usable pieces - to come their way anytime soon so a sideways swing may be needed.

So, do you? Swing that way? Do you at least start thinking about it?

Consider, at this pace Gagner will be a legit #2 center, able to score points and handle defensive duty, by the end of NEXT year.

Powerplays

Seems to me that when you take a legitimate shooter (Stoll, Souray, Streit, Phaneuf) and combine them with a legitimate puck-mover/passer/all-around smart-guy (Pronger, Markov, Bouwmeester) you have 2/3rds of a dominate powerplay ready to roll. All that is left to be decided, imo, is what approach the forward ranks will take.

Surprised we don't see more of it. Surprised at any who didn't think Calgary would be a top-4 team this year. They won't sustain their current pace but that powerplay will cause all the damage that team will need. The forward depth that Sutter built up is just the icing on the cake.

I have said to more than a few - Calgary 2009-10 reminds me a lot of Edmonton 2005-06.

Penalty Kills

Edmonton's is a freakin' monstrosity of hope-shattering soon-to-be-in-a-net-near-you disappointment. Only hope we have internal is a rising-from-the-grave performance by Pisani.

For the record - be nice to see him get his 400 games in.

Be nicer if those games are good ones.

Montreal

For the second year in a row we know: no Markov equals death for this team.

You know, if a team could sneak Latendresse out of there, even if at the cost of picking up a Laraque and/or a Gill, the team that did so could do fairly well. His Desjardins EV numbers say I should like him and so maybe I do.

That would be a steal eh? JFJ, Nilsson, Strudwick and Staios for Latendresse, Gill and Laraque. You know. Because they need another defensemen.

I keed. I keed!

Crazy

Who do we actually match up well with for a trade?

Hrmmm... therein some distress.

------

Have a great evening everyone.