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.

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.

Like a Stone

Not a bad trade imo.

The Good

- Stone is a quality tweener and Springfield gets better immediately;
- Sabourin is a quality tweener and Springfield gets better immediately;
- a 4th, even three years from now, is still a 4th and that is good;
- roster spot opens up on the big team (finally);
- the return was excellent given the value on par-goalies now-a-days;
- should free up a few 100k in Cap space (always good); and
- Garon and JDD were getting jerked around and that should, now, stop

The Bad

- Garon and JDD should never have been getting jerked around in the first place so it isn't like we can confidently say team management gets 'it'
- more tweeners... yay
- Letang was the guy to go after in Pittsburgh and we didn't get him (this should have been a bigger trade)

Overall I am happy with it.

The next three players that should be gone: Nilsson, Moreau and Staios.

The next three players that will probably go (of four): Nilsson, Pouliot, Smid and Grebeshkov.

This will be the last year (barring a renaissance next year) that Moreau and Staios will probably have any trade premium placed on their 'veteran' and 'battlers on the ice' reputation so we can expect that we will keep them around well past the due date. As I said, it isn't like we can confidently say the team gets 'it'.

Finally though. A trade.

Question: Lowe or Tambellini?

I say Tambellini because of the Sabourin factor.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Oilers - An Off-Season Review - 2008 Edition

I remain the ultimate fanboy of Kevin Lowe's career as GM of the Edmonton Oilers.


The Good

Visnovsky for Stoll and Greene is an excellent trade to make. Greene is still years away from developing the positional game he will need to be effective while Stoll needed powerplay time to be an effective scorer. Visnovsky is coming off a poor year, after playing second fiddle to Blake and being forced to play off-wing, but he is the most talented player in this deal by a fair bit and so Lowe won the trade handily.

The only issue is that of the salary cap, given the Visnovsky and Souray contracts total some $11 million in Cap dollars the risk impacts are high if performance isn't up to snuff.

Cole has long been a player I have coveted for the Oilers. Hemsky followed by Cole followed by Pisani makes for a team that has the potential to ice three outscoring lines. That is a rare, and good, thing to have.

Without getting into the 'was-it-a-good-trade?' specifics (I will do so later in the post) the only issue I have here is this one: who centers this guy? We have a lot of young, talented C's but right now the emphasis is on 'young'.

Greene was doing nothing here. Given that a defenseman came back in the trade we aren't really losing anything here. Greene may get it together in LA and if so, good for him, but for the Oilers this should be an addition by subtraction kind of deal. Really. His numbers were that bad.


The Meh

Brule is a good kid. Bunch of NHL games under his belt he was/is a highly touted draft pick who plays with fire in his belly. What's not to like? Maybe the fact that he has a LOT of NHL games under his belt and it looks more and more like his game will have to be rebuilt from the ground up? Yeah. Maybe that.

Stoll could play the PK, man the point on the powerplay and take face-offs. He also had a year, back in 2005-06 that was going to make him a rich, rich man. His on-ice production, in Edmonton, with Souray and Visnovsky getting the lionshare of the PP toi, would not have justified those dollars. I will say it again - good trade.

Strudwick looks to be able to fill the role of 4th line winger (read: fighter) and/or #7 defenseman. While his skills aren't up to snuff, getting a 2-for-1 deal makes this a likable pick-up.


The Bad

Glencross and Torres. Either one, by themself, no big deal. Both? With no incoming, position specific replacement (a la Greene)? This is really, really bad. In combination the moves shift undue risk onto the team. Rookies, sophomores (and maybe Cole?) will have to pick up the slack and there is no proof any will be able.

Also note: both guys were proven EV performers (albeit small sample size per Glencross). Maybe if both players were sheltered I could see the wisdom in this but that isn't the case here.

Finally, both Torres (conference) and Glencross (division) went to immediate rivals ; teams that just got harder to beat. With the trade of Torres, not signing Glencross - given the make-up of the current roster - looks like a big miss for Lowe.

Reasoner. Normally, not signing a player like Reasoner isn't that big a deal; 3rd line PK and face-off specialists should be a relatively easy pick-up and ofttimes a young prospect, with veteran support on the wings, can also fill the spot, but with Stoll also gone the probability that the Oilers will not be able to fill the hole rises dramatically.

Since we know that Lowe didn't pick a veteran up, via trade or signing, we know that it is up to the kids.

On Cole-Pitkanen

It really doesn't matter how poor Pitkanen may be in the dressing room. Unless he is a outright disruption (fighting with his teammates bad), trading a defenseman who:

- has two RFA years left;
- plays 25+ minutes a night;
- should be good for 40+ pts in a bad year;
- is a decent EV player even when his head isn't in the game; and
- already has 269 games in the NHL

for a guy who is an UFA at the end of the year, and unaffordable as a long-term signing regardless (anticipated salary, imo, is $4.75 million if he has a bad year and as much as $6 million on a good year), this was a horrible trade.

Sure, our forward depth is increased - but not where we need it. As much as I like Cole, and I love his game, this was a poor trade in terms of team assets. Unless Cole signs here for a salary roughly equal to current year then everything that was gained in the Lupul trade is lost here.

On Brule-Torres

As much as I like Brule, the problem is that we already have one of these - his name is O'Marra. How many reclamation projects does one team need? Forget reclamation - how many young forwards needing to find their game do we need? Heh - how many undersized forwards do we need?

With Gagner, Pouliot, Cogliano, Brodziak, et al all looking for sheltered time finding a spot for Brule won't happen any time soon.

Why did the pursuit of Hossa entail trading Torres before Hossa was signed? This is simple - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush - stuff. Even IF Hossa is signed and Lowe is forced to dump Torres just to make Cap space, it is a far better fate than that of having no one incoming on the left wing.

Finally, if you know you aren't bringing back Reasoner then why are you trading for Brule when a good 3rd line PK center is there? Even if you have to throw in a late round draft pick bringing a guy like Malhotra back makes it a much better trade.

As far as Hossa goes... 9 years at $9 million a year? I think the world of Hossa but thank-god we missed on that one.

SUMMARY

Visnovsky and Cole are nice additions to the team. I may not like the asset management involved per the Cole trade (a conditional pick based on signing should have been included at the least) but there is no question the team added two players who bring a lot to the team.

Much like the miss on Hejda last off-season, the 'not' signing of Reasoner and Glencross makes little sense. Team depth, at those positions is weakened for no, imo, reason.

Unless, of course, you think that Lowe is, again, trying to have it both ways. Adding Visnovsky and Cole means a push for the playoffs while not signing Glencross and Reasoner means a development year.

Good luck with that.

There Is a Difference

I think Lowe may just pull it off (making the playoffs despite spending a year on development that is) but it is important to note that this review is about the moves made.

On that front this was not a good off-season. The risk factors are through the roof:

- Gagner, Nilsson, Cogliano, et al will all have to continue to improve at a warp-speed rate;
- annual LTIR candidates (Souray, Moreau, Pisani) will have to stay healthy for 70+ games;
- someone will have to pick-up the hard minutes Stoll and Reasoner took at center;
- someone else will have to slot in, sucessfully, at the LW spot;
- Garon will have to maintain his status as a top-20 starter and remain the gold standard for shoot-outs;

etc.

That is a lot to ask of a season.

To top it all off a significant asset was spent on what will be, at best, a 6th place finish. Yay.

------

Heh... a full 11 days earlier than last years post... wheee! Have a great evening everyone.

Oilers - An Off-Season Review - 2007 Edition

Not a great off-season for Lowe. I cannot say it more clearly.

The Good

Garon was a great signing by Lowe. He had injury issues last year but in the games he did play his Sv% was a respectable .907%. He will provide excellent back-up goaltending for Roloson and can step into the #1 role if Roloson falters.

Pitkanen will always be an exceptionally talented defenseman. Getting the best player in a trade usually means your team won the trade and Lowe won this trade. The only problem here is that Pitkanen is even more Hemsky than Hemsky is.**

** With Hemsky we only wonder if he will ever take the next step up, Pitkanen is fully capable of taking a step back - that would make him a very expensive mistake given his numbers justify a $4.5 mill+ contract. For those kind of dollars you want a guy who can do more than score.

The Meh

Tarnstrom is a guy I have ALWAYS supported. Normally I would consider this a great move. Problem is that Lowe also added Souray and we already have Stoll - that makes three players who rely on PP results, generated from the point, for their scoring. And where does Pitkanen fit in there?

The rest of the Pitkanen deal (as a group):

-- Sanderson is deadweight who will probably last the year with us. Lowe MIGHT be able to dump him (deadline) for a late pick but miracles are not for us.

-- Lupul wasn't a good fit here. The Oilers just don't have a line where they can hide him. He might do okay in Philly given that they have more centers capable of babysitting him.

-- Smith is a HUGE loss for the Oilers. One of the few players on the team who is capable of making any player he plays with better.

I like Pitkanen enough that I can avoid giving this deal a thumbs down but mark my words - Smith was team super-glue and I am legitimately scared for this team without him back there. To be frank, if Lowe had had the option to send Greene or Grebeshkov instead, it would have been a better move (even if we then had to throw in the draft pick).

The Bad

Penner should settle in as a decent #2 winger for the Oilers. Problem is that the Lowe picked him up at a much higher price than he should have. The team will easily be one of the worst in the league and top-5 picks in deep drafts are almost a gimme when it comes to drafting IMPACT players. This one hurts.

Souray is the kind of defenseman who should be playing on the 3rd pair at Even Strength, the 1st pair on the power play and the 2nd pair on the penalty kill. In those spots he should be a difference maker. The problem is that, at that pay ($5.4 mill/yr and 3yrs NMC) he:

a. will not be playing a lesser role (at EV) that maximizes his skill set, and he

b. takes us right to the Cap limit (crippling the teams ability to make trades), and he

c. has to perform at an elite level just to justify the dollars, and Cap space - the contract is essentially unmovable.

ALSO

e. there is no proof Souray is a driver of PP results (the stats only show that he can score), and

f. the team already had a PP pointman with a big shot in Stoll, and

g. the team had already added Tarnstrom, and

h. the addition of Souray just further unbalanced the roster (too few players good at EV).

All in all - a complete disaster in the making. Of all the bullets posted it is 'c' that matters - at 5.4 mill /yr the Oilers can't afford to have Souray perform at anything less than an elite level. There is no room for margin in this contract.

Hejda, on the other hand, is the sort of defenseman you only dream of (as a GM). Last half of the year he played like a legit #3 guy. Given that he is a VETERAN player from the Euro leagues I find it hard to assume that his level of performance could/would backslide much. Absolutely collosal blunder by Lowe.

Johnson and Dvorak are the kind of forwards a team needs to sign during rebuild years. They provide veteran play on the 3rd and 4th lines and can shelter rookies as they develop and learn the game. If the team is lucky they can outperform their opposite lines and provide a boost to the entire team in doing so. Too bad Lowe didn't sign ANY of those kinds of players.

SUMMARY

The signing of Garon makes sense for any team at any time. Good back-up goaltending, signed for cheap, is... just... well... it's every good thing. Kudo's to Lowe.

The 'not' signing of Hejda makes no sense at any time for any team. Cheap, reliable, young. It doesn't get any better than that. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

After that, the problem is that Lowe's moves, as a whole, don't make sense. Edmonton is NOT a contender. Contending teams come in several flavors and Edmonton is none of those. Hence, this is a rebuild year. Given that then:

-- Pitkanen is a great player to trade for. Young, can produce, could be dominant, didn't give up too much for him. Losing Smith hurts but for a rebuild this is as good as it gets.

-- Tarnstrom was an excellent signing. Short-term deal, veteran player, deadline trade-bait all the way. Unfortunately, this is the last move Lowe made that makes sense.

-- Penner was a horrible signing to make. By all means, PUSH Anaheim on the dollars, but giving up a 1st, in a draft like the 2008 will be, given how bad the team is, insane.

-- Souray is not a player that a rebuilding team signs to a long-term deal with a NMC. Overpay for one or two years and trade at the first deadline the first chance you get. Or don't sign at all.

One might think that three positives (Garon, Pitkanen, Tarnstrom) and three negatives (Hejda, Penner, Souray) makes for neutral - the team is no worse and no better. Problems are that neutral still means a REALLY bad team, the team is in a long-term rebuild cycle hindered by medium-term contracts and there is no long-term upside (the 1st rnd pick).

Not a great off-season for the Oilers at all. A tremendous number of things will have to break in our favor just to ensure we aren't giving Anaheim a lotto pick. Ouch.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

NHL Off-Season (2007) - End of Day 2

Well, I never did get to finishing up my UFA lists (Left & Right Wings) so my apologies for that. Pickings there were slim regardless however so I don't feel too bad about it.

So where Did We Start?

Edmonton walked into the bidding wars needing 2 solid defensemen to add to Smith & Staios, 1 solid LW to slot ahead of Torres and Moreau and a veteran back-up goaltender. Of the 2 defensemen needed, one of them HAD to be a decent puck-mover who could play on the PP.

The line-up going in looked like so:

Veteran LW .... Horcoff ..... Hemsky

Torres* ....... Stoll ....... Lupul

Moreau ........ Pouliot ..... Pisani

Nilsson ....... Reasoner .... Thoreson

Stortini / JFJ

Veteran D ..... Smith

Grebeshkov* ... Staios

Veteran D ..... Smid

Greene*

Gilbert

Roloson / Veteran BU

This line-up represents the minimum needed for the Oilers to have a semblance of being a play-off bound team.

With the budget estimated at $45 million we know that Cap doesn't matter. The back-up can be any $550k goalie so in terms of dollars we have:

~ $31.62 for the signed players +

~ $ 2.00 for Torres +

~ $ 1.50 for Grebs +

~ $ 1.20 for Greene +

~ $ 0.55 for a back-up goalie

= $36.87 million

Ergo, entering the UFA bidding wars the team had ~ $8.13 million to spend.

So What Have We Done?

From the UFA pool we did manage to sign Tarnstrom (for ~ $2 mill per the Swedish press) and so took care of one of the veteran defensemen requirements. As a guy who can man the PP he represents a two-for.

From the trade pages Lowe pulls this deal: Smith & Lupul FOR Sanderson, Pitkanen & a (2009) 3rd round pick. Sanderson isn't a 1st line LW so he bumps Torres and Moreau up, Pitkanen is a solid puck-mover but he will need a baby-sitter (a Smith-type ironically enough) and RW is now short a player.

Torres* ....... Horcoff ..... Hemsky

Moreau ........ Stoll ....... Veteran RW

Sanderson ..... Pouliot ..... Pisani

Nilsson ....... Reasoner .... Thoreson

Stortini / JFJ

Pitkanen* ..... Veteran D

Tarnstrom ..... Staios

Grebeshkov* ... Veteran D

Smid

Greene*

Roloson / Veteran BU

If we assume that Pitkanen will get the same money as Lupul had remaining on his contract then the new number, per salary committments, is ~ $38.39 million. That leaves $6.61 million to spend.

So How Have We Done?

Long-term we are in better shape as Pitkanen is a big upgrade on talent level. Short-term we have a slightly better LW situation and, probably a better RW situation (Lupul was so bad that this is addition by subtraction).

The problem now is a lack of scoring off the wings and a need for defensive-minded defensemen. Not one of our wingers is a sniper or an 'in-close' scorer and our defense is rife with guys who need baby-sitting. Staios is the only proven defender of the bunch.

The BAD news: Hannan, Sarich and most of the decent all-arounds are off the list.

The GOOD news: Defensive defensemen tend to be cheaper than their offensive counter-parts.

So Where Can We Go From Here?

With ~ $6 million we do have the dollars to spend. With 3 spots to fill it means we are shopping from the bargain bins to fill 2 of those spots. Note that getting a RW is only one option - the team could probably get the same mileage out of getting a decent LW and seeing if Sanderson can play RW.

Worthy players left include (listed in groups by personal preference):

The Wing-men

-- Johnson (RW), Gelinas (LW), Ekman (RW)

The 'Defense-First' Defensemen

-- Markov (D), Lukowich, Hejda, Pratt, Miller

The 'All-Around' Defensemen

-- Tanabe, Tjarnqvist, Eriksson, Sopel

Wow. You can see where the loss of Smyth hurts so much. Quality wingers are hard to find.

There are two there worth getting and then a couple of responsible-play fillers. The Oilers could also try to sign another center and hope he can alsoplay wing (a la Sykora).

The defense is a different story. Lots of quality left there. The perfect signings would probably Markov and Hejda. Another grey-hair to help Staios out and a guy who surprised us all last year with how good he actually was. If Lowe only gets one I hope it is Markov - we need the veteran play.

So What Do You Want To Happen?

At a minimum I want the Oilers to spend some money on solidifying the line-up. Getting Markov at $2.5 mill, Johnson at $1.80 and Lukowich/Heja/Pratt at $1.2 mill adds up to $5.5 million. This is actually LESS than the budget allows but the team would be one that:

-- could sneak into the play-offs, and

-- has assets for trade if injuries derail the season

The other option is to make a trade for a big money guy... but I don't see where that will happen. Teams like Colorado, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and the New York Rangers made them selves ready for this off-season. They won't need to unload salary for a while.

Also, picking up a guy like Redden is all well and fine IF he signs an extension. In the case of a guy like Redden this team is actually better off waiting for him to become an UFA. A lot of teams blew their wad this off-season and so there will be fewer teams bidding on players like that next off-season.

Nope. The best plan is to pick up quality depth via free agency. The team is less vulnerable to dramatic collapses, there are assets available for trade at the deadline and there are assets available for trades - you know - like ones where you pick up a guy like Pitkanen.

Think about that for a second - if Smith and Staios are the only veteran d-men we have under contract, who else would teams want if they want a veteran d-man back in trade?

So What Should We Be Wary Of?

If Lowe only signs one more player this off-season, unless that player is something special, the next season is a write-off.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

NHL Entry Draft (2007) - Review

The more I think about this draft the less happy I am with it - at least as far as the performance of the Oilers go that is.

01 ... CHI ... Kane

02 ... PHI ... vanReimsdyk

03 ... PHO ... Turris

04 ... LAK ... Hickey

05 ... WAS ... Alzner

06 ... EDM ... Gagner

07 ... CLB ... Voracek

Excepting Hickey (who was well off the boards on most lists), the first 7 picks were like clockwork. While I really liked Voracek and - STILL - like him better than Gagner I can understand the Gagner pick. He did well in London.

Which is the problem. In London he played with Kane and he played under Hunter's system and as we have seen with Schremp, Perry et al, Hunter's system really pumps up the point totals of his offensive players (long shifts, lots of PP time, etc.).

Gagner may go on to score more points but my call is that Voracek will be the better player overall. STILL, Gagner was a solid pick. He should be a good player, he was on all the boards at that spot and his risk factors were low.

Note that LA missed an easy trade down here. No way Hickey was going before Alzner, Gagner & Voracek, they must have gotten greedy and were asking too much. Trading to the #7 or the #8 was doable here and any return is better than none. LA screwed up.

08 ... BOS ... Hamill

09 ... SJS ... Couture

10 ... FLO ... Ellerby

The rest of the top-10 brings us our first trade (San Jose and St. Louis) and a second surprise pick (Hamill). Unlike Hickey, Hamill isn't that far off the boards BUT the two picks combined pop Cherepanov out of the top-10. Boston, like LA, misses an easy trade down.

This sets up the first bit of drama in the draft - how far? Most can project Esposito to Montreal at #12 but that still leaves a lot of teams out there to take Cherepanov in the next few picks. As a legit top-5 talent in this draft class how far can he fall?

The trade was San Jose sending the #13 (via Toronto), the #44 and a 3rd in 2008 to St. Louis for the #9. San Jose is always aggressive and Couture is totally their kind of player. St. Louis does well to score two extra draft picks.

11 ... CAR ... Sutter

12 ... MON ... McDonagh

13 ... STL ... Eller

14 ... COL ... Shattenkirk

15 ... EDM ... Plante

More surprises here. Montreal passes on Esposito and all pass on Cherepanov. Carolina goes for character and the 'Sutter' mystique while Montreal and Colorado go after the hottest new thing - young American defensemen. St. Louis DOES go for skill but takes Eller instead.

All the picks are, moderately, solid picks to make but Cherepanov is now some 10 spots behind his probable draft ranking. We are witnessing full free-fall. We are also witnessing one of the few chances the Oilers will ever have to take true world-class talent.

We pick Plante.

I am now operating at a loss. Sure, Plante has potential but Cherepanov has exactly what the organization needs - high-end skill level. And he still has potential to be the best from the draft. An organization that needs skill takes a defenseman ranked well down the scale.

It beggars the mind.

Alzner, Ellerby, McDonagh, Shattenkirk, Hickey and Petrecki all rank significantly higher on most lists and higher on an aggregated basis as well - of those only Ellerby and Petrecki had 'hockey sense' issues. The #15 pick was a trade-down waiting to happen and it never did.

KNOWING that they weren't going to take Cherepanov, somewhere around pick #12 Edmonton should have made a contingency trade with the Rangers (if Cherepanov is there at #15 we get the #17 and a 5th rounder) - by the 15th it was too late. Rangers knew they had him.

Not happy at all with it. The only saving grace is what follows next:

Anaheim trades down and sends the #16 to Minnesota for the #19 and the #42 picks. So maybe Anaheim wanted Plante and the moment they couldn't get him they knew their next guy was available later and so traded down.

For Lowe's sake I hope so.

16 ... MIN ... Gillies

17 ... NYR ... Cherepanov

Minnesota picks a banger... because they just lost to Anaheim?? Gillies won't be ready until well after Pronger and Neidermayer are gone. On the plus side he IS a monster who can actually play so maybe he will be a difference maker via his aggressiveness.

Finally. The Rangers get Cherepanov. Cherepanov gets the Rangers. It is a perfect match. The Rangers love the showboats and Cherepanov will be on Broadway so... good for them. Incredible steal by the Rangers.

This is where the Oilers should have traded to. Barring the Anaheim maneuver Plante would have been available here. It really is too bad. Also note that Esposito is now some 7 to 9 picks behind his aggregate ranking. He is falling fast.

Calgary then trades down and sends the #18 to St. Louis for the #24 and the #70 picks. Standard 6 spot trade-up though I don't think Calgary squeezes enough out of them. St. Louis gives up very little to get their guy so good trade for them.

18 ... STL ... Cole

19 ... ANA ... MacMillan

20 ... PIT ... Esposito

21 ... EDM ... Nash

St. Louis takes a stay-at-home d-man (Redline loved him) while Anaheim picks up another hard-charging, two-way style forward. I have no opinions in any way on those picks. Good for them I guess.

Esposito hits the jackpot. He will get time on the wing with any of Crosby, Malkin or Staal. Wow. Maybe we have to start thinking that getting picked high is a BAD thing because Esposito will have to try to fail in Pittsburgh.

Edmonton then trades up with Phoenix, netting the #21 pick in exchange for the #30 and the #36. Great trade for Phoenix. Awful trade for Edmonton imo. A 9 spot leap at the shorter end of a round costs the #36 pick (high 2nd round)?

St. Louis only paid with the #70 (mid-to-high 3rd round) to get a 6 spot leap EARLIER in the draft. Lowe would have been better off to offer the 4th (2007) and a 3rd from 2008. Or something.

In a draft like this, with guys like Mayorov, Sweatt, Katic and Andersson still available, the #36 is like having an extra mid-round #1 pick. Lowe got schooled. By Phoenix of all teams. Insult to injury imo.

Nash should be a pretty good player. Given the price paid to get him he had d**n well better be.

22 ... MON ... Pacioretty

23 ... NAS ... Blum

24 ... CAL ... Backlund

25 ... VAN ... White

26 ... STL ... Perron

27 ... DET ... Smith

Best pick out of this group is Backlund imo. Most listings had him solidly in the top-20 and on an aggregate basis he was top-15 or higher. The rest of them are just guys you pick when you do because it is your turn next and his name is top-of-your-list.

St. Louis did very well this 1st round. They took the #9, #24, #26 and #70 and turned it into the #13 (Eller), #18 (Cole), #26 (Perron), the 44th and a 3rd in 2008. Davidson practically put on a clinic in regards to leveraging draft position.

Great draft for them.

Washington then traded the #28 to San Jose for the #41 and a 2nd rounder in 2008. Not a great trade but Washington is betting on the 2008 draft being as good as everyone says it will be. Personal opinion - bad trade. Should have squeezed more out of San Jose.

A) Backlund was on the board as late #24 while B) Petrecki was a highly rated d-man going in. Washington needs more draft picks like it needs a kick in the head so trading up for Backlund or taking Petrecki and doubling their chances of getting a high-end D-man to turn out (from Alzner and Petrecki) was the way to go.

28 ... SJS ... Petrecki

29 ... OTT ... O'Brien

30 ... PHO ... Ross

So tell me. If the draft was soooo bad why did San Jose, who started the day with NO first round picks end up bartering significant assets away to score two of them AND then manipulate the board to get the guys they wanted?

San Jose turned the #13, #44, a 2nd round pick in 2008 and a 3rd rounder in 2008 for the #9 (Couture) and the #28 (Petrecki).

San Jose is an aggressive team at the draft and has a history of drafting well. They paid the price for Couture and got a deal on Petrecki. Couture was a legit top-10 in this draft while Petrecki was considered one of the better d-men.

I have to assume - great draft day for San Jose. That team always has assets available for trade and is never afraid to use them.

------

The winners are (in order):

-- St. Louis (great maneuvers),

-- San Jose (killer instinct),

-- Phoenix (fleeced Edmonton),

-- New York Rangers (cherry on top),

-- Pittsburgh (unreal skill level),

-- Columbus (Voracek was still around - yay Kings!),

-- Calgary (extra pick and Backlund at #24),

-- Anaheim (nice extra pick),

-- Esposito and Cherepanov.

The losers are (in order):

-- Los Angeles (could have traded down imo),

-- Boston (could have traded down imo),

-- Washington (mis-fired on the #28 and missed Backlund)

-- Edmonton (poor maneuvering, no Cherepanov)

Their maneuvering was so bad that their guys HAVE to turn out in order to vindicate the decision making. One could try to say the same of San Jose but:

-- they didn't pay through the nose to get their picks,

-- they got Couture near where he was ranked,

-- they got Petrecki well down the list

-- they didn't need a great draft to help turn their fortunes around

Edmonton, i.e. Lowe, doesn't have that kind of leeway. I do think their players are better than many think (I like Nash, not so much Plante and I am ambivalent on Gagner vs Voracek) but they REALLY need at least one of them to cover the bet and another to pay-off to make it all good.

Draft could have been:

-- Gagner, Cherepanov and Backlund / Nash or

-- Gagner, Cherepanov, Mayorov and Andersson

Yes, yes. I know. The real winners will be those teams whose picks actually become usable player assets. Talk to you again in 5 years.

------

Was fun. Have a great evening everyone.

NHL Entry Draft - Movin' On Up

First of all - kudos to Irish Blues (of HF and Salary Cap fame) as I cribbed the first part of this from one of his HF posts (I added a bit and made a correction or two).

I grabbed it because it interested me (of course) - for all the talk given to teams trading up in the draft it is quite rare for anyone to ever really quantify the league's history of it.

This data-set only:
-- deals with Entry Draft years 2001 through 2006, and
-- only deals with 1st round picks, and
-- does not deal with exclusive 'pick-for-player' trades, and
-- may not be exhaustive

yet is still illuminating for all of that. Enjoy.

The Trades

2001
-- CAL tr p. #11 to PHO for p. #14 & 41
-- BOS tr p. #13 to EDM for p. #19 (per Guerin trade) **
-- PHI tr p. #23 to OTT for p. #27 & 225 plus a 2nd-rnd pick in '02
-- NJD tr p. #24 to FLO for p. #44 & 48 (the STL pick per Steven's tampering case)
-- WAS tr p. #25 plus R. Zednik & J. Bulis to MON for p. #61 plus T. Linden and D. Zubrus **

2002
-- FLO tr p. # 1 to CBJ for p. # 3 plus the right to swap 1st-rnd picks in '03
-- TAM tr p. # 4 to PHI for p. #34 & 52 plus R. Fedotenko
-- CAL tr p. # 9 to FLO for p. #10 & 99
-- DAL tr p. #13 to WAS for p. #26 & 42 plus a 3rd-rnd pick in '03
-- EDM tr p. #14 to MON for p. #15 & 245
-- VAN tr p. #17 plus a 3rd-rnd pick in '03 to WAS for p. #55 plus T. Linden **
-- CBJ tr p. #20 to BUF for p. #30 plus M. Pandolfo
-- CBJ tr p. #30 to ATL for p. #41 & 96

2003
-- FLO tr p. #1 & 73 to PIT for p. #3 & 55 plus M. Samuelsson
-- BOS tr p. #16 to SJS for p. #21, 66 & 103
-- EDM tr p. #17 to NJD for p. #22 & 68
-- TAM tr p. #25 to FLO for p. #34, 41 & 192
-- DAL tr p. #28 to ANA for p. #36 & 54

2004
-- CAL tr p. #19 & 247 to NYR for p. #24 & 46
-- DAL tr p. #20 to NJD for p. #22 & 88
-- DAL tr p. #22 & 153 to SJS for p. #28, 52 & 91

2005
-- ATL tr p. # 8 to SJS for p. #12, 49, & 207
-- ATL tr p. #12 to NYR for p. #16 & 41
-- PHI tr p. #20 to FLO for p. #29 plus a 2nd-rnd pick in '06
-- COL tr p. #27 to WAS for p. #47 & 52

2006
-- MON tr p. #16 to SJS for p. #20 & 53
-- MIN tr p. #17 plus P. O'Sullivan to LAK for P. Demitra **
-- NJD tr p. #25 to STL for p. #30 & 77

A Data Table

Trades marked ** are designated as, primarily, about the player being traded and are not considered as a classic 'move-up-in-the-draft' trade for our purposes. So... NOT including trades marked ** we have:

- 6 years showing
- 21 (24) teams making
- 24 (28) trades involving
- 79 (87) draft picks and
- 3 (10) players

priceless?

TEAM ... # ... YRS .. TUP .. TDN

ANA .... 1 .... 1 .... 1 ....
ATL .... 3 .... 2 .... 1 .... 2
BOS .... 1 .... 1 .... . .... 1
BUF .... 1 .... 1 .... 1 ....
CAL .... 3 .... 3 .... . .... 3
COL .... 1 .... 1 .... . .... 1
CBJ .... 3 .... 1 .... 1 .... 2
DAL .... 4 .... 3 .... . .... 4
EDM .... 2 .... 2 .... . .... 2
FLO .... 6 .... 4 .... 4 .... 2
MON .... 2 .... 2 .... 1 .... 1
NJD .... 4 .... 4 .... 2 .... 2
NYR .... 2 .... 2 .... 2 ....
OTT .... 1 .... 1 .... 1 ....
PHI .... 3 .... 3 .... 1 .... 2
PHO .... 1 .... 1 .... 1 ....
PIT .... 1 .... 1 .... 1 ....
SJS .... 4 .... 4 .... 4 ....
STL .... 1 .... 1 .... 1 ....
TAM .... 2 .... 2 .... . .... 2
WAS .... 2 .... 2 .... 2 ....

Teams that haven't made this kind of trade within the 1st round over the last 6 years include: Carolina, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Nashville, New York Islanders, Toronto and Vancouver.

Some Basic Analysis

If we take out the 2005 and 2006 years (too early yet), the player based trades and the top-5 pick trades, NHL teams made 15 trades JUST to get the guy they really, really wanted.

Given the performance of the guy they moved up to get, the early winners are:

2001 .. 11 .. PHO .. Sjostrom
2001 .. 23 .. OTT .. Gleason
2001 .. 24 .. FLO .. Krajicek

2002 .. 13 .. WAS .. Semin
2002 .. 14 .. MON .. Higgins
2002 .. 30 .. ATL .. Slater

2003 .. 16 .. SJS .. Bernier
2003 .. 17 .. NJD .. Parise
2003 .. 28 .. ANA .. Perry

2004 .. 20 .. NJD .. Zajac

Roughly 67%, and if Paille (BUF '02 - #20) and Stewart (FLO '03 - #25) make some noise the numbers get better.

Barring the noted deficiencies (below) fortune does seem to favor the 'bold'.

At least the 'bold' with good scouting departments anyways.

No question, if your scouting department is on the ball then trading up can be a very profitable strategy. There may have been a better player chosen later but at the very least the odds of drafting a future roster player go way up.

DEFICIENCY NOTES:
-- some drafts WERE deep in talent so trading up may have been of marginal gain, and
-- there is no analysis done for teams that dropped down and took extra picks, and
-- the data-set is small

Miscellanea

The most active team has been Florida. Florida has traded picks 6 times over 4 different years. In 2002 they traded both directions WITHIN the top-10 picks (down to get Bouwmeester at #3 and then up to get Taticek at #9).

The most hyper-aggressive team has been San Jose. Every year, from 2003 to 2006, they have moved up in the draft to get the player they want (2003: Bernier, 2004: Kaspar, 2005: Setoguchi, 2006: Wishart). Pure confidence right there.

The picks in the top-5 overall, of any given draft year, were traded 5 times (3 if you take away half of the #1 for #3 swaps). The number one pick was ONLY traded when a top-3 pick was coming back the other way - getting a #1 overall is TOUGH.

The award for 'best return on a one-pick drop' goes to Calgary ('02). They traded the #9 pick to Florida for #'s 10 and 99. The award for 'worst return on a one-pick drop' goes to Edmonton the same year. They traded the #14 to Montreal for the #'s 15 and 245.

Those were also, oddly enough, the only one-pick drop trades to occur over the 6 years.

The biggest move belongs to Washington ('05) as they jumped up 20 spots to pick #27. They traded picks #47 and 52 to get there. Of course: that is only considering trades NOT involving players.

Excepting the highest level picks, the value of a roster player appears greater than that of a draft pick.

There were 5 trades where a team picked up 3 draft picks in return for trading down. They were: Edmonton ('01), Dallas ('02), Boston ('03), Tampa Bay ('03) and Atlanta ('05). Hard to say who got the best deal as none of those 3-for-1's look THAT good or THAT bad.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

NHL Entry Draft 2007 - More or Less

Oiler Draft Picks available for use or trade:

01 -- __6
01 -- _15
01 -- _30
02 -- _36
03 -- ___ Traded to Minnesota (Roloson)
04 -- _96
05 -- 126
06 -- 156
07 -- ___ Traded to Buffalo (Hejda)

Remember to make adjustments for compensation picks.

Team Order - 1st Round:

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

------

Edited for Anaheim to win the Stanley Cup (given Ottawa just sucked donkey balls in Game 4).

Off to Twillinggate for a wedding. See you in a couple of weeks.

Have a great evening everyone.

And yes - we now have Anaheim's two top picks in 2008. wheeee

A Rebuttal (a Smyth Continuum posting)

At Always on the Road, a very good blog on the Oilers, there is a posting that uses several players as comparables to Smyth. He does so as an attempt to prove that the trade of Smyth is justified.

Make no mistake about it: his analysis is actually quite thorough - it is NOT a hatchet job. I will make points below however that show it to be incomplete.

Jason Arnott vs. Ryan Smyth

The first point made is a fair one - Arnott signed a 4.5 /yr for 5 years deal in the 2005/06 off-season. His age is comparable to Smyth's and his counting numbers are actually a bit better. Lets look at a few more numbers:

Playing Time per game for 2005-06: JA ~ 17 mins / for RS ~ 20 mins
Playing Time per game for 2006-07: JA ~ 17 mins / for RS ~ 20 mins

*Quality of Opponent faced 2006-07: JA ranked #102 / RS ranked #56
*Advanced +/- at EV str. 2006-07: JA = 0.43 / RS = 1.03

Time of deal negotiation: JA it was 2005-06 and for RS it was effectively 2006-07

* using Desjardins www.behindthenet.ca numbers

Now, to be fair, Arnott actually scores more ppm than Smyth given these metrics but head to head Smyth plays against top opposition far more, and far more effectively than Arnott. Using a stupid % calculation it shows that Smyth plays 17.6% more than Arnott - even if Smyth was only AS effective as Arnott, at that rate Smyth should earn no less than 5.29 mill /yr in comparison to Arnott.

Now factor in a full year of contract inflation and Smyth's leadership intangibles compared to Arnott's and there is no question that 5.5 is a good number for the team that signs Smyth. Give Smyth the protected minutes Arnott gets and his scoring would jump dramatically (imo).

Steve Sullivan vs. Ryan Smyth

Sullivan signed a 3.2 /yr for 5 years deal in the 2004/05 off-season. His age is comparable to Smyth's and their counting numbers are very close. Looking at the same numbers:

Playing Time per game for 2005-06: SS ~ 19 mins / for RS ~ 20 mins
Playing Time per game for 2006-07: SS ~ 19.5 mins / for RS ~ 20 mins

*Quality of Opponent faced 2006-07: SS ranked #89 / RS ranked #56
*Advanced +/- at EV str. 2006-07: SS = 0.49 / RS = 1.03

Time of deal negotiation: SS it was 2004-05 and for RS it was effectively 2006-07

The numbers are very close. Good comparison. Even in terms of straight-up play Smyth's advantage is narrowed. The big trick is to look at the year the deal is signed. Sullivan signed right after the lock-out and there were a lot of contracts signed then that made no sense given what we know now. If Pronger had only signed a two year deal he would be looking at an $8 mill /yr contract - easy.

Now factor in Smyth's leadership intangibles compared to Sullivan's and again - there is no question that 5.5 is a good number for the team that signs Smyth.

Rod Brind'Amour vs. Ryan Smyth

Brind'Amour signed a $3.6 mill /yr deal for 5 years in the 2005-06 off-season.

I will not give a full answer to this comparison. Brindy is 5 years older than Smyth. The 5 year deal he signed will be paying him long after his effective playing days are over.

Take the last two years on that deal and spread it out over the first three and you have a better picture of the price involved ~ $6 mill /yr.

Saku Koivu vs. Ryan Smyth

Koivu signed a 4.75 /yr for 3 years deal in the 2005/06 off-season. His age is comparable to Smyth's and his counting numbers are actually a bit better. Lets look at a few more numbers:

Playing Time per game for 2005-06: SK ~ 18.5 mins / for RS ~ 20 mins
Playing Time per game for 2006-07: SK ~ 18.5 mins / for RS ~ 20 mins

*Quality of Opponent faced 2006-07: SK ranked #299 / RS ranked #56
*Advanced +/- at EV str. 2006-07: SK = -1.41 / RS = 1.03

Average # games played a yr (last 11 years): SK = 58 / RS = 70

Time of deal negotiation: SK it was 2005-06 and for RS it was effectively 2006-07

As with Arnott, Koivu actually scores a few more ppm than Smyth given these metrics but head to head Smyth plays against top opposition far more, and far more effectively than Koivu. IT ISN'T EVEN CLOSE. The numbers are striking.

Now factor in a full year of contract inflation and the fact that Smyth doesn't have legs made of glass and there is no question that 5.5 is a good number for the team that signs Smyth.

Daniel Alfredsson vs. Ryan Smyth

Alfredsson signed a $6.5 mill /yr deal for 5 years in the 2003-04 off-season.

I will not give a full answer to this comparison. Alfredsson is only affordable now because of the 24% rollback from the lock-out negotiations. While 31 at the time of the deal he is now 2+ years older than Smyth.

The analysis should be - is Alfredsson worth a million more a year than Smyth? That would be an interesting analysis. Alfredsson and Smyth are roughly the same level of player imo - better than very good and just on the edge of elite.

Martin St. Louis vs. Ryan Smyth

St. Louis signed a 5.25/yr for 6 years deal in the 2005/06 off-season. His age is comparable to Smyth's and his counting numbers are a bit better. Lets look at a few more numbers:

Playing Time per game for 2005-06: MSL ~ 21.0 mins / for RS ~ 20 mins
Playing Time per game for 2006-07: MSL ~ 24.0 mins / for RS ~ 20 mins

*Quality of Opponent faced 2006-07: MSL ranked #233 / RS ranked #56
*Advanced +/- at EV str. 2006-07: MSL = 0.20 / RS = 1.03

Time of deal negotiation: MSL it was 2005-06 and for RS it was effectively 2006-07

Best comparison of the lot.

St. Louis plays a LOT of time for the Lightning. His numbers are good except in terms of the quality of his opponents. Question becomes - does the extra TOI that St. Louis plays nullify the MUCH better head-to-head numbers that Smyth has and the extra year of inflation creep?

From where I sit - the fact that the question is even being asked is a feather in Smyth's cap.

------

Tyler Dellow at mc79hockey is looking at writing a post (soon) that will take a full-on look at whether or not Smyth is an 'elite' talent. I suspect Smyth is far closer to elite level than Lowe gave him credit for. Even the work I just did above puts to rest the idea that Smyth was only as good as some of the 'star' level talent out there, fact is, he was usually better.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Contracts - Part 2 (a Smyth Continuum posting)

The best contract of the 2005-06 off-season was that of Colin White in New Jersey. A straight $3 million /yr for 6 years.

For those who don't know, White is a big guy with decent mobility who plays the game as if he is perpetually angry. What Lowe and MacT hope Green turns into one day. White plays 22 or so minutes a game and very little of it is on the power play. Plays best as a complement to a pairing and, if doing so, can even play top-line minutes. Good, solid d-man who is, as of now, 30 years old.

$3 million is pretty fair. White is worth that even if all he does is continue performing at his current level. For the next 6 years however New Jersey management won't have to worry about inflation (not in terms of salary and not in terms of the cap) and they won't have to worry about contract years.

Fantastic contract.

Contrast to the Pisani contract. Where inflation is neutralized in the White contract it is built into the Pisani contract from year #1. A decent, not great, deal on Pisani would have been $2 million /yr for 6 years. There would have been a bit of an overpay (as much as 250k) given how he normally performs in the regular season but at least the contract is inflation and career year protected.

This brings me to the real topic I want to discuss today: most people who discuss contract value in the NHL under the new CBA have it all wrong.

Or, to be more polite, most of them only have it partially right.

Where Conventional Wisdom Has it Right

The conventional wisdom has it that contracts should be short term. Any contract longer than 2 years is considered a long term deal. Avoiding the dead-weight of a bad contract (i.e. Yashin) allows you to have the flexibility needed to react to a changing market. This is, of course, exactly right.

The Sykora signing was a perfect example of this.

What Conventional Wisdom Needs to Learn

I am a big believer in a different type of budget paradigm. I believe in 5 and 6 year contracts as much, if not moreso, than short-term contracts. If you know the player is good then why mess around? Sign 'em. Before salary inflation kicks in and before they have a career year. The effective playing range of NHL players, in terms of age, seems to be between the ages of 25 and 36 so work with that.

When you have a guy like Moreau doing what he does, and you know he will do it again, you don't sign a $2 mill /yr deal for 4 years - you try to sign a $1.6 mill /yr deal for 6 years. If you end up at $1.75 mill /yr then you are still ahead of the game because it means you got the last two years at a substantial discount. Anything less than that is icing on the cake.

For a guy like Moreau, 30 years old and injuries are a fact of life, a 6 year deal is worthy of serious, serious consideration. And if he gets injured... well... that is what insurance is for.

Likewise you don't waste time with 2 year deals for players who are known quantities who are desirable to you. You are only asking for trouble. Not only do you pay inflation creep you also risk a young guy having a great season and blowing your budget out of the water.

Enter Mr. Pisani. Even at the end of 2003-04 season it was obvious he would be no worse than a solid 3rd line guy with some scoring punch. Guys like that earn somewhere in the $1.0 to $2.0 mill range. Offer it. His last contract, before the rollback, was for ~ 800k. Try to get him to sign a long-term extension that tops him out at $1.5 mill or so.

For a guy like Pisani, soon to be UFA but not having the stats he needs to get the big dollars, getting a 4 to 6 year extension that averages 1.2 to 1.4 would be very tempting.

Again: as a team you already know that Pisani's category of player gets those kind of dollars anyways - you are simply protecting yourself from inflation and career year'itis'.

Contrast Pisani with a guy like Torres. I love Torres. Too bad the guy has the confidence of wet toilet paper. He is not the sort of guy who you sign long term hoping he gets it together.

The keys to this way of thinking are simple: know your player and know your market. Any time you have a guy who makes far more than he should because of a one-year spike in performance you trade him (Pisani and Lupul come to mind) sooner rather than later.

My last example is Horcoff. The $3.6 is pretty good. The only problem with it - should be a 4 year deal. Not a 3 year deal. A prime example of where the dollars are in the right spot but the term is the problem.

Rare it is that a guy who projects out to 15-20 goals and 18-25 assists becomes a regular 24-30 goal and 28-40 assist scoring machine. Common however is the guy paid as such who has ever only done it once.

------

At the end of 2003-04 the Oilers knew exactly what they had in Ryan Smyth. 30+ goals, 30+ assists, some of the best EV strength play any LW in the league can give and the kind of intangibles that would make him the unquestioned captain of Team Canada. He is only 30 years old.

In my opinion they should have, and probably could have, pushed for a long-term deal that averaged around $4.2 mill /yr. Instead they played hard-ball and got him to agree to a two year deal at $3.5 mill /yr. - the proverbial home town discount.

Two years later, after handing out a whack of bad contracts (see my last post), the team asked him to sacrifice his position again. He asked, quite reasonably, "why?".

They had no reasonable answer. I do not believe they ever will.

------

Last thing. Lowe did not trade any of his other UFA's at the deadline. Not Tjarnqvist, not Peterson, not Markkanen and not Sykora. Not Sykora. Obstensibly we are to believe it is because Sykora wants to play here. Fine.

Sykora sat on the sidelines last UFA season for a reason. He just is NOT good enough to go early. Lots of guys in line ahead of him.

My prediction: not only did Lowe mess up by not trading him for a 2nd and a 4th (probable return) he will mess up again by signing him to a deal of ~ 3.25 mill /yr for 3 years.

No insult intended Sykora but he is a guy who should be signable at ~ $2.75 /yr over a 3 yr deal. And he is not the guy you point to as a replacement for Smyth. Do the math.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Contracts - Part 1 (a Smyth Continuum posting)

It is my interest, right now, to declare my opinion on some of the many contracts signed by the Oilers over the last few years. I have done so before but, for purposes of having it here in plain sight, I shall declare my opinions again.

If I go way back in time it all starts with the 1998-99 season and I am at the local Boston Pizza with my buddy Paul. At the time I make the observation that the Oilers simply have too many million dollar players. The point being that with all of the lunchbucket guys getting more than they should the team would always be hampered by a lack of money for the big dollar guys.

I groused about this sort of thing for several years - then came the Eric Brewer contract. 1.5 million the 1st year and 2.5 the second was, imo, a stupid contract. Not stupid because of the dollars but because of what the dollars represented and what they would mean.

What it Represented

Eric Brewer was a RFA at the time and his negotiating power was debateable. He didn't have arbitration rights yet and this contract represented the last chance the club would get to enforce their will on his contract situation. This idea, the ability to exert will, is a very important concept to grasp. Once Brewer reached arbitration rights or, upon reaching the holy age of 31, became an UFA the club would no longer hold the ability to exert maximum pressure.

The cycle of pay under the old NHL CBA was pretty simple: clubs had the hammer then the arbitrator had the hammer then the player had the hammer. It is important to note that under the old CBA the NHL clubs rarely used their hammer time wisely. Players deemed important to the club would, all too often it seemed, call the shots. If the GM didn't pay them what they wanted the player would hold out. The GM's, being wimps, would fold like a cheap suit.

Remember, the contract lasted for two years and at the end of it he got arbitration rights. Lowe was signing Brewer to a contract that would match the cycle perfectly AND which paid Brewer more than fairly.

What did this represent? Nothing less than the inability of Lowe to use the CBA, as it existed, to his advantage. Meanwhile, to the West, Brian Burke would pistol whip Matt Cooke into a 4 year deal at very low dollars. Burke knew how the CBA worked.

What it Meant

There are two things that the signing meant. One has already been mentioned, i.e. Lowe was/is not a great CBA or salary guy. The second is the real kicker however. HINT: Take a look at the 2nd year of that deal.

2.5 million dollars.

Think about that for a second. Not only does Brewer hit arbitration right when he should he also now has a starting figure of 2.5. Built into the contract was, what I can only call, an outstanding inflation figure. If it had been a contract for 2.0/2.0 it still would have been too high but with the switch of 500k EVERY contract that Brewer signed from then on would have the extra hundreds of thousands in it.

Simply put: WOW!

Lowe had Brewer at his, theoretical at least, mercy and Lowe was the one who gave up. A better contract, one with the CBA cycle in mind, would have been for 3 or 4 years and would have topped out at 2.0. Lowe didn't even have to go all 'Burke' on his ass. A contract of 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0 would have still been very generous given Lowe's advantageous position.

------

So where do we (the Oilers) stand now?

Lowe has had two great contracts go his way: Hemsky's 4.1 /yr for 6 years was awesome and MAB's 4 year deal was equally good.

Lowe also has at least one 'okay' deal on the books: Horcoff's 3.6 /yr for 3 years is adequate and would have been great if it had had an extra year at the 3.6.

Note, as I point out in the Horcoff case - the right number of years is just as important as the money paid out.

Other than that it is all downhill.

Pisani's deal is a joke. 2.5 /yr for 4 years for a 3rd line, defensively responsible RW who has a decent shot and one good play-off under his belt? You gotta be kidding me.

Lupul's deal is equally horrendous. Ending at the ludicrous figure of 2.9 million this contract was a total cave-in by Lowe. Brewer's 2 yr deal all over again.

Roloson and Moreau both have bad deals but for different reasons. Neither is as bad as Pisani's or Lupul's.

The Staios deal is one I have to sit on the fence on. Defensemen went for such a premium in the off-season that I can't really complain too much. My gut says it is too much but my head says I have to give it a meager pass.

I could spell it all out but right now the Oilers are overpaying, and undersigning, four players some 1.5+ million dollars a year.

It is 1998-99 all over again only this time the number is roughly $2 million instead of $1 million. And yes, they still can't afford to pay their big dollar guys.

------

Tyler Dellow at mc79hockey has a bang up post on it all and Vic Ferrari has been weighing in at Irreverent Oil Fans.

------

Have a great evening everyone.