Simple Things and the Cap

Interesting. The Maple Leafs are increasing their ticket prices.

No question about it. I do get a little snarky every now and then, and I should apologize for it when it happens, but after a re-read I don't actually think my last post was all that bad. Not a great read mind-you but that's par for the course with me so, from where I sit, no harm and no foul.

Now, in a less snarky way, I present to you a simple change to the CBA that, I believe, should have made it into the document from the very start.

Background

Small market (read: small budget) teams are getting hammered because of Cap inflation. As noted before in this blog, once the Cap gets past the $52 million mark the spread between what big budget and small budget teams have to spend reaches, sans significant revenue sharing or an amazing new TV deal, an untenable level.

Right now the Floor ratchets upward in lock-step with the Cap; the maximum spread always being at $16 million:

$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %

2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 23.6 ..... 32.2
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 26.5 ..... 34.6
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.9 ..... 37.1
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 32.0 ..... 37.6
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 33.1 ..... 38.2
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 35.3 ..... 39.2
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 37.2 ..... 40.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 39.1 ..... 40.4
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 41.0 ..... 41.0

Notice the inflation effect? (hint: look at the last column) The hard spread of $16 million slightly disconnects Floor from HRR and thus causes Floor Requirement to slowly increase (as a % of the HRR).

By the time we get to $3.0 billion in HRR the % spread between max Players Share and Floor Requirement has shrunk by some 6 percentage points.

i.e. (54.0 - 32.2 = 21.8) - (57.0 - 41.0 = 16.0) = 5.8

That is sizable.

Solution

The easily workable solution is to loosen the strap a tad and tie the Floor Requirement number to Players Share % (not to Cap).

To make it easy on ourselves we will fix the spread at 20 %pts and re-start the CBA at a Floor Requirement of 34% of HRR. If we then increase Floor Requirement in lockstep with Players Share % our chart now changes to look like so:

$b ........ Player %/$b ..... Cap$m .... Flr$m .... %

2.200 ..... 54.0 / 1.19 ..... 39.6 ..... 24.9 ..... 34.0
2.300 ..... 55.5 / 1.28 ..... 42.6 ..... 27.2 ..... 35.5
2.400 ..... 56.0 / 1.34 ..... 44.8 ..... 28.8 ..... 36.0
2.500 ..... 56.3 / 1.41 ..... 46.9 ..... 30.3 ..... 36.3
2.550 ..... 56.5 / 1.44 ..... 48.0 ..... 31.0 ..... 36.5
2.600 ..... 56.7 / 1.47 ..... 49.1 ..... 31.8 ..... 36.7
2.700 ..... 57.0 / 1.54 ..... 51.3 ..... 33.3 ..... 37.0
2.800 ..... 57.0 / 1.60 ..... 53.2 ..... 34.5 ..... 37.0
2.900 ..... 57.0 / 1.65 ..... 55.1 ..... 35.8 ..... 37.0
3.000 ..... 57.0 / 1.71 ..... 57.0 ..... 37.0 ..... 37.0

So now we have a %pt spread that stays constant (at the 20%) and a Salary Budget gap that increases (from $14.7 million at $2.2 billion HRR to $20 million at $3.0 billion HRR).

Who's a Happy Baby?

Small budget teams are happy. As long as most other factors remained unchanged (like revenue sharing) the budget pressure drops by several million dollers.

Large budget teams are happy because no new money is expected of them and they get to increase average player salaries even more (yippee!).

Players are unhappy because they, potentially, leave million of dollars on the table as the small budget teams contract their payrolls.

Except... well... would that actually happen?

No. I don't think it would.

Remember, players get their share regardless so all that would actually happen is that the dollars would be apportioned differently.

Now, given that not all players, and their contracts, are created equally we know some player somewhere would be unhappy - BUT - the veterans have thrown the rooks under the bus before and with early UFA we know there are fewer disadvantaged to complain so it is hard to see where this is a loser.

------

Do I think this suggestion is the solution for the NHL. Of course not. Any hard Cap concept that doesn't have significant revenue sharing involved is one that won't work under anything but the slowest inflation effect.

FTR, back in the day, I supported a soft Cap with a luxury tax component that would increase in effect on a plateau basis. I still think that is the best overall way to do it.

------

By the way, in regards to the Malkin for Sedins comment. I meant it. Yes, Malkin is a phenomenal talent, but if Pittsburgh could get the Sedins to sign long-term deals (5 yrs+) in the $6.00 - 6.25 million range then the math is simple:

2 Sedins at a $12.00 million Cap hit > 1 Malkin at a $8.70 million Cap hit

The odds of finding the right winger for Malkin at $3.30 million are pretty long and, to be blunt, Pittsburgh needs the depth that the two bodies would provide.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Miscellanea - February

Garth Snow

Lowetide sends some love Snow's way. I know some may point to the Dipietro contract and say 'what?' but those people would be wrong.

The Rick Dipietro contract remains one of the best contracts in hockey. Topped only by the Zetterberg and Hunter contracts imo.

Dipietro Contract - Part 1

Dipietro Contract - Part 2

Dipietro Contract - Part 3

I cannot blame Snow for Dipietro's Mr. Glass act and if you actually read through those links you will find where I say:

"The real danger is a chronic malady (a la Dunham's groin issues when with Nashville) that leaves DiPietro on the active roster drawing full salary and affecting the Cap."

That said, not sure what I think about in regards to the Campoli trade. The 1st is more than I would have paid to get him and so I have to think Snow did well there.

Funny thing though - if he pairs well with a stay-at-home on the Ottawa roster then Snow will end up looking bad for something over which he had less control than Ottawa did.

Right. I did just talk about the Dipietro contract didn't I?

Geniousity

Oh. About that Zetterberg contract. Absolute genius wasn't it?.

Funny thing though - I recall lots of posts about those sorts of contracts on the message boards back in day. Hell. I posted a few. Most people said that people who were making posts like that were idiots. Contracts just wouldn't work that way.

Two signatures later and Holland is a genius.

Cool. So I wasn't an idiot. For the record, that aspect of this topic, the aspect about being right all along, doesn't upset me at all. Here is what does upset me however - if I can figure it out then how hard can it be to figure it out?

I'm not that smart. Just look at my sentence structure.

Vancouver is in negotiations with the Sedins. Given their historic ability to perform at a high level, and the fact that they never seem to get injured, I am surprised they aren't getting the Zetterberg treatment.

I really am. I am also surprised Pittsburgh never traded Malkin for them.

Finally, on this topic, never underestimate the effect that timing can have on intelligence.

Shero has to sign Crosby and Malkin during a day and age when money was everywhere and money was cheap while Gillis gets to sign the Sedins during a day when everyone is afraid they won't be able to make the mortgage payment.

My guess is everyone will be commenting on just how smart Gillis is **.

Rebuilds

Still working on my 'Rebuilds on Steroids' post. Gold Star for the first among you who sees how Snow is working the cba to his advantage. Davidson is St. Louis is doing the same.

It isn't much of an advantage mind. More along the lines of: "this is how you have to do things anyways so what you do with what you have is up to you".

That is your hint right there folks.

You too can be a genius!

F^*k me.

:-)

------

** ftr - I do think Gillis has done very well in lalaland, I have a post titled "Tale of Two Gamblers" in production that shows how smart he has been.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

One Night

Every now and then I still drop by Hockeysfuture. I don't lurk like I used to but then, one doesn't see my call hanging out at Oilfans very much either. I tend not to sign in anymore. Gets a bit noisy out there. Thoughts get addled I think.

Still, early memories are fond and so it is I keep the links (sidebar).

That said, it was interesting to find out that my identity, and even my geographical location, has been reassigned.

That's okay though dsf, I do this more on a 'for me' rather than an 'about me' basis so being only somewhat known/remembered is totally okay. Besides, Rage has my back. I think...

:-)

I do have to say that I did kind of mind having to sift through the chaff on this thread. It made me sad to have to wait until post #11 before someone pointed out that Staios' contract was the real problem (yes, I know, it did contradict the premise of the thread), it made me sadder yet when someone listed the incomparable Brad Stuart as a 'good defenseman' and when I read this:

"....Kronwall and Stuart are both better options at present than either of Grebeshkov and Gilbert."

I became so inconsolable I just had to start drinking.

On the bright side, I am happily drinking some 18yr Gibson's now so all I can really say is: Thanks Hockeysfuture!

P.s. this is partly why I wasn't blown away by the Garon trade (though I did think it was okay), my wish was that it had been a bigger trade - one that had brought Letang here. The Oilers are woefully short on effective depth on defense. Strudwick isn't a real answer.

------

Of course, if one thinks about how the Moreau contract (an overpay against rule of thumb standard, my thumbs admittedly, of some 250k) and the Staios contract (overpay, same thumb, of some 300k) were about character and making up for service rendered and veteran leadership and how loyalty to the team can mean so much...

...and then happens to remember that the Smyth contract didn't close because of a spread of a 100k then... hrmmmm... ahhhh, f*#k me... I think I need more alcohol.

Oh look! More. Good.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

Lombardi to H8

I don't know how smart Deam Lombardi is. Unlike Paul Holmgren, from whom I have seen few misteps, DL has his fair share of 'wtf' moments. My favorite is probably from the 2007 draft when a drop down on picks would have probably let him snag Hickey regardless. Easy money on the table and he left it there.

That said, the guy knows how to cripple a team to set up a draft. More importantly, he knows how to do it consistently. Trading for, and then extending Cloutier's contract was brilliant. Dumping off Labarbera is just more of the same.

To Tank

Wanna tank your team? Best bets are bad goaltending (first choice of the smart GM) and/or bad coaching (first choice of a lot of well meaning GM's).

There are a few things that can derail a good tank job (another post) and for a while there I think Lombardi was looking at just that. Luckily, for him, the trends he had put in place re-asserted themselves and trading Lababera will:

a. help guard against an upswing and
b. increase the risk factors that would seal the tank job

A Trade Deadline Look-Over

The next moment of interest, with Lombardi and his Kings is this:

What will his trade deadline look like?

He has most of the elements needed for a classic tank job trade deadline in place:

1. One respected veteran on expiring contract (O'Donnell);
2. Two depth veterans on expiring contracts (Armstrong & Gauthier); and
3. One mid-range secondary scorer on expiring contract (Calder);

He also has two players who, while they are not performing to expectations, are halfway through their contracts (Preissing and Handzus).

NONE of the players involved have any cachet in the team's marketplace (so no uproar if traded) and two of the players listed are playing, deceptively, important roles for the team.

Royale With Cheese

If Lombardi thinks his draft position is in jeopardy then look for O'Donnell to be traded. Handzus if he can find a taker.

That is what makes it interesting. How comfortable is he that he will get a pick he can live with?

Trading Gauthier and Armstrong would only make the team stronger (and generate very little return regardless) so they should be in LA full season.

That leaves Preissing and Calder. Of the two Calder will be the easiest one to trade and, I suspect, he is gone regardless.

So I will look for those signals at the deadline.

Calder is a goner, sure, but the rest of the deadline deals - if any - will tell the tale of Lombardi's intentions for the 2009 draft.

King Me

That brings me to the final moment of interest in regards to Dean Lombardi. His 2009-10 NHL roster. Once I see that I will know a great deal more about just how smart Lombardi is.

You see, after the 2009 draft his rebuild will have run its course.

Look at his roster. That team has too much quality for it to sit still for another year past this one.

Frolov, Kopitar, Brown and O'Sullivan represent the kind of high-end forward talent other teams, who have better records, would die for and every Oiler fan knows how good Stoll can be if he is restricted to the roles he excels at.

Doughty, Johnson, Hickey and Quincey represent a solid core of under 22's who all have incredible upside. The core d-pairings for this team are set well into the future. I like Harrold as a player and Greene is... playing really well?

The only thing missing on this team is goaltending and with players like Fernandez coming available Lombardi will have little excuse for sitting still. Both with fans and with the players themselves.

2009-10: Tells the Tale

By 2009-10 we will see just what Lombardi brings to the table as a GM. If he picks up an established #1 goaltender and the equivalent of Kurt Sauer this off-season then we know he knows his stuff.

(Trading O'Donnell at the deadline, letting him know he will be bringing him back in the off-season, would just be... smart.)

If he stands pat and brings in Bernier then we know that Lombardi isn't serious about the next year. Even if Bernier blows the doors down it doesn't change my analysis here, just means Lombardi got lucky.

Some very important players get to, or very close to, their free agency years after 2009-10 and the Kings, as an organization, need to both:

- give them the cash they'll want, and
- give them a reason to stay

i.e. Frolov can get $5.5+ million anywhere - why stay with a team that doesn't seem to care?

Winning

There is a time, in every rebuild, where it is time to get serious about winning. The Kings will be in 2009-10.

Signing Hossa would be a nice touch but it isn't that important. A true #1 goalie, a veteran d-man in the 27-30 year range and a couple of proven bottom sixers and the Kings are for real.

And if Lombardi is any good it really should happen just-like-that.

------

Time for supper. Have a great evening everyone.

Almost forgot - Anderson deserves it. Good for him.

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.

Gloom - Not Just a Card Game

[My bad folks, Gloom is a card game that I actually play (and enjoy). For me to reference the game but not include a picture of it, especially one so apropos, was just plain wrong. Hence the correction.]

Lowetide has a nice GDT (Oilers vs. St. Louis) and in it he talks about the unhappy season progressing to date, to be more precise I will simply quote:

"Tonight marks the halfway point in the season for the Edmonton Oilers. This has not been a happy season so far, it has in fact been same old, same old and that my friends is causing some commotion in the fanbase."

BDHS also has a post up today and while the resonance is deliberate BDHS tries to look for the origin, or source, of the joyless Oil we have today. Again, to quote:

"There is a lot of grumbling about the Oilers these days and even the terminally cheerful, like LT, are starting to tire of a franchise that has, with one exception, wallowed in mediocrity for the last fifteen years or so. I think the club is where many of us thought it would be, in the mix for the playoffs, but the journey has been an unsatisfying one this season. Points have been thrown away with poor efforts and odd coaching decisions. [quick - go to link to read more]"

Much like BDHS I will try, in this post, to wonder where the problem lies. I do think I know where it is.

Simply put, this team, THE TEAM, doesn't know sweet-f%*k-all about what is going on.

Playoffs... or Not?

I have written about this many times - the team has not been set up to be a team that is serious about making the play-offs. Even in my, late to be sure, season preview - where I am wrong about a lot of things - the one thing I am absolutely right about is this:

While this should be a team that finishes in the play-offs the risk factors are incredibly high.

A team that is serious about making the play-offs keeps two of Torres, Reasoner, Stoll and Glencross on the roster. It just does.

So while Lowe could hide behind the state of NHL economics up to 2005/06 and he had some cover (slim as it was) working in his favor 2006/07 (Pronger) and 2007/08 (Smyth) he doesn't have anything to hide behind this year.

Worse yet, the ills facing the team appear to be, more and more, symptomatic in nature.

All of the above is on Lowe. On MacT (in terms of dedicating the team to make the play-offs) - why isn't Horpensky playing together from day one, why isn't Smid paired with Staios and why is Gagner playing on the penalty kill units?

Development Season... or Not?

So if it isn't a Playoff team then maybe it is a team getting ready for a run next year? Maybe this year is about teaching the young guys a few things so that next year we can all play street hockey for the Cup next year!

So then why is Cole here, and why is Visnovsky here? And why are we putting in big time on guys who are just entering their 2nd or 3rd year in the NHL?

Gagner, the new team centerpiece, is only 18 years old, a team that is serious about a next year is using a current year to finish player development - not finding out if a guy can even play on the penalty kill units; let alone contribute positively.

So then it isn't really about this year. And it isn't really about next year. It is about years from now.

So if it about years from now then Gagner's development time makes sense. How about Smid's development time then? He has shown incremental improvement every year and on a 'years-from-now' he is one of the few defensemen who will be entering his prime when the window of opportunity opens.

All of the above is on Lowe - how can one say this year and next year when it is obvious that yfn is what you mean. On MacT (in terms of dedicating the team to player development) - why aren't Pouliot and Brodziak taking the 3rd and 4th line duties, why is Pisani playing at center and why isn't Smid paired with Staios (an interesting double appearance there)?

Identity

Now think about team identity for a second. All through the lean years the team had a semblance of one - mostly that of 'work-your-ass-off' and 'we-are-all-pluggers-here'. This wasn't true of all players but it was, at least I believe so, true of the leadership core of the team.

Given how he forced the trade to St. Louis I may never be a fan, again, of Doug Weight BUT as long as he was here you couldn't say he didn't ably lead the team.

Can we say that about this team's leadership core? Team captain Ethan Moreau:

- won't pass to a fellow team-mate on his line;
- kicks same team-mate out of the face-off circle just so that he promptly lose said face-off;
- takes ill-advised penalties, consistently; and
- refuses to play to his skill set (more 4th line and less 3rd line) and then has the gall to start calling out the younger guys

I have always enjoyed, and valued, Moreau's warrior spirit but true leadership takes humility.

Meanwhile two players, whose work ethic is a continual struggle, are signed to lucrative contracts (Penner and Nilsson of course). Neither of which would even be on the team if it hadn't been for misplayed management decisions.

So who exactly is establishing the identity of this team? Almost 20% of the teams payroll is tied up in the unfocused (Penner, Nilsson), undisciplined (Moreau) and less effective (Moreau and Staios).

And Then, Karma

So take all the above and mix. Don't let the top-line gell, don't let the soft-minute line play together, don't play proven tandems, don't play last years clear #1 goaltender, etc. Whatever you do - do not let the team gain any momentum.

Normally that would be a recipe for disaster, yet somehow the team stays healthy and manages to hang out at, or near, the play-off spot that makes it all make sense.

Amazing really.

But then Karma does what she does and just as the team is getting serious about line-ups and rosters and a long series of home games means its time to harvest, the main cog in the wheel gets injured.

When all your risk factors are through the roof, it is only a matter of time. And Karma.

Back to Point

Have you ever worked for a boss that makes stupid decision after stupid decision but never gets called on it by his bosses? Well, imagine you are one of the mid-range vets on this team. This has to be a maddening year for them.

The older vets can't lead as they would like to, the mid-range vets are left to carry a load that holds little reward and the kids barely even know how to play. The goaltending has no long-term future, the new kids are all smurfs, the payroll is screwed for years to come and the holes in the roster are big enough to fly jumbo-jets through.

Who signed on for that? They all did actually. But that doesn't make it any easier. To their credit Horcoff, Souray, et al are still putting in workmanlike efforts.

My belief is this:

The team, as constituted, lacks vision (in the headoffice) and identity (on the ice) and in knowing that the players on the team are having a hard time of it buying in and it shows.

A team that believes in itself and what it is doing would be better than this. Maybe not in terms of points, but definitely in terms of 'try'.

As fans we would recognize that, and rejoice.

------

Have a great evening everyone. Enjoy the game tonight.

Penalties Kill

An amazing set of posts recently on the subject of the Edmonton Oiler's penalty kill problems. Some of them can be found using these links:

IOF - "That's killed us all year long. It killed us again tonight."

IOF - Corsi on the PK

IOF - Loaded Dice and NHL Penalty Killers

mc79hockey.com - I wish Brownlee hadn’t written about PK faceoffs

And Just Because It Was Interesting

Oilers Nation (Jonathan Willis) - Penalty Differential


Collecting the Thoughts

Some point to a poor faceoff winning percentage and others point to a distinct lack in committment to the shotblocking principle. Others may also point to, what appears to be at least, a passive pk system that allows opposing teams to set their plays up at leisure. One might point to the youth on the team as an issue but to their credit the press guys do a pretty good job of debunking that myth.

The stats guys do a pretty good job of backing-up/crediting the players own observations that the number of players a team has on the ice heavily affects faceoff winning percentage and mudcrutch points out that the Oilers goalies have, seemingly, forgotten how to stop the puck in a penalty kill situation (collective save % has dropped through the floor compared to last year).


What I Think

Myself... I think it is all of the above.

With the new rule in place for this year we are seeing, to my eye anyways, an extra 10-20 seconds or so of powerplay time taking place in the defending teams zone. As a standard powerplay is only two minutes long this is an astounding increase in immediate pressure on the defending team.

Few seem to remember that the big effect here isn't actually the faceoff - it is possession time in the offensive zone for the team on the powerplay.

Given that faceoffs represent a stopped game moment in time to affect puck possession I have to to think that they play a role. But how much? Winning a face-off doesn't mean much if the rest of the unit isn't any good at clearing the puck or if the guy taking the face-off can't cover worth damn.

Few seem to remember that the big effect here isn't actually the faceoff - it is the ability of the entire PK unit to capitalize on a faceoff won.

Blocked shots has always, seems to me, been a matter of high-reward to risk taken. Not only is there the reward of blocking the shot, there is also the (much more likely) reward of breaking up the flow of the play in general and, with luck, deflecting the puck out of the zone.

Few seem to remember that the risk of not blocking the shot is that of a clean(er) shot on net - and even if 'saved' there are always guys like Smyth just hanging out.

What I Do Not Know

Not a quick listing of all I do not know (I would be typing forever) but a listing of the interesting questions that come to mind when I consider the difficulties the Oilers are facing while on the penalty kill:

Is there a specific skill set in play and is it measurable? **

It may be (read: it is probable) that there are players good at taking faceoffs but not at killing penalties. It may also be (also probable) that some faceoffs aces are better utilized on the powerplay and so it is impossible to measure if they are any good at killing penalties.

How important is it the way in which the face-off is won?

Maybe a guy can't kill penalties worth a damn, but what if he wins face-offs clean? Straight back clean. Perhaps, in that situation, it may be profitable to use the player on the penalty kill if the two backing defensemen are (very) good at clearing the puck from the zone.

Which teams are using shot location to change team results?

We know that the location from which a shot is taken is measurable and we know where the danger zone is. It can be broken down game by game, team by team and year by year. Using that data one could:

a. determine if the goalies are just having a bad year or not

Really. If the ratio of the danger-zone shots being faced has changed dramatically then how much of it is the goalie's fault?

b. determine the composition of powerplay units which will be trouble

Which teams generate large numbers of high-percentage chances against the penalty kill units and is there a trend to it?

c. determine who should be on the penalty kill units or not

If certain teams are jumping into the slot and getting a high-percentage shot whenever player A is on the ice then maybe...?

When do we go MLB or NFL?

If we can figure out what type of powerplay a team uses then why aren't we seeing more situational staffing of the penalty kill units? Maybe a player is no good against a powerplay heavy on the point shot but what if that same player is superior against the powerplays that rely on puck control?

Just wondering.

There are a lot of good questions that arise but those are the early ones that jumped to mind when reading through the material.

** As I noted in a response on one of Showerhead's posts at IOF

Core Issue

From where I sit I do find it interesting that in all the talk of 'what is wrong with the Oilers penalty kill' that few seem to mention the core problem.

Taking penalties. If you can't kill 'em then don't take 'em.

Methinks it is time for the Oilers to commit themselves to taking fewer penalties. Perhaps the leadership of the team can set the example.

------

Have a great evening everyone.