fellowtraveller Posted April 11, 2012 Report Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Oilers win the draft lottery. First time a team has picked #1 three times in a row since the Nordiques IIRC. Consensus #1 pick is Nail Yakupov out of Sarnia, a dynamic Russian scorer who has garnered comparisons to Ovechkin. Should be another interesting offseason in Oil Country. I wonder if the Oilers will trade down to #2 pick and take Murray, the best defenceman avaialble? They do not really need another small gifted forward, in fact they need size desperately. Picking any Russian high in the draft is really really risky too. Nothing prevents Yakupov from going back to Russia for a few years at $5 million per, instead of taking a rookie contract at a couple million at most. I also wonder if Tambellini will even be aroubnd for the draft, his record in the last three years has not been very good. A turnip could have picked Hall and Hopkins as #1s the last two years, and he has mostly failed in getting a supporting cast. His contract is up in a few weeks, no hint of extension yet. Same for Tom Renney. Edited April 11, 2012 by fellowtraveller Quote The government should do something.
Black Dog Posted April 11, 2012 Report Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) I wonder if the Oilers will trade down to #2 pick and take Murray, the best defenceman avaialble? Trading down would be a moronic move. You take the best player available, end of story and use your excess assets to fill the holes. Trading the pick to fill a need is like winning a Porsche in a raffle and trading it in for a minivan because you need the room. Take a D and you risk waiting at least a couple of years for them to become impact players. They do not really need another small gifted forward, in fact they need size desperately. Disagree. They need good players more than anything else. Picking any Russian high in the draft is really really risky too. Nothing prevents Yakupov from going back to Russia for a few years at $5 million per, instead of taking a rookie contract at a couple million at most. Doesn't sound like he's that kind of character. Everything I've read from Sarnia staff and otehr reports say he's a highly competitive kid who wants to win. Where better than in the best league in the world? I also wonder if Tambellini will even be aroubnd for the draft, his record in the last three years has not been very good. A turnip could have picked Hall and Hopkins as #1s the last two years, and he has mostly failed in getting a supporting cast. His contract is up in a few weeks, no hint of extension yet. Same for Tom Renney. I hope he's gone as his record on pro acquisitions has been mediocre to dreadful. Word is he's risk-averse and indecisive. Edited April 11, 2012 by Black Dog Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
fellowtraveller Posted April 11, 2012 Report Posted April 11, 2012 Trading down would be a moronic move. You take the best player available, end of story and use your excess assets to fill the holes. Trading the pick to fill a need is like winning a Porsche in a raffle and trading it in for a minivan because you need the room. Take a D and you risk waiting at least a couple of years for them to become impact playersThey really do not need another small forward. By trading down one or two spots they can get the #2 pick(a very good D) and a roster player. Disagree. They need good players more than anything else. I guess you didn't see them play this year. They get pushed around badly by large fast teams, never get the chance to use their skill. Their defence as a group are horrible. At the beginning of the year they had no future goalie, now it looks like Dubnyk might do the job. That leaves size and D. Getting first pair D via free agency cannot happen, and they dfont want to give anybody one of their top six forwards. That leaves the draft, or trading down at the draft to fill the chasm on defence. They had top three power play this year, they don't need a forward.Doesn't sound like he's that kind of character. Everything I've read from Sarnia staff and otehr reports say he's a highly competitive kid who wants to win. Where better than in the best league in the world? The KHL, where he can earn three times the money immediately and stiull come back to the NHL. He is under zero obligation to report to or sign with any NHL teram.. Until the NHL has an agreement with the Russkis, it is really risky to invest big in a young Russian. Quote The government should do something.
kimmy Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 I've been in BC for 5 years and I still can't stand the Canucks. It only took them about 10 minutes to remind me why. The diving is so bad that even soccer players would be ashamed. Listening to Hughson and Simpson try and tip-toe around calling it what it is very amusing, though. "Kesler may have been trying to sell that a bit." "A bit of a fortunate call for the Canucks as Henrik went down rather easily." "I don't think that was exactly the end of the world for Roberto..." -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Black Dog Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 They really do not need another small forward. Again, they need another good forward. Anyway, by all accounts, Yakupov is anything but small. Short, yes, but built like a brick shithouse (he's 5'11 and 190lbs). By trading down one or two spots they can get the #2 pick(a very good D) and a roster player. Trading a potential elite talent for a "very good d" (who might become such in 2-3 years) and some unknown roster player from another lousy team, would be an epic fail. This team should have learned it's lesson from passing on Parise because he was too small in favour of a plug like JF Jacques. I guess you didn't see them play this year. They get pushed around badly by large fast teams, never get the chance to use their skill. Really? Is that why Hall, RNH and Eberle all had such great seasons? Their defence as a group are horrible. Yet their GA/G was lower than seven other teams, including playoff-bound Ottawa and only slightly worse than Chicago, Washington and Philly. The D needs work, but not at the expense of a true elite talent like Yakupov projects to be. At the beginning of the year they had no future goalie, now it looks like Dubnyk might do the job. That leaves size and D. Getting first pair D via free agency cannot happen, and they dfont want to give anybody one of their top six forwards. That leaves the draft, or trading down at the draft to fill the chasm on defence. They have plenty of trade chips. Gagner, Pajaarvi and any combination of prospects in the pipeline. they have buckets of cap space to sign FA They had top three power play this year, they don't need a forward. Successful teams are built around talent and depth. By your logic, Pittsburgh should have passed on Staal because they already had Crosby and Malkin at centre. Ridiculous. Anyway, the Oilers' forward depth is overstated. If Hall struggles coming back from surgery and RNH or Hemsky miss any significant time, they are screwed. Adding Yakupov would enable them to ice two solid scoring lines The KHL, where he can earn three times the money immediately and stiull come back to the NHL. He is under zero obligation to report to or sign with any NHL teram.. Until the NHL has an agreement with the Russkis, it is really risky to invest big in a young Russian. Do you have any actual evidence that Yakupov is interested in playing in the KHL? I acknowledge the risk exists. But the benefits of adding another elite talent to the system Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
fellowtraveller Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Again, they need another good forward.Anyway, by all accounts, Yakupov is anything but small. Short, yes, but built like a brick shithouse (he's 5'11 and 190lbs). Sure, they could use another good forward, but 190 is thirty pounds short of whast they need up front: some size and grit. Hopkins, Gagner, Hall, Eberle, Hemsky- all very skilled, all really easy to get off the puck. They get pounded and pushed around all the time, skill doesn't matter when your face is smashed against the glass.Really? Is that why Hall, RNH and Eberle all had such great seasons?It is the reason they finished 29th: cannot compete with big teams. I'm not satified with individuals having good seasons, I want the team to succeed first.This team should have learned it's lesson from passing on Parise because he was too small in favour of a plug like JF Jacques. Not relevant. Neither was a #1 pick , with all the leverage that gives us. We need defenceent, to get the puck out of our end and up to the skilled players we have. Instead, we have the nightly gong show of having shitty D getting pounded in their zone, and the forwards unable to help because they are wee. It also hurts our forecheck, because when Sam Gagner goes into the other teams corners he alm,ost never comes up with the puck because he is too small to play that game or have that role.The D needs workTheir defence needs wholesale replacement. Keep Petry, Smid and maybe Shulz- and none of those are first pairing guys anywhere else. The rest are AHL players. Whitney looks like he is done for good.Here is how bad their D is: Eric Belanger on the power play point for much of the year. He can't shoot, make plays or score but he is better than 4 out of 7 D? They have plenty of trade chips. Gagner, Pajaarvi In your next quote, you call for depth yet ypou want to trade that depth. Which is it? Gagner is still a marginal top six guy. Pajaarvi has yet to establish anything as a pro player, and his value is now less than it was a year ago. Homers like you and I tend to badly overestimate the value of fringe players. Pajaarvi won't be playing anywhere in the NHL in top six except maybe Edmonton. You don't get top pair D for that, you get 7th D and we already have a bunch of them.I acknowledge the risk exists.Then why take it when your organization needs other types of players urgeantly and immediately? One proviso: if we draft a D like Murray at #2 or #3 and extract another D for doing it, they both have to be capable of playing next year.Until we upgrade out D substantially, we are not making the playoffs. If we wait five years, our supposed cap advantage will be gone, gone, gone when all this young talent is moving into RFA and UFA territory. The need to move forward is urgent. I wonder if Tambellini has the stones for it. Your 'indecisive' comment is spot on, todays Journal has Tambo telling Renney to take a little holdiay and think things over..... Huh? Quote The government should do something.
Black Dog Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Sure, they could use another good forward, but 190 is thirty pounds short of whast they need up front: some size and grit. Hopkins, Gagner, Hall, Eberle, Hemsky- all very skilled, all really easy to get off the puck. They get pounded and pushed around all the time, skill doesn't matter when your face is smashed against the glass. Now I have to ask if you actually watched the team play. Most of those guys are pretty good at retaining puck possession: Gagner's probably the worst at it, but these guys are much more likely to give the puck away on their own than have it taken off them. Anyway, where's this size coming from upfront if you are trading the top pick for D? It is the reason they finished 29th: cannot compete with big teams. I'm not satified with individuals having good seasons, I want the team to succeed first. Point is, the fact that they were able to put up good numbers on a 29th place team belies your contention that the small forwards are the problem. They are doing fine. The problems clearly lie elsewhere. Not relevant. Neither was a #1 pick , with all the leverage that gives us. It's relevant because the priciple at work is the same: passing on the BPA to fill a supposed need. It never works out. We need defenceent, to get the puck out of our end and up to the skilled players we have. Instead, we have the nightly gong show of having shitty D getting pounded in their zone, and the forwards unable to help because they are wee. It also hurts our forecheck, because when Sam Gagner goes into the other teams corners he alm,ost never comes up with the puck because he is too small to play that game or have that role. I'm not disputing the need for a d upgrade. Where we part company is the notion that the only way to do so is by trading the top pick. I think that's ridiculous and short-sighted. In your next quote, you call for depth yet ypou want to trade that depth. Which is it? Gagner is still a marginal top six guy. Pajaarvi has yet to establish anything as a pro player, and his value is now less than it was a year ago. Homers like you and I tend to badly overestimate the value of fringe players. Pajaarvi won't be playing anywhere in the NHL in top six except maybe Edmonton. You don't get top pair D for that, you get 7th D and we already have a bunch of them. They have depth in that they have players. They just aren't very good. And while Gagner or MPS may have low value individually, they could easily be part of a package with a combination of picks and prospects. Then why take it when your organization needs other types of players urgeantly and immediately? I don't think it's that urgent. They don't need a monster back there: with the firepower they have up front with the addition of Yakupov, they could sign a guy like Bryan Allen who can hold down the fort until some of the d prospects in the system start to force their way in. Klefblom, Musil, Maricin, Gernat are all bubbling under: I'd expect at least one or two of them to make the team in the next couple of years. You can't say the same about the forwards. Until we upgrade out D substantially, we are not making the playoffs. If we wait five years, our supposed cap advantage will be gone, gone, gone when all this young talent is moving into RFA and UFA territory. The need to move forward is urgent. It won't take five years. the team will progress as the kids get older and better. It's just that simple. I wonder if Tambellini has the stones for it. Your 'indecisive' comment is spot on, todays Journal has Tambo telling Renney to take a little holdiay and think things over..... Huh? If Tambellini returns, as I expect he will, do you really trust him to pull off a deal for the top pick that would help the team? I don't, which is another reason why I don't want him getting cute with the pick. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Shady Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Really? Is that why Hall, RNH and Eberle all had such great seasons? We must be lowering the bar on what constitutes a great season. If a team has 3 players that have great seasons, they should really make the playoffs, not get the first pick in the draft again. As a Leaf fan, I wouldn't characterize Phil Kessel's season as great. And he had a better season then any of the 3 you mentioned. Quote
Black Dog Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 We must be lowering the bar on what constitutes a great season. If a team has 3 players that have great seasons, they should really make the playoffs, not get the first pick in the draft again. Ah yes so when Sidney Crosby scored 102 points in his rookie season, he was clearly a failure sinc ehe could not single-handidly will his team into the playoffs. As a Leaf fan, I wouldn't characterize Phil Kessel's season as great. And he had a better season then any of the 3 you mentioned. Kessel had a great season. The Leafs had a crap one. Both of these statements are true and totally compatible. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Shady Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Ah yes so when Sidney Crosby scored 102 points in his rookie season, he was clearly a failure sinc ehe could not single-handidly will his team into the playoffs. No, he wasn't a failure. I didn't say that the 3 players you mentioned were failures either. But I wouldn't characterize their seasons as great. Crosby's was. But none of the players you mentioned did anything close to what he did. So your comparison really isn't apt. Kessel had a great season. The Leafs had a crap one. Both of these statements are true and totally compatible. I disagree. I wouldn't characterize Kessel's season as great. It was pretty good, but not great. Either was any of the Oilers. They had good seasons though. Quote
Black Dog Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 No, he wasn't a failure. I didn't say that the 3 players you mentioned were failures either. But I wouldn't characterize their seasons as great. Crosby's was. But none of the players you mentioned did anything close to what he did. So your comparison really isn't apt. RNH had a Calder-calibre season and would be a shoe-in had he not missed as much time as he did. Eberle was in the top 15 in league scoring as a sophomore. I'd say those are great years by any measure. I disagree. I wouldn't characterize Kessel's season as great. It was pretty good, but not great. Either was any of the Oilers. They had good seasons though. I think a point per game season, something maybe 6 or seven players achieve each year, is a lot better than pretty good. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.