Dodging Bullets
by Jonathan Willis on Jun 25, 2008 9:02 AM MDT
Email
Print
I should preface this by saying that I typically like Kevin Lowe as a general manager. The organization's scouting and player development have improved leaps and bounds since he was installed as general manager in the summer of 2000. He's added some nice, underrated pieces through free agency (Staios, Garon), and he's won more than his share of trades.
That said, he has a horrible tendency to make the occasional colossal mistake, the kind of mistake that undoes half a dozen good moves. The Sheldon Souray contract is frequently cited as Kevin Lowe's biggest error, but it wasn't. Neither were his transactions with Anaheim - the Pronger trade, the Penner offer sheet. No, in terms of absolute stupidity, Kevin Lowe's greatest error was one that had virtually no impact on the franchise.
The Thomas Vanek offer sheet.
The highly skilled Austrian is an easy character to forget about, given that the RFA offer sheet was matched by Buffalo GM Darcy Regier, but it really doesn't mean that Kevin Lowe should be let off the hook.
The dollar figure was the first ridiculous amount. 50 million dollars over 7 years was a big, upfront contract that was paying for potential, with little hope of being fair compensation for value received until years three or four of the deal. In fairness, Vanek is a young forward who has a good chance at being an upper echelon guy for some time to come. But the dollar figure alone wasn't the worst part of the deal.
Four 1st round draft picks would have been the compensation that Buffalo would have received from the Oilers, a compensation that would be too high, unless Sidney Crosby was the player coming the other way. We can't say who those players would have turned into, but looking back, we can see the guys Edmonton has selected. The last four 1st rounders that Edmonton selected were Jordan Eberle, Sam Gagner, Andrew Cogliano, and Devan Dubnyk. The other four selected under Kevin Lowe were Rob Schremp, Marc Pouliot, Jesse Niinimaki, and Ales Hemsky. In each group, at least one player (Gagner, Hemsky) turned out sufficiently that Lowe would have rued the exchange.
The problem, in my mind, stemmed from a palpable desperation coming from Lowe's office at the end of 2007. Spurned by a whole bunch of free agents, facing a backlash from fans after the Ryan Smyth trade, unable to do anything to address the nosedive the Oilers had gone into to finish the season, Lowe was in a bad situation. I think that he acted desperately, willing to take foolish risks to try and right a ship had capsized. The summer of 2007 is now clearly the low-water mark for Kevin Lowe as a general manager, a comedy of errors that could have turned out much worse. Sheldon Souray and Dustin Penner were not great, or arguable, even particularly good acquisitions, but the offers made to Nylander and Vanek would have been even more disastrous.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kevin Lowe's greatest error was one that had virtually no impact on the franchise.
That just seems wrong. How could the greatest error have no impact on the team?
In what way then is it the greatest error? Don't you mean could have been?
Besides, how do you know Vanek wasn't merely a PR exercise? Lowe knew the offer sheet would be rejected. Perhaps Penner was the primary target all along. Unfortunately, you have no info at all regardng intent and you have no consequences.
You could maybe say it was his dumbest move (you do, although without intent this would still be a difficult case to win). But you can't say it is his greatest mistake.
As for the others:
Souray is an error of what? $1-1.5M (assuming reasonable health the rest of the way)? Certainly not a colossal mistake. Pronger was Strachan not Lowe. 3 picks for Penner when we were deep in first rounders last year actually seems smart, well-timed.
His 2 biggest errors:
1. Not estimating the cap increase correctly for the Smytty negotiations despite all the NHLPA rumblings, failing on the negotiations, and admitting the same later. Nilsson/Gagner go a long way to mitigating this error
2. Letting Hejda go, although granted he chose youth with great potential in his place, so time may mitigate this error. Would've been nice to have Hejda this past year, though, as the error was exacerbated by injury. And again, we don't know if there was something between Lowe and Howson on Hejda's move.
Souray's contract has an out after 3 years, so perhaps that can be mitigated too if needs be, or maybe he shows up for 75 games a year here on in. Difficult to rate this signing 20% into the contract. Or the PR work it did or didn't do (and the same for the PR effect offer sheets may have had on agents--Edmonton is no longer cheap and willing to do what it takes).
That's what I like about Lowe. Although his humanity leads him to make mistakes, he does a pretty good job of covering his ass, or working it off to get back in the race.
We were merely the highest offer for Vanek, by the way. We weren't the only offer.
That just seems wrong. How could the greatest error have no impact on the team?
In what way then is it the greatest error? Don't you mean could have been?
Besides, how do you know Vanek wasn't merely a PR exercise? Lowe knew the offer sheet would be rejected. Perhaps Penner was the primary target all along. Unfortunately, you have no info at all regardng intent and you have no consequences.
You could maybe say it was his dumbest move (you do, although without intent this would still be a difficult case to win). But you can't say it is his greatest mistake.
As for the others:
Souray is an error of what? $1-1.5M (assuming reasonable health the rest of the way)? Certainly not a colossal mistake. Pronger was Strachan not Lowe. 3 picks for Penner when we were deep in first rounders last year actually seems smart, well-timed.
His 2 biggest errors:
1. Not estimating the cap increase correctly for the Smytty negotiations despite all the NHLPA rumblings, failing on the negotiations, and admitting the same later. Nilsson/Gagner go a long way to mitigating this error
2. Letting Hejda go, although granted he chose youth with great potential in his place, so time may mitigate this error. Would've been nice to have Hejda this past year, though, as the error was exacerbated by injury. And again, we don't know if there was something between Lowe and Howson on Hejda's move.
Souray's contract has an out after 3 years, so perhaps that can be mitigated too if needs be, or maybe he shows up for 75 games a year here on in. Difficult to rate this signing 20% into the contract. Or the PR work it did or didn't do (and the same for the PR effect offer sheets may have had on agents--Edmonton is no longer cheap and willing to do what it takes).
That's what I like about Lowe. Although his humanity leads him to make mistakes, he does a pretty good job of covering his ass, or working it off to get back in the race.
We were merely the highest offer for Vanek, by the way. We weren't the only offer.
by spOILer on Jun 25, 2008 10:44 AM MDT reply actions
In what way then is it the greatest error? Don't you mean could have been?
No, I mean was. Regardless of whether that error was mitigated by Regier, it was still an error.
Lowe knew the offer sheet would be rejected. Perhaps Penner was the primary target all along.
If so, than why would Lowe needlessly offend a former trading partner in Regier? What would be the point? Doing it solely as a PR move seems like a high-risk, low-reward gamble, and if that was the case it's perhaps even stupider than making a serious offer.
Pronger was Strachan not Lowe.
How do you figure?
Souray is an error of what? $1-1.5M (assuming reasonable health the rest of the way)?
That's a damn big assumption.
Not estimating the cap increase correctly for the Smytty negotiations despite all the NHLPA rumblings, failing on the negotiations, and admitting the same later.
It could be argued that Lowe made the correct, and unsentimental decision on Smyth. In fact it has been argued, with some merit.
Letting Hejda go, although granted he chose youth with great potential in his place, so time may mitigate this error.
I really liked Hejda, and this was certainly an error, but it had nowhere near the impact of forking over 5+ million/year to Souray or failing to pick up an established NHL defender for Pronger. Not even close.
No, I mean was. Regardless of whether that error was mitigated by Regier, it was still an error.
Lowe knew the offer sheet would be rejected. Perhaps Penner was the primary target all along.
If so, than why would Lowe needlessly offend a former trading partner in Regier? What would be the point? Doing it solely as a PR move seems like a high-risk, low-reward gamble, and if that was the case it's perhaps even stupider than making a serious offer.
Pronger was Strachan not Lowe.
How do you figure?
Souray is an error of what? $1-1.5M (assuming reasonable health the rest of the way)?
That's a damn big assumption.
Not estimating the cap increase correctly for the Smytty negotiations despite all the NHLPA rumblings, failing on the negotiations, and admitting the same later.
It could be argued that Lowe made the correct, and unsentimental decision on Smyth. In fact it has been argued, with some merit.
Letting Hejda go, although granted he chose youth with great potential in his place, so time may mitigate this error.
I really liked Hejda, and this was certainly an error, but it had nowhere near the impact of forking over 5+ million/year to Souray or failing to pick up an established NHL defender for Pronger. Not even close.
by Jonathan Willis on Jun 25, 2008 10:54 AM MDT reply actions
Souray is an error of what? $1-1.5M (assuming reasonable health the rest of the way)?
I'd put it at closer to $2.5MM or so. The question seems to be whether he's a legitimate elite PP QB. I don't think that the numbers support that - outside of that one year in MTL, he's been thoroughly pedestrian. You're then left with a bad ES guy with some PK skills and injury problems.
I'd put it at closer to $2.5MM or so. The question seems to be whether he's a legitimate elite PP QB. I don't think that the numbers support that - outside of that one year in MTL, he's been thoroughly pedestrian. You're then left with a bad ES guy with some PK skills and injury problems.
by mc79hockey on Jun 25, 2008 11:10 AM MDT reply actions
Jonathan I think you've done a good job on this post. Several long responses already ...
When I started reading this thread I immediately thought of Nylander. Souray I think brings enough intangibles that, while he wont cover his contract, he will still bring a lot of positives to the team. I'm looking forward to a PP of 27-89-83-16-44.
I posted recently about how I liked that KLo was keeping his cards closer to his chest. Someone will always call your bluff if they know whats in your hand. Good call.
I'm going to somewhat disagree with you on Vanek (its year 1 out of 7, neither of us can be right yet). I think Vanek will cover his contract. On an off year adjusting to hard minutes he still scored 36 goals. His combination of size, speed and finish are the perfect match for Hemsky. IMO on Hemskys wing Vanek would score 40-50 goals a year justifying his 7 million/season. The picks are a very good point. In todays NHL you need to have prospects playing significant minutes with reasonable salaries. However, if your #1 line is stacked and locked in long term, its easier to replace depth positions with later round picks (tell that to Darryl Sutter ... haha). If your Detroit you somehow find elite players with later picks but I digress. Another item worth mentioning is that the Oilers at the time of the offer sheet were positioned for the next 4 years - we had numerous prospects and assets from the Smyth/Pronger trades that take varying time to develop. Our picks (with Vanek) would IMO be in the 15-25 range rather than the 5-15 range where Hemsky and Gagner were picked. These picks could very well have been Rob Schremp, Marc Pouliot, Jesse Niinimaki, Andrew Cogliano, and Devan Dubnyk. Our scouting staff is much improved since the lockout so I'd expect the picks to be better, but not Vanek/Gagner good. We've spent 2 years of Hemskys contract looking for the an elite player to play with him. I'd personally rather have the player now than wait for a guy like Eberle to become that guy. Ideally you sign a UFA like Hossa (not that I think Hossa would be a good signing) but not many top-end UFA players sign in Edmonton. If Spezza costs Rollie + Gagner + a 1st (as rumored) I'd much rather give up picks and have Vanek. Very pricey but worth it?
When I started reading this thread I immediately thought of Nylander. Souray I think brings enough intangibles that, while he wont cover his contract, he will still bring a lot of positives to the team. I'm looking forward to a PP of 27-89-83-16-44.
I posted recently about how I liked that KLo was keeping his cards closer to his chest. Someone will always call your bluff if they know whats in your hand. Good call.
I'm going to somewhat disagree with you on Vanek (its year 1 out of 7, neither of us can be right yet). I think Vanek will cover his contract. On an off year adjusting to hard minutes he still scored 36 goals. His combination of size, speed and finish are the perfect match for Hemsky. IMO on Hemskys wing Vanek would score 40-50 goals a year justifying his 7 million/season. The picks are a very good point. In todays NHL you need to have prospects playing significant minutes with reasonable salaries. However, if your #1 line is stacked and locked in long term, its easier to replace depth positions with later round picks (tell that to Darryl Sutter ... haha). If your Detroit you somehow find elite players with later picks but I digress. Another item worth mentioning is that the Oilers at the time of the offer sheet were positioned for the next 4 years - we had numerous prospects and assets from the Smyth/Pronger trades that take varying time to develop. Our picks (with Vanek) would IMO be in the 15-25 range rather than the 5-15 range where Hemsky and Gagner were picked. These picks could very well have been Rob Schremp, Marc Pouliot, Jesse Niinimaki, Andrew Cogliano, and Devan Dubnyk. Our scouting staff is much improved since the lockout so I'd expect the picks to be better, but not Vanek/Gagner good. We've spent 2 years of Hemskys contract looking for the an elite player to play with him. I'd personally rather have the player now than wait for a guy like Eberle to become that guy. Ideally you sign a UFA like Hossa (not that I think Hossa would be a good signing) but not many top-end UFA players sign in Edmonton. If Spezza costs Rollie + Gagner + a 1st (as rumored) I'd much rather give up picks and have Vanek. Very pricey but worth it?
by Sean on Jun 25, 2008 11:12 AM MDT reply actions
I think Vanek will cover his contract. On an off year adjusting to hard minutes he still scored 36 goals.
Medium-strength minutes, actually (ranked 7th among Sabres forwards). I do think he'll cover the last 3-4 years of the contract, but not the first 3-4.
I'd much rather give up picks and have Vanek. Very pricey but worth it?
In the short-term, yes. But the thing is, robbing 4 first round picks means that in the 5-10 years after, the team has less talent coming in than it should- it's a prosper-now, rebuild-later approach. I really believe teams should be building and developing, while they contend (i.e. Detroit). With those 4 picks gone, you've gone a long way towards guaranteeing a rebuild process within the next 5-10 years.
Medium-strength minutes, actually (ranked 7th among Sabres forwards). I do think he'll cover the last 3-4 years of the contract, but not the first 3-4.
I'd much rather give up picks and have Vanek. Very pricey but worth it?
In the short-term, yes. But the thing is, robbing 4 first round picks means that in the 5-10 years after, the team has less talent coming in than it should- it's a prosper-now, rebuild-later approach. I really believe teams should be building and developing, while they contend (i.e. Detroit). With those 4 picks gone, you've gone a long way towards guaranteeing a rebuild process within the next 5-10 years.
by Jonathan Willis on Jun 25, 2008 11:20 AM MDT reply actions
Good day, Jonathan.
If so, than why would Lowe needlessly offend a former trading partner in Regier? What would be the point? Doing it solely as a PR move seems like a high-risk, low-reward gamble, and if that was the case it's perhaps even stupider than making a serious offer.
Call it the Rick Olczyk influence.
The ratio of $$ spent on UFAs needed to be kicked in the rump.
It's just too bad that some GM didn't do this coming out of the lockout. If RFAs had started getting a larger cut two years earlier, maybe we don't see the Drury, Gomez, Souray, etc... contracts last year.
L8r
Louise
If so, than why would Lowe needlessly offend a former trading partner in Regier? What would be the point? Doing it solely as a PR move seems like a high-risk, low-reward gamble, and if that was the case it's perhaps even stupider than making a serious offer.
Call it the Rick Olczyk influence.
The ratio of $$ spent on UFAs needed to be kicked in the rump.
It's just too bad that some GM didn't do this coming out of the lockout. If RFAs had started getting a larger cut two years earlier, maybe we don't see the Drury, Gomez, Souray, etc... contracts last year.
L8r
Louise
by IceDragoon on Jun 25, 2008 11:30 AM MDT reply actions
Call it the Rick Olczyk influence.
The ratio of $$ spent on UFAs needed to be kicked in the rump.
An excellent, excellent point. I'll stand by the Vanek OS= bad stance, but I didn't take into account the shift in economic model that signing RFA's started, a shift that favours the Oilers.
Still, I'd argue that it was inevitable that some GM would sign a big-time RFA (no, Kesler does not count), and such a shift was equally inevitable.
The ratio of $$ spent on UFAs needed to be kicked in the rump.
An excellent, excellent point. I'll stand by the Vanek OS= bad stance, but I didn't take into account the shift in economic model that signing RFA's started, a shift that favours the Oilers.
Still, I'd argue that it was inevitable that some GM would sign a big-time RFA (no, Kesler does not count), and such a shift was equally inevitable.
by Jonathan Willis on Jun 25, 2008 11:44 AM MDT reply actions
Medium-strength minutes, actually (ranked 7th among Sabres forwards).
Fair enough, I didn't actually check I more assumed because Drury and Briere were gone.
I really believe teams should be building and developing, while they contend (i.e. Detroit).
Agreed but the Oilers aren't contenders and Detroit rarely builds from the first round.
It's a prosper-now, rebuild-later approach
Agreed but I'm fine with that. Its better than the rebuild-now rebuild-later approach the Oilers have been implementing since 1992. 5-10 years is a long time, you can acquire a lot of picks in that time. I don't think Vanek would be the magical solution but I don't think he'd be disastrous either. A lineup with Vanek could very well be a contender next season. There are also lots of positive side effects of becoming a winning team that seems to allow successful teams to stay successful.
Fair enough, I didn't actually check I more assumed because Drury and Briere were gone.
I really believe teams should be building and developing, while they contend (i.e. Detroit).
Agreed but the Oilers aren't contenders and Detroit rarely builds from the first round.
It's a prosper-now, rebuild-later approach
Agreed but I'm fine with that. Its better than the rebuild-now rebuild-later approach the Oilers have been implementing since 1992. 5-10 years is a long time, you can acquire a lot of picks in that time. I don't think Vanek would be the magical solution but I don't think he'd be disastrous either. A lineup with Vanek could very well be a contender next season. There are also lots of positive side effects of becoming a winning team that seems to allow successful teams to stay successful.
by Sean on Jun 25, 2008 12:33 PM MDT reply actions
There are also lots of positive side effects of becoming a winning team that seems to allow successful teams to stay successful.
...and a lot of negative consequences (i.e. every free agent on the team suddenly gets overvalued). Tampa Bay in 2004 won the cup and than lost guys to big contracts, as did the Oilers in 2006, and probably Pittsburgh this year.
...and a lot of negative consequences (i.e. every free agent on the team suddenly gets overvalued). Tampa Bay in 2004 won the cup and than lost guys to big contracts, as did the Oilers in 2006, and probably Pittsburgh this year.
by Jonathan Willis on Jun 25, 2008 12:58 PM MDT reply actions
While I agree the shift in economic model has been an unexpected (by me, maybe not by Lowe) benefit to the Oilers, the price tag on the top rank RFAs is mighty high. The big cap hit and the loss of picks is a double whammy. Consider that a contending team needs a supply of relatively inexpensive talent to support the high-priced star, and in giving up four (!) first-rounders they've shut off the tap to one of the best sources of possible outperformers. It would take the acquisition of a Malkin-calibre superstar to be worth the top price IMO, and even then it might be self-defeating.
It's a different equation for a team that's already good and giving up picks in the #25-30 range for the guy who might take them over the top right now. But for a building team, the price is just too high.
It's a different equation for a team that's already good and giving up picks in the #25-30 range for the guy who might take them over the top right now. But for a building team, the price is just too high.
by Bruce on Jun 25, 2008 2:50 PM MDT reply actions
Jonathan, these are all good points above made by you and others.
But I just can't bite on the fact that this is Lowe's greatest error when we have no certain intent and virtually no consequences other than a temporary loss of a trading partner (which it could be argued is more of a deontological criterion).
I agree it was highly likely to be an error, if Lowe had been succcesful, given what we know.
But I don't agree on biggest now. Magnitude of error surely must need something other than "lacking logic that we can see" and "imminent bad consequences that we might not mitigate", if it's going to be evaluated against other mistakes.
If we win a Cup with Vanek, do you care somewhat less about development?
If we can trade other players to make most of those draft picks back, do you care somewhat less about the picks sacrificed?
BTW, I figger it was Strachan not Lowe since Strachan took any chance of leverage in the negotiation away from the Oilers by publicly revealing the gun to Lowe's head.
You don't think Lowe could have got more for Pronger if no one knew he was being traded?
But I just can't bite on the fact that this is Lowe's greatest error when we have no certain intent and virtually no consequences other than a temporary loss of a trading partner (which it could be argued is more of a deontological criterion).
I agree it was highly likely to be an error, if Lowe had been succcesful, given what we know.
But I don't agree on biggest now. Magnitude of error surely must need something other than "lacking logic that we can see" and "imminent bad consequences that we might not mitigate", if it's going to be evaluated against other mistakes.
If we win a Cup with Vanek, do you care somewhat less about development?
If we can trade other players to make most of those draft picks back, do you care somewhat less about the picks sacrificed?
BTW, I figger it was Strachan not Lowe since Strachan took any chance of leverage in the negotiation away from the Oilers by publicly revealing the gun to Lowe's head.
You don't think Lowe could have got more for Pronger if no one knew he was being traded?
by spOILer on Jun 25, 2008 3:53 PM MDT reply actions
If we win a Cup with Vanek, do you care somewhat less about development?
Putting Vanek in Penner's spot in my opinion is a marginal improvement this season, and a legitimate improvement going forward, but not enough to win the cup. I agree that the cup is the primary goal, but I really believe that consistently successful teams continue to develop their players, and having no first round picks hurts that.
If we can trade other players to make most of those draft picks back, do you care somewhat less about the picks sacrificed?
The calibre of player being sent out would probably make me even angrier; for instance, if I were a Flames fan I'd be extremely upset about the Tanguay for a 1st and 2nd trade.
BTW, I figger it was Strachan not Lowe since Strachan took any chance of leverage in the negotiation away from the Oilers by publicly revealing the gun to Lowe's head.
You don't think Lowe could have got more for Pronger if no one knew he was being traded?
In my opinion, the value of the return on the Pronger trade was sufficient- if we were a rebuilding team. The problem with the trade was that a number one defenseman didn't come back in the exchange- that, combined with the loss of Spacek, was the biggest reason the Oilers were behind the 8-ball before the season started.
Pronger could request a trade all he wanted, but unless a #1 defenseman was coming back, he shouldn't have pulled the trigger. Even risking a holdout would have been worthwhile.
by Jonathan Willis on Jun 25, 2008 4:03 PM MDT reply actions
An excellent, excellent point. I'll stand by the Vanek OS= bad stance, but I didn't take into account the shift in economic model that signing RFA's started, a shift that favours the Oilers.
Still, I'd argue that it was inevitable that some GM would sign a big-time RFA (no, Kesler does not count), and such a shift was equally inevitable.
Some really smart buggers were discussing the need for this shift during the lockout.
I suggest that it would have hurt the Oilers more to perpetuate the status quo, than to risk a bloated contract and the loss of 4 first round picks. Players/prospects can be traded for picks. Tho, I think Lowe may have been somewhat relieved when Buffalo said they'd match... during the 'heads up' call prior to the offer sheet being signed.
...
Bruce: You can be sure that Lowe knew what he was doing with the offer sheets. He was following Olczyk's advice.
There are going to be some crazy RFA contracts over the next while. Plus, I think that contracts that don't include any UFA years can be used for arbitration purposes.
The 'gravy train' pendulum has been weighted to pay old farts for quite some time now. It's started swinging hard towards the youngsters making the bulk of $$, leaving depth veterans to take what they can get.
As long as the NHL maintains a cap we'll eventually get some balance. And, for the most part, the best GMs/players should get the lions' share of success/money.
Still, I'd argue that it was inevitable that some GM would sign a big-time RFA (no, Kesler does not count), and such a shift was equally inevitable.
Some really smart buggers were discussing the need for this shift during the lockout.
I suggest that it would have hurt the Oilers more to perpetuate the status quo, than to risk a bloated contract and the loss of 4 first round picks. Players/prospects can be traded for picks. Tho, I think Lowe may have been somewhat relieved when Buffalo said they'd match... during the 'heads up' call prior to the offer sheet being signed.
...
Bruce: You can be sure that Lowe knew what he was doing with the offer sheets. He was following Olczyk's advice.
There are going to be some crazy RFA contracts over the next while. Plus, I think that contracts that don't include any UFA years can be used for arbitration purposes.
The 'gravy train' pendulum has been weighted to pay old farts for quite some time now. It's started swinging hard towards the youngsters making the bulk of $$, leaving depth veterans to take what they can get.
As long as the NHL maintains a cap we'll eventually get some balance. And, for the most part, the best GMs/players should get the lions' share of success/money.
by IceDragoon on Jun 25, 2008 6:10 PM MDT reply actions
Oops...
Jonathan: Forgot to add...
Waiting for some other GM to kick that pendulum had been going on for two years with a whole lot of... nothing.
There is a time for patience, and a time for action.
A year of Hemsky's 'six bullets' was used up getting Sam Gagner. Because of Lowe's action the second one was spent developing chemistry with Penner. We may yet hit the Stanley with one of his remaining 'four bullets'.
Here's hoping.
:-)
Jonathan: Forgot to add...
Waiting for some other GM to kick that pendulum had been going on for two years with a whole lot of... nothing.
There is a time for patience, and a time for action.
A year of Hemsky's 'six bullets' was used up getting Sam Gagner. Because of Lowe's action the second one was spent developing chemistry with Penner. We may yet hit the Stanley with one of his remaining 'four bullets'.
Here's hoping.
:-)
by IceDragoon on Jun 25, 2008 6:46 PM MDT reply actions
At the time of the Vanek trade, the Oilers had 10 1st rounder assets - Gagner, Plant, Nash, Cogliano, Dubnyk, JDD, Schremp, Nilsson, O'Marra and Pouliot. They also had 2 in this years draft. I'm not saying it was a great move, just that it was acceptable given our asset pool. This season it would be a BAD move after many of those picks established themselves.
Like Bruce said, you may want someone better than Vanek to make the deal worthwhile. Vanek did score 79 goals in the last 2 seasons. If he scored 280 goals during his contract, I don't think you'd see many Oilers fans complaining.
Anyways things are slow when I spent my entire day debating a move that didnt happen ... beer o'clock!
Like Bruce said, you may want someone better than Vanek to make the deal worthwhile. Vanek did score 79 goals in the last 2 seasons. If he scored 280 goals during his contract, I don't think you'd see many Oilers fans complaining.
Anyways things are slow when I spent my entire day debating a move that didnt happen ... beer o'clock!
by Sean on Jun 25, 2008 7:37 PM MDT reply actions
BTW, I figger it was Strachan not Lowe since Strachan took any chance of leverage in the negotiation away from the Oilers by publicly revealing the gun to Lowe's head.
You don't think Lowe could have got more for Pronger if no one knew he was being traded?
I think as soon as Lowe started making calls, it would have been in the papers. In any event, I'm still at a loss to understand the loss of leverage. Lowe gave away his leverage with the time of year when he traded him and his need to get it done right away. Suspend the son of a bitch - it's not like the crap that they got back was any hot shit in 06-07 - and sue him for breach of contract. I've heard all of the "Oh, the NHLPA would faint in shock and rage" arguments against that and am just not persuaded; most people have an innate sense of fairness. Particularly when judging whether or not something that doesn't relate to them is fair.
As long as the NHL maintains a cap we'll eventually get some balance. And, for the most part, the best GMs/players should get the lions' share of success/money.
You say this like it's a good thing for the Oilers.
You don't think Lowe could have got more for Pronger if no one knew he was being traded?
I think as soon as Lowe started making calls, it would have been in the papers. In any event, I'm still at a loss to understand the loss of leverage. Lowe gave away his leverage with the time of year when he traded him and his need to get it done right away. Suspend the son of a bitch - it's not like the crap that they got back was any hot shit in 06-07 - and sue him for breach of contract. I've heard all of the "Oh, the NHLPA would faint in shock and rage" arguments against that and am just not persuaded; most people have an innate sense of fairness. Particularly when judging whether or not something that doesn't relate to them is fair.
As long as the NHL maintains a cap we'll eventually get some balance. And, for the most part, the best GMs/players should get the lions' share of success/money.
You say this like it's a good thing for the Oilers.
by Tyler on Jun 25, 2008 8:08 PM MDT reply actions
A year of Hemsky's 'six bullets' was used up getting Sam Gagner. Because of Lowe's action the second one was spent developing chemistry with Penner. We may yet hit the Stanley with one of his remaining 'four bullets'.
I’ve already pretty much written off next year; too many young guys need to grow into their roles. The last two years on Hemsky’s contract, IMO, are when this team should contend.
I’ve already pretty much written off next year; too many young guys need to grow into their roles. The last two years on Hemsky’s contract, IMO, are when this team should contend.
by Jonathan Willis on Jun 25, 2008 8:18 PM MDT reply actions
If I was in control of the situation, and could make Buffalo either take the contract or walk away, I'd see Vanek in Oilers silks.
I'm ultimately a believer in the BPA philosophy, and first round draft picks always sound dramatic and full of potential, but for every Getzlaf, there's a Pouliot. And given the direction of the franchise, none of those picks would have been very high. That 12th pick would have likely become 15th or something with 36 goals from Vanek instead of Penner's 23, and the Oilers would have probably made the playoffs. With Vanek, they would probably win the division this year, and be one of the best teams in the NHL for the next two. Would I trade a fifteenth, twentieth, and two twenty fifth overall picks for a player who may be one of the few fifty goal scorers in the NHL (you gotta figure it'd be inevitable with Hemsky)? In a second.
I'm ultimately a believer in the BPA philosophy, and first round draft picks always sound dramatic and full of potential, but for every Getzlaf, there's a Pouliot. And given the direction of the franchise, none of those picks would have been very high. That 12th pick would have likely become 15th or something with 36 goals from Vanek instead of Penner's 23, and the Oilers would have probably made the playoffs. With Vanek, they would probably win the division this year, and be one of the best teams in the NHL for the next two. Would I trade a fifteenth, twentieth, and two twenty fifth overall picks for a player who may be one of the few fifty goal scorers in the NHL (you gotta figure it'd be inevitable with Hemsky)? In a second.
by Paper Designer on Aug 20, 2008 7:44 PM MDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
Related FanShots on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Oilers Schedule
Next 5 Games
@
Ottawa
|
Sat 02/11 | 12:00 PM MST |
|
Toronto
|
Wed 02/15 | 8:00 PM MST |
|
Colorado
|
Fri 02/17 | 7:30 PM MST |
|
Vancouver
|
Sun 02/19 | 7:00 PM MST |
|
@
Calgary
|
Tue 02/21 | 7:00 PM MST |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Detroit
|
Wed 02/08 | L 2 - 4 |
|
@
Toronto
|
Mon 02/06 | L 3 - 6 |
|
Detroit
|
Sat 02/04 | SO - W 5 - 4 |
|
Chicago
|
Thu 02/02 | W 8 - 4 |
|
Colorado
|
Tue 01/31 | W 3 - 2 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Youth hockey coach, parents clash over alleged tirade over 9-year old’s 200th goal puck
- Friday’s Three Stars: Blackhawks lose seventh straight; Wings win nineteenth straight at home
- Puck Previews: Blackhawks reeling; Sabres streaking; Holmstrom’s 1000th game
- Will Teemu Selanne remain with the Anaheim Ducks through the trade deadline?
- Nikolai Zherdev takes stick to crotch, elbow drop in KHL game (Video)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- WHL Roundup: A look at Friday's games
- Franson scores winner as the Giants edge the Silvertips 3-2
- Ross with goal and assist to lead the Winterhawks over the Americans 4-2
- Wedman, Aviani and Valcourt lead the Chiefs over the Thunderbirds 5-4
- Elynuik scores winner as the Cougars beat the Oil Kings 5-4 in OT
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
