Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Miikka Kiprusoff Wins 300th Game, Buffalo Crushes Boston

On the Grebeshkov Deal

via cdn.picapp.com

Apparently, Denis Grebeshkov has been traded to the Nashville Predators in exchange for a second round pick in 2010.  This past summer, I was critical of the Oilers handling of Grebeshkov's contract situation.  At the time, it seemed to me like the deal wasn't outright terrible, but that they could've done a lot better.  With this trade, they've taken the extra step.  Not only could they have done a lot better, they've done something terrible!  After the jump we'll take a look at the extent of the stupidity.

Star-divide

First of all, Denis Grebeshkov is a good player who was in the midst of his worst statistical season as an Oiler.  Last season, Grebeshkov looked amazing when he played with Lubomir Visnovsky and pretty decent the rest of the time.  He was mildly sheltered at EV in terms of competition but he wasn't being fed OZ draws and he was a solid + at EV.  He scored a lot at EV.  1.23 points/60. 7th in the NHL for defenders (min. 30 games).  A lot.  And although that performance was way beyond what should be expected going forward, he's had good offence each of the last three years: 0.84 pts/60 two years ago, 1.23 last year and 0.76 this season.  He brings some offence at EV, it's something you can count on.  And although he makes his share (and then some!) of defensive blunders, this is actually the first season he's been a minus player.  He's -16 5v5 so he's made it count but it's still just the first time.  His Corsi rate is poor this year (-11.54/60), but it was top-two among Oiler defenders the two years prior.  His competition has been slightly higher this season, but not significantly.  Honestly, it looks like a poor season and sometimes, that happens.  Nonetheless, Grebeshkov is a good player, and a good player who's young enough (this is his 26 year-old season) to help the Oilers when they want to contend.  Moving him for a marginal return is, on it's face, stupid.

So let's look at Grebeshkov's contract situation to see if there's a good reason for this move.  Grebeshkov is being paid 3.15M this season and is a restricted freeagent at the end of the season.  He is due a qualifying offer of 3.15M and is eligible for arbitration.  If he accepts his qualifying offer, the Oilers would have Grebeshkov for one more season at 3.15M.  If he goes to arbitration, I think he would have a very hard time getting an increase on that salary.  Should he reject his qualifying offer, then the Oilers could simply let him know that the team likes him but cannot afford to give him a raise on his current salary and that the team would not stand in his way if he were to find an offer sheet from another team if it represents a raise on his current salary.  The potential risk here is the KHL, but I think that can be mitigated if the Oilers continue to express interest in a long-term deal once they get some money off the books (Souray, Moreau, Staios).  The cap is projected to rise only slightly this season, so the RFA compensation schedule should stay about the same.  Last season the compensation for a player that signed at 3.15M or more was a 1st and 3rd round pick.  Which is a significantly better deal than what the Oilers acquired here.  So the Oilers decided to take the lesser return, presumably, because they were afraid that they would need to pay Grebeshkov something around 3M and 3.25M next season or they were afraid he would get a better offer to play in the KHL.  Stupid.

Perhaps I've jumped the gun in calling the return marginal above.  Is it really that bad?  Nashville is not a bad team this season (they're actually pretty good) so this pick is very likely not going to be among the top forty selections in the draft.  In the summer I looked at how many good players are drafted between 31st and 100th overall in their draft year.  I considered a successful pick any forward who scored 0.50 points per game in his career and played at least 200 NHL games, any defender who scored 0.20 points per game in his career and played at least 200 NHL games and any goaltender with a career .910 save percentage and at least 200 games played.  These are the kinds of things that are expensive to buy on the free agent market.  Sure a goalie who puts up a .905 save percentage is a handy player, but it's not really worth drafting him.  You can pick him up for next to nothing in the summer.  At any rate, the success rate from the 1994-2003 drafts was about 8% for forwards and defenders and an unsustainable 0% for goalies.  Denis Grebeshkov, incidentally, already meets this criteria.  Ergo, there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of an 8% chance that the Oilers end up with a slightly-worse to much-better player than Grebeshkov with this trade.  Maybe bump it to 15% since the pick is early in that range and we'll be kind and say the Oilers are better than average at drafting.  At any rate, the odds aren't good.  Stupid.

So if the return in the form of the pick isn't good, Grebeshkov is and his contract situation was actually pretty favourable.  Why would they make the deal?  What other aspects of the return are there that make this deal more palatable?  One place to look is the overall salary structure of the team.  After all, in a cap system there are only so many dollars to spend and, even if you're only spending it on good players, spending too much of it in any one area can really hurt.  I like to use the following as a set of general guidelines:

Top 3 Forwards - 27.5%
Middle 6 Forwards - 20.0%
Top 4 Defenders - 27.5%
Goaltending - 10.0%
Bottom 8 Players - 15.0%

Here are the Oilers commitments for next season if we assume a cap of 56 million cap (leaving $800,000 dollars in wiggle room going into the season):

Top 3 Forwards - (Horcoff, Hemsky, Penner) - 13.85M or 24.7%
Middle 6 Forwards - (O'Sullivan, Nilsson, Moreau, ???, ???, ???) - 6.925 or 12.4%
Top 4 Defenders - (Visnovsky, Souray, Gilbert, Staios) - 17.7M or 31.6%
Goaltending - (Khabibulin, ???) - 3.75M or 6.7%
Bottom 8 Players - (Smid, Stortini, ???, ???, ???, ???, ???, ???) - 2.0M or 3.6%

So even looking at this we can see a lot of chaff.  My favourite place to save money is on the goaltending, but the Oilers really can't do that since they'll need a legitimate backup for Khabibulin in the 1.5M range.  So that's out.  They've already spent over half of their budget in the middle six on three underperforming players.  One of those ??? is going to be Gagner and if he clocks in at 3M that leaves precious little money for another two players (1.275M total) that we need to be good since, well, the three incumbents are not.  On defence, we've already overspent and that's including Staios as a top four guy.  It's a mess.  A festering mess.  And I suppose dealing Grebeshkov helps marginally but there are at least six guys on that list that would have been more helpful to move (O'Sullivan, Nilsson, Moreau, Souray, Staios, Khabibulin).  It's not surprising that the Oilers are having a hard time moving them, but if Tambellini can actually bury guys in the minors then there's no reason to solve the cap crunch by moving Grebs.  It's (and you'll notice the theme here) stupid.

So what else does this give the Oilers that might be valuable?  A roster spot.  A precious roster spot for the golden boy, Taylor Chorney, who was called up today, along with Theo Peckham and Devan Dubnyk.  Chorney.  The #22 player under 25 in the Oilers organization.  Judging by how many times they've given him the call, it seems we're making room for him.  The Oilers have repeatedly expressed that they like his game despite his overwhelmingly terrible numbers in the AHL.  I bet that this is the angle that gets sold.  Something like, "We get a draft pick in exchange for a player who we feel can be replaced from within the organization.  It also frees up some cap space for next summer."  Stupid.

NHL Trade Rumors and Hockey Blogs - SB Nation NHL Trade Deadline

Comment 50 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Well stated

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. And since I’m too lazy to drag out the numbers myself, the analysis is appreciated. Classic case of selling low. Grebs has not been good this year, but his track record suggests better in the future.

Tambellini continues to disappoint.

by Smytty777 on Mar 1, 2010 5:27 PM MST reply actions  

Nornally I like to argue with you Scott, but in my estimation this trade was stupid. End of discussion.

So lets argue about something else..

I considered a successful pick any forward who scored 0.50 points per game in his career and played at least 200 NHL games, any defender who scored 0.20 points per game in his career and played at least 200 NHL games and any goaltender with a career .910 save percentage and at least 200 games played.

I think you are setting a much higher standard for goalies than for skaters. GP are not created equal, typically a goalie plays 60 minutes or 0, whereas a skater who plays even a handful of minutes a night gets credited with a GP. Since two competent goalies can be expected to split the work, I’d be tempted to set that standard at 100 GP for a goalie vs. 200 for a skater.

Put it this way: on a given night a team will dress 12 F, 6 D and 2 G but only 1 of the G will play. The 12:6:2 split can be seen in the entry draft, where the distribution of F/D/G more or less follows that 60/30/10 distribution.

But how many games do they actually play? I looked at players with 200 GP for the period 1993-2003, (just to match the seasons you mentioned in your article, could have picked any sample). Distribution is like so:

F: 521 = 63.3%
D: 255 = 31.0%
G: 47 = 5.7%

Whereas if you lower the threshold for goalies only to 100 GP, that adds another 30 ‘tenders, and the above split of guys achieving the threshold becomes 61.1%, 29.9%, 9.0%, which is a lot closer to that idealized 60/30/10 split. Yes it’s apples and oranges, but when you’re talking about skaters v. goalies, it really is apples and oranges. If not fruitcakes.

Secondly, .910 is setting the bar pretty high. That’s been higher than NHL average every season but one (2003-04). There’s 24 semi-regular goalies currently at .910 or above. Whereas there’s 140-150 defencemen at 0.2 P/G or better (depending on where you set your GP threshold). But ~5 D per team meet your productivity threshold, while <1 G per team meet the other. So you are being much more demanding in your expectations of goalies than skaters on both fronts.

At any rate, the success rate from the 1994-2003 drafts was about 8% for forwards and defenders and an unsustainable 0% for goalies.

Due respect, Scott, but I think that supports my point that what’s unsustainable for goalies are your thresholds.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 1, 2010 6:09 PM MST reply actions  

Bruce, that goalie threshhold is sort of by design. How expensive is a career, say, .908 goalie on the UFA market? Not very would be my guess. And so there’s no value in drafting them. What about a 40-50 point forward. Those are harder to get. So there’s value in drafting them. It may not be “fair” but that’s the market (right now). I agree that I’m much more demanding for goaltenders but it’s really only worth drafting and developing a goalie if you snag an elite one. There’s pretty much no value in drafting a middling goaltender. There are too many of those too freely available.

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 1, 2010 7:20 PM MST up reply actions  

How expensive is a career, say, .908 goalie on the UFA market?

Pretty darn expensive.

Interesting number you pulled out of the air there. :D

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 1, 2010 10:03 PM MST up reply actions  

You are a genius! Delete! It’s just like edit!

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 1, 2010 10:14 PM MST up reply actions  

Almost as good. You just have to copy your text before you delete, to paste into a new comment and then edit, else you have to rewrite the whole thing. If I were a genius though, I would have figured it out a long time ago.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 1, 2010 10:16 PM MST up reply actions  

But he has a cup and led his team to the conference finals! Imagine what Edmonton could do with a goalie like that!

by dawgbone98 on Mar 2, 2010 3:32 PM MST up reply actions  

Jose Theodore: .908 career Sv%, 2 years, $9 MM

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 1, 2010 10:17 PM MST up reply actions  

Again, if you want to find a bad deal, you sure can!

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 1, 2010 11:39 PM MST up reply actions  

Well, you did ask how expensive is a .908 goalie on the open market? And the answer can be, “very”.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 1, 2010 11:55 PM MST up reply actions  

Even so, doesn’t it at least make sense to knock down the GP threshold, since goalies inherently play fewer games than skaters?

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Mar 2, 2010 10:04 AM MST up reply actions  

Well, the thinking is that you want an established goaltender out of the deal and 200 GP suggests (to me) a four-year starter. If you draft a player worse than that, IMO, you haven’t drafted something you can’t just go out and buy cheaply. If you draft a player who starts two years for you with middling performance, that’s great and all but you could’ve just signed Chris Mason or Ty Conklin or… So, no, I don’t think it makes sense to knock down the threshold given what I’m trying to measure (players that provide surplus value to what’s available in free agency).

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 2, 2010 11:11 AM MST up reply actions  

But an established skater can achieve the same threshold in 2.5 years. He can be hidden on the fourth line or the third pairing while he learns his craft.
 
Moreover, it will take a goalie longer in real time to reach the 200 GP threshold, given he will likely spend time in the minors, then break in as a backup who might be doing well to play 20-30 games at first. With few exceptions he won’t be averaging any 50 games at the front end of his career. This is a factor in time-sensitive analyses.

e.g. the 2003 draft features 44 players who have played 200 games, including such luminaries as Bruno Gervais, Dan Fritsche, Nick Tarnasky and Kamil Kreps. Just 1 goalie, M-A Fleury has played 200 games. No other goalie has played even my suggested threshhold of 100 – it’s still too early. The guys who have played 50+ however, are Jaro Halak, Brian Elliott, and Jimmy Howard, guys who are just now making their mark, and still with the team that drafted them. I’d sure rather have any of those guys than Dan Fritsche, let’s put it that way.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 2, 2010 12:03 PM MST up reply actions  

I appreciate that the analysis is time sensitive and that there’s still a whole lot of story to write from 2001-2003 (and less so, but still some for the other years as well). I think what’s important to remember, though, is what we’re talking about. The question is, “Is it worth it to draft this player?” The fact that goalies take longer to develop, spend time as backups where they contribute less are more reasons to not draft goalies unless they’re elite. I’m not about to change the criteria so that it makes goalies look like a worthwhile draft investment when, usually, they’re not a worthwhile draft investment.

And just so we’re clear… of the four guys you mention, only Burno Gervais meets the criteria and even then just barely; it was more than just GP for a reason. As we move forward maybe some goalies make it but at least from 1994-1999 these “mid-round-late-bloomers” number one goalies haven’t shown up. Incidentally, the only goalie you mentioned drafted between 31st and 100th overall is Jimmy Howard. We’ll see if he makes it.

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 2, 2010 12:20 PM MST up reply actions  

Right you are, I was thinking of the GP threshold only. To me that’s the more significant issue. The other thresholds – limiting selection to #31-100, or to various production percentages – are more artificial measurements which may be suitable to this analysis but not the next one. Whereas GP is absolute, and the rules are created differently for goalies than skaters. A methodology that doesn’t account for that is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

The solution is simple: acknowledge that fact, and change the methodology next time around. :D (I do like where you’re going with this, just think there’s room for refinement w.r.t. goalies)
 

The fact that goalies take longer to develop, spend time as backups where they contribute less are more reasons to not draft goalies unless they’re elite.

I don’t think a backup goalie playing 25 games is contributing any less than a 4th line/3rd pairing defender playing 70.

For example, in Minnesota we have Josh Harding playing 17 games this year and, say, James Sheppard with 44 GP. Which one do you suppose has played a more important role for the Wild? Over their careers Sheppard has already played 204 games, Harding – drafted four years earlier for goodness sake – just 75. It’s maybe a poor comp cuz Sheppard started young even for a forward, but suffice to say Sheppard hasn’t been entrusted with the game’s outcome 200 times, let’s put it that way. Whereas that falls on the goaltender with every start; he’s a key figure in every single game.

I’m not about to change the criteria so that it makes goalies look like a worthwhile draft investment when, usually, they’re not a worthwhile draft investment.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the value of drafted goalies. I think your bias is fairly clear, and I daresay mine is too. I predicted as much when I wrote way up top “so let’s argue about something else”. :)

Anyway, all of this conversation gives me some ideas of how to measure draft success of goaltenders. My gut says “draft and develop” isn’t a bad idea, but that you are most likely right on the “don’t spend a high pick on them” aspect. I’ll do some research and write an article at some point.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 2, 2010 2:32 PM MST up reply actions  

I don’t think a backup goalie playing 25 games is contributing any less than a 4th line/3rd pairing defender playing 70.

And these guys, generally, don’t qualify either because, like a backup tender, they’re easily replaced on the UFA market. I really don’t think it’s worth drafting and developing a guy who tops out as a goalie or a forward who tops out as a fourth liner. They’re both widely available and shouldn’t be what you’re after in the draft. You can get them without investing development time and money.

I do agree with you that drafting goalies late makes sense. The 0% number from 31-100 really is a fluke as the number goes up to 6.4% for goalies drafted 101st or later, which is actually a better success rate (using my formula) than forwards and about the same as defenders drafted 101st or later. But it does speak to the fact that predicting goaltender success at the NHL level with 18 and 19 year-olds is more difficult than for forwards or defenders. I was perhaps unclear up above when I said that goalies are a bad draft investment. I mean that they are a bad draft investment relative to forwards or defenders in the first three rounds of the draft. If you’re talking about drafting goalies later than that, I think it’s smart since there seems to be a decent chance of it working out (relative to other groups of players) and relative to the success of drafting goalies at other spots.

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 2, 2010 2:55 PM MST up reply actions  

OK, I can accept that. I suspect we’re approaching some middle ground. I want to research it a bit anyway just for fun.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 2, 2010 3:11 PM MST up reply actions  

wtf? Why get rid of one of the few people in the Org who doesn’t suck? This, as you said. is just stupid. I don’t get it, but let’s see what else Dithers does. One more of these though and I think my Gerald Ford comparison from a month or so ago begins to make a lot more sense…

that other regular writer for bringing back the glory...

by Stephen Sheps on Mar 1, 2010 6:24 PM MST reply actions  

At this point, it looks like it’s a tear-down. I expect that they don’t care what the roster looks like for next season and will act accordingly while trying to improve their position for 2011-12 and beyond. Even in that scenario, I struggle with this deal because the return is so bad, but that would be my guess. Prepare to be disappointed!

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 1, 2010 7:27 PM MST up reply actions  

agreed. it just reeks of stupidity and both short sightedness and long term ignorance. um…fail

that other regular writer for bringing back the glory...

by Stephen Sheps on Mar 1, 2010 11:10 PM MST up reply actions  

grebs was and always will be a soft player. i think that tambellini made the right decision. i havent like grebs play since last year he causes defensive blunders because he is soft. he throws the puck away when going into the boards and nearly always makes a mistake. no doubt he should go IMO

by cjcupples on Mar 1, 2010 6:31 PM MST reply actions  

Let’s say I agree with you that Grebs is poor and I want to jettison him (although it’s clear you like him less than most). Do you really think a 2nd round pick is a good return? That’s my problem with this deal. It’s not that they moved Grebeshkov in and of itself, it’s that they moved him for something of so little value when there were other options available.

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 1, 2010 7:24 PM MST up reply actions  

Grebs vs cap space

The Oilers have been good at finding quality d for a while … if they can spend 3.5 million on a better defender then the marginal return is worth it

That being said, I agree there was other players I’d rather move for nothing.

by puckdonkey on Mar 1, 2010 9:25 PM MST up reply actions  

In some ways this is true. Obviously if they can spend the 3 to 3.5M better elsewhere they should. But even if they were going to do that, how does it hurt them to hold Grebeshkov until the summer to see what kind of offer sheet he might garner? A 2nd round pick (i.e., the marginal return) would seem to be on the extreme low end for a possible return. Given that the market has established that a 2nd round pick is the value of a veteran pending UFA (Moore, Leopold, Wallin) it seems like the Oilers did very little to maximize value on this asset even if they were intent on moving him before the start of next year.

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 1, 2010 9:51 PM MST up reply actions  

Maybe, like me, they forgot he was an RFA, not a UFA.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Mar 2, 2010 10:05 AM MST up reply actions  

Or, it just occurred to me, they expected Grebs to bolt for the K, and weren’t willing to offer him enough to stay in North America.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Mar 2, 2010 10:07 AM MST up reply actions  

This is the only potentially legitimate concern and, in fairness, the Oilers will know how realistic this is a lot better than I will. That said, I’m quite confident that he stays in the NHL for something in the 3M to 3.5M range. And while it’s far from a sure thing that he outperforms that number, it’s certainly possible. If he gets a QO from the Preds and still goes to the KHL I’ll have more respect for what the Oilers did here.

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 2, 2010 11:15 AM MST up reply actions  

A popular Oilers blogger has coined the expression “the Hejda tree”, referring to cheap defensemen the Oilers pull out of nowhere and who become contributing pieces.

The thing is, the last fruit we plucked off the Hejda tree was Jan Hejda himself, and that was a while ago. Recent attempts – Jason Strudwick, Dean Arsene – have not been so distinguished.

by Benjamin Massey on Mar 1, 2010 9:59 PM MST up reply actions  

Mike Milbury

There is at the very least one GM that Mike Milbury can look at and say – “hey, you’re as shitty as me!”

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Mar 1, 2010 8:00 PM MST reply actions   1 recs

Great article, Scott. You’re the man.

You’re the man.

by Benjamin Massey on Mar 1, 2010 8:06 PM MST reply actions  

i still think that tambi did the best that he could given the situation he is in. he really doesnt have any leverage with a soon to be RFA. but if there is the compensation that you said in the article there would still be someone that would have to offer grebs a contract and why take that risk when you have something that you can get right now. it wasnt great but it was a decent return

by cjcupples on Mar 1, 2010 9:22 PM MST reply actions  

I’m not sure why you think Tambellini had no leverage. Grebeshkov is a restricted free agent so he can’t walk and Grebeshkov’s season means he likely can’t get a raise. What kind of situation would it take for Tambellini to have leverage?

Now, I value Grebeshkov more than you, that’s clear. I honestly wouldn’t mind another season of Grebeshkov at about 3.15M. But even if you’ve decided now that you want to move Grebeshkov before next season, why wouldn’t you pump him to high heaven in these last twenty games and move him at the draft or in the summer? You could easily give him Visnovsky, OZ draws and PP time game in and game out. If it hurts the hockey team overall this season, that’s not really a big deal. There was an opportunity to increase the value of the player even if you weren’t planning on keeping him.

In terms of risk, you’re only risking a 2nd round pick (roughly 45th to 50th overall) by keeping him. In other words, you’re not risking much. The difference between the 50th pick and the 20th pick is substantial. It’s worth trying to make that move up the ladder for the (IMO very) marginal risk that you won’t be able to move him for a 2nd later on.

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 1, 2010 10:13 PM MST up reply actions  

Grebeshkov is a restricted free agent so he can’t walk

The KHL would beg to differ.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Mar 2, 2010 10:06 AM MST up reply actions  

But we’d still have his rights.

There’d be value there, too. I recall a recent occasion when the Oilers swapped a veteran offensive defenseman and a draft pick for a defensive prospect who had played in the AHL, gone restricted, and headed for Russia rather than take a two-way deal.

That defenseman’s name? Come on, you don’t need me to spoonfeed ya this one.

by Benjamin Massey on Mar 2, 2010 10:13 AM MST up reply actions  

Do those rights change as the player ages? Say Grebs went to the KHL for one year, when he has just one year remaining of RFA status. Does the 7-year clause kick in and make him UFA, even though one of those years was outside N.America?

I guess since we still apparently have dibs on Mikhnov it must be that the guy’s status just freezes … it’s not a part of the CBA I understand very well.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 2, 2010 10:58 AM MST up reply actions  

It doesn’t. Grebeshkov is considered ‘defected’, and years in Russia don’t count towards NHL free agency requirements, either UFA or RFA.

At least ,as I understand it.

A posse ad esse.

The Copper & Blue|OilersNation|Hockey or Die!

Twitter: @JonathanWillis
Mail: jonathan.willis@live.ca

by Jonathan Willis on Mar 2, 2010 11:09 AM MST up reply actions  

When he turns 27 he’s UFA regardless of years of service, so a year (or two?) in the KHL would do it anyways.

by edm_euler on Mar 2, 2010 11:25 AM MST up reply actions  

I do mention the KHL option above. And yes, it’s possible he goes there, but I honestly doubt he would if there’s a 3M paycheck for him in the NHL.

by Scott Reynolds on Mar 2, 2010 11:16 AM MST up reply actions  

2nd round pick

So who do you pick for the 49th pick in the 2nd round?

I'm King of the World!

by HF4L on Mar 1, 2010 9:41 PM MST reply actions  

Tyler Seguin.

Predicting anything beyond the top ten this far in advance is folly.

by Benjamin Massey on Mar 1, 2010 9:48 PM MST up reply actions  

I laughed out loud at this post.

And please don’t take that as an offense, because as a Leaf fan, I have the utmost empathy. I rec’d this post for the writing style and ample references to Behind the Net. Hope things get better for you guys. But please wait until things also get better for us.

by JP Nikota on Mar 1, 2010 9:46 PM MST reply actions  

But please wait until things also get better for us.

You mean, like, forever?

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Mar 1, 2010 10:04 PM MST up reply actions  

The only way i am going to forgive the oilers if we sign Dan Hamhius to 6 years about 3.5 mil

by SumOil on Mar 1, 2010 10:14 PM MST reply actions  

i know what u mean…this is frustrating.

by SumOil on Mar 1, 2010 10:16 PM MST up reply actions  

What a dumb trade!!! Leopold went for a 2nd rounder.
He could have waited!!

by SumOil on Mar 1, 2010 10:18 PM MST up reply actions  

Barker went for Johnsson.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Mar 1, 2010 11:50 PM MST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.

Northwest Standings

GP W L OTL PT
Vancouver 53 33 15 5 71
Minnesota 53 25 20 8 58
Calgary 54 25 22 7 57
Colorado 55 27 25 3 57
Edmonton 54 21 28 5 47

(updated 2.9.2012 at 7:25 AM MST)

21 - 28 - 5

Lost 2

Clear Victory Standings

Western Conference

  1. Detroit Red Wings (23-7, .767)
  2. San Jose Sharks (13-5, .722)
  3. Vancouver Canucks (17-7, .708)
  4. St. Louis Blues (12-6, .667)
  5. Chicago Blackhawks (16-12, .571)
  6. Los Angeles Kings (10-9, .526)
  7. Nashville Predators (11-10, .524)
  8. Phoenix Coyotes (12-12, .500)
  9. Dallas Stars (11-15, .423)
  10. Anaheim Ducks (10-14, .417)
  11. Colorado Avalanche (9-13, .409)
  12. Edmonton Oilers (11-16, .407)
  13. Calgary Flames (9-15, .375)
  14. Minnesota Wild (7-13,.350)
  15. Columbus Blue Jackets (5-19, .208)

Eastern Conference

  1. Boston Bruins (21-4, .840)
  2. New York Rangers (18-8, .692)
  3. Pittsburgh Penguins (16-9, .640)
  4. Philadelphia Flyers (14-11, .560)
  5. Toronto Maple Leafs (14-12, .538)
  6. Washington Capitals (14-13, .519)
  7. Montreal Canadiens (11-11, .500)
  8. New Jersey Devils (10-12, .455)
  9. Ottawa Senators (10-13, .435)
  10. Winnipeg Jets (10-14, .417)
  11. Carolina Hurricanes (9-13, .409)
  12. Florida Panthers (7-12, .368)
  13. Buffalo Sabres (8-14, .364)
  14. Tampa Bay Lightning (9-20, .310)
  15. New York Islanders (6-14, .300)

Division Standings

  1. Central (52-39, .571)
  2. Northeast (49-39, .557)
  3. Atlantic (45-37, .549)
  4. Pacific (37-36, .507)
  5. Northwest (34-45, .430)
  6. Southeast (33-54, .379)


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Columnists

Batman_small ryanbatty

0615pisani_small dawgbone98

Okc_shoulder_small Eric Rodgers

Neal_small Neal Livingston

Mike_small Mike Wntrz

Contributors

Newtwitter2_small Jonathan Willis

Mccurdycloseup_small Bruce McCurdy

Esaandstanley_small Benjamin Massey

Me_smyth_bobblehead3__1_of_1__small Lisa McRitchie

Small Triumph44

Gyi0062208469-bobrovsky_small Chase W

Small JaredL