Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: How The Kings Beat The Coyotes: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Pääjärvi and Hall: Do We Put the Boys on the Bus?

Most of us Edmonton Oilers fans will remember this story from Sam Gagner's rookie season. A teenager, or in this case a couple of teenagers, have come into training camp and set the world on fire. "Wow, they look like they belong here!" say us armchair pundits who, slavering for any morsel of hope after a season that saw the team defecating on our dreams like drunken vagabonds, see some Swedish spaghetti strand score sixteen goals against a team of minor league lifers and promptly shave our heads and give over our possessions to the Church of Magnus. It's an exciting time. We've got the Canadian Captain Clutch, some sort of speed monster who was hatched with skates on his feet and a burning hatred of goaltenders, and a guy who was a first overall pick and therefore must be good (even if he's been the least impressive out of any of them). As if that weren't enough, there's the Swedish Rob Schremp kicking around, a bit older but turning the puck over willy-nilly on those occasions when he isn't dazzling with it.

Watching the Oilers rookies thrash the opposition by a combined score of several million to five has been intensely satisfying on every level. Oh, sure, pre-season victory doesn't predict regular season success, but it's a goddamned ball all the same. And some of these triumphs have been pretty impressive even in a pre-season context. Watching our rookies work the likes of Kevin Bieksa and his 281 career NHL games into corkscrews is more than enjoyable, it's promising. That was an actual NHL player! We might really have something here.

It's nice to be able to watch the Oilers and enjoy ourselves again, isn't it? But there are those who want the fun to end with the preseason. Over at mc79hockey.com, Tyler Dellow is urging the Oilers to send Taylor Hall and Magnus Pääjärvi back to the Ontario Hockey League and the Elitserien next season: not because they're necessarily bad players but to better utilize their entry-level contracts. The theory goes that Taylor Hall at age 22 is likely to be a better player than Taylor Hall at age 18 whatever happens: with the Oilers in no position to contend for the 2010-11 season it's better to have Hall's three-year entry-level contract paying for his better years than his worse ones. In a few years, the Oilers will be better placed to compete for a championship and they'll improve that position if they're paying Hall his first contract rather than his second.

It's an understandable if unorthodox conclusion. And I'm certainly not going to argue with Tyler in quantitative terms for the same reason I'm not going to challenge Mark Messier to an elbowing guys in the face contest. But even though, as Tyler puts it, "getting trashed all over the internet [. . .] makes me think it's more likely that it's right", I'm going to make him feel all the more correct and trash him a little more. And I'm going to do it the only way I know how: with emotional arguments, dollops of what I feel are common sense, and not so much as a scrap of data. People say the Oilogosphere is famous for reasoned, well-researched, mathematically comprehensive posts and arguments. I'll show them.

Star-divide

As a preliminary disclaimer, I should state that my arguments rely on two core assumptions. First, that the two teenagers in question are good enough to play every day in Edmonton on their merits. I believe they are, but if I thought they weren't able to crack the lineup I wouldn't hesitate to send them back from whence they came. Second, I'm assuming that we're not deliberately tanking for a lottery pick in the coming season as well, because tanking is despicable and the organization has shown no sign of deliberately going in that direction.

The primary reason I feel Hall and Pääjärvi should remain in the NHL for the coming season is that I believe it'll help them improve as hockey players. No matter how much we sometimes like to pretend otherwise, hockey players are humans, not mathematical equations. Like the rest of us a hockey player needs to be challenged or he stagnates. Last season in the Ontario Hockey League, Taylor Hall averaged just under two points per game; how much of a challenge will he face if he goes back? It's a number that compares favourably to other recent first overall picks from the OHL like John Tavares and Steven Stamkos and only a stride behind the best recent performer, Patrick Kane. Certainly none of these players have had cause to regret coming straight to the NHL.

The argument in favour of sending Kane back to the OHL is one of efficiency: Kane putting up 55 points in the NHL on his first year of a rookie contract is good value, but if he comes back at age twenty and puts up 85 points in the first year of that contract when the team is in a better position to win games that's far better. But if Hall would spend two extra years in the OHL stagnating, getting bored, and possibly developing bad habits, that would cast matters in a different light. Other famous successful junior players such as Tavares and Angelo Esposito actually saw their junior production decline season over season from their initial lofty highs, and the list of players who came into the junior ranks, played at a high level, and continued to improve is a short one (from his rookie OHL season to last year, Hall improved his points-per-game by a relatively modest 0.53). Playing junior hockey isn't a good arrangement for those already too good for junior, any more than a medical student is likely to improve himself flipping burgers at a fast food joint for two extra years.

It's in the interest of the Oilers to make their team as strong as possible, not to try and see the future, predict cycles and injuries, and "time" their prospects to be as cheap at possible at a certain point. Divination has never been among this organization's strengths. Dellow invokes the example of the Chicago Blackhawks, but the Blackhawks brought both Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane into the NHL as teenagers, won the Stanley Cup carrying an overpaid useless goaltender on the roster, and in spite of having to give their restricted free agents a big payday are still betting favourites to repeat as champions. While having good players on affordable contracts is important to contend, it's far more important to have good players and retarding a youngster's development in the name of good value in the future is a staggeringly dangerous game to play.

While I'm all for being intelligent and working the system to our advantage, sometimes I worry we Oilers fans start trying to get a bit too clever. Sending Hall back to junior if he doesn't deserve to go would risk alienating our alleged new star player, consume one of his formative years with a season that could at best be a very marginal improvement on what came before (oh, look, Taylor's wicked good against 16-year-olds, woooooooow), and worsen the team in the short term all for a very questionable medium-term reward. If everything broke right, the Oilers might improve medium-term by sending Hall back to junior, but things can go wrong more easily than they can go right.

If it wasn't already obvious, part of the reason I think the kids are all right is sheer cynicism. I certainly prefer to believe that Steve Tambellini has, in fact, got it all going on and that by the time the 2012-13 season rolls around this team will be ready to chase championships in accordance with some marvelously constructed scheme of his. But I don't have that much faith in Tambellini and I'd rather see a team that definitely has a bit of a chance than one that might possibly have a great chance provided our general manager stops assessing useless players and signing goons long enough to do something properly. A moderately good team gives us fantastic moments like 1997 against Dallas and 1998 against Colorado; an awful one gives us, well, the last few years. I would rather have a decent team in 2010-11 than a lousy team with the promise that 2012-13's team will be superb from a front office not known for honouring such promises. Remember, every team not currently in a position to chase the Cup is planning on getting there within five years: there's a reason GMs' "five-year plans" have become such a running joke, and it's not just a success rate that would even make the Soviets giggle. The Oilers do not have a unique, pre-ordained window on which they must stake everything. Their only opportunities will be the ones they take from the grasping fingers of their rivals, and that means building the strongest team possible rather than building the best-timed team.

So that's Taylor Hall, but what about Magnus Pääjärvi? His 29 points in 49 Swedish Elitserien games last year, while very good for a player his age, leaves room to improve. He, certainly, would have something to prove if the Oilers sent him back for another Scandinavian sortie. If Pääjärvi went back to Sweden, flirted with Timra IK's scoring lead, and returned next year ready to burst into the Oilers lineup and score from day one, that would be fine by everybody. On the other hand, he has looked absolutely brilliant in training camp and, from what we've seen of him as well as his professional record, is clearly the most NHL-ready prospect in the system. It's possible he could even beat Andrew Cogliano on our left wing depth chart, assuming a just universe in which Cogliano's sorry ass is kicked out of the faceoff circle once and for all.

There's a better case for sending Pääjärvi back to Sweden than for sending Hall to the OHL, but I think I would keep Pääjärvi on the team all the same. I subscribe to the school which says that, when possible, a prospect should play at the highest level he is capable of succeeding at, and for Pääjärvi that is clearly the NHL. Although Pääjärvi wouldn't be at risk of stagnating in the Elitserien, his ceiling in the NHL is obviously higher than it is in Sweden and, given his star turns at the World Junior and World Hockey Championships, he's proven that he rises to the occasion with superior teammates. Of course, my arguments against trying to time the Oilers' Stanley Cup run from Hall's situation still hold.

Ultimately, the primary reason I want Pääjärvi on the 2010-11 roster is that I think he'd make the Oilers better in the short term. I'd certainly rather see Pääjärvi flying up the wing on the power play than Cogliano, to say nothing of Omark or (oh god) Giroux. The Oilers would win more games with Pääjärvi on the team and that's its own reward: every goal is a goal closer to the miracle that would be making the playoffs. Even if you're in favour of tanking and would endure any suffering this season to get a few more points in the next, how well do hockey players lose on a miserable team mired in its second straight worst-ever season? I have to repeat this: hockey players aren't robots. There is no human who doesn't learn better and work harder when he's happy, and no athlete from the most lowly rec league to the highest professional ranks who isn't happier when he's winning and playing well. Tempting fate by deliberately icing a worse team than you have to is a bad idea.

If the Oilers are going to be competitive in four years' time, it won't be because Taylor Hall and Magnus Pääjärvi are cheap. It'll be because Taylor Hall and Magnus Pääjärvi are among the best players in the NHL at their positions, and the front office has assembled a supporting cast worthy of that skill. The first, overriding priority for the Oilers when dealing with these young prospects has to be to put them in the best possible position to succeed. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse. If Hall and Pääjärvi turn into marvelous players who command big contracts from the Oilers because of their prodigious talents... well, I can think of worse problems to have.

Poll
If you were Steve Tambellini, how would you deal with Magnus Pääjärvi and Taylor Hall?
Keep both Pääjärvi and Hall in the NHL.
452 votes
Keep one in the NHL and send the other back to Europe/junior.
25 votes
Send Hall and Pääjärvi both back.
36 votes
It's too soon to tell; let the rest of training camp decide.
79 votes

592 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 66 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I’ve read and considered the arguments, but I disagree… Gagner was surrounded by ton of crap Oilers players in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Hall has nothing more to prove in the OHL, so sending him there would be the most completely pointless idea ever. What’s he gonna learn there? How to play with kids in a kids league?

Paajarvi’s been playing the big game now for 3 years, if he needs to go anywhere, it will be to Oklahoma City, not the Elitserien.

by SAVE_ME.222 on Sep 28, 2010 6:40 AM MDT reply actions  

Pääjärvi should go to the AHL (not to Europe). I’m on the fence about Hall, because I think there’s at least an argument to be made that another year in junior would hurt his development, but I don’t think there’s any comparable argument for Pääjärvi and the AHL.

Also “…for the same reason as I’m not going to challenge Mark Messier to an elbowing guys in the face contest” is a magnificent line. But you knew that.

by sarcasticidealist on Sep 28, 2010 6:44 AM MDT reply actions  

And hey, just because I’m a bit of a douche: “from whence” is a bit of a pet peeve with me, because it’s redundant. “Whence” means “from where”, so tacking a “from” on the front of it is redundant.

by sarcasticidealist on Sep 28, 2010 7:05 AM MDT up reply actions  

(Not unlike repeating the word redundant in both of my sentences. I’m just going to pretend that that was a joke.)

by sarcasticidealist on Sep 28, 2010 7:08 AM MDT up reply actions  

I might have to talk to the English teacher I learned that from from.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 9:09 AM MDT up reply actions  

Common usage trumps linguistic logic when it comes to idioms in the English language. The phrase “from whence” has been commonly used since the thirteenth century. I think it can stand.

Especially when writers such as Shakespeare, Defoe, Smollett, Dickens, Dryden, Gibbon and Twain used it. It even appears repeatedly in the King James Bible.

by TigerUnderGlass on Sep 28, 2010 12:54 PM MDT up reply actions  

Oh boy!

Duelling Dictionaries!

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 Sep 28, 2010 2:25 PM MDT up reply actions  

Where there is no law, but each man does what is right in his own mind, there is the least of true liberty.

by sarcasticidealist on Sep 28, 2010 2:39 PM MDT up reply actions  

Where there is no law, but each man does what is right in his own mind, there is the least of true liberty.

by sarcasticidealist on Sep 28, 2010 2:39 PM MDT up reply actions  

Why does my reply keep getting truncated?

by sarcasticidealist on Sep 28, 2010 2:41 PM MDT up reply actions  

If I understand the contract rules correctly (note: I may not understand the contract rules correctly), because Paajarvi is under 20, if he went back to Europe and got paid by Timra his NHL contract wouldn’t start running. If he went to Oklahoma City it definitely would and the point is moot; the only factor is that his NHL service time for unrestricted free agency wouldn’t start ticking.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 9:06 AM MDT up reply actions  

I think it’s actually more likely that you understand the rules correctly than that I do. I knew that the clock didn’t start ticking on his RFA years if he was in the AHL, and from that just assumed that he didn’t start burning ELC years either. But, of course, there are all sorts of examples of players who have burned their entire ELCs in the AHL (Colin MacDonald, for example), so I was probably full of shit.

by sarcasticidealist on Sep 28, 2010 10:51 AM MDT up reply actions  

A Couple of Points

1) There is no rule that forces a player back to Major Junior if they are not on an NHL team. This is sometimes misunderstood. The agreement is that the players Major Junior team has first rights before he can play elsewhere. Of course it would be in the London Knights best interest to have the best player on their team. However, perhaps some kind of deal or monetary payment could convince them to waive these rights. To the best of my knowledge, there is no precedence for this.

2) This is not a decision that has to be made right away. A player must play 10 NHL games before it officially is called a season. The Oilers could keep all of the young non waiver eligible players (Paajarvi, Hall, Eberle, Omark) for 9 games before making the call. I envision some kind of program of keeping 2 roster spots for the youngsters and doing a 2 games in and 2 games out for the first 18 games with all 4 players in the rotation. If any of them really struggle, you can then make the decision to send them down.

by Matt.N on Sep 28, 2010 7:09 AM MDT reply actions  

So you think the Oilers could buy out Hall’s CHL rights or whatever and say “now go to Finland or whatever!”? I’d be curious to know if they could do that without starting the clock on his contract.

You’re right about point number two, of course, but unless they blow their brains out I don’t think any of us would see anything in those ten games that would change our minds on the essential argument, which is essentially now v. later.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 9:08 AM MDT up reply actions  

From the CBA
Article 8.7
a) During the first two seasons next succeeding the draft of an age 18 player, the club he signs an SPC with must first offer him to the club from which he was claimed before it may loan him.

by Matt.N on Sep 28, 2010 10:57 AM MDT up reply actions  

1) Wasn’t their some discussion over the fact that this could be done? And, following that, what then? Do we bring him to the Dub and run him out at pivot, surrounding him with safe bet linemates and specialized coaching? Seeing as there is no precedence, my imagination is running wild with this…

2) I was musing over a similarly structured system. Very intriguing. The unwashed masses would rant about a lack of consistency for the greenhorns, but it would allow for nice, long looks in real NHL game situations.

by Downright Fierce on Sep 28, 2010 9:18 AM MDT up reply actions  

No matter how much we sometimes like to pretend otherwise, hockey players are humans, not mathematical equations.

Error: Does not compute.

I’d be shocked if Hall went back to Juniors. As the #1 pick, it’s almost a birthright to go straight to the NHL. MPS is an interesting case as well, but if he has showed he belongs, and he has a roster spot available, I would think he should stay as well. And I certainly don’t say that as someone who owns both in a FH league.

From a cap management standpoint, Tyler’s argument makes a ton of sense. However, without knowing what the future will bring via a new CBA or an increase/decrease of cap levels, I think teams are best served to not entirely worry about the future. Costing the team an extra couple million in cap space for the one year that a player hits UFA early is worth the extra production in the lineup today, especially if you have players that you project to be ready for EL deals when that UFA time comes.

Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf

by George E. Ays on Sep 28, 2010 7:20 AM MDT reply actions  

There is lots Hall can learn in the OHL, especially if he wants to be a C in the NHL. He’d also not be going back to the same Windsor team who has dominated the past 2 years.

There’s a good chance he’d need to be the #1C in all situations (ES, PP, PK) and I think that would be great for the organization.

If the Oilers are ready to start chasing championships in 12-13 they better win it that year because they are going to have a hell of a time keeping their roster together after that season.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 8:17 AM MDT reply actions  

If the Oilers are ready to start chasing championships in 12-13 they better win it that year because they are going to have a hell of a time keeping their roster together after that season.

Management has done little to demonstrate such long-term thinking and/or management capability.

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

by Derek Zona on Sep 28, 2010 10:02 AM MDT up reply actions  

I love this discussion. Does injury go into make a decision like this? Imagine if Hall gets banged up over the next couple of years in another league. Would it be better to use him healthy and young NOW as opposed to older, wiser, but roughed up?

Covering the Inaugural Season of the OKC Barons for The Copper & Blue

by Neal Livingston on Sep 28, 2010 8:45 AM MDT reply actions  

I also can’t wait to see the Oklahoma City team shop put Pääjärvi on the back of the jersey. They may not have enough dots to spare.

Covering the Inaugural Season of the OKC Barons for The Copper & Blue

by Neal Livingston on Sep 28, 2010 8:47 AM MDT up reply actions  

I thought about mentioning injuries, but it’s so wildly luck-based that I didn’t think it could add to the decision either way.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 8:51 AM MDT up reply actions  

If he’s going to get banged up and hurt before 20 in another league, what the hell is going to happen to him in the NHL?

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 9:27 AM MDT up reply actions  

Sure, he may be cheaper for one more year by keeping him this season, but I guarantee you his contract demands are higher than they would’ve been a year previous.

Short term its a smart idea, long term its brutal

LeafsHQ and MarliesHQ - random people spewing random opinions since 2010

by Jeffler on Sep 28, 2010 8:55 AM MDT reply actions  

You think that his contract demands at age 23 after three years in the NHL would be appreciably higher than his contract demands at age 22 after three years in the NHL? That strikes me intuitively as wrong, but no immediate way of testing it presents itself to my brain.

by sarcasticidealist on Sep 28, 2010 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions  

This argument from LeafsHQ is right on the money IMO, and the only thing that Ben left out in his great argument.

When dealing with a 1 year gap, contracts tend to be dictated by points over age. Hell, when dealing with any age the points seem to outweigh any other variable in contracts (review 75% of overpays). We can all agree that 23yr-Hall will score more than 22yr-Hall, therefore he would likely command a higher wage for it in the former as well. So you save on his 23-year season only to pay more for all years in his second+ contract.

Everyone complains about Gagner becoming UFA sooner, but he is improving at a fast rate now. If we had to sign Gagner after this season then I would bet against it being at-or-below his current contract. So he will have UFA years sooner, but we won’t be signing him after a potential peak year either. In either case you only get a deal when you lock him up before his peak. If you want to hold out the contracts till he reaches those years then you’ll be paying a steep price either way.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on Sep 28, 2010 10:01 AM MDT up reply actions  

i agree with the poster below that i doubt the oilers gained any money on gagner. they may gain next year, but they’ve lost 2 UFA years. however, i do think they could gain on hall. we can’t all agree that 23 year old hall will score more than 22 year old hall, but i can agree that all else being equal, he should score more.

by Triumph44 on Sep 28, 2010 10:26 AM MDT up reply actions  

In terms of overall value though, where does it stand.

The Oilers pissed away 3 years of Gagner for no gain. They have paid him $4.875 mil so far and he’s cost a 1.625 mil cap hit every year. They are going to pay him an addition $2.275 mil over the next 2 years. That’s a total of $9.425 mil they’ll have paid to him by the time he is 22 (and only have 2 years left of service)

This year would have been his first year in the NHL. Meaning that by the time he was 22 they will only have had to pay him $4.875 mil. plus they have him for at least 4 more years.

Assuming in both scenarios Gagner has a breakout year at 22 years old (end of his current deal now and the end of his ELC in the hypothetical) where he scores 80 points, what is the difference in the potential contract?

In one situation he has 2 years of RFA eligibility left.

In the other situation he has 4 years of RFA elgibiltiy left.

Where would you rather be as a management team?

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 11:04 AM MDT up reply actions  

I agree that they could very likely be in a better position with Gagner if they had held off. However I don’t believe the cap hit is as bad as straight up comparing now vs two years since all contracts will be affected by playing him earlier.

What it comes down to though is that I value development potential over cap hit. If losing some money long-term potentially gains me a better player then I do it 10/10 times. I can agree that Gagner could be in a better position since he didn’t exactly rip it up. I didn’t think he was ready at the time, but it was a gamble and he had the potential I guess to rip it up. I can’t say he is better for it, but he wasn’t Brule’d by it either, so it was a risk and it ended in neither high reward nor failure.

I just don’t think the same situation applies to Hall. I don’t believe there is much to be gained in the CHL; whereas high caliber players of his ilk seem to have responded very well to the jump.

MP makes this team right now on merit alone. He has played men before and seems the most capable of making the jump. Maybe some time in the A is good for him, but I believe that decision should be based on development and not on contract concerns.

UFA deals no longer seem as out of whack as they formerly did, with players earning very decent coin off second contracts. It seems a better strategy to worry about avoiding massive overpayments and certainties faced now then potentially handicapping development for what may or may not be beneficial down the road.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on Sep 28, 2010 11:48 AM MDT up reply actions  

If the guy scores more at 22 than 21, he’s gonna cost more to re-sign at 22 than 21.

As far as I’m concerned if the guys are good enough to make the team, they should make the team. There’s something to be said for chemistry, too … might as well get to work on it.

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 Sep 28, 2010 2:39 PM MDT up reply actions  

What about the fact that Gagner’s cap hit is now lower than his entry level deal was for the next 2 years? This is his 4th season or would have been his third had he been held back in junior.

If he has a breakout season and scores 70 points that would require a hefty raise this year (say 4-5 mill) had he not started in the NHL at 18. By that logic the Oilers maybe saved money/cap space.

by Oi on Sep 28, 2010 9:15 AM MDT reply actions  

Once his contract is done, he’s got just 2 seasons left in terms of RFA years as well.

Meaning at 23 the Oilers are probably going to have to pay a hell of a lot to be able to keep him if he ends up being anyting special.

If he gets a 70 point season this year, the Oilers would have to pay for it anyways, so I don’t see where you are saving money.

The difference is what you end up with at the end. When Gagner is 25, how much will you have paid him, how much have you won and how much production will you have gotten out of him?

I’m inclined to believe that in under all 3 circumstances, the team comes out ahead if they start him at 20 instead of 18.

As of right now, the Oilers have already spent nearly $6 mil on him for very little wins and very little production.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 9:32 AM MDT up reply actions  

As of right now, the Oilers have already spent nearly $6 mil on him for very little wins and very little production.

But 3 years of NHL experience might have gone a long way towards making him the top centre on a cup contending team.

by Travis Dakin on Sep 28, 2010 12:04 PM MDT up reply actions  

He’d get those 3 years anyways though.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 1:31 PM MDT up reply actions  

I want that Angel Food cake NOW!

I’ll exercise tomorrow.

Man, I sure remember how Gagliano tore it up that first training camp.
I’m glad the Traintrust kept them.
its worked out well.

by Mr DeBakey on Sep 28, 2010 9:24 AM MDT reply actions  

I never liked Cogli-god-damn-ano. If I actually was the Oilers GM then one of these past few years I’d have just gotten pissed off and traded him for a chunk of havarti and a single hockey sock with a hole in the toe or some shit.

The Gagner thing, well, he certainly hasn’t been a bad player for us despite being on a bad team and he just signed a contract extension for not a lot of money. I’d argue that more-or-less has worked out.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 9:28 AM MDT up reply actions  

Would it have worked out more if this past year was his rookie year?

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 9:32 AM MDT up reply actions  

There is no human who doesn’t learn better and work harder when he’s happy

This assumes that all humans are happy to be hard workers. Not true. I know that’s very relevant to the matter at hand, but an argument built on a broad generalization has a weak foundation.

Still, the point you raise (athletes are happiest when winning) is ultimately correct. So what happens if this dreaded “stagnation” strikes Taylor Hall in the face of his greatest challenge to date? Does it affect him more so, because for the first time in his life he’s unable to put the team on his back?

by Downright Fierce on Sep 28, 2010 9:38 AM MDT reply actions  

It might, but it would happen whether we brought Hall up as an 18-year-old to this crappy team or as a 20-year-old to what will, let’s face it, still be a crappy team.

I’m fond of the theory that part of the reason guys like Patrik Stefan haven’t met expectations in the past is that they’re playing for such dysfunctional organizations. In fact, I asked Stu MacGregor at the draft how he thought Hall would cope with suiting up for a team weaker than he’s used to that he can’t carry on his back anymore. Stu looked at me like I’d fallen off the turnip truck and said that Hall was used to it since Windsor was so goddamned shitty in his first year there, and yeah, they only went 45-15-12 and Taylor was only +40 so score one for Stu.

Does that answer your concern?

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions  

Also, in the case of high-level professional athletes I think it’s safe to assume that, without exception, they are inclined to work hard.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 9:45 AM MDT up reply actions  

yeah, any professional athlete who’s not happy to be a hard worker has probably gotten himself into the wrong line of work.

by Triumph44 on Sep 28, 2010 10:22 AM MDT up reply actions  

Good arguments but not this one. There are plenty of guys who are not hard workers, whether it comes to off ice (conditioning) or on ice. Where to start with this one. Always have been and always will be floaters in the NHL. They may not last long but then again, like Brett Hull, you might be fat and lazy for most of your career and still end up in the HHOF.

by Pat Mc on Sep 28, 2010 10:57 AM MDT up reply actions  

Even guys like the Golden Brett may not have been hard workers by NHL standards but they bloody well worked harder than the average bear. Nobody’s born knowing how to score seventy goals.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 11:02 AM MDT up reply actions  

Meh, your average bear has to spend a large part of his day looking for food just to survive whereas an NHL player has to attend practice for, what, an hour, two a day?

Now you have your guys like Horcoff who are noted workers and who likely hit the weight room or exercise bike when they can. Plus their off season regimens. Then you have guys like Kyle Wellwood or Rob Schremp v1 or Penner, again v1, who spend their summers at the cottage or wherever they can drink beer and eat steaks.

I’m just arguing semantics really. I would agree that the majority of NHLers are hard workers, just not the idea of ‘without exception’

by Pat Mc on Sep 28, 2010 2:30 PM MDT up reply actions  

My opinion with teenaged NHLer is that they need to be on the top line or top d pairing or you might as well send them back to juniors and save the year.

On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.

by Ubiquitous on Sep 28, 2010 11:12 AM MDT reply actions  

Second, I’m assuming that we’re not deliberately tanking for a lottery pick in the coming season as well, because tanking is despicable and the organization has shown no sign of deliberately going in that direction.

Honest question: Could one plausibly construct that narrative, given the following?

http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=533650
http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=534406
http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=535301
http://www.edmontonsun.com/sports/myoilers/2010/07/13/14705366.html
http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=533702

by hockeysymposium on Sep 28, 2010 11:24 AM MDT reply actions  

I am pretty sure that mr. Katz is more concerned with building a winning team than saving a few dollars on contracts. I agree with the fact that the only way to make those two better is to play them against the best competition and that is the NHL. Not to mention the PR fiasco the oilers would have if they sent both of those players back down instead of keeping them here!

Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things....

by Silentb0b on Sep 28, 2010 3:09 PM MDT reply actions  

Saving money on contracts also saves money on the cap which allows you to do things like add players to your lineup.

And there are hundreds of NHLers who are very good players who didn’t play in the NHL at 18/19 which counters your point that the only way to make these guys better players is to play them in the NHL.

As for the PR fiasco, who gives a shit. It’s not going to impact ticket sales. They have Eberle and Omark to sell hope this year, and it will all be forgotten in a couple of years when the Oilers are chasing cups.

Here’s a legitimate question for you:

Does Hall help the Oilers more at 18 with his currenct contract and at 22 with a brand new deal or would he help them more at 22 with his current contract?

If the answer is the latter, it’s a no brainer and the Oilers should be sending him off.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 3:15 PM MDT up reply actions  

Taylor Hall has excelled against people his age and younger. So I think the next logical step is to let him learn against men. Pajaarvi has been playing against men for almost three years now, and he certainly does not look out of place in the nhl. Their skill alone should merit a shot at the club. As for cap space, the Oil have almost nine million in space according to capgeek.com, and that is with Souray and Horcoffs hits. By the time those rookies are eligible in three years for their next deals we should have plenty of money to go around. I did not say anything about ticket sales. We know that they are going to sell out regardless, but after drafting Hall number one, and the season last year, do we really need all that negativity in the hope that we someday get better?

Let’s get better now and give the youngsters a shot. We are rebuilding the team, no? Well lets rebuild. We are never going to sign the sought after free agents to this city, it is not a desirable place to live for a millionaire hot shot hockey player (ie. pronger) so our best bet is to build within. If we send Hall back to Windsor, there is no guarantee that he will get better. He might even be unhappy with the Oilers and NOT resign here, which would be the worst cast scenario.

Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things....

by Silentb0b on Sep 28, 2010 6:38 PM MDT reply actions  

Shouldn’t we be more concerned with the future of the team than with Hall? He’s part of the future but he isn’t the entire thing.

Chicago decided to “see where we are in a couple of years” when they were handing out ridiculous contracts to guys like Campbell and Huet. Worked out good for a season and then they had to strip away a bunch of good players.

It’s not about the cap space this season, it’s about the cap space in 3-4 years. If the Oilers keep Hall and MPS out another year it gives them the opportunity to sign guys like Hemsky and Penner for an additional year.

Envision the Oilers roster 3 years from now (this is what you do as a rebuilding team). If Hall, MPS and Eberle are all as advertised, they are looking at contracts between $5mil and $7mil each. What about Gagner? If he turns into the player he was drafted to be that’s another $5mil.

Based on that, can the Oilers also afford to pay Hemsky and Penner that sort of money? Can you have 6 forwards making $5+mil each and be able to fill out the rest of your roster to form a Stanley cup winning team? Not likely.

Now step back and pretend we do hold Hall and MPS back one more year. So after 3 years we have Gagner, Eberle, Penner and Hemsky making the big coin, with MPS and Hall making about half of what they make. That’s a pretty good forward group that also leaves you $5-6 mil to spend elsewhere.

That’s ultimately the difference. A team featuring those 6 players is pretty damn formidable, but you can’t keep all 6 while paying top dollar to each of them.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 6:52 PM MDT up reply actions  

I love the fact that I keep seeing Chicago used as a cautionary tale. Look out, that Cup you win might result in your team being slightly inferior the next season but still Western Conference favourites. Oh no that’s my vision of hell right there.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 8:59 PM MDT up reply actions  

Do you see them making the cup finals again next year with the roster they have now? I don’t.

That’s the thing. Chicago could be in great position to be winning a couple of more cups over the next couple of years with better management.

Would Chicago be better off if they could have kept the team they had from last year? Of course they would. They certainly haven’t gotten better this offseason.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 28, 2010 9:16 PM MDT up reply actions  

As I linked to in the article, the guys with money riding on it seem to see Chicago making the Cup finals again.

by Benjamin Massey on Sep 28, 2010 9:31 PM MDT up reply actions  

When was the last time the Cup champ wasn’t the favourite the next year? Carolina?

Don’t forget how the guys with money riding on it operate. They look at trends and adjust the line accordingly. They see a rise in the number of bets put on the team that last won the cup, so they adjust their line to reflect that.

Is Vancouver that much better than San Jose that their odds are 8/1 and SJ’s is 14/1? No, but that’s how the betting lines have operated.

Would it surprise you to know that the guys who set the lines often have little knowledge of the actual sport they are doing? It shouldn’t. They are interested in trends. They don’t care if Toews and Kane get hurt, they only care when people stop betting on Chicago and start betting on someone else.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 29, 2010 7:26 AM MDT up reply actions  

As Ben said and you agreed “guys with money riding on it” are betting on Chicago. That does not mean the odds-makers agree or care, it means a number of people who are betting are doing so on Chicago.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on Sep 29, 2010 9:32 AM MDT up reply actions  

Then I’m not sure what that proves exactly.

The betting public favours the Hawks. The betting public is often wrong (which is why bookies are still in business).

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 29, 2010 9:39 AM MDT up reply actions  

That is a ridiculous comment.

Bookies are in business because it isn’t a zero sum game that they play. Of course the betting public is often wrong… the odds would have to be below 1:1 for the majority of them to be right which I have yet to see in the NHL.

The point is that it is easy to toss around opinions, but if you put money on it then you are likely to try a little harder to make sure they are valid. The people with something to lose are going with Chicago – it doesn’t make them right, but it says something about Chicago’s situation.

All this is sidetracking Ben’s point that Chicago really is not that bad off to be labeled as a doom and gloom scenario.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on Sep 29, 2010 9:46 AM MDT up reply actions  

It’s not a ridiculous comment.

People who bet money don’t necessarily try harder to make sure they are valid. In fact I’d guess most of the people who put down money are hardcore fans who go with “gut instinct”. I don’t think that makes their opinion anymore valid, especially considering they didn’t bet on the Hawks the year before.

Post championship teams almost always start off as favourites because people through bets down on them. Doesn’t make it an educated opinion though.

And I don’t think anyone is suggesting Chicago is doom and gloom. They are just worse off than they could be if they had made better decisions. I also think they are a lesser team this year than they were last year.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 29, 2010 10:30 AM MDT up reply actions  

Yeah, perhaps I read your post and took it too literally when I stated it was ridiculous. I’m not trying to piss all over your opinion and re-reading my comment now comes off like I am. Sorry.

Really, we’re arguing a very minor detail. I give some credence to the lines and you don’t – fair enough. We both agree chicago could be in a better situation but that where they are isn’t awful either.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on Sep 29, 2010 12:03 PM MDT up reply actions  

If Chicago effed up their decision making, what does that say about the other 29 clubs?

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 Sep 29, 2010 12:20 PM MDT up reply actions  

That Chicago was luckier?

Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather be in Chicago’s position now than the Oilers position from the last 4 years, but there were some serious management issues there.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 29, 2010 1:20 PM MDT up reply actions  

No worries, it was poorly stated on my part.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 29, 2010 2:09 PM MDT up reply actions  

Waiting for 2012-2013

If we keep thinking we need to push Hall’s and MPS and slide them to next year, is completely foolish. By the time the ELC need to renegotiated for those 2 plus Eberle, ReKhab’s contract is off the books and Souray’s will have lapsed the year before. This cap savings of almost 9 million offset the potential raises these 3 can expect. For example, Hall’s “value ELC” is actually at 3.75 right now so a raise is not as significant as one would believe. This is NOT in the same boat as Getzlaf and Perry’s value ELC as their cap hits were significantly smaller due to draft position. Cheap ELC are usually found in talented latter 1st Rounders (a la Eberle) who overshoot their original draft position. In reality, the Oilers would be better off if Eberle was the player they could slide the ELC a year or two from now as he is the true value contract. The value contracts we should be hoping for when we win should be guys like Pitlick, 2011 First round pick, and whatever other prospects tear the cover off the ball in their prospective minor leagues. If we assume even minimal growth of the cap, say 2%, coupled with the fact we don’t have any important FA’s next offseason (except Smid who, if he develops, should be in the 2.5-3 million range) added to Sourays 5.4 coming off the cap, we are looking at almost $19 million to resign the 2 RFA’s and the 2 UFA’s. Now, I believe we will only keep 2 of those 4. Say we assume an average cap hit of 4.5/player that is kept. That leaves 10 million plus ReKhab’s contract of 3.75 plus another 2% increase in the cap. Using the cap argument for development is a cop out and a means for pimping development ideologies. Good teams have value contracts on their roster and there is no such thing as one firm model for building a winner in a cap league. If that were the case, one team would rule the NFL. The truth is, as teams learn to use the cap (which I believe, as FA played out, the Coyotes taught teams that value contracts don’t necessarily have to be found in rookie ELC), the formula will change. There is no great secret to building a winner. The Oilers just may have to find veteran value contracts to fill out their roster (like Detroit with Bertuzzi and Modano, Chicago with Turco, Pitt with Guerin last year, SJ with Blake & Nichol & Malhotra, etc, etc, etc). The Oilers are in the entertainment business and their business is ice hockey and their paying public are Edmonton hockey fans. We want Hall, Eberle, and MPS not just because they are hyped, but because it appears they deserve a chance.

by Christopher Gibson-Tyszkiewicz on Sep 28, 2010 7:45 PM MDT reply actions  

Edit:

I meant to put:

If we assume even minimal growth of the cap, say 2%, coupled with the fact we don’t have any important FA’s next offseason (except Smid who, if he develops, should be in the 2.5-3 million range) added to Sourays 5.4 coming off the cap,in two years we are looking at almost $19 million to resign the 2 RFA’s and the 2 UFA’s…..

by Christopher Gibson-Tyszkiewicz on Sep 28, 2010 7:48 PM MDT up reply actions  

Great post. It’s a good point that value contracts on veterans are still a key to icing a solid team. While it isn’t necessary, it does appear to become easier to sign value FA’s if you have a decent team.

One minor quibble: I wouldn’t assume Souray’s 5.4 is coming off the cap. His waiver experience shows that teams are not willing to take the entire contract without sending some salary back our way. Hopefully it’s in the form of a player, but Tambellini seems desperate enough to pay half his salary just to move on.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on Sep 29, 2010 9:39 AM MDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Oilers Next Head Coach
Small
Josh Anderson Scouting Report
Small
The 2012 NHL Draft and Combine - the Fanpost Almanac
Chambers-john_small
Risk Reward Radulov
Small
Joonas Korpisalo Scouting Report
2012-01-21-012338_small
Oilers Prospect Frans Tuohimaa Signs an Extension with Jokerit
Small
Ryan Murray - The Numbers
Chambers-john_small
Cody Hodgson, the game within the game, and inattention to detail
Small
Hong Kong Animators Draw NHL Violence
Small
Is Ryan Murray more NHL-ready than we think?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

32 - 40 - 10

Lost 3

Clear Victory Standings

Western Conference

  1. Detroit Red Wings (27-11, .711)
  2. St. Louis Blues (24-10, .706)
  3. Vancouver Canucks (22-10, .688)
  4. Los Angeles Kings (18-11, .621)
  5. San Jose Sharks (18-13, .581)
  6. Phoenix Coyotes (20-15, .571)
  7. Nashville Predators (18-14, .563)
  8. Chicago Blackhawks (21-19, .525)
  9. Colorado Avalanche (16-19, .457)
  10. Dallas Stars (18-22, .450)
  11. Anaheim Ducks (14-19, .424)
  12. Edmonton Oilers (18-25, .419)
  13. Calgary Flames (13-21, .382)
  14. Columbus Blue Jackets (14-31, .311)
  15. Minnesota Wild (8-22,.267)

Eastern Conference

  1. Pittsburgh Penguins (31-13, .711)
  2. Boston Bruins (27-11, .711)
  3. New York Rangers (25-16, .610)
  4. Philadelphia Flyers (21-17, .553)
  5. New Jersey Devils (18-16, .529)
  6. Ottawa Senators (19-17, .528)
  7. Washington Capitals (20-19, .513)
  8. Montreal Canadiens (16-19, .457)
  9. Winnipeg Jets (15-19, .441)
  10. Buffalo Sabres (14-18, .438)
  11. Carolina Hurricanes (13-17, .433)
  12. Florida Panthers (14-19, .424)
  13. Toronto Maple Leafs (17-24, .415)
  14. New York Islanders (8-23, .258)
  15. Tampa Bay Lightning (10-30, .250)

Division Standings

  1. Central (79-58, .577)
  2. Atlantic (68-50, .576)
  3. Pacific (62-54, .534)
  4. Northeast (69-65, .515)
  5. Northwest (49-69, .415)
  6. Southeast (51-81, .386)


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Columnists

Batman_small ryanbatty

0615pisani_small dawgbone98

Neal_small Neal Livingston

Mike_small Mike Wntrz

Small Alan Hull

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