The Problems With The Andrew Cogliano Trade
Editor's Note: This article was written prior to the Ducks signing Cogliano to his new contract. However, as long as the one-year contract demands set forth by Jim Matheson remain correct, the viewpoint of the author is unchanged.
![]() |
The long-term solution is moving Cogliano to the wing. Given the current depth chart and the coming Riley Nash, Cogliano has no place in the middle. He would, however, be a low-cost alternative to bringing in a $4+ million scorer, given his scoring touch and underliers. As I mentioned, he has one year of development time left, and it's best to use that on the wing. The organization needs scoring wingers and has a year to turn Cogliano into one of those.
Rather than move Andrew Cogliano to the wing, the organization stuck with him in the middle. His career in Edmonton ended with at least one notable accomplishment - the crowning of the worst faceoff man of the last decade. It also meant two more seasons of the above .gif - Cogliano staring at the puck in the defensive zone.
In those linked articles I lobbied the Oilers to move Cogliano for some useful pieces, so if anyone should be happy with a Cogliano trade, it should be me. However, there was a caveat to my lobbying efforts, namely that the Oilers give Cogliano a year on the wing to develop into a speedy, goal-scoring right wing like Maxim Afinogenov. There is abundant talent within the player; perhaps it would come to the surface if Cogliano were to be freed from the defensive responsibilities of center, responsibilities that he clearly can't handle. That he wasn't moved to the wing is mystifying -- he was a poor defensive center who couldn't win a faceoff -- why keep him at center? If it was at his insistence, shame on him for being unwilling to experiment with his game and find a useful top 9 role on an NHL team. If Cogliano was willing to move to the wing, but it was the Oilers who drove the positional decisions, then shame on the team for wasting away the prime formative years of a first-round draft pick with obvious talent.
It makes even less sense to trade him before a right wing tryout when taken in context with other personnel moves the organization has made in recent years. Steve Tambellini v 1.0 traded Raffi Torres to Columbus for Gilbert Brule and immediately installed Brule as a right wing. Brule came to the Oilers with no proven history of NHL success, yet after one season of moderate success on Dustin Penner's off-wing buoyed by some statistical blips, the Oilers handed Brule a two-year, $3.7 million contract, a $1.85 million per year cap hit. This off-season, as if the Oilers' management cabal has never read Santayana's "Life of Reason", they did not learn from their history and repeated their actions with Ryan Jones, handing out a two-year, $3 million contract, a $1.5 million per year cap hit. Jones had no history of NHL performance, yet popped in 18 goals while dragging some terrible underlying numbers and landed his contract. When Cogliano's name came up for contract renewal, he was seeking $1.5 to $1.7 million annually, and the club wasn't willing to pay him that amount. Management had a player with a proven, though extremely modest history, and wasn't willing to pay him the same amount of money they'd given to two players with zero history and little hope of replicating their one-year, one-off performances. Cogliano filed for arbitration and sealed his fate.
Respondents to our poll found Cogliano to be a better option than Jones, with 63% of voters backing Cogliano.
The inability of the Oilers to find value in even bottom eight players led them to their fate. Regular readers know of Scott's cap space guideline chart. His cap hit for the bottom eight players comes in at $6.75 million. The Oilers have $4.45 million sunk into their 4th line between Ben Eager, Brule and Jones. Finish the bottom eight out with Darcy Hordichuk, Ryan O`Marra or Chris Vande Velde, Andy Sutton, Cam Barker and Taylor Chorney and the Oilers are spending more than $11 million on their bottom eight players. If it was value that the management team was concerned about, there were plenty of other opportunities to take a stand in the name of a few percent. Outside of a couple of teams who will be hiding terrible contracts on the fourth line or bottom pairing, no team spends nearly as much money on the bottom of the roster as the Oilers. Sadly, for all of the money being spent, the Oilers aren't employing difference-makers. Paying Cogliano $1.7 million to play on the wing (or at center for that matter) makes far more hockey sense than giving all of that money to ineffective hockey players.
Even though I mentioned keeping him at center in the last paragraph, it would have been in the interest of both parties to move Cogliano to wing. He was a black hole on the dot. Whether that was a complete lack of natural talent for faceoffs, poor coaching, or poor work habits, Cogliano's faceoff numbers speak for themselves:
| Year | Faceoff % |
| 2007-08 | 39.5% |
| 2008-09 | 37.2% |
| 2009-10 | 43.0% |
| 2010-11 | 41.6% |
As Ray Zalinsky said in Tommy Boy, "Good, you've pinpointed it. Step two is washing it out." He also struggled on the defensive side of the game. As Scott said in his season recap:
The problem areas, to my eye, are when the game is more static, like coverage in front of the net, battles along the boards, and positioning on the penalty kill.
Couple those issues with his tendency to stare at the puck on defense and you've created a terrible defensive center. For whatever reason, center wasn't going to work for Cogliano and the Oilers, but there were some bright spots. He was making progress in the possession game. It wasn't Taylor Hall-like, but the numbers were a heck of a lot better than Jones or Brule. Bruce talked about his improvement on the penalty kill and by the end of the season, he was a reliable option short-handed. He's also demonstrated some goal-scoring ability, though it's been largely dependent on shooting percentage, not shots generated. His shots per game have leveled off, but taking the shackles of the center position off of him could have resulted in more shots.
Aside from the fact that management is choosing to employ worse players for the same money, the worst part of the trade is the return. A second-round pick is a fine return for a player with serious deficiencies like Cogliano. But it's just one more move for an administration with zero demonstrated ability to get actual NHL players and tangible returns. The fans play it up and cheer loudly as just one more draft pick for the scouting staff, but by the time a second-round pick in 2013 is ready for NHL minutes, Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle, Magnus Paajarvi, Linus Omark, Jeff Petry and Devan Dubnyk will no longer be under control via restricted free agency. The window will have closed. To make it even worse, Steve Tambellini had the option of a second-round pick in 2012 or 2013 and chose the latter.
70 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with some of the statements you make in saying that the Oilers may have missed an opportunity to move Cogliano to wing.
Overall, I don’t think this is a deal that will make or break the Oilers in 2011-12 or moving forward. It was simply moving a player that no longer fit into the lineup for a pick down the road. There may have been an opportunity for the Oilers to manage an asset better to maximize the return they recieved for him but I doubt he would have cracked the this year’s top 9 either way. But they may have gotten a NHL asset and not a draft pick if he had perfomed better on the wing.
I do wonder what your disagreement with getting a pick in 2013 is. If the Oilers are following the Blackhawks model it is very important to space out your draft picks. There are only so many spots within the organization to develop players. With the abundance of picks management has secured over the last few years there may not be a spot to develop him in 2013 or 2014. And if the players you mentioned are finished being RFAs there will be even more need for the value contracts.
It was simply moving a player that no longer fit into the lineup
He’s a better player than at least four of the people currently penciled into the lineup. He fits.
If the Oilers are following the Blackhawks model
They aren’t following a model.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
A better hockey player: yes…. a better fit: no. It might not make sense but yes Cogs is a better player then Jones Eager Brule and Hordichuk but here is the thing:
1) The Oilers are small and got pushed around Cogs doesn’t help that cause.
2) Jones and Eager are 4th line energy guys, Cogs is a “top 9” forward who couldnt cut it with the 30th place team. Except he is fast.
3) Hordichuk is the 13th or even 14 forward who is a grinder who can play limited minutes maybe fight or agitate and does that for about 40 games a year, Cogs at 2.39 million to NOT do that…no thankyou.
4) The Oilers tried to move Brule but couldn’t so they moved Cogs they are both mediocre players but Brule throws the body and wins faceoffs so at least he can hold is own as a 4th line center when needed.
5) Cogs is fast and thats where the talent ends, I loved him as an Oiler and hope he does well but the Oilers were/are a terrible team and he was not going to help the cause, will take that 2nd rounder every day of the week.
2) Jones and Eager are 4th line energy guys,
An “energy” player is a euphemism for a bad player who tries to hit people.
Cogs at 2.39 million to NOT do that…
No. Cogs at 1.7 million for one year, as per Matheson. It’s less than Brule is making and only slightly more than Jones.
Cogs is fast and thats where the talent ends,
As a center. I don’t mean to be rude, but did you read the entire article? Given your responses, I do not believe you did.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Actually an energy is player is any person on the ice who consisitently changes the momentum of a game without doing it by scoring goals. This can be in the form of body contact but can also be accomplished by strong forechecking, cycling the puck, drawing penalties, or agitating. Don’t let memories of JFJ blind you to fact that there are excellent hockey players in the league who fall under the category of energy players.
by Peacecountry on Jul 21, 2011 8:18 AM MDT up reply actions
I love how hockey has taken the word momentum, strangled it, beat it, raped it and left it for dead in the woods.
If anyone actually knew what momentum was, I can’t possibly see how they could apply it to hockey and be serious.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
I’m sorry. How about I change the wording from momentum to outcome. Does that make the point more palatable for you now?
by Peacecountry on Jul 21, 2011 8:52 AM MDT up reply actions
http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/01/26/the-rorschach-is-momentum-real-or-illusory/
Read this ..great take on momentum in hockey
Success is not a goal..its a byproduct
Have you ever played the game? Or are you speaking as a spectator. If you played I am just curious for how long.
When games are tight so are the emotions, a big save can give a team a boost or big hit. Ever watch a game when a team is up 3-0 after the first and then the other team gets 2 quick ones and the team that was up can never get control of the game again and they lose 5-3.
Listen to a post game interview usually someone says after _______ we really picked up our game.
Momentum exists in every sport.
Momentum exists in every sport.
It doesn’t. It’s a narrative assigned to a set of facts after the outcome is decided. Ask yourself this: if momentum is so prevalent in hockey, why doesn’t every big hit shift the momentum? Why doesn’t every big goal shift the momentum? Why doesn’t every big save shift the momentum?
Momentum is bunk.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Ya fair argument, I am not saying momentum affects every outcome of the game, sometimes a team can have the “momentum” and still lose the game, or control the game and a weak fluke goal goes in. I am saying that sports involve emotion (some players are able to keep these intact, usually earning the “clutch” label, especially a quarterback… Peyton Manning 2 minutes drill) and emotions shift from certain types of plays I call that momentum but I know what you guys are saying who say there isn’t any.
This would actually be an interesting interview with players to see if they believe there is “momentum” shifts in the game, or even momentum at all.
Thanks
That was a good read, actually really interesting. I would agree and disagree, I don’t know how to explain but in a game situation you just feel something just the vibe or what not, its kind of like being “in the zone” its not that all of a sudden your talents or skills have become so much better (well kind of) but everything just goes right or goes in.
Ex. Michael Jordans game against _ (slipping my mind, where he had 63 points of whatever) and he couldn’t miss a shot and even he put his hands up and shook his head because he had no idea how they were going in either.
Have you ever played the game?
There needs to be some sort of fucking Godwin’s Law equivalent for this shit in hockey analysis. As a thread about about advanced statistics in any sport gets longer, the probability of someone criticizing the analyst for having never played the game approaches one.
How many times has there been what appears to be a crucial save at an important time in the game (say, while down 2-1 with five to go in the third), and it’s resulted in sweet fuck all happening thereafter? Probably pretty damned often, but no one notices, because that’s not what they’re looking for. How many times has a goon won a fight after his team’s given up a couple of quick goals, and they go on to come back in no fashion whatsoever? See previous answer. It can happen, but it doesn’t always.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
There needs to be some sort of fucking Godwin’s Law equivalent for this shit in hockey analysis. As a thread about about advanced statistics in any sport gets longer, the probability of someone criticizing the analyst for having never played the game approaches one.
If someone doesn’t understand the argument they’ve got to have a fall back position right.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
Yes I have.
I’ve also played football (North American), lacrosse at a competetive level. They are all similar in that they are team games and any number of influences can change the outcome of a game.
There’s a natural ebb and flow that happens in every competetive sport where the participants are relatively equally matched (as in the case of NHL teams). Don’t forget, what happens in the first 10 minutes of a game doesn’t necessarily reflect what will happen in the remaining 50 minutes of the game.
You can score 3 quick goals, but when there is lots of time remaining on the clock, there is a chance for the other team to control the play, get the breaks, etc. Your 3 goal lead gives you a cushion, but it doesn’t prevent the other team from playing the game.
Case in point. Back in the 09-10 year, the Oilers and the Flames played a game where the Oilers trailed early and Smac threw a big hit, fought Prust and “turned” the game for the Oilers. At least that was the narrative.
Fact of the matter was, the Flames dominated for the first 15 minutes of the game, then the Oilers slowly turned the tables. By the time Smac threw the hit and fought Prust (roughly 5 minutes into the 2nd), the Oilers had outshot the Flames 7-1 since the 15 minute mark of the first period. Now of course the hit and fight got a lot of press for turning the game around, but in reality the Oilers had started playing much better well before the hit anyways.
The great thing about competetive sports is that you can do everything right and still not succeed, because there is someone on the other side countering all your moves. There’s going to be times they get the puck and there are going to be times they capitalize on your mistakes. It’s the nature of competition.
That’s not to say players don’t get rattled.If you have a 5-0 lead early in the 3rd and it’s 5-4 with 6 minutes left, yeah, your are going to feel a lot of pressure and uncertainty. One of your players gets seriously hurt and maybe you play scared for a bit. There is an emotional side to the game that impacts performance at certain times, but more often than not it’s because these are the best players in the world and it’s hard for one group to dominate the other for long periods of time.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Actually an energy is player is any person on the ice who consisitently changes the momentum of a game without doing it by scoring goals.
I’d love to see evidence that these players exist.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Ben Eager took a pointless 5 miinute major to cold-cock Colby Armstrong. Leafs scored 3 times on the major, won 9-3.
Eager was traded a day later.
Atlanta continued to free-fall out of the playoffs, missed the playoffs and moved.
Momentum.
Resident Capologist
Сертыфікаваны Grabbo Палюбоўнік
by clrkaitken on Jul 21, 2011 9:43 AM MDT up reply actions 5 recs
but we are already playing Brule/Jones/Eager/ Hordichuk.And 2 of those 4 will be playing regularly. Now the only slot available for him is the 4th line center. But you dont like him as a center. So based on the roster that we have today, and taking into account that Jones and Eager will play, where would you slot Cogliano?
So while you can certainly say that Signing Eager/Jones/Brule to thier respective contracts was a mistake, but given that its already happened, trading Cogliano was kinda in the cards. Even at 1.7 million, barring any injury hw would have been a 4th line center on the team making our 4th line valued at more than 5 million with another 2.5 million in the PB.
So while the trade in itself was underwhelming, trading him was kind of imminent.
Success is not a goal..its a byproduct
Fucking up earlier doesn’t justify your fuck up now.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
My point is that since they screwed early on, signing cogliano at anything over 1.3-1.4 million is not justifiable. Should they have kept coglinao over the 4 mentioned..yes. But that is not the issue. The point is that given those guys will play in the line-up Cogliano sort of became the extra.
How much money do you want to keep in your 4th line?
Success is not a goal..its a byproduct
If the point is to ice the best team possible, starting the year with Cogliano on the fourth line and with PK duty is a good thing. The PK time gives him a role, but there’s no doubt that he’d feel like he’s playing a notch below where he should be. But injuries are an inevitability, so Cogliano would likely end up playing most of the year in the top nine, and he’d be extremely motivated to succeed.
Of course, the Oilers probably aren’t interested in icing the best team possible at this point, and instead are stockpiling assets that will be valuable in 2013 or 2014. If the second round pick they acquired is used in a trade sometime in the next two seasons, then I can see how this move fits in with the overall plan.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Jul 21, 2011 10:45 AM MDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t say Eager is a bad player and neither is Jones (18 goals, he won’t do it again but still) yes they aren’t as talented as Cogs but I just don’t think he fits. The Oilers need someone who can hit, yes they may take a dumb penalty but they might draw some too, there is nothing more frustrating then a guy in your face and finishing his check every time you release the puck or standing over the goalie after a shot on net.
I agree 100% that Cogs should play wing I was hoping they would move him there after his second year I just thought his speed coming down the boards would create alot of chances but seeing as they didn’t and it wasn’t going to happen ever, and he is likely passed by many wingers, he was well worth trading as there was no point on holding onto him to play the 4th and maybe turn into something.
I think I am more of fan for Cogs in this case as he would have rotted here, at least he can hopefully turn into something with the Ducks, the Oilers have way more potential then Cogs and have players currently better then him. Im happy with the pick.
Call it whatever you want Derek. The point is that Oilers will soon have the high end talent to compete. The key will be to use the draft to consistently develop secondary players to support the core. Then trade those players as they outprice themselves out of Edmonton cap structure for picks and prospects while bringing in the next wave of role players to fill the holes. In order to make this work the Oilers need to space out the number of graduates from Europe, Junior and college.
by Peacecountry on Jul 21, 2011 8:31 AM MDT up reply actions
Sorry that was supposed to be a reply to the chicago model comment Derek made
by Peacecountry on Jul 21, 2011 8:33 AM MDT up reply actions
Derek’s point is that the Oilers have changed “models” a couple of times already, and thrown the word around the way teenagers throw “like” around. And that moreover, a look at their moves in aggregate over the past four or five years has revealed a great mish-mash of no fucking plan at all.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
If you assume the start of the rebuild was selecting Hall (or perhaps at whaever point during the season leading up to his draft that they finally realized the team sucked), have they not been fairly consistent since that point? Flawed, maybe, but at least consistent?
Before or after the Hall Mark, they haven’t shown much astuteness in asset management or player development. They’ve been more consistent in the larger picture, in that they haven’t gone whale hunting the last couple of years, but they still aren’t actually following the steps in the “model” that made those teams successful beyond “suck a lot and draft a bunch of highly-rated juniors.”
I remember an article from last season comparing the veteran help the kids in Chicago had vs. what the kids in Edmonton have, and the difference was stark. The teams that support their kids and give them the opportunity to develop into good NHLers — like Pittsburgh and Chicago and even Philly when they had that one awful year — are still playing in June. The rest of them become the New York Islanders, Columbus Blue Jackets, Florida Panthers, and Atlanta Thrashers (RIP).
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
That would be the “flawed” part. I completely agree that the Oilers should be supporting the kids with veterans that know how to work hard and win. Wrote a post on the topic here on this site (lesson from that post – never post something non-trade deadline related the day after the deadline).
I would disagree with respect to some aspects of player development. Bringing in some veterans into OKC last year, improving the summer prospect camps, hiring guys like Sillinger and expanding the player development roles in management are all good moves from a player development perspective. Evening bringing in Belanger is a good move from a player development perspective as his defensive abilities should help the kids worry a little less about the costs of making a mistake.
The issue is they have not done enough of it at the NHL level to teach the kids how to win and not settle for losing. But in that, they unfortunately have been consistent. Not enough last year, and not enough this year.
On asset management, the record is spotty at best, but again it has been consistent. Tambi lost each of his significant trades early on and has moved into a players for picks/prospects mode. Many of us are waiting for some real hockey trades that leverage depth in one area where the team has depth for players that address weaknesses. So, another flaw.
Alright, I guess I’m guilty of using “consistent” as a synonym for “good.” I’ll give them credit for the work they’ve done in the minors the last year and change, though: after five years of terrible decisions at every turn, that has been a pretty solid change for the better.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
That’s the one. Thanks. :)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
Still talking about Cogliano I see….
I agree with you that it would have been worth trying him on the wing but at the same time whatever its not a huge missed opportunity…he is fast and that is about it.
I dont think he was looking for 1.5 million because I don’t see the ducks being “Oh you want 1.5…how about 2.39 million?”
I don’t know the rule with arbitration but isn’t there something that if a guy makes below something the team is stuck with it. And same if he gets too high then the Oilers walk away and get nothing.
Derek weren’t you on the don’t draft Nugent-Hopkins bandwaggon? Yet you keep talking about Cogliano???
I dont think he was looking for 1.5 million because I don’t see the ducks being "Oh you want 1.5…how about 2.39 million?"
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he was awarded 2010 style Clarke MacArthur money in an arbitration hearing.
Not one bit.
Lead Writer for Oil On Whyte - An Edmonton Oilers Blog
I dont think he was looking for 1.5 million because I don’t see the ducks being "Oh you want 1.5…how about 2.39 million?"
Term is the key that you aren’t considering. If he was looking for $1.7 million for one year, it’s reasonable to assume he’d want $1.9 million for two years. The Ducks bought his first year of UFA for $3.1 million.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Or the Ducks pulled a Tambo/Khabi deal and just called Cogs and offered this without negotating lower…
That’s also known as the Tambo/Smid deal.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
I think you could just leave out the / and call it the Tambo deal, since he seems to do that all the time.
by despisethesun on Jul 21, 2011 11:59 AM MDT up reply actions
He didn’t do it with Cogliano.
Writer for The Cult of Hockey, The Copper & Blue, and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Jul 21, 2011 9:15 PM MDT up reply actions
I think the disappointment with the trade is two-fold:
1.) He is such a poster boy for the poor decision making of post lock-out oilers. Surely under another set of circumstances, playing the wing on a team that could provide sheltered minutes with bigger teammates and he likely would have blossomed as a player.
2.) He will likely see a bump in his numbers over the next couple of seasons with the ducks, making us feel like the org. gave up on him soon.
While these arguments justify some disappointment with the trade its tough to look past the fact that in 2012 he wasn’t going to be a good fit on this team. Would he really beat Omark, Jones, Eager or Brule/CVV/Ladner for one of those jobs?
To some extent we traded Cogs for Belanger a 2nd Round pick and .5m/y in cap space. If that had been an in season trade last year it would have felt like robbery.
When bad teams get better, some decent players will all of a sudden not be good enough. We have purged ourselves of the coke machines and now the arc of the oilers is going to see them part ways with player we like to some extent and hold no ill will towards and in other situation could have been part of the solution.
Cogs was one of the first.
in 2012 he wasn’t going to be a good fit on this team. Would he really beat Omark, Jones, Eager or Brule/CVV/Ladner for one of those jobs?
1. Who cares? Trade him after this season, if that’s the case. He’s clearly better than Jones, Eager, Brule and Hordichuk.
2. In 2012, he would’ve beaten Jones, Eager, Brule and probably Lander for a job. He’s a better player.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
But not better than CVV?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
Makes me wonder where Lander fits in all of this, too.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
What about...
What about the possibility that Cogliano was very resistant to playing wing? I agree with you that it makes no sense for him to be playing centre, but he remained a centre under three coaches despite the fact that he would appear to be a better option as a winger.
RTFA
The idea that Cogliano might have resisted is mentioned in the article.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Pride goeth before the fall.
Move him to the wing from the start and he earns millions more than he has so far. Millions. His skill set and attributes lend themself to wing play far better than they ever will center. Even his faceoff skills work better as the guy who draws in after the first option is tossed.
Cogs should be trending towards excellent 3rd line wing (because of skillsand attributes as mentioned and because he would be playing lesser competition)/dominant 1st unit PK’er and NOT trending toward ‘guy-who-now-has-a-solid-chance-to-resurrect-his-career’.
Kills me that they didn’t play tough-love with him. Wasted.
by Jaysen Knight on Jul 20, 2011 10:40 PM MDT up reply actions
Kills me that they didn’t play tough-love with him. Wasted.
It makes no sense. They’ve played Gager on both wings. They moved Hall to center. They moved Penner to center. They moved Brule to wing. They moved Nilsson between wings every other game. They moved Omark between wings. They moved Paajarvi between wings. They moved Jones between wings.
Why was Cogliano so special that he had to stay at centre?
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Why was Cogliano so special that he had to stay at centre?
The sad fact is I think he stayed there simply because there was no one else.Now there appears to be more options.
Why?
Why fuss over getting rid of guys I find it funny with the articles saying how bad the Oilers are and then we get a bunch of articles saying it was a mistake trading a 30 point player who doesn’t make much of an impact. In order the Oilers to improve changes have to be made to the roster, it is probably best if fans deal with that fact.
Strikes me that the article and the comments are not lamenting Cogliano’s departure (Derek says that a 2nd was an excellent return) but are pointing out that the failure to try Cogs at wing earlier in his career cost the Oilers the opportunity to maximise on his strengths. This was an opportunity lost two years ago – the trade simply reflects that.
“But it’s just one more move for an administration with zero demonstrated ability to get actual NHL players and tangible returns.”
This is the part of Derek’s post that I think we need to pay attention to. Short term improvements to a hockey team come one of two ways:
1) Understanding another team’s talent better than they do and fleecing them in a trade
2) Bundling up players in 2 or 3 for 1 deals to exchange depth for quality
The Oilers pro scouting staff has demonstrated little track record on option 1 (something Sather was very good at), so I think a lot of us were hoping a Cogliano trade would be oriented around Option 2.
What would Cogliano plus (insert your choice of Smid, Peckham, Petry, Gilbert) get you in terms of return from other teams? The Oilers need to make at least two of these types of trades successfully if they want to make a serious move up the standings. The Cogliano trade leaves me feeling less likely that Tambi is going to make one of, let alone two, those types of trades.
That’s pretty much the issue.
If Cogs is traded and a need gets filled (i.e. a top 4 defenceman), Great. But this is another something for futures trade, which hasn’t been all that great for the Oilers.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Why fuss over getting rid of guys I find it funny with the articles saying how bad the Oilers are and then we get a bunch of articles saying it was a mistake trading a 30 point player who doesn’t make much of an impact.
Now I know you didn’t read the article.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I guess the question is, did the Ducks GM value him higher, or was Cogliano actually adamant about that kind of money (hence expediting his departure)?
http://hockeyzen.com - An Oilers blog
I don’t have an issue with the trade as Cogliano was likely the 10th or 11th forward on the roster (Hall, MPS, Smyth, Gagner, Horcoff, Belanger, Hemsky, Eberle, Omark, Maybe RNH) and wasn’t going to increase in value on our fourth line (unless he’s Ryan Jones lucky). He might’ve been better as a winger but he’s not better than a lot of wingers in front of him.
I also don’t have an issue with the 2013 pick as the Ducks could be much worse during that season (especially if they trade away summer 2013 UFAs Getzlaf, Perry, or Visnovsky).
My issue is that they didn’t trade him two years ago when he wasn’t particularily great but was worth enough to be the “centerpiece” in a deal for Dany Heatley. If you’re going to complain about trading Cogliano, that’s the real issue.
DuLock I agree. They held on to him too long if he didn’t fit. It’s not like the Heatley deal was the only possibility. They were indecisive and paid for it. There is a great likelihood he wasn’t easy to keep happy as he expressed that he felt he wasn’t getting opportunity. Almost like a teen and parents because we drafted him, making it hard to move him to wing. Yet they were happy to harsh on other guys like Penner.
He may reach his potential on another team were he is more free to reinvent himself and has extra motivation to rub ST’s nose in it.
For me at the end of the day the Oilers did not get enough value out of a first rounder who is an NHL player, and as many have said, is better than players we kept.
It just occured to me that the Oilers have an exceptionally hard time multi tasking – rookie line craps out, think about it for 2 years, do nothing much else. Need Heatley, do nothing else. Need to draft Hall, forget everyone else already here.
If the Oilers were interested in “spacing out the talent” then why did they start the ELCs of three first round drafted forwards all in one year?
by RiversQ on Jul 21, 2011 6:16 PM MDT via mobile reply actions 2 recs
That was last years model.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
by dawgbone98 on Jul 21, 2011 10:05 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
If the Oilers are following the Blackhawks model
They aren’t following a model.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
To become a great team they had to dethrone the Islanders. Maybe that’s ST’s model, but he’s confused about the dates.
We’ve already dethroned the Islanders as the worst team in hockey in back to back years. Not much left to accomplish now.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.

by 


























