So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[phoenix66]

2 hours ago, tmac70 said:

Gaudreau's averages  over 60 + points a season, we have no one in the minors that can do that. So provide me a trade that involves JG and we get a player of similar caliber back, with out getting destroyed in a trade. If anyone thinks that your trading Hall for JG straight up is high. What benefit does NJ get in this, they are not trading on a feel good story because he is a local kid. IMHO if your trading I look at Brodie or Gio, more so Brodie because of age and contract. At some point you have to promote from with in, it maybe a steep learning curve for some younger Dman, but we need impact players with small cap hits to step up, with out you are not contending for anything other than early season tee times.

 

there are players out there , Backstrom is another.. not saying hes available , but Johnny allows you to have the discussion ..  like i said before , I'm not saying BT needs to start shopping him, but theres enough reasons why we'd listen if the offer was interesting ..other wise he stays .

 

I actually wonder what it would realistically take, without killing our core .. to get Landeskog out of Colorado? we do still need to get bigger , feisty is one thing , but we need size and skill.. him as a 2nd line LW woudl go a long way and be a great fit.. but I'm not willing to give up any of our top 3 D to do it, and I've heard D is what they want

[cross16]

10 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I actually wonder what it would realistically take, without killing our core .. to get Landeskog out of Colorado? we do still need to get bigger , feisty is one thing , but we need size and skill.. him as a 2nd line LW woudl go a long way and be a great fit.. but I'm not willing to give up any of our top 3 D to do it, and I've heard D is what they want

 

The problem with this is how much do you give up for someone is likely going to be your 3rd best LW? IMO Gaudreau is better, clearly, and Tkachuk is a better prospect than Landeskog was at the same age. I know people will say move Tkachuk to RW but I dont' think that is going to happen. He's a LWer IMO. 

[Carty]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I respect anyone who understands tanking as part of a rebuild to win a Cup works but just doesn't/didn't want to tank on the grounds that it's immoral and unethical.  Because it's true, tanking is ultimately tossing away integrity.

 

It is just blatantly false to say tanking "doesn't" work when used as part of a rebuild.  It's accurate to say, tanking "shouldn't" work on the grounds it feels like cheating.

 

The Oilers tanked a few times, got top picks, and were still floundering near the bottom...   The only reason they are having success now is because they won the lottery that was put in place to try and discourage tanking to the bottom...   They just lucked out and got the best player to come along in quite a while...

[travel_dude]

55 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

The problem with this is how much do you give up for someone is likely going to be your 3rd best LW? IMO Gaudreau is better, clearly, and Tkachuk is a better prospect than Landeskog was at the same age. I know people will say move Tkachuk to RW but I dont' think that is going to happen. He's a LWer IMO. 

 

A trade that might makes sense to us is Forsberg for JH.  Similar age and talent ceiling, possibly.

We lose a playmaker for a goal-scorer.

We may only be seeing the tip of JH's talent.

We get a bigger player for the West.

Forsberg is better at the 200 foot game.

 

Problem is that there is no great reason for NSH to make the trade.  It only makes sense if both players want out.  There are probably a 100 trades targets that aren't a total fail, but does it make us better?

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, tmac70 said:

Gaudreau's averages  over 60 + points a season, we have no one in the minors that can do that. So provide me a trade that involves JG and we get a player of similar caliber back, with out getting destroyed in a trade. If anyone thinks that your trading Hall for JG straight up is high. What benefit does NJ get in this, they are not trading on a feel good story because he is a local kid. IMHO if your trading I look at Brodie or Gio, more so Brodie because of age and contract. At some point you have to promote from with in, it maybe a steep learning curve for some younger Dman, but we need impact players with small cap hits to step up, with out you are not contending for anything other than early season tee times.

 

Which part of this statement explains why we can't get similar calibre back?

 

There were 40 NHLers who were more productive than him last year, and lots of similar-calibre prospects, as well as draft picks, and Defencemen, and goalies.

 

Teams have gotten good returns for the likes of Gretzky, and Lindros, and (closer to home...) Niewendyk.   

 

I am not saying it's a simple trade.  But your statement that it is impossible, or can never happen, confuses me.

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

Teams have gotten good returns for the likes of Gretzky, and Lindros, and (closer to home...) Niewendyk.   

Lol what..no JJ..

 

Niewendyk trade yes, but alot of people would say that the gretzky trade and the lindros trade were pretty one sided.

 

Also you need to only look around the league at a player like kucherov and ask what it would take to trade for him. The point T mac was making is there is no trade that makes sense, for a "similar calibre" then why bother making the trade in the first place. Also we dont need more draft picks or defenceman, why would trade our top offensive player for draft picks or defenceman when we dont have anyone to replace him.

[phoenix66]

11 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Lol wut..no JJ..

 

Niewendyk trade yes, but alot of people would say that the gretzky trade and the lindros trade were pretty one sided.

 

Also you need to only look around the league at a player like kucherov and ask what it would take to trade for him. The point T mac was making is there is no trade that makes sense, for a "similar calibre" then why bother making the trade in the first place. Also we dont need more draft picks or defenceman, why would trade our top offensive player for draft picks or defenceman when we dont have anyone to replace him.

only reason i first suggested Hall for Johnny , is we get a bigger player with a similar skillset .. more designed for the western play .. he would not be neutralized as much as Johnny .. Johnny is actually built more for the wider open eastern play.. i think both would outperform the other in the new environment.. and add in that both , even if not vocally , would rather be in the other end of the country..  its a win win for all

 

but i fully agree , the only way you trade Johnny , is for a player to replace Johnny .. we have nobody in the system to take his place,  you'd be sacrificing one to get the other 

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 minute ago, phoenix66 said:

only reason i first suggested Hall for Johnny , is we get a bigger player with a similar skillset .. more designed for the western play .. he would not be neutralized as much as Johnny .. Johnny is actually built more for the wider open eastern play.. i think both would outperform the other in the new environment.. and add in that both , even if not vocally , would rather be in the other end of the country..  its a win win for all

 

but i fully agree , the only way you trade Johnny , is for a player to replace Johnny .. we have nobody in the system to take his place,  you'd be sacrificing one to get the other 

I dont disagree with the sentiment that johnny gets neutralized but at the same time I saw plenty of push back from johnny in the playoffs, more so the brouwer for example. I think johnny will be fine with a bit more maturity, and while I dont mind the hall for johnny trade on a simply player level, I think johnny is a better pro, and with more maturity will be a better player.

[phoenix66]

2 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I dont disagree with the sentiment that johnny gets neutralized but at the same time I saw plenty of push back from johnny in the playoffs, more so the brouwer for example. I think johnny will be fine with a bit more maturity, and while I dont mind the hall for johnny trade on a simply player level, I think johnny is a better pro, and with more maturity will be a better player.

very true.. the way Johnny is going to a true clutch impact player , is one of 2 ways .. either he beefs up slightly , and becomes a Fleury like player -- gets in peoples faces, hacks back .. make there be some penalty for tossing him around ..make players think twice before getting in his face...   or ..  the linemates need to make the room for him. A-la You touch Johnny, we touch you...

As much as I dont condone it, just one incident where Johnny gets enough and spears a Kesler in the junk would buy him some space around the league.. and be well worth the game or 2 suspension he'd likely get 

[MAC331]

2 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I dont disagree with the sentiment that johnny gets neutralized but at the same time I saw plenty of push back from johnny in the playoffs, more so the brouwer for example. I think johnny will be fine with a bit more maturity, and while I dont mind the hall for johnny trade on a simply player level, I think johnny is a better pro, and with more maturity will be a better player.

I see Gaudreau as a bit like Joe Mullen as he matures. He will learn to survive out there. I still think the best way to free up JG is to give the opposition another talented threat to worry about and have to cover. Ferland provided some of that but I think a RW even more skilled is what is required. Who ?????

[AlbertaBoy12]

3 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I see Gaudreau as a bit like Joe Mullen as he matures. He will learn to survive out there. I still think the best way to free up JG is to give the opposition another talented threat to worry about and have to cover. Ferland provided some of that but I think a RW even more skilled is what is required. Who ?????

Thats the million dollar question. I dont think it will be a big name guy, I wouldnt be surprised to see a relatively unexpected guy come in. But at the same time I wouldnt be expected to see the flames stick with ferland as that line was very dangerous down the stretch.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

only reason i first suggested Hall for Johnny , is we get a bigger player with a similar skillset .. more designed for the western play .. he would not be neutralized as much as Johnny .. Johnny is actually built more for the wider open eastern play.. i think both would outperform the other in the new environment.. and add in that both , even if not vocally , would rather be in the other end of the country..  its a win win for all

 

but i fully agree , the only way you trade Johnny , is for a player to replace Johnny .. we have nobody in the system to take his place,  you'd be sacrificing one to get the other 

 

Many Oiler fans were happy to be rid of Hall.  They felt he was a detriment to the "team".  I thought he had passion for the game, but only because he was concerned with padding his stats.  It may have been the culture of the Oilers, but it's hard to knock that out of those types.  With him being a so-called bigger player, do you think he would ever drop the gloves for a teammate or play with an edge like Sam or Tkachuk?  If not, then his size has little impact in the West.

 

I like his skillset, but I don't know he would be the right type of player for this team, unless you play him with JH and Bennett.  If you played him with Backlund, then the line loses its snarl.

[MAC331]

14 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Thats the million dollar question. I dont think it will be a big name guy, I wouldnt be surprised to see a relatively unexpected guy come in. But at the same time I wouldnt be expected to see the flames stick with ferland as that line was very dangerous down the stretch.

I think Ferland proved he could play anywhere and be effective this season. I just don't think he is the real answer on the top line.

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Many Oiler fans were happy to be rid of Hall.  They felt he was a detriment to the "team".  I thought he had passion for the game, but only because he was concerned with padding his stats.  It may have been the culture of the Oilers, but it's hard to knock that out of those types.  With him being a so-called bigger player, do you think he would ever drop the gloves for a teammate or play with an edge like Sam or Tkachuk?  If not, then his size has little impact in the West.

 

I like his skillset, but I don't know he would be the right type of player for this team, unless you play him with JH and Bennett.  If you played him with Backlund, then the line loses its snarl.

for the Oilers ..yes.. he had to go.. in much the same way Iggy had to go here (even years before)..I said all along the Oliers cant win as long as they keep him,  but thats not a knock on him the player..its that he became the face of the culture. as long as he was there , it was Halls team.not McDavids.. he represented the years of losing , even tho he was the lone bright spot during it .

No different than Iggy here . we werent going to win again as long as he was here ..   just because you become the face of the culture, doesn't mean you're the cause of it.

ya he worked on his own stats, I would too if I was set up to lose every single year.

Then they ship him to another losing culture... we have enough Leaders on this team , and he has a big enough chip on his shoulder , the guy would be a beast possessed to stick it to Edmonton every chance he gets 

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I think Ferland prove he could play anywhere and be effective this season. I just don't think he is the real answer on the top line.

it depends if he can ever decide which Ferland is playing on any given night and find a way to be both ..  i think sometimes he wants to get away from the PITA style, and be known for his skill.. he has both , ..and both at the same time would make a huge difference 

[Flyerfan52]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Many Oiler fans were happy to be rid of Hall.  They felt he was a detriment to the "team".  I thought he had passion for the game, but only because he was concerned with padding his stats.  It may have been the culture of the Oilers, but it's hard to knock that out of those types.  With him being a so-called bigger player, do you think he would ever drop the gloves for a teammate or play with an edge like Sam or Tkachuk?  If not, then his size has little impact in the West.

 

I like his skillset, but I don't know he would be the right type of player for this team, unless you play him with JH and Bennett.  If you played him with Backlund, then the line loses its snarl.

What I read of their board @ the time of the trade was mostly complaints about trading their best player for a defenseman few of them were familiar with (so they judged by the stats column like many do). I called it a dang good trade as it was adding what they needed by trading something they had too many of. That wasn't well recieved.

It was only after the other moves like adding Lucic that the Oiler fans started to dis Hall.

 

I don't go to that board anymore but I figure the former Hall fans have mothballed those jerseys in favor of McDavid 1s.

 

As far as Hall not using his size Wheeler used to be like that but learned a bit of intimidation goes a long way to opening things up. It took Wheeler years & Hall might/might not ever learn that.

I wouldn't do a 1 for 1 of Gaudreau for Hall but depending on other moves we make this year wouldn't be averse to trading him for a package to fill holes. The Caps have little cap space (22.8) with only 11 players under contract so I'd go hard after Backstrom (6.7 x 3)  offering  picks including our 1st in 2017 (Caps traded their 1,2 & 3rd rounders) & a bunch of serviceable players/prospects (a reverse of the Gilmour & Phaneuf trades) . If we get him on board he more than replaces JG so we could do something like Gaudreau to the Isles for a package centered around Hamonic, a pick in the 1st 2 rounds, another player (Clutterbuck, Lee) or a dang good prospect. Say Hamonic & 2 of the 3 options I mention.

Just a scenario that came to mind but any player we can find to replace Gaudreau will be due to a cap situation & require as 2nd move as teams don't usually do lateral moves with top players. That happens with support players in hopes the 1 you get discovers what he could be since the 1 you give isn't doing that for your team.

 

[JTech780]

To start the off-season we have roughly, won't know exactly till we know what the cap numbers are for next season, $21,824,600, if the cap stays the same. With that we have to add 3-4 forwards, 2-3 defensemen, and 2 goalies, either from inside the organization or from external sources.

 

We have a lengthy list of RFA's to make decision's on. Bennett, Ferland, Lazar, Gillies, Hathaway, Kulak and Rittich are all guys that should be back. Chiasson, Vey and Wotherspoon are maybes. Culkin and Morrison probably won't be back. Bennett will most likely get a bridge deal in around the $2-3m range. Ferland will be a little tricky as he has arb rights, so he could be anywhere from $1.5-3m. Lazar will get a modest raise but will come in around the $1m range. What hurts Chiasson's chance of being back is that he has arb rights and Treliving might not want to risk Chiasson cashing in on a arb award.

 

My guess is after the RFA's we have about $16m. We still need 1 Forward, 2-3 defensemen, 2 goalies.

 

Of the UFA's I don't think any are sure things to be back. Elliott, Engelland, Johnson, Stone, Versteeg are all maybes, lots of variables in making decisions on these guys. Bollig, Kostka, Smid and Wideman won't be back.

 

I would use most of the $16m on a goaltender and #4 defenseman, fill the rest of the holes from within. If you can convince Vegas to take Brouwer that really allows the team to hit the reset button on finding a top 9 RW.

[rickross]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Many Oiler fans were happy to be rid of Hall.  They felt he was a detriment to the "team".  I thought he had passion for the game, but only because he was concerned with padding his stats.  It may have been the culture of the Oilers, but it's hard to knock that out of those types.  With him being a so-called bigger player, do you think he would ever drop the gloves for a teammate or play with an edge like Sam or Tkachuk?  If not, then his size has little impact in the West.

 

I like his skillset, but I don't know he would be the right type of player for this team, unless you play him with JH and Bennett.  If you played him with Backlund, then the line loses its snarl.

Taylor is likely the most butt hurt player in the NHL right now. I can't imagine how he feels watching the Oilers playoff run... dude got tossed aside like trash on Whyte Ave. Not to mention he's on yet another team that finished near the bottom of the league again...can't help but feel for the guy, he's yet to enjoy a winning NHL season and it could be a while until the Devils are back in a playoff spot. It'll be interesting to see what happens to him once his contract is up but you can guarantee he'll take a price cut to sign with a bonafide contender. I can't even see him being able to watch an Oilers game right now. It's pretty amazing how quickly Oilers fans have forgotten their former star player.  

[tmac70]

18 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Which part of this statement explains why we can't get similar calibre back?

 

There were 40 NHLers who were more productive than him last year, and lots of similar-calibre prospects, as well as draft picks, and Defencemen, and goalies.

 

Teams have gotten good returns for the likes of Gretzky, and Lindros, and (closer to home...) Niewendyk.   

 

I am not saying it's a simple trade.  But your statement that it is impossible, or can never happen, confuses me.

Enlighten us with your wisdom, would love to hear who we can trade him to and for what that makes us better? Stage is all yours

[MAC331]

11 hours ago, JTech780 said:

To start the off-season we have roughly, won't know exactly till we know what the cap numbers are for next season, $21,824,600, if the cap stays the same. With that we have to add 3-4 forwards, 2-3 defensemen, and 2 goalies, either from inside the organization or from external sources.

 

We have a lengthy list of RFA's to make decision's on. Bennett, Ferland, Lazar, Gillies, Hathaway, Kulak and Rittich are all guys that should be back. Chiasson, Vey and Wotherspoon are maybes. Culkin and Morrison probably won't be back. Bennett will most likely get a bridge deal in around the $2-3m range. Ferland will be a little tricky as he has arb rights, so he could be anywhere from $1.5-3m. Lazar will get a modest raise but will come in around the $1m range. What hurts Chiasson's chance of being back is that he has arb rights and Treliving might not want to risk Chiasson cashing in on a arb award.

 

My guess is after the RFA's we have about $16m. We still need 1 Forward, 2-3 defensemen, 2 goalies.

 

Of the UFA's I don't think any are sure things to be back. Elliott, Engelland, Johnson, Stone, Versteeg are all maybes, lots of variables in making decisions on these guys. Bollig, Kostka, Smid and Wideman won't be back.

 

I would use most of the $16m on a goaltender and #4 defenseman, fill the rest of the holes from within. If you can convince Vegas to take Brouwer that really allows the team to hit the reset button on finding a top 9 RW.

I agree with you on our needs, how BT goes about filling them should be interesting.

I will start with Brouwer as I think he is still a Flame after the expansion draft. Brouwer and Chiasson are similar players so I don't see Chiasson back with us. With Brouwer back I see Versteeg back with us at around 1.5M. Versteeg gives the team options at both RW and LW which could provide other options of where to use Ferland and Tkachuk. If no outside top RW can be had this becomes important IMO.

I can see a scenario where Stajan is the man out but we still have Bouma around. I think they need to see what Jankowski has at the NHL level so a prudent decision can be made with Backlund staying or going.

DEFENSE will be tricky if neither of Stone or Engelland are brought back. Stone for 3 years at 3.75M per makes sense and Engelland for 1 year at 1.8M could make some sense. In regards to the AHL ranks I could see them keeping Morrison as we don't have many RHSD. Wotherspoon IMO will either be the 7th defenseman or let go. The closest we have knocking on the door appears to be Kulak LS and Andersson RS. Bartkowski is signed for next season.

GOAL this is wide open for BT to fill. I don't see him going full out on a 6M goalie. I see BT spending between 3M to 4.5M for a starting goalie and 1M to 2M for a back up. I don't think he is ready to graduate any of our goalies from the farm yet, maybe Rittich if anyone. Right now for me, I could see Johnson back as back up and our choices coming down to either Elliott or Darling. My thoughts.

[travel_dude]

14 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

What I read of their board @ the time of the trade was mostly complaints about trading their best player for a defenseman few of them were familiar with (so they judged by the stats column like many do). I called it a dang good trade as it was adding what they needed by trading something they had too many of. That wasn't well recieved.

It was only after the other moves like adding Lucic that the Oiler fans started to dis Hall

 

Depends who you talked to.  The Oilers forums, you are probably right.  A lot of them are just fanboys with no idea of hockey.

The majority were insense at the trade because they didn't get a #1 D-man in the deal, but that is because they felt Hall was their best trade asset.  They would have welcomed trading Ebs for a #3 (potential #2).

 

Many fans soured on Hall once McD joined the team, as they believed Hall's voice in the room was too loud.  They would have preferred Eberle, then Hall or Nuge be the ones to improve the D.

[cccsberg]

3 hours ago, tmac70 said:

Enlighten us with your wisdom, would love to hear who we can trade him to and for what that makes us better? Stage is all yours

 

22 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Which part of this statement explains why we can't get similar calibre back?

 

There were 40 NHLers who were more productive than him last year, and lots of similar-calibre prospects, as well as draft picks, and Defencemen, and goalies.

 

Teams have gotten good returns for the likes of Gretzky, and Lindros, and (closer to home...) Niewendyk.   

 

I am not saying it's a simple trade.  But your statement that it is impossible, or can never happen, confuses me.

How about Giroux and Simmonds for Gaudreau and Ferland, plus/minus any other small bit parts....  Philly saves a few $MM in the exchange, get noticeably younger more in line with their young defence with two guys still improving and local favourite Gaudreau already locked in.  Calgary gets bigger, talented, more experienced guys with skill and in their prime with years left and utilize some of their Cap space to their benefit.  

[cross16]

I don't think Philly would trade Simmonds for Gaudreau and Ferland let alone adding Giroux in there. 

 

I think Simmonds would be a nearly impossible get. Not sure there is a better contract in the league than that one. 

[MAC331]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I don't think Philly would trade Simmonds for Gaudreau and Ferland let alone adding Giroux in there. 

 

I think Simmonds would be a nearly impossible get. Not sure there is a better contract in the league than that one. 

Here is one Mark Giordano to TOR for one of Mitch Marner or William Nylander both RHS that could play RW.

[The_People1]

33 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Here is one Mark Giordano to TOR for one of Mitch Marner or William Nylander both RHS that could play RW.

 

The leafs want RD since they already have Reily and Gardiner on LD.