SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Csick123s idea

Created by: Skyraider112
Team: 2019-20 Edmonton Oilers
Initial Creation Date: Jul. 22, 2019
Published: Jul. 22, 2019
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Trades
1.
2.
EDM
  1. Smith, C.J.
Additional Details:
Cost controlled forward who plays a hustle and grind game
BUF
  1. Jones, Caleb
Additional Details:
Swap one CJ for another
Buyouts
Retained Salary Transactions
Buried
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2020
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
2021
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
2022
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
23$81,500,000$72,032,638$0$2,015,000$9,467,362
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$2,463,139$2,463,139
RW, LW
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$12,500,000$12,500,000
C
UFA - 7
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$5,750,000$5,750,000
RW, LW
UFA - 4
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$820,000$820,000 (Performance Bonus$132,500$132K)
LW
RFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$6,000,000$6,000,000
LW, C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$2,150,000$2,150,000
RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$925,000$925,000
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,300,000$1,300,000
RW, LW, C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,000,000$1,000,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
$700,000$700,000
LW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,200,000$1,200,000
LW, C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,950,000$1,950,000
RW
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$3,200,000$3,200,000
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$4,166,666$4,166,666
RD
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$4,500,000$4,500,000
G
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$4,167,000$4,167,000
LD
UFA - 4
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,900,000$1,900,000
RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$2,000,000$2,000,000 (Performance Bonus$1,750,000$2M)
G
NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$697,500$697,500 (Performance Bonus$132,500$132K)
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$4,000,000$4,000,000
LD/RD
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 2
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$2,835,000$2,835,000
RW, C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$675,000$675,000
C
RFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,000,000$1,000,000
RD
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Jul. 22, 2019 at 12:36 p.m.
#1
Oil Country Rising
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 585
Likes: 235
Hell No.
When you trade the best player in the deal, you lost the deal. Plain and simple.

Oilers dont need this anyway.
Jul. 22, 2019 at 12:42 p.m.
#2
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2018
Posts: 5,135
Likes: 5,933
Oilers only do that if Charelli is still in charge
Jul. 22, 2019 at 12:47 p.m.
#3
Bcarlo25
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 20,833
Likes: 6,911
Quoting: Miguelicious
Hell No.
When you trade the best player in the deal, you lost the deal. Plain and simple.

Oilers dont need this anyway.


While I agree that this trade is really bad, that logic is just flat out dumb. Trading the best player in the deal does not mean you lose it. Actually, I think the majority of the time it's the opposite. I assume you're an oilers fan? What if my Bruins offered up, say, Jake Debrusk and 5 first round picks for RNH? As an oilers fan you would be pretty stoked to take that I would think, but the oilers are moving the best player.

Conversely, what if the oilers made a trade where they got, say, Matt Grzelcyk, for nothing but draft picks. Has to be great, right? You're getting the best player in the deal. Well, that player cost you multiple first round picks. Still excited?

Trading the best player in no way, shape, or form means that you lost the trade, and that notion is antiquated.
Jul. 22, 2019 at 1:17 p.m.
#4
Oil Country Rising
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 585
Likes: 235
Quoting: Bcarlo25
While I agree that this trade is really bad, that logic is just flat out dumb. Trading the best player in the deal does not mean you lose it. Actually, I think the majority of the time it's the opposite. I assume you're an oilers fan? What if my Bruins offered up, say, Jake Debrusk and 5 first round picks for RNH? As an oilers fan you would be pretty stoked to take that I would think, but the oilers are moving the best player.

Conversely, what if the oilers made a trade where they got, say, Matt Grzelcyk, for nothing but draft picks. Has to be great, right? You're getting the best player in the deal. Well, that player cost you multiple first round picks. Still excited?

Trading the best player in no way, shape, or form means that you lost the trade, and that notion is antiquated.


In the realm of actual plausible deals it's plain stupid to think DeBrusk + 5 1st rounds is EVER going to happen.
A clown ass assumption completely overblown just to try to prove a point.

"What if I trade you McDavid for 20 first rounds picks" or some BS like that.
Grelcyk for 1st round picks hur-dur you get best player.. get real.

The notion may be old, but it isnt as antiquated as you say.

Remember Washington trading away Forsberg? He was a highly touted prospect sent away for a has-been.
Even though Erat was the more established player at the time, you have to look at ceilings.
Forsberg was every bit as good as the scouting report says and he had the potential to be a top line guy down the road.
Trading THAT for a dude having no better than 2nd line production his entire career was dumb.
THAT made Forsberg the better player, hence why NSH won that trade big time.

While we're on the subject of outlandish proposals, what if the Oilers traded the 2015 1st overall pick before we picked McDavid for say Ryan O'Reilly.
O'Reilly is a great player, but the Oilers would have STILL traded away the better asset as that pick was 100% going to be McDavid and McDavid was pretty much a star before he laced up for the NHL.

It's complicated for sure, but "best player in a deal wins the deal" still works to some extent.
Jul. 22, 2019 at 4:31 p.m.
#5
Bcarlo25
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 20,833
Likes: 6,911
Quoting: Miguelicious
In the realm of actual plausible deals it's plain stupid to think DeBrusk + 5 1st rounds is EVER going to happen.
A clown ass assumption completely overblown just to try to prove a point.

"What if I trade you McDavid for 20 first rounds picks" or some BS like that.
Grelcyk for 1st round picks hur-dur you get best player.. get real.

The notion may be old, but it isnt as antiquated as you say.

Remember Washington trading away Forsberg? He was a highly touted prospect sent away for a has-been.
Even though Erat was the more established player at the time, you have to look at ceilings.
Forsberg was every bit as good as the scouting report says and he had the potential to be a top line guy down the road.
Trading THAT for a dude having no better than 2nd line production his entire career was dumb.
THAT made Forsberg the better player, hence why NSH won that trade big time.

While we're on the subject of outlandish proposals, what if the Oilers traded the 2015 1st overall pick before we picked McDavid for say Ryan O'Reilly.
O'Reilly is a great player, but the Oilers would have STILL traded away the better asset as that pick was 100% going to be McDavid and McDavid was pretty much a star before he laced up for the NHL.

It's complicated for sure, but "best player in a deal wins the deal" still works to some extent.


you said, "when you trade the best player in the deal, you lose the deal. Plain and simple."

That is not true, and is just an antiquated, incredibly dumb notion.

Also, you say it's old, but not antiquated? really?
Skyraider112 liked this.
Jul. 22, 2019 at 4:47 p.m.
#6
Oil Country Rising
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 585
Likes: 235
Quoting: Bcarlo25
you said, "when you trade the best player in the deal, you lose the deal. Plain and simple."

That is not true, and is just an antiquated, incredibly dumb notion.

Also, you say it's old, but not antiquated? really?


It's pretty much saying Bruce Wayne and Batman are different. You know who Batman is.
2015 first overall pick, you know that's McDavid. Same idea.

If you traded the 2015 1st overall pick at or before the draft for Ryan O'Reilly, youre pretty much trading McDavid for O'Reilly you know what I mean?

Going back to your original DeBrusk + 5 for Nuge idea.
To do that trade, to ascertain who is the "better player" between the two you have to answer "whose going to give me more going forward?".
THAT's what I mean by best player in the deal. Exactly what I meant by the Forsberg-Erat example.

Will Rakell do more than Draisaitl? Probably not.

Antiquated does not just mean old. It means outdated or obsolete, therefore there is a newer/better idea/process/belief etc.

It may be old, but it isnt exactly outdated.
It means there is still merit to that statement.

How hard was that to understand?
Jul. 22, 2019 at 4:51 p.m.
#7
Thread Starter
Sabres are elite
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2017
Posts: 7,979
Likes: 3,299
Quoting: Miguelicious
It's pretty much saying Bruce Wayne and Batman are different. You know who Batman is.
2015 first overall pick, you know that's McDavid. Same idea.

If you traded the 2015 1st overall pick at or before the draft for Ryan O'Reilly, youre pretty much trading McDavid for O'Reilly you know what I mean?

Going back to your original DeBrusk + 5 for Nuge idea.
To do that trade, to ascertain who is the "better player" between the two you have to answer "whose going to give me more going forward?".
THAT's what I mean by best player in the deal. Exactly what I meant by the Forsberg-Erat example.

Will Rakell do more than Draisaitl? Probably not.

Antiquated does not just mean old. It means outdated or obsolete, therefore there is a newer/better idea/process/belief etc.

It may be old, but it isnt exactly outdated.
It means there is still merit to that statement.

How hard was that to understand?


Rakell, Comtois and Guhle will do more than Drai, especially since Drai is lazy on D
Jul. 22, 2019 at 5:06 p.m.
#8
Oil Country Rising
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 585
Likes: 235
Quoting: Skyraider112
Rakell, Comtois and Guhle will do more than Drai, especially since Drai is lazy on D


I'd like to differ.

We have a working combo with McDavid and Drai. One we can fall back on when crap hits the fan (and it often does).
Keeping your star player (McDavid) happy, engaged, and producing is just as important as anything.

I dont know if any of Rakell, Comtoise, and Guhle will be up there in scoring or even have chemistry with McDavid.
That, and eventually those 3 would cost more than the 8.5m owed to Drai.

Also, the idea is "more time on the O zone, less time defending". I'll take my chances with McDavid and Drai same line.

Pass.
Jul. 22, 2019 at 7:06 p.m.
#9
Bcarlo25
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 20,833
Likes: 6,911
Quoting: Miguelicious
It's pretty much saying Bruce Wayne and Batman are different. You know who Batman is.
2015 first overall pick, you know that's McDavid. Same idea.

If you traded the 2015 1st overall pick at or before the draft for Ryan O'Reilly, youre pretty much trading McDavid for O'Reilly you know what I mean?

Going back to your original DeBrusk + 5 for Nuge idea.
To do that trade, to ascertain who is the "better player" between the two you have to answer "whose going to give me more going forward?".
THAT's what I mean by best player in the deal. Exactly what I meant by the Forsberg-Erat example.

Will Rakell do more than Draisaitl? Probably not.

Antiquated does not just mean old. It means outdated or obsolete, therefore there is a newer/better idea/process/belief etc.

It may be old, but it isnt exactly outdated.
It means there is still merit to that statement.

How hard was that to understand?


Okay so it seems like what you meant when you said whoever gives up the better in the trade loses the trade, what you meant was that whoever gives up the most value loses the trade.
First off, that does not resemble your original statement even a little.
Second, umm, no crap.
Jul. 23, 2019 at 10:02 a.m.
#10
Oil Country Rising
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 585
Likes: 235
Quoting: Bcarlo25
Okay so it seems like what you meant when you said whoever gives up the better in the trade loses the trade, what you meant was that whoever gives up the most value loses the trade.
First off, that does not resemble your original statement even a little.
Second, umm, no crap.


You're acting like a draft pick can be anything else instead of a player.
There is no differentiating player vs pick.
Can't go up to the podium and say "with the 20th overall pick, the Boston Bruins select the brand new Bowflex equipment package".

Best Value, by virtue of a player's ceiling, experience level, gas left in the tank.. all of that obviously goes into determining the player's value in a trade.
Obviously they fluctuate according to supply & demand, current health & morale, etc.
A 45 year old McDavid isnt better than an 18 year old top 5 pick.

When your focal point starts getting unraveled, youre clearly just trying to box people in with a strawman argument.
It's A OK to think youre the smartest one in the room, just dont think that makes everyone else dumb as hell.

Nothing wrong with saying "Oh that's what you meant, I thought by best player you meant by ratings on my NHL 19 game, my bad".

It's like trying to talk down my 4 year old, "Ok eat your food.. No, not chips and cookies.. I know I said food.. You know what I meant"

Don't be a smartass.
Jul. 24, 2019 at 11:03 a.m.
#11
Bcarlo25
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 20,833
Likes: 6,911
Quoting: Miguelicious
You're acting like a draft pick can be anything else instead of a player.
There is no differentiating player vs pick.
Can't go up to the podium and say "with the 20th overall pick, the Boston Bruins select the brand new Bowflex equipment package".

Best Value, by virtue of a player's ceiling, experience level, gas left in the tank.. all of that obviously goes into determining the player's value in a trade.
Obviously they fluctuate according to supply & demand, current health & morale, etc.
A 45 year old McDavid isnt better than an 18 year old top 5 pick.

When your focal point starts getting unraveled, youre clearly just trying to box people in with a strawman argument.
It's A OK to think youre the smartest one in the room, just dont think that makes everyone else dumb as hell.

Nothing wrong with saying "Oh that's what you meant, I thought by best player you meant by ratings on my NHL 19 game, my bad".

It's like trying to talk down my 4 year old, "Ok eat your food.. No, not chips and cookies.. I know I said food.. You know what I meant"

Don't be a smartass.


a draft pick is not a player. It's a draft pick. The value of a draft pick is not attached to the player picked. the 20th overall pick still has the value of, a 20th overall pick. Let's go use some real examples here, I'm just going to use them from my favorite team, but I'm sure there are millions of them.

Bruins trade a 5th round pick for a young prospect named Adam McQuaid. McQuaid played a long time for the Bruins, winning a stanley cup, and going to the finals in another year. That's an awesome trade! A 5th round pick for that? Fist pump, slam dunk trade. Well, that 5th rounder turned out to be Jamie Benn. Did the bruins get robbed? No. They didn't trade Jamie Benn. They traded a 5th rounder. The bruins traded Dougie Hamilton for a 1st and two 2nds. Personally, I thought the return sucked in actual value, but if the bruins picked three busts, which they very well might have despite Jeremy Lauzon looking pretty good, does it mean they got nothing for him? No, they got a 1st and two 2nds which is a ton of value.

Getting the best player in the trade means winning the trade has no merit, mainly because there are very few hockey trades these days. In a trade like Seth Jones for Ryan Johanson, yes, whoever gets the best player wins, and holy hell did Columbus win that trade. In a trade of futures for a rental, ya, the caps got the best player in the erat forsberg deal, but that was a disaster.

Winning a trade is based on a ton of factors. Salary cap, longevity, organizational depth, futures, salary structure, future tradability, on ice production etc etc. Saying whoever gets the best player wins is just silly, and has zero value.
Jul. 24, 2019 at 5:04 p.m.
#12
Oil Country Rising
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 585
Likes: 235
Quoting: Bcarlo25
a draft pick is not a player. It's a draft pick. The value of a draft pick is not attached to the player picked. the 20th overall pick still has the value of, a 20th overall pick. Let's go use some real examples here, I'm just going to use them from my favorite team, but I'm sure there are millions of them.

Bruins trade a 5th round pick for a young prospect named Adam McQuaid. McQuaid played a long time for the Bruins, winning a stanley cup, and going to the finals in another year. That's an awesome trade! A 5th round pick for that? Fist pump, slam dunk trade. Well, that 5th rounder turned out to be Jamie Benn. Did the bruins get robbed? No. They didn't trade Jamie Benn. They traded a 5th rounder. The bruins traded Dougie Hamilton for a 1st and two 2nds. Personally, I thought the return sucked in actual value, but if the bruins picked three busts, which they very well might have despite Jeremy Lauzon looking pretty good, does it mean they got nothing for him? No, they got a 1st and two 2nds which is a ton of value.

Getting the best player in the trade means winning the trade has no merit, mainly because there are very few hockey trades these days. In a trade like Seth Jones for Ryan Johanson, yes, whoever gets the best player wins, and holy hell did Columbus win that trade. In a trade of futures for a rental, ya, the caps got the best player in the erat forsberg deal, but that was a disaster.

Winning a trade is based on a ton of factors. Salary cap, longevity, organizational depth, futures, salary structure, future tradability, on ice production etc etc. Saying whoever gets the best player wins is just silly, and has zero value.


"Draft picks are not players" tell me one thing besides players you could get by using draft picks. Just one. Please enlighten me. Bag of pucks? Food stamps? Used jock strap maybe?

You're still getting a player. Plain and simple. Whether or not you develop that player is up to the team. Whether or not you invest in what he might become, is up to the team. But in the end, you get one thing and one thing only: PLAYERS.

And by 5th round pick becoming Jamie Benn.. I'm not talking historical. Im talking about PERCENTAGE of drafting an NHLer.
And within that, I'm talking about quality of Early, Mid, and Late picks within every round. An Early Round 1st rounder is different from a Late Round 1st rounder no matter who it turns out to be. You judge draft pick value in a trade NOW, not who that pick became 5 years down the road.

In the real world, teams judge trade pick value by looking at standings. Edmonton's 1st rounder is worth more than Boston's 1st rounder because it most likely is a lottery pick. In actuality, Boston's 1st rounder is closer in value to Edmonton's 2nd rounder. The earlier the pick, the bigger the remaining talent pool, the better the chance at a better player. How that player develops is irrelevant. McDavid could today decide to only eat twinkies everyday and turn into a 300 pounder. Teams would not shame Edmonton for having picked him first.

Consequently, when you have these highly touted draft hopefuls coming up, the value of picks also fluctuate based off of who is available. A 2012 Draft pick was trash compared to 2015 because 2015 had a chance at McDavid.

Quoting: Miguelicious
Best Value, by virtue of a player's ceiling, experience level, gas left in the tank.. all of that obviously goes into determining the player's value in a trade.
Obviously they fluctuate according to supply & demand, current health & morale, etc.
A 45 year old Crosby isnt better than an 18 year old top 5 pick.
.


Absolutely horrifies me as to how the above is too hard for you to grasp.

2013 Erat vs 2013 Forsberg; Forsberg is the better player due to ceiling; Erat had nothing left in the tank.
2015 Edmonton 1st overall pick vs 2015 Tyler Seguin; 1st rounder still the better player as that was always going to be McDavid
2015 Buffalo 2nd overall pick vs 2015 Tyler Seguin; 1st rounder still the better player as that was always going to be Eichel
2010 Crosby vs 2010 Edmonton 1st overall; Crosby obviously is better
2007 Dallas 4th rounder vs 2007 3 5th rounders; obviously the 4th rounder only had a better chance at becoming an NHLer no matter who the 3 5ths became
2020 4th round pick vs Matt Benning; obviously Benning since he's an NHLer vs a guy who only has a marginal chance of making it.
2019 Edmonton 1st Rounder vs 2019 Bruins 1st Rounder; obviously Edmonton even at the start of the year.

Best Player is the deal wins the deal, is STILL relevant.

Percentages play a HUGE role.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll