SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

BeterChiarelli

Ban Price trades
Member Since
Oct. 29, 2017
Favourite Team
Edmonton Oilers
Forum Posts
6485
Posts per Day
2.7
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 17 at 4:46 p.m.
Thread: Going into the Deadline
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PurpleHippo</b></div><div>I get the concerns around Anderson and am ok that people don't see the value due to his stats, it's very understandable given he makes 5.5 and hasn't produced well over the last few years. I watch how he plays and like what I see but I get that not everyone is big on the eye test, to me I see some similarities to Hyman (obviously not at all saying he would come to EDM and have the impact Hyman has had) but I do think Anderson could work very well along side Drai and Kane/Foegele. Anderson is quite fast, not quite to Foegele/McLeod's speed but he is faster than say Kane/Brown. I see Anderson as someone who is stuck behind younger players that MTL is going to prioritize developing as they aren't competing and unfortunately for Anderson it means he doesn't get much ice time with talent that helps him.

Carrier is an upgrade on Ceci, he is a much better skater, transition defender and puck mover; and a bit better in the offensive zone and at cutting a cycle in the D-zone. I like Ceci, he's been great for us given his contract and does most things well, Carrier is a better version of that IMO. We won't need to allocate more TOI to Bouchard or Desh, Carrier plays ~18:25 a night now and Ceci ~20:10, the extra 35 seconds a period isn't gunna kill him. Additionally this allows us to move Brown's cap hit off our books next season and gain a more legitimate 1B (if we need, Pickard's been fine but only time will tell). One thing I'll say is when looking at this I didn't realize I put Bourgault in that trade, the original I saw had him but I wanted that swapped to Niem/Savioe with the addition of the 4th and Lankinen, I'll change the trade to reflect that.

Overall I think pairing Nurse with a better skater/puck mover helps our transition play, something that the Nurse/Ceci pairing at times lacks causing us to get stuck in zone.
Anderson is a gamble though and I get that, I like him but get that others <strong>REALLY</strong> don't. His recent play has been decent till he got injured, he looks good when he's on the ice, but I won't argue if you don't like him cause I get it.</div></div>

Anderson's issue really isn't even eye test versus analytics, it's the sample size: we've seen years of this player not justify his salary. He's a drag on the play no matter which way the puck goes. His scoring numbers might suit him at half his salary but the amount of babysitting his linemates would need to do for him make it hard to justify. That's not Draisaitl's M.O either: Leon isn't lazy per say but his commitment to the defensive side of the ice is inconsistent. Giving him wingers that aren't speedy and don't have some two-way acumen is a recipe for disaster. Both Foegele and McLeod are responsible, and I'd actually double down with McLeod (and his brother, coincidentally) being one of the better defensive forwards in the league right now.

Anderson at 50% has value, how much value I won't argue (I'd wager less than a rental #3RW, his term and health are scary), but I don't see a fit with the cash-strapped Oilers. I'd be much happier to pay out the nose for a fully-retained Konecny who costs the same but has monster production compared to Josh.

The difference between a shift more per period per night seems trivial but if there is any wobble to Carrier's game, and there is, then you could be realistically looking at upwards of three extra goals against per game. All it takes to get scored on is a bad shift.

<a href="http://puckiq.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">PuckIQ</a> has an interesting metric called DFF% (percentage of dangerous fenwick for vs against ) and buy and large I think it's one of the best metrics to evaluate defencemen with. Not all shots are equal and the dangerous shots are the ones that will more often than not beat goaltenders. The whole reason to have defencemen is to limit these chances against. A very quick and brief overview of this metric and some of its supplemental counts (I like per-60 as a way to see through variable icetimes) shows us the following:

1. Carrier and Ceci are almost interchangeable when it comes to winning the dangerous shots battle against elite competition. Carrier is more effective against middle-tier competition and Ceci outperforms Carrier against the gritensity group by a wide margin.
2. Less happens on the ice - both for and against - when Carrier is skating than when Ceci is skating against any level of competition (adjusted for icetime).
3. The stats relative to their own teammates paints Ceci as one of the worst defenders Edmonton has iced all season, Carrier is consistently in that middle-pairing range but barely breaks even against mid-level opposition relative to his teammates

I did concede that Carrier was a better puck mover (I should have been more specific: I do agree with your points about skating and transition) but I have justifiable concerns about his usage.

For Edmonton to upgrade on Ceci, Edmonton needs a player that does everything Ceci does but better without a shadow of a doubt. Beyond moving the puck, they need to be able to eat minutes (the dream is Edmonton runs two top pairs of Ekholm/Bouchard and Nurse/[X]) and penalty kill. Carrier, like Ceci, is a dream #3RD but would be asked to take on too much if put alongside Nurse given the way Edmonton runs its blueline. Their numbers are too similar to suggest there is any real statistical advantage to buying on Carrier in the hopes that - at minimum - he maintains his underlying numbers in what looks like a completely different environment. This is what I interpret Point #1 above to be telling me: these are virtually the same player save for a few stylistic differences that the chemistry Ceci and Nurse have are likely covering up for.

Point #2 I find to be disconcerting as Edmonton thrives as a high-event team. Half of their imperative is to open up games and lure the opposition into playing firewagon hockey. Carrier's lesser rates suggests that he may not adapt immediately to that kind of system, as Nashville as a team plays far more conservatively, especially when Carrier is on the ice. It's not quite trap hockey, but a four shots total on either goalie every three minutes is a lot less Edmonton's style than the near two shots per minute either way the Oilers see with Ceci on the ice.

But Point #3 is where I make my own decision admittedly: we know Ceci is THE piece to upgrade on Edmonton's blueline and the numbers confirm this. If the goal is to run two top-pair calibre pairings in Ekholm-Bouchard and Nurse-[X], Carrier just misses the mark entirely. He's a good #3RD with a few inconsistencies to his game, which is where I believe Nashville uses him more often than not, and that's just not what Edmonton should be shopping for. They need a high-end puck-moving RHD (without that player being one-dimensional, we've seen Barrie fail in this role) to pair with Nurse.

Before the season began, Dylan DeMelo, Rasmus Andersson, and Mack Weegar were the players I had the most time for and its in that vein of player I want to see Edmonton shopping. Names like Borgen, Carrier, and Fabbro have intrigue to them yes, but not enough so to supplant what Edmonton already has in Ceci. Right now I think there's an opportunity with Spurgeon if he's healthy to not only improve on Ceci but also very cleverly unload Campbell, but I haven't seen much else in terms of names that could be available today that gives the Oilers that bonafide one-two punch on the back end. Zub maybe?
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 17 at 2:49 p.m.
Thread: Going into the Deadline
How do either of these trades benefit Edmonton?

Anderson probably can't be moved this season: I won't argue anyone what the perception of this player is. He's producing like a fourth-line winger and is heralded in many circles as a bonafide top-line piece. This isn't what Edmonton needs right now. Draisaitl absolutely needs an upgrade on McLeod and Foegele but I believe that the two players themselves represent the archetype he best excels with. He needs speedy players alongside him, and we've seen the results with Hall, with McDavid, and now Foegele/McLeod. Anderson just isn't that. He's a bruiser. If that was the playertype Draisaitl succeeded with, there wouldn't be talk in Edmonton about flushing Kane at the next available opportunity.

Carrier isn't an upgrade on Ceci in about any shape or form outside of the pure puck-moving ability. This is the inverse case as the Anderson trade above: this <em>is</em> the right player archetype they need to stick alongside Nurse but they need a player that can do more. The gap in the TOI between Ceci and Carrier should not be bridged by giving more work to Bouchard or Desharnais. Likewise, all Lankinen really offers over Pickard at this moment is a more recent NHL resume. Neither of these players, even with the retention and cap savings, are worth what Edmonton's being asked to pay here. The package being offered to Nashville should be enough to fetch a bonafide upgrade to Ceci, not a downgrade for the sake of doing so.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 11 at 3:37 p.m.
Thread: Fleury Spurgeon and Smith
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mm1010</b></div><div>I don't find next year an issue at all even with a buy out and browns bonus. if you are up grading the Top 4 RHD your moving Ceci out to create space. If you want to keep dri and mcdavid as katz would love too seeing how with them the oilers bring in the most revenue in the league and the franchise value is up to 1.6B. would katz like a cup yeah he probably would. would he prefer to make sure he has room for his cash cows would be a bigger drive. hence bringing in mcdavid agent and old coach... its not a coincidence.

the odds of either of them moving is very slim. the only teams that could offered them are at the bottom of the league. or would have to gut their team to fit them in. the best option for both money and a chance to win is EDM. and the team needs to plan accordingly.

the Spurgeon trade complicates all of this and you can find other options at a easier to handle price tag. keep space for your stars long term while increasing the chance to win long term not just for 2 years.</div></div>

Who is this specific target you are referring to that Edmonton can upgrade Ceci with? If we assume that Edmonton's cap situation is going to remain relatively unchanged thanks to Brown's bonuses and a Campbell buyout, Edmonton trades Kulak with no salary returned (Broberg to replace on a one-year, sub-$1M deal) and the sum dollar value of the forwards is unchanged, the Oilers will have about $6M to spend on a backup goaltender and their Ceci upgrade.

The only way that I see that working is if the incumbent RHD is a rental, as Edmonton is going to need retention to bring anyone notable in, no matter how cheap a backup they procure.

The example above doesn't have the same problem. Whatever money I clear from moving Kulak in lieu of Broberg (again same parameters that you get to work with, next years forwards cost the same) can be dumped on a backup and possibly a 23rd skater (about $1.6M). The math is easier to work with next year and gives Edmonton multiple years of having two top blueline pairings instead of burning assets to backfill the role year over year. I don't hate that option either but you cannot tell me that your solution is less complicated. I need three trades and a couple UFAs to get a 2024-25 roster to work. You would require more moves just to dodge a theoretical extra $2M in dead cap in year 3 (we've been conservative in thinking Spurgeon only lasts two years, maybe he would be LTIR instead of buyout?).

Totally open to making the math work but I still adamant that worrying about 2025-26 when we're yet to win anything is putting the cart before the horse.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 10 at 7:01 p.m.
Thread: Fleury Spurgeon and Smith
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SwarmChair</b></div><div>Compare the buyout on Spurgeon to Campbell’s buyout. And you will see why the Oilers shouldn’t make this move.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mm1010</b></div><div>I see what you are saying. he could provide value in that time. What I am seeing is the buyout is almost 2X what campbells is though so can still cause a problem long term.</div></div>

That is a problem for when the salary cap is significantly higher than where it is today. The focus is where the Oilers are today and next summer. The Oilers can't really afford to buy out Campbell and eat Brown's bonus at the same time if they also intend to upgrade their top-4 RHD. This defers the need to accumulate that dead cap for what will likely be two seasons.

We don't know if Connor and Leon are here after three years. We know they are here for the next two. The only focus should be to maximize the odds of winning in that window. Cross the Spurgeon bridge in year three when you have to.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 10 at 6:46 p.m.
Thread: Fleury Spurgeon and Smith
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mm1010</b></div><div>agreed Minnesota wouldnt do that.

It adds 2 million more in cap down the road with Dri who will get a huge raise probably in the 13M range and bouchard who is having a career year at a point per game... have to think that will be 7.5-9M range at least. that eats up 20-22M and a roster of 10 players. now with the remaining 18-20M you need to sign 11-13 players including 2 top 6 fwds and a goalie. also have to keep in mind mcdavid and skinner raise the follow year which will be what 15M and 4-5 M for skinner.

what I am saying is don't need the extra 2 mill tide up in an aging defenseman... will cause big headaches.</div></div>

The deal was arranged with fans of the Wild. The buyouts between Spurgeon and Campbell are comparable and due to their dead cap situation, may be forced to buy out Spurgeon. It seems like an opportune way to get rid of Campbell.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 10 at 6:45 p.m.
Thread: Fleury Spurgeon and Smith
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>VGKNation702</b></div><div>What do you mean? They dumped the Campbell contract (which there’s no chance Minnesota does that anyways)</div></div>

I worked the deal out with Minnesota Wild fans. The talk is that he's not worth such a massive deal and they need to maneuver around their $14.5M buyouts to Parise and Suter. The buyout between Campbell and Spurgeon is similar in value, but they recoup assets in this case and get a one-year stopgap in Ceci while they're still retooling.

The risk is more Edmonton's but the focus of the goal is to juice the last bit of usefulness out of Spurgeon over the next two seasons before considering jettisoning him via buyoutor other means. He should pair exceptionally well with Nurse and if it means a cup or two in the next two years, I don't care about year three or four of the deal.<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mm1010</b></div><div>As much as I like spurgeon. this would not be a good trade long term for EDM. The cap complication in that time with Dri and bouchard EXT plus Mdavid. the 7M will make it very tough at that point.</div></div>

It's virtually a deal for the next two years before the Draisaitl extension is due. I won't pretend to assume the cap could accommodate by then but Edmonton can accommodate his buyout then much better than they can afford Campbell's this summer. If it means a cup or two within this two year window, I'm taking it every day. I don't think a better deal to get rid of Campbell exists.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 10 at 4:06 p.m.
Thread: Is he a negative asset to move this offseason
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MNCountryClub</b></div><div>For me personally, I would probably lean towards accepting. At the very least, I'd want to hear some counter arguments against it from MNs standpoint.

From my view, even if Campbell stays on next year, MN has Wallstedt on an ELC, so it's really not that expensive of a goalie tandem/trio with Gustavsson. Ceci can play, so he fills the roster gap. And the year following, the 14.7M in dead money finally drops off.

MN still kinda limps along next year, but ultimately you lessen the pain of the Spurgeon later years and pickup some nice assets in the process.</div></div>

All while Edmonton gets the short-term pieces that they want and need to contend for the next 2 or 3 seasons. I've been sitting on this idea for a while because i honestly think it lines up well for both clubs.

Spurgeon is by no means a long-term solution, and I'm currently uncertain if Wanner ever becomes anything more than a decent #3RD, but he's definitely a stopgap and improvement on Ceci while also being a sensible way out of Campbell.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 10 at 3:54 p.m.
Thread: Is he a negative asset to move this offseason
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MNCountryClub</b></div><div>Yeah if the framework is essentially Campbell + Ceci for Fleury (50%) + Spurgeon, I'd think it would probably need to be something like 1st + Akey (or whichever prospect MNs FO likes here). I do think MN could make out ok here, if not pretty well. But it would be a complex deal and I doubt you're gonna get much traction with it on CF.

Can't imagine MN would also retain on Spurgeon, but who knows. Late picks back to balance would be probably be in play, though.

It's tricky to find an intersection that works for both teams, but it is an interesting idea.</div></div>

The only prospect I'd like Edmonton to hang onto is Broberg, so I don't particularly hate the idea of including Akey (I mocked up an Andersson trade earlier this year which was positively received by both sides).

Assuming Akey is the guy and if I were to mock up an AGM for this, and if there is no retention on Spurgeon, does the 2024 1st and Akey get this done if the latter of the two 5th round picks is returned to Edmonton?

Quite honestly I'm disinterested in feedback from the rubes that think Campbell requires a lottery pick to ship out.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 10 at 3:26 p.m.
Thread: Is he a negative asset to move this offseason
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MNCountryClub</b></div><div>I really don't know, it's a tough situation.

MN will finally start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of dead money only to have Spurgeon's contract age into the bad years. Getting out of that would seem prudent, but you still have to replace him with something.

The cost-benefit gets a little complex because a Spurgeon buyout in 2025 doesn't look that much worse than a Campbell buyout in 2024, plus paying for a replacement D.

I don't really have a strong opinion on your question though - I'd be interested to hear some arguments in either favor.</div></div>

I suspect the opportunity benefit comes from whatever assets you peel off the Oilers in return, and I think there's good business to be done between the two clubs, especially if the buyout between Campbell and Spurgeon are very similar.

I'd likewise prefer to use the Wild as a one-stop-shop.

My understanding is that Fleury at 50% retained costs a second round pick. Campbell costs assets to move no mater the return, although taking Spurgeon back on return possibly reduces how much Edmonton is asked to send in return. I'd like to move Ceci out too.

What then, would you say is the damage on a Campbell + Ceci for Fleury (50%) + Spurgeon? Bourgault and a first? Two firsts? Boyrgault and two firsts? How unrealistic is it to ask for Spurgeon to have a small amount of retention? For Edmonton to ask for late picks returned for each first they ship to Minny?
Forum: NHLJan. 9 at 12:21 p.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #2: Early Overreactions
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>A_Habs_fan</b></div><div>It seems to mostly only be NCAA players that do it (Fox, Vesey, Gauthier, etc). Due to the fact their reserve list rights expire after they finish Uni, they often sign right before their rights expire so some prefer to just wait a couple more months and sign with whatever team they want. I'm not sure the NHL has much recourse to stop NCAA players from doing it unless they extended how long an NHL team held NCAA player's rights</div></div>

Punishing the NCAA kids for this seems incredibly knee-jerk considering the CHL kids hold more sway on their futures, but almost never exercise it. NHL teams hold the rights to an NCAA player for four years, the rights for CHL draftees are only held for two years before they're eligible to reenter the draft.

Perhaps a stipulation could be built around their draft eligibility after two or three years: make them declare whether or not they'll be reentering the draft and have that three year timer start all over again.