Jul 3, 2018
Jan 31, 1990
Oil Country, AB
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CD282</b></div><div>So Dubas shouldn't have signed Matthews to a bonus-laden contract because it turned out bad with Lucic? That's a silly argument. Each player contract should be judged on it's own merits.</div></div>
When you talk about that tier of player ($3-5M range) the chances of them failing are bigger than what a top tier player would be. If McDavid was paid $12,499,999 signing bonus every July 1 and only gets paid $1 over the year it wouldnt be an issue because he's the top player in the league. IF he were to be injured and does NOT come back to form, best player or not that contract becomes a liability plain and simple.
You're stretching here, Chiarelli. If Matthews ends up being a 70pt player his entire career because of injuries (he's already shown he's a bit prone), then that would be one of the worst contracts in the league.
Right now looks good, the team has no safety net if things go south a la Lucic.
Lucic's 1st year was pretty great. Nobody complained about his $6M cap hit. Nobody talked about him taking a piss in years 2 and 3. Everybody though talked about years 5 - 7 and how that contract looks and everyone pretty much said Chiarelli messed up (more on term, than on AAV) since that contract is extremely tough to buy out.
All about balancing safety net between player and team. Zucarello is a prime example of a huge mistake in the next few years. Watch.
Say we did get Connelly, to compete with FLA offer, we wouldve had to pony up $4M AAV for 3 years and say a nice signing bonus as you suggested. Buyout proof contract all over again.
If he doesnt perform to that contract, the Oilers are now screwed out of 4M + 750 Lucic reten + 1.33M Pouliot buyout + 300k Gryba buyout + 2.5M Sekera buyout... missing out on a pretty good UFA market next year.
So you see handing out buyout proof contracts, big or small, just so you dont overpay as much to get players in Edmonton is exactly the move Holland SHOULDN'T make.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CD282</b></div><div>Benning has been very effective in the top-4 over the past 3 seasons, far more so than Ristolainen. But he has played a lot of 3rd pairing minutes too, so I had to find a way to separate the top-4 events from the 3rd pairing events in order to get a true picture of just how well he can cope with the higher level of competition.
To start with I used a proxy for “top-4” each year going back to 2016-17, based on TOI v Elites taken from puckiq.com, as follows:
2016-17: Sekera (35.5%), Klefbom (34.6)
2017-18: Nurse (34.9), Klefbom (32.3)
2018-19: Klefbom (35.1), Nurse (33.8)
Next I went to naturalstattrick.com and, using their “Teammates” tool, filtered all the stats for each year for the TOI Benning spent with each player listed above. I realize there were times when Russell-Benning were the 2nd pairing, but there may have been games that they were 3rd pairing too and I didn’t want to confuse the numbers with 3rd pairing data. Then too, who you play with is as important as who you play against, so showing those games where Russell-Benning played 2nd pairing probably doesn’t give us much information about potential combos this coming season, unless the injury bug strikes down 2-3 of the top-5 guys. For reference though, Russell-Benning were together just 21:04 in 2018-19 and outscored the competition 2-1. Negligible.
So I built an excel spreadsheet combining all the figures for Benning’s ice-time with the top two LHD for each season and the results were interesting to say the least. For the 3 years combined, 5v5 minutes <strong>in the top-4 only</strong>:
Again, this is just the time he spent in the top-4, these numbers don’t include any bottom-pairing play at all. This looks like a decent top-4 blueliner from here. Is it the McDavid push? Let’s look at the numbers with and without McDavid, filtered by the aforementioned top two LHD:
The truth is that Benning, even when playing top-4 minutes, isn’t getting a ton of “McDavid time”, just 33.6% of his TOI was spent with the world’s best center. Of course his numbers in those minutes are better, but he performed quite well even without the CMD push.
And then there’s this: Benning personally posted amazing boxcars during these minutes. His .912 points/60 puts him tied for 58th best defenseman in the NHL over the past 3 years, while his .29 goals/60 puts him in a 5 way tie for 24th, with Jones, Ekblad, Markov and our own Darnell Nurse. (I can’t believe so many Oilers fans are calling for these two to be traded). These are phenomenal numbers.
The list of marquee players that couldn’t match Benning’s .912 p/60 over the past 3 years is long, including Slavin, Petry, Morrissey, Ekholm, Heiskanen, Gostisbehere, Miller, Pesce, Ekman-Larsson, Parayko, Ekblad, Brodin, Doughty, Lindholm, Fowler, Ristolainen, Klefbom, Hamonic and Vatanen.
Now, I’m not suggesting that Matt Benning is a top-pairing guy or even a sure-fire top 4. I do know for sure that he’s played a reasonable amount of top-4 minutes over the past 3 years and has won those minutes even playing behind a piss-poor forward group. NONE of Edmonton's other top blueliners can touch Benning’s GF% without McDavid, and it isn’t close:
Benning: 49.18 (while in the top-4 only)
Sekera: 40.00 (includes 3rd pairing time)
For reference, Benning’s overall GF% without McDavid (including 3rd pairing time) is 51.45%.</div></div>
This seems oddly familiar. Were you the Benning superfan I argued with in the last couple months?
If so, Benning is a good 3rd pairing D. I'd keep him there and let him flourish.
He's failed the eye test for me, some of the fanbase, and NHL pundits calling him "ineffective in a top 4 role".
No amount of "well if he plays on a tuesday and he has a hotdog for lunch, his corsi for jumps by 35.94%" something or other data will drastically change my opinion of him.
All that's changed is that I'm not that anti-Benning as I used to. We put in the time to develop this guy, might as well see him through until someone better (Bouchard and Risto) come along.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Bcarlo25</b></div><div>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.</div></div>
"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.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Miguelicious</b></div><div> 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.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LoganOllivier</b></div><div>I may be saying things here that are going over your head, that happens to me a lot. I tend to look at situations from a much broader sense than most people do and most people don't like thinking about things beyond their emotional attachments to the situation.
I still stand by my guess at what McDavid would bring back in a trade, if it was TO, it would be Matthews plus another small asset. I say that because the only way I see Edmonton ever trading McDavid is if he wanted out because things don't get better. That is a hypothetical situation, its a future that hasn't happened yet but there is definitely a chance it can happen. I haven't wavered in any of my retorts sir, I have been consistent, polite and descriptive in my responses. I am almost certain you haven't read most of what I have said, had you done so, you would see that I am not saying anything is set in stone, what I have been doing is putting forward an idea and backing it up with a number of pieces of supporting information.
So lets recap this since you are hell bent on not listening and like to discount what I am saying as the ramblings of a stupid leaf fan. Just as a side note, I am in no way offended, angry or even annoyed. I just have a need to make myself understood and you sir are not understanding what I am saying nor have you tried to up to this point.
So here it is.
Edmonton has missed the playoffs for 2 years in a row, Chiarelli was a terrible GM who really messed up a lot of things. The front office of the oilers has been a poorly run old boys club for well over a decade. These are two facts that can't be disputed, its well known. Holland has been brought in to right the ship and that happened this summer. He made no front office moves until after the draft at which time he completely revamped the scouting department. He's made several small moves and then moved Lucic (which was an incredible deal in my opinion). At this time Edmonton has some intersting prospects, Bouchard being the top of the pile currently. He looks like he'll be a good player but is still probably a year or two away, Holland has a history of over ripening his prospects and letting them develop so I think its a stretch to assume he's going to jump in and make a big impact this season. The rest of their prospects outside of the ones drafted in the last 2 drafts aren't top end prospects, there is a reason Holland fired the scouting staff, its because they have missed on everyone outside of 1st round picks since 2007). So if we consider Holland's past tendencies, its safe to assume that we won't see much in the way of hot shot young players for a year or two still, which I think is a must, the team isn't ready to contend and won't be for a while so rushing things will only damage development.
So will all that said, I think there will be 2 seasons of not much success for this team, which again, I think is necessary and the smart path forward. So if this plan works, and the players they have drafted and are developing start panning out, in 3 seasons you could have an Oilers team that has a number of home grown players ready to dot the lineup and make meaningful contributions. If that is the case, McDavid will be thrilled and will have all the confidence the team is moving in the right direction.
This is and has always been what I hope to see happen. I truly want to see the Oilers succeed.
With that said, nothing is certain, mistakes can be made, injuries happen and bad luck is a real thing.
So lets say Holland isn't what he used to be, he doesn't draft well, thinks he's closer than he is and rushes things. Makes some high priced FA deals next season and further complicates the Oilers future cap situation, goaltending doesn't improve and prospects take way longer to develop than they hope. All of that is absolutely something that can happen. If it does, in 3 years the Oilers could be sitting here looking at the same situation they are now, very little in the way of depth talent, poor cap situation and goaltending issues. How long can you expect the best player in the world to endure that?
So IF and I really want to emphasize the word IF because I am just speaking in hypotheticals, so if all those things happen, it would be understandable if McDavid gets sick of it and wants to move on. At which time he would have a full NMC and would dictate where he would want to go. There won't be many top end teams that have the cap space to afford him so the potential teams that would want to trade for him at that time (Of course everyone will try to make a pitch) they won't be competing with too many competitors. All the moving parts that would lead to a McDavid trade, weaken the Oilers stance and that is why I say IF ever he is traded, it would be a very bad day for the Oilers.
SO again in conclusion, I hope it never comes to that. All Oiler fans should pray it never comes to that, because if it does, you'll never get anything remotely close to the value that is posted above. That price is ridiculous and TO would have zero interest in it. Rielly could be a Norris winner in the future and Matthews could win the Rocket and no one would be surprised, moving both of those and more, even for the best player in the world is a bad move for a team.</div></div>
How hard is it for you to actually read a statement contrary to your own beliefs and not comment on the "but because".
Your price of Matthews and a 1st is woefully insufficient. Never did I ever say that the price was "Matthews, Reilly, + + + " All I said was that if a lowball like that ever came to the Oilers, McDavid is going somewhere else. You argued back that "disgruntled McDavid = no fair value". You were given the answer of "Disgruntled or not, OTHER teams will offer more than that laughable package". Your inability to process that very important point, which truly should have been the end of the discussion, was both inexplicable but expected. Even when presented with early evidence of change, they were dismissed as "lofty goals", yet your entire argument was hinged on a "what if".
You decided to go on and on about how the Leafs were this, the Oilers didnt have that, and so on. I then stated that this is the exact attitude people have zeroed in on about Leaf fans, to which you decided I was just taking it out on Leaf nation. Now you've pulled the victim card labelled "I'm just here being all polite, look at you getting all bent out of shape", I mean, if I had my head up my backside I'd be unable to see it too.
Again, there is unfortunately no amicable end in sight for this conversation as we've left hockey a long time ago. I've entertained what is essentially a low-key pissing match far too long.
Writing a novel per response doesnt necessarily mean you have vast knowledge in the matter, either. I've been reading it word for word, just doesnt seem like you've been understanding what I've been saying all this time. Have a good one!