aziz Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 7 years at $6mil. lulz. that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 He'll be a pro at signing toasters ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Not a replacement for Hall, but at least a solid top 6 guy for a few more years. Truthfully, while they got robbed for Hall, their blueline is improved and they have a glut of top 6 caliber forwards. In fact they have 2 solid 1st line caliber lines. Assuming they don't have a zillion freak accidents this year, I think a few more bottom 6 adds and a defenseman like Russell added to the fold and they are looking good. Maroon was scoring at a good clip in the 16 games he played after the trade last year no mater which line he was on. With McDavid/Eberle or Draisaitl/hall, or even PP #2 with Letetsu/RNH. With the arrival of Lucic, Pouliot can be put on the 3rd line where he belongs....OR they can go for 3 strong scoring lines. Think top 6 overload of: Line 1 Maroon/McDavid/Eberle and line 2 of Lucic/RNH/Draisaitl with Pouliot/Letetsu/Yakupov. OR Spread the scoring out: Line 1 Pouliot/McDavid/Eberle, line 2 Lucic/Draisaitl/Yakupov and line 3 of Maroon/RNH/Kassian? Their defense if healthy looks better tho Klefbom/Larsson Sekera/Nurse? Davidson/Fayne Ference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 1 hour ago, aziz said: 7 years at $6mil. lulz. that is all. I'm not sure I understand. Was there a team that wouldn't have been signing him for that money and term? His AAV represents a smaller percentage of the cap compared to his last contract, and EVERY free agent was getting 6 or 7 years today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terp Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: I'm not sure I understand. Was there a team that wouldn't have been signing him for that money and term? His AAV represents a smaller percentage of the cap compared to his last contract, and EVERY free agent was getting 6 or 7 years today. With his skating and the kind of game he plays, this signing may look disastrous in 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Just now, terp said: With his skating and the kind of game he plays, this signing may look disastrous in 4 years. Oh, I agree completely that the Oilers are taking on risk, as does any team that takes on a deal of that length. That's the crappy part of "cost of doing business" part of the NHL. If one thing has been shown, though, is that GMs can offload disaster contracts with relative ease, and it does help mitigate the risk somewhat. If the Leafs were able to find takers on David Clarkson, then just about any contract can be moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terp Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Just now, JR Ewing said: Oh, I agree completely that the Oilers are taking on risk, as does any team that takes on a deal of that length. That's the crappy part of "cost of doing business" part of the NHL. If one thing has been shown, though, is that GMs can offload disaster contracts with relative ease, and it does help mitigate the risk somewhat. If the Leafs were able to find takers on David Clarkson, then just about any contract can be moved. True, but it takes time and resources to get out of them. You eventually have to pay. I like the Backes deal even less though no surprise there because Don Sweeney is in a category all his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 20 minutes ago, terp said: With his skating and the kind of game he plays, this signing may look disastrous in 4 years. My guess is it looks disastrous next year. The extra 6 are just for giggles. The guy is 2nd line talent on a great night, has an ego the size of Alberta, skin as thick as a bald man's hair, is super aggressive to opponents smaller than him, runs from anyone his own size. And threatens to murder people in hand shake lines to boot. Exactly the kind of player to expose a young oilers locker room to, right? A two year deal for $4mil per would have been borderline. 7 years at $6mil is the new worst contact in the league. Yeah, someone was going to give this piece of **** a bunch of money for a bunch of years, because apparently GM's listen to idiot press more than their own scouts. Whoever did it, though, was going to be a laughing stock in a matter of months. Turns out it's the oilers. Man. $6mil for a declining 55 point guy with INTENSE attitude problems. Until he's 35. 7 years from now. Hey, it's entertainment, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 18 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: If the Leafs were able to find takers on David Clarkson, then just about any contract can be moved. The expansion draft will be your best friend. Except....when does that NMC kick in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, aziz said: My guess is it looks disastrous next year. The extra 6 are just for giggles. The guy is 2nd line talent on a great night, has an ego the size of Alberta, skin as thick as a bald man's hair, is super aggressive to opponents smaller than him, runs from anyone his own size. And threatens to murder people in hand shake lines to boot. Exactly the kind of player to expose a young oilers locker room to, right? A two year deal for $4mil per would have been borderline. 7 years at $6mil is the new worst contact in the league. Yeah, someone was going to give this piece of **** a bunch of money for a bunch of years, because apparently GM's listen to idiot press more than their own scouts. Whoever did it, though, was going to be a laughing stock in a matter of months. Turns out it's the oilers. Man. $6mil for a declining 55 point guy with INTENSE attitude problems. Until he's 35. 7 years from now. Hey, it's entertainment, I guess. I suppose that's much of that is possible. You definitely have a different opinion of his attitude than the man who knows and signed him, but that's cool, too. I would be foolish to say that the chance this goes sideways isn't there, because that's the risk teams take on, particularly when we're talking about free agents. I don't know for sure when his decline phase will really hit, but as of right now, he's been pretty much putting up the same numbers for several years. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see, but in the meantime I'm glad to hear we agree that the Oilers paid market value. We have that at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terp Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 9 hours ago, aziz said: My guess is it looks disastrous next year. The extra 6 are just for giggles. The guy is 2nd line talent on a great night, has an ego the size of Alberta, skin as thick as a bald man's hair, is super aggressive to opponents smaller than him, runs from anyone his own size. And threatens to murder people in hand shake lines to boot. Exactly the kind of player to expose a young oilers locker room to, right? A two year deal for $4mil per would have been borderline. 7 years at $6mil is the new worst contact in the league. Yeah, someone was going to give this piece of **** a bunch of money for a bunch of years, because apparently GM's listen to idiot press more than their own scouts. Whoever did it, though, was going to be a laughing stock in a matter of months. Turns out it's the oilers. Man. $6mil for a declining 55 point guy with INTENSE attitude problems. Until he's 35. 7 years from now. Hey, it's entertainment, I guess. Well, I guess you could say I gave him the benefit of what little doubt I have that it will be a disaster at some point. And no I didn't really get into his over the top stage presence, kind of a stupid man's Steve Ott without the leadership. Someone may think he's going to be good for Connor David but they could have found a much more effective way to "protect" him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 9 hours ago, JR Ewing said: I'm not sure I understand. Was there a team that wouldn't have been signing him for that money and term? His AAV represents a smaller percentage of the cap compared to his last contract, and EVERY free agent was getting 6 or 7 years today. Exactly. UFA's are the one way for teams to add assets without trading assets in return. Of course you pay more for them on average than resigning your own players. The alternative is trading blue chip prospects and picks that turn into blue chip prospects. To get a winger like Lucic, Edmonton would be looking at trading one of Draisaitl/RNH, although if it was Drai, the Lucic side would be adding a pick, while RNH would be more of a lateral trade in value. In any case, I posted potential line combinations and defensive pairings above and I am confident that the Oil have improved this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 32 minutes ago, J0e Th0rnton said: To get a winger like Lucic, Edmonton would be looking at trading one of Draisaitl/RNH, although if it was Drai, the Lucic side would be adding a pick, while RNH would be more of a lateral trade in value. That, of course, assumes lucic is someone to be sought at all. Which, imo.......... And, functionally, the Oilers traded hall for lucic, anyway. Or, hall for lucic and Larsson. Which is still lop-sided in the wrong direction. We'll see. It maybe it betters the Oilers a bit in the very short term. "maybe" and "very short term". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 The whole "someone would have signed him for that" argument is what got the Flyers Andrew MacDonald. Again, if some idiot wanted to go sign him for that length and term, LET THEM. In that respect I'm glad it was the Oilers' idiot who did it. IMO, the Oilers will have a $6M third liner with questionable defensive ability by Y3, if not sooner. And, again, just because someone happens to be "the best option" in a Very Weak FA class is NOT a good reason to make a seven year commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 21 minutes ago, radoran said: The whole "someone would have signed him for that" argument is what got the Flyers Andrew MacDonald. Again, if some idiot wanted to go sign him for that length and term, LET THEM. In that respect I'm glad it was the Oilers' idiot who did it. IMO, the Oilers will have a $6M third liner with questionable defensive ability by Y3, if not sooner. And, again, just because someone happens to be "the best option" in a Very Weak FA class is NOT a good reason to make a seven year commitment. Soooo glad we don't play in the "and the FA goes to the highest bidder' contest anymore. It's embarrassing being in the worst contract in the NHL discussion year in and year out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 3 hours ago, radoran said: The whole "someone would have signed him for that" argument is what got the Flyers Andrew MacDonald. Again, if some idiot wanted to go sign him for that length and term, LET THEM. In that respect I'm glad it was the Oilers' idiot who did it. IMO, the Oilers will have a $6M third liner with questionable defensive ability by Y3, if not sooner. And, again, just because someone happens to be "the best option" in a Very Weak FA class is NOT a good reason to make a seven year commitment. I agree to a certain extent, though I think it fair to point out that MacDonald was never very good in the first place, whereas Lucic has been putting up points at the same rate as Jordan Eberle for the last few years, but with more to offer in other parts of the game. He's not a perfect player, and the term is definitely more than I would ever be comfortable with, but given that the contract is heavily front loaded with signing bonuses, it shouldn't be impossible to move if/when it's needed to, because I agree that he likely can't live up to the contract in the latter parts of it. Year NHL Salary AHL Salary Performance Bonus Signing Bonus 2016-17 $8,000,000 — — $4,000,000 2017-18 $8,000,000 — — $4,000,000 2018-19 $7,000,000 — — $3,500,000 2019-20 $6,000,000 — — $3,000,000 2020-21 $4,000,000 — — $3,000,000 2021-22 $5,000,000 — — $2,500,000 2022-23 $4,000,000 — — $3,000,000 Another team considering acquiring Lucic, later on, will only be on the hook for $1M in salary in 2021, $2.5M in 2022, and $1M again in 2023. This is quite different than the MacDonald contract, which is structured to be worse and worse as the years go on. Year NHL Salary AHL Salary Performance Bonus Signing Bonus 2014-15 $4,250,000 — — $2,000,000 2015-16 $4,500,000 — — $2,000,000 2016-17 $4,750,000 — — — 2017-18 $5,250,000 — — — 2018-19 $5,500,000 — — — 2019-20 $5,750,000 — — — I think these are pretty different contracts. Anyway, I'm not trying to say that it's a great deal, but am trying to look at it from as many sides as possible. Some in Oilers land are just excited to get a shiny toy on July 1 and don't see any problems, and others think it's the Titanic. Looking at the structure of the deal, and depending on how his decline phase goes, I think it may end up somewhere in between. One thing I think the Oilers were looking at is the Connor McDavid window, because he'll only be cheap for the next two years, and they considered this to be the cost of doing business to bring in a guy with his skill set and who is actually tough to play against. I'm much more down on 5-year contracts to 32-year olds than I am 7-year deal to a guy who just turned 28 a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 Looking at the numbers, Eberle has 77 goals in the past three seasons in 230 games. Lucic has 62 in 241. Those aren't quite comparable. Lucic also has been trending down while Eberle is going up. I'm also more than a littleconcerned for the league as a whole if a 20/50 guy is now "worth" $6M on the open market. That's absurd IMO. That said, I think this will work out for the Oilers early. It's the back end of the term that I would worry about if I were the Oilers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 16 minutes ago, radoran said: Looking at the numbers, Eberle has 77 goals in the past three seasons in 230 games. Lucic has 62 in 241. Those aren't quite comparable. Lucic also has been trending down while Eberle is going up. I'm also more than a littleconcerned for the league as a whole if a 20/50 guy is now "worth" $6M on the open market. That's absurd IMO. That said, I think this will work out for the Oilers early. It's the back end of the term that I would worry about if I were the Oilers. Goals/60 Lucic: 0.82 Eberle: 0.87 Assists/60 Lucic: 1.10 Eberle: 1.04 Primary Assists/60 Lucic: 0.72 Eberle: 0.67 Points/60 Lucic: 1.92 Eberle: 1.91 They have scored at almost identical rates. Are they trending as you suggest? Points/60 from 2013 to 2016 Lucic: 2.08, 2.03, 1.69, 2.04 Eberle: 2.28, 1.89, 1.98, 1.85 No, both have been mostly steady in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 1 hour ago, JR Ewing said: Goals/60 Lucic: 0.82 Eberle: 0.87 Assists/60 Lucic: 1.10 Eberle: 1.04 Primary Assists/60 Lucic: 0.72 Eberle: 0.67 Points/60 Lucic: 1.92 Eberle: 1.91 They have scored at almost identical rates. Are they trending as you suggest? Points/60 from 2013 to 2016 Lucic: 2.08, 2.03, 1.69, 2.04 Eberle: 2.28, 1.89, 1.98, 1.85 No, both have been mostly steady in this area. We will get a good comparison in a few months as they play on the same team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 2 hours ago, JR Ewing said: Goals/60 Lucic: 0.82 Eberle: 0.87 Assists/60 Lucic: 1.10 Eberle: 1.04 Primary Assists/60 Lucic: 0.72 Eberle: 0.67 Points/60 Lucic: 1.92 Eberle: 1.91 They have scored at almost identical rates. Are they trending as you suggest? Points/60 from 2013 to 2016 Lucic: 2.08, 2.03, 1.69, 2.04 Eberle: 2.28, 1.89, 1.98, 1.85 No, both have been mostly steady in this area. Lucic had 30 goals, then 26, 24, 18, 20 in full seasons. That's a trend. And the goals per year over the past three seasons are significantly different for Eberle and Lucic. I'm not commenting on Eberle, I'm commenting on the comparison to Lucic. I'd take Eberle 11 times out of 10 over Lucic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 On another note, I just talked myself into keeping Talbot over Hellebuyck in NaHAna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.