This day on August 11
Acquired: Petr Sykora (2006)
Departed: Daniel Lacroix (1999) Dean Arsene (2010)

Happy Birthday To: Phenom89, juju+sno, oilers99dan

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 Speculation » Accepting LarssonPages (2): [ «  <  1  2]
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675386 is a reply to message #675290 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 13:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 3959
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

3 Cups

jds308 wrote on Fri, 22 July 2016 17:57

...but it got us a player that we need.


Did it?

I'm not certain, and that uncertainty is precisely why it's a bad trade.



2015/2016 - This Kool-Aid tastes like McDavid flavoured Drain-O.
2016/2017 - This Kool-Aid is starting to taste like juice.
2017/2018 - I'm drinking this Kool-Aid, in hopes that it's Drain-O.
2018/2019 - Another round of Drain-O, good sir!

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675388 is a reply to message #675386 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 13:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 3498
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

3 Cups

Magnum wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:09

jds308 wrote on Fri, 22 July 2016 17:57

...but it got us a player that we need.


Did it?

I'm not certain, and that uncertainty is precisely why it's a bad trade.



I think it got the Oilers a player they need.

But I think they need another still.

Larsson is a minute-muncher who can play against tough competition, advance the puck, be trusted to keep the puck out of our net and basically run the Oilers end while on the ice.

But I'd really like to see a player who has proven they can put up some points from the back end. I felt much better about heading into next season when it seemed all but done that Tyson Barrie was on his way to Edmonton. If that fell apart, then that is still a glaring weakness on the Oilers.

Ideally, a minute-munch who can put up points is the best option, but those are so few and so hard to get, it is possible the Oilers couldn't find one (closest was probably Subban or Faulk and neither happened). If you can get one player to do both, then they Oilers needed to go out and get two players to fill those roles. They've managed to get one, and it's a major piece. Unfortunately, they may no longer have the trade chips to go out and get the other piece.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675392 is a reply to message #675388 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 14:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 17981
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:17

Magnum wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:09

jds308 wrote on Fri, 22 July 2016 17:57

...but it got us a player that we need.


Did it?

I'm not certain, and that uncertainty is precisely why it's a bad trade.



I think it got the Oilers a player they need.

But I think they need another still.

Larsson is a minute-muncher who can play against tough competition, advance the puck, be trusted to keep the puck out of our net and basically run the Oilers end while on the ice.

But I'd really like to see a player who has proven they can put up some points from the back end. I felt much better about heading into next season when it seemed all but done that Tyson Barrie was on his way to Edmonton. If that fell apart, then that is still a glaring weakness on the Oilers.

Ideally, a minute-munch who can put up points is the best option, but those are so few and so hard to get, it is possible the Oilers couldn't find one (closest was probably Subban or Faulk and neither happened). If you can get one player to do both, then they Oilers needed to go out and get two players to fill those roles. They've managed to get one, and it's a major piece. Unfortunately, they may no longer have the trade chips to go out and get the other piece.


I think it did give them a player that is helpful...but at a huge cost. Some of that has been mitigated by other moves, but was there anyone in here talking about Larsson in glowing terms before the trade? They asked Talbot about him yesterday and he said that he honestly didn't know much about him even playing against him several times a year when he was in New York.

I agree, he looks like a shot suppression specialist, which is something that the team can really use. I also think there's still some pretty big holes addressed and that while our defence has improved, it was at the expense of our offence. The Oilers were the 6th worst team in the league in scoring with just 203 goals and we traded our leading scorer - a guy who was in on 30% of them. That's pretty significant.

The lowest scoring team to make the playoffs was Detroit, with 211 goals, and they were also 21 goals better in goals against.

The Oilers were markedly better in goals against than the year before, shaving 38 goals off and going from the worst team in the league (283 GA) in 2014-15 to the 6th worst (245 GA), but that is miles from good enough. The only playoff team close was Dallas with 230 goals against, but they scored 64 more times than the Oilers did.

The narrative that we're this finely oiled offensive machine that might outscore our opponents just has not come to fruition, and it doesn't really look like the Oilers are cheating on defence to score offence - they're bad by both metrics. Certainly, all the injuries last year hurt, but we're never going to have a season where everyone stays healthy.

The team was third worst in the league for goal differential at -42. Only Toronto and Vancouver were worse. That means there was a pretty big gulf to cover to make this team competitive again. With few exceptions, you need to be a positive goal differential team to make the playoffs. How many goals will the guys we picked up be able to score to cover for the loss of Hall (and the potential decline of Draisaitl playing with inferior linemates now).

As it sits now, if there isn't another move this summer, I think we'd have to be pretty lucky to be in the playoff conversation. I don't know that McDavid, even if he's healthy all season can fully make up for the loss of Hall, especially since now it'll be easier for the other teams to focus on shutting him down without worrying about the second line as much.



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675394 is a reply to message #675392 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 14:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
OilPeg  is currently offline OilPeg
Messages: 872
Registered: December 2010
Location: Winnipeg

No Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 15:12

mightyreasoner wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:17

Magnum wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:09

jds308 wrote on Fri, 22 July 2016 17:57

...but it got us a player that we need.


Did it?

I'm not certain, and that uncertainty is precisely why it's a bad trade.



I think it got the Oilers a player they need.

But I think they need another still.

Larsson is a minute-muncher who can play against tough competition, advance the puck, be trusted to keep the puck out of our net and basically run the Oilers end while on the ice.

But I'd really like to see a player who has proven they can put up some points from the back end. I felt much better about heading into next season when it seemed all but done that Tyson Barrie was on his way to Edmonton. If that fell apart, then that is still a glaring weakness on the Oilers.

Ideally, a minute-munch who can put up points is the best option, but those are so few and so hard to get, it is possible the Oilers couldn't find one (closest was probably Subban or Faulk and neither happened). If you can get one player to do both, then they Oilers needed to go out and get two players to fill those roles. They've managed to get one, and it's a major piece. Unfortunately, they may no longer have the trade chips to go out and get the other piece.


I think it did give them a player that is helpful...but at a huge cost. Some of that has been mitigated by other moves, but was there anyone in here talking about Larsson in glowing terms before the trade? They asked Talbot about him yesterday and he said that he honestly didn't know much about him even playing against him several times a year when he was in New York.

I agree, he looks like a shot suppression specialist, which is something that the team can really use. I also think there's still some pretty big holes addressed and that while our defence has improved, it was at the expense of our offence. The Oilers were the 6th worst team in the league in scoring with just 203 goals and we traded our leading scorer - a guy who was in on 30% of them. That's pretty significant.

The lowest scoring team to make the playoffs was Detroit, with 211 goals, and they were also 21 goals better in goals against.

The Oilers were markedly better in goals against than the year before, shaving 38 goals off and going from the worst team in the league (283 GA) in 2014-15 to the 6th worst (245 GA), but that is miles from good enough. The only playoff team close was Dallas with 230 goals against, but they scored 64 more times than the Oilers did.

The narrative that we're this finely oiled offensive machine that might outscore our opponents just has not come to fruition, and it doesn't really look like the Oilers are cheating on defence to score offence - they're bad by both metrics. Certainly, all the injuries last year hurt, but we're never going to have a season where everyone stays healthy.

The team was third worst in the league for goal differential at -42. Only Toronto and Vancouver were worse. That means there was a pretty big gulf to cover to make this team competitive again. With few exceptions, you need to be a positive goal differential team to make the playoffs. How many goals will the guys we picked up be able to score to cover for the loss of Hall (and the potential decline of Draisaitl playing with inferior linemates now).

As it sits now, if there isn't another move this summer, I think we'd have to be pretty lucky to be in the playoff conversation. I don't know that McDavid, even if he's healthy all season can fully make up for the loss of Hall, especially since now it'll be easier for the other teams to focus on shutting him down without worrying about the second line as much.


Maybe a full season from McDavid won't single handedly make up for Hall, but McDavid's missing 1/2 season + Lucic might be close, no? Puljujarvi should help too. Add that with the goals against that Larsson SHOULD prevent, I think we're closer than you think.



Skookum Jim wrote on Sat, 02 June 2012 00:29

But he (Belanger)'s as soft as room temp. margarine.

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 16 March 2021 18:49

Turris in the BOA will be like an ice cube in the Sahara.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675396 is a reply to message #675394 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 15:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 17981
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

OilPeg wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 14:58

Adam wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 15:12

mightyreasoner wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:17

Magnum wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:09

jds308 wrote on Fri, 22 July 2016 17:57

...but it got us a player that we need.


Did it?

I'm not certain, and that uncertainty is precisely why it's a bad trade.



I think it got the Oilers a player they need.

But I think they need another still.

Larsson is a minute-muncher who can play against tough competition, advance the puck, be trusted to keep the puck out of our net and basically run the Oilers end while on the ice.

But I'd really like to see a player who has proven they can put up some points from the back end. I felt much better about heading into next season when it seemed all but done that Tyson Barrie was on his way to Edmonton. If that fell apart, then that is still a glaring weakness on the Oilers.

Ideally, a minute-munch who can put up points is the best option, but those are so few and so hard to get, it is possible the Oilers couldn't find one (closest was probably Subban or Faulk and neither happened). If you can get one player to do both, then they Oilers needed to go out and get two players to fill those roles. They've managed to get one, and it's a major piece. Unfortunately, they may no longer have the trade chips to go out and get the other piece.


I think it did give them a player that is helpful...but at a huge cost. Some of that has been mitigated by other moves, but was there anyone in here talking about Larsson in glowing terms before the trade? They asked Talbot about him yesterday and he said that he honestly didn't know much about him even playing against him several times a year when he was in New York.

I agree, he looks like a shot suppression specialist, which is something that the team can really use. I also think there's still some pretty big holes addressed and that while our defence has improved, it was at the expense of our offence. The Oilers were the 6th worst team in the league in scoring with just 203 goals and we traded our leading scorer - a guy who was in on 30% of them. That's pretty significant.

The lowest scoring team to make the playoffs was Detroit, with 211 goals, and they were also 21 goals better in goals against.

The Oilers were markedly better in goals against than the year before, shaving 38 goals off and going from the worst team in the league (283 GA) in 2014-15 to the 6th worst (245 GA), but that is miles from good enough. The only playoff team close was Dallas with 230 goals against, but they scored 64 more times than the Oilers did.

The narrative that we're this finely oiled offensive machine that might outscore our opponents just has not come to fruition, and it doesn't really look like the Oilers are cheating on defence to score offence - they're bad by both metrics. Certainly, all the injuries last year hurt, but we're never going to have a season where everyone stays healthy.

The team was third worst in the league for goal differential at -42. Only Toronto and Vancouver were worse. That means there was a pretty big gulf to cover to make this team competitive again. With few exceptions, you need to be a positive goal differential team to make the playoffs. How many goals will the guys we picked up be able to score to cover for the loss of Hall (and the potential decline of Draisaitl playing with inferior linemates now).

As it sits now, if there isn't another move this summer, I think we'd have to be pretty lucky to be in the playoff conversation. I don't know that McDavid, even if he's healthy all season can fully make up for the loss of Hall, especially since now it'll be easier for the other teams to focus on shutting him down without worrying about the second line as much.


Maybe a full season from McDavid won't single handedly make up for Hall, but McDavid's missing 1/2 season + Lucic might be close, no? Puljujarvi should help too. Add that with the goals against that Larsson SHOULD prevent, I think we're closer than you think.



I don't know. I do expect that McDavid healthy (if he is healthy - knock on wood) can score 90 points. But I don't know if we'll see the same season out of Draisaitl that we did last year, and if I'm coaching the other team, McDavid is seeing my best guys for every minute I can put them out against him. I'm not worried about the other lines the Oilers have right now, unless you take Eberle away from McDavid and he shows some real chemistry on a line with either Draisaitl or Nugent-Hopkins.

Lucic I see as a 50-55 point player. I don't believe it overly likely that you're going to see career highs in points for the new guys, because that isn't usually what happens when people sign with a new team - even the guys who got signed to ride shotgun with Crosby.

Puljujarvi, I would be completely comfortable to see in the minors. I don't think the Oilers see that though, because the right side seems to parallel the centre before Draisaitl's rookie year. Don't count on him for a huge year, because he's 18 and younger than all the other 18-year old rookies we've had.

Larsson? Well, it's hard to judge. What's a good number? Will he prevent 10 more goals a year? 20? It's very tough to assess that.

I guess we'll see, but I'm not that optimistic.



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675398 is a reply to message #675394 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 15:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jds308  is currently offline jds308
Messages: 1290
Registered: September 2007
Location: Summerland

1 Cup

OilPeg wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:58

Adam wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 15:12

mightyreasoner wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:17

Magnum wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 13:09

jds308 wrote on Fri, 22 July 2016 17:57

...but it got us a player that we need.


Did it?

I'm not certain, and that uncertainty is precisely why it's a bad trade.



I think it got the Oilers a player they need.

But I think they need another still.

Larsson is a minute-muncher who can play against tough competition, advance the puck, be trusted to keep the puck out of our net and basically run the Oilers end while on the ice.

But I'd really like to see a player who has proven they can put up some points from the back end. I felt much better about heading into next season when it seemed all but done that Tyson Barrie was on his way to Edmonton. If that fell apart, then that is still a glaring weakness on the Oilers.

Ideally, a minute-munch who can put up points is the best option, but those are so few and so hard to get, it is possible the Oilers couldn't find one (closest was probably Subban or Faulk and neither happened). If you can get one player to do both, then they Oilers needed to go out and get two players to fill those roles. They've managed to get one, and it's a major piece. Unfortunately, they may no longer have the trade chips to go out and get the other piece.


I think it did give them a player that is helpful...but at a huge cost. Some of that has been mitigated by other moves, but was there anyone in here talking about Larsson in glowing terms before the trade? They asked Talbot about him yesterday and he said that he honestly didn't know much about him even playing against him several times a year when he was in New York.

I agree, he looks like a shot suppression specialist, which is something that the team can really use. I also think there's still some pretty big holes addressed and that while our defence has improved, it was at the expense of our offence. The Oilers were the 6th worst team in the league in scoring with just 203 goals and we traded our leading scorer - a guy who was in on 30% of them. That's pretty significant.

The lowest scoring team to make the playoffs was Detroit, with 211 goals, and they were also 21 goals better in goals against.

The Oilers were markedly better in goals against than the year before, shaving 38 goals off and going from the worst team in the league (283 GA) in 2014-15 to the 6th worst (245 GA), but that is miles from good enough. The only playoff team close was Dallas with 230 goals against, but they scored 64 more times than the Oilers did.

The narrative that we're this finely oiled offensive machine that might outscore our opponents just has not come to fruition, and it doesn't really look like the Oilers are cheating on defence to score offence - they're bad by both metrics. Certainly, all the injuries last year hurt, but we're never going to have a season where everyone stays healthy.

The team was third worst in the league for goal differential at -42. Only Toronto and Vancouver were worse. That means there was a pretty big gulf to cover to make this team competitive again. With few exceptions, you need to be a positive goal differential team to make the playoffs. How many goals will the guys we picked up be able to score to cover for the loss of Hall (and the potential decline of Draisaitl playing with inferior linemates now).

As it sits now, if there isn't another move this summer, I think we'd have to be pretty lucky to be in the playoff conversation. I don't know that McDavid, even if he's healthy all season can fully make up for the loss of Hall, especially since now it'll be easier for the other teams to focus on shutting him down without worrying about the second line as much.


Maybe a full season from McDavid won't single handedly make up for Hall, but McDavid's missing 1/2 season + Lucic might be close, no? Puljujarvi should help too. Add that with the goals against that Larsson SHOULD prevent, I think we're closer than you think.



I'm by no means defending the trade, but I think Adam has raised a great point here with regards to goal differential. It's not entirely about replacing Halls points, it's also about reducing goals allowed. The Oilers were -43 last year. Someone way better with analytics may be able to predict what sort of impact Larsson may have on goal differential, but let's say he's directly responsibly for deterring .25 goals per game (I have no idea if that's realistic) that would shave off 21 goals per season. Lucic alone may not be able to cover off Halls offense, but combined with a healthy McDavid the 2 should be able to improve upon it. Would 55 goals between the 2 of them be unrealistic? If so, (less Halls 26 and McD's 16 last year) that would be a 13 goal improvement. All else being equal, that would leave them at -9 vs last year. A huge improvement. Obviously still not good enough to be a playoff team, but at least trending in the right direction.

I wonder if the following would be realistic?
Entire season of Maroon +2
Healthy Eberle +2
Healthy Nuge +2
PJV +2
No Jultz/Ference/Nikitin should be equal to at least a +2

That would bring us to about even. A lot would need to go right. Some added offense from the D would sure take us to the next level.



I make music:
Undermaker442

308 Media Group

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675390 is a reply to message #675386 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 13:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 8609
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

Magnum wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 12:09

jds308 wrote on Fri, 22 July 2016 17:57

...but it got us a player that we need.


Did it?

I'm not certain, and that uncertainty is precisely why it's a bad trade.




Agreed, to date all is supposition. Its a bet, using what was the Oilers second best asset.



McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675391 is a reply to message #675386 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 14:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jds308  is currently offline jds308
Messages: 1290
Registered: September 2007
Location: Summerland

1 Cup

Magnum wrote on Tue, 26 July 2016 12:09

jds308 wrote on Fri, 22 July 2016 17:57

...but it got us a player that we need.


Did it?

I'm not certain, and that uncertainty is precisely why it's a bad trade.



I think it did. I think there are maybe a handful of teams that could probably say they don't need an Adam Larsson type player. The Oilers are not one of them. This team leaks goals, and have been terrible in their own end for years. Larsson addresses a major area of team weakness. So yes, the trade got us a player we need.



I make music:
Undermaker442

308 Media Group

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675385 is a reply to message #675238 ]
Tue, 26 July 2016 13:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 8609
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

Oiler summer theme song.. Summer breeze... makes me feel fine.. :)




McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675572 is a reply to message #675238 ]
Fri, 29 July 2016 15:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 17981
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

One thing that might have made this trade easier to accept is if Larsson was on the Swedish World Cup roster. The Swedes decided that the best seven blueliners available to them were Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman, Olver Ekman-Larsson, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Anton Stralman, and Matthias Ekholm. The first three on the list are elite talents (I would have been much happier seeing any of those three coming back for Taylor Hall). Hjalmarsson is steady, but hardly a world beater. Stralman is very good, but again, where does he stack up on the list of first pairing defencemen? And Ekholm had good numbers which made it easier for Nashville to part with Seth Jones, but again, I wouldn't say he's a world beater. I would have guessed that any of the last four would have been easily obtainable if Hall was going the other way (if cap wasn't an issue - I'm not sure the 'Hawks could have taken on the extra cap hit).

http://www.tsn.ca/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-rosters-1.446950

So what was it that the Swedish management saw in those players that made them pick them over Larsson? And what does Chiarelli see that the Swedes don't?



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675575 is a reply to message #675572 ]
Fri, 29 July 2016 16:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jds308  is currently offline jds308
Messages: 1290
Registered: September 2007
Location: Summerland

1 Cup

Adam wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 14:33

One thing that might have made this trade easier to accept is if Larsson was on the Swedish World Cup roster. The Swedes decided that the best seven blueliners available to them were Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman, Olver Ekman-Larsson, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Anton Stralman, and Matthias Ekholm. The first three on the list are elite talents (I would have been much happier seeing any of those three coming back for Taylor Hall). Hjalmarsson is steady, but hardly a world beater. Stralman is very good, but again, where does he stack up on the list of first pairing defencemen? And Ekholm had good numbers which made it easier for Nashville to part with Seth Jones, but again, I wouldn't say he's a world beater. I would have guessed that any of the last four would have been easily obtainable if Hall was going the other way (if cap wasn't an issue - I'm not sure the 'Hawks could have taken on the extra cap hit).

http://www.tsn.ca/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-rosters-1.446950

So what was it that the Swedish management saw in those players that made them pick them over Larsson? And what does Chiarelli see that the Swedes don't?


Great points for sure, but it could also be that Larsson elected not to go, Like Eberle this year, had prior commitments. Who knows. Maybe Larsson was next on their list, or maybe further down. It would be interesting to find out from someone withing the Swede team.



I make music:
Undermaker442

308 Media Group

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675576 is a reply to message #675575 ]
Fri, 29 July 2016 16:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 8609
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

jds308 wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 15:08

Adam wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 14:33

One thing that might have made this trade easier to accept is if Larsson was on the Swedish World Cup roster. The Swedes decided that the best seven blueliners available to them were Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman, Olver Ekman-Larsson, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Anton Stralman, and Matthias Ekholm. The first three on the list are elite talents (I would have been much happier seeing any of those three coming back for Taylor Hall). Hjalmarsson is steady, but hardly a world beater. Stralman is very good, but again, where does he stack up on the list of first pairing defencemen? And Ekholm had good numbers which made it easier for Nashville to part with Seth Jones, but again, I wouldn't say he's a world beater. I would have guessed that any of the last four would have been easily obtainable if Hall was going the other way (if cap wasn't an issue - I'm not sure the 'Hawks could have taken on the extra cap hit).

http://www.tsn.ca/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-rosters-1.446950

So what was it that the Swedish management saw in those players that made them pick them over Larsson? And what does Chiarelli see that the Swedes don't?


Great points for sure, but it could also be that Larsson elected not to go, Like Eberle this year, had prior commitments. Who knows. Maybe Larsson was next on their list, or maybe further down. It would be interesting to find out from someone withing the Swede team.


World Cup, not World Championships..



McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675577 is a reply to message #675576 ]
Fri, 29 July 2016 16:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jds308  is currently offline jds308
Messages: 1290
Registered: September 2007
Location: Summerland

1 Cup

Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 15:10

jds308 wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 15:08

Adam wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 14:33

One thing that might have made this trade easier to accept is if Larsson was on the Swedish World Cup roster. The Swedes decided that the best seven blueliners available to them were Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman, Olver Ekman-Larsson, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Anton Stralman, and Matthias Ekholm. The first three on the list are elite talents (I would have been much happier seeing any of those three coming back for Taylor Hall). Hjalmarsson is steady, but hardly a world beater. Stralman is very good, but again, where does he stack up on the list of first pairing defencemen? And Ekholm had good numbers which made it easier for Nashville to part with Seth Jones, but again, I wouldn't say he's a world beater. I would have guessed that any of the last four would have been easily obtainable if Hall was going the other way (if cap wasn't an issue - I'm not sure the 'Hawks could have taken on the extra cap hit).

http://www.tsn.ca/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-rosters-1.446950

So what was it that the Swedish management saw in those players that made them pick them over Larsson? And what does Chiarelli see that the Swedes don't?


Great points for sure, but it could also be that Larsson elected not to go, Like Eberle this year, had prior commitments. Who knows. Maybe Larsson was next on their list, or maybe further down. It would be interesting to find out from someone withing the Swede team.


World Cup, not World Championships..



Yeah, just re-read and realized that.



I make music:
Undermaker442

308 Media Group

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675581 is a reply to message #675572 ]
Fri, 29 July 2016 16:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55 is currently online Kr55
Messages: 21843
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 15:33

One thing that might have made this trade easier to accept is if Larsson was on the Swedish World Cup roster. The Swedes decided that the best seven blueliners available to them were Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman, Olver Ekman-Larsson, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Anton Stralman, and Matthias Ekholm. The first three on the list are elite talents (I would have been much happier seeing any of those three coming back for Taylor Hall). Hjalmarsson is steady, but hardly a world beater. Stralman is very good, but again, where does he stack up on the list of first pairing defencemen? And Ekholm had good numbers which made it easier for Nashville to part with Seth Jones, but again, I wouldn't say he's a world beater. I would have guessed that any of the last four would have been easily obtainable if Hall was going the other way (if cap wasn't an issue - I'm not sure the 'Hawks could have taken on the extra cap hit).

http://www.tsn.ca/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-rosters-1.446950

So what was it that the Swedish management saw in those players that made them pick them over Larsson? And what does Chiarelli see that the Swedes don't?


Even more alarming is that a supposed top 3 LW in the world can't crack team Canada's lineup. I'd be worried if I was a NJD fan icon_wink

As for Larsson, they may have wanted more experienced guys on the team. Larsson is a couple years younger than any of those D they picked. It's not like Larsson had a bad WHC performance. He actually had a much better one than Ekholm.

[Updated on: Fri, 29 July 2016 16:56]


"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

"In Brad we trust"
- All Oilers fans, Present Day

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Accepting Larsson [message #675582 is a reply to message #675581 ]
Fri, 29 July 2016 17:30 Go to previous message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 17981
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 16:50

Adam wrote on Fri, 29 July 2016 15:33

One thing that might have made this trade easier to accept is if Larsson was on the Swedish World Cup roster. The Swedes decided that the best seven blueliners available to them were Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman, Olver Ekman-Larsson, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Anton Stralman, and Matthias Ekholm. The first three on the list are elite talents (I would have been much happier seeing any of those three coming back for Taylor Hall). Hjalmarsson is steady, but hardly a world beater. Stralman is very good, but again, where does he stack up on the list of first pairing defencemen? And Ekholm had good numbers which made it easier for Nashville to part with Seth Jones, but again, I wouldn't say he's a world beater. I would have guessed that any of the last four would have been easily obtainable if Hall was going the other way (if cap wasn't an issue - I'm not sure the 'Hawks could have taken on the extra cap hit).

http://www.tsn.ca/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-rosters-1.446950

So what was it that the Swedish management saw in those players that made them pick them over Larsson? And what does Chiarelli see that the Swedes don't?


Even more alarming is that a supposed top 3 LW in the world can't crack team Canada's lineup. I'd be worried if I was a NJD fan icon_wink

As for Larsson, they may have wanted more experienced guys on the team. Larsson is a couple years younger than any of those D they picked. It's not like Larsson had a bad WHC performance. He actually had a much better one than Ekholm.


I know you're being a little tongue in cheek, but I'll respond to it anyhow.

The depth of the Canadian forwards and the Swedish defence aren't really on the same scale. I actually think Hall should have been on Team Canada. If I was picking, I would have put him ahead of Marchand, Duchene, Carter and (somewhat controversially) Bergeron. Bergeron was the only one of those players to outscore Hall last year and Hall would have been able to play his natural position, unlike someone like Duchene who is going to have to adjust due to the high number of centers on the team.

Maybe it's the same with Larsson, and he really should be on the team - I just doubt it was as controversial a snub.



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

Pages (2): [ «  <  1  2]  
Previous Topic:Which Trade was Worse?!
Next Topic:Barrie
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright © OilFans.com 1996-2022.
All content is property of OilFans.com and cannot be used without expressed, written consent from this site.
Questions, comments and suggestions can be directed to oilfans@OilFans.com
Privacy Statement


Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca