OilFans.com :: Fan Forum: Oilers => Davidson traded for Desharnais

Guest

Login / Register

This day on September 29
Departed: Rob Schremp (2009)

Happy Birthday To: pat89, verda13, PeteInSudbury

OILERS INFO OILFANS
Friday, Sep 29, 2023 11:35 PM MT

F.A.Q.

Terms of Use F.A.Q.

F.A.Q.

Members

Search

Register

Login

Home

Oilers » Davidson traded for Desharnais

Pages (3): [ « < 1 2 3 > »]

Switch to flat view

Switch to tree view

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687866 is a reply to message #687865 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 08:24

McDavid97
Messages: 1012
Registered: July 2007

1 Cup

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:10

I hate this trade.

I thought Davidson was decent. I rather keep our defensive depth and risk losing him to Vegas then giving him up for Desharnais. We just now put the X on someone else to be lost to Vegas so it really doesn't make sense.
Desharnais is only 3% better in the faceoff, so maybe 1 extra win a game if that.

I think Caggiula fading is a big reason for this trade. We don't have a good 3C right now if McLellan wants Drai on McDavid's win. I think a guy actually filling a role on the team is helping more than a guy n the press box waiting for an injury to happen.

Let's see how he plays. Therrien was a garbage coach, maybe Desharnais can get something going here. Long shot, we get some french connection between Desharnais and Pouliot :)

If we want faceoffs, especially on the PK, call up Lander. Hendricks needs another 2 weeks rest, guy looks gassed again.

I don't see how Desharnais couldn't have been had for a late draft pick. You could have sold off Davidson to someone else for more or kept him.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687867 is a reply to message #687866 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 08:34

Kr55
Messages: 17291
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:24

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:10

I hate this trade.

I thought Davidson was decent. I rather keep our defensive depth and risk losing him to Vegas then giving him up for Desharnais. We just now put the X on someone else to be lost to Vegas so it really doesn't make sense.
Desharnais is only 3% better in the faceoff, so maybe 1 extra win a game if that.

I think Caggiula fading is a big reason for this trade. We don't have a good 3C right now if McLellan wants Drai on McDavid's win. I think a guy actually filling a role on the team is helping more than a guy n the press box waiting for an injury to happen.

Let's see how he plays. Therrien was a garbage coach, maybe Desharnais can get something going here. Long shot, we get some french connection between Desharnais and Pouliot :)

If we want faceoffs, especially on the PK, call up Lander. Hendricks needs another 2 weeks rest, guy looks gassed again.

I don't see how Desharnais couldn't have been had for a late draft pick. You could have sold off Davidson to someone else for more or kept him.

Is Davidson really that valuable right now? Guy with minimal NHL experience that struggled all year in a 3rd pairing role that needs to be protected in the expansion draft. There is definitely still potential there, enough that Vegas will be very interested in taking him.

Hard to say what his value is. Market for players might not be that great right now. St Louis was shocked at the lack of interest in Shattenkirk and got a pretty crappy return.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687869 is a reply to message #687867 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 08:39

McDavid97
Messages: 1012
Registered: July 2007

1 Cup

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:34

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:24

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:10

I hate this trade.

I thought Davidson was decent. I rather keep our defensive depth and risk losing him to Vegas then giving him up for Desharnais. We just now put the X on someone else to be lost to Vegas so it really doesn't make sense.
Desharnais is only 3% better in the faceoff, so maybe 1 extra win a game if that.

I think Caggiula fading is a big reason for this trade. We don't have a good 3C right now if McLellan wants Drai on McDavid's win. I think a guy actually filling a role on the team is helping more than a guy n the press box waiting for an injury to happen.

Let's see how he plays. Therrien was a garbage coach, maybe Desharnais can get something going here. Long shot, we get some french connection between Desharnais and Pouliot :)

If we want faceoffs, especially on the PK, call up Lander. Hendricks needs another 2 weeks rest, guy looks gassed again.

I don't see how Desharnais couldn't have been had for a late draft pick. You could have sold off Davidson to someone else for more or kept him.

Is Davidson really that valuable right now? Guy with minimal NHL experience that struggled all year in a 3rd pairing role that needs to be protected in the expansion draft. There is definitely still potential there, enough that Vegas will be very interested in taking him.

Hard to say what his value is. Market for players might not be that great right now. St Louis was shocked at the lack of interest in Shattenkirk and got a pretty crappy return.

St. Louis had lots of interest but Shattenkirk owned where he got to go. If it wasn't for his NTC they would have gotten a better return like Hanzal did in comparison.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687873 is a reply to message #687869 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 09:21

Kr55
Messages: 17291
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:39

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:34

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:24

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:10

I hate this trade.

I thought Davidson was decent. I rather keep our defensive depth and risk losing him to Vegas then giving him up for Desharnais. We just now put the X on someone else to be lost to Vegas so it really doesn't make sense.
Desharnais is only 3% better in the faceoff, so maybe 1 extra win a game if that.

I think Caggiula fading is a big reason for this trade. We don't have a good 3C right now if McLellan wants Drai on McDavid's win. I think a guy actually filling a role on the team is helping more than a guy n the press box waiting for an injury to happen.

Let's see how he plays. Therrien was a garbage coach, maybe Desharnais can get something going here. Long shot, we get some french connection between Desharnais and Pouliot :)

If we want faceoffs, especially on the PK, call up Lander. Hendricks needs another 2 weeks rest, guy looks gassed again.

I don't see how Desharnais couldn't have been had for a late draft pick. You could have sold off Davidson to someone else for more or kept him.

Is Davidson really that valuable right now? Guy with minimal NHL experience that struggled all year in a 3rd pairing role that needs to be protected in the expansion draft. There is definitely still potential there, enough that Vegas will be very interested in taking him.

Hard to say what his value is. Market for players might not be that great right now. St Louis was shocked at the lack of interest in Shattenkirk and got a pretty crappy return.

St. Louis had lots of interest but Shattenkirk owned where he got to go. If it wasn't for his NTC they would have gotten a better return like Hanzal did in comparison.

I don't think Shattenkirk had a NTC. He just wasn't willing to sign an extension with anyone like St Louis hoped. St. louis still could have traded him to anyone, but they said the market was weak, even as a rental.

That was a pretty stinky return for possibly the 2nd best PP D in the league as a rental. One of the last 1st round picks in the 2017 draft, a career AHler, a meh winger prospect and maybe a 2nd rounder in 2019.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687874 is a reply to message #687873 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 09:24

McDavid97
Messages: 1012
Registered: July 2007

1 Cup

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 09:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:39

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:34

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:24

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:10

I hate this trade.

I thought Davidson was decent. I rather keep our defensive depth and risk losing him to Vegas then giving him up for Desharnais. We just now put the X on someone else to be lost to Vegas so it really doesn't make sense.
Desharnais is only 3% better in the faceoff, so maybe 1 extra win a game if that.

I think Caggiula fading is a big reason for this trade. We don't have a good 3C right now if McLellan wants Drai on McDavid's win. I think a guy actually filling a role on the team is helping more than a guy n the press box waiting for an injury to happen.

Let's see how he plays. Therrien was a garbage coach, maybe Desharnais can get something going here. Long shot, we get some french connection between Desharnais and Pouliot :)

If we want faceoffs, especially on the PK, call up Lander. Hendricks needs another 2 weeks rest, guy looks gassed again.

I don't see how Desharnais couldn't have been had for a late draft pick. You could have sold off Davidson to someone else for more or kept him.

Is Davidson really that valuable right now? Guy with minimal NHL experience that struggled all year in a 3rd pairing role that needs to be protected in the expansion draft. There is definitely still potential there, enough that Vegas will be very interested in taking him.

Hard to say what his value is. Market for players might not be that great right now. St Louis was shocked at the lack of interest in Shattenkirk and got a pretty crappy return.

St. Louis had lots of interest but Shattenkirk owned where he got to go. If it wasn't for his NTC they would have gotten a better return like Hanzal did in comparison.

I don't think Shattenkirk had a NTC. He just wasn't willing to sign an extension with anyone like St Louis hoped. St. louis still could have traded him to anyone, but they said the market was weak, even as a rental.

That was a pretty stinky return for possibly the 2nd best PP D in the league as a rental. One of the last 1st round picks in the 2017 draft, a career AHler, a meh winger prospect and maybe a 2nd rounder in 2019.

Ah I thought he had a NTC.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687877 is a reply to message #687874 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 09:35

Kr55
Messages: 17291
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 09:24

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 09:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:39

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:34

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:24

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:10

I hate this trade.

I thought Davidson was decent. I rather keep our defensive depth and risk losing him to Vegas then giving him up for Desharnais. We just now put the X on someone else to be lost to Vegas so it really doesn't make sense.
Desharnais is only 3% better in the faceoff, so maybe 1 extra win a game if that.

I think Caggiula fading is a big reason for this trade. We don't have a good 3C right now if McLellan wants Drai on McDavid's win. I think a guy actually filling a role on the team is helping more than a guy n the press box waiting for an injury to happen.

Let's see how he plays. Therrien was a garbage coach, maybe Desharnais can get something going here. Long shot, we get some french connection between Desharnais and Pouliot :)

If we want faceoffs, especially on the PK, call up Lander. Hendricks needs another 2 weeks rest, guy looks gassed again.

I don't see how Desharnais couldn't have been had for a late draft pick. You could have sold off Davidson to someone else for more or kept him.

Is Davidson really that valuable right now? Guy with minimal NHL experience that struggled all year in a 3rd pairing role that needs to be protected in the expansion draft. There is definitely still potential there, enough that Vegas will be very interested in taking him.

Hard to say what his value is. Market for players might not be that great right now. St Louis was shocked at the lack of interest in Shattenkirk and got a pretty crappy return.

St. Louis had lots of interest but Shattenkirk owned where he got to go. If it wasn't for his NTC they would have gotten a better return like Hanzal did in comparison.

I don't think Shattenkirk had a NTC. He just wasn't willing to sign an extension with anyone like St Louis hoped. St. louis still could have traded him to anyone, but they said the market was weak, even as a rental.

That was a pretty stinky return for possibly the 2nd best PP D in the league as a rental. One of the last 1st round picks in the 2017 draft, a career AHler, a meh winger prospect and maybe a 2nd rounder in 2019.

Ah I thought he had a NTC.

Just for the record though, I don't disagree that there could have been a better move out there. Maybe if he waited until today the market changes a bit, never know what could have happened.

Just, I do get the need. Desharnais stats this year are definitely not impressive, but he is a skilled player, and a very hard working player. It's not impossible he turns into a solid 3rd line C for us that can create something with guys like Kassian and Pouliot. Caggiula really needs a break right now, he's been just hanging on for dear life for over a month IMO.

And the value of Davidson, it's tough. Seems to be a widely help consensus that Vegas will find him extremely attractive to take. If you buy into that, which team is going to take him with a long term vision in mind? Likely needs to be a team with only 2 D they want to protect to make Davidson #3 (does such a team exist with only 2 D they see as valuable?), because I don't think you trade for Davidson with the intention to lock yourself into the 8 skater option to protect him. Or needs to be a team that has an attractive player that Vegas could want and you think maybe Davidson will be taken instead, or they will take that other player instead so you keep Davidson? That's some complicated future predicting to believe in to trade assets for Davidson to try to fulfil. Sigh, this expansion draft sucks. I hope there isn't another one any time soon.

[Updated on: Wed, 01 March 2017 09:36]

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687868 is a reply to message #687865 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 08:35

mightyreasoner
Messages: 2367
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:10

I hate this trade.

I thought Davidson was decent. I rather keep our defensive depth and risk losing him to Vegas then giving him up for Desharnais. We just now put the X on someone else to be lost to Vegas so it really doesn't make sense.
Desharnais is only 3% better in the faceoff, so maybe 1 extra win a game if that.

I think Caggiula fading is a big reason for this trade. We don't have a good 3C right now if McLellan wants Drai on McDavid's win. I think a guy actually filling a role on the team is helping more than a guy n the press box waiting for an injury to happen.

Problem is, you were trading for a third line centre and got a guy who probably fifth best on the Oilers. Even if you are willing to sacrifice Draisaitl to the first line and make your team a one line scoring threat, I don't think anyone can justifiably say that DD is more deserving or better than Letestu.

DD may well have been brought in to replace Caggiula, but last night Caggiula's spot was in the press box. So this isn't large upgrades. The play of DD merits and looks like fourth line time.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687872 is a reply to message #687868 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 09:13

Kr55
Messages: 17291
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:35

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:21

McDavid97 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 08:10

I hate this trade.

I thought Davidson was decent. I rather keep our defensive depth and risk losing him to Vegas then giving him up for Desharnais. We just now put the X on someone else to be lost to Vegas so it really doesn't make sense.
Desharnais is only 3% better in the faceoff, so maybe 1 extra win a game if that.

I think Caggiula fading is a big reason for this trade. We don't have a good 3C right now if McLellan wants Drai on McDavid's win. I think a guy actually filling a role on the team is helping more than a guy n the press box waiting for an injury to happen.

Problem is, you were trading for a third line centre and got a guy who probably fifth best on the Oilers. Even if you are willing to sacrifice Draisaitl to the first line and make your team a one line scoring threat, I don't think anyone can justifiably say that DD is more deserving or better than Letestu.

DD may well have been brought in to replace Caggiula, but last night Caggiula's spot was in the press box. So this isn't large upgrades. The play of DD merits and looks like fourth line time.

Letestu creates nothing 5v5. His playmaking ability is non-existent. He gets points by accident mostly at evens. He's had a lucky year for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if he went on a 20 games drought of ES points at any time. DD actually has a history of being able to create offence with limited ice time.

Yeah, we had to sit Caggiula because he was playing so poorly, so we iced a line last night with no real C. Not an ideal situation.

[Updated on: Wed, 01 March 2017 09:16]

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687878 is a reply to message #687872 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 09:44

RDOilerfan
Messages: 5420
Registered: January 2016

5 Cups

While I am not surprised at people hating this trade, I am a guy that is on the shrug my shoulders side. The Oilers needed some depth at center in the bottom 6. That's what he is, a vet, bottom 6 center. He can skate and has shown he can produce some offense though he hasn't had a great season. It was pretty clear the Caggulia wasn't capable of handling the center position yet and I for one didn't want him as a 3rd line center in the playoffs. I don't want to jinx it but Nuge looks like he's showing signs of life FINALLY. So getting him allows the Oilers to keep Nuge in the top 6 and Drai on McDavid's wing so their top 6 is loaded. Is he the guy I had hoped they would get to be the 3rd line center? No, I wanted Hanzel or Boyle. But in saying that, I am not giving up the Oilers first because they aren't at the point YET where they can be trading 1st's for rentals, so Hanzel wasn't happening. They don't own their 2nd because of that insanely stupid rule of owing the Bruins a pick to hire a guy they fired. It took a 2nd and a prospect to get Boyle. So it looks like they didn't have the assets to get Boyle.

In Davidson, I liked Davidson I thought he was a real nice depth dman. Gives you squat offensively, reasonably solid defensively but I don't see him as more than a #5 at best if/when he establish himself. On the Oilers he's their #7 or #8 this season. Davidson this season is not ahead of Klefbom, Larsson, Sekera, Russell, Nurse. Benning is young but I have Benning above Davidson because he brings more and he's right handed. So with Benning, their is your top 6. So he's battling with Gryba for the #7 this season. Next season, your top 5 is Klefbom, Larsson, Sekera, Nurse Benning. My hope is they get another right shot, an upgrade on Gryba. So again, at best Davidson is your #7. So I am not getting upset over trading their #7/8 dman.

For the trade itself. I don't see Davidson having a ton of value. Like I said he's a 6/7/8 defensive dman with little NHL experience and zero playoff experience. What's he worth a 3rd? I would much rather have a live body that can potentially help you down the stretch and into the playoffs over a draft pick any day.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687888 is a reply to message #687878 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:40

OilPeg
Messages: 317
Registered: December 2010
Location: Winnipeg

No Cups

I see this a series of events.

First, Davidson is viewed as the most likely to be chosen by Vegas by Chia.

Second, Chia wanted to add a rental to help with some depth and experience in the middle six.

Third, Chia has no 2nd rounder to peddle cuz of his own signing with the Oilers.

Fourth, Chia viewed the value of Davidson to be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Fifth, Chia viewed Desharnais's value as a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Sixth, Chia put all this together and deemed Davidson to be his 2nd round pick to peddle for a rental.

Seventh, we get the Davidson for Desharnais trade.

Essentially he viewed Davidson as a rental for the rest of the year and wanted to deal from a place of depth (D) for a position of weakness (3C, experience).

Funny (or sad?) thing is, on Montreal, Davidson probably won't get picked as they've got a bunch of D now that will be exposed. Emelin, Benn, Davidson, Nesterov, only one of those four will be protected.

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.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687894 is a reply to message #687888 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:45

Rocksteady
Messages: 2375
Registered: March 2007

2 Cups

OilPeg wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:40

I see this a series of events.

First, Davidson is viewed as the most likely to be chosen by Vegas by Chia.

Second, Chia wanted to add a rental to help with some depth and experience in the middle six.

Third, Chia has no 2nd rounder to peddle cuz of his own signing with the Oilers.

Fourth, Chia viewed the value of Davidson to be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Fifth, Chia viewed Desharnais's value as a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Sixth, Chia put all this together and deemed Davidson to be his 2nd round pick to peddle for a rental.

Seventh, we get the Davidson for Desharnais trade.

Essentially he viewed Davidson as a rental for the rest of the year and wanted to deal from a place of depth (D) for a position of weakness (3C, experience).

Funny (or sad?) thing is, on Montreal, Davidson probably won't get picked as they've got a bunch of D now that will be exposed. Emelin, Benn, Davidson, Nesterov, only one of those four will be protected.

Well thought out my friend!

The very definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing expecting different results.

Generally Disappointed.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687898 is a reply to message #687888 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:49

Adam
Messages: 12975
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

OilPeg wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:40

I see this a series of events.

First, Davidson is viewed as the most likely to be chosen by Vegas by Chia.

Second, Chia wanted to add a rental to help with some depth and experience in the middle six.

Third, Chia has no 2nd rounder to peddle cuz of his own signing with the Oilers.

Fourth, Chia viewed the value of Davidson to be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Fifth, Chia viewed Desharnais's value as a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Sixth, Chia put all this together and deemed Davidson to be his 2nd round pick to peddle for a rental.

Seventh, we get the Davidson for Desharnais trade.

Essentially he viewed Davidson as a rental for the rest of the year and wanted to deal from a place of depth (D) for a position of weakness (3C, experience).

Funny (or sad?) thing is, on Montreal, Davidson probably won't get picked as they've got a bunch of D now that will be exposed. Emelin, Benn, Davidson, Nesterov, only one of those four will be protected.

I'm pretty meh on this trade either way, but the "we had to trade Davidson so we didn't lose him to Vegas" storyline doesn't hold a lot of water. The guy they got for him is a UFA to be, so this is simply a decision of who you want to have for the rest of this year. The team felt they needed a 3/4 center more than the guy they had 8th on the depth chart for D. I don't know if I agree with where they had him on the depth chart, but Davidson's injury this year made it hard for him to take his spot back.

On top of that, in getting rid of Davidson now for a UFA who won't be part of the expansion draft, the Oilers have ensured that they're going to lose someone else.; Kassian is a possibility, for example. The Oilers with Davidson in the picture may have had him as the most likely target for Vegas and could plan accordingly. Now they have to plan to lose a different piece.

"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~~

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687910 is a reply to message #687898 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 11:06

OilPeg
Messages: 317
Registered: December 2010
Location: Winnipeg

No Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:49

OilPeg wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:40

I see this a series of events.

First, Davidson is viewed as the most likely to be chosen by Vegas by Chia.

Second, Chia wanted to add a rental to help with some depth and experience in the middle six.

Third, Chia has no 2nd rounder to peddle cuz of his own signing with the Oilers.

Fourth, Chia viewed the value of Davidson to be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Fifth, Chia viewed Desharnais's value as a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Sixth, Chia put all this together and deemed Davidson to be his 2nd round pick to peddle for a rental.

Seventh, we get the Davidson for Desharnais trade.

Essentially he viewed Davidson as a rental for the rest of the year and wanted to deal from a place of depth (D) for a position of weakness (3C, experience).

Funny (or sad?) thing is, on Montreal, Davidson probably won't get picked as they've got a bunch of D now that will be exposed. Emelin, Benn, Davidson, Nesterov, only one of those four will be protected.

I'm pretty meh on this trade either way, but the "we had to trade Davidson so we didn't lose him to Vegas" storyline doesn't hold a lot of water. The guy they got for him is a UFA to be, so this is simply a decision of who you want to have for the rest of this year. The team felt they needed a 3/4 center more than the guy they had 8th on the depth chart for D. I don't know if I agree with where they had him on the depth chart, but Davidson's injury this year made it hard for him to take his spot back.

On top of that, in getting rid of Davidson now for a UFA who won't be part of the expansion draft, the Oilers have ensured that they're going to lose someone else.; Kassian is a possibility, for example. The Oilers with Davidson in the picture may have had him as the most likely target for Vegas and could plan accordingly. Now they have to plan to lose a different piece.

Ok, let's phrase this a bit differently then. They traded Davidson because they wanted to lose him for nothing LESS than they want to lose other guys for nothing.

If the Oilers go 7-3, which they surely will, they protect Larsson, Sekera and Klefbom on D, then Nuge, Drai, Eberle, Lucic, Maroon, Kassian and Letestu up front. You look at it now that they valued Davidson as a bigger loss than it will be to lose Lander, Pouliot, Khaira, Pakarainen, Reinhart, etc.

I realize that Pak or Lander would need to be resigned in order to protect Letestu. And maybe they protect one of the others instead of Kassian or Letestu, either way, my feeling is that they valued the loss of Davidson higher than the loss of the other players. I also realize that in this scenario, they're basically trading Davidson PLUS one of the other players to rent Desharnais. I'm just trying to provide a possible thought process behind it.

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.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687912 is a reply to message #687910 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 11:15

NetBOG
Messages: 3978
Registered: January 2006
Location: Parts Unknown

3 Cups

OilPeg wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:06

Ok, let's phrase this a bit differently then. They traded Davidson because they wanted to lose him for nothing LESS than they want to lose other guys for nothing.

If the Oilers go 7-3, which they surely will, they protect Larsson, Sekera and Klefbom on D, then Nuge, Drai, Eberle, Lucic, Maroon, Kassian and Letestu up front. You look at it now that they valued Davidson as a bigger loss than it will be to lose Lander, Pouliot, Khaira, Pakarainen, Reinhart, etc.

I realize that Pak or Lander would need to be resigned in order to protect Letestu. And maybe they protect one of the others instead of Kassian or Letestu, either way, my feeling is that they valued the loss of Davidson higher than the loss of the other players. I also realize that in this scenario, they're basically trading Davidson PLUS one of the other players to rent Desharnais. I'm just trying to provide a possible thought process behind it.

I think this is the case. The Oilers are trying to get rid of every other palatable option except Pouliot for the expansion draft. Easy way to get rid of the last 2 years and $8 million on the deal of a player they have absolutely no use for.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687913 is a reply to message #687910 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 11:17

mazankowski
Messages: 282
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

OilPeg wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:06

Adam wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:49

OilPeg wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:40

I see this a series of events.

First, Davidson is viewed as the most likely to be chosen by Vegas by Chia.

Second, Chia wanted to add a rental to help with some depth and experience in the middle six.

Third, Chia has no 2nd rounder to peddle cuz of his own signing with the Oilers.

Fourth, Chia viewed the value of Davidson to be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Fifth, Chia viewed Desharnais's value as a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Sixth, Chia put all this together and deemed Davidson to be his 2nd round pick to peddle for a rental.

Seventh, we get the Davidson for Desharnais trade.

Essentially he viewed Davidson as a rental for the rest of the year and wanted to deal from a place of depth (D) for a position of weakness (3C, experience).

Funny (or sad?) thing is, on Montreal, Davidson probably won't get picked as they've got a bunch of D now that will be exposed. Emelin, Benn, Davidson, Nesterov, only one of those four will be protected.

I'm pretty meh on this trade either way, but the "we had to trade Davidson so we didn't lose him to Vegas" storyline doesn't hold a lot of water. The guy they got for him is a UFA to be, so this is simply a decision of who you want to have for the rest of this year. The team felt they needed a 3/4 center more than the guy they had 8th on the depth chart for D. I don't know if I agree with where they had him on the depth chart, but Davidson's injury this year made it hard for him to take his spot back.

On top of that, in getting rid of Davidson now for a UFA who won't be part of the expansion draft, the Oilers have ensured that they're going to lose someone else.; Kassian is a possibility, for example. The Oilers with Davidson in the picture may have had him as the most likely target for Vegas and could plan accordingly. Now they have to plan to lose a different piece.

Ok, let's phrase this a bit differently then. They traded Davidson because they wanted to lose him for nothing LESS than they want to lose other guys for nothing.

If the Oilers go 7-3, which they surely will, they protect Larsson, Sekera and Klefbom on D, then Nuge, Drai, Eberle, Lucic, Maroon, Kassian and Letestu up front. You look at it now that they valued Davidson as a bigger loss than it will be to lose Lander, Pouliot, Khaira, Pakarainen, Reinhart, etc.

I realize that Pak or Lander would need to be resigned in order to protect Letestu. And maybe they protect one of the others instead of Kassian or Letestu, either way, my feeling is that they valued the loss of Davidson higher than the loss of the other players. I also realize that in this scenario, they're basically trading Davidson PLUS one of the other players to rent Desharnais. I'm just trying to provide a possible thought process behind it.

Totally agree with you there OilPeg and your scenario and process the brass must be thinking. My only problem is that if you were to lose Davidson, then you're losing a former 6th round pick, and you've identified him as a depth defenceman. If you lose Reinhart, you've invested a lot (assets and time) into getting this player. If you lose Khaira, you need to replace him in your bottom 6 and you are likely losing Hendricks already. So that's 2 wholes on your fourth line; not a huge deal, but still it's brining in guys who you don't know whether they fit here, whereas you know Khaira gels and fits. Just seemed like losing Davidson was the best option behind losing Pouliot of course.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687920 is a reply to message #687898 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 11:48

RDOilerfan
Messages: 5420
Registered: January 2016

5 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:49

OilPeg wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:40

I see this a series of events.

First, Davidson is viewed as the most likely to be chosen by Vegas by Chia.

Second, Chia wanted to add a rental to help with some depth and experience in the middle six.

Third, Chia has no 2nd rounder to peddle cuz of his own signing with the Oilers.

Fourth, Chia viewed the value of Davidson to be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Fifth, Chia viewed Desharnais's value as a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Sixth, Chia put all this together and deemed Davidson to be his 2nd round pick to peddle for a rental.

Seventh, we get the Davidson for Desharnais trade.

Essentially he viewed Davidson as a rental for the rest of the year and wanted to deal from a place of depth (D) for a position of weakness (3C, experience).

Funny (or sad?) thing is, on Montreal, Davidson probably won't get picked as they've got a bunch of D now that will be exposed. Emelin, Benn, Davidson, Nesterov, only one of those four will be protected.

I'm pretty meh on this trade either way, but the "we had to trade Davidson so we didn't lose him to Vegas" storyline doesn't hold a lot of water. The guy they got for him is a UFA to be, so this is simply a decision of who you want to have for the rest of this year. The team felt they needed a 3/4 center more than the guy they had 8th on the depth chart for D. I don't know if I agree with where they had him on the depth chart, but Davidson's injury this year made it hard for him to take his spot back.

On top of that, in getting rid of Davidson now for a UFA who won't be part of the expansion draft, the Oilers have ensured that they're going to lose someone else.; Kassian is a possibility, for example. The Oilers with Davidson in the picture may have had him as the most likely target for Vegas and could plan accordingly. Now they have to plan to lose a different piece.

Now the Oilers most definitely go the 7-3-1 route which I felt they needed too all the time. I would also totally protect Letestu and Kassian.
Letestu has 13 goals, 30 pts. He has shown an ability to play on both special teams and be very productive. He's a right handed center that is usually good on draws. He's easily going to score 15+ goals and 35 pts. At less than 2 mill, that is outstanding value. I think he's having a hell of a year and probably going to slide back a bit but regardless, he's a valuable guy and to replace what he does for the Oilers I think costs you WAY more.
Kassian I really like. He's still young, skates really well, kills penalties, physical, tough, looks to be well liked. He had 5 goals 17 pts. He's been a little skate bitten and unlucky. With his speed, he seems to be a guy that gets behind people more than a lot of bottom 6 guys usually do. How many goals has he got taken back due to that BS offside rule? 3 or 4? I think there is more offensive to give, he as some skill and he's cheap. So in my opinion, he's an excellent bottom 6 guy.

So I hope and pray that trading Davidson opens the door for Vegas taking Pouliot or Fayne.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687931 is a reply to message #687872 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 12:33

mightyreasoner
Messages: 2367
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Mark Letestu is having a career year and probably we shouldn't expect a repeat. But if you take away ALL of his power play points this year (8-2-10), he still has 20 points, twice Desharnais total. Letestu has a 0.32 ES PPG this year; Desharnais has 0.26 ES PPG this year. So he's still not putting up the same 5v5 numbers, not to mention he doesn't help a PP or PK.

If this was the Desharnais from two years ago, man, that would be great. I hope he can be. But heading into the stretch drive, I'm not sure if that's a fair expectation from him, when he's seen a fairly steady decrease in point production and player role/responsibility the last two years. He's a reclamation project heading into the playoffs.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687936 is a reply to message #687931 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 12:43

OilPeg
Messages: 317
Registered: December 2010
Location: Winnipeg

No Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:33

Mark Letestu is having a career year and probably we shouldn't expect a repeat. But if you take away ALL of his power play points this year (8-2-10), he still has 20 points, twice Desharnais total. Letestu has a 0.32 ES PPG this year; Desharnais has 0.26 ES PPG this year. So he's still not putting up the same 5v5 numbers, not to mention he doesn't help a PP or PK.

If this was the Desharnais from two years ago, man, that would be great. I hope he can be. But heading into the stretch drive, I'm not sure if that's a fair expectation from him, when he's seen a fairly steady decrease in point production and player role/responsibility the last two years. He's a reclamation project heading into the playoffs.

But is his decrease in production due to his decrease in role/responsibility or is his decrease in role/responsibility due to his decrease in production? Which came first? Don't forget he was injured this year too, hard to gain back your position on the team if you can't get the role/responsibility back too. Kind of like what happened to Davidson. Was his poor year this year because of his role, or was his role because of his poor year?

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.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687977 is a reply to message #687931 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 14:42

Kr55
Messages: 17291
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:33

Mark Letestu is having a career year and probably we shouldn't expect a repeat. But if you take away ALL of his power play points this year (8-2-10), he still has 20 points, twice Desharnais total. Letestu has a 0.32 ES PPG this year; Desharnais has 0.26 ES PPG this year. So he's still not putting up the same 5v5 numbers, not to mention he doesn't help a PP or PK.

If this was the Desharnais from two years ago, man, that would be great. I hope he can be. But heading into the stretch drive, I'm not sure if that's a fair expectation from him, when he's seen a fairly steady decrease in point production and player role/responsibility the last two years. He's a reclamation project heading into the playoffs.

I shouldn't talk too poorly of Letestu, he's been damn useful this year, way beyond what I expected. How he ended up being more clutch than Ebs on the PP is nuts, lol.

If I had to bet on either guy should being consistently able to provide from offensive pressure in a 3rd line role between DD and Letestu, I definitely would have to go with DD. I just really hope his injury is behind him and he can get something going here. Montreal has been an offensive black hole for a lot of this year with only a few guys able to get anything done, so I can't blame him too much with being just another guy on that team struggling. That said, we haven't been that much better here :) Fingers crossed it gets better with our 2nd and 3rd line scoring.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687890 is a reply to message #687784 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:43

Rocksteady
Messages: 2375
Registered: March 2007

2 Cups

I'm on the fence.

Davidson was often injured and his play this year has been <ehhh> not great, not trending up, just <ehhh>. Desharnais is here for a cup of coffee, he's gone after this year and it's just like losing Davidson at the expansion draft except we may get a serviceable 3C that has a little wear, he's a vet and he can teach Caggulia what it takes to play 82+ games a season.

Davidson was gone at the expansion draft, Chia traded him for a player for a little more depth at C and nothing more.

What I don't get is Desharnais is only 5'7.. that's not a typical Chia player at all. No matter the skill, Chia always got a big body back. Not in this case I guess.

Another question, was does the LVGK's do now when they take from the Oilers? Who is the presumptive expansion draft pick? I'm drawing a blank.. Pouliot?

The very definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing expecting different results.

Generally Disappointed.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687896 is a reply to message #687890 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:47

mazankowski
Messages: 282
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

Rocksteady wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 09:43

I'm on the fence.

Davidson was often injured and his play this year has been <ehhh> not great, not trending up, just <ehhh>. Desharnais is here for a cup of coffee, he's gone after this year and it's just like losing Davidson at the expansion draft except we may get a serviceable 3C that has a little wear, he's a vet and he can teach Caggulia what it takes to play 82+ games a season.

Davidson was gone at the expansion draft, Chia traded him for a player for a little more depth at C and nothing more.

What I don't get is Desharnais is only 5'7.. that's not a typical Chia player at all. No matter the skill, Chia always got a big body back. Not in this case I guess.

Another question, was does the LVGK's do now when they take from the Oilers? Who is the presumptive expansion draft pick? I'm drawing a blank.. Pouliot?

This is the big nail biter question now. If we all agree that Davidson was gonna be claimed in the expansion draft, then we know exactly what we're losing and we can replace him internally. Now? I would think Kassian is ripe which would suck. Maybe we can "persuade" LVGK to take Pouliot?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687895 is a reply to message #687784 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:46

Skookum Jim
Messages: 7629
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

We likely would have lost Davidson to Vegas, but now it'll probably be Reinhart. So framing the trade as subtracting a guy you'd lose anyway, isn't really true, you'll still lose an asset to Vegas. You should look at it as a value for value, which is a young D for a rental.

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,

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687897 is a reply to message #687895 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:48

Kr55
Messages: 17291
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:46

We likely would have lost Davidson to Vegas, but now it'll probably be Reinhart. So framing the trade as subtracting a guy you'd lose anyway, isn't really true, you'll still lose an asset to Vegas. You should look at it as a value for value, which is a young D for a rental.

However, I will look like genius if Pouliot is the guy Vegas takes :) I think it's still possible since they have to reach a cap floor and Poo has a nice short contract left to make that easier.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687900 is a reply to message #687897 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:51

Adam
Messages: 12975
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:48

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:46

We likely would have lost Davidson to Vegas, but now it'll probably be Reinhart. So framing the trade as subtracting a guy you'd lose anyway, isn't really true, you'll still lose an asset to Vegas. You should look at it as a value for value, which is a young D for a rental.

However, I will look like genius if Pouliot is the guy Vegas takes :) I think it's still possible since they have to reach a cap floor and Poo has a nice short contract left to make that easier.

That cap floor shouldn't be hard to reach though. $45MM with 30 players to pick from. That's only $1.5MM/player.

"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~~

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687903 is a reply to message #687900 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:53

Kr55
Messages: 17291
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:51

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:48

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:46

We likely would have lost Davidson to Vegas, but now it'll probably be Reinhart. So framing the trade as subtracting a guy you'd lose anyway, isn't really true, you'll still lose an asset to Vegas. You should look at it as a value for value, which is a young D for a rental.

However, I will look like genius if Pouliot is the guy Vegas takes :) I think it's still possible since they have to reach a cap floor and Poo has a nice short contract left to make that easier.

That cap floor shouldn't be hard to reach though. $45MM with 30 players to pick from. That's only $1.5MM/player.

It's not that simple is it? Need guys that aren't on the active roster that won't count on your cap, I'm sure they will be taking lots of players with potential. They will need some top heavy contracts IMO. And best to take ones that only have 1 or 2 years left.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687907 is a reply to message #687903 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:56

Adam
Messages: 12975
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:53

Adam wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:51

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:48

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:46

We likely would have lost Davidson to Vegas, but now it'll probably be Reinhart. So framing the trade as subtracting a guy you'd lose anyway, isn't really true, you'll still lose an asset to Vegas. You should look at it as a value for value, which is a young D for a rental.

However, I will look like genius if Pouliot is the guy Vegas takes :) I think it's still possible since they have to reach a cap floor and Poo has a nice short contract left to make that easier.

That cap floor shouldn't be hard to reach though. $45MM with 30 players to pick from. That's only $1.5MM/player.

It's not that simple is it? Need guys that aren't on the active roster that won't count on your cap, I'm sure they will be taking lots of players with potential. They will need some top heavy contracts IMO. And best to take ones that only have 1 or 2 years left.

I think it IS that simple for the expansion draft. Like everyone else, there's a lot of flux through the summer where they don't need to be 100% compliant. There is no good reason to force them to have their top 23 guys in that $45MM mark, because we all know they'll need to sign and trade for more players over the summer to adequately build their team. And their first pick is making the team almost certainly with a big bonus laden deal.

"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~~

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687909 is a reply to message #687907 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 11:00

Kr55
Messages: 17291
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:56

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:53

Adam wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:51

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:48

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:46

We likely would have lost Davidson to Vegas, but now it'll probably be Reinhart. So framing the trade as subtracting a guy you'd lose anyway, isn't really true, you'll still lose an asset to Vegas. You should look at it as a value for value, which is a young D for a rental.

However, I will look like genius if Pouliot is the guy Vegas takes :) I think it's still possible since they have to reach a cap floor and Poo has a nice short contract left to make that easier.

That cap floor shouldn't be hard to reach though. $45MM with 30 players to pick from. That's only $1.5MM/player.

It's not that simple is it? Need guys that aren't on the active roster that won't count on your cap, I'm sure they will be taking lots of players with potential. They will need some top heavy contracts IMO. And best to take ones that only have 1 or 2 years left.

I think it IS that simple for the expansion draft. Like everyone else, there's a lot of flux through the summer where they don't need to be 100% compliant. There is no good reason to force them to have their top 23 guys in that $45MM mark, because we all know they'll need to sign and trade for more players over the summer to adequately build their team. And their first pick is making the team almost certainly with a big bonus laden deal.

First round kid is only guaranteed to be a 900k or so cap hit. I don't think that helps much to hit the floor. It's a crappy draft too, so don't depend on too many bonuses being hit.

Do they want to go into the summer below the cap floor and be forced to make moves to take on more salary? Seems like an odd strategy. Why not just get comfortably in the range taking some guys that have shown they can play but also without long term anchor deals (Dustin Brown type contracts) and go from there. I guess they can try the thing where you get assets for taking on garbage contracts like Datsyuk and Pronger, but there is competition with other rebuilding teams for those moves.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687905 is a reply to message #687900 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:55

mazankowski
Messages: 282
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 09:51

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:48

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 10:46

We likely would have lost Davidson to Vegas, but now it'll probably be Reinhart. So framing the trade as subtracting a guy you'd lose anyway, isn't really true, you'll still lose an asset to Vegas. You should look at it as a value for value, which is a young D for a rental.

However, I will look like genius if Pouliot is the guy Vegas takes :) I think it's still possible since they have to reach a cap floor and Poo has a nice short contract left to make that easier.

That cap floor shouldn't be hard to reach though. $45MM with 30 players to pick from. That's only $1.5MM/player.

And their goaltender is going to be a big ticket for sure. I mean, they need top 6 forwards, they can't rely on 13 bottom 6 guys and expect to be competitive. But that means Pouliot has to be better than 2 other Left Wingers around the league which are available.

I expect LVGK's D core to be by committee and be quite good, and they will have some great bottom 6 guys. Maybe Pouliot and his remaining 2 years are a nice stop gap until they can get youth in there over the next 3 drafts?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687906 is a reply to message #687784 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 10:55

vsove
Messages: 930
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

This is such a weird trade. I don't think it made us better, nor do I think it made us worse.

I guess I can see the reasoning?

No Mo' Lowe | Fire McLellan | Fire everyone.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687922 is a reply to message #687784 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 11:56

WhoreableGuy
Messages: 1449
Registered: August 2006
Location: Calgary

1 Cup

Just doing some more research, Desharnais has been a scorer at every level :

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=11122

His career NHL average is 0.57 PPG. He's coming back from an injury but seems like a solid 3C.

"Bah Gawd! Would somebody stop the damn draft!"

- Jim Ross calling the NHL Draft Lotto 2015 as the Oilers win

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687938 is a reply to message #687922 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 12:50

RDOilerfan
Messages: 5420
Registered: January 2016

5 Cups

I have read lots of people giving their not overly thrilled with the trade. I am curious to hear who people think the Oilers could have gotten instead?

The Oilers needed some center depth. Because of the stupid compensation rule the NHL had in place for hiring guys people fired, which I think they have changed, the Oilers don't have a second round pick. For a bottom 6 player, second round picks and a prospect are usually what you pay. Exactly what Toronto paid for Boyle.

So who or how were the Oilers going to get a bottom 6 depth center without giving up a better piece than Davidson who was a 7-8 depth dman?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687942 is a reply to message #687938 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 12:54

mazankowski
Messages: 282
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:50

I have read lots of people giving their not overly thrilled with the trade. I am curious to hear who people think the Oilers could have gotten instead?

The Oilers needed some center depth. Because of the stupid compensation rule the NHL had in place for hiring guys people fired, which I think they have changed, the Oilers don't have a second round pick. For a bottom 6 player, second round picks and a prospect are usually what you pay. Exactly what Toronto paid for Boyle.

So who or how were the Oilers going to get a bottom 6 depth center without giving up a better piece than Davidson who was a 7-8 depth dman?

I agree, in order to obtain a 3rd line C, it would likely cost Davidson, however I think Davidson and a 3rd gets you Boyle, over a 2nd and Froese from the Leafs.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687950 is a reply to message #687942 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 13:01

RDOilerfan
Messages: 5420
Registered: January 2016

5 Cups

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:54

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:50

I have read lots of people giving their not overly thrilled with the trade. I am curious to hear who people think the Oilers could have gotten instead?

The Oilers needed some center depth. Because of the stupid compensation rule the NHL had in place for hiring guys people fired, which I think they have changed, the Oilers don't have a second round pick. For a bottom 6 player, second round picks and a prospect are usually what you pay. Exactly what Toronto paid for Boyle.

So who or how were the Oilers going to get a bottom 6 depth center without giving up a better piece than Davidson who was a 7-8 depth dman?

I agree, in order to obtain a 3rd line C, it would likely cost Davidson, however I think Davidson and a 3rd gets you Boyle, over a 2nd and Froese from the Leafs.

Well apparently according to all the media guys twiddling their thumbs thanks to another slow deadline day waiting to talk about trades, the Oilers were in on Boyle but couldn't get it done. So if the Oilers were willing to trade Davidson for Desharnais, I have to assume they were more than willing to trade Davidson for Boyle. So whatever trade the Oilers were offering wasn't enough.

Plus Tampa has Hedman's contract coming on the books and have several key RFA's coming up so taking on Davidson's salary, even though it's less than 1.5 mill I assume they didn't want to do.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687952 is a reply to message #687950 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 13:06

mazankowski
Messages: 282
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:01

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:54

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:50

I have read lots of people giving their not overly thrilled with the trade. I am curious to hear who people think the Oilers could have gotten instead?

The Oilers needed some center depth. Because of the stupid compensation rule the NHL had in place for hiring guys people fired, which I think they have changed, the Oilers don't have a second round pick. For a bottom 6 player, second round picks and a prospect are usually what you pay. Exactly what Toronto paid for Boyle.

So who or how were the Oilers going to get a bottom 6 depth center without giving up a better piece than Davidson who was a 7-8 depth dman?

I agree, in order to obtain a 3rd line C, it would likely cost Davidson, however I think Davidson and a 3rd gets you Boyle, over a 2nd and Froese from the Leafs.

Well apparently according to all the media guys twiddling their thumbs thanks to another slow deadline day waiting to talk about trades, the Oilers were in on Boyle but couldn't get it done. So if the Oilers were willing to trade Davidson for Desharnais, I have to assume they were more than willing to trade Davidson for Boyle. So whatever trade the Oilers were offering wasn't enough.

Plus Tampa has Hedman's contract coming on the books and have several key RFA's coming up so taking on Davidson's salary, even though it's less than 1.5 mill I assume they didn't want to do.

Fair, but I guess the thinking is if you add Davidson, then he's likely gone in expansion over some of your other players perhaps?

And being an RFA, he could have his rights get dealt in the offseason.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687955 is a reply to message #687952 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 13:16

RDOilerfan
Messages: 5420
Registered: January 2016

5 Cups

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:06

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:01

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:54

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:50

I have read lots of people giving their not overly thrilled with the trade. I am curious to hear who people think the Oilers could have gotten instead?

The Oilers needed some center depth. Because of the stupid compensation rule the NHL had in place for hiring guys people fired, which I think they have changed, the Oilers don't have a second round pick. For a bottom 6 player, second round picks and a prospect are usually what you pay. Exactly what Toronto paid for Boyle.

So who or how were the Oilers going to get a bottom 6 depth center without giving up a better piece than Davidson who was a 7-8 depth dman?

I agree, in order to obtain a 3rd line C, it would likely cost Davidson, however I think Davidson and a 3rd gets you Boyle, over a 2nd and Froese from the Leafs.

Well apparently according to all the media guys twiddling their thumbs thanks to another slow deadline day waiting to talk about trades, the Oilers were in on Boyle but couldn't get it done. So if the Oilers were willing to trade Davidson for Desharnais, I have to assume they were more than willing to trade Davidson for Boyle. So whatever trade the Oilers were offering wasn't enough.

Plus Tampa has Hedman's contract coming on the books and have several key RFA's coming up so taking on Davidson's salary, even though it's less than 1.5 mill I assume they didn't want to do.

Fair, but I guess the thinking is if you add Davidson, then he's likely gone in expansion over some of your other players perhaps?

And being an RFA, he could have his rights get dealt in the offseason.

It takes 2 teams to make a trade so obviously they couldn't make a package Tampa wanted. They preferred the 2nd and a prospect.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687957 is a reply to message #687955 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 13:23

Gator21
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2016
Location: Kelowna, BC

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:16

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:06

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:01

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:54

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:50

I have read lots of people giving their not overly thrilled with the trade. I am curious to hear who people think the Oilers could have gotten instead?

The Oilers needed some center depth. Because of the stupid compensation rule the NHL had in place for hiring guys people fired, which I think they have changed, the Oilers don't have a second round pick. For a bottom 6 player, second round picks and a prospect are usually what you pay. Exactly what Toronto paid for Boyle.

So who or how were the Oilers going to get a bottom 6 depth center without giving up a better piece than Davidson who was a 7-8 depth dman?

I agree, in order to obtain a 3rd line C, it would likely cost Davidson, however I think Davidson and a 3rd gets you Boyle, over a 2nd and Froese from the Leafs.

Well apparently according to all the media guys twiddling their thumbs thanks to another slow deadline day waiting to talk about trades, the Oilers were in on Boyle but couldn't get it done. So if the Oilers were willing to trade Davidson for Desharnais, I have to assume they were more than willing to trade Davidson for Boyle. So whatever trade the Oilers were offering wasn't enough.

Plus Tampa has Hedman's contract coming on the books and have several key RFA's coming up so taking on Davidson's salary, even though it's less than 1.5 mill I assume they didn't want to do.

Fair, but I guess the thinking is if you add Davidson, then he's likely gone in expansion over some of your other players perhaps?

And being an RFA, he could have his rights get dealt in the offseason.

It takes 2 teams to make a trade so obviously they couldn't make a package Tampa wanted. They preferred the 2nd and a prospect.

Or more likely the Oilers weren't smart enough to sweeten the deal and offer a 3rd or 4th rounder likely because they're gun shy due to no 2nd rounder. But in reality a 3rd or 4th rounder has little value and if the difference between Desharnis and Boyle is offering a 3rd/4th I'm throwing that in all day.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687958 is a reply to message #687955 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 13:23

mazankowski
Messages: 282
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:16

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:06

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:01

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:54

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:50

I have read lots of people giving their not overly thrilled with the trade. I am curious to hear who people think the Oilers could have gotten instead?

The Oilers needed some center depth. Because of the stupid compensation rule the NHL had in place for hiring guys people fired, which I think they have changed, the Oilers don't have a second round pick. For a bottom 6 player, second round picks and a prospect are usually what you pay. Exactly what Toronto paid for Boyle.

So who or how were the Oilers going to get a bottom 6 depth center without giving up a better piece than Davidson who was a 7-8 depth dman?

I agree, in order to obtain a 3rd line C, it would likely cost Davidson, however I think Davidson and a 3rd gets you Boyle, over a 2nd and Froese from the Leafs.

Well apparently according to all the media guys twiddling their thumbs thanks to another slow deadline day waiting to talk about trades, the Oilers were in on Boyle but couldn't get it done. So if the Oilers were willing to trade Davidson for Desharnais, I have to assume they were more than willing to trade Davidson for Boyle. So whatever trade the Oilers were offering wasn't enough.

Plus Tampa has Hedman's contract coming on the books and have several key RFA's coming up so taking on Davidson's salary, even though it's less than 1.5 mill I assume they didn't want to do.

Fair, but I guess the thinking is if you add Davidson, then he's likely gone in expansion over some of your other players perhaps?

And being an RFA, he could have his rights get dealt in the offseason.

It takes 2 teams to make a trade so obviously they couldn't make a package Tampa wanted. They preferred the 2nd and a prospect.

I agree with you there, I just don't like the return I guess is my major problem. But it's done, let's see how it goes.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687960 is a reply to message #687958 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 13:29

McDavid97
Messages: 1012
Registered: July 2007

1 Cup

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:23

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:16

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:06

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:01

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 12:54

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 11:50

I have read lots of people giving their not overly thrilled with the trade. I am curious to hear who people think the Oilers could have gotten instead?

The Oilers needed some center depth. Because of the stupid compensation rule the NHL had in place for hiring guys people fired, which I think they have changed, the Oilers don't have a second round pick. For a bottom 6 player, second round picks and a prospect are usually what you pay. Exactly what Toronto paid for Boyle.

So who or how were the Oilers going to get a bottom 6 depth center without giving up a better piece than Davidson who was a 7-8 depth dman?

I agree, in order to obtain a 3rd line C, it would likely cost Davidson, however I think Davidson and a 3rd gets you Boyle, over a 2nd and Froese from the Leafs.

Well apparently according to all the media guys twiddling their thumbs thanks to another slow deadline day waiting to talk about trades, the Oilers were in on Boyle but couldn't get it done. So if the Oilers were willing to trade Davidson for Desharnais, I have to assume they were more than willing to trade Davidson for Boyle. So whatever trade the Oilers were offering wasn't enough.

Plus Tampa has Hedman's contract coming on the books and have several key RFA's coming up so taking on Davidson's salary, even though it's less than 1.5 mill I assume they didn't want to do.

Fair, but I guess the thinking is if you add Davidson, then he's likely gone in expansion over some of your other players perhaps?

And being an RFA, he could have his rights get dealt in the offseason.

It takes 2 teams to make a trade so obviously they couldn't make a package Tampa wanted. They preferred the 2nd and a prospect.

I agree with you there, I just don't like the return I guess is my major problem. But it's done, let's see how it goes.

I think that has been the problem for some of Chia trades, it's the return.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687966 is a reply to message #687960 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 13:37

Gator21
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2016
Location: Kelowna, BC

No Cups

Stauffer tweeting: "Could see Pouliot-Desharnis-Puljujaarvi at some point" Decent third line if Pouliout can get going and JP can carry some momentum up from the A.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687971 is a reply to message #687966 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 13:48

NZ Oiler Fan
Messages: 1763
Registered: October 2006
Location: Kensington, PEI

1 Cup

Gator21 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:37

Stauffer tweeting: "Could see Pouliot-Desharnis-Puljujaarvi at some point" Decent third line if Pouliout can get going and JP can carry some momentum up from the A.

I wouldn't hate that line.
It beats Slepyshev - Khaira - Kassian anyway, which to me should really be our 4th line (sub in the Test Tube for Khaira)

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Davidson traded for Desharnais [message #687973 is a reply to message #687971 ]	Wed, 01 March 2017 14:35

mightyreasoner
Messages: 2367
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

NZ Oiler Fan wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:48

Gator21 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2017 13:37

Stauffer tweeting: "Could see Pouliot-Desharnis-Puljujaarvi at some point" Decent third line if Pouliout can get going and JP can carry some momentum up from the A.

I wouldn't hate that line.
It beats Slepyshev - Khaira - Kassian anyway, which to me should really be our 4th line (sub in the Test Tube for Khaira)

In my mock Oilers lineup, that's the three I ended up with together. I think not getting a RW shooter, and JP's success in Bakersfield likely means he's up here sooner rather than later.

None are putting up good numbers - I think combined they have 28 - but it would be great if they could find some chemistry. Maybe Desharnais can find some chemistry with Puljujarvi the way Roy did with Yakupov.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Pages (3): [ « < 1 2 3 > »]

Previous Topic:	Review: Montreal @ Edmonton (Game #68)
Next Topic:	Review: Pittsburgh @ Edmonton (Game #67)

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