This day on March 19
Acquired: Bobby Allen (2002) Mike York (2002)
Departed: Sean Brown (2002) Rem Murray (2002) Tom Poti (2002)

Happy Birthday To: duffin06, JPro, burkesajoker, arc131, dumpNchase, RollercoasterRider, EpicallyFaithful

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 Speculation » The Case Against LucicPages (4): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  >  »]
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672094 is a reply to message #672090 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Team Dean  is currently offline Team Dean
Messages: 624
Registered: April 2010
Location: Central Alberta

No Cups

I'm really starting to worry that Chia doesnt know what he's doing. Losing two valuable picks to bring in Reinhart only to lose him for nothing to expansion?
Trading Taylor Hall, best LW in the game, to bring in Looch, who will fall off a cliff next year?

Stupid. I'm starting to think he shoots from the hip like MacT did, doesnt listen to analytics.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672096 is a reply to message #672094 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 12:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 2736
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Team Dean wrote on Sat, 04 June 2016 12:00

I'm really starting to worry that Chia doesnt know what he's doing. Losing two valuable picks to bring in Reinhart only to lose him for nothing to expansion?
Trading Taylor Hall, best LW in the game, to bring in Looch, who will fall off a cliff next year?

Stupid. I'm starting to think he shoots from the hip like MacT did, doesnt listen to analytics.


If Reinhart is all we lose in expansion, I'll be okay with that. But truthfully, I'd be a little surprised if he is still here next summer. I could see him being moved this off-season.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672099 is a reply to message #672096 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 19:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
inverno76  is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 874
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

No Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Sat, 04 June 2016 12:06

Team Dean wrote on Sat, 04 June 2016 12:00

I'm really starting to worry that Chia doesnt know what he's doing. Losing two valuable picks to bring in Reinhart only to lose him for nothing to expansion?
Trading Taylor Hall, best LW in the game, to bring in Looch, who will fall off a cliff next year?

Stupid. I'm starting to think he shoots from the hip like MacT did, doesnt listen to analytics.


If Reinhart is all we lose in expansion, I'll be okay with that. But truthfully, I'd be a little surprised if he is still here next summer. I could see him being moved this off-season.


Reinhart deal still had a OBC taste. Chiarelli was new to the club and the old staff always had a hard on for Griffin. Still falls on PC, but it's not a career defining move. The 2015 draft is and always will be the Connor McDavid draft.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672104 is a reply to message #672099 ]
Sun, 05 June 2016 09:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

inverno76 wrote on Sat, 04 June 2016 19:10

mightyreasoner wrote on Sat, 04 June 2016 12:06

Team Dean wrote on Sat, 04 June 2016 12:00

I'm really starting to worry that Chia doesnt know what he's doing. Losing two valuable picks to bring in Reinhart only to lose him for nothing to expansion?
Trading Taylor Hall, best LW in the game, to bring in Looch, who will fall off a cliff next year?

Stupid. I'm starting to think he shoots from the hip like MacT did, doesnt listen to analytics.


If Reinhart is all we lose in expansion, I'll be okay with that. But truthfully, I'd be a little surprised if he is still here next summer. I could see him being moved this off-season.


Reinhart deal still had a OBC taste. Chiarelli was new to the club and the old staff always had a hard on for Griffin. Still falls on PC, but it's not a career defining move. The 2015 draft is and always will be the Connor McDavid draft.



Yeah, the Reinhart trade had the old groups fingerprints all over it. What are the odds that Chia just happened to want to target the same guy our scouts and management have been obsessed with for years, after he had 2 pretty weak seasons after being drafted. Too much of a coincidence. I think he was even quoted saying Green pushed for the move, so think the case is closed on that anyway. He really did buy the hype from our scouts though, later commenting last summer that he thought Reinhart was ready to jump into an NHL lineup. Hope he learned a lesson.



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672122 is a reply to message #672104 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 08:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3675
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

The only thing I will say about Lucic is the Oilers play in the West where the better teams play big, heavy, nasty hockey. If you look at their division, the Kings, Sharks and Ducks all play big boy hockey. The Blues are big and nasty. The Preds play a heavier game. Dallas plays a heavier game. The Hawks used to be heavier but they have been trading those guys off and I think they will step back a bit. But even if you take out the Hawks, I listed off the 6 best teams in the west who are all big and nasty, who all were 30+ pts ahead of the Oilers and who if the Oilers want to go anywhere, the Oilers have to beat out.

What scares me about Lucic is his potential contract and more correctly the length it would take. If they could get him paying a little more money on a shorter term, I would think about it but if they don't they need to address their nasty side to have a chance.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672125 is a reply to message #672122 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 08:35

The only thing I will say about Lucic is the Oilers play in the West where the better teams play big, heavy, nasty hockey. If you look at their division, the Kings, Sharks and Ducks all play big boy hockey. The Blues are big and nasty. The Preds play a heavier game. Dallas plays a heavier game. The Hawks used to be heavier but they have been trading those guys off and I think they will step back a bit. But even if you take out the Hawks, I listed off the 6 best teams in the west who are all big and nasty, who all were 30+ pts ahead of the Oilers and who if the Oilers want to go anywhere, the Oilers have to beat out.

What scares me about Lucic is his potential contract and more correctly the length it would take. If they could get him paying a little more money on a shorter term, I would think about it but if they don't they need to address their nasty side to have a chance.


Gotta admit, I was kinda on board with getting Lucic, but after his playoff performance I'm scared. He was a total idiot through that whole series. Horrible decision making all over the ice. I was hoping to be encouraged focusing in on him, but I was very disappointed.



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672126 is a reply to message #672125 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 08:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3675
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 08:47

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 08:35

The only thing I will say about Lucic is the Oilers play in the West where the better teams play big, heavy, nasty hockey. If you look at their division, the Kings, Sharks and Ducks all play big boy hockey. The Blues are big and nasty. The Preds play a heavier game. Dallas plays a heavier game. The Hawks used to be heavier but they have been trading those guys off and I think they will step back a bit. But even if you take out the Hawks, I listed off the 6 best teams in the west who are all big and nasty, who all were 30+ pts ahead of the Oilers and who if the Oilers want to go anywhere, the Oilers have to beat out.

What scares me about Lucic is his potential contract and more correctly the length it would take. If they could get him paying a little more money on a shorter term, I would think about it but if they don't they need to address their nasty side to have a chance.


Gotta admit, I was kinda on board with getting Lucic, but after his playoff performance I'm scared. He was a total idiot through that whole series. Horrible decision making all over the ice. I was hoping to be encouraged focusing in on him, but I was very disappointed.


If you look at what McDavid can do with Maroon, imagine what Lucic could do. I'm still on the fence due to the length of contract that I assume it would take but if by miracle he would take like a 4 yr deal, he'd be a game changer in my opinion.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #717953 is a reply to message #672125 ]
Sat, 25 August 2018 14:37 Go to previous message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 08:47

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 08:35

The only thing I will say about Lucic is the Oilers play in the West where the better teams play big, heavy, nasty hockey. If you look at their division, the Kings, Sharks and Ducks all play big boy hockey. The Blues are big and nasty. The Preds play a heavier game. Dallas plays a heavier game. The Hawks used to be heavier but they have been trading those guys off and I think they will step back a bit. But even if you take out the Hawks, I listed off the 6 best teams in the west who are all big and nasty, who all were 30+ pts ahead of the Oilers and who if the Oilers want to go anywhere, the Oilers have to beat out.

What scares me about Lucic is his potential contract and more correctly the length it would take. If they could get him paying a little more money on a shorter term, I would think about it but if they don't they need to address their nasty side to have a chance.


Gotta admit, I was kinda on board with getting Lucic, but after his playoff performance I'm scared. He was a total idiot through that whole series. Horrible decision making all over the ice. I was hoping to be encouraged focusing in on him, but I was very disappointed.


Nailed it!

Obviously I should be an OIlers pro scout :)

Who really could have guessed that Lucic would be an off the rush or nothing scorer for us. I think I shared on here some stats from a theathletic article about how Lucic's points off the cycle 5v5 almost completely disappeared in his time as an Oiler. I think that's part coaching, as a whole we really are a rush or nothing team because everyone bails out of the offensive zone so quickly for whatever reason. And rush or nothing hockey certainly didn't mesh well with our super stationary breakout plays, unless it was McDavid doing the rushing of course.

So hard to be optimistic about next year...

[Updated on: Sat, 25 August 2018 14:41]


"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672134 is a reply to message #672122 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 09:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1968
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

1 Cup

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 07:35

The only thing I will say about Lucic is the Oilers play in the West where the better teams play big, heavy, nasty hockey. If you look at their division, the Kings, Sharks and Ducks all play big boy hockey. The Blues are big and nasty. The Preds play a heavier game. Dallas plays a heavier game. The Hawks used to be heavier but they have been trading those guys off and I think they will step back a bit. But even if you take out the Hawks, I listed off the 6 best teams in the west who are all big and nasty, who all were 30+ pts ahead of the Oilers and who if the Oilers want to go anywhere, the Oilers have to beat out.

What scares me about Lucic is his potential contract and more correctly the length it would take. If they could get him paying a little more money on a shorter term, I would think about it but if they don't they need to address their nasty side to have a chance.


This chart shows opening night rosters, so things have probably shifted a bit. Although with the addition of Maroon and Kassian, the Oilers have only gotten bigger if anything.

http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2015/10/2015-16-nhl-teams-by-heigh t-weight-and.html

Oilers are dead centre of the league at 15th in terms of average weight. Dallas is 14th, Sharks (who are in the Final) are 13th. Pittsburgh is 26th.

Look at the top 5 teams in terms of average weight:

LA - made the playoffs, lost in the 1st round
Winnipeg - missed the playoffs
Arizona - missed the playoffs
Colorado - missed the playoffs
Buffalo - missed the playoffs

I think the idea that the Oilers' issues have to do with their size are a bit of a red herring. Would it be helpful to add in some size that can play? Of course. Should it be their #1 priority. I don't think so. Since Chiarelli came in, he's added Gryba, Kassian, and Maroon to address the toughness issues with this team. They already had guys like Hendricks and even Pouliot, who I think play that "heavy" game you're looking for. Throw in Nurse next year and you're looking at at least one "heavy" player on each of the forward lines and 2 of the defence pairings (assuming Gryba is re-signed). That looks like pretty good balance to me.

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that they need more skill on their back end. As it is, they don't have 3 guys that can consistently complete a 5 foot pass. That's an issue.

There's another number on that page that has a bigger impact than their size. Average age. The Oilers rank 29th (2nd youngest team in the league). Oilers have been notorious for putting guys in positions before they were ready, and I think they made a huge mistake this past summer assuming guys like Nurse and Reinhart were ready and not improving their defence. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake this year.



Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19 pace: 232 GF / 268 GA (-36)

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672135 is a reply to message #672134 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 09:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Goose wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 09:37

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 07:35

The only thing I will say about Lucic is the Oilers play in the West where the better teams play big, heavy, nasty hockey. If you look at their division, the Kings, Sharks and Ducks all play big boy hockey. The Blues are big and nasty. The Preds play a heavier game. Dallas plays a heavier game. The Hawks used to be heavier but they have been trading those guys off and I think they will step back a bit. But even if you take out the Hawks, I listed off the 6 best teams in the west who are all big and nasty, who all were 30+ pts ahead of the Oilers and who if the Oilers want to go anywhere, the Oilers have to beat out.

What scares me about Lucic is his potential contract and more correctly the length it would take. If they could get him paying a little more money on a shorter term, I would think about it but if they don't they need to address their nasty side to have a chance.


This chart shows opening night rosters, so things have probably shifted a bit. Although with the addition of Maroon and Kassian, the Oilers have only gotten bigger if anything.

http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2015/10/2015-16-nhl-teams-by-heigh t-weight-and.html

Oilers are dead centre of the league at 15th in terms of average weight. Dallas is 14th, Sharks (who are in the Final) are 13th. Pittsburgh is 26th.

Look at the top 5 teams in terms of average weight:

LA - made the playoffs, lost in the 1st round
Winnipeg - missed the playoffs
Arizona - missed the playoffs
Colorado - missed the playoffs
Buffalo - missed the playoffs

I think the idea that the Oilers' issues have to do with their size are a bit of a red herring. Would it be helpful to add in some size that can play? Of course. Should it be their #1 priority. I don't think so. Since Chiarelli came in, he's added Gryba, Kassian, and Maroon to address the toughness issues with this team. They already had guys like Hendricks and even Pouliot, who I think play that "heavy" game you're looking for. Throw in Nurse next year and you're looking at at least one "heavy" player on each of the forward lines and 2 of the defence pairings (assuming Gryba is re-signed). That looks like pretty good balance to me.

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that they need more skill on their back end. As it is, they don't have 3 guys that can consistently complete a 5 foot pass. That's an issue.

There's another number on that page that has a bigger impact than their size. Average age. The Oilers rank 29th (2nd youngest team in the league). Oilers have been notorious for putting guys in positions before they were ready, and I think they made a huge mistake this past summer assuming guys like Nurse and Reinhart were ready and not improving their defence. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake this year.


I think willingness to push back is confused with size. Size is nothing if you're not willing to use it. A team full or Purcell's, Pouliot's and stick waving Mark Fayne's would be a disaster. Being small doesn't matter if you work out your lower body and core like a maniac and are willing to battle like a Datsyuk, Crosby or even a Marchand or Andrew Shaw and no one can get you off your feet. Everyone says Chicago is an example that size doesn't matter, but they are still an example that a willingness to engage physically and battle, especially the skill guys, matters.

That's kind of a side comment, I agree that adding size does not = success.

As for Lucic's place on this team, I think he would have to displace Maroon if we did get him, and I don't think Maroon would be even remotely as effective without playing with McDavid. I'm really questioning if Lucic would be that much more effective than Maroon on McDavid's wing, enough to justify the extra 4M, or whatever we would give him, that he would cost plus considering the term of the deal we would have to give him.

Should save the cap space to fix the D IMO.

[Updated on: Mon, 06 June 2016 09:53]


"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672138 is a reply to message #672135 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 10:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3675
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 09:40

Goose wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 09:37

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 07:35

The only thing I will say about Lucic is the Oilers play in the West where the better teams play big, heavy, nasty hockey. If you look at their division, the Kings, Sharks and Ducks all play big boy hockey. The Blues are big and nasty. The Preds play a heavier game. Dallas plays a heavier game. The Hawks used to be heavier but they have been trading those guys off and I think they will step back a bit. But even if you take out the Hawks, I listed off the 6 best teams in the west who are all big and nasty, who all were 30+ pts ahead of the Oilers and who if the Oilers want to go anywhere, the Oilers have to beat out.

What scares me about Lucic is his potential contract and more correctly the length it would take. If they could get him paying a little more money on a shorter term, I would think about it but if they don't they need to address their nasty side to have a chance.


This chart shows opening night rosters, so things have probably shifted a bit. Although with the addition of Maroon and Kassian, the Oilers have only gotten bigger if anything.

http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2015/10/2015-16-nhl-teams-by-heigh t-weight-and.html

Oilers are dead centre of the league at 15th in terms of average weight. Dallas is 14th, Sharks (who are in the Final) are 13th. Pittsburgh is 26th.

Look at the top 5 teams in terms of average weight:

LA - made the playoffs, lost in the 1st round
Winnipeg - missed the playoffs
Arizona - missed the playoffs
Colorado - missed the playoffs
Buffalo - missed the playoffs

I think the idea that the Oilers' issues have to do with their size are a bit of a red herring. Would it be helpful to add in some size that can play? Of course. Should it be their #1 priority. I don't think so. Since Chiarelli came in, he's added Gryba, Kassian, and Maroon to address the toughness issues with this team. They already had guys like Hendricks and even Pouliot, who I think play that "heavy" game you're looking for. Throw in Nurse next year and you're looking at at least one "heavy" player on each of the forward lines and 2 of the defence pairings (assuming Gryba is re-signed). That looks like pretty good balance to me.

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that they need more skill on their back end. As it is, they don't have 3 guys that can consistently complete a 5 foot pass. That's an issue.

There's another number on that page that has a bigger impact than their size. Average age. The Oilers rank 29th (2nd youngest team in the league). Oilers have been notorious for putting guys in positions before they were ready, and I think they made a huge mistake this past summer assuming guys like Nurse and Reinhart were ready and not improving their defence. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake this year.


I think willingness to push back is confused with size. Size is nothing if you're not willing to use it. A team full or Purcell's, Pouliot's and stick waving Mark Fayne's would be a disaster. Being small doesn't matter if you work out your lower body and core like a maniac and are willing to battle like a Datsyuk, Crosby or even a Marchand or Andrew Shaw and no one can get you off your feet. Everyone says Chicago is an example that size doesn't matter, but they are still an example that a willingness to engage physically and battle matters.


You are right, Chicago is the team people like to point too that are really good but not huge. BUT, how much of a drop does a Kane do in their weight average when he's 177lbs? What's Kane in the league? Top 10 player? How many teams have a players as good as Kane? Not very many.

Keith, is 192lbs. He's going to drop their average He's won 2 Norris trophy's, 2 Olympic Gold medals. How many teams have a Keith?

Rookie sensation Panarin is 170lbs. He drops the Hawks weight average. I assume he's not a flash in the pan and at least a decent top 6 guy in the league. How many teams don't have a Panarin on their team?

I am not the type that believes size is the end all be all. You can't have a bunch of Gadzic's and win. But where size comes into play is in that middle area where most of the players are. The area being you are a good player but not an elite player. Like mentioned, if you are a smaller player and you aren't an elite player, you need to be willing to get in there and mix it up. The reason is if you put up a decent big player, vs a decent small player, unless the small player is just a relentless worker and battles and battles, the big player is going to win most battles. The issue with the Oilers is they have and had had a lot of smaller players who play critical roles who aren't relentless battlers. Eberle is a really good, smaller player but he's not a relentless battler. Yak is a smaller player and was supposed to be a really good player but he's not a relentless battler. Nuge is a good player and he's not a relentless battler. There are guys in their lower lines that fall into that. There are guys on their defense that fall into that. If Eberle was like Marchand who's a do what it takes to succeed player there would be no issue, but he's not.

So if your smaller players aren't the elite of the elite like a Kane who can get away with not be relentless battler because he's SOOO good, then they better have a ton of battle in them. If they don't then you have to bring in different guys.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672140 is a reply to message #672138 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 10:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1968
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

1 Cup

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 09:02


You are right, Chicago is the team people like to point too that are really good but not huge. BUT, how much of a drop does a Kane do in their weight average when he's 177lbs? What's Kane in the league? Top 10 player? How many teams have a players as good as Kane? Not very many.

Keith, is 192lbs. He's going to drop their average He's won 2 Norris trophy's, 2 Olympic Gold medals. How many teams have a Keith?

Rookie sensation Panarin is 170lbs. He drops the Hawks weight average. I assume he's not a flash in the pan and at least a decent top 6 guy in the league. How many teams don't have a Panarin on their team?

I am not the type that believes size is the end all be all. You can't have a bunch of Gadzic's and win. But where size comes into play is in that middle area where most of the players are. The area being you are a good player but not an elite player. Like mentioned, if you are a smaller player and you aren't an elite player, you need to be willing to get in there and mix it up. The reason is if you put up a decent big player, vs a decent small player, unless the small player is just a relentless worker and battles and battles, the big player is going to win most battles. The issue with the Oilers is they have and had had a lot of smaller players who play critical roles who aren't relentless battlers. Eberle is a really good, smaller player but he's not a relentless battler. Yak is a smaller player and was supposed to be a really good player but he's not a relentless battler. Nuge is a good player and he's not a relentless battler. There are guys in their lower lines that fall into that. There are guys on their defense that fall into that. If Eberle was like Marchand who's a do what it takes to succeed player there would be no issue, but he's not.

So if your smaller players aren't the elite of the elite like a Kane who can get away with not be relentless battler because he's SOOO good, then they better have a ton of battle in them. If they don't then you have to bring in different guys.


So you're okay if you have Panarin on your team, but not Eberle? You've totally lost me now. Panarin only has one season under his belt, but they score at pretty similar rates. And I don't think either would be accused of being a beast defensively.

Again, I'm not saying that the Oilers haven't had issues with toughness. And I'm not a person that thinks it doesn't matter and that having 6 Mark Fayne's is a good idea because his Corsi is decent.

I'm just saying I think Chiarelli has already taken steps to address it (Kassian, Maroon, Gryba, etc.), to the point where the Oilers can legitimately have a "heavy" player on each line. Could they add one more guy like that to their defence? For sure. But honestly, after watching the Oilers try to break out of their own end and seeing pass after pass end up in the forwards feet, and then have the puck turned back the other way because the defence literally couldn't make a 5 foot pass, I think their main issue isn't that they are too passive or small.



Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19 pace: 232 GF / 268 GA (-36)

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672141 is a reply to message #672140 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 10:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3675
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Goose wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 10:15

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 06 June 2016 09:02


You are right, Chicago is the team people like to point too that are really good but not huge. BUT, how much of a drop does a Kane do in their weight average when he's 177lbs? What's Kane in the league? Top 10 player? How many teams have a players as good as Kane? Not very many.

Keith, is 192lbs. He's going to drop their average He's won 2 Norris trophy's, 2 Olympic Gold medals. How many teams have a Keith?

Rookie sensation Panarin is 170lbs. He drops the Hawks weight average. I assume he's not a flash in the pan and at least a decent top 6 guy in the league. How many teams don't have a Panarin on their team?

I am not the type that believes size is the end all be all. You can't have a bunch of Gadzic's and win. But where size comes into play is in that middle area where most of the players are. The area being you are a good player but not an elite player. Like mentioned, if you are a smaller player and you aren't an elite player, you need to be willing to get in there and mix it up. The reason is if you put up a decent big player, vs a decent small player, unless the small player is just a relentless worker and battles and battles, the big player is going to win most battles. The issue with the Oilers is they have and had had a lot of smaller players who play critical roles who aren't relentless battlers. Eberle is a really good, smaller player but he's not a relentless battler. Yak is a smaller player and was supposed to be a really good player but he's not a relentless battler. Nuge is a good player and he's not a relentless battler. There are guys in their lower lines that fall into that. There are guys on their defense that fall into that. If Eberle was like Marchand who's a do what it takes to succeed player there would be no issue, but he's not.

So if your smaller players aren't the elite of the elite like a Kane who can get away with not be relentless battler because he's SOOO good, then they better have a ton of battle in them. If they don't then you have to bring in different guys.


So you're okay if you have Panarin on your team, but not Eberle? You've totally lost me now. Panarin only has one season under his belt, but they score at pretty similar rates. And I don't think either would be accused of being a beast defensively.

Again, I'm not saying that the Oilers haven't had issues with toughness. And I'm not a person that thinks it doesn't matter and that having 6 Mark Fayne's is a good idea because his Corsi is decent.

I'm just saying I think Chiarelli has already taken steps to address it (Kassian, Maroon, Gryba, etc.), to the point where the Oilers can legitimately have a "heavy" player on each line. Could they add one more guy like that to their defence? For sure. But honestly, after watching the Oilers try to break out of their own end and seeing pass after pass end up in the forwards feet, and then have the puck turned back the other way because the defence literally couldn't make a 5 foot pass, I think their main issue isn't that they are too passive or small.


I'm not saying that I would take Panarin over Eberle. What I am saying is when you are a 170lbs, you are going to drop your teams weight average significantly. I'm also saying that on a lot of teams, Panarin is a WAY better player at least this past season than what many of the teams you listed in your "top 5" have. Arizona and Buffalo were very heavy but they also weren't a very good team talent wise. So like I said, you can't dress a team full of big, heavy, 3rd and 4th liners like Arizona did and win because you don't have enough talent. At the same time, if a team like the Oilers have to many Eberle/Panarin's who are small players that don't go near the corners or battle it out, you aren't going to win either. You have to have a balance. I think the Oilers over the years have been too far the other way being that they have had too main smaller, skilled guys or guys not willing to battle. There was a time when the Oilers top 6 had Eberle, Nuge, Purcell, Yak all in the lineup at the same time. 4 out of the 6 players in the top 6 that are unwilling to battle it out. You can't win.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672130 is a reply to message #672094 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 09:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rocksteady  is currently offline Rocksteady
Messages: 2248
Registered: March 2007

2 Cups

Team Dean wrote on Sat, 04 June 2016 12:00

I'm really starting to worry that Chia doesnt know what he's doing. Losing two valuable picks to bring in Reinhart only to lose him for nothing to expansion?
Trading Taylor Hall, best LW in the game, to bring in Looch, who will fall off a cliff next year?

Stupid. I'm starting to think he shoots from the hip like MacT did, doesnt listen to analytics.


Hold on there cowboy, he hasn't traded Hall for Lucic or anything like that.. so I think we can save the MacT=Chia moniker for later.

We know Chia likes a huge heavy presence, he likes the big boys that can play and Lucic can certainly add that factor, that said his next deal he'll want to carry to the end of career, and he wants to be paid - you can bet on that. I'm not unearthing anything new here.

I have always hated the Reinhart trade, trading the 16th overall for him, a reclamation project. The deal was made to strike it rich and unfortunately the former oil king hasn't lived up to the hype. He'll be down on the far yet again this season with sprinkling in the regs to bolster his confidence. I hope he figures out his size and becomes the player that he certainly can be.

Hall you just don't trade. Not now, maybe never. Eberle is the best asset to get something decent in return, he won't net that 5 star defender we need, but I bet we can get a top 4 on a decent deal.

Failing that, it's time to start circling the teams in cap hell and swoop in and "save" a couple.




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

Generally Disappointed.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672180 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Mon, 06 June 2016 20:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gator21  is currently offline Gator21
Messages: 429
Registered: February 2016
Location: Kelowna, BC

No Cups

I'd be ok with signing him at 6 mil x 5 years, anything more than that starts to get a bit dicey. The nice thing about signing Lucic is that we could potentially get that Pouliot+Yak for Vatanen deal done without creating a hole on the wing.


Death by a Thousand Cuts

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672186 is a reply to message #672180 ]
Tue, 07 June 2016 08:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3675
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Based on what was talked about last night on Gregor's show. Lucic is looking for 6 mill for 6 years. Apparently the Kings are offering 5.5 for 4 years. I could handle 5.5 mill over 4years. I could stomach 6 mill for 4 years. The big thing for me is the term.

Willis is rattling off how Pouliot is a better, more productive player than Lucic. I like Pouliot, I think he was actually one of the few good moves that Mac T made and he's been a good Oiler WHEN HE PLAYS. The problem is he doesn't play. 58 games in his first year, 55 games this past year. Lucic missed 2 games over the last 2 years. Over their careers. Pouliot at 30 has played 484 games and has 230 pts. So .475 pts/game. Lucic at 28 has played 647 games, 397 pts. So .614 pts per game. That doesn't include Lucic is more physical, tougher and more intimidating. Even over the past 2 seasons, Pouliot's most productive, Pouliot and Lucic are tied for pts/game at .61. So I'm struggling to see how Pouliot is more productive. The offensive numbers don't say it. Games played don't say it. Nothing does.

[Updated on: Tue, 07 June 2016 08:54]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672196 is a reply to message #672186 ]
Tue, 07 June 2016 10:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1968
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

1 Cup

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 June 2016 07:13


So I'm struggling to see how Pouliot is more productive. The offensive numbers don't say it. Games played don't say it. Nothing does.


Willis was looking at Pts/60 to show that Pouliot was more productive.

I can't find the tweet now, but it's in this article:
http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/ cult-of-hockey-the-best-case-scenario-for-the-oilers-and-can ucks-would-see-milan-lucic-re-sign-with-the-kings

2012-16
Pouliot 1.98pts/60 5x5
Lucic 1.95pts/60 5x5

Of course what he doesn't tell you is that if you only go back two years, or three years, Lucic's numbers are actually better. But that doesn't fit his story. This is probably the thing that bothers me the most about the analytics crowd. They try to pretend that they're totally objective, and that the numbers never lie, but it's all in how you frame it.

The biggest reason I would argue in bringing in Lucic over Pouliot is the contract. Pouliot is signed for 3 more years at $4MM per. That's pretty good value for what he brings. I would rather spend the extra $2M that Lucic is going to cost you on the defence.



Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19 pace: 232 GF / 268 GA (-36)

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672198 is a reply to message #672196 ]
Tue, 07 June 2016 11:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3675
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

I totally agree with you on the advances stats. I see them as a tool but they sure seem selective in what they say and what they use to make their stats work. Plus there is SOOO much to hockey that is really hard to put a stat too.

My big concern about Lucic is the term. I personally think he's worth the 2 mill more in dollars over Pouliot. The advanced stats crowd rave about Pouliot on McDavid's wing. Well Lucic would be an upgrade. He would easily match offense, the numbers say he would but having a guy like that on the line to look out for McDavid would be massive. I know gone are the days of fighting all the time and needing a goon. BUT there is still a ton of gamesmanship. Their is still all the cheap, chippy crap. McDavid will be a target so having a guy like a Lucic who can finish, create screen the goalie, dig pucks out BUT also look out for McDavid. Someone takes a shot at McDavid, Lucic is there to look out for him. He's physical, he's intimidating and he makes the other team look over their shoulders. That has value. Pouliot will never do that. People make it sound like Lucic is this old man. He's 28. So if the Oilers could sign Lucic for 3-4 yrs a 6 mill, I'd be Ok with that. The problem is I don't know if he would take that term.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672207 is a reply to message #672198 ]
Tue, 07 June 2016 13:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jakey  is currently offline Jakey
Messages: 349
Registered: November 2007
Location: Leduc

No Cups

If Lucic goes to market and we are in on him I expect Pouliot to be traded and that money plus a bit to be spent on Lucic. To me you can't have both and put a bunch of money into the D as well. I would guess we would get a very good 3rd line center or a prospect that is just about ready for the NHL. Then sign Lucic to 5 years x $5.75 per year. That is pretty much the max that I would entertain. Plus, Lucic should really like the prospect of playing with McDavid. He might just jump all over that.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672211 is a reply to message #672207 ]
Tue, 07 June 2016 13:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NetBOG  is currently offline NetBOG
Messages: 2163
Registered: January 2006
Location: Parts Unknown

2 Cups

Jakey wrote on Tue, 07 June 2016 13:18

If Lucic goes to market and we are in on him I expect Pouliot to be traded and that money plus a bit to be spent on Lucic. To me you can't have both and put a bunch of money into the D as well. I would guess we would get a very good 3rd line center or a prospect that is just about ready for the NHL. Then sign Lucic to 5 years x $5.75 per year. That is pretty much the max that I would entertain. Plus, Lucic should really like the prospect of playing with McDavid. He might just jump all over that.


The Oilers dealing Pouliot for cheap youth or using him as a sweetener on a bigger deal then signing Lucic would be a very very smart way to make this team better and younger.

Unlike some other people on this board, I'm a huge fan of what Pouliot has done with the Oilers, but I think Lucic is a better player for this team.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672213 is a reply to message #672211 ]
Tue, 07 June 2016 16:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PoolParty  is currently offline PoolParty
Messages: 164
Registered: November 2009
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Lucic would bring some MEAN to the oilers and that is a good thing.


This forum has turned into a pessimistic cesspool of bitching and whining about the same topics consistently.

#Adam #Kr55 #CrusaderPi

#RDOilerfan is possibly reformed, time will tell.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672214 is a reply to message #672213 ]
Tue, 07 June 2016 19:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 2737
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

2 Cups

Sure, mean can be good, but at what price?

No one is saying that Lucic would be a bad thing, his price might be though.



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: The Case Against Lucic [message #672215 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Tue, 07 June 2016 22:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 4805
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

Chia also has to have an eye to what will be available for UFA next year, its not like he's rolling into the Stanley Cup Finals next year anyway. He needs to improve this year, but, still plan for 2, 3 years away. Something Oilers haven't done for a while.

Maybe you hold off on M. Lucic, save the cap for an all in for B. Burns next summer? He's a true No.1 D man, a "real" Norris candidate. Sharks are an aging team, Marleau, Thornton, might be gone, if they falter next season, could be a Shark rebuild, maybe Burns looks at options and goes to market. If the Oilers have a good year, maybe he considers heading north, he played in Minnesota all those years, didn't seem to mind a real winter.

He'l be pricey, Subban money, but he won't require player assets, and he's better than Subban IMHO, although older, but a lot of mileage left.



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, K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672222 is a reply to message #672215 ]
Wed, 08 June 2016 10:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rocksteady  is currently offline Rocksteady
Messages: 2248
Registered: March 2007

2 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 07 June 2016 22:10

Chia also has to have an eye to what will be available for UFA next year, its not like he's rolling into the Stanley Cup Finals next year anyway. He needs to improve this year, but, still plan for 2, 3 years away. Something Oilers haven't done for a while.

Maybe you hold off on M. Lucic, save the cap for an all in for B. Burns next summer? He's a true No.1 D man, a "real" Norris candidate. Sharks are an aging team, Marleau, Thornton, might be gone, if they falter next season, could be a Shark rebuild, maybe Burns looks at options and goes to market. If the Oilers have a good year, maybe he considers heading north, he played in Minnesota all those years, didn't seem to mind a real winter.

He'l be pricey, Subban money, but he won't require player assets, and he's better than Subban IMHO, although older, but a lot of mileage left.



Off topic a bit wasn't Burns on a camp tryout when SJ took a look at him? He's found money.



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

Generally Disappointed.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672224 is a reply to message #672222 ]
Wed, 08 June 2016 10:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 2736
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Rocksteady wrote on Wed, 08 June 2016 10:04

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 07 June 2016 22:10

Chia also has to have an eye to what will be available for UFA next year, its not like he's rolling into the Stanley Cup Finals next year anyway. He needs to improve this year, but, still plan for 2, 3 years away. Something Oilers haven't done for a while.

Maybe you hold off on M. Lucic, save the cap for an all in for B. Burns next summer? He's a true No.1 D man, a "real" Norris candidate. Sharks are an aging team, Marleau, Thornton, might be gone, if they falter next season, could be a Shark rebuild, maybe Burns looks at options and goes to market. If the Oilers have a good year, maybe he considers heading north, he played in Minnesota all those years, didn't seem to mind a real winter.

He'l be pricey, Subban money, but he won't require player assets, and he's better than Subban IMHO, although older, but a lot of mileage left.



Off topic a bit wasn't Burns on a camp tryout when SJ took a look at him? He's found money.


I don't think so. He was traded for Devin Setoguchi, Charlie Coyle, and a first round pick. At the time, the deal didn't look that terrible. Then Burns grew incredibly as a player, and Setoguchi fell off the map. Coyle's useful, but not worth Brent Burns. Minnesota must be regretting that trade in a major way.

As for looking to next summer and saving money for Burns... I don't like that strategy. These type of defensemen never make it to UFA. When was the last defenseman of Burns-calibre to become a free agent? It just doesn't happen. I expect SJ will either begin extension talks or have an extension in place within a handful of weeks after the Finals. That said, IF it doesn't look like they'll be able to sign him, they'll probably try to trade him to a team that thinks they can get him to sign.

Actually, to be honest, Victor Hedman is probably the defenseman I would most want from next year's crop of UFAs. I don't expect either Hedman or Burns to make it to free agency, but Chiarelli would be wise over the next few months to keep in touch with both Yzerman and Wilson so that if extension talks go south, he's the first to know.

But I don't think you can base your strategy upon what COULD happen next summer, especially if the odds of it actually happening are quite slim. The most you should do is try to position yourself so that you have some flexibility and ability to make moves should that scenario happen.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672226 is a reply to message #672224 ]
Wed, 08 June 2016 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 4805
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 08 June 2016 09:14

Rocksteady wrote on Wed, 08 June 2016 10:04

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 07 June 2016 22:10

Chia also has to have an eye to what will be available for UFA next year, its not like he's rolling into the Stanley Cup Finals next year anyway. He needs to improve this year, but, still plan for 2, 3 years away. Something Oilers haven't done for a while.

Maybe you hold off on M. Lucic, save the cap for an all in for B. Burns next summer? He's a true No.1 D man, a "real" Norris candidate. Sharks are an aging team, Marleau, Thornton, might be gone, if they falter next season, could be a Shark rebuild, maybe Burns looks at options and goes to market. If the Oilers have a good year, maybe he considers heading north, he played in Minnesota all those years, didn't seem to mind a real winter.

He'l be pricey, Subban money, but he won't require player assets, and he's better than Subban IMHO, although older, but a lot of mileage left.



Off topic a bit wasn't Burns on a camp tryout when SJ took a look at him? He's found money.


I don't think so. He was traded for Devin Setoguchi, Charlie Coyle, and a first round pick. At the time, the deal didn't look that terrible. Then Burns grew incredibly as a player, and Setoguchi fell off the map. Coyle's useful, but not worth Brent Burns. Minnesota must be regretting that trade in a major way.

As for looking to next summer and saving money for Burns... I don't like that strategy. These type of defensemen never make it to UFA. When was the last defenseman of Burns-calibre to become a free agent? It just doesn't happen. I expect SJ will either begin extension talks or have an extension in place within a handful of weeks after the Finals. That said, IF it doesn't look like they'll be able to sign him, they'll probably try to trade him to a team that thinks they can get him to sign.

Actually, to be honest, Victor Hedman is probably the defenseman I would most want from next year's crop of UFAs. I don't expect either Hedman or Burns to make it to free agency, but Chiarelli would be wise over the next few months to keep in touch with both Yzerman and Wilson so that if extension talks go south, he's the first to know.

But I don't think you can base your strategy upon what COULD happen next summer, especially if the odds of it actually happening are quite slim. The most you should do is try to position yourself so that you have some flexibility and ability to make moves should that scenario happen.


Yeah that trade was an all time fleece by SJ, probably helped Wilson keep his job. I already had a high opinion of Burns after watching him in a couple of World Championships, shutdown D, and super mobile, and I remember thinking Minnesota lost the trade, as Setoguchi was already on a slide.

I also remember thinking why weren't the Oilers in on that one.. freaking Tambo!! The most important ability for a sports team's management is player evaluation, Oilers have been crap for years, dud after dud, hopefully after Chiarelli cleaned house, the Oiler staff, including Chiarelli, have better evaluation skill.

That's the type of trade the Oilers need to make to get a No.1 D man, get a guy you believe has potential to be a No.1, but isn't high profile yet. Trying to trade for existing No.1 D men will be a guaranteed overpay, you fill a hole, but you'll create bigger holes, one step forward, two back, sucker move. Getting Burns UFA would be a great achievement, one place where a UFA high cap salary would be worth it.



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, K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672916 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 13:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
Kings GM Dean Lombardi also adding that a letter has gone out officially authorizing Lucic camp to talk to other 29 teams right away


Looks like it's game on for Lucic to pick a new home.



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672941 is a reply to message #672916 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 16:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 13:31

Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
Kings GM Dean Lombardi also adding that a letter has gone out officially authorizing Lucic camp to talk to other 29 teams right away


Looks like it's game on for Lucic to pick a new home.


Clever move by the Kings. If someone strikes a tentative deal with Lucic, they'll want to get it signed fast, in case anyone else sweet talks him later. They're more likely to be willing to give up a decent pick to lock him up ahead of July 1 to short-circuit that possibility.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672945 is a reply to message #672941 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 16:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pseudoreality  is currently offline Pseudoreality
Messages: 523
Registered: December 2002
Location: Yellowknife

No Cups

I honestly say the Oilers have a good chance at signing him. They'll have to pay, but it looks like that's what his priority is right now and he's the type of player the Oilers have been wanting for a long time.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672949 is a reply to message #672945 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 18:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jds308  is currently offline jds308
Messages: 1050
Registered: September 2007
Location: Summerland

1 Cup

I'm not gonna lie, the thought of having a Lucic, Maroon, and Kassian in the top 9 is intriguing to say the least. Add in Leon and Pouliot (if he hangs around) and that is a lot more size we've had in the top 9 possibly ever.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672954 is a reply to message #672949 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 19:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260  is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 1640
Registered: November 2007

1 Cup

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


How could one doubt the braintrust of 6 Cups Kevin Lowe, MacT's E-MBA from Queens, Paul Coffey's skills coach resume, and drunk Gretzky?

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672955 is a reply to message #672954 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 20:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nullterm  is currently offline nullterm
Messages: 4879
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

4 Cups

smyth260 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 18:34

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


Agree. Save the cap for our centers and (hypothetical) defence. We're made no progress building from the wings.



Illegitimi non carborundum.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672957 is a reply to message #672955 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 21:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nullterm  is currently offline nullterm
Messages: 4879
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

4 Cups

Ahem...

Mike Commodore ‏@commie22 42m42 minutes ago
Random tweet....IMO...Milan Lucic will be playing for the Oilers next year.

Mike Commodore ‏@commie22 30m30 minutes ago
FA's did hate Edmonton..but a brand new arena and McDavid makes Edmonton attraction elevate big time.

Mike Commodore ‏@commie22 28m28 minutes ago
#PackYourShht And fly your big ass to Edmonton Milan Lucic.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie 18m18 minutes ago
Now that Milan Lucic is technically on open market, I expect EDM to have significant interest in him and he will have interest in EDM.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie 16m16 minutes ago
Lots of moving parts on negotiations so way too early to handicap it but no doubt in my mind EDM is going to be eager to explore it.



Illegitimi non carborundum.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672958 is a reply to message #672955 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 21:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

nullterm wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:59

smyth260 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 18:34

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


Agree. Save the cap for our centers and (hypothetical) defence. We're made no progress building from the wings.


I'll be honest, I'm terrified right now what the Oilers will do this week. I really fear we are going to see Lucic signed plus a pick traded to LA to get him locked up early. Then we will trade Hall for Hamonic and something mediocre and the media in Edmonton will say it's like we are trading Hall for Lucic and Hamonic. We still won't have a puck mover on defence and after a couple decent (ie 50 point) seasons Lucic will start breaking down, missing more and more games and declining quickly.

Meanwhile Hall will be a perrenial all-star in Long Island. And the Oiler will continue to suck in perpetuity as we waste years of McDavid's career. But hey, we be gritty and hard to play against!



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672966 is a reply to message #672958 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 21:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DUFFMAN  is currently offline DUFFMAN
Messages: 216
Registered: July 2014

No Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 21:09

Meanwhile Hall will be a perrenial all-star in Long Island. And the Oiler will continue to suck in perpetuity as we waste years of McDavid's career. But hey, we be gritty and hard to play against!



The word you are looking for is, I believe, gritensity.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672981 is a reply to message #672958 ]
Wed, 22 June 2016 23:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 4805
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:09

nullterm wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:59

smyth260 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 18:34

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


Agree. Save the cap for our centers and (hypothetical) defence. We're made no progress building from the wings.


I'll be honest, I'm terrified right now what the Oilers will do this week. I really fear we are going to see Lucic signed plus a pick traded to LA to get him locked up early. Then we will trade Hall for Hamonic and something mediocre and the media in Edmonton will say it's like we are trading Hall for Lucic and Hamonic. We still won't have a puck mover on defence and after a couple decent (ie 50 point) seasons Lucic will start breaking down, missing more and more games and declining quickly.

Meanwhile Hall will be a perrenial all-star in Long Island. And the Oiler will continue to suck in perpetuity as we waste years of McDavid's career. But hey, we be gritty and hard to play against!



Me too.
Between Lucic added, and losing Hall, Hall would be worse though. At least with a bad contract you have things you can do to reduce the effects. Once Hall is gone, he's gone. Unless a Norris nominee is coming back, you hold on to him as tight as you can!



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, K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672988 is a reply to message #672981 ]
Thu, 23 June 2016 07:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 23:39

Adam wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:09

nullterm wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:59

smyth260 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 18:34

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


Agree. Save the cap for our centers and (hypothetical) defence. We're made no progress building from the wings.


I'll be honest, I'm terrified right now what the Oilers will do this week. I really fear we are going to see Lucic signed plus a pick traded to LA to get him locked up early. Then we will trade Hall for Hamonic and something mediocre and the media in Edmonton will say it's like we are trading Hall for Lucic and Hamonic. We still won't have a puck mover on defence and after a couple decent (ie 50 point) seasons Lucic will start breaking down, missing more and more games and declining quickly.

Meanwhile Hall will be a perrenial all-star in Long Island. And the Oiler will continue to suck in perpetuity as we waste years of McDavid's career. But hey, we be gritty and hard to play against!



Me too.
Between Lucic added, and losing Hall, Hall would be worse though. At least with a bad contract you have things you can do to reduce the effects. Once Hall is gone, he's gone. Unless a Norris nominee is coming back, you hold on to him as tight as you can!


You want to trade Hall for Schultz?

I do completely agree. The Oilers only get one chance at it if we trade one of the big guns, so it has to be the right deal if they do it.

I'm really happy to see the Oilers better at negotiating contracts than we've ever seen before, but this next trade may define the Chiarelli era in Edmonton. It has to be a good one.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672995 is a reply to message #672988 ]
Thu, 23 June 2016 08:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McDavid97  is currently offline McDavid97
Messages: 1150
Registered: July 2007

1 Cup

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 07:59

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 23:39

Adam wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:09

nullterm wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:59

smyth260 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 18:34

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


Agree. Save the cap for our centers and (hypothetical) defence. We're made no progress building from the wings.


I'll be honest, I'm terrified right now what the Oilers will do this week. I really fear we are going to see Lucic signed plus a pick traded to LA to get him locked up early. Then we will trade Hall for Hamonic and something mediocre and the media in Edmonton will say it's like we are trading Hall for Lucic and Hamonic. We still won't have a puck mover on defence and after a couple decent (ie 50 point) seasons Lucic will start breaking down, missing more and more games and declining quickly.

Meanwhile Hall will be a perrenial all-star in Long Island. And the Oiler will continue to suck in perpetuity as we waste years of McDavid's career. But hey, we be gritty and hard to play against!



Me too.
Between Lucic added, and losing Hall, Hall would be worse though. At least with a bad contract you have things you can do to reduce the effects. Once Hall is gone, he's gone. Unless a Norris nominee is coming back, you hold on to him as tight as you can!


You want to trade Hall for Schultz?

I do completely agree. The Oilers only get one chance at it if we trade one of the big guns, so it has to be the right deal if they do it.

I'm really happy to see the Oilers better at negotiating contracts than we've ever seen before, but this next trade may define the Chiarelli era in Edmonton. It has to be a good one.


Yep I'm scared too. No Lucic unless it is 4 years, 5 years max and under $6M. I also don't want to lose a trade with Hall going the other way. We need defense but not at the cost of Hall for lesser pieces.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672998 is a reply to message #672995 ]
Thu, 23 June 2016 08:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

McDavid97 wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 08:32

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 07:59

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 23:39

Adam wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:09

nullterm wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:59

smyth260 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 18:34

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


Agree. Save the cap for our centers and (hypothetical) defence. We're made no progress building from the wings.


I'll be honest, I'm terrified right now what the Oilers will do this week. I really fear we are going to see Lucic signed plus a pick traded to LA to get him locked up early. Then we will trade Hall for Hamonic and something mediocre and the media in Edmonton will say it's like we are trading Hall for Lucic and Hamonic. We still won't have a puck mover on defence and after a couple decent (ie 50 point) seasons Lucic will start breaking down, missing more and more games and declining quickly.

Meanwhile Hall will be a perrenial all-star in Long Island. And the Oiler will continue to suck in perpetuity as we waste years of McDavid's career. But hey, we be gritty and hard to play against!



Me too.
Between Lucic added, and losing Hall, Hall would be worse though. At least with a bad contract you have things you can do to reduce the effects. Once Hall is gone, he's gone. Unless a Norris nominee is coming back, you hold on to him as tight as you can!


You want to trade Hall for Schultz?

I do completely agree. The Oilers only get one chance at it if we trade one of the big guns, so it has to be the right deal if they do it.

I'm really happy to see the Oilers better at negotiating contracts than we've ever seen before, but this next trade may define the Chiarelli era in Edmonton. It has to be a good one.


Yep I'm scared too. No Lucic unless it is 4 years, 5 years max and under $6M. I also don't want to lose a trade with Hall going the other way. We need defense but not at the cost of Hall for lesser pieces.


I'd be okay with signing Lucic to a higher number if it was a short deal, but if I'm his agent, I'm telling him that he should sign for the biggest, longest contract he can get. That's probably in the $35-40MM range. Someone is going to give him a huge deal, and if it's us?

Well, he doesn't really address the team needs - he's a left shot, left winger. The only reason you do the deal with him is if you believe you need to move a left-shot left winger for the piece you need.

Does anyone think that Pouliot is likely to be the trading chip that gets us a really good defenceman?

I think that most GMs probably even know that the long deal for Lucic is problematic, but they figure A) it's the price they'll have to pay and B) maybe they can get rid of the contract at the end.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #717913 is a reply to message #672998 ]
Thu, 23 August 2018 17:35 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
CrudeRemarks  is currently offline CrudeRemarks
Messages: 500
Registered: November 2010
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 08:46

McDavid97 wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 08:32

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 07:59

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 23:39

Adam wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:09

nullterm wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:59

smyth260 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 18:34

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


Agree. Save the cap for our centers and (hypothetical) defence. We're made no progress building from the wings.


I'll be honest, I'm terrified right now what the Oilers will do this week. I really fear we are going to see Lucic signed plus a pick traded to LA to get him locked up early. Then we will trade Hall for Hamonic and something mediocre and the media in Edmonton will say it's like we are trading Hall for Lucic and Hamonic. We still won't have a puck mover on defence and after a couple decent (ie 50 point) seasons Lucic will start breaking down, missing more and more games and declining quickly.

Meanwhile Hall will be a perrenial all-star in Long Island. And the Oiler will continue to suck in perpetuity as we waste years of McDavid's career. But hey, we be gritty and hard to play against!



Me too.
Between Lucic added, and losing Hall, Hall would be worse though. At least with a bad contract you have things you can do to reduce the effects. Once Hall is gone, he's gone. Unless a Norris nominee is coming back, you hold on to him as tight as you can!


You want to trade Hall for Schultz?

I do completely agree. The Oilers only get one chance at it if we trade one of the big guns, so it has to be the right deal if they do it.

I'm really happy to see the Oilers better at negotiating contracts than we've ever seen before, but this next trade may define the Chiarelli era in Edmonton. It has to be a good one.


Yep I'm scared too. No Lucic unless it is 4 years, 5 years max and under $6M. I also don't want to lose a trade with Hall going the other way. We need defense but not at the cost of Hall for lesser pieces.


I'd be okay with signing Lucic to a higher number if it was a short deal, but if I'm his agent, I'm telling him that he should sign for the biggest, longest contract he can get. That's probably in the $35-40MM range. Someone is going to give him a huge deal, and if it's us?

Well, he doesn't really address the team needs - he's a left shot, left winger. The only reason you do the deal with him is if you believe you need to move a left-shot left winger for the piece you need.

Does anyone think that Pouliot is likely to be the trading chip that gets us a really good defenceman?

I think that most GMs probably even know that the long deal for Lucic is problematic, but they figure A) it's the price they'll have to pay and B) maybe they can get rid of the contract at the end.

Did you pat yourself on the back for nailing this "price you have to pay" quote at the time?



You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you can get a lottery pick.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #717914 is a reply to message #717913 ]
Thu, 23 August 2018 18:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrudeRemarks wrote on Thu, 23 August 2018 17:35

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 08:46

McDavid97 wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 08:32

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 June 2016 07:59

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 23:39

Adam wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:09

nullterm wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 20:59

smyth260 wrote on Wed, 22 June 2016 18:34

I am the opposite. I am pretty terrified of having an expensive aging winger when the team has a lot of younger (and possibly cheaper) ones already. I think any cap space has to go to defense at this point.


Agree. Save the cap for our centers and (hypothetical) defence. We're made no progress building from the wings.


I'll be honest, I'm terrified right now what the Oilers will do this week. I really fear we are going to see Lucic signed plus a pick traded to LA to get him locked up early. Then we will trade Hall for Hamonic and something mediocre and the media in Edmonton will say it's like we are trading Hall for Lucic and Hamonic. We still won't have a puck mover on defence and after a couple decent (ie 50 point) seasons Lucic will start breaking down, missing more and more games and declining quickly.

Meanwhile Hall will be a perrenial all-star in Long Island. And the Oiler will continue to suck in perpetuity as we waste years of McDavid's career. But hey, we be gritty and hard to play against!



Me too.
Between Lucic added, and losing Hall, Hall would be worse though. At least with a bad contract you have things you can do to reduce the effects. Once Hall is gone, he's gone. Unless a Norris nominee is coming back, you hold on to him as tight as you can!


You want to trade Hall for Schultz?

I do completely agree. The Oilers only get one chance at it if we trade one of the big guns, so it has to be the right deal if they do it.

I'm really happy to see the Oilers better at negotiating contracts than we've ever seen before, but this next trade may define the Chiarelli era in Edmonton. It has to be a good one.


Yep I'm scared too. No Lucic unless it is 4 years, 5 years max and under $6M. I also don't want to lose a trade with Hall going the other way. We need defense but not at the cost of Hall for lesser pieces.


I'd be okay with signing Lucic to a higher number if it was a short deal, but if I'm his agent, I'm telling him that he should sign for the biggest, longest contract he can get. That's probably in the $35-40MM range. Someone is going to give him a huge deal, and if it's us?

Well, he doesn't really address the team needs - he's a left shot, left winger. The only reason you do the deal with him is if you believe you need to move a left-shot left winger for the piece you need.

Does anyone think that Pouliot is likely to be the trading chip that gets us a really good defenceman?

I think that most GMs probably even know that the long deal for Lucic is problematic, but they figure A) it's the price they'll have to pay and B) maybe they can get rid of the contract at the end.

Did you pat yourself on the back for nailing this "price you have to pay" quote at the time?


HA HA HA!!! Wow...that one came back to haunt me.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

Pages (4): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  >  »]  
Previous Topic:Draisaitl for Karlsson
Next Topic:2018/2019 Oilers starting roster
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright © OilFans.com 1996-2019.
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