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
 The Case Against Lucic [message #665465]
Tue, 02 February 2016 10:17 Go to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

There's a huge amount of speculation around here that the Oilers might pursue Lucic as a UFA this summer. He's likely to get a long deal with a big pay cheque, and his offensive abilities paired with his mean streak would seem to match a lot of what the Oilers are missing. Add to that his history with Peter Chiarelli, and there's a chance that the Oilers could land a free agent whale. But should they?

From another thread, came this post (which got me thinking):
Kr55 wrote on Mon, 01 February 2016 23:20

Lucic is going to be a great Oiler. Just hope he will take a 5 year deal.

Chia said this team is too dependent on the rush to score. If you're gonna get some grit+skill, may as well also get it with an added dose of nastiness :)

No one knows how Lucic is gonna age. He's 28 this year. Some good trainers could help him have a lot of good year left. He's been really good for LA this year, playing his role to a T, and is one of their best corsi % guys on a team full of Corsi ninjas.


It's true that no one knows how he'll age. Not precisely. But we can look at other power forwards who played a similar physical game.

Todd Bertuzzi turned 28 during his peak season. He scored 97 points that year. The next season he missed 13 games to injury and was down to 60 points. After that, he rebounded to 71 as he turned 30...and he'd never get over 45 points in a season again. He was still a decent player through most of his 30s, but if he signed a long-term deal after his 28 year old season, the buyer would have been burned badly.

Cam Neely peaked earlier. His best seasons were in 1989-90 and 90-91 when he was 24 and 25 years old. He scored 92 and 91 points in those years, including in 90-91 when he only played 69 games! But like Bertuzzi, his body started to break down. He'd only play 22 games in the next two seasons combined. In his 28 year old season he'd manage 49 games and 74 points, but two seasons later his body was done and he had to call it a career.

John Leclair was a force as part of the Legion of Doom through his late 20s. When he was 26 & 27 he had back-to-back 97 point seasons, followed by an 87 point season at 28, a 90 point season at 29 and a 77 point 30-year old season. And then he drops off the map. Injury again takes a season away, as he plays just 16 games at age 31. He'd manage three more seasons in the 50 point range but never broke past 55 again.

Kevin Stevens was another big man with a bit of an edge to his game. He again peaks at age 26 with a huge 123 point season (with 254 PIMs!!!). The next two years he scores 111 and 88 points. Then just 50 points in 68 games as a 29 year old. He'd never get above 43 points again and once again his 30s was marked by injury-shortened seasons.

A few years earlier, Tim Kerr was one of the biggest, baddest power forwards in the league. The season he turned 24, he scored 93 points with the Flyers. Then 98 points, 84 points, 95 points. He'd miss the bulk of his 28 year old season with injury, playing just 8 games but returned with a vengeance at 29 to post 88 again. As a 30 year old, he'd again suffer injuries but score 48 points in just 40 games. It would be the most games he'd play in a season the rest of his career. His body broke down and he was done at 33 following a 22 game, 6 point campaign.

Now, I just picked the first names that came to my mind as I selected this data set, so it's possible that there's many others who share Lucic's style of game and have perservered well in to their 30s. At age 35, Mark Messier put up a 99 point season, for example. Messier is the second highest scorer in NHL history though, so I think of him more as a superstar player than a power forward (more along the comparable lines with Jagr, Forsberg & Lindros). I think he changed his game during his career as well. He wasn't nearly as physical in his 30s as he was in his early 20s. I'm not sure that Lucic has the skill set to evolve his game like that.

Lucic hasn't come close to being as productive as any of the players above, which may partly be due to era, but I think is at least in part because he's not the same level of player. That to me is an even bigger concern. These guys when they dropped off had 50+ or 40+ seasons, but where is Lucic's drop-off going to be? If he were to become a $7MM, 25 point guy, that's going to be a massive stress to a team's cap situation.

In short, if the Oilers were able to sign Lucic to a short-term deal, there might be a fit, but given the insanity we see each year around UFAs and the fact that Lucic will be one of the most sought after, I think he's almost guaranteed to sign a long-term deal for an exorbitant amount, and given the way all these comparables have dropped off, I would guess that he's going to make someone regret most of the years they give him after his 30th birthday.

[Updated on: Tue, 02 February 2016 11:11]


"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 #665474 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 10:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
messier11  is currently offline messier11
Messages: 259
Registered: July 2006
Location: Manitoba

No Cups

I think this is a fair analysis/comparison.

I have always been a Lucic fan, I like his edge, size and ability to help out offensively but I am to the point where I don't want him on my team solely because of $$.

I think term wise, 5 years is fair for a player of his age/experience but for the money he is likely going to get, he will end up being a boat anchor for someone financially.

I would still take the player at a team friendly number because of what he brings to the table but if he gets a player friendly contract, I don't want him.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665476 is a reply to message #665474 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 11:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
inverno76  is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 874
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

No Cups

Stevens had some drug issues
Neely had a horrible knee injury from a dirty Ulf Sameulsson hit.
Bertuzzi had back issues.
Leclair enjoyed Lindros as a line mate.

Possibly Bertuzzi's injury could be from his style of play. I don't like long term contracts for any player that's not considered elite. Lucic would be nice. 4 years max. I just factor in players getting comfortable as opposed to drop in play.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665477 is a reply to message #665476 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

inverno76 wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:22

Stevens had some drug issues
Neely had a horrible knee injury from a dirty Ulf Sameulsson hit.
Bertuzzi had back issues.
Leclair enjoyed Lindros as a line mate.

Possibly Bertuzzi's injury could be from his style of play. I don't like long term contracts for any player that's not considered elite. Lucic would be nice. 4 years max. I just factor in players getting comfortable as opposed to drop in play.


I'd bet money that Lucic gets a deal that's 6 or 7 years long this summer.

All of these guys had injury issues as they got later in their careers. That style of play is hard on the body. Backs and knees break down.

And if you're concern is that a player gets comfortable, give them a long-term, big money deal and see if there's not some level of comfort achieved. If you commit, say, $42MM over the next seven years to Lucic, I would guess that he's not going to be overly worried about his job for a long, long time.

Honestly, the only way Lucic doesn't sign a very long deal is if someone pays him something exorbitant for the next 2-3 years. I would expect that his agent's pretty aware that players of his ilk don't always have long careers and often see a steep decline when they hit 30, so he's going to be advising he get as much money as possible in this contract. It's only sensible on his part, but it's not sensible to pay it. I just don't think you're ever going to get 30 NHL GMs to be sensible, so he's going to have long-term offers on the table. I don't want the Oilers to be one of those teams making that offer, because it will almost certainly end badly.



"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 #717909 is a reply to message #665477 ]
Thu, 23 August 2018 16:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:33

inverno76 wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:22

Stevens had some drug issues
Neely had a horrible knee injury from a dirty Ulf Sameulsson hit.
Bertuzzi had back issues.
Leclair enjoyed Lindros as a line mate.

Possibly Bertuzzi's injury could be from his style of play. I don't like long term contracts for any player that's not considered elite. Lucic would be nice. 4 years max. I just factor in players getting comfortable as opposed to drop in play.


I'd bet money that Lucic gets a deal that's 6 or 7 years long this summer.

All of these guys had injury issues as they got later in their careers. That style of play is hard on the body. Backs and knees break down.

And if you're concern is that a player gets comfortable, give them a long-term, big money deal and see if there's not some level of comfort achieved. If you commit, say, $42MM over the next seven years to Lucic, I would guess that he's not going to be overly worried about his job for a long, long time.

Honestly, the only way Lucic doesn't sign a very long deal is if someone pays him something exorbitant for the next 2-3 years. I would expect that his agent's pretty aware that players of his ilk don't always have long careers and often see a steep decline when they hit 30, so he's going to be advising he get as much money as possible in this contract. It's only sensible on his part, but it's not sensible to pay it. I just don't think you're ever going to get 30 NHL GMs to be sensible, so he's going to have long-term offers on the table. I don't want the Oilers to be one of those teams making that offer, because it will almost certainly end badly.


Actually, I nailed his exact contract on February 2, 2016 - five months ahead of when he was signed!



"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 #717910 is a reply to message #717909 ]
Thu, 23 August 2018 16:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
inverno76  is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 874
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

No Cups

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 August 2018 16:05

Adam wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:33

inverno76 wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:22

Stevens had some drug issues
Neely had a horrible knee injury from a dirty Ulf Sameulsson hit.
Bertuzzi had back issues.
Leclair enjoyed Lindros as a line mate.

Possibly Bertuzzi's injury could be from his style of play. I don't like long term contracts for any player that's not considered elite. Lucic would be nice. 4 years max. I just factor in players getting comfortable as opposed to drop in play.


I'd bet money that Lucic gets a deal that's 6 or 7 years long this summer.

All of these guys had injury issues as they got later in their careers. That style of play is hard on the body. Backs and knees break down.

And if you're concern is that a player gets comfortable, give them a long-term, big money deal and see if there's not some level of comfort achieved. If you commit, say, $42MM over the next seven years to Lucic, I would guess that he's not going to be overly worried about his job for a long, long time.



Honestly, the only way Lucic doesn't sign a very long deal is if someone pays him something exorbitant for the next 2-3 years. I would expect that his agent's pretty aware that players of his ilk don't always have long careers and often see a steep decline when they hit 30, so he's going to be advising he get as much money as possible in this contract. It's only sensible on his part, but it's not sensible to pay it. I just don't think you're ever going to get 30 NHL GMs to be sensible, so he's going to have long-term offers on the table. I don't want the Oilers to be one of those teams making that offer, because it will almost certainly end badly.


Actually, I nailed his exact contract on February 2, 2016 - five months ahead of when he was signed!


Hahaha. You’d get along with my wife. Digs up every memory of when she’s right and announces it to the world. Conveniently forgets every time she’s wrong.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #717911 is a reply to message #717910 ]
Thu, 23 August 2018 16:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

inverno76 wrote on Thu, 23 August 2018 16:43

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 August 2018 16:05

Adam wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:33

inverno76 wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:22

Stevens had some drug issues
Neely had a horrible knee injury from a dirty Ulf Sameulsson hit.
Bertuzzi had back issues.
Leclair enjoyed Lindros as a line mate.

Possibly Bertuzzi's injury could be from his style of play. I don't like long term contracts for any player that's not considered elite. Lucic would be nice. 4 years max. I just factor in players getting comfortable as opposed to drop in play.


I'd bet money that Lucic gets a deal that's 6 or 7 years long this summer.

All of these guys had injury issues as they got later in their careers. That style of play is hard on the body. Backs and knees break down.

And if you're concern is that a player gets comfortable, give them a long-term, big money deal and see if there's not some level of comfort achieved. If you commit, say, $42MM over the next seven years to Lucic, I would guess that he's not going to be overly worried about his job for a long, long time.



Honestly, the only way Lucic doesn't sign a very long deal is if someone pays him something exorbitant for the next 2-3 years. I would expect that his agent's pretty aware that players of his ilk don't always have long careers and often see a steep decline when they hit 30, so he's going to be advising he get as much money as possible in this contract. It's only sensible on his part, but it's not sensible to pay it. I just don't think you're ever going to get 30 NHL GMs to be sensible, so he's going to have long-term offers on the table. I don't want the Oilers to be one of those teams making that offer, because it will almost certainly end badly.


Actually, I nailed his exact contract on February 2, 2016 - five months ahead of when he was signed!


Hahaha. You’d get along with my wife. Digs up every memory of when she’s right and announces it to the world. Conveniently forgets every time she’s wrong.



I'd dig up Syvret vs. Greene to show me being dead wrong, but thankfully MJ dumped all those posts many moons ago!



"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 #717952 is a reply to message #717911 ]
Sat, 25 August 2018 14:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
inverno76  is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 874
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

No Cups

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 August 2018 16:54

inverno76 wrote on Thu, 23 August 2018 16:43

Adam wrote on Thu, 23 August 2018 16:05

Adam wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:33

inverno76 wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:22

Stevens had some drug issues
Neely had a horrible knee injury from a dirty Ulf Sameulsson hit.
Bertuzzi had back issues.
Leclair enjoyed Lindros as a line mate.

Possibly Bertuzzi's injury could be from his style of play. I don't like long term contracts for any player that's not considered elite. Lucic would be nice. 4 years max. I just factor in players getting comfortable as opposed to drop in play.


I'd bet money that Lucic gets a deal that's 6 or 7 years long this summer.

All of these guys had injury issues as they got later in their careers. That style of play is hard on the body. Backs and knees break down.

And if you're concern is that a player gets comfortable, give them a long-term, big money deal and see if there's not some level of comfort achieved. If you commit, say, $42MM over the next seven years to Lucic, I would guess that he's not going to be overly worried about his job for a long, long time.



Honestly, the only way Lucic doesn't sign a very long deal is if someone pays him something exorbitant for the next 2-3 years. I would expect that his agent's pretty aware that players of his ilk don't always have long careers and often see a steep decline when they hit 30, so he's going to be advising he get as much money as possible in this contract. It's only sensible on his part, but it's not sensible to pay it. I just don't think you're ever going to get 30 NHL GMs to be sensible, so he's going to have long-term offers on the table. I don't want the Oilers to be one of those teams making that offer, because it will almost certainly end badly.


Actually, I nailed his exact contract on February 2, 2016 - five months ahead of when he was signed!


Hahaha. You’d get along with my wife. Digs up every memory of when she’s right and announces it to the world. Conveniently forgets every time she’s wrong.



I'd dig up Syvret vs. Greene to show me being dead wrong, but thankfully MJ dumped all those posts many moons ago!



I nailed something obscure once on here. Absolutely no idea what it was though. This is why my wife wins every fight. I’m not right often and when I am I forget.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665480 is a reply to message #665476 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 11:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nullterm  is currently offline nullterm
Messages: 4879
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

4 Cups

It's a roll of the dice. Some people just have the frame and quick recovery for it, and can have long careers even playing all out physical. Some guys bodies just break down, others keep going until they slow down, and then there's the odd Jagr who just keeps going.

Lucic does have a thick solid frame which is definitely in his favour. Only injuries of note: broken finger, twisted ankle, wrist surgery which apparently fully recovered. Nothing out of ordinary for a pro hockey player.

[Updated on: Tue, 02 February 2016 11:44]


Illegitimi non carborundum.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665479 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 11:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Lucic has been pretty durable in his career. I've watched him for the Kings this year since he's for sure going to be an oiler next year (lol). He's not one of those guys that is just careless about using his strength, he doesn't just throw his body around like a maniac, he is very selectively nasty. He knows how to play his role in a sustainable way. He is also pretty agile for his size, I think his body has lots of good years left. He's also never played for a team that allows much offensive risk taking.

His production dropped off last year, but he played most of it without Krejci. I can't even tell from this list who the C was he played the year with without him:
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=578&w ithagainst=true&season=2014-15&sit=f10
But he still was able to put up some points. He actually produced just as well or better without Krejci last year with...whoever his other C or C's were. Ryan Spooner I guess?


I don't want 7 years, that's for sure, but I think he has a great shot to be very useful to a team for 5 still.

[Updated on: Tue, 02 February 2016 11:40]


"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 #665483 is a reply to message #665479 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 11:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mazankowski  is currently offline mazankowski
Messages: 378
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

Another player not on the list, David Clarkson.....


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665484 is a reply to message #665483 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 11:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nullterm  is currently offline nullterm
Messages: 4879
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

4 Cups

mazankowski wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 10:40

Another player not on the list, David Clarkson.....


Clarkson never produced much, it was the Leafs (and cough MacT) that thought he would turn into a first liner because of a big UFA contract and being held back offensively in Jersey.



Illegitimi non carborundum.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665489 is a reply to message #665484 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 12:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

nullterm wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 11:47

mazankowski wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 10:40

Another player not on the list, David Clarkson.....


Clarkson never produced much, it was the Leafs (and cough MacT) that thought he would turn into a first liner because of a big UFA contract and being held back offensively in Jersey.


yeah, Clarkson was a total flash in the pan. 1 kinda good season (46 points, the only time he broke 40 in his career), and that was it. He also looked really good in Corsi-land, and teams like ours were putting value on those stats without proper understanding.

Look at this epicness:

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&f1=2 012_s&f2=5v5&f5=N.J&f7=30-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8 +13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67

He's was of the best players in the league by that chart, just unlucky :P


Seriously though, Lucic is 10 times the player Clarkson is.

[Updated on: Tue, 02 February 2016 12:07]


"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 #665493 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 12:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bleedingoil  is currently offline bleedingoil
Messages: 28
Registered: October 2007
Location: Alberta

No Cups

I think Lucic will get the max term at 6.5-7M, not interested.

I would prefer to trade for Scott Hartnell. CLB is looking to shed salary and Hartnell's name has been out there. To me this makes more sense if you can trade Korpikoski + picks and prospects for Hartnell.

I prefer Hartnell at 4.75M for 3 years to Lucic at 6.75 for 7 years.

[Updated on: Tue, 02 February 2016 12:20]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665496 is a reply to message #665493 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 12:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mazankowski  is currently offline mazankowski
Messages: 378
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

Very true, Lucic > Clarkson everyday! I wouldn't be opposed to giving Lucic a deal, but the term is the hardest part. $6.5-7 on a 2 year is doable. Anything longer and you run into serious cap implications. You would have McDavid needing to be re-upped, LD is also up soon here, Nurse as well, and so is Yak.

If you give him anymore term, you have to move out Pouliot or Eberle for sure. Especially with the uncertainty behind the cap over the immediate forecast, it's difficult to sign a guy like him who is not considered a "core" guy.

If Pouliot and Fayne can get moved, there's your money for him. But I still don't know if I'd do it. Your core guys are going to be taking up $60-65 million of cap space. Leaving you with (say) $10-15 million to spend on your bottom 5 F, and bottom 2 D men, and backup goalie. Definitely doable, but the one thing we don't want is to become a Chicago and ship out guys when all it takes is some great cap management.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665521 is a reply to message #665493 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 16:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
g2k  is currently offline g2k
Messages: 7036
Registered: January 2003
Location: SPCA

6 Cups

bleedingoil wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 12:19

I think Lucic will get the max term at 6.5-7M, not interested.

I would prefer to trade for Scott Hartnell. CLB is looking to shed salary and Hartnell's name has been out there. To me this makes more sense if you can trade Korpikoski + picks and prospects for Hartnell.

I prefer Hartnell at 4.75M for 3 years to Lucic at 6.75 for 7 years.

I really wouldn't want him locked up for 7 years either. I would want 4 years, but that's not gonna happen.

I'm very leery about this free agent and the effect he and his contract would have on this club. I just fear the bang for the buck on 49 million won't be there.



Comfortably Numb

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665522 is a reply to message #665521 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 16:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7722
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Well, if the Oilers are in win now mode paying Lucic 7 years to have 4 really good years kind of makes sense.


This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665526 is a reply to message #665522 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 16:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 16:08

Well, if the Oilers are in win now mode paying Lucic 7 years to have 4 really good years kind of makes sense.


What evidence has there ever been that the Oilers are in "win now mode"?

Not to say they shouldn't be...we all know they've lacked the urgency they need for years ("I see this coming year as another development year.", "I would think this year that it would be good if the team were ahh you know in that group of teams ah you know who are ahh fighting for the last playoff spot, you know." "We always planned that this was going to be another year out of the playoffs. That was part of the plan.") but the team isn't exactly positioned to leap to the top of the table next year. I don't think Lucic is the last piece of the puzzle like Hossa for Chicago...



"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 #665534 is a reply to message #665522 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 19:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
g2k  is currently offline g2k
Messages: 7036
Registered: January 2003
Location: SPCA

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 02 February 2016 16:08

Well, if the Oilers are in win now mode paying Lucic 7 years to have 4 really good years kind of makes sense.

If it's around 7 million a year (not saying you said that) it's too much for him in my opinion. I might be able to live with it for 4 years, but 7 years when he's likely entering into pluggerville after 3-4 years would be a cap burden.



Comfortably Numb

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665647 is a reply to message #665534 ]
Wed, 03 February 2016 09:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skoobz  is currently offline Skoobz
Messages: 1337
Registered: January 2006
Location: McDavidisneyland

1 Cup

I think Lucic would be worth a 4x5M year deal, but no one is getting him for that.

I'm imagining a Viking raiding party line of Lucic-Backes-Kassian and drooling.



"[It was] really cool to throw on the Oilers gear, the gear that I want to play the rest of my life wearing. It was pretty cool to put it on. With all the history, it was a lot of fun." - Connor McDavid, July 1, 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665503 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 13:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 4805
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

I think Lucic is great, ever since his WHL Giant days, but his trajectory is heading the wrong way. His agent will be going for max term, for the very reason most GM's would be leery of giving it to him, some GM will be desperate enough to blink, just hope its not Chia. Lucic's speed will be an issue, IMO he'll have a problem playing with either Hall or McD 5 on 5, he'd be a force on the PP though.




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 #665505 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 13:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 2736
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Oilers need to sign AT LEAST one winger this summer. Possibly two.

The only "locks" I see here for next year are:

Left: Hall, Pouliot, _______, Hendricks
Right: _______, Yakupov, Kassian, Pakarainen

Depending on which of Eberle / Nugent-Hopkins gets dealt, you may need to add a Top-6 winger. Purcell *might* be here as well (I'd actually probably try to sign him as insurance, something like 2.75 for 2 years, worst case is Pakarainen becomes the 13th forward). Korpikoski might be here too, though I hope the Oilers find a way to get out of that deal.

I agree that the Oilers need a winger, and I agree that it would be best if he was a big winger with sandpaper to his game.

I THINK the Oilers will go after Milan Lucic, wise or not. I think Lucic will help the Oilers initially if he is signed, and ultimately be a boat anchor in the final half of his deal. It might even force some better players out of town, trying to make the cap work.

The Oilers might be wiser to go after Kyle Okposo or Troy Brouwer as UFAs. Neither are perfect, but I think both are likely to get offered less on the UFA market. Heck, let's go after Jaromir Jagr while we are at it (would love to see Jagr and Yakupov together!).



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665516 is a reply to message #665505 ]
Tue, 02 February 2016 15:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shooter  is currently offline Shooter
Messages: 357
Registered: November 2008

No Cups

As much i would love to Lucic in Oiler silks......i would not want that guy on a heavy contract over 5-6 years.....too much risk of being a huge boat anchor in the last 2-3 years

I would rather see them go after a guy like Wayne Simmonds if they are looking for a physical forward that can play and be nasty..I know hes not a free agent but if possible, acquire via a trade





Here's a free lesson......

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #665652 is a reply to message #665516 ]
Wed, 03 February 2016 09:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 2737
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

2 Cups

I don't think Lucic is going to be as expensive as everyone thinks. I'm guessing he gets 4 years at 3.75M.


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 #665654 is a reply to message #665652 ]
Wed, 03 February 2016 10:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Magnum wrote on Wed, 03 February 2016 09:54

I don't think Lucic is going to be as expensive as everyone thinks. I'm guessing he gets 4 years at 3.75M.


This sounds like something to bet a burger on...



"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 #672081 is a reply to message #665654 ]
Fri, 03 June 2016 15:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 2737
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 03 February 2016 10:02

Magnum wrote on Wed, 03 February 2016 09:54

I don't think Lucic is going to be as expensive as everyone thinks. I'm guessing he gets 4 years at 3.75M.


This sounds like something to bet a burger on...


Deal. Name your terms, white boy!

Magnum is ethnic.



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 #709282 is a reply to message #672081 ]
Wed, 14 February 2018 23:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 10201
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Magnum wrote on Fri, 03 June 2016 15:58

Adam wrote on Wed, 03 February 2016 10:02

Magnum wrote on Wed, 03 February 2016 09:54

I don't think Lucic is going to be as expensive as everyone thinks. I'm guessing he gets 4 years at 3.75M.


This sounds like something to bet a burger on...


Deal. Name your terms, white boy!

Magnum is ethnic.


Hey! You owe me a burger!!!!



"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 #709283 is a reply to message #709282 ]
Thu, 15 February 2018 00:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Babaganoosh  is currently offline Babaganoosh
Messages: 1128
Registered: January 2009
Location: Medicine Hat,AB

1 Cup

Wish I would have bet a burger with all the guys that were saying I was crazy for saying this team wouldnt make the playoffs in the Eberle trade thread. I'd be eating free all year.


" If you have anything good to say, say it off!"

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #709300 is a reply to message #709283 ]
Thu, 15 February 2018 13:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
K.McC#24 is currently online K.McC#24
Messages: 3256
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

3 Cups

Hmmm....an Oilers thread from a couple years ago, where if it's bumped I don't look back at my opinion/prediction and get mildly embarrassed. Go figure.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #709302 is a reply to message #709300 ]
Thu, 15 February 2018 13:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

K.McC#24 wrote on Thu, 15 February 2018 13:12

Hmmm....an Oilers thread from a couple years ago, where if it's bumped I don't look back at my opinion/prediction and get mildly embarrassed. Go figure.


Looking back at some of the other threads. I forget that I was actually against trading Hall before Nuge and Ebs.

I guess I just got all caught up in the hope and trolling about Hall being a douche :)


Man did Chia and the gang cock everything up.

X - McDavid - X
Hall - Drai - X

That's actually one of the easiest top 6's to fill out you can get in a cap league. That's pretty close to what the Pens have with Crosby/Malkin/Kessel.

You also have a built in cost control on Drai's 2nd deal because you can argue 6M Hall was driving the bus at least equally to him. His 3 games of playoff success away from McDavid jacked his cap hit probably 1.5M with pushover Chia.

OH WELL!!!!!!!!!!

[Updated on: Thu, 15 February 2018 13:54]


"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 #709310 is a reply to message #709302 ]
Thu, 15 February 2018 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
K.McC#24 is currently online K.McC#24
Messages: 3256
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Thu, 15 February 2018 13:35

K.McC#24 wrote on Thu, 15 February 2018 13:12

Hmmm....an Oilers thread from a couple years ago, where if it's bumped I don't look back at my opinion/prediction and get mildly embarrassed. Go figure.


Looking back at some of the other threads. I forget that I was actually against trading Hall before Nuge and Ebs.

I guess I just got all caught up in the hope and trolling about Hall being a douche :)


Man did Chia and the gang cock everything up.

X - McDavid - X
Hall - Drai - X

That's actually one of the easiest top 6's to fill out you can get in a cap league. That's pretty close to what the Pens have with Crosby/Malkin/Kessel.

You also have a built in cost control on Drai's 2nd deal because you can argue 6M Hall was driving the bus at least equally to him. His 3 games of playoff success away from McDavid jacked his cap hit probably 1.5M with pushover Chia.

OH WELL!!!!!!!!!!


Yup, there's always the parallel universe theory, and a different outcome. That's about as close as we're getting.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672080 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Fri, 03 June 2016 15:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
benv  is currently offline benv
Messages: 607
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Here's some fuel for the Lucic fire:

https://twitter.com/tsnjamesduthie/status/738841526323843072

As @Real_ESPNLeBrun just reported on Insider Trading, Lucic very open to signing in EDM if things don't work out in LA, and deal is right.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672084 is a reply to message #672080 ]
Fri, 03 June 2016 17:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pseudoreality  is currently offline Pseudoreality
Messages: 523
Registered: December 2002
Location: Yellowknife

No Cups

benv wrote on Fri, 03 June 2016 15:49

Here's some fuel for the Lucic fire:

https://twitter.com/tsnjamesduthie/status/738841526323843072

As @Real_ESPNLeBrun just reported on Insider Trading, Lucic very open to signing in EDM if things don't work out in LA, and deal is right.

This is just him driving up his price for LA. If you don't overpay me, Edmonton will.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672100 is a reply to message #672084 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 21:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kungpaobenji27  is currently offline kungpaobenji27
Messages: 299
Registered: August 2003
Location: Irving, Texas

No Cups

Pseudoreality wrote on Fri, 03 June 2016 18:18

benv wrote on Fri, 03 June 2016 15:49

Here's some fuel for the Lucic fire:

https://twitter.com/tsnjamesduthie/status/738841526323843072

As @Real_ESPNLeBrun just reported on Insider Trading, Lucic very open to signing in EDM if things don't work out in LA, and deal is right.

This is just him driving up his price for LA. If you don't overpay me, Edmonton will.


Exactly. Much like how Mike Babcock used the Sabres in his negotiations with the Leafs this past offseason



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672087 is a reply to message #672080 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 02:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
George  is currently offline George
Messages: 183
Registered: October 2009

No Cups

benv wrote on Fri, 03 June 2016 15:49

Here's some fuel for the Lucic fire:

https://twitter.com/tsnjamesduthie/status/738841526323843072

As @Real_ESPNLeBrun just reported on Insider Trading, Lucic very open to signing in EDM if things don't work out in LA, and deal is right.


"deal is right" ...aka some absurd amount.

It'd be great to have him on the Oilers, but not for the $/term he's going to get.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672086 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Fri, 03 June 2016 22:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 12043
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

More speculation from Stauffer, summarized by Staples. Stauffer also says >50% chance one of Hall or Nuge is moved.

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/ 5050-the-edmonton-oilers-will-trade-either-taylor-hall-or-ry an-nugent-hopkins-insider-says

Quote:

Stauffer mentioned that Lucic is represented by Gerry Johannson, an Edmonton-based player agent who also represented Brent Seabrook.

Seabrook, 31, was discussed as a possibility for the Oilers last year before signing an 8-year deal with a $6.9 million per cap hit with Chicago. Had that contract not come about, Stauffer said, “I believe Gerry would have been calling the Oilers in free agency and the Oilers would have been looking seriously at Brent Seabrook.”

If Lucic goes to free agency, Stauffer said Edmonton would be interested. “Milan Lucic is sort of the physical embodiment of what Peter Chiarelli stated from the get-go needed to happen in Edmonton. He wanted to get bigger, more competitive players… I do think if he goes to free agency the Oilers are going to have a solid opportunity to bring him in, but they’re going to have to move somebody out in the process because they’ve got to address that back-end as well.”

Stauffer continued: “If they do engage in Lucic, if there’s a plan there — and that plan may actually be executed before. Put it this way, Gerry Johannson is going to let Peter Chiarelli know, this is how it work. The agent is going to say, he lets people know who might end up being available and who isn’t.

“So do I think Taylor Hall could be traded? I don’t want to see Taylor Hall traded but he gets you the most. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins gets you the second most. To me, right now, Jordan Eberle, I would say it’s better than 50 per cent chance one of Hall or Nugent-Hopkins goes. I would suggest to you it’s less than a 15 per cent chance at this stage that Jordan Eberle goes. It’s incumbent on the Edmonton to use one of the $6 million guys upfront and use that as asset to acquire the defence…If it’s me, I don’t even trade down at this draft. I take Tkachuk…. It’s quite apparent Matthew Tkachuk has closed the gap on Jesse Puljujarvi something fierce here over the last few weeks.”


Is Stauffer really in the know anymore? Is really a guy the org uses to try to soften up the fanbase to prepare them for us sending players out the door?


Hmm, trying to imagine, Hall out, Lucic + Tkachuk + top pair D in. Better team?

[Updated on: Fri, 03 June 2016 22:50]


"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 #672088 is a reply to message #672086 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 06:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7722
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Stauffer has been the propaganda arm of this organization since the moment he thought Oilers Lunch might be possible.


This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672089 is a reply to message #672088 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 07:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 2737
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

2 Cups

He's not always accurate, but it's so transparent when he's wrong, it's on purpose. I think the dude knows quite a bit.

I've yet to be mislead by what I think he's saying. He heralds almost every move.



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 #672090 is a reply to message #665465 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 08:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 2736
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

The Oilers shouldn't trade Taylor Hall unless it's for some outrageous return like Subban, Ekman-Larson, or Karlsson.

But I agree that Eberle doesn't get you the return you need. Could be part of a package I suppose.

I think RNH is the player to move, but all of Eberle, RNH, the #4, Klefbom, and Nurse are pieces of value that should be available to move depending on the return and depending on what the other team is looking to acquire.

As for Lucic, I said it before, but good deal or not, my gut has long said a deal to the Oilers is happening. I actually think Kyle Okposo might be a better fit, heck Troy Brouwer might be a better fit, but Lucic has connections to Western Canada and to Chiarelli and the Oilers have been chasing him for years. He'll be a nice addition for the first part of his deal (even if he is overpaid)... But it's the last half of a deal that could get ugly when he's into his 30s.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: The Case Against Lucic [message #672094 is a reply to message #672090 ]
Sat, 04 June 2016 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to previous 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  

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