GuestLogin / Register

This day on November 22
Acquired: Kari Takko (1990)
Departed: Bruce Bell (1990)

Happy Birthday To: SAE_10W30, Radville, Flavs93

OILERS INFOOILFANS
Friday, Nov 22, 2024 6:02 PM MT
F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 Oilers » Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for LarssonPages (16): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  >  »]
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690157 is a reply to message #690155 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 10:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 839
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff
No Cups
Is this thread turning into a debate on whether or not Taylor Hall is a good hockey player?

Because that shouldn't be in question.

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: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690165 is a reply to message #690157 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
Magnum wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:11

Is this thread turning into a debate on whether or not Taylor Hall is a good hockey player?

Because that shouldn't be in question.

I dunno, man, I just dunno.

Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690158 is a reply to message #690154 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 10:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 09:55

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 09:43

Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 09:32

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 09:29

In my opinion, the definition of playoff type hockey is physical, grind it out, tight checking, not a lot of offensive chances, margin of error is small, where every mistake is huge. Since March 20th, a 2 week span, the Oilers have played 7 games. In those 7 games, the Oilers are 6-1. In those 7 games, the Oilers have played games with playoff type hockey 5 times. They played the Kings who were playing for their lives and play playoff hockey all the time. They won 2-0 & 2-1. The played the cup finalist and team near the top of the division the Sharks, they won 3-2. They played the Ducks who are near the top of the division have been in the playoffs for many years. They lost 4-3 in a game that Talbot wasn't very good and they won 3-2. I think if Talbot had of been decent, the Oilers win the other game.

The Oilers have learned how to close out games. They have learned how to play tight hockey where you need good goaltending, sound defense and you can't afford mistakes. In my opinion, if Hall was on the team and Larsson wasn't, the Oilers don't go 6-1 in the last 2 weeks. They don't sweep the Kings They don't beat the Kings 2-0 and 2-1 in must win games for the Kings. Maybe they split them. They don't beat the Sharks and they sure don't beat the Ducks who came in rolling and tops in the division. While I liked Hall and will always like him as a player, Hall would not be on the ice in the closing mins protecting a lead. While better defensively, Hall doesn't play sound, tight, mistake free hockey. On the flip side, while Larsson isn't the only reason, he's been a massive help for their defense being a stabilizing force on the back end and really helped with the emergence of Klefbom.


Objection your honour: incredibly speculative and impossible to prove in any sense.

Hall's never played tight checking hockey. He's improved defensively but his knock has been and still he is gives up too many against. They put McDavid on the PK, they have McDavid on the ice to end games. I don't remember Hall killing a penalties very often if at all and I don't remember him being on the ice towards the end of games to close them out very often. He's never been a plus player and is a -7 for the Devils this season.


He actually HAS been a plus player. He was +5 in 2012-13. While he's mostly been in the negatives, it's important to acknowledge just how bad those teams were, and where he stacked up compared to the rest.

2010-11 -9 Team was -76. Even at -9, there were 12 Oilers with worse numbers.
2011-12 -3 Team was -27. Again middle of the pack. Best Oiler for +/-? Sam Gagner at +5!
2012-13 +5 Lockout year. Edmonton was -9. Crazy how close Krueger was. Hall 4th on team.
2013-14 -15 DERF!!! Team back to -67. Eight worse than Hall's ugly number. Krueger's work wasted.
2014-15 -1 Team an astounding -85. Hall was the best +/- on the team. Shocking that he was that close to even on a team that bad. Thanks again Dallas.
2015-16 -4 Team is still -42. Hall's number is slightly above average.

Hall has never been a penalty killer, but he didn't need to be, and if he was here this year, they wouldn't have used him as one either. We still would have had McDavid. McDavid is a generational player, and Hall is not, so it's ridiculous to compare them.



You are going to count the lockout year? Come on. I like to look at WHOLE seasons.

Did you know that in that same 12-13 season. Yakupov scored 17 goals and had 31 pts in 48 games. Most of his goals were in the second half of that 48 games. So that must mean that Yak is easily a 25-30 goal man because he scored 17 goals in 12-13. Oh wait a minute.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690159 is a reply to message #690158 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 10:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:11


You are going to count the lockout year? Come on. I like to look at WHOLE seasons.

Did you know that in that same 12-13 season. Yakupov scored 17 goals and had 31 pts in 48 games. Most of his goals were in the second half of that 48 games. So that must mean that Yak is easily a 25-30 goal man because he scored 17 goals in 12-13. Oh wait a minute.


I counted all the years. It was a 48 game season, it's not like it was a 5 game sample.

And you're right. Ralph Krueger looks like a pretty capable coach who had the team on a strong upwards trajectory. He tapped in to his players to get a lot out of a lot of pretty young guys.

Hall was over a point per game, Yakupov led all rookies in scoring. Schultz made the all-rookie team. Sam Gagner had his best season ever. Devan Dubnyk looked like he'd really taken a step forward in goal.

And the team's goal differential of only -9 after those 48 games was pretty darn good. Looks like a team on the cusp...all they need to do is stay the course and ride the wave up, right?

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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690162 is a reply to message #690159 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 10:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:16

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:11


You are going to count the lockout year? Come on. I like to look at WHOLE seasons.

Did you know that in that same 12-13 season. Yakupov scored 17 goals and had 31 pts in 48 games. Most of his goals were in the second half of that 48 games. So that must mean that Yak is easily a 25-30 goal man because he scored 17 goals in 12-13. Oh wait a minute.


I counted all the years. It was a 48 game season, it's not like it was a 5 game sample.

And you're right. Ralph Krueger looks like a pretty capable coach who had the team on a strong upwards trajectory. He tapped in to his players to get a lot out of a lot of pretty young guys.

Hall was over a point per game, Yakupov led all rookies in scoring. Schultz made the all-rookie team. Sam Gagner had his best season ever. Devan Dubnyk looked like he'd really taken a step forward in goal.

And the team's goal differential of only -9 after those 48 games was pretty darn good. Looks like a team on the cusp...all they need to do is stay the course and ride the wave up, right?


Ride the wave of what? They were 24th in the league, only 9 pts out pf dead last. They didn't have a single game against the East. They didn't have a hard, long road trip. They were below .500. They had 2 of the worst teams in their conference in their division - Avs & Flames. They were terrible 5 on 5 and they had the worst home record in the West. https://www.nhl.com/standings/2012
Yeah, lots of arrows pointing up there. icon_rolleyes Do I think they should have fired Kruger? NO He deserves the chance to keep going especially given Eakins was a disaster. But do I think Kruger would have had them on the cusp? Not a chance. If they continued to be a train wreck 5 on 5 under Kruger, I could have seen Kruger let go sometime in the following season.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. The Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall. Larsson filled a big void that was desperately needed. As much as I like Hall and I cheered for Hall, I have his jersey and his t-shirt in my closet right now. At the time of the trade I wasn't a huge fan because I didn't know much about Larsson but I see now that it was a trade that in my opinion was needed for a variety of reasons. If I am making up a skills competition team or an all star team then I take Hall over Larsson. Other than that, I can see the value in what Larsson brings over Hall to create a winning team.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690163 is a reply to message #690162 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 10:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 5911
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG
5 Cups
RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:45



Anyway, this is getting off topic. The Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall. Larsson filled a big void that was desperately needed. As much as I like Hall and I cheered for Hall, I have his jersey and his t-shirt in my closet right now. At the time of the trade I wasn't a huge fan because I didn't know much about Larsson but I see now that it was a trade that in my opinion was needed for a variety of reasons. If I am making up a skills competition team or an all star team then I take Hall over Larsson. Other than that, I can see the value in what Larsson brings over Hall to create a winning team.


If I could like, or vote for this post. I would. Adam's still butt hurt and seemingly won't acknowledge that the team is better with Larsson than Hall. Yes, there are other faces than just Larsson that have made the Oilers a better team without Hall, but it all started with that trade.

Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall.

Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690164 is a reply to message #690163 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 10:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
OilMJMOil wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:50

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:45



Anyway, this is getting off topic. The Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall. Larsson filled a big void that was desperately needed. As much as I like Hall and I cheered for Hall, I have his jersey and his t-shirt in my closet right now. At the time of the trade I wasn't a huge fan because I didn't know much about Larsson but I see now that it was a trade that in my opinion was needed for a variety of reasons. If I am making up a skills competition team or an all star team then I take Hall over Larsson. Other than that, I can see the value in what Larsson brings over Hall to create a winning team.


If I could like, or vote for this post. I would. Adam's still butt hurt and seemingly won't acknowledge that the team is better with Larsson than Hall. Yes, there are other faces than just Larsson that have made the Oilers a better team without Hall, but it all started with that trade.

Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall.


I think we can do better than the juvenile insults that you might find on Calgary Puck.

The team is better this year, I fully acknowledge that. I just don't think that the Hall/Larsson trade was much of a catalyst for that, and I don't think that Chiarelli should get a lot of the credit for improvement that I think was for the most part a result of McDavid being awesome and the team being healthy.

If you want to give credit to Chiarelli, I think you should be talking about the Talbot trade, because I think he's been much more important to the team's success than Larsson.

And listen, I like Adam Larsson. I think he adds a nice dimension and he's a good player. I think straight up for Taylor Hall is a bad deal. It isn't incongruent that while we lost that deal, we can still be a better team because of everything else that's happened.

I object to the vilification of Hall, because A) I think it reflects badly on Oilers fans and B) because I think he's still a heck of a player and that people tend to associate players with team results after a while. I expect that at some point, he'll go to a better team and he'll suddenly look like a valuable contributor to a good team and (other than in Edmonton, where we like to marry ourselves to a narrative), you won't hear anyone complaining that he's not got the right personality, or he's not a good enough two-way player.

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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690166 is a reply to message #690164 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 5911
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG
5 Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:59

OilMJMOil wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:50

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:45



Anyway, this is getting off topic. The Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall. Larsson filled a big void that was desperately needed. As much as I like Hall and I cheered for Hall, I have his jersey and his t-shirt in my closet right now. At the time of the trade I wasn't a huge fan because I didn't know much about Larsson but I see now that it was a trade that in my opinion was needed for a variety of reasons. If I am making up a skills competition team or an all star team then I take Hall over Larsson. Other than that, I can see the value in what Larsson brings over Hall to create a winning team.


If I could like, or vote for this post. I would. Adam's still butt hurt and seemingly won't acknowledge that the team is better with Larsson than Hall. Yes, there are other faces than just Larsson that have made the Oilers a better team without Hall, but it all started with that trade.

Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall.


I think we can do better than the juvenile insults that you might find on Calgary Puck.

The team is better this year, I fully acknowledge that. I just don't think that the Hall/Larsson trade was much of a catalyst for that, and I don't think that Chiarelli should get a lot of the credit for improvement that I think was for the most part a result of McDavid being awesome and the team being healthy.

If you want to give credit to Chiarelli, I think you should be talking about the Talbot trade, because I think he's been much more important to the team's success than Larsson.

And listen, I like Adam Larsson. I think he adds a nice dimension and he's a good player. I think straight up for Taylor Hall is a bad deal. It isn't incongruent that while we lost that deal, we can still be a better team because of everything else that's happened.

I object to the vilification of Hall, because A) I think it reflects badly on Oilers fans and B) because I think he's still a heck of a player and that people tend to associate players with team results after a while. I expect that at some point, he'll go to a better team and he'll suddenly look like a valuable contributor to a good team and (other than in Edmonton, where we like to marry ourselves to a narrative), you won't hear anyone complaining that he's not got the right personality, or he's not a good enough two-way player.


Sorry Adam, for that comment.

We're not vilifying Taylor Hall, though he did cheapshot Kassian much like Tkachuk did Doughty. I don't dispute he's a great offensive player. But the Oilers as a whole, are clearly a better team this year and it started with that trade.
icon_wink

Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690170 is a reply to message #690166 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 11:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PlusOne is currently offline PlusOne
Messages: 1594
Registered: July 2006
Location: Regina, Sask
1 Cup
OilMJMOil wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:08



I don't dispute he's a great offensive player. But the Oilers as a whole, are clearly a better team this year and it started with that trade.
icon_wink


I dont think there is a dispute over being a better team. Not to put words in Adam's mouth but I dont think he he has ever said this team isnt better.

I think the debate is would we would be better with Hall/without Larsson and many of the others we still could have made.

There are many that debate Lucic and what he has brought this year and I wont bring that into this.

I think the main point is that our defense has approved almost across the board, nothing to do with Larsson, but it is better with him.

Our offence has improved because of McDavid, the development of Drai and the surprise Maroon. This has been enough to make up for the downturn of RNH and Eberle.

No one can argue that we wouldnt have a better offence with Hall in the lineup.

Would we be a better team +Hall, -Lucic and Larsson? We can never know but to claim that Larsson had a major part in this turnaround or that Hall was somehow not our best player (likely by a mile) pre McDavid doesnt seem logical to me.

Larsson has been solid, a VERY good player, seems well liked and like a leader but lets not pretend he is an elite norris candidate that propelled us to the place we are in.

#notbutthurt
#ObjectionOverruled-I'llAllowIt
#IHateHashtags
#ButthurtIsOneOFTheWorstThingsToEverComeOutOfTheInternet
#DontBeCP
#MakeOilfansGreatAgain
#AmIDoingThisRight

Survivor LX(I) and 67 Champ(i)on


CrusaderPi wrote on Thu, 30 January 2020 12:21

und(i)sputed O.L.F.N Heavybra(i)n Champ(i)on of the Woooooooooooooooooorld. Plus. One.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690208 is a reply to message #690164 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 19:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DUFFMAN is currently offline DUFFMAN
Messages: 5
Registered: July 2014
No Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:59

I just don't think that the Hall/Larsson trade was much of a catalyst for that, and I don't think that Chiarelli should get a lot of the credit for improvement that I think was for the most part a result of McDavid being awesome and the team being healthy.


Suppose we could stomp around until the end of time explaining why this was a good or bad trade and we'll never come up with anything but a basket of opinions. At the time of the trade I was with the 90%+ of fans who thought we got fleeced but I was wrong. We all were. Having a steady, right-handed presence like Larsson on the top pairing has transformed this team. Yes McDavid, yes Talbot. But yes Larsson too. Larsson is a huge reason why we're where we are today.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690219 is a reply to message #690208 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 00:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73 is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2419
Registered: February 2011
2 Cups
DUFFMAN wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 19:45

We all were.

Speak for yourself. icon_wink

"There's no greater springboard to development than failure." - Craig MacTavish, April 13/15.

5-14-6-1

"Sabres think the suck is their ally? They merely adopted the suck. The Oilers were born in it...molded by it."

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690225 is a reply to message #690219 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 08:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 5911
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG
5 Cups
Ragnarok73 wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 00:49

DUFFMAN wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 19:45

We all were.

Speak for yourself. icon_wink


He's speaking for the ~90% of fans.

Ps. Sorry Adam.

Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690218 is a reply to message #690164 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 00:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73 is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2419
Registered: February 2011
2 Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:59

The team is better this year, I fully acknowledge that. I just don't think that the Hall/Larsson trade was much of a catalyst for that, and I don't think that Chiarelli should get a lot of the credit for improvement that I think was for the most part a result of McDavid being awesome and the team being healthy.

I can't agree with this- Larsson brought something that the Oil D has lacked for most of the Decade of Darkness: stability, that steadying presence on the blue-line. Granted, he is no Burns Part Two, but he has quietly done the job in his own end of the ice that has allowed Connor and Co. to spend more time in the opposition end of the rink than in their own.

One of the biggest criticisms of the team during that decade was their inability to get the puck moving forward from their blue-line and avoid being hemmed up in their side of the rink as a result. Larsson has been a huge part of giving the Oil D corps the ability to do that on a consistent basis.

I don't dispute for a second that Hall was and is the more skilled player, particularly on the offensive side. But Chia had to make a hard choice to improve the team as a whole and he did it, enduring a ton of criticism in the process. Of course, Connor has been a big part of the success of this team this season along with the Cambot and Drai. However, I don't see the Oil having made this kind of improvement if their blue-liners couldn't move the puck forward. The best player in the world can't be as effective if he's forced to spend a good portion of the game in his own end.

"There's no greater springboard to development than failure." - Craig MacTavish, April 13/15.

5-14-6-1

"Sabres think the suck is their ally? They merely adopted the suck. The Oilers were born in it...molded by it."

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690358 is a reply to message #690218 ]
Wed, 05 April 2017 15:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jds308 is currently offline jds308
Messages: 119
Registered: September 2007
Location: Summerland
No Cups
I don't doubt that Chia "could" have got more in return for Hall had he waited until something else materialized. Like perhaps Larsson + some crap thrown in or maybe a slightly better version of Larsson with a bigger cap hit, or a disgruntled Trouba or Barrie (ie. another teams problem) or something to that affect. The fact is, Hall for Larsson was the best option on the day the trade was made. Chia needed room to sign Lucic, and had to solidify the D somehow. It was discussed a ton at the time that sometimes you need to lose a trade in order to improve your team. It's easy to say now since the team has done well, and NJ has stunk, but Larsson has exceeded my expectations. The team in general has exceeded most of our expectations. Like someone else said, if you're drafting a team Hall is going ahead of Larsson most of the time, but what if you feel scoring isn't your biggest need and defending is? You still take Hall? This team has hemorrhaged goals and grade A chances against for over a decade. They needed to stop the bleeding. Talbot has been a big part of that, as has a healthy Klefbom, but Larsson had played a huge role in that as well. Reverse the trade and subtract Lucic, is the team in the same spot today? We'll never know for sure, but something has clicked with THIS group. They play like they give a dam. The Hall era lacked that on many nights. There was a stretch last season after McDavid went down, and Leon came up where Hall and Leon were the hottest pair in Hockey. It looked promising, but they fizzled and so did the team. Not saying that's entirely because of Hall, but the fact remains we never saw an Oilers team like this with Hall on it.

I make music:
Undermaker442

308 Media Group

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690363 is a reply to message #690358 ]
Wed, 05 April 2017 16:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
jds308 wrote on Wed, 05 April 2017 15:45

I don't doubt that Chia "could" have got more in return for Hall had he waited until something else materialized. Like perhaps Larsson + some crap thrown in or maybe a slightly better version of Larsson with a bigger cap hit, or a disgruntled Trouba or Barrie (ie. another teams problem) or something to that affect. The fact is, Hall for Larsson was the best option on the day the trade was made. Chia needed room to sign Lucic, and had to solidify the D somehow. It was discussed a ton at the time that sometimes you need to lose a trade in order to improve your team. It's easy to say now since the team has done well, and NJ has stunk, but Larsson has exceeded my expectations. The team in general has exceeded most of our expectations. Like someone else said, if you're drafting a team Hall is going ahead of Larsson most of the time, but what if you feel scoring isn't your biggest need and defending is? You still take Hall? This team has hemorrhaged goals and grade A chances against for over a decade. They needed to stop the bleeding. Talbot has been a big part of that, as has a healthy Klefbom, but Larsson had played a huge role in that as well. Reverse the trade and subtract Lucic, is the team in the same spot today? We'll never know for sure, but something has clicked with THIS group. They play like they give a dam. The Hall era lacked that on many nights. There was a stretch last season after McDavid went down, and Leon came up where Hall and Leon were the hottest pair in Hockey. It looked promising, but they fizzled and so did the team. Not saying that's entirely because of Hall, but the fact remains we never saw an Oilers team like this with Hall on it.


Agree with your post. The old mix wasn't working. You'd think being dead last or near last with the same core of players leading the way would tip that off to people but I guess not. Someone from Hall, Nuge & Eberle had to go to change the team dynamic. Hall was the only one worth anything.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690573 is a reply to message #690164 ]
Sat, 08 April 2017 18:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
philly boy is currently offline philly boy
Messages: 135
Registered: July 2007
Location: E-Town
No Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:59

OilMJMOil wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:50

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:45



Anyway, this is getting off topic. The Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall. Larsson filled a big void that was desperately needed. As much as I like Hall and I cheered for Hall, I have his jersey and his t-shirt in my closet right now. At the time of the trade I wasn't a huge fan because I didn't know much about Larsson but I see now that it was a trade that in my opinion was needed for a variety of reasons. If I am making up a skills competition team or an all star team then I take Hall over Larsson. Other than that, I can see the value in what Larsson brings over Hall to create a winning team.


If I could like, or vote for this post. I would. Adam's still butt hurt and seemingly won't acknowledge that the team is better with Larsson than Hall. Yes, there are other faces than just Larsson that have made the Oilers a better team without Hall, but it all started with that trade.

Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall.


I think we can do better than the juvenile insults that you might find on Calgary Puck.

The team is better this year, I fully acknowledge that. I just don't think that the Hall/Larsson trade was much of a catalyst for that, and I don't think that Chiarelli should get a lot of the credit for improvement that I think was for the most part a result of McDavid being awesome and the team being healthy.

If you want to give credit to Chiarelli, I think you should be talking about the Talbot trade, because I think he's been much more important to the team's success than Larsson.

And listen, I like Adam Larsson. I think he adds a nice dimension and he's a good player. I think straight up for Taylor Hall is a bad deal. It isn't incongruent that while we lost that deal, we can still be a better team because of everything else that's happened.

I object to the vilification of Hall, because A) I think it reflects badly on Oilers fans and B) because I think he's still a heck of a player and that people tend to associate players with team results after a while. I expect that at some point, he'll go to a better team and he'll suddenly look like a valuable contributor to a good team and (other than in Edmonton, where we like to marry ourselves to a narrative), you won't hear anyone complaining that he's not got the right personality, or he's not a good enough two-way player.


You should cheer for NJ.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690590 is a reply to message #690573 ]
Sat, 08 April 2017 20:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
philly boy wrote on Sat, 08 April 2017 18:42

Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:59

OilMJMOil wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:50

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:45



Anyway, this is getting off topic. The Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall. Larsson filled a big void that was desperately needed. As much as I like Hall and I cheered for Hall, I have his jersey and his t-shirt in my closet right now. At the time of the trade I wasn't a huge fan because I didn't know much about Larsson but I see now that it was a trade that in my opinion was needed for a variety of reasons. If I am making up a skills competition team or an all star team then I take Hall over Larsson. Other than that, I can see the value in what Larsson brings over Hall to create a winning team.


If I could like, or vote for this post. I would. Adam's still butt hurt and seemingly won't acknowledge that the team is better with Larsson than Hall. Yes, there are other faces than just Larsson that have made the Oilers a better team without Hall, but it all started with that trade.

Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall.


I think we can do better than the juvenile insults that you might find on Calgary Puck.

The team is better this year, I fully acknowledge that. I just don't think that the Hall/Larsson trade was much of a catalyst for that, and I don't think that Chiarelli should get a lot of the credit for improvement that I think was for the most part a result of McDavid being awesome and the team being healthy.

If you want to give credit to Chiarelli, I think you should be talking about the Talbot trade, because I think he's been much more important to the team's success than Larsson.

And listen, I like Adam Larsson. I think he adds a nice dimension and he's a good player. I think straight up for Taylor Hall is a bad deal. It isn't incongruent that while we lost that deal, we can still be a better team because of everything else that's happened.

I object to the vilification of Hall, because A) I think it reflects badly on Oilers fans and B) because I think he's still a heck of a player and that people tend to associate players with team results after a while. I expect that at some point, he'll go to a better team and he'll suddenly look like a valuable contributor to a good team and (other than in Edmonton, where we like to marry ourselves to a narrative), you won't hear anyone complaining that he's not got the right personality, or he's not a good enough two-way player.


You should cheer for NJ.


I don't follow. I've suffered long enough cheering for a bad team, why would I switch to a worse one? I'd end up more bitter than Hall!

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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690630 is a reply to message #690590 ]
Sun, 09 April 2017 12:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gator21 is currently offline Gator21
Messages: 175
Registered: February 2016
Location: Kelowna, BC
No Cups
Adam wrote on Sat, 08 April 2017 20:38

philly boy wrote on Sat, 08 April 2017 18:42

Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:59

OilMJMOil wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:50

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:45



Anyway, this is getting off topic. The Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall. Larsson filled a big void that was desperately needed. As much as I like Hall and I cheered for Hall, I have his jersey and his t-shirt in my closet right now. At the time of the trade I wasn't a huge fan because I didn't know much about Larsson but I see now that it was a trade that in my opinion was needed for a variety of reasons. If I am making up a skills competition team or an all star team then I take Hall over Larsson. Other than that, I can see the value in what Larsson brings over Hall to create a winning team.


If I could like, or vote for this post. I would. Adam's still butt hurt and seemingly won't acknowledge that the team is better with Larsson than Hall. Yes, there are other faces than just Larsson that have made the Oilers a better team without Hall, but it all started with that trade.

Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall.


I think we can do better than the juvenile insults that you might find on Calgary Puck.

The team is better this year, I fully acknowledge that. I just don't think that the Hall/Larsson trade was much of a catalyst for that, and I don't think that Chiarelli should get a lot of the credit for improvement that I think was for the most part a result of McDavid being awesome and the team being healthy.

If you want to give credit to Chiarelli, I think you should be talking about the Talbot trade, because I think he's been much more important to the team's success than Larsson.

And listen, I like Adam Larsson. I think he adds a nice dimension and he's a good player. I think straight up for Taylor Hall is a bad deal. It isn't incongruent that while we lost that deal, we can still be a better team because of everything else that's happened.

I object to the vilification of Hall, because A) I think it reflects badly on Oilers fans and B) because I think he's still a heck of a player and that people tend to associate players with team results after a while. I expect that at some point, he'll go to a better team and he'll suddenly look like a valuable contributor to a good team and (other than in Edmonton, where we like to marry ourselves to a narrative), you won't hear anyone complaining that he's not got the right personality, or he's not a good enough two-way player.


You should cheer for NJ.


I don't follow. I've suffered long enough cheering for a bad team, why would I switch to a worse one? I'd end up more bitter than Hall!


I think the point he was trying to make was that since you're such a big Hall fan/apologist then go cheer for NJ.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690632 is a reply to message #690630 ]
Sun, 09 April 2017 14:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
Gator21 wrote on Sun, 09 April 2017 12:58


I think the point he was trying to make was that since you're such a big Hall fan/apologist then go cheer for NJ.



Hmmm...now that doesn't really make any sense at all. If I was to cheer for Jersey, I would be happier about the Hall trade but less excited about the team's prospects. And the team wouldn't have McDavid...

I've considered your suggestion, but I've decided I'll stick with the Oilers...even if I don't always happily agree with everything management does. After all, I've already put decades in to the team...I'm going to have to see that one through.

Thanks for your suggestion. It's greatly appreciated.

[Updated on: Sun, 09 April 2017 15:40]

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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690633 is a reply to message #690632 ]
Sun, 09 April 2017 15:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
Sunk cost fallacy at its finest.

Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690635 is a reply to message #690633 ]
Sun, 09 April 2017 15:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
CrusaderPi wrote on Sun, 09 April 2017 15:12

Sunk cost fallacy at its finest.


Ugh! I didn't even think about the cost! I'd have to invest in all new jerseys, tickets are cheaper, but the games are so far away...And they start too early anyhow.

I'm not sure those posters suggesting this put a whole lot of thought into the suggestion. It's looking like a worse idea the more we dig here.

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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690636 is a reply to message #690635 ]
Sun, 09 April 2017 16:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gator21 is currently offline Gator21
Messages: 175
Registered: February 2016
Location: Kelowna, BC
No Cups
Adam wrote on Sun, 09 April 2017 15:42

CrusaderPi wrote on Sun, 09 April 2017 15:12

Sunk cost fallacy at its finest.


Ugh! I didn't even think about the cost! I'd have to invest in all new jerseys, tickets are cheaper, but the games are so far away...And they start too early anyhow.

I'm not sure those posters suggesting this put a whole lot of thought into the suggestion. It's looking like a worse idea the more we dig here.


Not my suggestion, just clarified for you since you didn't seem to follow

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690168 is a reply to message #690163 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 11:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
OilMJMOil wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:50

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 10:45



Anyway, this is getting off topic. The Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall. Larsson filled a big void that was desperately needed. As much as I like Hall and I cheered for Hall, I have his jersey and his t-shirt in my closet right now. At the time of the trade I wasn't a huge fan because I didn't know much about Larsson but I see now that it was a trade that in my opinion was needed for a variety of reasons. If I am making up a skills competition team or an all star team then I take Hall over Larsson. Other than that, I can see the value in what Larsson brings over Hall to create a winning team.


If I could like, or vote for this post. I would. Adam's still butt hurt and seemingly won't acknowledge that the team is better with Larsson than Hall. Yes, there are other faces than just Larsson that have made the Oilers a better team without Hall, but it all started with that trade.

Oilers are a better team with Larsson than Hall.


There is going to be a segment of Oilers fans who will never accept the trade no matter what. If the Oilers win a cup in the next 3 years (remaining years on Hall's deal), they will say "Well they probably win 2 with Hall". In a hard fought, tough, tight checking, chippy game against a very good, playoff tested, playing really well, at the top of the division team in the Ducks. The Oilers played playoff hockey and came out on top. They have dominated the West the whole season.

I go look at the stat lines for the 2 guys who the Oilers were able to bring in because Hall left. Larsson directly as the piece coming back in the trade. Lucic because a roster spot was opened up and the 6 mill salary. Larsson - 20:54 mins. 1 assist. 4 hits, 3 blocks. Lucic - 20:49. 1 g, 6 hits, 1 block, 1 take away. In a tough, physical, chippy, playoff game, where there isn't a lot of room, where the refs let the guys play, Halls not along the boards, grinding out pucks. Hall's not running around hitting guys, finishing checks or making life hell for the opposition like Larsson or Lucic. Halls the guy getting pushed after the whistle or getting a glove in the face instead of staring down a guy. Halls on his butt because he's the one getting hit. Halls the one looking at the refs complaining because Kesler held his stick or gave him a slash. Halls the one slamming his stick against the boards when he comes off because he can't find anymore because he can't create space like a Lucic. With 2 mins left, Halls not in front of the net getting beat on and muscling a puck into the goal which is what it took to tie it up.

People are going to come down on me and say I am picking on Hall. Butl when I look at the Oilers roster of the past, the Oilers had lots of Hall type players. None of them were as fast as Hall but the Oilers had Hall, Nuge, Eberle, Yak, Purcell, Schultz, Gagner etc. Lots of super skilled guy that as soon as the hockey got hard, they weren't in the places where goals got scored. Hockey in March, April and the playoffs is hard, grind it out, at times ugly hockey. So unfortunately, the Oilers had too many of the guys that can't play harder hockey. In my opinion, the reason why their second line doesn't score enough, is again they have too many guys that can't play hard hockey in Nuge & Eberle. One of those guys will have to go for a guy that can go to the harder areas when needed on a consistent basis.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690171 is a reply to message #690168 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 11:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55 is currently online Kr55
Messages: 10770
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
Think Gator21 put it best. Hall is good, but he's not as good as any of us thought. Hall playing a responsible 2-way game on the 1st line is probably a 60-70 point player. As a 2nd liner, probably around 50 points. I really don't think we lost anything that great given the situation Hall would have played in on our team.

People thinking we gave up our Malkin losing Hall are way off base. People talk about having 2 elite drivers in McDavid and Hall as something we lost, I really can't get on board with that. I've watched him on NJ, and he plays the exact same way still. Race up the wing, throw stuff at the net, and hopefully there are rebounds and stuff that guys can finish off. The racing up the wing still constantly has turnovers and him getting put on his butt. But, credit to him, like he did with us, he just keeps on trucking, playing his own way. But I really honestly don't miss that at all. I'd rather have Nuge/Ebs struggling trying to put a 2-way game together right now, because that actually has potential to become something very sustainably useful to the team.

[Updated on: Mon, 03 April 2017 11:43]

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

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

5 x $5,000,000

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690174 is a reply to message #690171 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 12:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
Kr55 wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:41

Think Gator21 put it best. Hall is good, but he's not as good as any of us thought. Hall playing a responsible 2-way game on the 1st line is probably a 60-70 point player. As a 2nd liner, probably around 50 points. I really don't think we lost anything that great given the situation Hall would have played in on our team.

People thinking we gave up our Malkin losing Hall are way off base. People talk about having 2 elite drivers in McDavid and Hall as something we lost, I really can't get on board with that. I've watched him on NJ, and he plays the exact same way still. Race up the wing, throw stuff at the net, and hopefully there are rebounds and stuff that guys can finish off. The racing up the wing still constantly has turnovers and him getting put on his butt. But, credit to him, like he did with us, he just keeps on trucking, playing his own way. But I really honestly don't miss that at all. I'd rather have Nuge/Ebs struggling trying to put a 2-way game together right now, because that actually has potential to become something very sustainably useful to the team.


What I find is that the people who hate the Hall trade seem to focus a lot on the points that Hall has scored or could score. They use things like pts/60 when arguing for Hall. Like I have said many times. if you are making an all star team or a skills competition team, I take Hall all day long over Hall. But it's a team game. To be a good team, you need pure offensive guys that can score, you need 2 guys that can do a little bit of both and you need defense. By trading away Hall, the were able to bring in 2 key contributors, Lucic and Larsson. For me, I don't see how anyone can dispute they aren't better off. From a pure asset wise perspective, there are more things to most trades than just the straight up players involved. There is change in style of play, change in attitude, dressing room environment, the salary cap.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690189 is a reply to message #690174 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 16:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PlusOne is currently offline PlusOne
Messages: 1594
Registered: July 2006
Location: Regina, Sask
1 Cup
RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 12:28

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:41

Think Gator21 put it best. Hall is good, but he's not as good as any of us thought. Hall playing a responsible 2-way game on the 1st line is probably a 60-70 point player. As a 2nd liner, probably around 50 points. I really don't think we lost anything that great given the situation Hall would have played in on our team.

People thinking we gave up our Malkin losing Hall are way off base. People talk about having 2 elite drivers in McDavid and Hall as something we lost, I really can't get on board with that. I've watched him on NJ, and he plays the exact same way still. Race up the wing, throw stuff at the net, and hopefully there are rebounds and stuff that guys can finish off. The racing up the wing still constantly has turnovers and him getting put on his butt. But, credit to him, like he did with us, he just keeps on trucking, playing his own way. But I really honestly don't miss that at all. I'd rather have Nuge/Ebs struggling trying to put a 2-way game together right now, because that actually has potential to become something very sustainably useful to the team.


What I find is that the people who hate the Hall trade seem to focus a lot on the points that Hall has scored or could score. They use things like pts/60 when arguing for Hall. Like I have said many times. if you are making an all star team or a skills competition team, I take Hall all day long over Hall. But it's a team game. To be a good team, you need pure offensive guys that can score, you need 2 guys that can do a little bit of both and you need defense. By trading away Hall, the were able to bring in 2 key contributors, Lucic and Larsson. For me, I don't see how anyone can dispute they aren't better off. From a pure asset wise perspective, there are more things to most trades than just the straight up players involved. There is change in style of play, change in attitude, dressing room environment, the salary cap.



A couple of issues here;
"By trading away Hall, the were able to bring in 2 key contributors, Lucic and Larsson."
Not directly but I know what you mean here and I agree that it did free up some space to bring in Lucic. But that still doesnt prove that would still be just as good

"They use things like pts/60 when arguing for Hall. Like I have said many times. if you are making an all star team or a skills competition team, I take Hall all day long over Hall."

Everyone here knows you have much use for stats (except face of % but I digress..I kid, I kid" but most who hated the trade hated the return on a player of Halls ability. What he did on some truely terrible teams is actually pretty extraordinary.

"I don't see how anyone can dispute they aren't better off"
Then that makes you one of the only ones to see it so clearly. I am not arguing we would be better without the trade but I dont see how we can know the answer so clearly.

"There is change in style of play, change in attitude, dressing room environment, "

Most of this is your opinion or speculation as again, there is no proof that this team would have changed with additions other than Lucic and Larsson, improvement of guys we already had on the roster and a healthy and year older McDavid.

"the salary cap"

for people that are defending this trade I see this one a lot. Oddly enough it is the same people that bring Lucic into it EVERY single time as you have above. You cant have it both ways. If you want to include Lucic in the return for Hall you HAVE to include the fact that we took a huge cap hit to do so.

"From a pure asset wise perspective, there are more things to most trades than just the straight up players involved"

I am assuming this is a typo as form a pure asset perspective Chia got hosed on this deal. The "intangibles" can be debated but one for one Hall is a better hockey player.

I like Lucic. I like Larsson. I like Hall.

We are clearly a better team than last year. I still think we lost that trade. I still think we would be in the playoffs with Hall and without Larsson.

I Hate the Lucic contract after next year, or maybe one after that if we are lucky. After that we have ourselves a Kesler contract but likely less productive.

Survivor LX(I) and 67 Champ(i)on


CrusaderPi wrote on Thu, 30 January 2020 12:21

und(i)sputed O.L.F.N Heavybra(i)n Champ(i)on of the Woooooooooooooooooorld. Plus. One.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690191 is a reply to message #690189 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 16:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55 is currently online Kr55
Messages: 10770
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
PlusOne wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 16:34

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 12:28

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:41

Think Gator21 put it best. Hall is good, but he's not as good as any of us thought. Hall playing a responsible 2-way game on the 1st line is probably a 60-70 point player. As a 2nd liner, probably around 50 points. I really don't think we lost anything that great given the situation Hall would have played in on our team.

People thinking we gave up our Malkin losing Hall are way off base. People talk about having 2 elite drivers in McDavid and Hall as something we lost, I really can't get on board with that. I've watched him on NJ, and he plays the exact same way still. Race up the wing, throw stuff at the net, and hopefully there are rebounds and stuff that guys can finish off. The racing up the wing still constantly has turnovers and him getting put on his butt. But, credit to him, like he did with us, he just keeps on trucking, playing his own way. But I really honestly don't miss that at all. I'd rather have Nuge/Ebs struggling trying to put a 2-way game together right now, because that actually has potential to become something very sustainably useful to the team.


What I find is that the people who hate the Hall trade seem to focus a lot on the points that Hall has scored or could score. They use things like pts/60 when arguing for Hall. Like I have said many times. if you are making an all star team or a skills competition team, I take Hall all day long over Hall. But it's a team game. To be a good team, you need pure offensive guys that can score, you need 2 guys that can do a little bit of both and you need defense. By trading away Hall, the were able to bring in 2 key contributors, Lucic and Larsson. For me, I don't see how anyone can dispute they aren't better off. From a pure asset wise perspective, there are more things to most trades than just the straight up players involved. There is change in style of play, change in attitude, dressing room environment, the salary cap.



A couple of issues here;
"By trading away Hall, the were able to bring in 2 key contributors, Lucic and Larsson."
Not directly but I know what you mean here and I agree that it did free up some space to bring in Lucic. But that still doesnt prove that would still be just as good

"They use things like pts/60 when arguing for Hall. Like I have said many times. if you are making an all star team or a skills competition team, I take Hall all day long over Hall."

Everyone here knows you have much use for stats (except face of % but I digress..I kid, I kid" but most who hated the trade hated the return on a player of Halls ability. What he did on some truely terrible teams is actually pretty extraordinary.

"I don't see how anyone can dispute they aren't better off"
Then that makes you one of the only ones to see it so clearly. I am not arguing we would be better without the trade but I dont see how we can know the answer so clearly.

"There is change in style of play, change in attitude, dressing room environment, "

Most of this is your opinion or speculation as again, there is no proof that this team would have changed with additions other than Lucic and Larsson, improvement of guys we already had on the roster and a healthy and year older McDavid.

"the salary cap"

for people that are defending this trade I see this one a lot. Oddly enough it is the same people that bring Lucic into it EVERY single time as you have above. You cant have it both ways. If you want to include Lucic in the return for Hall you HAVE to include the fact that we took a huge cap hit to do so.

"From a pure asset wise perspective, there are more things to most trades than just the straight up players involved"

I am assuming this is a typo as form a pure asset perspective Chia got hosed on this deal. The "intangibles" can be debated but one for one Hall is a better hockey player.

I like Lucic. I like Larsson. I like Hall.

We are clearly a better team than last year. I still think we lost that trade. I still think we would be in the playoffs with Hall and without Larsson.

I Hate the Lucic contract after next year, or maybe one after that if we are lucky. After that we have ourselves a Kesler contract but likely less productive.







Definitely lots of if's and but's on both sides I suppose. But a 70 goal flip in differential is massive. And that's even with Gus giving away like 10 goals for free this year flopping around like a fish. McDavid upping his point production by 1 point per 10 games vs last year, and Talbot's sav % going up 0.04 doesn't quite account for us performing like a 29th place team with McDavid in the lineup last year (actually had a worse record with him than without last season) to how we have done with him this year.

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

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

5 x $5,000,000

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690194 is a reply to message #690191 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 17:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
Kr55 wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 16:49


Definitely lots of if's and but's on both sides I suppose. But a 70 goal flip in differential is massive. And that's even with Gus giving away like 10 goals for free this year flopping around like a fish. McDavid upping his point production by 1 point per 10 games vs last year, and Talbot's sav % going up 0.04 doesn't quite account for us performing like a 29th place team with McDavid in the lineup last year (actually had a worse record with him than without last season) to how we have done with him this year.


That's forgetting that there were 37 games where we didn't have him. And 10 where we didn't have Draisaitl. And 13 where we didn't have Eberle. And both Nugent-Hopkins and Pouliot missed 27 games. And Kelfbom missed 52 games!

Last year we had only 2 players play 82 games - Hall and Letestu. Sekera played 81. No one else had more than 72. This year we have 11 players with over 75 games played (78 games in).

That's massive.

McDavid will likely finish with over 50 points more than he had last year.

And Talbot's save percentage isn't that much different, but his workload is. Last year, the backups took 1701 minutes in the net...most of those belonging to Nilsson, who posted a .901 save percentage.

This year, backups only account for 605 minutes. Again, some ugly numbers for the primary backup coming in to the season, but he only played 331 minutes of action.

McDavid and Talbot have been critical to the team's success and if either had missed significant time, we would have been in trouble this year. If they stay healthy, we have a great chance to make some noise in the playoffs. If either got hurt? It would be devastating and the team probably couldn't survive the loss.

There's no defenceman on the team that you can say that for.

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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690195 is a reply to message #690194 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 17:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55 is currently online Kr55
Messages: 10770
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 17:13

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 16:49


Definitely lots of if's and but's on both sides I suppose. But a 70 goal flip in differential is massive. And that's even with Gus giving away like 10 goals for free this year flopping around like a fish. McDavid upping his point production by 1 point per 10 games vs last year, and Talbot's sav % going up 0.04 doesn't quite account for us performing like a 29th place team with McDavid in the lineup last year (actually had a worse record with him than without last season) to how we have done with him this year.


That's forgetting that there were 37 games where we didn't have him. And 10 where we didn't have Draisaitl. And 13 where we didn't have Eberle. And both Nugent-Hopkins and Pouliot missed 27 games. And Kelfbom missed 52 games!

Last year we had only 2 players play 82 games - Hall and Letestu. Sekera played 81. No one else had more than 72. This year we have 11 players with over 75 games played (78 games in).

That's massive.

McDavid will likely finish with over 50 points more than he had last year.

And Talbot's save percentage isn't that much different, but his workload is. Last year, the backups took 1701 minutes in the net...most of those belonging to Nilsson, who posted a .901 save percentage.

This year, backups only account for 605 minutes. Again, some ugly numbers for the primary backup coming in to the season, but he only played 331 minutes of action.

McDavid and Talbot have been critical to the team's success and if either had missed significant time, we would have been in trouble this year. If they stay healthy, we have a great chance to make some noise in the playoffs. If either got hurt? It would be devastating and the team probably couldn't survive the loss.

There's no defenceman on the team that you can say that for.


What stood out most for me last season was when we had 2 elite drivers in the lineup and 1 was driving and the other was picking his nose :) Oh, until the ultra garbage time last 2 games against the Canucks. Dang, wish we could borrow him for those last 2 this year.

Nilson had bad numbers for sure. Talbot played pretty well at the end of the season, but we just kept losing and losing. Klef would have helped a bit for sure, but he was not exactly a dynamo in our zone. He struggled a lot this year for stretches, landing him on the 3rd pairing a couple times.

[Updated on: Mon, 03 April 2017 17:26]

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

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

5 x $5,000,000

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690202 is a reply to message #690195 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 18:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gator21 is currently offline Gator21
Messages: 175
Registered: February 2016
Location: Kelowna, BC
No Cups
Is Adam Larsson the MAIN reason for the turnaround? No, I don't think anybody here was arguing that. Health, Talbot, big jumps from Mcdavid and Klefbom are all part of it but having a big right hand D who can go up against the oppositions best and keep pucks out of our net and log big minutes is definitely part of it as well, can't deny that.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690205 is a reply to message #690202 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 19:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PlusOne is currently offline PlusOne
Messages: 1594
Registered: July 2006
Location: Regina, Sask
1 Cup
Gator21 wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 18:26

Is Adam Larsson the MAIN reason for the turnaround? No, I don't think anybody here was arguing that. Health, Talbot, big jumps from Mcdavid and Klefbom are all part of it but having a big right hand D who can go up against the oppositions best and keep pucks out of our net and log big minutes is definitely part of it as well, can't deny that.


You might be right, no one is specifically saying that he is the reason for the turnaround. But many who are defending the trade are using our record as a fact why the Oilers won the trade.

I do give Chia credit that he seems to have turned the style, culture, attitude, etc of the team around. It has been the popular thing to do to link that to this trade and to me there is a lot more to it than that. Given it is his biggest move it is easy to do.

As usual though a great number of Oiler fans follow a simple formula;
Oiler is playing well- Overvalue him
Same Oiler player doesnt keep exceeding expectations- crap all over them
Same Oiler gets traded- try to convince the world he isnt actually that good and the team is better without him
Oilers acquire a player- set expectations so high it is almost impossible to live up them unless you wear number 97
Same acquired player doesnt meet those expectations- Boo them and run them out of town and blame for any issues.
team loses- blame current whipping boy(s) regardless of play
team wins- give credit to current golden boy(s)

The best part is that unless a player here is a superstar that never leaves or leaves on really good terms most quality Oilers go through every one of those phases in terms of fan discussion

Survivor LX(I) and 67 Champ(i)on


CrusaderPi wrote on Thu, 30 January 2020 12:21

und(i)sputed O.L.F.N Heavybra(i)n Champ(i)on of the Woooooooooooooooooorld. Plus. One.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690226 is a reply to message #690205 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 09:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
PlusOne wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 19:38



As usual though a great number of Oiler fans follow a simple formula;
Oiler is playing well- Overvalue him
Same Oiler player doesnt keep exceeding expectations- crap all over them
Same Oiler gets traded- try to convince the world he isnt actually that good and the team is better without him
Oilers acquire a player- set expectations so high it is almost impossible to live up them unless you wear number 97
Same acquired player doesnt meet those expectations- Boo them and run them out of town and blame for any issues.
team loses- blame current whipping boy(s) regardless of play
team wins- give credit to current golden boy(s)

The best part is that unless a player here is a superstar that never leaves or leaves on really good terms most quality Oilers go through every one of those phases in terms of fan discussion


Completely agree with your Oilers circle of life. The only parts your missing is where we draft them and then overhype them before they ever play a game, setting up expectations that are sure to be disappointed!

Also, refusal to see players for what they are, and always complain about what they aren't - "yes, he's a great skater and he exits the zone well, and he puts up points and he's rarely out of position, but he never drives people's heads through the boards!"

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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690230 is a reply to message #690226 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 10:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
I would have preferred the Oilers to keep Hall and trade one of Nuge or Eberle but let's face it, Nuge and Eberle weren't worth anything close to Hall. Eberle is inconsistent, one dimensional and probably makes at least 1 mill too much. Nuge is turning himself into a 3rd line center who can't win a draw. Yes he goes up against tougher centers but so does any second line 2 way center. You can be good defensively and not completely give up all your offense. Why can't Nuge be a slightly smaller O'Reilly? O'Reilly is slightly heavier but not overly physical but he's really good at faceoffs (57.8), good defensively and scores 20+ goals, 55-60 pts every year. He's done it 4 yrs in a row that's with missing games the last 2 seasons. Nuge is 43.8% on draws and scored over 20 once. Nuge was drafted #1 overall to be O'Reilly. He's being paid to do what O'Reilly does. What GM is going to even trade a Larsson for Nuge or Eberle? You'd have to thrown in a decent dman going back and maybe a pick to make it even.

Subban at 9 mill in 63 games has 10 goals, 38 pts and is a -6. He's the only top 4 dman on the Preds who's a negative. How bad defensively do you have to be to be the only top 4 dman on the Preds to be negative? There was rumors in the summer that the ask for Subban was Drai, Nurse & the #3. The thought that there was many fans all over a trade like that scares the crap out of me.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690234 is a reply to message #690230 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 11:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 10:28

I would have preferred the Oilers to keep Hall and trade one of Nuge or Eberle but let's face it, Nuge and Eberle weren't worth anything close to Hall. Eberle is inconsistent, one dimensional and probably makes at least 1 mill too much. Nuge is turning himself into a 3rd line center who can't win a draw. Yes he goes up against tougher centers but so does any second line 2 way center. You can be good defensively and not completely give up all your offense. Why can't Nuge be a slightly smaller O'Reilly? O'Reilly is slightly heavier but not overly physical but he's really good at faceoffs (57.8), good defensively and scores 20+ goals, 55-60 pts every year. He's done it 4 yrs in a row that's with missing games the last 2 seasons. Nuge is 43.8% on draws and scored over 20 once. Nuge was drafted #1 overall to be O'Reilly. He's being paid to do what O'Reilly does. What GM is going to even trade a Larsson for Nuge or Eberle? You'd have to thrown in a decent dman going back and maybe a pick to make it even.

Subban at 9 mill in 63 games has 10 goals, 38 pts and is a -6. He's the only top 4 dman on the Preds who's a negative. How bad defensively do you have to be to be the only top 4 dman on the Preds to be negative? There was rumors in the summer that the ask for Subban was Drai, Nurse & the #3. The thought that there was many fans all over a trade like that scares the crap out of me.


I think you rely a little too much on faceoff stats and +/-. The first isn't that important, and the second is meaningless without context. You need to know who a player is playing with, and who they're playing against and how they are being used to understand =/-, and even then, it's subject to a lot of other factors. Remember that some players on the ice when a goal is scored are not specifically responsible for that goal.

Subban's had some injury issues this year so you have to consider that when you're looking at his 38 points. He's on pace for 50 in a full season, which is still a down year for him compared to his historical results, but not THAT far off. Even in this down year, he's still 13th in the league at points per game. Worth noting, his goals are on par with what he's produced historically. He's got 10, and could still very conceivably finish with his third highest goal total ever (he's had seasons of 14 and 15). Assists are down - is that related to systems? Is it related to quality of finishers up front?

He's also playing with Josi in Nashville, a pretty phenomenal defenceman in his own right (6th in the league in points per game). While in Montreal, everything when through PK, but in Nashville, he's sharing the load. Just like you have to expect a centremen's numbers to drop if he's playing second line rather than first, if you have multiple offensive defencemen on the team, they're unlikely to get all the push, and they will cannibalize each other's numbers to an extent.

It's worth noting that Shea Weber, while he's played every game in Montreal, has also seen a significant drop in his points per game, and Josi, while in a similar position to last year in rank, has also dropped from 0.75 (same as Subban in 2015-16) to 0.69 for points per game.

I suspect a lot of this relates to the powerplay. Both Subban and Josi had 24 points with the man advantage last year, they're down to 16 and 17 points respectively. I believe that the nashville powerplay last year was geared around Josi as the quarterback setting up Weber for the big shot. The former captain had 14 PPG in his last season as a Predator. Subban has a good shot, but it's not a Weber blast, and he's more of a playmaker than simply a cannon, so Nashville has had to adapt their defence. While everything would have gone through Subban in Montreal, in Nashville, he may not play that same role.

Meanwhile, Weber's done pretty much the same thing plugged in to the Montreal PP that he did in Nashville. He's down slightly - 26 points last year to 22 this year, but he's still producing and has 12 goals on the man advantage. The rest of his decline this year has been at even strength.

So what would happen if Subban was here? He's a right shot, and so he would have been well positioned to play with the first unit powerplay. He would be a shooting option still though, rather than the quarterback (McDavid holds that role for the foreseeable future). It's likely that he'd have been a favourite option and he's much better suited to play that role than Klefbom (who's not receiving passes in a manner that favours quick one-timed releases. Klefbom's PP numbers have spiked this year, despite only really playing maybe 50 games with the top unit. He's picked up 11 points on the man advantage. I think it's extremely likely that a player like Subban would thrive on a PP run by McDavid. He's got the speed and creativity to get to open spots, and he's got a good enough release that I expect he'd get shots on net regularly. I expect his point total would be higher if he was here.

As for defensive play? I think that Subban's pretty good generally but he's one of those players where he's high risk, high reward at times. That leads to dramatic moments on miscues, which contributes to a viewer bias. You'll remember the big mistakes, you won't see all the small things he does right. To go back to your favoured stat - he's a +29 in his career, even with the current season's results, playing generally on teams that are pretty middle of the road.

If the Oilers had done Hall for Subban, I think we'd still be happy with the result although that's not something you can ever prove for certain, and certainly his health is an X-Factor. If he's here, then who knows if he would have had a more or less healthy year.

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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690237 is a reply to message #690234 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 12:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
Adam wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 11:42

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 10:28

I would have preferred the Oilers to keep Hall and trade one of Nuge or Eberle but let's face it, Nuge and Eberle weren't worth anything close to Hall. Eberle is inconsistent, one dimensional and probably makes at least 1 mill too much. Nuge is turning himself into a 3rd line center who can't win a draw. Yes he goes up against tougher centers but so does any second line 2 way center. You can be good defensively and not completely give up all your offense. Why can't Nuge be a slightly smaller O'Reilly? O'Reilly is slightly heavier but not overly physical but he's really good at faceoffs (57.8), good defensively and scores 20+ goals, 55-60 pts every year. He's done it 4 yrs in a row that's with missing games the last 2 seasons. Nuge is 43.8% on draws and scored over 20 once. Nuge was drafted #1 overall to be O'Reilly. He's being paid to do what O'Reilly does. What GM is going to even trade a Larsson for Nuge or Eberle? You'd have to thrown in a decent dman going back and maybe a pick to make it even.

Subban at 9 mill in 63 games has 10 goals, 38 pts and is a -6. He's the only top 4 dman on the Preds who's a negative. How bad defensively do you have to be to be the only top 4 dman on the Preds to be negative? There was rumors in the summer that the ask for Subban was Drai, Nurse & the #3. The thought that there was many fans all over a trade like that scares the crap out of me.


I think you rely a little too much on faceoff stats and +/-. The first isn't that important, and the second is meaningless without context. You need to know who a player is playing with, and who they're playing against and how they are being used to understand =/-, and even then, it's subject to a lot of other factors. Remember that some players on the ice when a goal is scored are not specifically responsible for that goal.

Subban's had some injury issues this year so you have to consider that when you're looking at his 38 points. He's on pace for 50 in a full season, which is still a down year for him compared to his historical results, but not THAT far off. Even in this down year, he's still 13th in the league at points per game. Worth noting, his goals are on par with what he's produced historically. He's got 10, and could still very conceivably finish with his third highest goal total ever (he's had seasons of 14 and 15). Assists are down - is that related to systems? Is it related to quality of finishers up front?

He's also playing with Josi in Nashville, a pretty phenomenal defenceman in his own right (6th in the league in points per game). While in Montreal, everything when through PK, but in Nashville, he's sharing the load. Just like you have to expect a centremen's numbers to drop if he's playing second line rather than first, if you have multiple offensive defencemen on the team, they're unlikely to get all the push, and they will cannibalize each other's numbers to an extent.

It's worth noting that Shea Weber, while he's played every game in Montreal, has also seen a significant drop in his points per game, and Josi, while in a similar position to last year in rank, has also dropped from 0.75 (same as Subban in 2015-16) to 0.69 for points per game.

I suspect a lot of this relates to the powerplay. Both Subban and Josi had 24 points with the man advantage last year, they're down to 16 and 17 points respectively. I believe that the nashville powerplay last year was geared around Josi as the quarterback setting up Weber for the big shot. The former captain had 14 PPG in his last season as a Predator. Subban has a good shot, but it's not a Weber blast, and he's more of a playmaker than simply a cannon, so Nashville has had to adapt their defence. While everything would have gone through Subban in Montreal, in Nashville, he may not play that same role.

Meanwhile, Weber's done pretty much the same thing plugged in to the Montreal PP that he did in Nashville. He's down slightly - 26 points last year to 22 this year, but he's still producing and has 12 goals on the man advantage. The rest of his decline this year has been at even strength.

So what would happen if Subban was here? He's a right shot, and so he would have been well positioned to play with the first unit powerplay. He would be a shooting option still though, rather than the quarterback (McDavid holds that role for the foreseeable future). It's likely that he'd have been a favourite option and he's much better suited to play that role than Klefbom (who's not receiving passes in a manner that favours quick one-timed releases. Klefbom's PP numbers have spiked this year, despite only really playing maybe 50 games with the top unit. He's picked up 11 points on the man advantage. I think it's extremely likely that a player like Subban would thrive on a PP run by McDavid. He's got the speed and creativity to get to open spots, and he's got a good enough release that I expect he'd get shots on net regularly. I expect his point total would be higher if he was here.

As for defensive play? I think that Subban's pretty good generally but he's one of those players where he's high risk, high reward at times. That leads to dramatic moments on miscues, which contributes to a viewer bias. You'll remember the big mistakes, you won't see all the small things he does right. To go back to your favoured stat - he's a +29 in his career, even with the current season's results, playing generally on teams that are pretty middle of the road.

If the Oilers had done Hall for Subban, I think we'd still be happy with the result although that's not something you can ever prove for certain, and certainly his health is an X-Factor. If he's here, then who knows if he would have had a more or less healthy year.

He makes 9 mill a year! I can list more than 10 guys off the top of my head that are better than Subban and make WAY less. Letang, OEL, Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, Josi, Hedman, Burns, Pietrangelo, Ekblad (he's barely played and he's better). Those guys are for sure better and if the Preds GM called up and offered Subban straight up, he would be laughed off the phone. Then there are guys like Suter, McDonagh, Carlson, who I would take over Subban. Dougie Hamilton is going to score over 50 pts this year. He makes 5.75 mill. Is Subban 3.25 better than Hamilton? No way.

For the Oilers, Klefbom has 12 goals, 31 pts and is only 23 and makes less than 4.2 mill. Subban is 21, turning 28 in just over a month. Subban is not twice as good as Klefbom and he has 5 years of experience on Subban.

You can disagree with me all you want and give me whatever excuse you want for him.What's the cap at 74 mill? If you are making 9 mill a season which is roughly 12% of the cap, you better be spectacular all the time. I have hardcore Habs fans in my office who were jumping for joy he was traded because he is so grossly over paid for what he brings. He easily makes 2-2.5 mill more than he should.

People can dream all they want. Hall for Subban was never happening. Hall straight up is not worth Subban, not even close. I think it would have taken Hall & the 3rd for Subban and I am definitely not doing that.

[Updated on: Tue, 04 April 2017 12:27]

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690238 is a reply to message #690237 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 12:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55 is currently online Kr55
Messages: 10770
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 12:15

Adam wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 11:42

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 10:28

I would have preferred the Oilers to keep Hall and trade one of Nuge or Eberle but let's face it, Nuge and Eberle weren't worth anything close to Hall. Eberle is inconsistent, one dimensional and probably makes at least 1 mill too much. Nuge is turning himself into a 3rd line center who can't win a draw. Yes he goes up against tougher centers but so does any second line 2 way center. You can be good defensively and not completely give up all your offense. Why can't Nuge be a slightly smaller O'Reilly? O'Reilly is slightly heavier but not overly physical but he's really good at faceoffs (57.8), good defensively and scores 20+ goals, 55-60 pts every year. He's done it 4 yrs in a row that's with missing games the last 2 seasons. Nuge is 43.8% on draws and scored over 20 once. Nuge was drafted #1 overall to be O'Reilly. He's being paid to do what O'Reilly does. What GM is going to even trade a Larsson for Nuge or Eberle? You'd have to thrown in a decent dman going back and maybe a pick to make it even.

Subban at 9 mill in 63 games has 10 goals, 38 pts and is a -6. He's the only top 4 dman on the Preds who's a negative. How bad defensively do you have to be to be the only top 4 dman on the Preds to be negative? There was rumors in the summer that the ask for Subban was Drai, Nurse & the #3. The thought that there was many fans all over a trade like that scares the crap out of me.


I think you rely a little too much on faceoff stats and +/-. The first isn't that important, and the second is meaningless without context. You need to know who a player is playing with, and who they're playing against and how they are being used to understand =/-, and even then, it's subject to a lot of other factors. Remember that some players on the ice when a goal is scored are not specifically responsible for that goal.

Subban's had some injury issues this year so you have to consider that when you're looking at his 38 points. He's on pace for 50 in a full season, which is still a down year for him compared to his historical results, but not THAT far off. Even in this down year, he's still 13th in the league at points per game. Worth noting, his goals are on par with what he's produced historically. He's got 10, and could still very conceivably finish with his third highest goal total ever (he's had seasons of 14 and 15). Assists are down - is that related to systems? Is it related to quality of finishers up front?

He's also playing with Josi in Nashville, a pretty phenomenal defenceman in his own right (6th in the league in points per game). While in Montreal, everything when through PK, but in Nashville, he's sharing the load. Just like you have to expect a centremen's numbers to drop if he's playing second line rather than first, if you have multiple offensive defencemen on the team, they're unlikely to get all the push, and they will cannibalize each other's numbers to an extent.

It's worth noting that Shea Weber, while he's played every game in Montreal, has also seen a significant drop in his points per game, and Josi, while in a similar position to last year in rank, has also dropped from 0.75 (same as Subban in 2015-16) to 0.69 for points per game.

I suspect a lot of this relates to the powerplay. Both Subban and Josi had 24 points with the man advantage last year, they're down to 16 and 17 points respectively. I believe that the nashville powerplay last year was geared around Josi as the quarterback setting up Weber for the big shot. The former captain had 14 PPG in his last season as a Predator. Subban has a good shot, but it's not a Weber blast, and he's more of a playmaker than simply a cannon, so Nashville has had to adapt their defence. While everything would have gone through Subban in Montreal, in Nashville, he may not play that same role.

Meanwhile, Weber's done pretty much the same thing plugged in to the Montreal PP that he did in Nashville. He's down slightly - 26 points last year to 22 this year, but he's still producing and has 12 goals on the man advantage. The rest of his decline this year has been at even strength.

So what would happen if Subban was here? He's a right shot, and so he would have been well positioned to play with the first unit powerplay. He would be a shooting option still though, rather than the quarterback (McDavid holds that role for the foreseeable future). It's likely that he'd have been a favourite option and he's much better suited to play that role than Klefbom (who's not receiving passes in a manner that favours quick one-timed releases. Klefbom's PP numbers have spiked this year, despite only really playing maybe 50 games with the top unit. He's picked up 11 points on the man advantage. I think it's extremely likely that a player like Subban would thrive on a PP run by McDavid. He's got the speed and creativity to get to open spots, and he's got a good enough release that I expect he'd get shots on net regularly. I expect his point total would be higher if he was here.

As for defensive play? I think that Subban's pretty good generally but he's one of those players where he's high risk, high reward at times. That leads to dramatic moments on miscues, which contributes to a viewer bias. You'll remember the big mistakes, you won't see all the small things he does right. To go back to your favoured stat - he's a +29 in his career, even with the current season's results, playing generally on teams that are pretty middle of the road.

If the Oilers had done Hall for Subban, I think we'd still be happy with the result although that's not something you can ever prove for certain, and certainly his health is an X-Factor. If he's here, then who knows if he would have had a more or less healthy year.

He makes 9 mill a year! I can list more than 10 guys off the top of my head that are better than Subban and make WAY less. Letang, OEL, Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, Josi, Hedman, Burns, Pietrangelo, Ekblad (he's barely played and he's better). Those guys are for sure better and if the Preds GM called up and offered Subban straight up, he would be laughed off the phone. Then there are guys like Suter, McDonagh, Carlson, who I would take over Subban. Dougie Hamilton is going to score over 50 pts this year. He makes 5.75 mill. Is Subban 3.25 better than Hamilton? No way.

For the Oilers, Klefbom has 12 goals, 31 pts and is only 23 and makes less than 4.2 mill. Subban is 21, turning 28 in just over a month. Subban is not twice as good as Klefbom and he has 5 years of experience on Subban.

You can disagree with me all you want and give me whatever excuse you want for him.What's the cap at 74 mill? If you are making 9 mill a season which is roughly 12% of the cap, you better be spectacular all the time. I have hardcore Habs fans in my office who were jumping for joy he was traded because he is so grossly over paid for what he brings. He easily makes 2-2.5 mill more than he should.


Montreal didn't even want Hall. They needed a #1C and wanted Drai. Drai is already more valuable than Hall. They also wanted Klef, and our #4 pick which would have been Pulju and possibly more.

They had no intention of trading Subban for anything but another established #1D unless they got a ridiculous overpay.

Subban is not a realistic option even when trying to rewrite history. IMO Demers is off the table too. He is bad defensively. Klef/Demers would have struggled badly this year IMO. Demers woulda costed 5.5M and not improved at all in his time here. 11M tied up in Sek/Demers would have not been good for the next 4-5 years.

[Updated on: Tue, 04 April 2017 12:28]

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

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

5 x $5,000,000

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690239 is a reply to message #690238 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 12:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
Kr55 wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 12:25

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 12:15

Adam wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 11:42

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 10:28

I would have preferred the Oilers to keep Hall and trade one of Nuge or Eberle but let's face it, Nuge and Eberle weren't worth anything close to Hall. Eberle is inconsistent, one dimensional and probably makes at least 1 mill too much. Nuge is turning himself into a 3rd line center who can't win a draw. Yes he goes up against tougher centers but so does any second line 2 way center. You can be good defensively and not completely give up all your offense. Why can't Nuge be a slightly smaller O'Reilly? O'Reilly is slightly heavier but not overly physical but he's really good at faceoffs (57.8), good defensively and scores 20+ goals, 55-60 pts every year. He's done it 4 yrs in a row that's with missing games the last 2 seasons. Nuge is 43.8% on draws and scored over 20 once. Nuge was drafted #1 overall to be O'Reilly. He's being paid to do what O'Reilly does. What GM is going to even trade a Larsson for Nuge or Eberle? You'd have to thrown in a decent dman going back and maybe a pick to make it even.

Subban at 9 mill in 63 games has 10 goals, 38 pts and is a -6. He's the only top 4 dman on the Preds who's a negative. How bad defensively do you have to be to be the only top 4 dman on the Preds to be negative? There was rumors in the summer that the ask for Subban was Drai, Nurse & the #3. The thought that there was many fans all over a trade like that scares the crap out of me.


I think you rely a little too much on faceoff stats and +/-. The first isn't that important, and the second is meaningless without context. You need to know who a player is playing with, and who they're playing against and how they are being used to understand =/-, and even then, it's subject to a lot of other factors. Remember that some players on the ice when a goal is scored are not specifically responsible for that goal.

Subban's had some injury issues this year so you have to consider that when you're looking at his 38 points. He's on pace for 50 in a full season, which is still a down year for him compared to his historical results, but not THAT far off. Even in this down year, he's still 13th in the league at points per game. Worth noting, his goals are on par with what he's produced historically. He's got 10, and could still very conceivably finish with his third highest goal total ever (he's had seasons of 14 and 15). Assists are down - is that related to systems? Is it related to quality of finishers up front?

He's also playing with Josi in Nashville, a pretty phenomenal defenceman in his own right (6th in the league in points per game). While in Montreal, everything when through PK, but in Nashville, he's sharing the load. Just like you have to expect a centremen's numbers to drop if he's playing second line rather than first, if you have multiple offensive defencemen on the team, they're unlikely to get all the push, and they will cannibalize each other's numbers to an extent.

It's worth noting that Shea Weber, while he's played every game in Montreal, has also seen a significant drop in his points per game, and Josi, while in a similar position to last year in rank, has also dropped from 0.75 (same as Subban in 2015-16) to 0.69 for points per game.

I suspect a lot of this relates to the powerplay. Both Subban and Josi had 24 points with the man advantage last year, they're down to 16 and 17 points respectively. I believe that the nashville powerplay last year was geared around Josi as the quarterback setting up Weber for the big shot. The former captain had 14 PPG in his last season as a Predator. Subban has a good shot, but it's not a Weber blast, and he's more of a playmaker than simply a cannon, so Nashville has had to adapt their defence. While everything would have gone through Subban in Montreal, in Nashville, he may not play that same role.

Meanwhile, Weber's done pretty much the same thing plugged in to the Montreal PP that he did in Nashville. He's down slightly - 26 points last year to 22 this year, but he's still producing and has 12 goals on the man advantage. The rest of his decline this year has been at even strength.

So what would happen if Subban was here? He's a right shot, and so he would have been well positioned to play with the first unit powerplay. He would be a shooting option still though, rather than the quarterback (McDavid holds that role for the foreseeable future). It's likely that he'd have been a favourite option and he's much better suited to play that role than Klefbom (who's not receiving passes in a manner that favours quick one-timed releases. Klefbom's PP numbers have spiked this year, despite only really playing maybe 50 games with the top unit. He's picked up 11 points on the man advantage. I think it's extremely likely that a player like Subban would thrive on a PP run by McDavid. He's got the speed and creativity to get to open spots, and he's got a good enough release that I expect he'd get shots on net regularly. I expect his point total would be higher if he was here.

As for defensive play? I think that Subban's pretty good generally but he's one of those players where he's high risk, high reward at times. That leads to dramatic moments on miscues, which contributes to a viewer bias. You'll remember the big mistakes, you won't see all the small things he does right. To go back to your favoured stat - he's a +29 in his career, even with the current season's results, playing generally on teams that are pretty middle of the road.

If the Oilers had done Hall for Subban, I think we'd still be happy with the result although that's not something you can ever prove for certain, and certainly his health is an X-Factor. If he's here, then who knows if he would have had a more or less healthy year.

He makes 9 mill a year! I can list more than 10 guys off the top of my head that are better than Subban and make WAY less. Letang, OEL, Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, Josi, Hedman, Burns, Pietrangelo, Ekblad (he's barely played and he's better). Those guys are for sure better and if the Preds GM called up and offered Subban straight up, he would be laughed off the phone. Then there are guys like Suter, McDonagh, Carlson, who I would take over Subban. Dougie Hamilton is going to score over 50 pts this year. He makes 5.75 mill. Is Subban 3.25 better than Hamilton? No way.

For the Oilers, Klefbom has 12 goals, 31 pts and is only 23 and makes less than 4.2 mill. Subban is 21, turning 28 in just over a month. Subban is not twice as good as Klefbom and he has 5 years of experience on Subban.

You can disagree with me all you want and give me whatever excuse you want for him.What's the cap at 74 mill? If you are making 9 mill a season which is roughly 12% of the cap, you better be spectacular all the time. I have hardcore Habs fans in my office who were jumping for joy he was traded because he is so grossly over paid for what he brings. He easily makes 2-2.5 mill more than he should.


Montreal didn't even want Hall. They needed a #1C and wanted Drai. Drai is already more valuable than Hall. They also wanted Klef, and our #4 pick which would have been Pulju and possibly more.

They had no intention of trading Subban for anything but another established #1D unless they got a ridiculous overpay.

Subban is not a realistic option even when trying to rewrite history. IMO Demers is off the table too. He is bad defensively. Klef/Demers would have struggled badly this year IMO. Demers woulda costed 5.5M and not improved at all in his time here. 11M tied up in Sek/Demers would have not been good for the next 4-5 years.

I totally agree. Can you imagine if they traded Drai? I don't even want to think about it. Are his points inflated this season playing with McDavid this season? Probably a bit. But right now that duo is the #1 scoring duo in the league. Even if he ends up going to the second line center spot, if you have good wingers with him, what does he drop too? 65-70?

A good center is always way more valuable than wingers.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690347 is a reply to message #690230 ]
Wed, 05 April 2017 13:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1098
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver
1 Cup
RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 09:28

You can be good defensively and not completely give up all your offense. Why can't Nuge be a slightly smaller O'Reilly? O'Reilly is slightly heavier but not overly physical but he's really good at faceoffs (57.8), good defensively and scores 20+ goals, 55-60 pts every year. He's done it 4 yrs in a row that's with missing games the last 2 seasons. Nuge is 43.8% on draws and scored over 20 once. Nuge was drafted #1 overall to be O'Reilly. He's being paid to do what O'Reilly does. What GM is going to even trade a Larsson for Nuge or Eberle? You'd have to thrown in a decent dman going back and maybe a pick to make it even.



So if Nuge is being paid $6M to be ROR, who is ROR being paid $7.5M to be? icon_wink

It's actually an interesting comparison.

If you look at their even strength point totals over the past 4 years (including this season):

- RNH - 290GP / 46G / 112PTS
- ROR - 302GP / 51G / 123PTS
(numbers from corsica.hockey)

So basically all of the gap in their production is due to PP time (and this year, Nuge actually has one more even strength point that ROR in what is universally accepted as a down year for RNH).

Based on TOI, it looks like ROR is playing on Buffalo's top unit this year (which is the #1 unit in the NHL), and RNH is playing on the 2nd unit here and averaging about 1 min less of PP time per game.

Interestingly, the only year in the past 4 where ROR was on a PP that finished worse than Edmonton's was in 2014/15, when Edmonton was 18th and Colorado was 29th. Their overall point totals that year:

- RNH - 76GP / 24G / 56PTS
- ROR - 82GP / 17G / 55PTS
(numbers from nhl.com)

So if Buffalo called today and offered ROR straight up for a younger, cheaper RNH, knowing that the left shooting ROR is unlikely to crack the top PP unit here, then I don't think there's any way that I make that deal.



[Updated on: Wed, 05 April 2017 13:54]

Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 (82 game pace): 257 GF / 254 GA (+3) in 64 games
2021 (82 game pace):269 GF / 235 GA (+34) after 38 games

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690364 is a reply to message #690347 ]
Wed, 05 April 2017 16:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
Scott Cullen. Big time TSN Advanced stats guy and kind of an Oiler hater was debating with some Oiler fans last night about how bad the Hal trade still is. Some of the things he said was the impact of Hall on the Devils was way, way, way more this season than Larsson on the Oilers. If you look at the Devils this season after adding Hall. They are way worse defensively this year than last year. They are going to finish way less in overall points than they were last year. Offensively. Hall was brought in to boost the offense. With 3 games left, the Devils have scored 8 goals less than they did all last season. Given they are scoring at a 2.22 goals per game clip this season. Just to tie last years total, they are going to have to score higher than their season average. Oh yea, Hall's made a BIG difference. icon_lol

Larsson was brought in to be a big, physical, hard to play against, right shot dman to help shore up the defense. Larsson is mean, nasty, brutal to play against, has 243 hits in 76 games and is a plus 18. In addtion, the Oilers have improved by 71 goals. They were -42 last year and +29 this year. Now its not all Larsson but he has done more than what he was brought in to do.

Best thing said. Matt Henderson, Oilers blogger and Hall trade hater chimed in. "Hall is the best player on the Devils, Larsson is 4th in ice time." Larsson gets no PP time, while Sekara and Klefbom get lots. Take that into account and their mins are almost the same. If you go look at the Devils line up. Saying Hall is the best player isn't saying much. Their line up is brutal.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690365 is a reply to message #690364 ]
Wed, 05 April 2017 16:51 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Kr55 is currently online Kr55
Messages: 10770
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 05 April 2017 16:38

Scott Cullen. Big time TSN Advanced stats guy and kind of an Oiler hater was debating with some Oiler fans last night about how bad the Hal trade still is. Some of the things he said was the impact of Hall on the Devils was way, way, way more this season than Larsson on the Oilers. If you look at the Devils this season after adding Hall. They are way worse defensively this year than last year. They are going to finish way less in overall points than they were last year. Offensively. Hall was brought in to boost the offense. With 3 games left, the Devils have scored 8 goals less than they did all last season. Given they are scoring at a 2.22 goals per game clip this season. Just to tie last years total, they are going to have to score higher than their season average. Oh yea, Hall's made a BIG difference. icon_lol

Larsson was brought in to be a big, physical, hard to play against, right shot dman to help shore up the defense. Larsson is mean, nasty, brutal to play against, has 243 hits in 76 games and is a plus 18. In addtion, the Oilers have improved by 71 goals. They were -42 last year and +29 this year. Now its not all Larsson but he has done more than what he was brought in to do.

Best thing said. Matt Henderson, Oilers blogger and Hall trade hater chimed in. "Hall is the best player on the Devils, Larsson is 4th in ice time." Larsson gets no PP time, while Sekara and Klefbom get lots. Take that into account and their mins are almost the same. If you go look at the Devils line up. Saying Hall is the best player isn't saying much. Their line up is brutal.


If your best player by a good margin is a 1-dimensional winger, I think your team is gonna suck :)

I think the real debate is how much the oilers actually miss Hall. Hall was really having trouble clicking with anyone for a year plus until he and Drai meshed for a couple months. Drai really saved Hall last season from having 3 ~60 point pace seasons in a row, which, adjusted for his usual 10 or so games of injury a season, make him a guy that brings 50-60 points to your team a year when getting all the prime offensive ice time. I'm only taking the last 3 years into account of course. He managed 80 in his offensive productivity prime. But, he said himself last year, he has started playing more cautious after his last injury a few years ago, and, IMO, he really needs to be taking the big risks with his body to generate the chances he needs to be an elite contributor on paper.

I honestly don't think he would have helped us that much this year. Maybe if McDavid got injured, but that didn't happen, and next year hopefully Pulju can be a contributor that could help in such a situation. And lots of discussion here about how Nuge has been held down, how many more points would Nuge/Ebs put up if they got all that prime ice time McDavid's line gets? We have lots of forwards in this organisation, and there is only so much ice time to go around, and so much time where you're leaning offensively.

We have spent probably double the amount of time this year as last season with a lead, that lends itself to more defensive play, and McLellan really does coach players to bottle up with a lead. We don't play all out all the time offensive hockey like the Pens do. Maybe some of us with we did, and maybe Hall could have helped more in that kind of game plan, but that's a whole other discussion then, because they we would have to dump McLellan too and find another coach to have created the environment where Hall could have actually provided some incremental improvement (and maybe he still wouldn't have in that case compared to the guys we already have).


Many factors to consider, but in my head, I honestly don't think we miss Hall much. The glut of forwards on the team made it possible to move him in a deal we lost on paper, but one that has let us play the way McLellan wants the team to play and succeed, and the results have been surprisingly good. And the loss, I think the value of Larsson and Hall will be getting closer each year, and eventually NJD will just having nothing to show for the trade aside from a pick/prospect when they have to trade pending UFA Hall, and I bet we end up extending Larsson.

And of course there is the whole personality thing, and keeping a healthy dressing room that we have have based on personal opinion and hearsay, but I think I've encouraged that kind of stuff to death on here already :)




Interesting stat on the topic of playing with a lead. Last season we played with a lead 5v5 for 843 mins. we allowed 3.42 goals against per 60 mins in that situation, by far the worst in the NHL. Next closest was Carolina who let in 3.00 GA/60.

This year, we've played with the lead for 1257 mins 5v5 (so 67% more time than last year at 5v5). And we are 3rd best now at not allowing goals, we have allowed 1.91 GA/60 this year with a lead 5v5.

[Updated on: Wed, 05 April 2017 18:05]

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

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

5 x $5,000,000

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Trade Hall to Devils for Larsson [message #690374 is a reply to message #690365 ]
Thu, 06 April 2017 09:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
Kr55 wrote on Wed, 05 April 2017 16:51

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 05 April 2017 16:38

Scott Cullen. Big time TSN Advanced stats guy and kind of an Oiler hater was debating with some Oiler fans last night about how bad the Hal trade still is. Some of the things he said was the impact of Hall on the Devils was way, way, way more this season than Larsson on the Oilers. If you look at the Devils this season after adding Hall. They are way worse defensively this year than last year. They are going to finish way less in overall points than they were last year. Offensively. Hall was brought in to boost the offense. With 3 games left, the Devils have scored 8 goals less than they did all last season. Given they are scoring at a 2.22 goals per game clip this season. Just to tie last years total, they are going to have to score higher than their season average. Oh yea, Hall's made a BIG difference. icon_lol

Larsson was brought in to be a big, physical, hard to play against, right shot dman to help shore up the defense. Larsson is mean, nasty, brutal to play against, has 243 hits in 76 games and is a plus 18. In addtion, the Oilers have improved by 71 goals. They were -42 last year and +29 this year. Now its not all Larsson but he has done more than what he was brought in to do.

Best thing said. Matt Henderson, Oilers blogger and Hall trade hater chimed in. "Hall is the best player on the Devils, Larsson is 4th in ice time." Larsson gets no PP time, while Sekara and Klefbom get lots. Take that into account and their mins are almost the same. If you go look at the Devils line up. Saying Hall is the best player isn't saying much. Their line up is brutal.


If your best player by a good margin is a 1-dimensional winger, I think your team is gonna suck :)

I think the real debate is how much the oilers actually miss Hall. Hall was really having trouble clicking with anyone for a year plus until he and Drai meshed for a couple months. Drai really saved Hall last season from having 3 ~60 point pace seasons in a row, which, adjusted for his usual 10 or so games of injury a season, make him a guy that brings 50-60 points to your team a year when getting all the prime offensive ice time. I'm only taking the last 3 years into account of course. He managed 80 in his offensive productivity prime. But, he said himself last year, he has started playing more cautious after his last injury a few years ago, and, IMO, he really needs to be taking the big risks with his body to generate the chances he needs to be an elite contributor on paper.

I honestly don't think he would have helped us that much this year. Maybe if McDavid got injured, but that didn't happen, and next year hopefully Pulju can be a contributor that could help in such a situation. And lots of discussion here about how Nuge has been held down, how many more points would Nuge/Ebs put up if they got all that prime ice time McDavid's line gets? We have lots of forwards in this organisation, and there is only so much ice time to go around, and so much time where you're leaning offensively.

We have spent probably double the amount of time this year as last season with a lead, that lends itself to more defensive play, and McLellan really does coach players to bottle up with a lead. We don't play all out all the time offensive hockey like the Pens do. Maybe some of us with we did, and maybe Hall could have helped more in that kind of game plan, but that's a whole other discussion then, because they we would have to dump McLellan too and find another coach to have created the environment where Hall could have actually provided some incremental improvement (and maybe he still wouldn't have in that case compared to the guys we already have).


Many factors to consider, but in my head, I honestly don't think we miss Hall much. The glut of forwards on the team made it possible to move him in a deal we lost on paper, but one that has let us play the way McLellan wants the team to play and succeed, and the results have been surprisingly good. And the loss, I think the value of Larsson and Hall will be getting closer each year, and eventually NJD will just having nothing to show for the trade aside from a pick/prospect when they have to trade pending UFA Hall, and I bet we end up extending Larsson.

And of course there is the whole personality thing, and keeping a healthy dressing room that we have have based on personal opinion and hearsay, but I think I've encouraged that kind of stuff to death on here already :)




Interesting stat on the topic of playing with a lead. Last season we played with a lead 5v5 for 843 mins. we allowed 3.42 goals against per 60 mins in that situation, by far the worst in the NHL. Next closest was Carolina who let in 3.00 GA/60.

This year, we've played with the lead for 1257 mins 5v5 (so 67% more time than last year at 5v5). And we are 3rd best now at not allowing goals, we have allowed 1.91 GA/60 this year with a lead 5v5.

I agree with you. So when the season ends and you are near last in the league AGAIN. Chia and McLellan sit down and talk about the season and what went right, what went wrong, who kept playing, who quit, who's a debbie downer in the room and what you need to bring in to improve. So the first thing McLellan says to Chia is "My defense sucks. I can't win with it." Chia agrees and says he's been trying to get someone but nobody wants our guys, except maybe Hall or Drai or Nurse. Chia doesn't want to Drai or Nurse and he'd rather not trade Hall.

Then they go over who they have on defense worth keeping. They list Sekera & Klefbom. Nurse is so young but they see something. Davidson is maybe a player but hard to say. Gryba was decent in the 3rd pairing but he's a UFA but wants to come back badly. So maybe they have 3 dmen you can confidently start out next season. You can bring back Gryba in a 6-7 role. McLellen says I want nothing to do with Fayne, he's going to have to have one hell of an offseason and camp because I don't think I can use him. So Chi says. "So we basically have no one on the right side for next year." So then Chia says "Well I might be able to sign 1 UFA but anymore than that, it's going to be tough." He mentions Demers to McLellen who coached and McLellan is luke warm to him.

So then they look at their forwards. Yak is worth nothing. Nuge or Eberle are going to need another dman to go with them to get anyone remotely decent back and they don't have enough dmen to begin with so they can't trade one. They aren't trading a 21 yr old big center in Drai. But I do get calls on Hall frequently but I don't want to trade him. They then they say, "could we even do it if we absolutely had too?" So they make lines without Hall.

McLellan says Nuge, Eberle & Pouliot played well together. Pouliot had 19 in 58, then 14 in 55 this year. IF the guy could stay remotely healthy, he'd have back to back 20+ goal years.

Then McLellan says. "Hall can't play with Connor. I tried. They look like crap in practice and even worse in games. Hall won't give up the damn puck to McDavid and he doesn't go to the right spots."

Then he goes. "Well Maroon looked good with McDavid. He had 8 goals and 14 pts here. All he does is get the pucks to Connor as fast as he can and goes to the net and Connor finds him. He's got pretty good hands. If the guy would just drop some pounds, he might do alright.

McLellan goes I really like Drai. He might have the second best hockey sense and vision on the team behind Connor and he's lethal on the backhand. Plus I loved having that extra center on my top line like I did with Pavelski." They count them up. "That's 6 guys and we don't have Hall down yet."

Chia goes. "Well you know, Milan and I still keep in touch. When I got this job he sent me a text to congratulate me and said how much he enjoyed playing on my team. I kept tabs on him in LA and asked how he liked playing in the West. He said he liked being closer to home. I know he's watching Connor and has asked me how the new building looks. I haven't talked anything about contract but I have it from good sources he'd like to stay in LA because its California but he doubts it will happen."

McLellan "You actually think you can get Milan?"

Chi "Well its free agency so nothing is a guarantee but Yes I seriously do. I have a good idea about the dollars he wants. He's been asking Dean for 6, the problem is he wants long term and Dean can't give it to him. Deans offering 4, maybe 5, Milan wants 7 yrs. So if I give Milan the term he wants, he will come. I am pretty confident in 5 yrs, it's the 6 and 7 I am not 100% on.

McLellan "If you can get Milan in here and a couple of decent dmen in here, with Connor, we can win in 2 years and maybe win a couple."

Chia "So if we can get Milan, where do we fit Hall?"

They both look at each other and point to the empty defense spots on the right side in the depth chart.

Obviously I am not in the room but that's how I think it roughly went down and how they came to trade Hall. I still think Chia from the end of the season and into June still worked the phones to try and not trade Hall, you don't offer up your best chip right off the bat. But when the costs to get even a remotely decent dman kept coming back as Eberle ++ or Nuge ++ for the teams that would even remotely entertain those players, most weren't. He had to shift gears.

[Updated on: Thu, 06 April 2017 09:24]

Send a private message to this user  

Pages (16): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  >  »]  
Previous Topic:Tkachev ELC Ruled Ineligible
Next Topic:Larsson a Kraken
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


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

Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca