OilFans.com :: Fan Forum: Oilers => Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24)

Guest

Login / Register

This day on November 25
None

Happy Birthday To: Bert, romanoksuita, SixCupComing, BobBeers, Jodes

OILERS INFO OILFANS
Monday, Nov 25, 2024 7:14 AM MT

F.A.Q.

Terms of Use F.A.Q.

F.A.Q.

Members

Search

Register

Login

Home

Oilers » Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24)

Switch to flat view

Switch to tree view

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795554]	Tue, 07 December 2021 02:00

OilFans
Messages: 1561
Registered: February 2006
Location: Edmonton

1 Cup

4

1 Final

Score Prediction
Login To Make Your Prediction

Edmonton to win:	0%
Minnesota to win:	0%
	0 entries View all picks Leaderboard

2021-22 Regular Season
Tuesday, December 7, 2021 Minnesota 4 @ Edmonton 1 Loss
Sunday, February 20, 2022 Minnesota 7 @ Edmonton 3 Loss
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Edmonton 1 @ Minnesota 5 Loss
Home Record: 0-2-0 Road Record: 0-1-0 Overall Record: 0-3-0
Home / Road Goals For: 4/1 Total: 5
Home / Road Goals Against: 11/5 Total: 16

2020-21 Regular Season
Home Record: 0-0-0 Road Record: 0-0-0 Overall Record: 0-0-0
Home / Road Goals For: 0/0 Total: 0
Home / Road Goals Against: 0/0 Total: 0

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795555 is a reply to message #795554 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 04:04

clutchlikeeberle
Messages: 252
Registered: April 2012

No Cups

With tonight's inevitable loss can anyone going to the game in person start a fire Tipp or we want woodcroft chant?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795559 is a reply to message #795555 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 09:12

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

I am hoping for a good start and I expect we will see a spirited effort tonight.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795571 is a reply to message #795555 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 11:25

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 04:04

With tonight's inevitable loss can anyone going to the game in person start a fire Tipp or we want woodcroft chant?

This seems very negative. The Oilers have beat some good teams this year and lost to a couple miserable ones. It's far from a foregone conclusion, especially with McDavid and Draisaitl in the lineup.

I'd love to see Tippett relieved, but short of the Lagesson thing turning in to a Babcock-type scandal, I don't see the Oilers as a team or Holland as a GM that's willing to pull the trigger on a coaching change while the team has a winning record. Kevin Lowe and Holland probably both run burner twitter accounts with which they post inane things like "you guys are going to complain about a team that's 16-7?" and "This management team clearly knows a thing or two about winning." They will stick with the status quo and as long as the team isn't another early easy out in the playoffs, they'll keep Tippett around. If we lose in the first round to a lesser team again? All bets may be off on him.

That's not to say he shouldn't be gone - he should be. His team is playing atrociously at even strength, and his upgraded bottom six looks worse than ever. Special teams has been good and he and his staff should get some credit for that, but the fact is that that's only 20% of the game. It also has significantly less of an impact come playoff time because the NHL is bush league and thinks that the best way to showcase the league at the point where the most eyes are watching is to turn it in to wrestling on skates. I also think that with McDavid and Draisaitl at this stage of their career are going to be good on the PP no matter who's the coach. They struggled a little with McLellan, but I think even with him now they'd be successful because they're too good to fail.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795560 is a reply to message #795554 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 09:13

NCREDiBLE
Messages: 258
Registered: February 2007
Location: Cold Lake, AB

No Cups

How about some Neemo chants since he's been hitting everything in sight with 16 hits in 3 games.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795561 is a reply to message #795560 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 09:30

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

NCREDiBLE wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 09:13

How about some Neemo chants since he's been hitting everything in sight with 16 hits in 3 games.

I like Niemo. He brings a different element to the Oilers defense. It's early but my hope is that Niemo can turn into the Oilers Logan Stanley. A huge, fairly mobile, physical, defensive dman that can play in the 3rd pairing maybe play a little PK time.

I think once they get more healthy bodies back on defense, we will see Broberg and Lagesson go down and Niemo stay up for a bit. Broberg has shown what he can do and isn't far off but he's 20 and played NA hockey for only a couple of months. He just needs more time. Lagesson is just not an NHL dman regardless of what his agent thinks.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795562 is a reply to message #795561 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 09:45

NCREDiBLE
Messages: 258
Registered: February 2007
Location: Cold Lake, AB

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 09:30

NCREDiBLE wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 09:13

How about some Neemo chants since he's been hitting everything in sight with 16 hits in 3 games.

I like Niemo. He brings a different element to the Oilers defense. It's early but my hope is that Niemo can turn into the Oilers Logan Stanley. A huge, fairly mobile, physical, defensive dman that can play in the 3rd pairing maybe play a little PK time.

I think once they get more healthy bodies back on defense, we will see Broberg and Lagesson go down and Niemo stay up for a bit. Broberg has shown what he can do and isn't far off but he's 20 and played NA hockey for only a couple of months. He just needs more time. Lagesson is just not an NHL dman regardless of what his agent thinks.

100% agree, let Broberg get more time in the minors to keep getting better. Neemo is 3rd pairing at best so he's where he should be and for Lag.. if you can get anything for him, I'd do the trade.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795565 is a reply to message #795562 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 10:34

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

NCREDiBLE wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 09:45

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 09:30

NCREDiBLE wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 09:13

How about some Neemo chants since he's been hitting everything in sight with 16 hits in 3 games.

I like Niemo. He brings a different element to the Oilers defense. It's early but my hope is that Niemo can turn into the Oilers Logan Stanley. A huge, fairly mobile, physical, defensive dman that can play in the 3rd pairing maybe play a little PK time.

I think once they get more healthy bodies back on defense, we will see Broberg and Lagesson go down and Niemo stay up for a bit. Broberg has shown what he can do and isn't far off but he's 20 and played NA hockey for only a couple of months. He just needs more time. Lagesson is just not an NHL dman regardless of what his agent thinks.

100% agree, let Broberg get more time in the minors to keep getting better. Neemo is 3rd pairing at best so he's where he should be and for Lag.. if you can get anything for him, I'd do the trade.

In my opinion, I do not think every dman needs to be a great skating, puck moving, offensive dman. As long as they can move fairly well, you still need a few guys who can defend and when you get to the playoffs, unless the league totally changes, you need a few bigger bodies that can bang because the refs let everything go and the hockey turns into a war. So if you put a decent puck mover on the right side, you could have an OK pairing.

Lagesson already had to pass through waivers out of camp. So any team could have him for free. I don't think Lagesson has any value.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795566 is a reply to message #795565 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 10:40

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Lines

Hyman - McD - JP
Nuge - Leon - Yamo
Foegele - McLeod - Kass
Shore - Ryan - Sceviour

Nurse - Bouchard
Broberg - Russell
Neim - Barrie

Koskinen

With the forwards they have, those are the players I would play. I'd probably switch JP or Yamo just because I think having Nuge and Yamo who are both undersized, Yamo big time, and I wouldn't call them both assertive players on the same line, I just don't think it works.

Happy to see Shore back. They have been switching between Benson and Perlini with not a lot happening so time to try someone else.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795569 is a reply to message #795566 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 10:57

benv
Messages: 602
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:40

Lines

Hyman - McD - JP
Nuge - Leon - Yamo
Foegele - McLeod - Kass
Shore - Ryan - Sceviour

Nurse - Bouchard
Broberg - Russell
Neim - Barrie

Koskinen

With the forwards they have, those are the players I would play. I'd probably switch JP or Yamo just because I think having Nuge and Yamo who are both undersized, Yamo big time, and I wouldn't call them both assertive players on the same line, I just don't think it works.

Happy to see Shore back. They have been switching between Benson and Perlini with not a lot happening so time to try someone else.

If Shore is back, that leaves Lagesson, Perlini, Turris, and Benson as healthy scratches. Isn't that one too many players? Don't they need to waive someone to activate Shore?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795570 is a reply to message #795569 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 11:17

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

benv wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:57

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:40

Lines

Hyman - McD - JP
Nuge - Leon - Yamo
Foegele - McLeod - Kass
Shore - Ryan - Sceviour

Nurse - Bouchard
Broberg - Russell
Neim - Barrie

Koskinen

With the forwards they have, those are the players I would play. I'd probably switch JP or Yamo just because I think having Nuge and Yamo who are both undersized, Yamo big time, and I wouldn't call them both assertive players on the same line, I just don't think it works.

Happy to see Shore back. They have been switching between Benson and Perlini with not a lot happening so time to try someone else.

If Shore is back, that leaves Lagesson, Perlini, Turris, and Benson as healthy scratches. Isn't that one too many players? Don't they need to waive someone to activate Shore?

Listening to the radio, sounds like Perlini was not on the ice so I wonder if he's going down.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795573 is a reply to message #795570 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 12:05

Oilertime
Messages: 28
Registered: October 1999
Location: Fort Saskatchewan

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 11:17

benv wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:57

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:40

Lines

Hyman - McD - JP
Nuge - Leon - Yamo
Foegele - McLeod - Kass
Shore - Ryan - Sceviour

Nurse - Bouchard
Broberg - Russell
Neim - Barrie

Koskinen

With the forwards they have, those are the players I would play. I'd probably switch JP or Yamo just because I think having Nuge and Yamo who are both undersized, Yamo big time, and I wouldn't call them both assertive players on the same line, I just don't think it works.

Happy to see Shore back. They have been switching between Benson and Perlini with not a lot happening so time to try someone else.

If Shore is back, that leaves Lagesson, Perlini, Turris, and Benson as healthy scratches. Isn't that one too many players? Don't they need to waive someone to activate Shore?

Listening to the radio, sounds like Perlini was not on the ice so I wonder if he's going down.

Oilers twitter confirms Perlini waived.

That's the right move and I'm kind of surprised.

https://twitter.com/Reggie__11

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795575 is a reply to message #795573 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 12:16

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Oilertime wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:05

Oilers twitter confirms Perlini waived.

That's the right move and I'm kind of surprised.

I believe I predicted this one the other day as the first waived. He's got no points and only Benson gets less time on ice per game than Perlini's 7:33/game. He's an external add, so easier to cut ties with if he's claimed, and he's older so he's less likely to get claimed.

I would love to know what the difference was from pre-season to regular season here and if he was asked to change the way he plays. It's possible he just had a hot streak and that he was just way better when there were less actual NHLers on the ice, but man...that's a stark difference.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795574 is a reply to message #795565 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 12:10

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:34

Lagesson already had to pass through waivers out of camp. So any team could have him for free. I don't think Lagesson has any value.

I think we're going to see a fair amount of comments like this on Lagesson given that his agent complained, and Oilers fans generally circle the wagons. No one criticizes our coaches or management but us! Worth noting, the underlying numbers for Lagesson were quite good in his couple appearances this year. Small sample size, but even so, he outperformed his other call-ups on those bases.

Walsh isn't subtle and rubs some people the wrong way, but he definitely goes to bat for his clients. I think some of what he says has some merit. I don't think that's how I would approach this particular situation, but I understand the strategy. They are fearing that he's buried in the depth chart now, and that actual play isn't likely to change that. He hasn't been on the roster for 30 days, so the Oilers could demote him without facing waivers again.

Walsh has flagged that his client had strong numbers and is open to moving on. He's also slapped a team that's notoriously thin-skinned, which could result in them making a quick trade for virtually nothing, or even putting him through waivers again where he may or may not get claimed even though they don't have to. Lagesson was in Edmonton all year last year, despite being played sparingly, so he may feel that the team is mismanaging the young player - we all know that the Oilers would never do such a thing, right? Walsh doesn't care about fan approval - he just tries to advance the interests of his client (which really is his only job). We will see if his gambit works this time.

With regards to what the Oilers SHOULD do? I would not waive him if I don't have to, and I wouldn't trade him for nothing either. Our left side is full of old, crappy, injury prone and/or inexperienced defencemen, and so I would not erode the depth without a good reason to do so. I don't like the chances of Lagesson being an Oiler past this year, but I don't flush him just because he's angry.

I do think they should look at whether the communication from coach to players is good though. If there is a real disconnect there, then it probably should be addressed.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795578 is a reply to message #795574 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 12:20

benv
Messages: 602
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:10

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:34

Lagesson already had to pass through waivers out of camp. So any team could have him for free. I don't think Lagesson has any value.

I think we're going to see a fair amount of comments like this on Lagesson given that his agent complained, and Oilers fans generally circle the wagons. No one criticizes our coaches or management but us! Worth noting, the underlying numbers for Lagesson were quite good in his couple appearances this year. Small sample size, but even so, he outperformed his other call-ups on those bases.

Walsh isn't subtle and rubs some people the wrong way, but he definitely goes to bat for his clients. I think some of what he says has some merit. I don't think that's how I would approach this particular situation, but I understand the strategy. They are fearing that he's buried in the depth chart now, and that actual play isn't likely to change that. He hasn't been on the roster for 30 days, so the Oilers could demote him without facing waivers again.

Walsh has flagged that his client had strong numbers and is open to moving on. He's also slapped a team that's notoriously thin-skinned, which could result in them making a quick trade for virtually nothing, or even putting him through waivers again where he may or may not get claimed even though they don't have to. Lagesson was in Edmonton all year last year, despite being played sparingly, so he may feel that the team is mismanaging the young player - we all know that the Oilers would never do such a thing, right? Walsh doesn't care about fan approval - he just tries to advance the interests of his client (which really is his only job). We will see if his gambit works this time.

With regards to what the Oilers SHOULD do? I would not waive him if I don't have to, and I wouldn't trade him for nothing either. Our left side is full of old, crappy, injury prone and/or inexperienced defencemen, and so I would not erode the depth without a good reason to do so. I don't like the chances of Lagesson being an Oiler past this year, but I don't flush him just because he's angry.

I do think they should look at whether the communication from coach to players is good though. If there is a real disconnect there, then it probably should be addressed.

I listened to the Oilers' post game driving home from the game on Sunday, and Rob Brown pointed out that there was nothing unusual about what happened with Lagesson (as a former player it happened to him many times). If a player (in this case Nurse) is potentially on the bubble to start and they want to see how he feels after warm-up, you never inform the player (in this case Lagesson) apriori that he will be the scratch if Nurse can go since it will affect how he prepares for the game. So once it was determined that Nurse was good to go, the trainers informed Lagesson that he was the odd man out. This is standard procedure as the coach has better things to do at this point as he's preparing for the game.

So whatever Tippet's communication relationships with his players are, there doesn't seem to be anything unusual that happened on Sunday, despite what Walsh said in his tweet.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795579 is a reply to message #795578 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 12:46

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

benv wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:20

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:10

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:34

Lagesson already had to pass through waivers out of camp. So any team could have him for free. I don't think Lagesson has any value.

I think we're going to see a fair amount of comments like this on Lagesson given that his agent complained, and Oilers fans generally circle the wagons. No one criticizes our coaches or management but us! Worth noting, the underlying numbers for Lagesson were quite good in his couple appearances this year. Small sample size, but even so, he outperformed his other call-ups on those bases.

Walsh isn't subtle and rubs some people the wrong way, but he definitely goes to bat for his clients. I think some of what he says has some merit. I don't think that's how I would approach this particular situation, but I understand the strategy. They are fearing that he's buried in the depth chart now, and that actual play isn't likely to change that. He hasn't been on the roster for 30 days, so the Oilers could demote him without facing waivers again.

Walsh has flagged that his client had strong numbers and is open to moving on. He's also slapped a team that's notoriously thin-skinned, which could result in them making a quick trade for virtually nothing, or even putting him through waivers again where he may or may not get claimed even though they don't have to. Lagesson was in Edmonton all year last year, despite being played sparingly, so he may feel that the team is mismanaging the young player - we all know that the Oilers would never do such a thing, right? Walsh doesn't care about fan approval - he just tries to advance the interests of his client (which really is his only job). We will see if his gambit works this time.

With regards to what the Oilers SHOULD do? I would not waive him if I don't have to, and I wouldn't trade him for nothing either. Our left side is full of old, crappy, injury prone and/or inexperienced defencemen, and so I would not erode the depth without a good reason to do so. I don't like the chances of Lagesson being an Oiler past this year, but I don't flush him just because he's angry.

I do think they should look at whether the communication from coach to players is good though. If there is a real disconnect there, then it probably should be addressed.

I listened to the Oilers' post game driving home from the game on Sunday, and Rob Brown pointed out that there was nothing unusual about what happened with Lagesson (as a former player it happened to him many times). If a player (in this case Nurse) is potentially on the bubble to start and they want to see how he feels after warm-up, you never inform the player (in this case Lagesson) apriori that he will be the scratch if Nurse can go since it will affect how he prepares for the game. So once it was determined that Nurse was good to go, the trainers informed Lagesson that he was the odd man out. This is standard procedure as the coach has better things to do at this point as he's preparing for the game.

So whatever Tippet's communication relationships with his players are, there doesn't seem to be anything unusual that happened on Sunday, despite what Walsh said in his tweet.

That would lead you to think there is more to the story, no?

This isn't coming out of no where, and the player has to know if his agent is going to do something that in most towns would create a firestorm (only hasn't here because the media guys are all good soldiers who don't run with stories the Oilers don't want covered).

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795583 is a reply to message #795579 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 14:36

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:46

benv wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:20

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:10

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:34

Lagesson already had to pass through waivers out of camp. So any team could have him for free. I don't think Lagesson has any value.

I think we're going to see a fair amount of comments like this on Lagesson given that his agent complained, and Oilers fans generally circle the wagons. No one criticizes our coaches or management but us! Worth noting, the underlying numbers for Lagesson were quite good in his couple appearances this year. Small sample size, but even so, he outperformed his other call-ups on those bases.

Walsh isn't subtle and rubs some people the wrong way, but he definitely goes to bat for his clients. I think some of what he says has some merit. I don't think that's how I would approach this particular situation, but I understand the strategy. They are fearing that he's buried in the depth chart now, and that actual play isn't likely to change that. He hasn't been on the roster for 30 days, so the Oilers could demote him without facing waivers again.

Walsh has flagged that his client had strong numbers and is open to moving on. He's also slapped a team that's notoriously thin-skinned, which could result in them making a quick trade for virtually nothing, or even putting him through waivers again where he may or may not get claimed even though they don't have to. Lagesson was in Edmonton all year last year, despite being played sparingly, so he may feel that the team is mismanaging the young player - we all know that the Oilers would never do such a thing, right? Walsh doesn't care about fan approval - he just tries to advance the interests of his client (which really is his only job). We will see if his gambit works this time.

With regards to what the Oilers SHOULD do? I would not waive him if I don't have to, and I wouldn't trade him for nothing either. Our left side is full of old, crappy, injury prone and/or inexperienced defencemen, and so I would not erode the depth without a good reason to do so. I don't like the chances of Lagesson being an Oiler past this year, but I don't flush him just because he's angry.

I do think they should look at whether the communication from coach to players is good though. If there is a real disconnect there, then it probably should be addressed.

I listened to the Oilers' post game driving home from the game on Sunday, and Rob Brown pointed out that there was nothing unusual about what happened with Lagesson (as a former player it happened to him many times). If a player (in this case Nurse) is potentially on the bubble to start and they want to see how he feels after warm-up, you never inform the player (in this case Lagesson) apriori that he will be the scratch if Nurse can go since it will affect how he prepares for the game. So once it was determined that Nurse was good to go, the trainers informed Lagesson that he was the odd man out. This is standard procedure as the coach has better things to do at this point as he's preparing for the game.

So whatever Tippet's communication relationships with his players are, there doesn't seem to be anything unusual that happened on Sunday, despite what Walsh said in his tweet.

That would lead you to think there is more to the story, no?

This isn't coming out of no where, and the player has to know if his agent is going to do something that in most towns would create a firestorm (only hasn't here because the media guys are all good soldiers who don't run with stories the Oilers don't want covered).

Walsh is known to mouth off. This screams to me a player who doesn't want to admit he's been passed on the depth chart. He's 25, going to be 26 in February and hasn't been able to establish himself in the NHL so he is grasping at straws and has an agent who likes to mouth off and play the victim card for his clients.

Here's the truth. He's at best a #7 dman and realistically probably an 8 or 9 on most teams. When fully heathy, there is no place for him on the roster what so ever and I do not think there is a single NHL GM who would disagree with me. Based on all of the scouting reports from this season, he hasn't even been the best dman in the AHL team like a guy who's if he was truly a legit NHL guy, he should be. He got called up based on the benefit of the doubt and experience. I personally have seen enough to know what he's about and I would not want him standing in front of Broberg or Niemelainen or Samorukov. So if he wants to go down to Bakersfield and play there, great. If not, bye bye. I could be wrong about the guy and if I am then surely some GM will gladly offer whatever pick to get him.

Here is a question and I am sure you won't answer it. You are the GM of whatever team you like in the NHL, what would you give up in trade to get Lagesson on your team because I bet the cost is very little.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795587 is a reply to message #795583 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 15:34

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 14:36

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:46

benv wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:20

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:10

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:34

Lagesson already had to pass through waivers out of camp. So any team could have him for free. I don't think Lagesson has any value.

I think we're going to see a fair amount of comments like this on Lagesson given that his agent complained, and Oilers fans generally circle the wagons. No one criticizes our coaches or management but us! Worth noting, the underlying numbers for Lagesson were quite good in his couple appearances this year. Small sample size, but even so, he outperformed his other call-ups on those bases.

Walsh isn't subtle and rubs some people the wrong way, but he definitely goes to bat for his clients. I think some of what he says has some merit. I don't think that's how I would approach this particular situation, but I understand the strategy. They are fearing that he's buried in the depth chart now, and that actual play isn't likely to change that. He hasn't been on the roster for 30 days, so the Oilers could demote him without facing waivers again.

Walsh has flagged that his client had strong numbers and is open to moving on. He's also slapped a team that's notoriously thin-skinned, which could result in them making a quick trade for virtually nothing, or even putting him through waivers again where he may or may not get claimed even though they don't have to. Lagesson was in Edmonton all year last year, despite being played sparingly, so he may feel that the team is mismanaging the young player - we all know that the Oilers would never do such a thing, right? Walsh doesn't care about fan approval - he just tries to advance the interests of his client (which really is his only job). We will see if his gambit works this time.

With regards to what the Oilers SHOULD do? I would not waive him if I don't have to, and I wouldn't trade him for nothing either. Our left side is full of old, crappy, injury prone and/or inexperienced defencemen, and so I would not erode the depth without a good reason to do so. I don't like the chances of Lagesson being an Oiler past this year, but I don't flush him just because he's angry.

I do think they should look at whether the communication from coach to players is good though. If there is a real disconnect there, then it probably should be addressed.

I listened to the Oilers' post game driving home from the game on Sunday, and Rob Brown pointed out that there was nothing unusual about what happened with Lagesson (as a former player it happened to him many times). If a player (in this case Nurse) is potentially on the bubble to start and they want to see how he feels after warm-up, you never inform the player (in this case Lagesson) apriori that he will be the scratch if Nurse can go since it will affect how he prepares for the game. So once it was determined that Nurse was good to go, the trainers informed Lagesson that he was the odd man out. This is standard procedure as the coach has better things to do at this point as he's preparing for the game.

So whatever Tippet's communication relationships with his players are, there doesn't seem to be anything unusual that happened on Sunday, despite what Walsh said in his tweet.

That would lead you to think there is more to the story, no?

This isn't coming out of no where, and the player has to know if his agent is going to do something that in most towns would create a firestorm (only hasn't here because the media guys are all good soldiers who don't run with stories the Oilers don't want covered).

Walsh is known to mouth off. This screams to me a player who doesn't want to admit he's been passed on the depth chart. He's 25, going to be 26 in February and hasn't been able to establish himself in the NHL so he is grasping at straws and has an agent who likes to mouth off and play the victim card for his clients.

Here's the truth. He's at best a #7 dman and realistically probably an 8 or 9 on most teams. When fully heathy, there is no place for him on the roster what so ever and I do not think there is a single NHL GM who would disagree with me. Based on all of the scouting reports from this season, he hasn't even been the best dman in the AHL team like a guy who's if he was truly a legit NHL guy, he should be. He got called up based on the benefit of the doubt and experience. I personally have seen enough to know what he's about and I would not want him standing in front of Broberg or Niemelainen or Samorukov. So if he wants to go down to Bakersfield and play there, great. If not, bye bye. I could be wrong about the guy and if I am then surely some GM will gladly offer whatever pick to get him.

Here is a question and I am sure you won't answer it. You are the GM of whatever team you like in the NHL, what would you give up in trade to get Lagesson on your team because I bet the cost is very little.

This is not mouthing off and it isn't a temper tantrum. Everything that Walsh does for his clients has a purpose. He believes he can help his client with this. As I said, if I'm the player, this probably isn't the approach I take, but A) we don't know what else has gone on between coach and player, and B) they may feel this is the time for him to make his move.

I can't really hold it against anyone to do what they feel is right for their career.

I think Lagesson is somewhat limited but serviceable. He's a low-event player, and that has some value. I also think that the stats that Walsh provided are good context. He outplayed the other LHD in the couple games he played. By the numbers, he probably didn't deserve to be the one coming out. Thems the breaks, and the coach ultimately makes the decisions, but I understand what Walsh is trying to do.

If I was a GM, I wouldn't give up anything for Lagesson - I'd wait to see if he becomes available for free though. I disagree with you on what he does well. You think nothing, I think he's a capable defender with limited offensive upside. There's a spot for that kind of player on a lot of teams - although he's a bubble guy with only 31 NHL games experience, so no one is going to make a big bet on him. They won't have to if Walsh gets his way though. He's trying to convince the Oilers to either trade him for next to nothing or to waive him again (possibly because he knows a certain GM would pick him up if he hits the wires).

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795590 is a reply to message #795587 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 15:47

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 15:34

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 14:36

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:46

benv wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:20

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:10

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:34

Lagesson already had to pass through waivers out of camp. So any team could have him for free. I don't think Lagesson has any value.

I think we're going to see a fair amount of comments like this on Lagesson given that his agent complained, and Oilers fans generally circle the wagons. No one criticizes our coaches or management but us! Worth noting, the underlying numbers for Lagesson were quite good in his couple appearances this year. Small sample size, but even so, he outperformed his other call-ups on those bases.

Walsh isn't subtle and rubs some people the wrong way, but he definitely goes to bat for his clients. I think some of what he says has some merit. I don't think that's how I would approach this particular situation, but I understand the strategy. They are fearing that he's buried in the depth chart now, and that actual play isn't likely to change that. He hasn't been on the roster for 30 days, so the Oilers could demote him without facing waivers again.

Walsh has flagged that his client had strong numbers and is open to moving on. He's also slapped a team that's notoriously thin-skinned, which could result in them making a quick trade for virtually nothing, or even putting him through waivers again where he may or may not get claimed even though they don't have to. Lagesson was in Edmonton all year last year, despite being played sparingly, so he may feel that the team is mismanaging the young player - we all know that the Oilers would never do such a thing, right? Walsh doesn't care about fan approval - he just tries to advance the interests of his client (which really is his only job). We will see if his gambit works this time.

With regards to what the Oilers SHOULD do? I would not waive him if I don't have to, and I wouldn't trade him for nothing either. Our left side is full of old, crappy, injury prone and/or inexperienced defencemen, and so I would not erode the depth without a good reason to do so. I don't like the chances of Lagesson being an Oiler past this year, but I don't flush him just because he's angry.

I do think they should look at whether the communication from coach to players is good though. If there is a real disconnect there, then it probably should be addressed.

I listened to the Oilers' post game driving home from the game on Sunday, and Rob Brown pointed out that there was nothing unusual about what happened with Lagesson (as a former player it happened to him many times). If a player (in this case Nurse) is potentially on the bubble to start and they want to see how he feels after warm-up, you never inform the player (in this case Lagesson) apriori that he will be the scratch if Nurse can go since it will affect how he prepares for the game. So once it was determined that Nurse was good to go, the trainers informed Lagesson that he was the odd man out. This is standard procedure as the coach has better things to do at this point as he's preparing for the game.

So whatever Tippet's communication relationships with his players are, there doesn't seem to be anything unusual that happened on Sunday, despite what Walsh said in his tweet.

That would lead you to think there is more to the story, no?

This isn't coming out of no where, and the player has to know if his agent is going to do something that in most towns would create a firestorm (only hasn't here because the media guys are all good soldiers who don't run with stories the Oilers don't want covered).

Walsh is known to mouth off. This screams to me a player who doesn't want to admit he's been passed on the depth chart. He's 25, going to be 26 in February and hasn't been able to establish himself in the NHL so he is grasping at straws and has an agent who likes to mouth off and play the victim card for his clients.

Here's the truth. He's at best a #7 dman and realistically probably an 8 or 9 on most teams. When fully heathy, there is no place for him on the roster what so ever and I do not think there is a single NHL GM who would disagree with me. Based on all of the scouting reports from this season, he hasn't even been the best dman in the AHL team like a guy who's if he was truly a legit NHL guy, he should be. He got called up based on the benefit of the doubt and experience. I personally have seen enough to know what he's about and I would not want him standing in front of Broberg or Niemelainen or Samorukov. So if he wants to go down to Bakersfield and play there, great. If not, bye bye. I could be wrong about the guy and if I am then surely some GM will gladly offer whatever pick to get him.

Here is a question and I am sure you won't answer it. You are the GM of whatever team you like in the NHL, what would you give up in trade to get Lagesson on your team because I bet the cost is very little.

This is not mouthing off and it isn't a temper tantrum. Everything that Walsh does for his clients has a purpose. He believes he can help his client with this. As I said, if I'm the player, this probably isn't the approach I take, but A) we don't know what else has gone on between coach and player, and B) they may feel this is the time for him to make his move.

I can't really hold it against anyone to do what they feel is right for their career.

I think Lagesson is somewhat limited but serviceable. He's a low-event player, and that has some value. I also think that the stats that Walsh provided are good context. He outplayed the other LHD in the couple games he played. By the numbers, he probably didn't deserve to be the one coming out. Thems the breaks, and the coach ultimately makes the decisions, but I understand what Walsh is trying to do.

If I was a GM, I wouldn't give up anything for Lagesson - I'd wait to see if he becomes available for free though. I disagree with you on what he does well. You think nothing, I think he's a capable defender with limited offensive upside. There's a spot for that kind of player on a lot of teams - although he's a bubble guy with only 31 NHL games experience, so no one is going to make a big bet on him. They won't have to if Walsh gets his way though. He's trying to convince the Oilers to either trade him for next to nothing or to waive him again (possibly because he knows a certain GM would pick him up if he hits the wires).

I guess we will find out then if other GM's think he has any value. The Oilers waived him so any GM could have had him for free but no one took what you are calling a serviceable dman that many teams could use. I am of the opinion that if a team thinks the way you do, giving up a 6th or 7th round pick which is basically nothing because its been proven based on decades of draft picks that the likelihood late round picks amount to anything at all is extremely unlikely, would be well worth it if he is indeed like you said. To me, if he is like you say he is, giving up a low round pick which in all likelihood will amount to nothing for a NHLer would be something a smart GM would jump at and look like a genius.

But I bet, that never happens and then at the end of this year when Lagesson refuses his qualifying offer assuming the Oilers even give him one at all. he will be a UFA, not get a single contract from any teams and it will be announced that he signs a multi year deal with one of the Swedish teams just like Nygard.

I am not an excuses person who comes here and quotes whatever information they can come up with and then when that doesn't work, defaults to "NHL GM's and coaches are too old school or dumb", I am a results person. If a guy can play and help the team win, then he will play. So if I happen to be wrong and Lagesson goes on to have a NHL career, I won't make up excuses, I will gladly admit I was wrong. So we shall see.

[Updated on: Tue, 07 December 2021 15:52]

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795592 is a reply to message #795590 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 16:05

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 15:47

I guess we will find out then if other GM's think he has any value. The Oilers waived him so any GM could have had him for free but no one took what you are calling a serviceable dman that many teams could use. I am of the opinion that if a team thinks the way you do, giving up a 6th or 7th round pick which is basically nothing because its been proven based on decades of draft picks that the likelihood late round picks amount to anything at all is extremely unlikely, would be well worth it if he is indeed like you said. To me, if he is like you say he is, giving up a low round pick which in all likelihood will amount to nothing for a NHLer would be something a smart GM would jump at and look like a genius.

But I bet, that never happens and then at the end of this year when Lagesson refuses his qualifying offer assuming the Oilers even give him one at all. he will be a UFA, not get a single contract from any teams and it will be announced that he signs a multi year deal with one of the Swedish teams just like Nygard.

I am not an excuses person who comes here and quotes whatever information they can come up with and then when that doesn't work, defaults to "NHL GM's and coaches are too old school or dumb", I am a results person. If a guy can play and help the team win, then he will play. So if I happen to be wrong and Lagesson goes on to have a NHL career, I won't make up excuses, I will gladly admit I was wrong. So we shall see.

Time of year matters. If you want to get a player through waivers, sending him down when there's tremendous traffic on the wire at the end of the pre-season gives you your best chance. People generally are pretty happy with their bubble players at that point, so less likely to take a flyer on someone else's. By this point in the season, there's more chance of getting claimed. Injuries have generally started to take a toll on teams, some young players will have disappointed, all the junior guys will have been sent back. Just because you passed through waivers once, at the end of pre-season, doesn't mean you'd do it again.

There's been no shortage of players the Oilers gave up on or failed to develop who ended up as decent defencemen elsewhere, so I don't think it's any foregone conclusion that this race is won.

As I said, if I'm the Oilers, I'm letting the slight go and not reacting to it. I'm not in a hurry to give away a decent young defenceman for nothing if I can avoid it - especially when my normal d-corps includes Duncan Keith, Kris Russell and Slater Koekkoek. We'll also see if that happens.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795593 is a reply to message #795592 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 16:13

Skookum Jim
Messages: 4419
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 15:05

As I said, if I'm the Oilers, I'm letting the slight go and not reacting to it. I'm not in a hurry to give away a decent young defenceman for nothing if I can avoid it - especially when my normal d-corps includes Duncan Keith, Kris Russell and Slater Koekkoek. We'll also see if that happens.

Yeah you don't put Lagesson on waivers, he'll get claimed (if other teams are paying any attention), and you lose a solid NHL asset for nada, and especially with the potential for injury, and more importantly covid protocols, because new variants may start to become an issue.

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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795594 is a reply to message #795593 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 16:35

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 16:13

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 15:05

As I said, if I'm the Oilers, I'm letting the slight go and not reacting to it. I'm not in a hurry to give away a decent young defenceman for nothing if I can avoid it - especially when my normal d-corps includes Duncan Keith, Kris Russell and Slater Koekkoek. We'll also see if that happens.

Yeah you don't put Lagesson on waivers, he'll get claimed (if other teams are paying any attention), and you lose a solid NHL asset for nada, and especially with the potential for injury, and more importantly covid protocols, because new variants may start to become an issue.

Flip it the other way. Lagesson is not Oilers property. The Oilers defense as it is right now including who's in the minors. Lagesson has been with Team X and done exactly what he's done for the Oilers play wise both in the minors and in the NHL. Team X puts Lagesson on waivers tomorrow. Do you pick him up?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795596 is a reply to message #795594 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 17:09

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 16:35

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 16:13

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 15:05

As I said, if I'm the Oilers, I'm letting the slight go and not reacting to it. I'm not in a hurry to give away a decent young defenceman for nothing if I can avoid it - especially when my normal d-corps includes Duncan Keith, Kris Russell and Slater Koekkoek. We'll also see if that happens.

Yeah you don't put Lagesson on waivers, he'll get claimed (if other teams are paying any attention), and you lose a solid NHL asset for nada, and especially with the potential for injury, and more importantly covid protocols, because new variants may start to become an issue.

Flip it the other way. Lagesson is not Oilers property. The Oilers defense as it is right now including who's in the minors. Lagesson has been with Team X and done exactly what he's done for the Oilers play wise both in the minors and in the NHL. Team X puts Lagesson on waivers tomorrow. Do you pick him up?

I think you are making a mistake on what people are arguing here. We're saying that he's a decent if unspectacular depth player, and that while his agent's actions may be galling to the Oilers and certain fans, they are not without a defined purpose and aim. No one is arguing that he's a superstar in the making.

Whether I'd pick up Lagesson on waivers depends on what my team looks like. If everyone is healthy and he would fit in as the 6th best LHD in my estimation, then no - I wouldn't pick him up. If my team has had injuries, or if a young guy we thought was ready has shown himself to need more seasoning, or if I felt my depth chart needed a little insurance policy because no one in the minors looks ready to step in to the lineup, then maybe I would pick him up.

I think Allan Walsh making this play suggests he believes there IS a landing spot for Lagesson and he's trying to make that happen. Worth noting, the Oilers specifically did not demote Lagesson last year because they were worried he wouldn't make it through waivers even to put him to the taxi squad - and that was even as they were carrying 8 or 9 defencemen at times and losing goalies because they didn't have enough roster room to carry them. In the past, it has seemed that there's likely some interest in the player.

EDIT to add: If the right-shot equivalent of Lagesson was available I would certainly consider picking him up with the Oilers needing to play guys on the off-side and no depth at all in the minors on that side.

[Updated on: Tue, 07 December 2021 17:11]

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795599 is a reply to message #795596 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 18:47

Oscargasm
Messages: 5911
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG

5 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 18:09

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 16:35

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 16:13

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 15:05

As I said, if I'm the Oilers, I'm letting the slight go and not reacting to it. I'm not in a hurry to give away a decent young defenceman for nothing if I can avoid it - especially when my normal d-corps includes Duncan Keith, Kris Russell and Slater Koekkoek. We'll also see if that happens.

Yeah you don't put Lagesson on waivers, he'll get claimed (if other teams are paying any attention), and you lose a solid NHL asset for nada, and especially with the potential for injury, and more importantly covid protocols, because new variants may start to become an issue.

Flip it the other way. Lagesson is not Oilers property. The Oilers defense as it is right now including who's in the minors. Lagesson has been with Team X and done exactly what he's done for the Oilers play wise both in the minors and in the NHL. Team X puts Lagesson on waivers tomorrow. Do you pick him up?

I think you are making a mistake on what people are arguing here. We're saying that he's a decent if unspectacular depth player, and that while his agent's actions may be galling to the Oilers and certain fans, they are not without a defined purpose and aim. No one is arguing that he's a superstar in the making.

Whether I'd pick up Lagesson on waivers depends on what my team looks like. If everyone is healthy and he would fit in as the 6th best LHD in my estimation, then no - I wouldn't pick him up. If my team has had injuries, or if a young guy we thought was ready has shown himself to need more seasoning, or if I felt my depth chart needed a little insurance policy because no one in the minors looks ready to step in to the lineup, then maybe I would pick him up.

I think Allan Walsh making this play suggests he believes there IS a landing spot for Lagesson and he's trying to make that happen. Worth noting, the Oilers specifically did not demote Lagesson last year because they were worried he wouldn't make it through waivers even to put him to the taxi squad - and that was even as they were carrying 8 or 9 defencemen at times and losing goalies because they didn't have enough roster room to carry them. In the past, it has seemed that there's likely some interest in the player.

EDIT to add: If the right-shot equivalent of Lagesson was available I would certainly consider picking him up with the Oilers needing to play guys on the off-side and no depth at all in the minors on that side.

You read it here first, Laggy is going to be part of the package that brings DeBrusk “home”

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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795585 is a reply to message #795578 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 15:17

Skookum Jim
Messages: 4419
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

benv wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 11:20

I listened to the Oilers' post game driving home from the game on Sunday, and Rob Brown pointed out that there was nothing unusual about what happened with Lagesson (as a former player it happened to him many times).... This is standard procedure as the coach has better things to do at this point as he's preparing for the game.

So whatever Tippet's communication relationships with his players are, there doesn't seem to be anything unusual that happened on Sunday, despite what Walsh said in his tweet.

I heard the same discussion from Brown, nothing out of the ordinary transpired, Strudwick said the same thing.
I think Lagesson is just PO'd that the new call up Nemo got the start instead of him, and he's seeing his NHL career flash by in front of his eyes..

I actually think Lagesson plays a solid game, you don't notice him, which is a positive, because I notice 22 all the time, you can play Lagesson in the 3rd pair in the NHL and usually not get hurt, which as a 3rd pair is all you want. He's sound positionally, haven't seen him make a bad pinch, breaks up the cycle, covers his man.. decent 3rd pair, another disciple from the Dave Manson school of D.

[Updated on: Tue, 07 December 2021 15:19]

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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795586 is a reply to message #795585 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 15:26

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 15:17

benv wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 11:20

I listened to the Oilers' post game driving home from the game on Sunday, and Rob Brown pointed out that there was nothing unusual about what happened with Lagesson (as a former player it happened to him many times).... This is standard procedure as the coach has better things to do at this point as he's preparing for the game.

So whatever Tippet's communication relationships with his players are, there doesn't seem to be anything unusual that happened on Sunday, despite what Walsh said in his tweet.

I heard the same discussion from Brown, nothing out of the ordinary transpired, Strudwick said the same thing.
I think Lagesson is just PO'd that the new call up Nemo got the start instead of him, and he's seeing his NHL career flash by in front of his eyes..

I actually think Lagesson plays a solid game, you don't notice him, which is a positive, because I notice 22 all the time, you can play Lagesson in the 3rd pair in the NHL and usually not get hurt, which as a 3rd pair is all you want. He's sound positionally, haven't seen him make a bad pinch, breaks up the cycle, covers his man.. decent 3rd pair, another disciple from the Dave Manson school of D.

I think the issue for Lagesson is what does he do? You listed off a bunch of things that he does that won't kill you which I completely agree with but nothing about his game stands out or makes an impact. He's just a guy who if needed, he can play a few games for you and you probably survive.

Where as a guy like Niemelainen. He brings you more size and his physical play can make and impact. The opposition has to keep him in mind otherwise they might get blown up with a big hit. He brings a dimension that most of the other Oilers dmen don't. So I think the coaches want to see him play more to see if he can continue to do it. So Lagesson sees his opportunity being taken so he gets upset.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795591 is a reply to message #795586 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 15:52

Skookum Jim
Messages: 4419
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 14:26

I think the issue for Lagesson is what does he do? You listed off a bunch of things that he does that won't kill you which I completely agree with but nothing about his game stands out or makes an impact. He's just a guy who if needed, he can play a few games for you and you probably survive.

Where as a guy like Niemelainen. He brings you more size and his physical play can make and impact. The opposition has to keep him in mind otherwise they might get blown up with a big hit. He brings a dimension that most of the other Oilers dmen don't. So I think the coaches want to see him play more to see if he can continue to do it. So Lagesson sees his opportunity being taken so he gets upset.

I think with a D man, playing 3rd pair, mistake free shifts are a prime requirement, Lagesson has done this so far, everything above that would be a bonus.
I didn't say Lagesson is better than Nemo, Nemo brings another dimension (literally) being 6'-5", and playing physical, but IMHO Lagesson can play solid 3rd pair NHL D, and I can understand why he'd be frustrated, however I would still play Nemo ahead of him right now until, or if, Nemo falters.

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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795588 is a reply to message #795585 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 15:36

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 15:17

I actually think Lagesson plays a solid game, you don't notice him, which is a positive, because I notice 22 all the time, you can play Lagesson in the 3rd pair in the NHL and usually not get hurt, which as a 3rd pair is all you want. He's sound positionally, haven't seen him make a bad pinch, breaks up the cycle, covers his man.. decent 3rd pair, another disciple from the Dave Manson school of D.

You nailed it. There's very little chaos in his game - that's the strength of a guy like Lagesson.

"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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795580 is a reply to message #795574 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 12:51

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 12:10

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 07 December 2021 10:34

Lagesson already had to pass through waivers out of camp. So any team could have him for free. I don't think Lagesson has any value.

I think we're going to see a fair amount of comments like this on Lagesson given that his agent complained, and Oilers fans generally circle the wagons. No one criticizes our coaches or management but us! Worth noting, the underlying numbers for Lagesson were quite good in his couple appearances this year. Small sample size, but even so, he outperformed his other call-ups on those bases.

Walsh isn't subtle and rubs some people the wrong way, but he definitely goes to bat for his clients. I think some of what he says has some merit. I don't think that's how I would approach this particular situation, but I understand the strategy. They are fearing that he's buried in the depth chart now, and that actual play isn't likely to change that. He hasn't been on the roster for 30 days, so the Oilers could demote him without facing waivers again.

Walsh has flagged that his client had strong numbers and is open to moving on. He's also slapped a team that's notoriously thin-skinned, which could result in them making a quick trade for virtually nothing, or even putting him through waivers again where he may or may not get claimed even though they don't have to. Lagesson was in Edmonton all year last year, despite being played sparingly, so he may feel that the team is mismanaging the young player - we all know that the Oilers would never do such a thing, right? Walsh doesn't care about fan approval - he just tries to advance the interests of his client (which really is his only job). We will see if his gambit works this time.

With regards to what the Oilers SHOULD do? I would not waive him if I don't have to, and I wouldn't trade him for nothing either. Our left side is full of old, crappy, injury prone and/or inexperienced defencemen, and so I would not erode the depth without a good reason to do so. I don't like the chances of Lagesson being an Oiler past this year, but I don't flush him just because he's angry.

I do think they should look at whether the communication from coach to players is good though. If there is a real disconnect there, then it probably should be addressed.

Just my opinion but I believe to be an effective NHLer, you have to do something and have some kind of dimension. If you are supposed to score, you score. If you are supposed to hit, you hit, For a dman, if your dimension is to skate well and move the puck, you need to do that. If you are a defensive dman, you better defend well. Just going out there and existing isn't enough in my opinion.

I look at Lagesson and I can't figure out what his dimension is or what he does well. He doesn't score points, he's not a puck mover, his skating is just meh at best, he's not physical, he's not tough, he's not hard to play against and his defending is mediocre at best. Now I know you don't value hitting or being tough or hard to play against but I assume things like defending, skating well, moving the puck and scoring points are all things that you think a dman should have some of. I know I am typically always wrong and you are always right but if none of what I listed are skills a dman is supposed to have, then please educate me as to what a dman is supposed to do when he is on the ice.

So when I look at Lagesson and he seems to do NONE of what I listed on a consistent basis overly well, to me he looks like a guy who's just there. So I don't see a player who the Oilers are in danger of losing because I think every team has a Lagesson or multiple Lagesson's in their organization and in my opinion, keeping a guy who really doesn't do anything overly well other than exist seems like a waste of a roster spot. When I look at a player and what their "value" might be, I flip the scenario around and ask "if Lagesson was available, would I want the Oilers to give up any kind of asset to get him?" The answer for me at least is no. Would I be happy they got him off waivers? The answer would be no because I would see him as blocking someone else who could be better.

To your comment about Tippett not telling him he was out and it being this terrible thing. Now I know you don't value the information from Ex players at all because you know more than guys that actually played in the NHL but according to Strudwick who was a 6/7 dman for his whole career, he was often told by the defense coach, not the head coach if he was playing. According to reports, Lagesson was told by Playfair. Take it for what it's worth but he wasn't just left twisting in the wind with no information. What Walsh said was another twisting of the truth to make it sound more horrible than it was.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795582 is a reply to message #795580 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 13:39

Skoobz
Messages: 334
Registered: January 2006

No Cups

Guys on the roster that basically have no value compared to JAGs you can replace them with, in my opinion:

Kassian
Benson
Sceviour
Perlini (bye)
Shore
Turris
Koekkoek
Lagesson
Russell
Koskinen
Smith

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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795584 is a reply to message #795554 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 15:05

Skookum Jim
Messages: 4419
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

Oilers outmatched overall in this one, Wild skate and hit throughout the line up.
We'll see if McD + LD + 18 + (a koski steal) can tip the scales..

If the bottom 6 can get their heads in the game and stay even in +/-, and 22, 6, 75 can eliminate the Domino's deliveries, break up cycles, cover open men, make line changes with some sense of immediacy, block shots .. they just might have a chance!

The Oil schedule coming up is going to be a test.

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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795595 is a reply to message #795554 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 16:40

Oscargasm
Messages: 5911
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG

5 Cups

Laggy playing or not this is a cat 5 Must Win tonight and I don’t care if Allen Wash agrees with me or not.

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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Pregame: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24) [message #795598 is a reply to message #795554 ]	Tue, 07 December 2021 17:58

NetBOG
Messages: 2951
Registered: January 2006
Location: Parts Unknown

2 Cups

Cody Ceci can start skating tomorrow as long as he passes (fails?) test for Covid.

I thought "Covid Protocol" was where players went before they were confirmed. I guess it just means "He got the cooties".

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Previous Topic:	Review: Minnesota @ Edmonton (Game #24)
Next Topic:	Review: Los Angeles @ Edmonton (Game #23)

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