GuestLogin / Register

This day on November 24
Acquired: Dave Hannan (1987) Chris Joseph (1987) Moe Mantha (1987) Craig Simpson (1987)
Departed: Paul Coffey (1987) Dave Hunter (1987) Wayne Van Dorp (1987)

Happy Birthday To: meister, Larmal, copperjacket, MacKnife, ljn2002, Oilermeister, MissingOil, ontariooil, spyderjam, pizzaman

OILERS INFOOILFANS
Sunday, Nov 24, 2024 10:06 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 » Skinner Extended
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Skinner Extended [message #815626]
Mon, 19 December 2022 09:38 Go to next message
inverno76 is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 2343
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...
2 Cups
https://www.tsn.ca/edmonton-oilers-sign-stuart-skinner-to-th ree-year-extension-1.1895364

2.6M cap hit for 3 years.

Now we just need Campbell to figure things out and that is an affordable tandem.

[Updated on: Mon, 19 December 2022 09:47]

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815627 is a reply to message #815626 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
Anyone worried this is another Koskinen thing where they jump the gun on resigning a guy based on limited games? I personally don't think it is but it popped in my head when I saw that.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815631 is a reply to message #815627 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 10:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
inverno76 is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 2343
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...
2 Cups
RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 09:39

Anyone worried this is another Koskinen thing where they jump the gun on resigning a guy based on limited games? I personally don't think it is but it popped in my head when I saw that.



Not really. Koskinen did not look that great when we signed him, and it was for a lot more money. This avoided the dreaded the short-term bridge deal and comes in at the reasonable range of the most recent RFA goalie signings. Stu is 24 with 33 career games.

23 year old Kochetkov (CAR) - 4 years 8M (15 career games) signed 11/23/22
25 year old Vladar (CGY) - 2 years 4.4M (39 career games) signed 10/20/22
21 year Knight (FLA) - 3 years 13.5M (51 career games) signed 09/27/22
24 year old Oettinger (DAL) - 3 years 12.0M (99 career starts) signed 09/21/22
26 year old Vanecek (NJ) - 3 years 10.2M (99 career games) signed 07/19/22
26 year old Kahkonen (SJ) - 2 years 5.5M (77 career games) signed 07/18/22
27 year old Husso (DET) - 3 years 14.25M (78 career games)signed 07/08/22
27 year old Comrie (BUF) - 2 years 1.8M (39 career games) signed 07/13/22

That is a lot of unproven goalies either in same ball park, or making much much more money than our guy. It takes away a lot of the off-season desperation signing fear.

[Updated on: Mon, 19 December 2022 10:20]

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815634 is a reply to message #815631 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 10:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
inverno76 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:16

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 09:39

Anyone worried this is another Koskinen thing where they jump the gun on resigning a guy based on limited games? I personally don't think it is but it popped in my head when I saw that.



Not really. Koskinen did not look that great when we signed him, and it was for a lot more money. This avoided the dreaded the short-term bridge deal and comes in at the reasonable range of the most recent RFA goalie signings. Stu is 24 with 33 career games.

23 year old Kochetkov (CAR) - 4 years 8M (15 career games) signed 11/23/22
25 year old Vladar (CGY) - 2 years 4.4M (39 career games) signed 10/20/22
21 year Knight (FLA) - 3 years 13.5M (51 career games) signed 09/27/22
24 year old Oettinger (DAL) - 3 years 12.0M (99 career starts) signed 09/21/22
26 year old Vanecek (NJ) - 3 years 10.2M (99 career games) signed 07/19/22
26 year old Kahkonen (SJ) - 2 years 5.5M (77 career games) signed 07/18/22
27 year old Husso (DET) - 3 years 14.25M (78 career games)signed 07/08/22
27 year old Comrie (BUF) - 2 years 1.8M (39 career games) signed 07/13/22

That is a lot of unproven goalies either in same ball park, or making much much more money than our guy. It takes away a lot of the off-season desperation signing fear.


I Think the only true comparables are Kochetkov, Vladar and Comrie. Maybe Knight. Everyone else has double the track record.

And what were the stats of the comparables when they signed? One thing that is Koskinen-esque is that Skinner started like a house on fire, but in his last few starts we are seeing more of a regression. He's now 29th in GAA, and 19th in Sv% and he's coming off his worst start of the season.

I don't know what the rush here is. Are we really concerned that he's going to be much more expensive in the Summer? I don't believe the organization has shown much aptitude for evaluating and forecasting goalie performance, so I'm really cautious about committing to him for that much and that long right now. This sets the goalie picture almost in stone for the next three years - it's a steady diet of Soup and Stew.

"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: Skinner Extended [message #815643 is a reply to message #815634 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 11:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
inverno76 is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 2343
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...
2 Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:38

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:16

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 09:39

Anyone worried this is another Koskinen thing where they jump the gun on resigning a guy based on limited games? I personally don't think it is but it popped in my head when I saw that.



Not really. Koskinen did not look that great when we signed him, and it was for a lot more money. This avoided the dreaded the short-term bridge deal and comes in at the reasonable range of the most recent RFA goalie signings. Stu is 24 with 33 career games.

23 year old Kochetkov (CAR) - 4 years 8M (15 career games) signed 11/23/22
25 year old Vladar (CGY) - 2 years 4.4M (39 career games) signed 10/20/22
21 year Knight (FLA) - 3 years 13.5M (51 career games) signed 09/27/22
24 year old Oettinger (DAL) - 3 years 12.0M (99 career starts) signed 09/21/22
26 year old Vanecek (NJ) - 3 years 10.2M (99 career games) signed 07/19/22
26 year old Kahkonen (SJ) - 2 years 5.5M (77 career games) signed 07/18/22
27 year old Husso (DET) - 3 years 14.25M (78 career games)signed 07/08/22
27 year old Comrie (BUF) - 2 years 1.8M (39 career games) signed 07/13/22

That is a lot of unproven goalies either in same ball park, or making much much more money than our guy. It takes away a lot of the off-season desperation signing fear.


I Think the only true comparables are Kochetkov, Vladar and Comrie. Maybe Knight. Everyone else has double the track record.

And what were the stats of the comparables when they signed? One thing that is Koskinen-esque is that Skinner started like a house on fire, but in his last few starts we are seeing more of a regression. He's now 29th in GAA, and 19th in Sv% and he's coming off his worst start of the season.

I don't know what the rush here is. Are we really concerned that he's going to be much more expensive in the Summer? I don't believe the organization has shown much aptitude for evaluating and forecasting goalie performance, so I'm really cautious about committing to him for that much and that long right now. This sets the goalie picture almost in stone for the next three years - it's a steady diet of Soup and Stew.


Kochetkov had 3 games experience and a .902 prior to his signing. Vladar and Comrie were sitting around .900.

In general I have always preferred Stew over Soup. More substance and leaves you feeling full. I am a fan of the kid. Looks extremely calm in the crease. Bad games happen, and even then the shot count is what made it look bad. The goals that went in were either odd, or high danger. He has looked good almost every start. 19th (tied for 18th with Vasilesky) in save percentage is nothing to sneeze at and he is only a couple points away from being in the top 15.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815645 is a reply to message #815643 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 11:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
inverno76 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 11:22

Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:38

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:16

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 09:39

Anyone worried this is another Koskinen thing where they jump the gun on resigning a guy based on limited games? I personally don't think it is but it popped in my head when I saw that.



Not really. Koskinen did not look that great when we signed him, and it was for a lot more money. This avoided the dreaded the short-term bridge deal and comes in at the reasonable range of the most recent RFA goalie signings. Stu is 24 with 33 career games.

23 year old Kochetkov (CAR) - 4 years 8M (15 career games) signed 11/23/22
25 year old Vladar (CGY) - 2 years 4.4M (39 career games) signed 10/20/22
21 year Knight (FLA) - 3 years 13.5M (51 career games) signed 09/27/22
24 year old Oettinger (DAL) - 3 years 12.0M (99 career starts) signed 09/21/22
26 year old Vanecek (NJ) - 3 years 10.2M (99 career games) signed 07/19/22
26 year old Kahkonen (SJ) - 2 years 5.5M (77 career games) signed 07/18/22
27 year old Husso (DET) - 3 years 14.25M (78 career games)signed 07/08/22
27 year old Comrie (BUF) - 2 years 1.8M (39 career games) signed 07/13/22

That is a lot of unproven goalies either in same ball park, or making much much more money than our guy. It takes away a lot of the off-season desperation signing fear.


I Think the only true comparables are Kochetkov, Vladar and Comrie. Maybe Knight. Everyone else has double the track record.

And what were the stats of the comparables when they signed? One thing that is Koskinen-esque is that Skinner started like a house on fire, but in his last few starts we are seeing more of a regression. He's now 29th in GAA, and 19th in Sv% and he's coming off his worst start of the season.

I don't know what the rush here is. Are we really concerned that he's going to be much more expensive in the Summer? I don't believe the organization has shown much aptitude for evaluating and forecasting goalie performance, so I'm really cautious about committing to him for that much and that long right now. This sets the goalie picture almost in stone for the next three years - it's a steady diet of Soup and Stew.


Kochetkov had 3 games experience and a .902 prior to his signing. Vladar and Comrie were sitting around .900.

In general I have always preferred Stew over Soup. More substance and leaves you feeling full. I am a fan of the kid. Looks extremely calm in the crease. Bad games happen, and even then the shot count is what made it look bad. The goals that went in were either odd, or high danger. He has looked good almost every start. 19th (tied for 18th with Vasilesky) in save percentage is nothing to sneeze at and he is only a couple points away from being in the top 15.




The game winner was terrible. Partial screen from Bouchard, but let's face it, if Campbell let that goal in, everyone would be talking about it for days as something you just can't allow. He made himself small and left half the net and then didn't react to a slow shot from way out at a bad angle.

Again, my issue isn't signing him, it's rushing to sign him now. We have another half a season to see how he plays, and then he's RFA with no arbitration rights. No one is going to offer sheet a young goalie. Just as with Koskinen, the team is making a really early decision with a really small sample size and praying that it's the right one.

But they guys who are making that decision are the same ones who ran with a Mike Smith/Mikko Koskinen tandem for three years, and then decided at the end of that that Jack Campbell was the best option on the goalie market and paid him top dollars and term. I don't trust their judgement at all and I think they're extremely capable of being fooled by an early hot streak.

"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: Skinner Extended [message #815629 is a reply to message #815626 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 09:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260 is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 1081
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
This contract takes him to UFA. But it seems pretty reasonable, especially with the goalie market last offseason. If Skinner continues in the starter role, possibly into the playoffs, this deal gets pricier. I don’t think I mind taking the risk with the small sample size on this one.

So 7.6M on goaltending for the next 3 seasons. I am curious where that will stack up with the rest of the league after the summer.

[Updated on: Mon, 19 December 2022 09:55]

Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815636 is a reply to message #815629 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
clutchlikeeberle is currently offline clutchlikeeberle
Messages: 252
Registered: April 2012
No Cups
This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815638 is a reply to message #815636 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 11:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.

"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: Skinner Extended [message #815642 is a reply to message #815638 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 11:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55 is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 10777
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 11:01

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.


Seems like Campbell's deal has pooched us twice now. Skinner got to pump his value up because we couldn't afford to keep giving Campbell starts.

Consiquence of weak scouting and analytics bites us again. I was willfully ignoring Campbell's history of poor high danger sav % and trying to be positive about us getting him. Our fan consiquence of poor scouting of player is zero though. People get paid lots in the Oilers org to not keep making mistakes, especially with big ticket signings that can handicap the org for half a decade.

Frustrating, guess we just stick with hoping draft luck can fill every big hole in this org. Should be thankful for Skinner so far. Hope he keeps getting better.

"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: Skinner Extended [message #815653 is a reply to message #815638 ]
Mon, 19 December 2022 18:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260 is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 1081
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:01

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.


But what are the odds he was gonna cheaper as the year goes on? I think that’s the question here. If he is a starter in game one of playoffs, I doubt we end up with him at 2.6M.

I actually don’t think the Oilers did bad here. It’s not a high dollar to outplay. He’ll be getting paid like a 1A/1B and I think this is a movable contract given how much goalie movement there are these days.

Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815696 is a reply to message #815653 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 08:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
smyth260 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 18:16

Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:01

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.


But what are the odds he was gonna cheaper as the year goes on? I think that’s the question here. If he is a starter in game one of playoffs, I doubt we end up with him at 2.6M.

I actually don’t think the Oilers did bad here. It’s not a high dollar to outplay. He’ll be getting paid like a 1A/1B and I think this is a movable contract given how much goalie movement there are these days.

What are the odds he was going to get more expensive as the year goes on? The best alternative to no agreement is qualifying offers. Neither party wants that, so why not test to see if Skinner is going to break down with the long NHL schedule or during the second time through the league. What's the rush? Holland only bought 1 (I think) UFA year with this deal.

The best and worst case scenario is bad for the Oilers here. Best case, Skinner becomes a true #1, creates an expensive monster when this contract comes up. Worst case, Skinner is a flash in the pan, means Holland has signed a boat anchor for three years. This deal only pays off for the Oilers if Skinner remains an above average back up. There was no reason to do this deal now. It's a typical panic move from a GM whose only positive attribute has been an abundance of patience.

[Updated on: Tue, 20 December 2022 08:32]

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: Skinner Extended [message #815702 is a reply to message #815696 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 09:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 08:27

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 18:16

Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:01

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.


But what are the odds he was gonna cheaper as the year goes on? I think that’s the question here. If he is a starter in game one of playoffs, I doubt we end up with him at 2.6M.

I actually don’t think the Oilers did bad here. It’s not a high dollar to outplay. He’ll be getting paid like a 1A/1B and I think this is a movable contract given how much goalie movement there are these days.

What are the odds he was going to get more expensive as the year goes on? The best alternative to no agreement is qualifying offers. Neither party wants that, so why not test to see if Skinner is going to break down with the long NHL schedule or during the second time through the league. What's the rush? Holland only bought 1 (I think) UFA year with this deal.

The best and worst case scenario is bad for the Oilers here. Best case, Skinner becomes a true #1, creates an expensive monster when this contract comes up. Worst case, Skinner is a flash in the pan, means Holland has signed a boat anchor for three years. This deal only pays off for the Oilers if Skinner remains an above average back up. There was no reason to do this deal now. It's a typical panic move from a GM whose only positive attribute has been an abundance of patience.

What do you consider a monster contract for Skinner assuming he continues to be good and establishes himself as a true #1?

Go look at what goalies make these days. Price at 10.5. They signed that in 2017, considered a bad contract not long after. Bob - 10 mill signing in 2019. Considered a bad contract the day it was signed. Vasilevsky 9.5 mill, signed 2019.

Since then no one has signed a deal for much more than 6 mill. I listen to Kevin Woodley who's the big goalie guy and he doesn't see contracts for goalies ever going as high as the Bob, Vasilevsky. Just how the position has changed as team aren't playing their start 65 games anymore so they aren't paying guys as much.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815703 is a reply to message #815702 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 09:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 09:31

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 08:27

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 18:16

Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:01

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.


But what are the odds he was gonna cheaper as the year goes on? I think that’s the question here. If he is a starter in game one of playoffs, I doubt we end up with him at 2.6M.

I actually don’t think the Oilers did bad here. It’s not a high dollar to outplay. He’ll be getting paid like a 1A/1B and I think this is a movable contract given how much goalie movement there are these days.

What are the odds he was going to get more expensive as the year goes on? The best alternative to no agreement is qualifying offers. Neither party wants that, so why not test to see if Skinner is going to break down with the long NHL schedule or during the second time through the league. What's the rush? Holland only bought 1 (I think) UFA year with this deal.

The best and worst case scenario is bad for the Oilers here. Best case, Skinner becomes a true #1, creates an expensive monster when this contract comes up. Worst case, Skinner is a flash in the pan, means Holland has signed a boat anchor for three years. This deal only pays off for the Oilers if Skinner remains an above average back up. There was no reason to do this deal now. It's a typical panic move from a GM whose only positive attribute has been an abundance of patience.

What do you consider a monster contract for Skinner assuming he continues to be good and establishes himself as a true #1?

Go look at what goalies make these days. Price at 10.5. They signed that in 2017, considered a bad contract not long after. Bob - 10 mill signing in 2019. Considered a bad contract the day it was signed. Vasilevsky 9.5 mill, signed 2019.

Since then no one has signed a deal for much more than 6 mill. I listen to Kevin Woodley who's the big goalie guy and he doesn't see contracts for goalies ever going as high as the Bob, Vasilevsky. Just how the position has changed as team aren't playing their start 65 games anymore so they aren't paying guys as much.

If 6 million is the cap, there's no reason to rush to buy UFA years. I don't think it's the cap though, a three year home grown starter will cost more than 6 to keep.

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: Skinner Extended [message #815706 is a reply to message #815703 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 10:27 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 Tue, 20 December 2022 09:46

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 09:31

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 08:27

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 18:16

Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:01

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.


But what are the odds he was gonna cheaper as the year goes on? I think that’s the question here. If he is a starter in game one of playoffs, I doubt we end up with him at 2.6M.

I actually don’t think the Oilers did bad here. It’s not a high dollar to outplay. He’ll be getting paid like a 1A/1B and I think this is a movable contract given how much goalie movement there are these days.

What are the odds he was going to get more expensive as the year goes on? The best alternative to no agreement is qualifying offers. Neither party wants that, so why not test to see if Skinner is going to break down with the long NHL schedule or during the second time through the league. What's the rush? Holland only bought 1 (I think) UFA year with this deal.

The best and worst case scenario is bad for the Oilers here. Best case, Skinner becomes a true #1, creates an expensive monster when this contract comes up. Worst case, Skinner is a flash in the pan, means Holland has signed a boat anchor for three years. This deal only pays off for the Oilers if Skinner remains an above average back up. There was no reason to do this deal now. It's a typical panic move from a GM whose only positive attribute has been an abundance of patience.

What do you consider a monster contract for Skinner assuming he continues to be good and establishes himself as a true #1?

Go look at what goalies make these days. Price at 10.5. They signed that in 2017, considered a bad contract not long after. Bob - 10 mill signing in 2019. Considered a bad contract the day it was signed. Vasilevsky 9.5 mill, signed 2019.

Since then no one has signed a deal for much more than 6 mill. I listen to Kevin Woodley who's the big goalie guy and he doesn't see contracts for goalies ever going as high as the Bob, Vasilevsky. Just how the position has changed as team aren't playing their start 65 games anymore so they aren't paying guys as much.

If 6 million is the cap, there's no reason to rush to buy UFA years. I don't think it's the cap though, a three year home grown starter will cost more than 6 to keep.


And he certainly wasn't going to cost $6MM this summer as an RFA. Only chance of that happening is if he won us the Cup, and then I'm not complaining at all. Even in that circumstance, the only way we pay THAT much is if we again don't understand that he has no leverage at this point. No one is offer sheeting a goalie.

At the end of the day, it's not a contract that's an absolute killer. If he had it this year, he's the 42nd highest cap hit among goalies. But I still don't see the rush, and I still question the judgement of the men who've rushed to put that contract in front of him. I don't think they have a clue how to assess goalies properly, and I don't think they know that he's a goalie of the future for them. They've just signed him because it was an easy thing to do.

"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: Skinner Extended [message #815707 is a reply to message #815706 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 10:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
Adam wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 10:27

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 09:46

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 09:31

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 08:27

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 18:16

Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:01

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.


But what are the odds he was gonna cheaper as the year goes on? I think that’s the question here. If he is a starter in game one of playoffs, I doubt we end up with him at 2.6M.

I actually don’t think the Oilers did bad here. It’s not a high dollar to outplay. He’ll be getting paid like a 1A/1B and I think this is a movable contract given how much goalie movement there are these days.

What are the odds he was going to get more expensive as the year goes on? The best alternative to no agreement is qualifying offers. Neither party wants that, so why not test to see if Skinner is going to break down with the long NHL schedule or during the second time through the league. What's the rush? Holland only bought 1 (I think) UFA year with this deal.

The best and worst case scenario is bad for the Oilers here. Best case, Skinner becomes a true #1, creates an expensive monster when this contract comes up. Worst case, Skinner is a flash in the pan, means Holland has signed a boat anchor for three years. This deal only pays off for the Oilers if Skinner remains an above average back up. There was no reason to do this deal now. It's a typical panic move from a GM whose only positive attribute has been an abundance of patience.

What do you consider a monster contract for Skinner assuming he continues to be good and establishes himself as a true #1?

Go look at what goalies make these days. Price at 10.5. They signed that in 2017, considered a bad contract not long after. Bob - 10 mill signing in 2019. Considered a bad contract the day it was signed. Vasilevsky 9.5 mill, signed 2019.

Since then no one has signed a deal for much more than 6 mill. I listen to Kevin Woodley who's the big goalie guy and he doesn't see contracts for goalies ever going as high as the Bob, Vasilevsky. Just how the position has changed as team aren't playing their start 65 games anymore so they aren't paying guys as much.

If 6 million is the cap, there's no reason to rush to buy UFA years. I don't think it's the cap though, a three year home grown starter will cost more than 6 to keep.


And he certainly wasn't going to cost $6MM this summer as an RFA. Only chance of that happening is if he won us the Cup, and then I'm not complaining at all. Even in that circumstance, the only way we pay THAT much is if we again don't understand that he has no leverage at this point. No one is offer sheeting a goalie.

At the end of the day, it's not a contract that's an absolute killer. If he had it this year, he's the 42nd highest cap hit among goalies. But I still don't see the rush, and I still question the judgement of the men who've rushed to put that contract in front of him. I don't think they have a clue how to assess goalies properly, and I don't think they know that he's a goalie of the future for them. They've just signed him because it was an easy thing to do.

And ate up ~1.8 million in cap space next year where they'll need to re-sign Bouchard and will still need defensive help. It's not a killer, but it's another unforced error.

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: Skinner Extended [message #815712 is a reply to message #815696 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 11:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260 is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 1081
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 07:27

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 18:16

Adam wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:01

clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 19 December 2022 10:50

This is great business. Anyone that craps on this is the typical guy on here crapping on any move Holland makes.


To be fair, if you looked at all the moves Holland's made as Oilers GM and crapped on all of them, then you're right like 80% of the time. He has dropped a lot of balls.

I'm not saying that Skinner shouldn't be in the Oilers plans - just that he's got a very small sample size and the Oilers just committed a lot of cap space to him despite the fact he's got virtually no negotiating power.


But what are the odds he was gonna cheaper as the year goes on? I think that’s the question here. If he is a starter in game one of playoffs, I doubt we end up with him at 2.6M.

I actually don’t think the Oilers did bad here. It’s not a high dollar to outplay. He’ll be getting paid like a 1A/1B and I think this is a movable contract given how much goalie movement there are these days.

What are the odds he was going to get more expensive as the year goes on? The best alternative to no agreement is qualifying offers. Neither party wants that, so why not test to see if Skinner is going to break down with the long NHL schedule or during the second time through the league. What's the rush? Holland only bought 1 (I think) UFA year with this deal.

The best and worst case scenario is bad for the Oilers here. Best case, Skinner becomes a true #1, creates an expensive monster when this contract comes up. Worst case, Skinner is a flash in the pan, means Holland has signed a boat anchor for three years. This deal only pays off for the Oilers if Skinner remains an above average back up. There was no reason to do this deal now. It's a typical panic move from a GM whose only positive attribute has been an abundance of patience.


I don’t think the best case scenario is very likely here. There are maybe 3 or 4 goalies that I think are worthy of deals longer than a few years. Vasilevskiy, Hellebuyck, Shesterkin, maybe Sorokin is in there now. It’s too much of an up and down position and very few are consistently great. What are the odds Skinner turns into one that you would go long term on?

I think the most likely outcome here is that Skinner outplays that contract. We take some risk because it’s early. If we wait, maybe it goes up to 4M+ a year like Ville Husso. But I really like that this can turn into a value deal. And if he isn’t good enough, I think it’s at a price that another team with goalie issues will take a flyer.

We’re in the 1A/1B world of hockey now. I don’t think we just signed an expensive backup for 3 years.

Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815713 is a reply to message #815712 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 12:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
smyth260 wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 11:53



We’re in the 1A/1B world of hockey now. I don’t think we just signed an expensive backup for 3 years.

I don't think so either, but there's a lot more risk if you sign at Christmas than if you sign next Christmas. The Oilers could very well have a 2A/2B situation by the end of next season.

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: Skinner Extended [message #815714 is a reply to message #815713 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 13:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
With the way the NHL is now especially with the West and all the travel, I think a team needs a second goalie that can give you at least 30+ starts. The Oilers next season will be paying 7.6 mill for their goalie tandem for 3 years. Together, they should be able to give the Oilers good goaltending. If a person wants to say Campbell is overpaid a little that's fine but it could very well happen that Skinner will be a bargain so it evens out.

I don't think the contract would have got cheaper if they had of waited until the end of this season. Not unless Skinners games totally falls off.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815715 is a reply to message #815714 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 13:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 13:30

With the way the NHL is now especially with the West and all the travel, I think a team needs a second goalie that can give you at least 30+ starts. The Oilers next season will be paying 7.6 mill for their goalie tandem for 3 years. Together, they should be able to give the Oilers good goaltending. If a person wants to say Campbell is overpaid a little that's fine but it could very well happen that Skinner will be a bargain so it evens out.

I don't think the contract would have got cheaper if they had of waited until the end of this season. Not unless Skinners games totally falls off.

Next year would have been cheaper for sure.

Do you feel confident goaltending is solved for the next three years? Two years? Next week? I don't. There was no reason to re-sign him right now.

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: Skinner Extended [message #815716 is a reply to message #815715 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 13:59 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 Tue, 20 December 2022 13:47

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 13:30

With the way the NHL is now especially with the West and all the travel, I think a team needs a second goalie that can give you at least 30+ starts. The Oilers next season will be paying 7.6 mill for their goalie tandem for 3 years. Together, they should be able to give the Oilers good goaltending. If a person wants to say Campbell is overpaid a little that's fine but it could very well happen that Skinner will be a bargain so it evens out.

I don't think the contract would have got cheaper if they had of waited until the end of this season. Not unless Skinners games totally falls off.

Next year would have been cheaper for sure.

Do you feel confident goaltending is solved for the next three years? Two years? Next week? I don't. There was no reason to re-sign him right now.


If I told you a year ago that our goalie tandem was going to be Jack Campbell and Stuart Skinner for the next 4 years and that we'd be paying them an aggregate $7.6MM for most of that time, would you have thought that was a good move?

I understand the desire to want the Oilers to have made a good move, so you gloss over and say it isn't THAT bad...but does anyone think that's a top-half of the league goalie tandem? Does anyone think it's good enough to win a Cup with? That's pretty much the rest of our time with McDavid and Draisaitl, and we've gone from three years committed to a Smith/Koskinen tandem, and then signed up for four years of Skinner/Campbell. Just seems crazy to me that that's the best we can do in our must-win window.

"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: Skinner Extended [message #815717 is a reply to message #815716 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 14:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
Adam wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 13:59

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 13:47

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 13:30

With the way the NHL is now especially with the West and all the travel, I think a team needs a second goalie that can give you at least 30+ starts. The Oilers next season will be paying 7.6 mill for their goalie tandem for 3 years. Together, they should be able to give the Oilers good goaltending. If a person wants to say Campbell is overpaid a little that's fine but it could very well happen that Skinner will be a bargain so it evens out.

I don't think the contract would have got cheaper if they had of waited until the end of this season. Not unless Skinners games totally falls off.

Next year would have been cheaper for sure.

Do you feel confident goaltending is solved for the next three years? Two years? Next week? I don't. There was no reason to re-sign him right now.


If I told you a year ago that our goalie tandem was going to be Jack Campbell and Stuart Skinner for the next 4 years and that we'd be paying them an aggregate $7.6MM for most of that time, would you have thought that was a good move?

I understand the desire to want the Oilers to have made a good move, so you gloss over and say it isn't THAT bad...but does anyone think that's a top-half of the league goalie tandem? Does anyone think it's good enough to win a Cup with? That's pretty much the rest of our time with McDavid and Draisaitl, and we've gone from three years committed to a Smith/Koskinen tandem, and then signed up for four years of Skinner/Campbell. Just seems crazy to me that that's the best we can do in our must-win window.

Windows close pretty quick.

Looking at capfriendly, this is the end of Puljujarvi in Edmonton. Half his cap goes to Skinner, the other half goes to a defenseman. Unless a blockbuster is coming from dithers, that's the last bullet to fire. Maybe they can trade Foegele and Yammo with a year left on their contract, but that's pretty expensive if everyone knows they're desperately dumping cap (unless they figure out a way to trade with Edmonton). We're very close to seeing Ken Holland unveil his masterpiece.

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: Skinner Extended [message #815718 is a reply to message #815717 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 14:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dragon_Matt is currently offline Dragon_Matt
Messages: 766
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton
No Cups
Holland's masterpiece was Demers.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815719 is a reply to message #815716 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 14:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260 is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 1081
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
We lost our series to the eventual cup winner with Pavel Francouz in net and ran over a Vezina candidate in Jacob Markstrom. It’s not a predictable position anymore.

Like what do you think they should do? Nobody is trading the very few elite goalies. Who would you be comfortable with that’s actually an option?

Campbell’s deal makes me a lot more nervous than Skinners. We can get out of Skinners, but we are stuck with Campbell.

Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #815721 is a reply to message #815719 ]
Tue, 20 December 2022 14:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
smyth260 wrote on Tue, 20 December 2022 14:15

We lost our series to the eventual cup winner with Pavel Francouz in net and ran over a Vezina candidate in Jacob Markstrom. It’s not a predictable position anymore.

Like what do you think they should do? Nobody is trading the very few elite goalies. Who would you be comfortable with that’s actually an option?

Campbell’s deal makes me a lot more nervous than Skinners. We can get out of Skinners, but we are stuck with Campbell.






Campbell was always a risk. There was nothing in his record to suggest he was a 5 year starter.

The problem is there is nothing in Skinner's record to suggest he is a 3 year 1A/1B guy. I'd certainly use up another RFA year to see if he can handle a full season ESPECIALLY if you're risking the McDavid Stanley Cup window. If this was Arizona, no problem.

The Oilers lost a series to a far better team that has not only goaltending depth but also a functioning group of defensemen. This move makes it harder to have functioning defensemen. What we've seen for the first 30 games this year is what we get to watch for another season. You only make this move if you, as a NHL GM, are comfortable watching this team for another 120 games.



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: Skinner Extended [message #817887 is a reply to message #815626 ]
Sat, 11 February 2023 21:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55 is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 10777
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
The record unfortunately is not allowed to reflect his performance because the team refuses to put in decent efforts in front of him, but Skinner is still having a heck of a season. We allow far more quality chances against with him in net than Campbell, and also dislike scoring when he's in net. He still saved this season for us during the team, along with Campbell playing like trash for basically the first half of the year.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fos-1WsWIAAsakS?format=jpg&name=small

For real, if we ever managed to put in the effort we put in front of Campbell when Skinner is in net, we could actually do something good this year.

[Updated on: Sat, 11 February 2023 21:48]

"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: Skinner Extended [message #819851 is a reply to message #815626 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 11:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bigEfromGP is currently offline bigEfromGP
Messages: 816
Registered: July 2006
Location: GP, AB
No Cups
Not sure what thread would have been the most appropriate so here we go.

With Campbell still struggling, and Yotes being a team the Oilers should be able to handle without issue, who do you go with on Wednesday?

Personally, I think it's worth playing Campbell again. Currently, he's a very big wild card going into the playoffs (or probably worse, if we're being honest). The best hope Oilers could have now is that he *somehow* gets himself sorted out, and can play at an adequate level. I think the only chance of that happening is if he plays; very hard to get better sitting on the bench.

Wednesday's game is not a must-win, and Skinner will be just fine sitting for a week between games (he's been a backup until recently, he's used to it). I think it's a low risk, high reward opportunity.

Sidenote, Oilers really screwed themselves last year by refusing to play Skinner more. They could have had a much better idea of what they had in him, and probably been able to find a different fit than Campbell for cheaper.

CrusaderPi wrote on Fri, 09 October 2020 13:17

CrudeRemarks wrote on Fri, 09 October 2020 13:00

The president thinks he has the ideal male body.
It's hard to disagree that he has the ideal male body.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #819854 is a reply to message #819851 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 12:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Red Rage is currently offline Red Rage
Messages: 66
Registered: June 2002
Location: ETOWN
No Cups
Honestly, I give Campbell almost as many starts as Skinner. Play Campbell predominantly against the weak teams, giving Skinner time off.

1. We need Campbell going, to give confidence to the team, should Skinner stumble. Soup is pooping the bed as it is, so we have nothing to lose by playing him more and giving him opportunities to right the ship.

2. We're very likely set to be playing LA or possibly Vegas in round 1. The below schedule gives Skinner 4 games experience against these teams. IMO, whether we're home team or not doesn't matter as much as having two goalies we have faith in.

3. Giving Skinner a lighter schedule will ensure he isn't tapped out come the playoffs

22 Arizona - Campbell
25 Vegas - Skinner
27 Arizona - Campbell
28 Vegas - Skinner
30 LA - Skinner
1 Ana - Campbell
4 LA - Skinner
5 Ana - Campbell
8 SJ - Skinner
11 Col - Skinner
13 SJ - Campbell

[Updated on: Tue, 21 March 2023 12:22]

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #819855 is a reply to message #819851 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 12:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
bigEfromGP wrote on Tue, 21 March 2023 11:58

Not sure what thread would have been the most appropriate so here we go.

With Campbell still struggling, and Yotes being a team the Oilers should be able to handle without issue, who do you go with on Wednesday?

Personally, I think it's worth playing Campbell again. Currently, he's a very big wild card going into the playoffs (or probably worse, if we're being honest). The best hope Oilers could have now is that he *somehow* gets himself sorted out, and can play at an adequate level. I think the only chance of that happening is if he plays; very hard to get better sitting on the bench.

Wednesday's game is not a must-win, and Skinner will be just fine sitting for a week between games (he's been a backup until recently, he's used to it). I think it's a low risk, high reward opportunity.

Sidenote, Oilers really screwed themselves last year by refusing to play Skinner more. They could have had a much better idea of what they had in him, and probably been able to find a different fit than Campbell for cheaper.


Honestly, I'd probably alternate goalies most of the rest of the way with a couple of exceptions. This might be how I sketch it out:

Sharks (last night) - Campbell
Coyotes - Skinner
Golden Knights - Skinner
Coyotes - Campbell
Golden Knights - Skinner
Kings - Campbell
Ducks - Skinner
Kings - Skinner
Ducks - Campbell
Sharks - Skinner
Avalanche - Campbell
Sharks - Skinner

That gives 7 to Skinner and 5 to Campbell - with the only ones where Skinner plays back-to-back being ones with a couple days rest in between. I think it's good to give Campbell a couple of the more challenging games too. We're going to be in the playoffs anyhow, and it's going to help with everyone's confidence if he can play well in some of those games. We just sat him for almost a month, so it's not that surprising that he was struggling this game. Ultimately, I think we should be okay with losing a few of these, so long as we give Skinner adequate rest ahead of the playoffs.

"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: Skinner Extended [message #819856 is a reply to message #819855 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 13:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
I'd go Skinner 8 Campbell 4 the rest of the way.

Campbell Skinner Skinner
Campbell Skinner Skinner
Campbell Skinner Skinner
Campbell Skinner Skinner

Skinner has to be emotionally and physically prepared to play every second night in the playoffs. I'd want his mindset to be that he's playing every game but with enough rest so his body doesn't break down.



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: Skinner Extended [message #819857 is a reply to message #819856 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 13:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
I'm enjoying that we're all on board with Campbell playing more, but there's virtually no overlap on the three schedules as to what that looks like.

"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: Skinner Extended [message #819858 is a reply to message #819857 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 13:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
Adam wrote on Tue, 21 March 2023 13:10

I'm enjoying that we're all on board with Campbell playing more, but there's virtually no overlap on the three schedules as to what that looks like.

It's the beauty of making suggestions with absolutely no responsibility for decision making. Personally, I just like the symetry of mine.

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: Skinner Extended [message #819859 is a reply to message #819855 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 13:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55 is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 10777
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
Adam wrote on Tue, 21 March 2023 12:39

bigEfromGP wrote on Tue, 21 March 2023 11:58

Not sure what thread would have been the most appropriate so here we go.

With Campbell still struggling, and Yotes being a team the Oilers should be able to handle without issue, who do you go with on Wednesday?

Personally, I think it's worth playing Campbell again. Currently, he's a very big wild card going into the playoffs (or probably worse, if we're being honest). The best hope Oilers could have now is that he *somehow* gets himself sorted out, and can play at an adequate level. I think the only chance of that happening is if he plays; very hard to get better sitting on the bench.

Wednesday's game is not a must-win, and Skinner will be just fine sitting for a week between games (he's been a backup until recently, he's used to it). I think it's a low risk, high reward opportunity.

Sidenote, Oilers really screwed themselves last year by refusing to play Skinner more. They could have had a much better idea of what they had in him, and probably been able to find a different fit than Campbell for cheaper.


Honestly, I'd probably alternate goalies most of the rest of the way with a couple of exceptions. This might be how I sketch it out:

Sharks (last night) - Campbell
Coyotes - Skinner
Golden Knights - Skinner
Coyotes - Campbell
Golden Knights - Skinner
Kings - Campbell
Ducks - Skinner
Kings - Skinner
Ducks - Campbell
Sharks - Skinner
Avalanche - Campbell
Sharks - Skinner

That gives 7 to Skinner and 5 to Campbell - with the only ones where Skinner plays back-to-back being ones with a couple days rest in between. I think it's good to give Campbell a couple of the more challenging games too. We're going to be in the playoffs anyhow, and it's going to help with everyone's confidence if he can play well in some of those games. We just sat him for almost a month, so it's not that surprising that he was struggling this game. Ultimately, I think we should be okay with losing a few of these, so long as we give Skinner adequate rest ahead of the playoffs.


On board with more Campbell. It's a good constant reminder to the players how consequential their defensive lapses are. Plus maybe we get lucky and avoid playing the Kings in the 1st round :)

"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: Skinner Extended [message #819874 is a reply to message #815626 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 17:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NetBOG is currently offline NetBOG
Messages: 2951
Registered: January 2006
Location: Parts Unknown
2 Cups
You all are idiots. Campbell gets @Arizona and (@LA or @Anaheim) and thats it. Why would you intentionally make yourself worse? Oilers are still chasing better playoff seeding. Skinner hasn't been playing a full load to this point, he's just fine getting the workload of a starter.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #819875 is a reply to message #819874 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 21:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Red Rage is currently offline Red Rage
Messages: 66
Registered: June 2002
Location: ETOWN
No Cups
NetBOG wrote on Tue, 21 March 2023 17:15

You all are idiots. Campbell gets @Arizona and (@LA or @Anaheim) and thats it. Why would you intentionally make yourself worse? Oilers are still chasing better playoff seeding. Skinner hasn't been playing a full load to this point, he's just fine getting the workload of a starter.


Then I guess I'm an idiot.

An idiot with memories of Roloson in 2006 that feel as fresh as my morning coffee.

An idiot with memories of Tommy Salo losing his confidence, sinking the team at the worst possible time.

An idiot with knowledge that if Skinner sputters, Campbell is our ONLY OPTION... other than hopping Mr. Mike Smith up on as many drugs as will make him stand.

I believe in Stu. This is why we need him fresh.
There is nothing to lose in playing Campbell more, hopefully allowing him an opportunity to find his game. Benching him is too risky.
Maybe we lose one or two regular season games because of him, but in my idiot opinion, a Semi-reliable backup in the playoffs is of greater importance than trying to win the division.

[Updated on: Tue, 21 March 2023 21:09]

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Skinner Extended [message #819876 is a reply to message #819874 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 22:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
NetBOG wrote on Tue, 21 March 2023 17:15

You all are idiots.


This would land harder if I wasn't right all the time when it comes to the Oilers.

I won't be surprised if the Oilers DON'T play Campbell much more than that, but the fact is, they should.

Skinner is a rookie who's already looking at playing the most games he's ever seen as a pro. Managing his workload down the stretch keeps him fresh and gives him the best chance of staying sharp and healthy in to the post-season.

There is a reason why good teams play their back-ups regularly now. Look at the breakdown for the best teams in the league:

Boston - Ullmark 42 Starts, Swayman 27
Carolina - Andersen 26, Raanta 22, Kochetkov 21
New Jersey - Vanecek 42, Blackwood 16, Schmid 13
Toronto - Samsonov 35, Murray 23
Las Vegas - Thompson 35, Hill 25, Quick 5, Brossoit 3
New York Rangers - Shersterkin 51, Halak 20
Los Angeles - Copley 31, Quick 31, Peterson 10, Korpisalo 4
Dallas - Oettinger 52, Wedgewood 16
Minnesota - Fleury 40, Gustavsson 31
Tampa Bay - Vasilevskiy 54, Elliott 18
Colorado - Georgiev 51, Francouz 15, Johansson 1
Edmonton - Skinner 40, Campbell 31

That's the top 12 teams, and of those most have shared the load. The three who have dominated the crease are Shersterkin, Oettinger and Vasilevskiy, and I don't think Skinner's in the same conversation as any of those guys. If Skinner ends the year starting more games than Ullmark does, then that's too much in my eyes, and the fact is, we don't need him to. Campbell's record this year is 18-9-4, better points percentage, actually, than Skinner. He's definitely got warts to his game and I don't think he's played very well, but we still win twice as often when he's in goal. If he holds that the rest of the way and gets 4 wins and 2 losses, that's all we really need out of him.

If we play Skinner every night and then he gets hurt - well, then we're sunk. Showing no confidence in a goalie who struggles with his confidence anyhow means that if he's asked to carry the load, we're in real trouble. Why not give him some games, and hope that he can play his way in to a better state?


"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: Skinner Extended [message #819877 is a reply to message #819876 ]
Tue, 21 March 2023 23:28 Go to previous message
CrusaderPi is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 7804
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
Adam wrote on Tue, 21 March 2023 22:22

NetBOG wrote on Tue, 21 March 2023 17:15

You all are idiots.


This would land harder if I wasn't right all the time when it comes to the Oilers.

I won't be surprised if the Oilers DON'T play Campbell much more than that, but the fact is, they should.

Skinner is a rookie who's already looking at playing the most games he's ever seen as a pro. Managing his workload down the stretch keeps him fresh and gives him the best chance of staying sharp and healthy in to the post-season.

There is a reason why good teams play their back-ups regularly now. Look at the breakdown for the best teams in the league:

Boston - Ullmark 42 Starts, Swayman 27
Carolina - Andersen 26, Raanta 22, Kochetkov 21
New Jersey - Vanecek 42, Blackwood 16, Schmid 13
Toronto - Samsonov 35, Murray 23
Las Vegas - Thompson 35, Hill 25, Quick 5, Brossoit 3
New York Rangers - Shersterkin 51, Halak 20
Los Angeles - Copley 31, Quick 31, Peterson 10, Korpisalo 4
Dallas - Oettinger 52, Wedgewood 16
Minnesota - Fleury 40, Gustavsson 31
Tampa Bay - Vasilevskiy 54, Elliott 18
Colorado - Georgiev 51, Francouz 15, Johansson 1
Edmonton - Skinner 40, Campbell 31

That's the top 12 teams, and of those most have shared the load. The three who have dominated the crease are Shersterkin, Oettinger and Vasilevskiy, and I don't think Skinner's in the same conversation as any of those guys. If Skinner ends the year starting more games than Ullmark does, then that's too much in my eyes, and the fact is, we don't need him to. Campbell's record this year is 18-9-4, better points percentage, actually, than Skinner. He's definitely got warts to his game and I don't think he's played very well, but we still win twice as often when he's in goal. If he holds that the rest of the way and gets 4 wins and 2 losses, that's all we really need out of him.

If we play Skinner every night and then he gets hurt - well, then we're sunk. Showing no confidence in a goalie who struggles with his confidence anyhow means that if he's asked to carry the load, we're in real trouble. Why not give him some games, and hope that he can play his way in to a better state?


We might as well argue McDavid should play 43 minutes a night. He's the best player and him being on the ice gives the Oilers a better chance to score. Who cares if every other team thinks they need to rest their players in game and manage workload over a full season?

One step forward three steps back.


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  

 
Previous Topic:Pregame: Arizona @ Edmonton (Game #72)
Next Topic:Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #71)
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