McKenzie: Blackhawks had/have interest in Yakupov

[Seanaconda]

Don't let me talk you out of wanting to trade him though. I'd be extremely excited to see if Yak could put his career back together here.

I would love it if he pulled it together somewhere. Make all the yak hating oiler haters eat crow.

But anytime a player turns it around after we run them out of town they all seem to forget that they hated them.

 

[_Del_]

what is making Yak Expendable the play of Versteeg

That basically sums up Yak's value, I would think. A veteran player on a PTO who most people scoffed at this off season (I actually like Versteeg) has made Yakupov expendable...

I'd be stunned if the Hawks moved Kruger for him, but either way I hope Yak turns it around somewhere. I just think it's unlikely. He seems likeable enough.

 

[Blue Goose]

As for Pirri, he wasn't willing to play the way Q needed him to, so he was called up/sent down perpetually until we parted ways. It was clear he wasn't going to crack the roster. He also didn't have the added value of being a former 1st overall pick. They don't just randomly select players at 1OA, he got selected because he had an elite skillset. I refuse to believe he can't have a good season next to McDavid.

And that's the same situation for Yakupov in Edmonton. I'll be the first to admit that I thought the only spot on the Oilers roster for Yak is on McDavid's RW - but if he can't play himself into that spot, he needs to go, because Caggiula, Versteeg, etc. are going to take his roster spot elsewhere.

Don't let me talk you out of wanting to trade him though. I'd be extremely excited to see if Yak could put his career back together here.

Be careful what you wish for: the last time a #1OA forward was traded before age 24 was Alexander Daigle. He only played 315 games after the trade, only once scoring more than 10 goals in a season. Meanwhile, the player he was acquired for - Vinny Prospal, who was 10 days younger than Daigle - played over 1000 more NHL games, with very productive stops in Tampa, New York and Columbus.

One more interesting note: Since the Blackhawks drafted Jeremy Roenick in the 1st round of the 1988 draft, Chicago has had 29 1st round picks. Of those 29, THIRTEEN were traded before age 24. Granted, none of them were first overall - but what about Cam Barker? He went 3OA, and was traded at age 23. Why couldn't he work in Chicago? Did the player/team need a change?

 

[ThatSaid]

And that's the same situation for Yakupov in Edmonton. I'll be the first to admit that I thought the only spot on the Oilers roster for Yak is on McDavid's RW - but if he can't play himself into that spot, he needs to go, because Caggiula, Versteeg, etc. are going to take his roster spot elsewhere.

Be careful what you wish for: the last time a #1OA forward was traded before age 24 was Alexander Daigle. He only played 315 games after the trade, only once scoring more than 10 goals in a season. Meanwhile, the player he was acquired for - Vinny Prospal, who was 10 days younger than Daigle - played over 1000 more NHL games, with very productive stops in Tampa, New York and Columbus.

One more interesting note: Since the Blackhawks drafted Jeremy Roenick in the 1st round of the 1988 draft, Chicago has had 29 1st round picks. Of those 29, THIRTEEN were traded before age 24. Granted, none of them were first overall - but what about Cam Barker? He went 3OA, and was traded at age 23. Why couldn't he work in Chicago? Did the player/team need a change?

Cam Barker didn't work because he never wanted to put the work in. I think most Hawks fans have really bad memories of the kid. We also were never in a position to staple him to a generational offensive talent and inflate his points totals. I don't understand why Edmonton wouldn't do that. Unless they think they're getting too much value from a trade now that can help them win this year.

I mean, what's to be lost from putting him on McDavid's wing? This is a year about progress for the Oilers, not winning it all. Get the most value from your assets.

Has Chicago always had the best asset management? No. Do we still make mistakes? Yeah, we make some weird trades, and hand out the very occasional bad contract. But for the most part, we get what value we can for our assets, and field a competitive team. At least the current regime..

Once you start going back to 88, there aren't many Blackhawks fans who want to relive that part of our history... Years of mediocrity, bad trade decisions, mistreatment of valuable players, and never quite finishing low enough to get that impact player who can turn it around.

Also, I'd like to see where you found that info on traded draft picks. Were all 13 players, or were some theoretical 1st round picks. If I knew specifically which players you were talking about, I could maybe provide context. With Barker though, it was a clear case of the Hawks missing with a draft pick. Barker was large for his age, and it made him a better junior player. A lot of the things that size masks for a D-man in lower leagues are exposed in the AHL/NHL.

Edit: I'd also be leaving out a big reason Barker was traded if I didn't mention that Leddy came back in that trade.

 

[thadd]

LOL at Mark Spector saying Oilers being snapped back to reality.

We've known that Yakupov has no value for a while now but that didn't mean that we were going to trade him.
I'm all in favour of waiving Yakupov at this point. Let him take up 2.5M of cap space instead of having us retaining as we likely would if we actually traded him.

 

[_Del_]

We've known that Yakupov has no value for a while now but that didn't mean that we were going to trade him.
I'm all in favour of waiving Yakupov at this point. Let him take up 2.5M of cap space instead of having us retaining as we likely would if we actually traded him.

I think they could find a player from another team that's overpaid, but still useful to the Oilers. If they can get that and a prospect or pick, I think that's probably better than just waiving him. I'd just be shocked if the overpaid guy was someone as valuable in a lineup as Kruger. Just my take.

 

[ThatSaid]

I think they could find a player from another team that's overpaid, but still useful to the Oilers. If they can get that and a prospect or pick, I think that's probably better than just waiving him. I'd just be shocked if the overpaid guy was someone as valuable in a lineup as Kruger. Just my take.

I'd move Kruger for Yak. Hated that contract the moment it was signed.

 

[Homesick]

So this means they managed to turn a 1st OA into nothing, and they didn't get a single NHL player from the 2012 draft

2012: Rielly and Brown
2011:Leivo, Sparks
2010: Carrick

All have played games in the NHL. Some are legit good players or have good potential. They also never had the #1 pick in that time.

Carrick, Leivo, Sparks, Brown Have any of them even played a half season? NNNNNOPE!
I wouldn't be bashing another team's drafting record when your team is one of the worst in history at blowing picks

 

[Mr Sakich]

I would love it if he pulled it together somewhere. Make all the yak hating oiler haters eat crow.

But anytime a player turns it around after we run them out of town they all seem to forget that they hated them.

There is no anger towards yak in Edmonton. Some guys just need a change. I hope he succeeds because he seems to be a very decent person.

 

[JaegerDice]

I'd move Kruger for Yak. Hated that contract the moment it was signed.

That would be an abysmal trade for the Blackhawks. Abysmal.

 

[Archangel]

Yakupov for a 7th oilers keep 50%

 

[McTrashBoat]

Yakupov for a 7th oilers keep 50%

did you come up with that yourself?

 

[ThatSaid]

That would be an abysmal trade for the Blackhawks. Abysmal.

I really don't understand our fanbase's unreasonable attraction to Kruger. He's overpaid, everyone else in the league knows it, and what he does can be replaced/compensated for by another player who knows how to put the puck in the net, and make a pass in the offensive zone. Half of the reason we don't score from our bottom six can be attributed directly to Marcus Kruger.

Moving Kruger for Yak makes it much easier to sign Panarin next year. We have a number of people who can do what Kruger does. Not as well defensively, because of course not, but I think just about anyone on our AHL roster would put up more points.

 

[smackdaddy]

Yakupov for a 7th oilers keep 50%

Bahaha. Canuck fan, right? I can always tell

 

[Blue Goose]

Cam Barker didn't work because he never wanted to put the work in.

And I believe that's what most Oilers fans seem to say about Yakupov...

Barker was large for his age, and it made him a better junior player. A lot of the things that size masks for a D-man in lower leagues are exposed in the AHL/NHL.

And it seems like Yak's critics say that his speed/shot made him a great junior player, but his deficiencies on defense are what's making him a mediocre NHLer.

Edit: I'd also be leaving out a big reason Barker was traded if I didn't mention that Leddy came back in that trade.

Well, let's see what Yak returns in trade...

We also were never in a position to staple him to a generational offensive talent and inflate his points totals. I don't understand why Edmonton wouldn't do that.

I mean, what's to be lost from putting him on McDavid's wing? This is a year about progress for the Oilers, not winning it all. Get the most value from your assets.

Again, I agree with you here, especially since they looked good together in limited action last season. But perhaps something changed this summer - maybe Chia wants to put his stamp on the team and change the culture - and training camp isn't turning out the way they hoped for Yakupov. If he doesn't make the team out of camp, I would personally healthy-scratch him in hopes that he could learn by watching OR wait for injuries to occur and make a move in-season. But if Bowman called and offered Pokka + McNeill, I'd probably trade Yak for that package.

Also, I'd like to see where you found that info on traded draft picks. Were all 13 players, or were some theoretical 1st round picks. If I knew specifically which players you were talking about, I could maybe provide context.

I had a few minutes today, so I did the research myself. I know it's all subjective and there were good reasons to make each trade - but I just thought it was fascinating to see so many 1st rounders traded that young.

Here's the list (interestingly enough, four of them were traded to Edmonton):

Dean McAmmond – 22OA in 1991; traded at age 19

Dan Cleary – 13OA in 1997; traded at age 20

Teuvo Teravainen – 18OA in 2012; traded at age 21
Anton Babchuk – 21OA in 2002; traded at age 21
Dmitri Nabokov – 19OA in 1995; traded at age 21

Dylan Olsen – 28OA in 2009; traded at age 22
Karl Dykhuis – 16OA in 1990; traded at age 22
Adam Bennett – 6OA in 1989; traded at age 22

Kyle Beach – 11OA in 2008; traded at age 23
Jack Skille – 7OA in 2005; traded at age 23
Phillip Danault – 26OA in 2011; traded at age 23
Cam Barker – 3OA in 2004; traded at age 23
Ethan Moreau – 14OA in 1994; traded at age 23

 

[JaegerDice]

I really don't understand our fanbase's unreasonable attraction to Kruger. He's overpaid, everyone else in the league knows it, and what he does can be replaced/compensated for by another player who knows how to put the puck in the net, and make a pass in the offensive zone. Half of the reason we don't score from our bottom six can be attributed directly to Marcus Kruger.

Moving Kruger for Yak makes it much easier to sign Panarin next year. We have a number of people who can do what Kruger does. Not as well defensively, because of course not, but I think just about anyone on our AHL roster would put up more points.

Marcus Kruger takes on top 6 competition while being buried in the defensive zone. Doing so allows for both the Toews and Kane line to see more time in the offensive zone. In the case of Kane, against far softer competition. Lose Kruger and you'll see point totals drop for the top 6 because they'll start having to take on more defensive zone starts (Toews), against tougher competition (Kane), while the rookies you want promoted to the bottom 6 are sheltered through their first few years.

Kruger's job isn't to score, his job is to eat up the tough minutes, mitigate the damage dealt by the oppositions 1st and 2nd lines when they're in the most dangerous area of the ice, flip the ice, and provide the more potent offensive players the most advantageous deployment possible (again, particularly the Kane line, since while Toews sees more Ozone starts thanks to Kruger, he still sees the top QoC).

Kruger is integral to the entire deployment strategy of the Blackhawks and short of a complete overhaul of the team's player usage, he's far more critical to the Blackhawks success than a complementary winger that Joel Quenneville has a 50/50 shot of hating out of the gate.

As far as his contract, Kruger isn't nearly as overpaid relative to his performance in his role than say, Brent Seabrook. If you're trying to clear space for Panarin, you're better off trading Seabrook and filling his spot with any number of defensemen that can perform similarly for half the price or less.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

Stan Bowman doing T-McLellsy a solid by driving up Yak's value.

 

[HuskyBruinPride]

Yakupov for a 7th oilers keep 50%

Why do people make such idiotic trade proposals?

 

[ThatSaid]

Marcus Kruger takes on top 6 competition while being buried in the defensive zone. Doing so allows for both the Toews and Kane line to see more time in the offensive zone. In the case of Kane, against far softer competition. Lose Kruger and you'll see point totals drop for the top 6 because they'll start having to take on more defensive zone starts (Toews), against tougher competition (Kane), while the rookies you want promoted to the bottom 6 are sheltered through their first few years.

Kruger's job isn't to score, his job is to eat up the tough minutes and provide the more potent offensive players the most advantageous deployment possible (again, particularly the Kane line, since while Toews sees more Ozone starts thanks to Kruger, he still sees the top QoC).

Kruger is integral to the entire deployment strategy of the Blackhawks and short of a complete overhaul of the team's player usage, he's far more critical to the Blackhawks success than a complementary winger that Joel Quenneville has a 50/50 shot of hating out of the gate.

The bolded I agree with to a large extent. I just think we do need to overhaul the bottom six, that's all. Having one line that produces next to zero offense is a big liability when you're facing a team Away. You can't really deny that any winger who has to play with Kruger has an immediate reduction in point production. For as good as he is defensively, he's equally BAD offensively. I personally think he's been able to carve out such a good career because he has played in such a disciplined and organized defensive scheme. Does he fit the scheme well, at least in the defensive zone? Like a glove. Do I think its worth paying a guy who doesn't even play 14 minutes per night 3 million AAV? Nope. I don't.

Tell a center all he has to do is play defense, and I bet he'll be pretty good at defense, especially if he gets most of his ice time with the likes of Hjalmarsson/Keith/Seabrook.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[613Leafer]

He could be one of those players that just needs a change of scenery. It's happened plenty of times before where a guy breaks out after being traded.

 

[ThatSaid]

As far as his contract, Kruger isn't nearly as overpaid relative to his performance in his role than say, Brent Seabrook. If you're trying to clear space for Panarin, you're better off trading Seabrook and filling his spot with any number of defensemen that can perform similarly for half the price or less.

Its much easier to replace a 4C than a solid top-4 D. I'm still thinking about this year, not just signing Panarin. Moving Seabrook is something I'd really consider after this season, especially if Pokka/Forsling/Kempny show that they can play top-4 minutes for us.

I refuse to believe that Kruger's defensive prowess is so valuable when the possession numbers, shot suppression numbers, and quite frankly, the eye-test show me otherwise. You have to put up more than 17 points in a year, whether you're facing top competition or not.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Why would Chicago do this? It almost looks like they're doing the Oilers a favor.

what's cheaper: claim him on waivers or make a trade ?

 

[JaegerDice]

Its much easier to replace a 4C than a solid top-4 D. I'm still thinking about this year, not just signing Panarin. Moving Seabrook is something I'd really consider after this season, especially if Pokka/Forsling/Kempny show that they can play top-4 minutes for us.

I refuse to believe that Kruger's defensive prowess is so valuable when the possession numbers, shot suppression numbers, and quite frankly, the eye-test show me otherwise. You have to put up more than 17 points in a year, whether you're facing top competition or not.

Kruger's possession and shot suppression numbers are excellent. His raw numbers are obviously going to be sub-par when he's playing the bulk of his time in the defensive end and against top 6 competition.

You have to adjust for Zone, as well as Score, obviously.

He has the same Score and Zone adjusted CF% (per Corsica) as Jonathan Toews, better than Hossa, Saad, Keith, Hammer, etc from 2012-2013 to 2015-2016.

Likewise his Score and Zone adjusted CA/60 and SA/60 are among the best on the team for those players with a significant TOI sample over the same period.

Your eye-test is your own and you're entitled to it, but Kruger is excellent in his very tough role.

As far as replacing a top-4 dman vs a 4C, I agree. Though Kruger is a 3C in both TOI and deployment, and Brent Seabrook's contract is one of the worst in the league for top 4 dmen as far as performance for dollar.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

Kruger
Pokka

For

Yakupov
Reinhart

 

[OilTastic]

Yakupov for a 7th oilers keep 50%

Why do people make such idiotic trade proposals?

Canucks fan. need i say more?