Confirmed Trade: [EDM/STL] Yakupov for Zach Pochiro + Cndl 2017 3rd (becomes 2018 2nd if Yak hits 15G)

[Vitto79]

Chiarelli is one of the worst in the league .I know Yakupov value was low but come on man ...a 3rd.

Yak stinks . If he gets 15 goals it's a 2nd . At this point just get him out of town

 

[Treb]

And thats part of the long storied Hitchcock effect.

A lot of players either get "burned out" by hitch or injured playing his systems because he demands so much physical play

And to your bolded point, there isnt "plenty" of others

Hitchcock in 19 seasons has only ever had SEVEN 70+ point players
Recchi
Modano
Hull
Gagne
Forsberg
Nash
Tarasenko

not sure I would call 7 in his entire coaching career "plenty"

So players career get ruined by playing for Hitchcock, got it...

 

[kurtcobang]

He was the consensus #1, or close to to it, but he backed into it and everyone knew it halfway though his draft year. The players who could have challenged him faded or were injured leaving a bunch of D-men that were either hard to project or safe up uninspiring. He would not have challenged for #1 in either 2011 or 2013, maybe not even top 5. This is despite the fact that 2011 itself was considered a draft without a clear elite talent.

This was all pretty clear by the time the lottery happened, but Oiler fans went into major revisionist mode as soon as they won the lottery claiming it was jealousy.

My opinion then was that the oilers should have traded down and tried tom get multiple first rounders for him. (Possibly Pittsburgh's 2) It was a D heavy draft with lots of talent but at the time no clear star and the Oilers needed D. With 2 high picks they should have got at least 1 and possibly 2 good D. Eg Trouba and Maatta had they traded for the Pens 2 picks. (not sure of the timing where they acquired the second pick.)

Hindsight is 50/50 but I remember all the Bure/Fedorov comparisons. If I had a do over Paraynko would go #1 to us... maybe Forsberg. It just didn't work out like the "experts" predicted. Would we be better off with Murray? I doubt it in hindsight

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

So players career get ruined by playing for Hitchcock, got it...

I wouldnt say ruined, but its clear that unless you are a hall of fame type player, you arent likely to flourish under Hitchcock.

It was also Hitchcocks decision to move Patrick Sharp out of Philadelphia because he didnt see the value in him and thought they had too many centers on the roster

 

[bleedblue1223]

And thats part of the long storied Hitchcock effect.

A lot of players either get "burned out" by hitch or injured playing his systems because he demands so much physical play

And to your bolded point, there isnt "plenty" of others

Hitchcock in 19 seasons has only ever had SEVEN 70+ point players
Recchi
Modano
Hull
Gagne
Forsberg
Nash
Tarasenko

not sure I would call 7 in his entire coaching career "plenty"

I don't know what you expect, he really hasn't had the talent to put up those numbers. Unless you honestly believe that those players would produce 10+ more points on other teams.

Are you seriously using being burned out as an argument? Seriously? Talk about ghost-hunting to prove that Hitch restricts offense. It's a false belief that most players will have any significant change in production when they change coaches or systems. The bigger impact is linemates and even that is still minimal, unless it is a true transcendent linemate.

If Hitch restricts offense, you'd see players have their offensive production drop as soon as he showed up. Does that happen? No, it doesn't.

Your only evidence is that he has had 80+ point guys in eras that most coaches do not have 80 point players, and that players don't increase their production when being away from him, yet most players don't see much change in pre, during, or post Hitch years. There really isn't much statistical evidence to your argument.

What specific players do you believe he's held back?

 

[bleedblue1223]

I wouldnt say ruined, but its clear that unless you are a hall of fame type player, you arent likely to flourish under Hitchcock.

It was also Hitchcocks decision to move Patrick Sharp out of Philadelphia because he didnt see the value in him and thought they had too many centers on the roster

The Blues have had 1, maybe 2 potential Hall of Fame caliber players with Hitch, and plenty of individuals have thrived under him. What's your definition of flourishing?

So, Hitch shouldn't be a GM, most coaches are terrible GM's, it doesn't mean he held Sharp back. It took Sharp until his 3rd season in Chicago to really breakout.

 

[Leafs87]

They really should of kept him at that return. The backlash could be terrible if Yakupov finds his game.

Good birthday present non the less

 

[kurtcobang]

How did this turn into a Hitch thread? He is obviously one of the best defensive coaches of all time and not exactly known as a coach offensive players thrive under
Seems pretty cut and dried to me

 

[sandysan]

For sure, he's a great player. Getting drafted onto a team with competent management and coaching doesn't hurt as well.

Makes me hate Dallas Eakins and his ******** even more. He played a pretty large part in this whole thing. Has a young player coming off of a great rookie season and proceeds to drive his confidence into the dirt, healthy scratch him and call him out publicly all the while never giving the player a chance to vindicate them self. Take most young players from any draft/team and put them in Yak's situation and very, very few would succeed.

Ah Dallas Eakins the excuse that keeps on giiving.

And Alex galchenyuk scored 30 after playing second fiddle to David freaking dehairnais.

Yakupov's warts have been evident for so long and those warts just got more and more prominent. So good on chia for getting a guaranteed third for a player who has regressed every year after his rookiie season. And if he does have a resurgence under hitch it could be a second AND an ECHL player.

Maybe he turns it around this year ( wait that seems like a little bit of deja vu)

 

[bleedblue1223]

How did this turn into a Hitch thread? He is obviously one of the best defensive coaches of all time and not exactly known as a coach offensive players thrive under
Seems pretty cut and dried to me

He said Yak is a terrible fit with Hitch because he restricts offense. If Yakupov does the little things right and put the effort in, he'll get the opportunity to produce. Hitch isn't someone that is going to restrict him.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

I don't know what you expect, he really hasn't had the talent to put up those numbers. Unless you honestly believe that those players would produce 10+ more points on other teams.

Are you seriously using being burned out as an argument? Seriously? Talk about ghost-hunting to prove that Hitch restricts offense. It's a false belief that most players will have any significant change in production when they change coaches or systems. The bigger impact is linemates and even that is still minimal, unless it is a true transcendent linemate.

If Hitch restricts offense, you'd see players have their offensive production drop as soon as he showed up. Does that happen? No, it doesn't.

Your only evidence is that he has had 80+ point guys in eras that most coaches do not have 80 point players, and that players don't increase their production when being away from him, yet most players don't see much change in pre, during, or post Hitch years. There really isn't much statistical evidence to your argument.

What specific players do you believe he's held back?

I am not continuing to pull numbers for you. You have the internet as well. I put out numbers and you cover your ears and close your eyes.

For a coach whose career spans 3 decades, he has ONE 80+ player and SEVEN 70+ point players. That alone speaks volumes that he does not promote offense

By comparison, Joel Quenneville (since their career span is similar) has coached FIFTEEN 70+ point players (Havlat, Kane, Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Stastny, Sakic, Brunette, Hejduk, Tanguay, Tkachuk, Demitra, Scott Young, Pierre Turgeon, Hull)

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

He said Yak is a terrible fit with Hitch because he restricts offense. If Yakupov does the little things right and put the effort in, he'll get the opportunity to produce. Hitch isn't someone that is going to restrict him.

As the penny lands in the wishing well...

 

[lomiller1]

Hindsight is 50/50 but I remember all the Bure/Fedorov comparisons.

Maybe at the start of the year, but by the end that wasn't the case. Go back and watch the draft previews from the time. He was disappointing in his draft year but there just wasn't anyone else for scouts to really get behind.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

How did this turn into a Hitch thread? He is obviously one of the best defensive coaches of all time and not exactly known as a coach offensive players thrive under
Seems pretty cut and dried to me

Pretty much spot on.

 

[Al Lagoon]

So the Oils traded 2 #1s overall for Adam Larsson, a conditional second, and a 4th round nobody who played in the ECHL last year?

where's the just fine dog in the burning room?

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

The Blues have had 1, maybe 2 potential Hall of Fame caliber players with Hitch, and plenty of individuals have thrived under him. What's your definition of flourishing?

So, Hitch shouldn't be a GM, most coaches are terrible GM's, it doesn't mean he held Sharp back. It took Sharp until his 3rd season in Chicago to really breakout.

Patrick Sharp scored 20 goals in his first full NHL season with Chicago. He pretty much hit the ground running

 

[PatrikOverAuston]

So the Oils traded 2 #1s overall for Adam Larsson, a conditional second, and a 4th round nobody who played in the ECHL last year?

where's the just fine dog in the burning room?

Well, sort of. They traded a top-line LW and a borderline bottom six winger for Adam Larsson, a conditional second, and a 4th round nobody. Draft pedigree doesn't really matter at this point.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I am not continuing to pull numbers for you. You have the internet as well. I put out numbers and you cover your ears and close your eyes.

For a coach whose career spans 3 decades, he has ONE 80+ player and SEVEN 70+ point players. That alone speaks volumes that he does not promote offense

By comparison, Joel Quenneville (since their career span is similar) has coached FIFTEEN 70+ point players (Havlat, Kane, Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Stastny, Sakic, Brunette, Hejduk, Tanguay, Tkachuk, Demitra, Scott Young, Pierre Turgeon, Hull)

Pulling numbers like that doesn't prove anything, it shows what is obvious, Q has had more talent to coach in his career. If you can't actually point to specific players that were held back under Hitch, then you are simply ghost hunting. I'm not saying Hitch is a great offensive coach, just that he doesn't restrict offense.

 

[Evocable Manager]

Well, sort of. They traded a top-line LW and a borderline bottom six winger for Adam Larsson, a conditional second, and a 4th round nobody. Draft pedigree doesn't really matter at this point.

It's a conditional third, no?

 

[vHAB]

There's so much pressure to make the right move as an NHL GM, especially these days with the parity around the league and millions of dollars on the line every year you miss the playoffs. Really unfortunate the way things worked out for them with Yakupov but I have a hard time blaming the Oilers for picking him even if there were doubts and they had other needs. Imagine the backlash for a big market team that hasn't made the playoffs in years, takes a player other than the consensus #1 overall and THAT player busts? Whether the team played a role in how Yakupov developed is a different question, but given the circumstances I think they were better off cutting ties and getting whatever they could in return. I look forward to seeing if he can turn it around in St. Louis.

EDIT: Genuinely curious as I've only followed the draft more closely the past few years. I'm sure it's happened at some point, but who is the most recent non-consensus 1st overall? Fleury in 2003?

 

[Vikke]

So the Oils traded 2 #1s overall for Adam Larsson, a conditional second, and a 4th round nobody who played in the ECHL last year?

where's the just fine dog in the burning room?

Don't forget a middle 1st and early 2nd for now AHL-er Griffin Reinhart.

 

[kurtcobang]

Don't forget a middle 1st and early 2nd for now AHL-er Griffin Reinhart.

Good thing we drafted the best player in 20+ years in that draft. I doubt any Oiler fan is too heartbroken over that trade. Took a shot and it didn't work out. Oh well

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

Pulling numbers like that doesn't prove anything, it shows what is obvious, Q has had more talent to coach in his career. If you can't actually point to specific players that were held back under Hitch, then you are simply ghost hunting. I'm not saying Hitch is a great offensive coach, just that he doesn't restrict offense.

Again, you are free to pour through Hitchcocks rosters, I already have

He sucks offense out of his teams in favor of defensive systems

 

[La Bamba]

So the Oils traded 2 #1s overall for Adam Larsson, a conditional second, and a 4th round nobody who played in the ECHL last year?

where's the just fine dog in the burning room?

Lol cmon man, I can write the same type of thing too:

The Oilers traded the biggest bust since Diagle and a winger who scored 65 pts for a top notch young D man, a pick, and some cap space.

Where they were drafted is irrelevant at this stage... the Oilers had to move those 2 guys out to move forward.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

Pulling numbers like that doesn't prove anything, it shows what is obvious, Q has had more talent to coach in his career. If you can't actually point to specific players that were held back under Hitch, then you are simply ghost hunting. I'm not saying Hitch is a great offensive coach, just that he doesn't restrict offense.

Here is a name for you to dispute then

Joe Nieuwendyk

Had SIX 70+ point seasons before playing for Hitchcock (four of them being 80+ points, and two being 90+ points)

Never cracked 70 points again after playing for Hitchcock