Toggle sidebar

Grade Holland’s deadline (week)

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates

Grade Holland’s deadline (week)

  • Total voters
    208
A modest add at RW would have it at A, but instead its a B+.

Dumping Campbell for an upgrade is a pipe dream, Gudas might have been helpful but might be more of a luxury than a necessity.

A modest RW, if our health/injury status continues, could prove to be an important miss.
 
A A great deadline getting an arguably top pairing D for not too much. PJ without giving up anything is great. Bjugstad we'll see. KH was indeed limited by his own silly cap decisions, but in a trade deadline vacuum can't do much better.
 
alphahelix said:
A modest add at RW would have it at A, but instead its a B+.

Dumping Campbell for an upgrade is a pipe dream, Gudas might have been helpful but might be more of a luxury than a necessity.

A modest RW, if our health/injury status continues, could prove to be an important miss.
Click to expand...
I agree although the only modest RW we could have added that were out there was Sheary, who didn't get moved at all. So as much as it does bum me out a bit, its not like we missed out.
 
An extra depth winger would have put it over the top but realistically speaking this was probably the best he could’ve done and I’m thrilled.

I definitely wasn’t anti-Karlsson but Ekholm is a better fit for what we needed
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinisterOfSinister and Oilhawks
I think Holland improved our team more than most teams did. Id argue that our defence isn’t a complete tire fire now. If we have a top 10-15 defence then I’m happy, they might actually be better than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nturn06 and Oilhawks
A-

Considering that he had no cap space to work with, trading Puljujarvi without retaining or attaching a pick has to be considered a win, getting Ekholm without trading any of the top prospects/young players (I consider Schaefer a long term project) has to be considered a win although Barrie's presence will be missed and Bjugstad was a nice final piece to the bottom 6.

I don't give it an A because I think he left the defense a little too thin at the bottom. Broberg and Desharnais are doing some nice things but there's a little too much experience with those two and Bouchard for a team with Cup aspirations.
Otherwise, Holland did just about as well as can be reasonably expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oilhawks
I like both moves. It would be good to add another depth defenseman. But if Murray is really beginning to skate, maybe it's not necessary. With Niemelainen in the mix, they would have 9 d-men who could step in the NHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oilhawks
B

Ekholm is a huge upgrade to the D core.
Bjugstad is a decent 4th line player too with size and and chip in with some goal...needs to get better on the face-offs
still would've liked another Defenseman is stabilize the right side though
 
I said B+. Going into the TDL I said that I didn't care what he added if he didn't add a top 4 D.

He added a top 4 D. Would've liked to have seen at least one more 6/7 D but that's so minor that I'm not bothered. Ekholm was the kind of addition we've been crowing about for years. It took him far too long to provide meaningful upgrades to the D but better late than never.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopShelfGloveSide
A long long time ago, in a GM game far far away, I acquired this 6'3 lanky Swedish blue line prospect with some offensive pop. I talked him up with unearned confidence. To have watched him blossom and round out his game so much that he's renowned for his sturdy defensive game has been a treat. Initial shock to them trading Barrie, but he was never going to finish that contract he extended with us with Bouchard here, they've been looking to deal him since Klingberg last summer and likely wouldn't have made it past this coming offseason. Good Oiler for us, but we upgraded big to Ekholm. They made the right choice in moving Schaefer, and that was good asset management to maintain a 1st round valuation. The 1st is the cost of doing business. And when you consider bang for 1st round buck, I think we did well to get multiple years of Ekholm over Hronek, Sandin, McCabe and Chychrun is close because of age but Ekholm is the better fit for this team right now. The only other teams to be able to say they got as good value for their 1st are the Islanders (but not the Canucks lol) and the Devils.
I suppose I get the whispers of a drop off coming, but I feel like alot of that is spurred on because "over 30".
I do wish there was more retention.

Ekholm deal: A-


Developing and getting some value out of Kesselring is good drafting and okay asset management, I wouldn't call it a wash with Dinnen, and I'm not sure if it was required to make this deal. I just think Kesselring has built some cache around the league with his season, and obviously someone with Arizona took notice as he's up with the Yote *ahem* big squad. Bjugstad won't get the minutes here to do the ES scoring he has, so focusing on his PK contributions is valid. I'd like to see if there is a breakdown on his faceoff prowess on his strong vs weak side, and if there's a split for short handed. The 3rd with our desperate retention needs and considering a lean towards Kesselring > Dinnen, probably market value. But just feel like was a meh addition, but I understand why he was a target with the salary implications.

Bjugstad deal: C


Overall: A-/B+. The Ekholm grade is weighted higher in the overall.
 
Went with a solid B. Love Ekholm and am hoping Bjugstad fits well. Didn't think it was an amazing deadline, but it was a good one. Could be better if these two guys play decent roles down the stretch.

Adding Kane back in is going to go a long way if he's healthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom