My point is that these trades are unrealistic because they don't address our biggest issue.
Proposal: Oilers fix their Defense
- Thread starter TFHockey
- Start date
My point is that these trades are unrealistic because they don't address our biggest issue.
ManofSteel55
Registered User
Fixing the D should help the goalies, but our goalies are still our biggest issue. We can't deplete our tradeable assets and ignore that position, its the most important position in hockey when you don't have it, and we don't have it.
Goaltending is also an important target. Never denied that.
Sure I probably overpaid in the Soucy trade. I can own that.
Moving Keith and Ceci down to the bottom pair means we actually have two BETTER defensemen in the 3-4 position. I like that idea.
Better team defense means we won't have 48 shots against like we did vs. Calgary. An upper tier NHL defense will allow even a mediocre goalie to look good.
ManofSteel55
Registered User
Kassian maybe, but people keep talking about Barrie as if he is on an awful contract or something. Getting an elite puck moving defenseman and powerplay quarterback for his contract is a good deal for the right team. The trick is finding a team that needs his specific skill set, as he isn't much good in any other role. Those types of teams are out there, for what its worth.
At what point do you say “we’ve got too many issues to fix”? So you concede and you don’t fix any of them in season and keep your assets for future seasons.
there isn’t going to be a good deal for Edmonton to add a MAF type goalie. Or a Soucy type defender. Those trades will all cost assets of real value. Why make a trade if it moves the needle from being a 10th seed to an 8th seed level team.
Zub is light years ahead of Barrie. He actually defends and he defends at a really high level.
ManofSteel55
Registered User
I think this is why Holland has said he isn't trading for rentals. He knows the team he thought was on the verge likely isn't, so he wants to only trade for pieces that help for a few seasons. Finding guys with term is always harder than plucking up rentals, and you are correct, it would cost more in assets. But its easier to swallow a deal if we are moving out our 1st if the deal includes a solution to a problem. Like, to fix our 3C spot, trading Turris and our 1st for a guy who normally might not get back a 1st, like Radek Faksa (assuming the NTC is waived) or Pavel Zacha. Or including our 1st for an actual #1 goalie that we could have for a few years, even an older guy like Varlamov.
I agree. It seems like most of the Oilers contingent who frequent the trade boards don't want to actually pony up for legit players who make the team better.
Way too much value in the team keeping draft picks, or thinking they'll net us superstar players. Both proposals instantly make the Oilers a much better team defensively and both acquisitions are players in their prime years. We'll just never come up with a deal for Zub because understandably Sens fans won't want to trade him and I don't blame them at all.
Captain Mountain
Formerly Captain Wolverine
- Jun 6, 2010
- 21,026
- 15,127
The first one is horrible for Ottawa. The 2nd is fairer, but it depends on how bad Seattle thinks Edmonton will be. If the 1st is later, then I'm not sure its worth eating Kassian's contract.
They're in year 7 of McDavid. Conceding and missing the playoffs shouldn't even be an option at all. Just because you can't fill all the holes doesn't mean you just don't try and fill any of them. Especially when a couple of additions absolutely help the team make the playoffs and try to make a run.
bucks_oil
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2005
- 8,665
- 5,017
They were also first in the league before their goaltending fell apart.
Koskinen is finally off the books and if Smith isn't healthy, he's LTIR. So that's $4.5 to $6.7M to upgrade goaltending (if we don't already accomplish that at the deadline this year).
Pulju and Nurse can come from savings elsewhere (Turris, Russell, Archibald). We're gonna have to move Kassian and it's gonna be one more tight year in Edmonton, but we should be ok if Holland gets creative (I know, I know). We really must trade for a longer term goalie rather than try to sign a UFA.
bucks_oil
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2005
- 8,665
- 5,017
Didn't we do that last year?
What we must do is address goaltending by trading (an arm and a leg) for an emerging 1st or 2nd contract goalie. Take a big stab at addressing this long standing issue in a long term way... if it doesn't work out, at least you'll have cap space (Lucic, Sekera, Keith, Smith) available in summer 2023 to fix your error, and in the meantime you have a chance at fixing the issue with a reasonable cap hit.
I'm talking about a guy like Swayman, or ____, ____.
Exactly. "Nobody is taking on two more years of Kassian and Barrie." Look at what Rasmus Ristolainen went for last year. A 1st, Robert Hagg and a 2nd in 2023. Barrie is a better player than risto in pretty much every area of the game.
Now this trade deadline will not have quite the same return for players with warts in their game like Risto and Barrie. Not as many teams are in the mix for the playoffs (especially out east, where it looks like things are set).
Zub is great. But he's also an entirely different type of defenseman. Barrie is a complimentary offensive defenseman and can perform at a very high level when deployed appropriately.
Both are top four defensemen, yet one is being highly overvalued while the other is highly undervalued.
I think part of it is there's a far bigger market for a #3/4 guy who is a rock defensively than a guy who has become a 4/5 offensive QB.
I like Barrie and agree he has his place but I also think if he's in your top 4 it's because your defense is lacking. I'd pay a ton for Zub, and I can't say I'd do the same for Barrie. But that's just my opinion.
Except your GM is whining to Sportsnet they don’t want to pay market price for a legit goalie. He wants to do it without offering the first? Ok. So offer several seconds but there is no trade for a good goalie for a 4th and Lavoie. That gets you someone like the backup in Columbus, who isn’t an upgrade on what you already have.
Chicago won’t be taking Barrie and a 5th for MAF.
Islanders won’t do Varlamov for Koskonen and a 3rd in 2023. Those guys are going to come at a higher cost. Quite a bit higher.
Is there though? Seems like the market for these players tends to dry up in an instant once there's an inkling these players are going to get paid.
Just look at the 'demand' for guys like Larsson, Savard or Manson. It's all over the map.
So long as Edmonton knows they are putting their 2022 1st and prospects like Savoie on the table for meaningful assets that move the needle. Will be Holloway if you reach higher.
I'm in the camp that is okay with moving whatever picks and prospects we can to make.meaningful roster changes.
That said, i don't think people should expect Dylan Holloway in a deal that might send Kassian the other way to make it fair. They need to be realistic proposals, which a lot of these threads are not.
I think you'd have a far easier time finding a trading partner for Zub than you would Barrie. Point being the demand for those guys is always there, whereas I don't think the same can be said for a PP specialist like Barrie.
I agree and a big part of that is how much they're currently being paid. My point is that the moment a guy like Zub gets a significant pay raise, the 'value' shifts.
How hard do you think it'd be to acquire David Savard?
I don't think Savard is nearly as good as Zub, so significantly less at the moment.
I also think the value of players largely depends on the needs of the team acquiring them. I know people like to compare, and use one players deal as a baseline for other players, and maybe that is how it usually goes, but I think it's kind of silly.
For a team like Edmonton, they should be willing to pay more for a guy like Zub than they'd be willing to pay for a guy like Barrie. Even if Barrie was a legit 3/4 guy, team needs dictate that we should be paying a little more to acquire the guy who brings the skillset we sorely lack. Whereas a team like Carolina would find Zub to be less of a need and would likely offer up less than we would.
If any of that makes sense. I don't think there's a set market price on players just because one guy goes to one team for a certain value.
bucks_oil
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2005
- 8,665
- 5,017
Well, that's why I'd much rather pay the full price for a guy who can be around with term.
Swayman for a 1st, 3rd & Lavoie? Does that get it done?
DingDongCharlie
Registered User
- Sep 12, 2010
- 11,595
- 9,706
You do it to move forward as long as it’s not a rental. If we can add a top 4 defensive D to replace what we lost in Larsson and a starting caliber goalie that can grow with the core you pay the price.
If we are taking about Fleury, Chiarot etc I completely agree. Any moves need to be long term ones at this point
I’d be on board with trading picks and top prospects for core pieces like a Chychrun or a Gibson
