Toggle sidebar

Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | With Klingberg in the Mix Who Are Our 7D After the Deadline?

  • 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
McDrai said:
I feel like Skinner would be god awful on just about any other team. I’m not a huge stats guy but based on what I’ve seen our defense doesn’t give up too much in terms of high danger opportunities. The few opportunities we do give up usually end up in the back of the net. I don’t mind keeping Skinner in a back up/1B position as he does have moments of being solid but he’s not consistent enough to be the guy who can help us win a Stanley Cup. We can’t be winning in spite of him like we do most of the time.
Click to expand...

We're the only clear playoff team he'd be a starter on (out of 16 teams).

The only teams Skinner might start on are Philly, Pittsburgh, maaaaaybe Buffalo (even this I doubt I think UPL is better than him), maaaaaaaybe Columbus. And here.

And even that is subject to a lot of question marks, his confidence would likely shatter quick playing for the above mentioned losing record teams and that would likely have a culminative negative effect on his numbers and confidence. He is insulated here a lot and has a ton of run support with McDavid/Drai tilting the ice and elite defensive systems coaching from Coff/Knob that limit high danger chances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDrai
Soundwave said:
img_0432-jpeg.971200


giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Like.

Well, I hate it. But you know what I mean.

get a f***ing goalie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarksideGhost, McDoused, FiveFourteenSixOne and 1 other person
Behind Enemy Lines said:
Or maybe it is different than yours. Notable is your continual reactive thinking they should trade for everyone and everything that shakes out.

Cup Champion teams can have rare elite franchise goaltenders or from a large swath of interchangeable goaltenders who unpredictably can get hot and on a playoff heater in front of excellent, big, deep and diverse blue lines and airtight team defending and goal suppression work. Playoff series hockey is hard, grind style of play often won in the margins and very different than one-off regular season play.

A mature way to have conversation and dialogue is to express disagreement and state one's own opinion.
Click to expand...
You keep acting like Cody Ceci is still here and you keep treating Kulak like he's a 5/6.

They certainly could use another defenseman, but they are far less desperate about the blueline, because the group has been excellent this year.

More impact at forward is obviously, because being more dangerous without McDrai on the ice would be massive
 
VeteranPresence said:
I posted this in the McDavid thread, but it seems the guy is ailing with some kind of wrist or upper body injury and has been for months.

Let's say he needs 2.5 months of recovery time, which conveniently takes him to the end of the regular season. How best could we use $17.7M in total cap space to make sure we still make the playoffs without him?
Click to expand...
I mean I said last year he was injured. I think at this point we have to admit he's just a different player.

Shutting down Mcdavid for an extended period is just stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmi McJenkins
Soundwave said:
In the long term it's a dumb trade for Dallas but in the short term I'm not sure it's the fleecing people think it is.

Anthony Davis is still a top 10 player in the league and probably top 5 defensively on top of that.

The Lakers are gonna be a mess on defense, Luka is terrible defensively and LeBron is 40 and stopped playing D like five years ago. The Mavs are still dumb for making that trade, but it's not like Luka is 2x better than AD or something.
Click to expand...
Most elite NBA players start declining right around the age AD is at right now.

It’d be like if we traded Draisaitl for Malkin 2 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Positive
McJadeddog said:
There is a very low chance that anybody gives Skinner $6+ million, although with the cap rising a lot, I suppose it could happen on the low end. The Oilers should not be one of those teams offering such a deal though (they should be trading Skinner as fast as possible actually, but that is maybe a different post). He is a roughly 50th percentile goalie in the league over the past 2 years (when he has been the primary starter). In the past year he is 38th of 73 goalies (min 1000 mins played) for GSAA/60 at all strengths from naturalstattrick. So slightly worse than league average in the regular season. He is 12th of 21 for the same time frame (min 100 mins played) in the playoffs, so again, slightly worse than average. These stats match the eye test as well. Skinner is a below average goalie who has hot streaks and cold streaks in his game.

He is a bad starter, or a very good backup, or a prototypical "1B type" goalie. Those guys don't make $6 M/year, and more like $4 M or so, although there are some making more and some making less.

There are 42 goaltenders currently signed in the NHL that were UFAs when they signed their deals. The median deal was $2.5 M. Even if you scope those deals to only the highest 20 paid goalies, the median is $5 M. Guys like Ullmark, Lehner, Hill, Mrazek and Korpisalo are all around that 10th overall in signing. Skinner is worse than most of them.
Click to expand...
I think people are severely underestimating how much salaries could go up. We have already seen Blackwood on the basis of a few good games get $5.25M and if you look at Skinner's resume on paper it is at east comparable right now. Blackwood is older and struggled to establish himself as a starter even on some very weak teams. He has not even played a single NHL playoff game. And Skinner's deal will be with a cap of $105M in year one and $113M in year two. Basically we are looking at 20-30% higher numbers than today. And my guess is that with recent contracts as a basis goalies will command an additional premium over this since they have tended to be on the lower end of the salary scale. Even a low end starter will be asking for $5M+ which will be the amount teams will be paying average #4 defensemen. I also get the sense that Skinner has a lot of confidence in his own worth so while he may well not get $6M I don't see him signing with the Oilers early for much less if he remains their starter. And that is the point. Barring giving him more than I think he is worth they will have to find someone else. If they don't do anything this year then I think it is imperative that next year the main goal should be upgrading in goal for at least the next several years.
Soundwave said:
If this org is too chicken shit to take a risk on anyone in net, then they have really no business having a McDavid anyway.

You have to grow some balls at some point as an org, do your f***ing homework (what are our scouts paid for exactly?), and bring someone in.
Click to expand...
Look, I share your concern but there are probably 5-8 goalies in the whole league who are consistent enough that you can pretty much count on them to be a significant step up. Of those guys, maybe Saros is available if you throw the kitchen sink at Nashville. Otherwise you are throwing spaghetti at the wall if you are not careful. Make a mistake and you could easily be in a worse position. Right now I think the chances of that mistake are higher than they will be in a month and the options are probably also fewer.

Gibson for example is a big risk because of his contract and the cost to get him. I am not full against trying but I am no expert on goalies so I am less sure that he can be completely rehabilitated. That said I also get the sense that Anaheim is in any hurry to deal him and may not until Dostal signs. Having Gibson gives them significant leverage in negotiations with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bellagiobob
Fourier said:
I think people are severely underestimating how much salaries could go up. We have already seen Blackwood on the basis of a few good games get $5.25M and if you look at Skinner's resume on paper it is at east comparable right now. Blackwood is older and struggled to establish himself as a starter even on some very weak teams. He has not even played a single NHL playoff game. And Skinner's deal will be with a cap of $105M in year one and $113M in year two. Basically we are looking at 20-30% higher numbers than today. And my guess is that with recent contracts as a basis goalies will command an additional premium over this since they have tended to be on the lower end of the salary scale. Even a low end starter will be asking for $5M+ which will be the amount teams will be paying average #4 defensemen. I also get the sense that Skinner has a lot of confidence in his own worth so while he may well not get $6M I don't see him signing with the Oilers early for much less if he remains their starter. And that is the point. Barring giving him more than I think he is worth they will have to find someone else. If they don't do anything this year then I think it is imperative that next year the main goal should be upgrading in goal for at least the next several years.

Look, I share your concern but there are probably 5-8 goalies in the whole league who are consistent enough that you can pretty much count on them to be a significant step up. Of those guys, maybe Saros is available if you throw the kitchen sink at Nashville. Otherwise you are throwing spaghetti at the wall if you are not careful. Make a mistake and you could easily be in a worse position. Right now I think the chances of that mistake are higher than they will be in a month and the options are probably also fewer.

Gibson for example is a big risk because of his contract and the cost to get him. I am not full against trying but I am no expert on goalies so I am less sure that he can be completely rehabilitated. That said I also get the sense that Anaheim is in any hurry to deal him and may not until Dostal signs. Having Gibson gives them significant leverage in negotiations with him.
Click to expand...
Like I said, the cap jumping up a lot like it is going to, could make the 6+ number real, but in todays money, he doesn't get it. I guess that was my point. For whatever 6+ is worth once we account for the cap going up 25% over 2 years, then yeah sure, I could see it.

Yes, goaltending is voodoo, everybody knows that. We could 100% try and get a new guy, and still have nobody. As you said, there are only really 5 guys that are consistent enough that you can count on them, and even within that group you have them having off years (Helly last year for example). It is a risk, no doubt. But we already have a guarantee of Skinner not being the guy, and not being able to go on a hot streak long enough to win the cup. He has never played consistently good for a 20-25 game stretch in his entire career, let alone a 20-25 game stretch against top-10 teams like he'll face in the playoffs. Using Skinner is a GUARANTEE of not winning the cup, unless you think that he'll somehow have a solid 20-25 games in a row for the first time in his career this playoffs? Could that happen? Yeah, I guess it could, and I could also technically win the lottery next week. I know what probability either of those scenarios have though.

Trading for another 1B goalie and hoping he can go on a run has a low probability of occurring, lets say as low as 20-30%. But keeping Skinner has a 0.1% chance of the same occurring. A GMs job is to increase the chances of success, there are no "for sure" things in a sport as random as hockey after all.
 
McJadeddog said:
Like I said, the cap jumping up a lot like it is going to, could make the 6+ number real, but in todays money, he doesn't get it. I guess that was my point. For whatever 6+ is worth once we account for the cap going up 25% over 2 years, then yeah sure, I could see it.

Yes, goaltending is voodoo, everybody knows that. We could 100% try and get a new guy, and still have nobody. As you said, there are only really 5 guys that are consistent enough that you can count on them, and even within that group you have them having off years (Helly last year for example). It is a risk, no doubt. But we already have a guarantee of Skinner not being the guy, and not being able to go on a hot streak long enough to win the cup. He has never played consistently good for a 20-25 game stretch in his entire career, let alone a 20-25 game stretch against top-10 teams like he'll face in the playoffs. Using Skinner is a GUARANTEE of not winning the cup, unless you think that he'll somehow have a solid 20-25 games in a row for the first time in his career this playoffs? Could that happen? Yeah, I guess it could, and I could also technically win the lottery next week. I know what probability either of those scenarios have though.

Trading for another 1B goalie and hoping he can go on a run has a low probability of occurring, lets say as low as 20-30%. But keeping Skinner has a 0.1% chance of the same occurring. A GMs job is to increase the chances of success, there are no "for sure" things in a sport as random as hockey after all.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't really disagree on the need. My biggest concern is that the wrong move will turn out to be an all in move. The Oilers have a limited number of assets and cap space to improve. The cap space issue is less critical if Kane is out for the duration which I expect he is. But assets to get a difference maker are at a premium. Hopefully as we approach the deadline options will open up.
 
Ritchie Valens said:
And this is a major problem. In a 7-game series, your goalie should be consistent enough and good enough to gift the other team zero wins.

He gifted Vancouver at least two wins and the team needed a career tweener/backup goalie to pull their asses out of the fire. Skinner will get credit for winning game 7 but don’t forget Vancouver lost some key players for that game. The Oilers were extremely lucky to get out of round 2.
Click to expand...
Pickard litterally saved are season that round with out question..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ritchie Valens and soothsayer
Criticizing our players based on their play on their ice is fair game. But if you have to resort to making personal insults about our players to make your point, I think you've lost the plot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Positive and North
Soundwave said:
We're the only clear playoff team he'd be a starter on (out of 16 teams).

The only teams Skinner might start on are Philly, Pittsburgh, maaaaaybe Buffalo (even this I doubt I think UPL is better than him), maaaaaaaybe Columbus. And here.

And even that is subject to a lot of question marks, his confidence would likely shatter quick playing for the above mentioned losing record teams and that would likely have a culminative negative effect on his numbers and confidence. He is insulated here a lot and has a ton of run support with McDavid/Drai tilting the ice and elite defensive systems coaching from Coff/Knob that limit high danger chances.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine a goalie (74) who has an atrocious high danger save %, playing for a team that gives up a lot of high danger changes?

27 teams in the NHL give up more high danger chances against than the Oilers.

Skinner sewers the Oilers chance of winning games every night. He would be demoted to the AHL after two weeks of starts on any of those clubs.
 
Jimmi McJenkins said:
You keep acting like Cody Ceci is still here and you keep treating Kulak like he's a 5/6.

They certainly could use another defenseman, but they are far less desperate about the blueline, because the group has been excellent this year.

More impact at forward is obviously, because being more dangerous without McDrai on the ice would be massive
Click to expand...
The Oilers system in regular season play has held up as expected by a mature veteran team primed for deep playoff runs. Their defensive play has held strong largely with deploying Kulak 3+ minutes on off shooting side which he has never done.

Playoff series hockey is very different with heavy, hard-ice play, game planning to attack and exploit weakness, and defensive mistakes can be the difference in tightly contested games. An injury to a top 4 d-man would have a massive consequence for the Oilers. Emberson is establishing himself well as a 3 pair D and PK (on an NHL #23 ranked PK); Klingberg is a hope to fill a bigger body puck moving D after missing a year-and-a-half of apex competition play; and Stetcher is a #7/#8 on a deep team. It's hoped that Kulak will sustain his high level play at 2RD minutes and quality of opposition in playoff series competition but it's not a certainty for a guy who's been great largely in third paring responsibility. The Oil have been able to protect Stetcher and insulate Emberson through in game deployment of Nurse Kulak in key situational play. That's harder to do in series based play versus one-off regular season which carries far less consequences.

Vegas, Colorado, Tampa defenses were big, diverse and deep. The Oilers have a solid top two pairing with more need to build up the quality of its mid-level blueline to fortify their team defending in front of their current goaltending.

I'll be very, very surprised if the Oilers do not target another quality veteran defenseman as a priority trade deadline dealing. They hope to have a freebee puck mover with Klingberg which might enable a pivot to a hard ice cycle breaker and blue paint defender with PK ability. But again that's assuming Klingberg will stabilize at minimum as a third pair d.
 
Fourier said:
Again, I don't really disagree on the need. My biggest concern is that the wrong move will turn out to be an all in move. The Oilers have a limited number of assets and cap space to improve. The cap space issue is less critical if Kane is out for the duration which I expect he is. But assets to get a difference maker are at a premium. Hopefully as we approach the deadline options will open up.
Click to expand...

Yup, we don't have lots of bullets, so we need to make the ones we have count. Our biggest need, by far, is goaltending though. Admittedly, its also the hardest issue to "get right", as tending is notoriously hard to nail down, "goaltending is voodoo" and all that. But that doesn't change the fact its our biggest area of need, so therefore should be the focus of where we decide to spend those aforementioned bullets.

They could very well try and fail, but that is better than not trying and assuring failure to occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UHHHH SON
McJadeddog said:
Like I said, the cap jumping up a lot like it is going to, could make the 6+ number real, but in todays money, he doesn't get it. I guess that was my point. For whatever 6+ is worth once we account for the cap going up 25% over 2 years, then yeah sure, I could see it.

Yes, goaltending is voodoo, everybody knows that. We could 100% try and get a new guy, and still have nobody. As you said, there are only really 5 guys that are consistent enough that you can count on them, and even within that group you have them having off years (Helly last year for example). It is a risk, no doubt. But we already have a guarantee of Skinner not being the guy, and not being able to go on a hot streak long enough to win the cup. He has never played consistently good for a 20-25 game stretch in his entire career, let alone a 20-25 game stretch against top-10 teams like he'll face in the playoffs. Using Skinner is a GUARANTEE of not winning the cup, unless you think that he'll somehow have a solid 20-25 games in a row for the first time in his career this playoffs? Could that happen? Yeah, I guess it could, and I could also technically win the lottery next week. I know what probability either of those scenarios have though.

Trading for another 1B goalie and hoping he can go on a run has a low probability of occurring, lets say as low as 20-30%. But keeping Skinner has a 0.1% chance of the same occurring. A GMs job is to increase the chances of success, there are no "for sure" things in a sport as random as hockey after all.
Click to expand...
This is actually why I don't like saying that goalies are voodoo. There are no guarantees with any player. The problem with our organization is that they think that goalies are voodoo. It's the same thing as saying that you can't count on talent showing

I'd say goalies are fairly reliable in terms of guessing who will succeed. The formula is simple. Look for good base stats on teams with poor defense. Also look for goalies with good stats compared other goalies on the same team. That was Ullmark. Blackwood. Roloson. I can't recall exactly of a goalie like these that didn't pan out when the defense only got better.

I'm not sure who to pick, as the teams with obvious choices have made runs and might make the playoffs.

I used to be all about Detroit and Utah goalies. I still am. I like Gibson, but I'd prefer a goalie with short term. There's also Lankinen, Nedeljkovic

I like our pro scouting. They can look into to it. The main thing is that they get someone. I don't see status quo as a good idea
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom