Understanding Contracts, Value and Windows of Contention

[The CyNick]

If we trade Kessel, unless its for the 1st overall pick (which it wouldnt be, because nobody is giving up the 1st overall for him), the % chance of getting someone who produces like Kessel would be more like 5-10% not 40. So best of luck on that one.

The tear down strategy is just fine. Its the classic argument that is brought up here. The "guaranteed" path to success. The people who are backers of it refuse to explain why we couldnt just as easily end up like one of the teams who have spent a decade selecting in the top 10 and are no closer to a championship than they were 10 years ago.

Teams like the Hawks are more of the exception than the rule. But if you read these boards you would think its simple; fail for 5 years, find studs in the draft, boom multiple championships. But then when you actually bother to see where these teams got their players (even the Hawks), you see that they are littered with lucky mid to late round picks in the draft, good trades, and key FA signings that worked out. Dont believe me? Look at where the Hawks picked Duncan Kieth. They actually thought Anton Babchuk was a better dman. Or no, I know, they KNEW Kieth would still be hanging around in the 2nd round. Geniuses right?

So sure, trade away all the good pieces we have on this team, and commit to taking 5-7 years to get back to where we are right now. Its possible that we end up with a team with better pieces and in a better position to make a run for the Cup. But its just as likely we end up with a worse team that has been spinning their wheels for another decade.

 

[-DeMo-]

Trading Kessel, Phaneuf, Lupul, Franson would not guarantee anything. What makes you think for one second and decently talented player would be allowed to develop here?

not sure why people use this not guaranteed anything as some type of counter argument, as keeping those players guarantee's us nothing either.

 

[JimmyPower]

Mod: Please don't quote the entire long post.

I agree taking advantage of ELCs is crucial to being a powerhouse team, but I completely disagree with you saying Kessels 5 year deal was wasted because we didn't take advantage of his lower cap hit.

You forget he's getting paid only 3 mill more and the cap is going up boatloads in the next couple of years.

In fact the cap is going up so much so, that it will slightly change the blue print on how to build ones team, not necessarily taking away from the importance of drafting, but
by adding more of an important to trading and free agency.

At least I hope... (cross fingers)

 

[blueberrie]

Not many people are here are saying it's a guarantee. Perhaps as many as the posters who guarantee we will end up like the oilers. Any method of team building is going to require a bit of luck, drafting is no different. Drafting luck (guessing which 18 yo will have the best career) may net you a Toews, Keith, Petriangelo, Doughty, Kopitar. Then you can keep them their whole career. Trading and FA luck (hoping a rival GM will mistakingly let go of a very nice player) may net you a Chara, Thornton, M Richards, Carter, Hossa. Most of the best players in the league are acquired through drafting luck IMO.

At this point we've tried almost every other rebuild option, why not give a full drafting one a try? We just sat through this 7 year "retool/accelerated rebuild" and I really doubt it's going how they planned. Let's try a 7 year drafting rebuild next!

I think the weirdest thing is how people keep referring to the Leafs as if they are a good team or doing it right. We're fans of a team who's looking to be on track for it's 7th bottom ten finish in 8 years. Yet people keep proclaiming that we don't wanna end up like the Oilers as if finishing ~5 spots ahead of them most years while spending 8 million more and having most of our core in their primes is anything to be proud of.

 

[Rielly4]

Not many people are here are saying it's a guarantee. Perhaps as many as the posters who guarantee we will end up like the oilers. Any method of team building is going to require a bit of luck, drafting is no different. Drafting luck (guessing which 18 yo will have the best career) may net you a Toews, Keith, Petriangelo, Doughty, Kopitar. Then you can keep them their whole career. Trading and FA luck (hoping a rival GM will mistakingly let go of a very nice player) may net you a Chara, Thornton, M Richards, Carter, Hossa. Most of the best players in the league are acquired through drafting luck IMO.

At this point we've tried almost every other rebuild option, why not give a full drafting one a try? We just sat through this 7 year "retool/accelerated rebuild" and I really doubt it's going how they planned. Let's try a 7 year drafting rebuild next!

I think the weirdest thing is how people keep referring to the Leafs as if they are a good team or doing it right. We're fans of a team who's looking to be on track for it's 7th bottom ten finish in 8 years. Yet people keep proclaiming that we don't wanna end up like the Oilers as if finishing ~5 spots ahead of them most years while spending 8 million more and having most of our core in their primes is anything to be proud of.

A draft rebuild would not take 7 years, more like 2...

If we traded Kessel Bozak Reimer Franson Lupul and Phaneuf we could probably get 3 draft picks not including ours and a couple high end prospects like an Etem or Connolly or Strome. I would not trade Kessel unless getting Ekblad or Bennet though unless we could get like Dal Colle plus Strome and Hamonic.

 

[-DeMo-]

If we trade Kessel, unless its for the 1st overall pick (which it wouldnt be, because nobody is giving up the 1st overall for him), the % chance of getting someone who produces like Kessel would be more like 5-10% not 40. So best of luck on that one.

The tear down strategy is just fine. Its the classic argument that is brought up here. The "guaranteed" path to success. The people who are backers of it refuse to explain why we couldnt just as easily end up like one of the teams who have spent a decade selecting in the top 10 and are no closer to a championship than they were 10 years ago.

Teams like the Hawks are more of the exception than the rule. But if you read these boards you would think its simple; fail for 5 years, find studs in the draft, boom multiple championships. But then when you actually bother to see where these teams got their players (even the Hawks), you see that they are littered with lucky mid to late round picks in the draft, good trades, and key FA signings that worked out. Dont believe me? Look at where the Hawks picked Duncan Kieth. They actually thought Anton Babchuk was a better dman. Or no, I know, they KNEW Kieth would still be hanging around in the 2nd round. Geniuses right?

So sure, trade away all the good pieces we have on this team, and commit to taking 5-7 years to get back to where we are right now. Its possible that we end up with a team with better pieces and in a better position to make a run for the Cup. But its just as likely we end up with a worse team that has been spinning their wheels for another decade.

it's not about getting someone who can produce like kessel, imo a 60 point two-way player helps the team win more then kessel does, however the goal would be to add depth, were currently a one line team, with a terrible defense so trading Kessel for a top 6 forward + top 4 Dmen + 1st would certainly make this team better.

 

[DaveT83*]

You asked me where I got those numbers. I'm telling you I made them up to illustrate a point. Obviously 40% chance of Kessel is high, but I wanted to use a binary example (either exactly the same or a total bust) to make my point. Maybe that wasn't an effective approach. Either way I think you definitely understand what I'm saying, although you clearly disagree with me.

I believe in exactly what you're calling a syndrome. I'm also really convinced that I'm right. The whole point of my original post was to try to convince others how important it is to not just get good players but to have them at the right price.

I've got a good example for you. In June 2008 the LA Kings finished a season where they finished tied for last in the league and had a 26 year old sniper who's previous 3 seasons were 26G/30A, 34G/46A and 19G/28A in 63 games due to injury. He was signed for a caphit of 3.3M for the next season and was a UFA the next season. Sounds like the kind of elite young player a team would want right? He got traded for the 17th pick in the draft (technically swapped 2008 2nd rd for a 2009 2nd rd but let's call that a wash). He didn't disappoint either, he put up 39G/43A that next year. LA finished 5th last that year. Would he have made them a better team? Yeah of course, but they would have in all likelihood ended up still missing the playoffs and picking maybe 7th instead of 5th. Then he signed a 30M/5Y contract and played pretty well putting up 26G/24A in 65 games and then 13/6 in 19 playoff games. Meanwhile LA started turning the corner and made the playoffs.

We all know the story ends with LA winning the cup and making the west finals last year while generally being considered an elite team this year. They weren't afraid to trade away their young sniper because they weren't sure they wouldn't get another good player. They've actually never even gotten anyone to match the 39 goals he put up the year that he was traded. They got a pretty middling return and didn't end up hitting big on that pick. It still had a fair amount of value and they used it in the Dustin Penner trade, which wasn't particularly great either. But they got an asset to add to a bunch of assets they had accumulated and when they went on their cup run they were able to use their cap space on bringing in underpaid players like Richards and Carter. That sniper did go on to provide some really nice years but not at a time where it would have helped the Kings.

I don't think it actually matters but the player is Mike Cammalleri for those that are wondering. And they picked Colten Teubert after moving around the draft a bit.

Man this was awesome. One of the best responses I have ever read on this site.

 

[The CyNick]

it's not about getting someone who can produce like kessel, imo a 60 point two-way player helps the team win more then kessel does, however the goal would be to add depth, were currently a one line team, with a terrible defense so trading Kessel for a top 6 forward + top 4 Dmen + 1st would certainly make this team better.

That's a fair point, but how many teams have multiple 60 point two way forwards who would be willing to trade for Kessel? And then what about Kadri and Lupul? They play the same game as Kessel. It's unlikely one dimensional scorers yield guys with a complete game.

 

[Coach Lugash]

If we trade Kessel, unless its for the 1st overall pick (which it wouldnt be, because nobody is giving up the 1st overall for him), the % chance of getting someone who produces like Kessel would be more like 5-10% not 40. So best of luck on that one.

The tear down strategy is just fine. Its the classic argument that is brought up here. The "guaranteed" path to success. The people who are backers of it refuse to explain why we couldnt just as easily end up like one of the teams who have spent a decade selecting in the top 10 and are no closer to a championship than they were 10 years ago.

Teams like the Hawks are more of the exception than the rule. But if you read these boards you would think its simple; fail for 5 years, find studs in the draft, boom multiple championships. But then when you actually bother to see where these teams got their players (even the Hawks), you see that they are littered with lucky mid to late round picks in the draft, good trades, and key FA signings that worked out. Dont believe me? Look at where the Hawks picked Duncan Kieth. They actually thought Anton Babchuk was a better dman. Or no, I know, they KNEW Kieth would still be hanging around in the 2nd round. Geniuses right?

So sure, trade away all the good pieces we have on this team, and commit to taking 5-7 years to get back to where we are right now. Its possible that we end up with a team with better pieces and in a better position to make a run for the Cup. But its just as likely we end up with a worse team that has been spinning their wheels for another decade.

I'm not under any misconception that drafting is easy or a guarantee. I think most sensible people realize it's tough and involves a lot of luck. Where we start to diverge I think is that I'd argue the path the Leafs are on is actually MORE dependent on uncommonly good drafting, assuming the goal is to become elite. At some point they still need to get a bunch of underpaid bargains and if you start out with a bunch of good players like Kessel and Phaneuf you'll be too good to have the luxury of high draft picks and you won't be able to deal veterans for additional kicks at the can. You're pretty much entirely relying on being able to hit a home run on your one mid-late 1st and your one 2nd if you haven’t traded them.

I think a PROPER rebuild actually lets you get away with more drafting mistakes. I should probably define what I think a proper rebuild is. 3 key parts (these aren’t consecutive steps, they should be done continuously over a roughly 3 year period):
1) Be terrible. Allow the NHL to gift you a juicy asset in the form of a high pick as a reward for being terrible.
2) Dump your valuable players for picks and prospects. Conveniently has the bonus of making part 1 more effective. Also you generally can’t deal away your picks for players with one exception…
3) Buy low on promising players that have fallen out of favour (ie. Jack Johnson, Carlo Colaiacovo, Alex Steen, etc)
*I’ve got a 4th but it’s much less important so I’ll leave it out for now.
I can only think of two teams that consistently and aggressively did all 3 of those things. Not surprisingly those are my two favourite rebuilds: LA and St. Louis. I don’t care that the Blues haven’t won a cup. They probably won’t win one this year given the path through the west, but they’re clearly an elite team now and have a good chance to be an elite team for the next couple years. I care about the process.
What really strikes me about those two rebuilds is that they each have a bunch of mediocre moves. I’m obviously not saying I want the Leafs to go out and make a bunch of mistakes. What I want is a plan that allows us to make a few mistakes and strike out on a few picks but still end up as an elite team. Check out the Blue’s 1st and 2nd round draft history over the 4 years they missed the playoffs:
2005: TJ Oshie(24), Scott Jackson(37)
2006: Erik Johnson(1), Berglund(25), Tomas Kana(31)
2007: Lars Eller(13), Ian Cole (18), David Perron(26), Simon Hjalmarsson(39), Aaron Palushaj(44)
2008: Alex Pietrangelo(4), Philip McRae(33), Jake Allen(34)
By my count that’s 1 all-star (non-superstar), 2 good players (non-allstar), 1 second liner, 2 3rd liners and 7 busts. I’d call that probably an average success rate considering they had a 1st overall, a 4th overall and a bunch of mid 1sts. You can find a bunch of teams that drafted better and a bunch that drafted worse. They got by far the worst number 1 pick in the 7 year stretch from 2004-2010. But guys like that still retain value for several years even if they’re not stars. They were able to flip Johnson for a promising young dman (Shattenkirk) and a burgeoning young power forward (Stewart). The power forward turned out to be okay but not the next great thing? No problem. Whiffed on Lars Eller? Still a good enough asset to flip for the goalie that almost carried a team to the finals (Halak). Halak’s no good? Luckily by now their draft luck has turned and they scored on Schwartz and Tarasenko so they can flip a couple picks for the best goalie on the market (Miller).

This is already too long for me to go into the Kings as well. I’d say they drafted well but far from flawlessly. Their rebuild is littered with moves such as a huge bust (Hickey) with the 4th overall, a 3rd liner (Schenn) with the 5th overall, strikeout at 13 (Teubert), dumping Teubert a 1st and a 2nd for a garbage Penner.

This is why I’m a fan of what I’m calling a proper rebuild. There’s a far better margin of error for missing on picks but still coming out really nicely. I absolutely want to build a plan that factors in a reasonable but unspectacular hit rate on picks and I can do that by making sure I have a ton of bullets in the chamber. If I end up drafting brilliantly that’s just gravy.

 

[The CyNick]

so where do teams like the Oilers and Islanders fit in?

That whole last post was cherry picking teams that are currently successful and back tracking what they did to get there. More often than not teams get good through a variety of random steps, each different than the other.

I'll ask the same thing a different way. Who among the bottom say 5 or 6 teams are rebuilding the right way? its easy to use hindsight, but who of the current crop of crap are on the path to becoming the Kings or Blues?

 

[achtungbaby]

not sure why people use this not guaranteed anything as some type of counter argument, as keeping those players guarantee's us nothing either.

It's usually all they left to hang onto but I don't get it either. No one is guaranteed anything.

 

[Igy]

Everyone should watch Moneyball.

 

[achtungbaby]

so where do teams like the Oilers and Islanders fit in?

That whole last post was cherry picking teams that are currently successful and back tracking what they did to get there. More often than not teams get good through a variety of random steps, each different than the other.

I'll ask the same thing a different way. Who among the bottom say 5 or 6 teams are rebuilding the right way? its easy to use hindsight, but who of the current crop of crap are on the path to becoming the Kings or Blues?

The bottom 5 teams this year? Or past years? This year I think Buffalo has started on a good path. In past years, Colorado, St Louis and even the Ducks have used the draft. I don't think that the Islanders or Oilers should be held as an example of anything unless you want to discuss whether or not our ownership is on par with theirs.

 

[Coach Lugash]

so where do teams like the Oilers and Islanders fit in?

That whole last post was cherry picking teams that are currently successful and back tracking what they did to get there. More often than not teams get good through a variety of random steps, each different than the other.

I'll ask the same thing a different way. Who among the bottom say 5 or 6 teams are rebuilding the right way? its easy to use hindsight, but who of the current crop of crap are on the path to becoming the Kings or Blues?

What??? The whole point of that post was to illustrate you don't need to hit every single draft pick if you accumulate enough assets. I gave you two solid examples of elite teams that struck out horribly on multiple mid and even early 1st rounders while rebuilding. They didn't go through a variety of random steps, they did essentially the three things that I suggested. They added enough extra picks by dumping veterans and managed to buy low on guys like Steen and Jack Johnson to compensate for missing on some of these picks. I've clearly stated that I'm still expecting at least decent to good level drafting, but not home runs on every pick. If you're whiffing on every single 1st rounder including a bunch of high ones, then yeah you're screwed. You should also probably get some new scouts.

 

[Just Rude]

For every one Oiler team there are Chicago, Pittsburgh, Colorado.

This argument is flawed.

Pittsburgh not only won the lottery to get the best player in recent history, but Fleury was a #1 overall and Malkin #2. Kane was a #1 overall, Toews #3.

Think the Leafs would be a much better team had they won the lottery for Crosby, let alone grabbed Malkin and Fleury?

Colorado looks great, sure, but they also have last year's #1 overall, Duchene and Landeskog (#2 overall). In addition to those top picks, one could argue that Roy behind the bench is as much the reason as anything else. And at the end of the day, Colorado hasn't won ****, so they shouldn't even be in the same sentence as Pittsburgh or Chicago.

On our roster right now, we have FOUR players 26 or under who were drafted in the top 7 of the draft (two not our picks, but doesn't that really matter?) And they have yet to do better than a 5th place finish in a lockout-shortened season. Everything is relative, including the strength of draft, scouting for later-round gems, if you are lucky to land the #1 overall AND if your team has the right chemistry and coaching.

I think the argument is for every Pittsburgh (or Chicago), you get an Edmonton, Florida, Islanders and Columbus.

EDIT: to the OP, however, I do get where he is going, and I agree with a lot of it. It's a crapshoot, unfortunately. Some hit in big, others not so much, but I do agree with the later round drafting is key.

 

[The CyNick]

The bottom 5 teams this year? Or past years? This year I think Buffalo has started on a good path. In past years, Colorado, St Louis and even the Ducks have used the draft. I don't think that the Islanders or Oilers should be held as an example of anything unless you want to discuss whether or not our ownership is on par with theirs.

ownership isn't really an issue for Edmonton. They followed the tank model perfectly. netted them Hall, RNH, and Yakupov. That's what the Leafs should have done right? Is that trio better than Kessel, JVR, and Kadri? Is either team now knocking on the door of a Cup?

 

[seanlinden]

This has to be the best first post I've ever read on these boards... bar none...The team that wins the cup will generally be the one who utilizes the cap to the best of it's ability. That means combining high contribution / low cap hit players, but also spending all the way to the cap. Kyle Okposo contributes more per dollar than Phil Kessel does (especially at $8m), but if the choice is between Kessel or Okposo and $5m+ in cap space, then obviously Kessel is the substantially better call.

However, one thing that I think is missing, is asking yourself, how extensive of a rebuild this team needs to be successful. The answer of whether or not we trade Kessel (and/or Phaneuf) is not and should not be determined by "they're too important to trade", or "the players we get can only hope to be as good as him". That's determined by how extensive a rebuild we think we need, and whether or not Kessel/Phaneuf can be a part of it.

Personally, I believe they can be. This is a team who's talent level is there (or almost there) to contend. It's the leadership factor and supporting cast that are ineffective. We have:
- $5.25m invested in Joffrey Lupul, for an inconsistent ~25 goals and 50 points
- $5.25m invested in David Clarkson, for absolutely nothing
- $3m and substantial trade value invested in Nazem Kadri, for 50 inconsistent points.
- $4m for Tim Gleason, for 17 minutes a night and -11 in 33 games.
- $3.4m and a bunch of picks for 20 games of Dave Bolland

Compare that to the "gems" that we have:
- Jake Gardiner for $1m, which is great, but expiring.
- Morgan Rielly for $1.7m, which isn't all that good, but has potential.
- Mason Raymond for $1m, again great, but expiring
- JvR for $4.25m, our best deal.
- Franson at $2m, which is decent, but expiring.
- Carl Gunnarsson for $3.1m.

I'd say that the bad definitely outweighs the good... obviously, not totally realistic, but if the Leafs could find themselves a way to rid themselves of (and get value for) Clarkson, Lupul & Gleason, that's $15m cleared up. Clarkson & Gleason's contributions this year could be replaced in free agency spending less than $5m. That allows you to convert a Nazem Kadri into Paul Stastny+. It allows you to convert a Cody Franson into a Dan Girardi (or similar).

On the surface, this team should be able to contend with the likes of Kessel, Bozak, JvR, Kadri, Phaneuf, Gunnarsson, Gardiner, Rielly & Bernier. None of them are atrocious contracts and there's some gems in there. The problem is, we need a couple more big pieces, and have some bad deals to move. We also have very little in terms of quality prospects to get that done.

 

[The CyNick]

What??? The whole point of that post was to illustrate you don't need to hit every single draft pick if you accumulate enough assets. I gave you two solid examples of elite teams that struck out horribly on multiple mid and even early 1st rounders while rebuilding. They didn't go through a variety of random steps, they did essentially the three things that I suggested. They added enough extra picks by dumping veterans and managed to buy low on guys like Steen and Jack Johnson to compensate for missing on some of these picks. I've clearly stated that I'm still expecting at least decent to good level drafting, but not home runs on every pick. If you're whiffing on every single 1st rounder including a bunch of high ones, then yeah you're screwed. You should also probably get some new scouts.

yes I know your steps you laid out. But you just pieced together some type of common thread between the two, even though they were built in different ways.

You laid out steps, meaning it must be repeatable. so who is heading down that proper path of hitting fly balls on first round picks but hitting home runs with acquiring guys who have fallen out of favor with past teams? Doesn't have to be a bottom five team now, just need to know who is going down this same path to glory.

ironically a good chunk of the Leafs core were young players who fell out of favor with their previous team (Kessel, JVR, Lupul, Phanuef). Yet we are not on the path to greatness. I guess we missed a nuanced point in the steps.

 

[The CyNick]

This has to be the best first post I've ever read on these boards... bar none...The team that wins the cup will generally be the one who utilizes the cap to the best of it's ability. That means combining high contribution / low cap hit players, but also spending all the way to the cap. Kyle Okposo contributes more per dollar than Phil Kessel does (especially at $8m), but if the choice is between Kessel or Okposo and $5m+ in cap space, then obviously Kessel is the substantially better call.

However, one thing that I think is missing, is asking yourself, how extensive of a rebuild this team needs to be successful. The answer of whether or not we trade Kessel (and/or Phaneuf) is not and should not be determined by "they're too important to trade", or "the players we get can only hope to be as good as him". That's determined by how extensive a rebuild we think we need, and whether or not Kessel/Phaneuf can be a part of it.

Personally, I believe they can be. This is a team who's talent level is there (or almost there) to contend. It's the leadership factor and supporting cast that are ineffective. We have:
- $5.25m invested in Joffrey Lupul, for an inconsistent ~25 goals and 50 points
- $5.25m invested in David Clarkson, for absolutely nothing
- $3m and substantial trade value invested in Nazem Kadri, for 50 inconsistent points.
- $4m for Tim Gleason, for 17 minutes a night and -11 in 33 games.
- $3.4m and a bunch of picks for 20 games of Dave Bolland

Compare that to the "gems" that we have:
- Jake Gardiner for $1m, which is great, but expiring.
- Morgan Rielly for $1.7m, which isn't all that good, but has potential.
- Mason Raymond for $1m, again great, but expiring
- JvR for $4.25m, our best deal.
- Franson at $2m, which is decent, but expiring.
- Carl Gunnarsson for $3.1m.

I'd say that the bad definitely outweighs the good... obviously, not totally realistic, but if the Leafs could find themselves a way to rid themselves of (and get value for) Clarkson, Lupul & Gleason, that's $15m cleared up. Clarkson & Gleason's contributions this year could be replaced in free agency spending less than $5m. That allows you to convert a Nazem Kadri into Paul Stastny+. It allows you to convert a Cody Franson into a Dan Girardi (or similar).

On the surface, this team should be able to contend with the likes of Kessel, Bozak, JvR, Kadri, Phaneuf, Gunnarsson, Gardiner, Rielly & Bernier. None of them are atrocious contracts and there's some gems in there. The problem is, we need a couple more big pieces, and have some bad deals to move. We also have very little in terms of quality prospects to get that done.

best of luck getting value out of clarkson and gleason. even Lupul I don't think nets you much.

It's easy to say "trade this guy", but come up with realistic returns to see what you end up with. Go to another teams board and see what they will give for Clarkson or even Lupul. It won't be much. If anything, in the case of Clarkson and Gleason we would need to either retain salary or give assets to get rid of them.

Someone said trade Kessel for a 60 point two way forward? What team is trading a guy like that for Kessel?

 

[The CyNick]

This argument is flawed.

Pittsburgh not only won the lottery to get the best player in recent history, but Fleury was a #1 overall and Malkin #2. Kane was a #1 overall, Toews #3.

Think the Leafs would be a much better team had they won the lottery for Crosby, let alone grabbed Malkin and Fleury?

Colorado looks great, sure, but they also have last year's #1 overall, Duchene and Landeskog (#2 overall). In addition to those top picks, one could argue that Roy behind the bench is as much the reason as anything else. And at the end of the day, Colorado hasn't won ****, so they shouldn't even be in the same sentence as Pittsburgh or Chicago.

On our roster right now, we have FOUR players 26 or under who were drafted in the top 7 of the draft (two not our picks, but doesn't that really matter?) And they have yet to do better than a 5th place finish in a lockout-shortened season. Everything is relative, including the strength of draft, scouting for later-round gems, if you are lucky to land the #1 overall AND if your team has the right chemistry and coaching.

I think the argument is for every Pittsburgh (or Chicago), you get an Edmonton, Florida, Islanders and Columbus.

EDIT: to the OP, however, I do get where he is going, and I agree with a lot of it. It's a crapshoot, unfortunately. Some hit in big, others not so much, but I do agree with the later round drafting is key.

few on here appreciate how difficult it is to be consistently at the bottom of the league year after. The pens did it and got a bunch of studs, the Oilers are doing the exact same thing and got nobody close to Malkin and Crosby out of it. luck is a major factor.

 

[seanlinden]

best of luck getting value out of clarkson and gleason. even Lupul I don't think nets you much.

It's easy to say "trade this guy", but come up with realistic returns to see what you end up with. Go to another teams board and see what they will give for Clarkson or even Lupul. It won't be much. If anything, in the case of Clarkson and Gleason we would need to either retain salary or give assets to get rid of them.

Someone said trade Kessel for a 60 point two way forward? What team is trading a guy like that for Kessel?

That's exactly the problem.

We fill the bottom of our lineup with salaries like this, and it stops us from addressing the gaps we need to. Lupul will be able to get value, but it won't be much. Gleason & Clarkson obviously won't, but we do idiotic things like buying out Komisarek (who had 1 year left) instead of Liles, and then are forced to trade Liles for Gleason to replace Komisarek. Realistically, how much worse do we end up this year with Komisarek instead of the Liles/Gleason combo? I know we'd look a lot better going forward if we had an expiring contract in Komisarek. The outcome wasn't difficult to see either. We had Gardiner, Franson & Rielly who we all wanted to be in the lineup every night. You certainly don't need Liles with one of those guys. You MIGHT just need Komisarek.

Heck, you can take it further. Hindsight being 20/20 of course. It's obvious that Carlyle grossly mis-used Grabovski in his last year here. At what point do you blame the coach for making ineffective use of his players. Keep Grabo, forget Clarkson, and in the absolute worst-case scenario, buyout Grabo this off-season if he doesn't rebound.

All of a sudden, Lupul becomes far and away this team's worst contract.

 

[The CyNick]

That's exactly the problem.

We fill the bottom of our lineup with salaries like this, and it stops us from addressing the gaps we need to. Lupul will be able to get value, but it won't be much. Gleason & Clarkson obviously won't, but we do idiotic things like buying out Komisarek (who had 1 year left) instead of Liles, and then are forced to trade Liles for Gleason to replace Komisarek. Realistically, how much worse do we end up this year with Komisarek instead of the Liles/Gleason combo? I know we'd look a lot better going forward if we had an expiring contract in Komisarek. The outcome wasn't difficult to see either. We had Gardiner, Franson & Rielly who we all wanted to be in the lineup every night. You certainly don't need Liles with one of those guys. You MIGHT just need Komisarek.

Heck, you can take it further. Hindsight being 20/20 of course. It's obvious that Carlyle grossly mis-used Grabovski in his last year here. At what point do you blame the coach for making ineffective use of his players. Keep Grabo, forget Clarkson, and in the absolute worst-case scenario, buyout Grabo this off-season if he doesn't rebound.

All of a sudden, Lupul becomes far and away this team's worst contract.

the Komi decision was puzzling. Only thing I can think of is they figured Liles had trade value and figured a guy like Gleason could be a positive factor. I mean he was for a while.

Don't agree on Grabo. grabo needs to be a top six player to be effective. With Kadri and Bozak that wasn't going to happen here. It comes down to whether or not you think Bolland was the better fit in the 3 hole. I know he got hurt, but I would have taken Bolland over Grabo.

But then we also probably need to replace Kadri with someone with more grit. But who that is, I have no idea.

 

[BraveCanadian]

This is basically my whole point. Those are good players. Just like Ovechkin/Backstrom/Green are good or even great players. But why is Washington a couple notches below the elite teams? Because they're fairly paid. They probably aren't overpaid, but they aren't bargains. When those three guys are a 22M caphit while Toews/Kane/Hossa/Keith are a combined 23M caphit you're in a massive hole right off the bat.

This guy gets it.

 

[blueberrie]

few on here appreciate how difficult it is to be consistently at the bottom of the league year after. The pens did it and got a bunch of studs, the Oilers are doing the exact same thing and got nobody close to Malkin and Crosby out of it. luck is a major factor.

Luck is a major factor in any type of rebuild. But since drafting requires a little bit of luck its worthless and we should keep trading our picks?

To answer your question I think the Flames and Sabres are rebuilding the right way and within a couple years will easily shoot past the Oilers. Look at the insane amount of picks the Sabres have accumulated the past couple years. They may need some luck but they bought way more lottery tickets than anyone else.

Maybe the Oilers shouldn't have attempted to build around offensive wingers who have no interest in playing defence or going into the corners. Maybe they should of learnt from the Leafs.

Is there any other reason to not try a draft rebuild besides luck and the Oilers?

 

[I Believe]

Fantastic thread, easily one of the best i've seen on here.

A rebuild or partial rebuild might be for the best, but it doesn't seem likely to happen. Every move we made this year seem to suggest we're going for it.

I think Nonis has to be gone for there to be a rebuild, and i'm not sure how likely that is.