Rumor: Rumours & Proposals | Chia Talk Ban | Oilers Sign KHL G Mikko Koskinen, What's Next?

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

What owner will want to see his money go to waste? If a GM is signing a bunch of bad contracts then he won’t be a GM for very long. Another option would be to limit contracts to 5 years and UFA deals to 4 years.

Owners will want 5 year term limits in the next CBA. That’s just about guaranteed.

 

[Mr Positive]

Really Hanafin? the guy was -19 last year and -20 this year how was that okay?

plus Hanifin has always been extremely sheltered.

 

[CycloneSweep]

Not when he was 19

In his draft +2 year he did. That's what Pulju was this year

 

[CycloneSweep]

So apparently Chia is actively shopping the pick...I hope he is just getting ideas and doesn't pull the trigger until he is on the board. The value of the pick changes depending on who is on the board imo

 

[MessierII]

In his draft +2 year he did. That's what Pulju was this year

I know but it’s tough to compare. One guy was older for his draft year and one guy was the youngest player in the draft.

 

[voxel]

So apparently Chia is actively shopping the pick...I hope he is just getting ideas and doesn't pull the trigger until he is on the board. The value of the pick changes depending on who is on the board imo

If Kotkaniemi is at 10, we should pick him. D take much longer to develop and to me that lowers the value of using the pick. If Chia has a specific player in mind (like Serg in 2016) then pick him. I do trust his scouting staff more than Stu “the Magnificent Bastard” MacGregor.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

you could be right, but I don't think so. There are cases where a mediocre AHL player does well when they get going in the NHL. Klefbom was that way. He had decent but not great progress in the men's league in Sweden, and then did decent but underwhelming in the AHL. Now, just because Klef seems fine doesn't mean that he had the best path, but I'm mainly saying that it's not exactly certain.

Also we've seen Nurse have struggles in the NHL as well, and he did stay in the CHL for his development.

I generally believe that if they have the talent, it will come out no matter their path.

In his post draft year +1 many Swedish commentators were saying Klef was one of the 3 best defenders in the SHL at 19, the offense wasn't there to support that claim, but apparently he was very solid defensively at the time and had great puck movement, just considered a bit snake bitten with regards to the offense. Klef's next season was severely shortened by injury, after effects of the injury seemed to bleed into his first AHL season, he was just mediocre, but you could see some progress through the course of the year. Following season after that he was a completely changed man, he went from being an OK AHL d-man to someone who was just making the opposition look silly out there, it was blatantly obvious he was too good for that league.

The post you were referring to I believe he was talking with respect to forwards and the timetables for forward, defense, and goaltending are entirely different, the benchmarks and checkpoints you want them to hit are all entirely different.

 

[Mcnotloilersfan]

If Kotkaniemi is at 10, we should pick him. D take much longer to develop and to me that lowers the value of using the pick. If Chia has a specific player in mind (like Serg in 2016) then pick him. I do trust his scouting staff more than Stu “the Magnificent Bastard” MacGregor.

We've been saying that for 10 years. Do you want to still be saying that 10 years from now?

 

[Ritchie Valens]

So apparently Chia is actively shopping the pick...I hope he is just getting ideas and doesn't pull the trigger until he is on the board. The value of the pick changes depending on who is on the board imo

I posted an article Matheson had written a few days back; he had a direct quote from Chiarelli who said if he deals the pick, it would be a deal on the draft floor. It'd be absolutely foolish to deal it before hand without knowing who is available at 10.

 

[bucks_oil]

Not when he was 19

Pulju just finished his draft +2 season. He scored 20 points in 65 games.

In Draisaitl's draft +2 season he scored 51 points in 72 games. He was 19 years old to start that season...

Are you really making a "birth month" argument? You get evaluated against your draft cohort and (eventually) years of experience in the NHL. Drai's 2nd season was also his draft +2 season... same as Pulju, and he'd already taken the leap.

I'm a Pulju fan, I believe he'll make it... but to suggest he has trended with a Drai-like trajectory is false.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Random idea, but considering the idea worked well moving RNH to wing with McDavid, how about giving Strome a shot at the other RW? He brings a lot of the same attributes that made Rattie successful there, and he does have history of being successful playing RW with an elite talent.

This would leave the #3 centre hole open again, but there's a decent # of options out there this offseason like Plekanec and Filppula, who could cover the role.

Get one or two decent PK'ing wingers (Hansen, Komarov, ect), and it's suddenly a balence forward core.

RNH-McDavid-Strome
Lucic-Draisaitl-Slepy/UFA (Hansen?)
Aberg-Filppula-Puljujarvi
Komarov-Kharia-Kassian

As said, a bit of a different idea, but I like the look of this a lot. It also puts Strome in a role where a 3mil salary is decent value.

 

[Paralyzer]

I posted an article Matheson had written a few days back; he had a direct quote from Chiarelli who said if he deals the pick, it would be a deal on the draft floor. It'd be absolutely foolish to deal it before hand without knowing who is available at 10.

Unless it's for a CLEAR upgrade (ie. Karlsson, OEL, etc.)

 

[joestevens29]

Yeah, the PA would love if compliance buyouts became common place. More money in the pot that doesn't count against the cap. Guys who get bought out very often get another contract immediately after and end up making as much or more money anyway and then that leaves the team doing the buyout more cap space to spend elsewhere. It's the owners that don't like it.

I always said I'd at the very least like to see something where teams are allowed one ever x years.

The problem becomes the teams that can't afford to use them. Do you make it interesting and give those teams an extra draft pick?

 

[joestevens29]

Owners will want 5 year term limits in the next CBA. That’s just about guaranteed.

After the last lockout it was either McKenzie or Friedman that said the next lockout would be about the owners wanted non-guaranteed contracts and that's why the players held out for so long. Wanted to get as much as they could

I'm curious if that actually becomes the sticking point this cba

 

[fuswald]

Sharks are devoid of young high end talent.

Draisaitl for Burns plus a pick.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

After the last lockout it was either McKenzie or Friedman that said the next lockout would be about the owners wanted non-guaranteed contracts and that's why the players held out for so long. Wanted to get as much as they could

I'm curious if that actually becomes the sticking point this cba

I sure hope not. Non guaranteed contracts means we lose a year of hockey because the players will never give in to that. That will be the hill they will plant the flag on and die.

Conversely if the players want to get the salary cap or escrow removed which I believe McKenzie talked about in one of his podcasts.

Either will bring about hockey Armageddon. Let’s hope the two sides, for once, try not to rake each other over the coals and negotiate in good faith.

I would hope both sides see fit to not open the CBA in 2020 as that is when Seattle comes online as well. It would be so NHL to lose a season the year an expansion team begins its inaugural season.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Sharks are devoid of young high end talent.

Draisaitl for Burns plus a pick.

No thanks.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

I always said I'd at the very least like to see something where teams are allowed one ever x years.

The problem becomes the teams that can't afford to use them. Do you make it interesting and give those teams an extra draft pick?

No, teams have to have the same rules regardless of their financial situation. The only way you could allow teams to have more buyouts that didn’t count against the cap would be to have true revenue sharing, otherwise it benefits the rich teams and penalizes the poor.

 

[Little Fury]

It then penalizes fans and it’s fans who pay the freight. Every GM makes mistakes and every team (save Vegas) has one or two bad contracts. I can see why the NHLPA doesn’t want more compliance buyouts as their players get less money. But to have one buyout per CBA, that’s not enough and several bad deals can cripple and even kill a weaker franchise.

Better hire smarter hockey people then.

 

[bucks_oil]

Sharks are devoid of young high end talent.

Draisaitl for Burns plus a pick.

You MUST be joking!

 

[Raoul Duke]

I posted an article Matheson had written a few days back; he had a direct quote from Chiarelli who said if he deals the pick, it would be a deal on the draft floor. It'd be absolutely foolish to deal it before hand without knowing who is available at 10.

Like 2015?

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Better hire smarter hockey people then.

Easy, vastly over simplified and very silly thing to say. You dont have your $500 million + invested in a team and facility. Also the league has a vested interest in making sure all franchises are healthy. Finally every GM makes mistakes. A brilliant GM one day is an idiot the next day. Case in point, everyone is falling all over themselves about McPhee in Vegas. The same McPhee who traded Forsberg for Erat and signed a couple dud contracts. What looks good one day can look awfully bad the next due to many circumstances outside a GMs control.

 

[CupofOil]

Like 2015?

He actually dealt it knowing full well who was available at 16 (two top 10 talents) which makes it all the more worse.

 

[MessierII]

Easy, vastly over simplified and very silly thing to say. You dont have your $500 million + invested in a team and facility. Also the league has a vested interest in making sure all franchises are healthy. Finally every GM makes mistakes. A brilliant GM one day is an idiot the next day. Case in point, everyone is falling all over themselves about McPhee in Vegas. The same McPhee who traded Forsberg for Erat and signed a couple dud contracts. What looks good one day can look awfully bad the next due to many circumstances outside a GMs control.

Everyone is also gushing about poile who first became a GM way back in 83 but has yet to a win a single cup.

 

[Little Fury]

Easy, vastly over simplified and very silly thing to say. You dont have your $500 million + invested in a team and facility. Also the league has a vested interest in making sure all franchises are healthy. Finally every GM makes mistakes. A brilliant GM one day is an idiot the next day. Case in point, everyone is falling all over themselves about McPhee in Vegas. The same McPhee who traded Forsberg for Erat and signed a couple dud contracts. What looks good one day can look awfully bad the next due to many circumstances outside a GMs control.

None of this explains why you think GMs should get to walk away from their mistakes without any sort of penalty.