Yashin vs Weight

[Buffaloed]

Deslauriers and Stoll. I'd do that deal again, based on how things have gone thus far.

Not bad!

The criticism of the Oilers in the original post was based on the premise that EDM couldnt turn Weight into anything. It doesn't appear to have any merit.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Not bad!

The criticism of the Oilers in the original post was based on the premise that EDM couldnt turn Weight into anything</i>. It doesn't appear to have any merit.

thats not really my premise. please follow me.

if EDM didnt make out so bad on Weight, then why is it used ad naseum as an example of the trouble with the NHL system.

if EDM did make out so bad, is it really the system's fault or is it more likely the fault of EDM management ? I mean, Bure returned Jovo and Yashin returned Spezza and Chara. Even Tkachuk landed a Nagy. There are for more examples of good expensive players getting the team something back then ones that dont.

Which is it ?

EDM is a poor example of why the NHL needs fixing, so i wish their fans would just admint it.

dr

 

[Cawz]

well, if EDM is ok with what they got for WEight, then why the moaning ? would you rather be paying WEight 6m right now instead ? i would rather have cheap players like Stoll, Reasoner and Delauriers than even a reasonable 6m Weight.

Prospects. Right now, since Edmonton is sorely lacking a #1 center, I'd take Weight (some Oiler fans may disagree with me though). We got way more prospects than top-line centers right now.

And I'd rather pay him 4 million, because thats what a player like him should demand, based on the bush-league revenue that the NHL brings in.

 

[Cawz]

EDM is a poor example of why the NHL needs fixing, so i wish their fans would just admint it.

Here - Edmonton is an example of why the NHL needs fixing.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

1) OTT was lucky to be dealing with Mad Mike Milbury, who was desperate to turn his team around in a big hurry. Add in that the Isles had more better young assets than the Blues, and it's it's advantage OTT.
2) OTT was lucky that their prospect (Chara) developed, whereas Hecht struggled in EDM.
3) At the time of the deal, Yashin was 3 years further away from UFA status.
4) Doug Weight said he would only consider signing a contract extension before testing with UFA waters with STL or DET. This SEVERELY limited the return for DW as the acquiring team knew he would be a rental.
5) Yashin is a better goalscorer. He was a proven 40g, 40a man in OTT, and was just entering his prime.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Here - Edmonton is an example of why the NHL needs fixing.

Deslauriers and Stoll. I'd do that deal again, based on how things have gone thus far.

This poster doesnt mind it ?

I dont see how EDM has been harmed other than moves of their own making (draft and trade record).

dr

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

The Edmonton Oilers are the Poster Child for what's "wrong" with the NHL for the sole reason that they have self-appointed themselves as such.

 

[Quantas]

This poster doesnt mind it ?

I dont see how EDM has been harmed other than moves of their own making (draft and trade record).

dr

I don't think it's so much a question of whether or not Edmonton won the trade. In my opinion, the main question is: how many years have the Oilers been stuck in neutral (some would say reverse) because they were forced to trade their #1 centre due to financial reasons? Sure, maybe Stoll and Deslauriers are good picks. Maybe they'll reach their full potential and Edmonton will win the trade hands-down, but the important question is how many playoff gates are lost while they're waiting for the kids to mature and produce.

As for the Ottawa trade, I can tell you, as a Sens fan, that Spezza was the lynch-pin in the deal. The fact that it's one of the most lopsided trades in history is paritially due to dumb luck and good fortune.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I don't think it's so much a question of whether or not Edmonton won the trade. In my opinion, the main question is: how many years have the Oilers been stuck in neutral (some would say reverse) because they were forced to trade their #1 centre due to financial reasons? Sure, maybe Stoll and Deslauriers are good picks. Maybe they'll reach their full potential and Edmonton will win the trade hands-down, but the important question is how many playoff gates are lost while they're waiting for the kids to mature and produce.

As for the Ottawa trade, I can tell you, as a Sens fan, that Spezza was the lynch-pin in the deal. The fact that it's one of the most lopsided trades in history is paritially due to dumb luck and good fortune.

ok, would you rather right now be paying WEight 4 - 6m or have a couple high octane prospects ? dont you think the system the players are rumoured to suggest would bring a Weight type contract into that range ? some would choose Weight and some would choose the prospects, isnt it now fair to expect to EDM to make a good decision at this stage and let them live their bad choices ?

so, why should we support a further lockout when the players are offering a fair fix to the EDM issue ?

dr

 

[rec28]

Ugh - this again...

The Oil did not trade Weight for Reasoner, Hecht (Stoll, JDD) & a throw in, they they traded 1 year of Weight for that package. He was 1 year away from UFA and after Roenick's goofy contract, Weight's comparable asking price went through the roof with respect to what the Oil could afford, so Lowe dealt him while he could get something in return. It didn't help matters that Weight limited potential suitors to just 2 or 3. IMO, considering the circumstances, Lowe did exceptionally well, but the point remains that his hand was forced by the ridiculously over-inflationary CBA. He did well for what he had to work with, but most Oiler fans would liked to have kept Weight, no question.

Now, is any of that even remotely comparable to Yashin's situation? UFA status? Nope. Fiscally responsible team? Nope (cough - bankruptcy - cough). Limited trading partners with the knowledge that they have Yashin's GM over a barrel? Nope. Bank-breaking comparable signed immediately prior? Nope.

Give it up already.

 

[rec28]

ok, would you rather right now be paying WEight 4 - 6m or have a couple high octane prospects ? dont you think the system the players are rumoured to suggest would bring a Weight type contract into that range ? some would choose Weight and some would choose the prospects, isnt it now fair to expect to EDM to make a good decision at this stage and let them live their bad choices ?

so, why should we support a further lockout when the players are offering a fair fix to the EDM issue ?

dr

4-6 million? Give your head a shake. His deal with St. Loo averages over 8.5 mil per year over the term.


Edit: I just re-read your post & realized that I misinterpreted it. At any rate, if Weight could have been re-signed for a reasonable amount, the vast majority of Oil fans would have supported it over trading for the prospects. Of course they should bear the responsibility for their choices, no one is arguing any different. The point you seem to be missing is that many of the choices that KL has made, haven't really been choices at all - his hand was forced by the economic realities he has been forced to deal with. If you are under the impression that Oiler fans or any other small-market franchise fans are arguing for some kind of indemnity against poor decisions, you've completely missed the point.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

4-6 million? Give your head a shake. His deal with St. Loo averages over 8.5 mil per year over the term.

ok, with a new luxury tax system, how much would Weight command ? more than 6m ?

dr

 

[rec28]

ok, with a new luxury tax system, how much would Weight command ? more than 6m ?

dr

See my edit. I have no idea what he would command under any new CBA since there is no new CBA in place.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

4-6 million? Give your head a shake. His deal with St. Loo averages over 8.5 mil per year over the term.


Edit: I just re-read your post & realized that I misinterpreted it. At any rate, if Weight could have been re-signed for a reasonable amount, the vast majority of Oil fans would have supported it over trading for the prospects. Of course they should bear the responsibility for their choices, no one is arguing any different. The point you seem to be missing is that many of the choices that KL has made, haven't really been choices at all - his hand was forced by the economic realities he has been forced to deal with. If you are under the impression that Oiler fans or any other small-market franchise fans are arguing for some kind of indemnity against poor decisions, you've completely missed the point.

well, i see your point, my point though is that other teams have been in similar scenario's and not come out as bad. often the side of the debate i hear is exactly as you say, fans feel a system that offers some kind of ideminty is what is needed.

either way, ultimatly, as an informed Oiler fan, can you not see your team doing just fine under the players proposal ? why continue to support the owners position if they wont capitulate on this silly premise of tying salary to revenue.

dr

 

[Quantas]

ok, would you rather right now be paying WEight 4 - 6m or have a couple high octane prospects ? dont you think the system the players are rumoured to suggest would bring a Weight type contract into that range ? some would choose Weight and some would choose the prospects, isnt it now fair to expect to EDM to make a good decision at this stage and let them live their bad choices ?

so, why should we support a further lockout when the players are offering a fair fix to the EDM issue ?

dr

That's a fair question. Let's look at what the players are offering.

1. 10% salary rollback

IMO, this is practically useless. Even if we ignore the fact that an unusually large number of players don't have contracts (meaning any agent worth his "certification" will budget in an extra 10% in their negotiations) this one time act will mean less and less down the road. The whole point of this exercise is a long-term solution, not a one-shot fix.


2. Revamped Salary arbitration

If they go towards baseball's style of arbitration, that'll be a good thing. Especially if the team also has the option of taking a player to arbitration and they do away with mandatory raises. However, from what I've heard, the PA is setting restrictions on when and which player a team can select for arbitration. I disagree with this. If a player can choose when to go to arbitration (obviously when it is most convienient for them), the team should also have that right.


3. Luxury-tax ($.75 @ $40M, "harsh" @ $60M).

This is definitely a good starting point for negotiations. The main question is, is it strict enough to slow down the big spending teams (let's face it, the smaller market teams won't be affected by this at all - they won't be setting the salary bar).

A luxury tax (at this level or above) will slow the salary esclation down, but the problem of big-money teams pricing players out of the reach of smaller-market teams will still exist. It will happen on a lesser scale than today (few players getting the big contract), but it will still happen.

This is where Bettman's salary cap comes it. Players can still get the big contract, but, depending on the ceiling of the cap, teams will only be able to afford one or two big-money players, unless they want ECHLers on their 3rd and 4th lines. So if teams want to continue to throw away their money, they can still do it, only now they'll really pay for it.

I'm not naive to think a hard salary cap is the only solution to this problem. I'm sure there are versions of soft-caps and luxury taxes that be just as effective. However, your guess is as good as mine as to what will and won't be effective.

To answer your question, yes the players' new proposal is a definite improvement over their last one, but I think we still have a ways to go.

 

[rec28]

well, i see your point, my point though is that other teams have been in similar scenario's and not come out as bad. often the side of the debate i hear is exactly as you say, fans feel a system that offers some kind of ideminty is what is needed.
dr

IMO, it's not a matter of whether a team does well or poorly in such situations - every GM is takes turns at being the raper and the rapee - IMO KL has done very well most of the time. It's that such situations exist at all that is the problem. The only reason that some might argue for such a thing (forced-indemity) is because the large market teams have that indemnity built right in. Made a terrible trade? No worries, just buy a UFA or three. Cupboards not stocked with prospects? Hey, no problem, here's a giant oversized novelty cheque. Haven't built a team quite good enough to win? Easy - rent a player or two for the PO. A few notable exceptions notwithstanding, the big boys don't have to suffer for their bad decisions. The small market teams simply don't have those luxuries. As such, when they make the inevitable mistakes, they are magnified by orders of magnitude relative to those made by the Rangers, the Avs, the Blues, etc...

either way, ultimatly, as an informed Oiler fan, can you not see your team doing just fine under the players proposal ? why continue to support the owners position if they wont capitulate on this silly premise of tying salary to revenue.
dr

From what I've seen of it (I assume you are referring to Thursday's proposal and not the joke of an offer they made a few months ago), I think it's a very reasonable starting point. I actually have no problem with the idea of tying salary to revenue - I think it's the most equitable solution for all involved: it makes everyone a team member with an equally vested interest (rising tides raise all ships, etc). Moreover, I see no point in setting any kind of salary drag if it isn't based on a percentage of revenues. Why on Earth would a union agree to numbers that are effectively "hard-coded" and make no allowances for an improvement in league fortunes, and why would they expect that the owners would agree to be bound by certain numbers even if the entire league goes into the financial tank?

Tying salary to revenue (assuming they can come up with an agreed-upon defenition of revenue) makes everyone involved responsible when the whole operation goes into the ******* and allows everyone to share in the wealth when times are grand.

What I do have a problem with is the idea of cost-certainty. No business I know of has such a luxury - costs go up, costs go down - the best you can do is try to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

[Buffaloed]

if EDM didnt make out so bad on Weight, then why is it used ad naseum as an example of the trouble with the NHL system.

By the time guys like Stoll and Deslauriers are making an impact, the Oilers will have to deal guys like Brewer and Smyth. And by the time the prospects they get for Brewer and Smyth make an impact, they'll have to deal Stoll and Deslauriers. It's the rebuilding ad nauseum that's the problem with the NHL system. Oilers fans would like to go into a season thinking they have a chance to win a cup rather than gushing over prospects. Had they been able to keep Weight, Marchant, Comrie, and Guerin they might have that feeling.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

By the time guys like Stoll and Deslauriers are making an impact, the Oilers will have to deal guys like Brewer and Smyth. And by the time the prospects they get for Brewer and Smyth make an impact, they'll have to deal Stoll and Deslauriers. It's the rebuilding ad nauseum that's the problem with the NHL system. Oilers fans would like to go into a season thinking they have a chance to win a cup rather than gushing over prospects. Had they been able to keep Weight, Marchant, Comrie, and Guerin they might have that feeling.

ok, but isnt it acknowledged that each season one or two cinderalla teams make a run ?

EDM has just as much chance as CGY, TBY, ANA, CRL, MIN, BUF, WSH has had. In fact, it can be argued the chances are better in todays NHL to make a cinderalla run than it is to conciously buy that run.

dr

 

[rec28]

ok, but isnt it acknowledged that each season one or two cinderalla teams make a run ?

EDM has just as much chance as CGY, TBY, ANA, CRL, MIN, BUF, WSH has had. In fact, it can be argued the chances are better in todays NHL to make a cinderalla run than it is to conciously buy that run.

dr

Cinderella runs are nice stories when they happen, but under the current/past CBA a Cinderella run is the very best that some teams can ever hope for. If certain teams in the league are permanently relegated to the basement, due to economics, then there is something drastically wrong with the league. There was once a time when teams went through cycles: basement dwellers>high draft picks>team building>middle draft picks>maturation>lower draft picks>chapionship calibre>lowest draft picks>plateau>decline>repeat. That doesn't happen any more - some teams are able to stay in the top third due to deep pockets, but some will never make it out of the bottom third due to limited (relative to the big spenders) resources. That is what has to change.

 

[CorneliusBennet]

it's already been pointed out but it bears repeating: Weight was a year away from UFA status and would only "accept" a trade to either Detroit or St.Louis. Basically what it amounted to is that Weight told Edmonton (and it was diseminated throughout the league of course) that he could be traded anywhere, of course, but that he would ONLY sign long-term deals with Chicago (yeah, they were on the list apparently) Detroit or St.Loser, er, St.Louis. Chicago passed if I recall correctly, I forgot what the issue w/Detroit was so he ended up going to the Blues. Pleau loves/loved Weight.
I'm pretty sure that any informed hockey fan who follows the Blues will tell you Weight has been a tremendous disappointment, particularly for the money they gave him, crippling their team economically (ha ha) and unable to afford a decent winger to play with DW. DW's relationship with management has apparently been strained for two years now. He was NOT a Quenneville supporter (which makes him very suspect, IMO) and has in general alienated a large portion of the Blues fan base, from the games I've attended and the forums I visit where the more ardent Blues fans post. They have NOT gotten anywhere close to their money out of him and by all accounts he wants out of St.Louis now anyway. Gee, what a great stay you had, Dough. I mean Dog... I mean Doug. Whichever.

 

[Buffaloed]

ok, but isnt it acknowledged that each season one or two cinderalla teams make a run ?

EDM has just as much chance as CGY, TBY, ANA, CRL, MIN, BUF, WSH has had. In fact, it can be argued the chances are better in todays NHL to make a cinderalla run than it is to conciously buy that run.

dr

Four of those teams didn't make the playoffs the year following their run and five didn't make the playoffs last season. It's a tough way to run a business when it can't be assumed that a team that went deep in the playoffs will even make the playoffs the next season. That's why there needs to be some degree of cost certainty. It shouldn't be feast or famine.

What's proven is that any team that gets great goaltending is capable of making a run. That's why I'd like to see the nets made bigger. The influence of goaltending on the game has grown too large. It's always played a large role, as it should, but it's become almost the determining factor in the last 10 years. Great goaltending should give a team an edge, but it shouldn't allow less talented teams to routinely beat more talented teams.

What frustrates fans is that the system inordinately influences personnel moves. It works both ways, with small market teams unable to retain the players they develop, and large market teams foolishly trying to buy cups without doing the necessary development of a core. Neither way appeals to me as a fan. The system should allow GM's to develop and retain a core of good players, as was done in Detroit, Dallas, New Jersey, and Colorado, and allow them to "buy" talent to make a run.

 

[PecaFan]

if EDM didnt make out so bad on Weight, then why is it used ad naseum as an example of the trouble with the NHL system.

This isn't difficult. It comes up a ton, so maybe we can try phrasing it differently, and everyone will understand.

If everything were perfect, ALL hockey decisions by all clubs would be just that. *Hockey* decisions. Do we keep this player because of his potential, do we trade that one because he's reached his peak, will this player make us better, etc. That's the goal, so to speak. That's the way it used to be a long long time ago, back when I was growing up. That was back before free agency, of course.

Slowly, over time, the financial aspect has crept in, and has affected decisions more and more. Now, it's no longer a simple case of "do we want this player", it's "do we want him, can we afford to pay him, does it mean we have to get rid of someone else?" For many teams now, the financial aspect has become almost the *sole* factor in decisions. Players are being traded solely because teams can no longer afford them. Many teams cannot make a deadline deal, because they can't afford to bring anyone in.

It's gotten so bad in baseball, that teams are intentionally passing over picking potential franchise players with the first overall pick in the draft, because they can't afford to sign them. So they draft a mediocre prospect they know won't be that great, and can afford. How nuts is that?

The Weight thing was bad, because it was a decision forced on them by money. Instead of being able to make a hockey decision of what's best for the team, IE "should we keep him, or can we get more if we trade him", the possibility of keeping him was never an option.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Ugh - this again...

The Oil did not trade Weight for Reasoner, Hecht (Stoll, JDD) & a throw in, they they traded 1 year of Weight for that package.

I think this is a good point. No matter what, Doug Weight was only the property of the Edmonton Oilers for another year anyway. Period. End of story. He became an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor. All of the best Oiler players will get this at some point in their careers. The only way they stay is if the Oilers are winning.

For the first time in his career, Weight would get to choose where he played. For the first time in his career, he would get to field offers from different teams. Maybe he could go to a team with a chance to win a Cup. There is zero chance he would sign with the Oilers under any circumstances. No matter what they offered, Weight's agent would correctly figure there was at least one team in the NHL who would be willing to pay a lot more.

What was one year of Doug Weight - at any salary - worth to the Edmonton Oilers? A Stanley Cup? Nobody thinks that. Maybe a playoff spot, maybe not. Probably it doesn't make any difference because one player seldom does make a big difference to a mediocre team. In fact, it very probably didn't. Edmonton didn't get worse and St. Louis didn't get better. Weight couldn't really help the Oilers in his last year in Edmonton so why not get something for him?

Aside from the fact of free agency, I don't think any of that changes under any CBA. If I'm Edmonton I'm trading Weight whether his salary is going to be $3 million a year or $9 million a year. I'm going to get something for him before I lose him.

I can understand why Oiler fans are tired of the constant rebuilding, but the blame has to be pointed in the right direction. Sather did pretty well dismantling the Championship team, but you can't rebuild without producing some of your own talent. You take the kids you get in your trades, plus your own kids and you get a clump of kids who can be a championship core.

I think Lowe has done well recycling the players. The team on the ice hasn't got worse and it keeps getting younger. That's good. But they still need about four draft picks to pan out. They need to get some above average players out of their system.

The Oilers haven't done that, and you can't win in the NHL unless you do.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Four of those teams didn't make the playoffs the year following their run and five didn't make the playoffs last season. It's a tough way to run a business when it can't be assumed that a team that went deep in the playoffs will even make the playoffs the next season. That's why there needs to be some degree of cost certainty. It shouldn't be feast or famine.

I agree, but that's one of the issues that comes with so much parity. We either have dominant teams or we don't. Personally, I think this much parity is mostly a fluke of timing. All of the last decade's dominant teams are looking long in the tooth and there are several possibilities to replace them in the years ahead. It is a period of chaos between dominant teams, IMO. I don't think we will see as many Cinderellas in the future.

If I'm wrong, though, isn't this what Bettman claims to want? A different winner every year? Everyone hoping to be Calgary or Carolina? If I'm wrong, how can a feast or famine situation be avoided without substantial revenue sharing?

As far as the budget is concerned, this is an easy problem to solve. Teams can have a very good idea of their revenue in a given year as long as they set their fiscal year end near the end of the season. Playoff runs go into the next fiscal year.

What frustrates fans is that the system inordinately influences personnel moves.

This can't be helped either. It is a fact in every league.

Tom

 

[xander]

my personal take on parity is that the goal should not be to allow every team to compete every year, but to make sure that all teams have the ability to, at some point, be dominant.
A poster mentioned previously that the natural cycle of teams is to: be bad and get high draft picks, get better and get middle picks, get good and get lower picks, then decline as players age. Good drafting and mangement can sustaine a team's stay at the top but eventually teams have to rebuild from the bottom up to re-begin the process.

The problem arises when teams picking at the top of the draft can't keep they're developing teams intact and that talent flows to the teams already on top. This distrupts the natural cycle and disenfranchises alot of fans. The current system, unfourtunatly, allows this to happen. Having a 'cinderrella' season is not the goal of franchises, sustained years of playoff runs and cup contention is. As fun as it is to be cinderella nobody wants to go home when the clock strikes midnight.

A hard cap would also discourage teams from maintaining prolonged success by creating an artifical ceiling for how good a team can be. If you've got a set limit of money you can spend to keep together a great team chances are it's not gonna happen, one need only look at the NFL to see how hard it is to maintain a high level team (yes i know the patriots have had success over the last few years, but they seem to be the only team that can do it.)

This is why i support implimenting an NBA style soft cap that would encourage teams to hold on to they're young talent and sustaine quality teams over an extended period of time. A soft cap would encourage teams to sign they're own players and make it harder for financially powerful teams to pick off talented young players from poorer teams.

This system should also be acompanied by some sort of revenue sharing system, not nessisarily one as extensive as the NFL's, but some kind of system will be needed to insure that smaller teams have a reasonable amount of capital to resign they're own players (coupled of course with the drag on saleries created by the cap itself.)

I think that an NBA type system would ensure a healthier, more comptitive league, and I'm suprised that i havn't seen it being discussed more often as a viable alternative to the two options (hard cap/tax) currently being pushed by the NHL and NHLPA.

any thoughts?