#FIRECHIA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aceboogie

Registered User
Aug 25, 2012
32,649
3,896
Ryan had an equally bad year as Lucic last year. Disagree that Ryan is a better player. They are both equally crappy at this point in their careers. The extra 1.25M aav for Ryan isn't worth a year less of term. That's just pushing bad cap management to justify despising Chia.

Same with the Seabrook contract. $6.875M through 2023-24? Seabrook for Lucic straight up is a deal the Hawks jump on in a heartbeat. The Oilers would have to cut two of the current D and go with Bear or some other cheap option to make it happen. Again pushing bad cap management irrespective of making the team better.

Lucic played most of the year with the best player in the league and Draisaitl (or RNH otherwise) and mustered 1 more point than Ryan, who had nowhere near that level of linemates. Lucic also crushed McDavids production when they were together. So yes I would take Ryan for 1.25m more because he would actually offer value to McDavid, or at the very min not drag him down as much.

Seabrook is declining, but given our poor D core, atleast hed offer assistance. Lucic offers next to nothing. The only thing he does less than scoring is offering any resemblance of toughness or grit
 

Aceboogie

Registered User
Aug 25, 2012
32,649
3,896
On a scale from 1-10 - how scared are you of the upcoming Chia-trades?
As a Sabres fan I'd be bitter for years about the Tim Murray trades if it wasn't for us going full Edmonton and winning the lottery this year (rewarded for our incompetence - yey!).
I can't believe that Chia will be allowed to put you even deeper in the s*** for one more season.

Any guess what he'll do?

10. Dude has an itchy trigger finger and Klefbom coming off a down/injured year. Its like a 65% chance hes getting dealt for MDC
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawunderboy

Aceboogie

Registered User
Aug 25, 2012
32,649
3,896
Maybe to you, but I've understood that the UFA market has always been a poor method of addressing your important organizational needs. It's not a place to find good value. When the new GM stepped into this job, there weren't a whole slew of future assets for him to parlay into roster players, so the unfortunate part is we were going to have to spend some money until we started to develop some of our own talent.

Kris Russel earned his money last season, just like he earned it the year before.

Uhhhhh. Going from most liquid to least 2 2015 2nds, 2015 1st (15th overall), 2016 1st, Eberle, Schultz, Yakupov, Nurse, Klefbom, RNH, Draisaitl, Hall. What Chiarelli did have in June of 2015 was a vast wealth of assets he could have used for NHL roster players

From the above list, he dealt 7 of them and got back Reinhart, Larsson and some later round picks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oscar Acosta

Aceboogie

Registered User
Aug 25, 2012
32,649
3,896
How do we know that? The significant LD of note that summer were Karl Alzner, Dmitry Kulikov, Michael Del Zotto, Ron Hainsey and Trevor Daley. With that known the Oilers weren't exactly in a position where they could risk him hitting FA, were they? It seems rather silly bellyaching over a NMC that very well could never cause any problems. Kris Russell may be paid more than what we'd prefer him to be making, but that is a result of the market for these types of players in today's market. How happy are the Habs with Alzer locked up for the next four years? Or Winnipeg for two very important years tied to Kulikov's bloated deal?

The only reason we'd be asking Russell to waive that clause is if he's no longer a regular defenseman on this roster. At that point I have no concerns of him being willing to waive.

Most of those D you listed are Russell level or above. Ron Hainsey is a better D, who was a better D the year before, and was a better D for the Leafs last year. He signed for 3 mil for 2 years. Not only is/was he a better D, he makes a mil less for 2 years less. This is a much begtter option than Russell, and one I was saying we should do last year. Kulikov had an off year, but even at this, hes still similar to Russel, and with being 4 years younger, has a better chance of recovering. Oh yeah, and he only has a modified NTC, not even a full NMC like Russell and signed for a year less. I would take the flexibility to trade him over the 300K difference any day. Alzner is a worse D and worse contract, but Habs are a rare team as stupid as the Oilers so I can see how that contract was made

Russell had a history of not being a good middle pairing D, which was why Calgary fans were ok with letting him go based on his contract demands. Then no team matches his contract demands because they are also aware, leaving him to go unsigned until late in the offseason when Oilers throw him a bone. He gets paired with the vastly, vastly superior Sekera, who proceeds to prop up Russell (and we had the numbers to show how much better Sekera was away from Russell, or how much Sekera raised him up). Then after a surprising year, Chiarelli and the fans became drunk and delusional thinking they somehow found the magic potion to turn Russell into a top 4 D (it was Sekera all along), and paid him as a good top 4 D. Not surprisingly, when Sekera was injured and missed most of this year, without his saving grace, Russell proceeded to look like he has for 95% of his career, which is a barely passable middle pairing D

Ive shown how the contract will lead to problems:
1. TM has a history of overplaying vets on bigger contracts. This directly hurts the team
2. There is the possibility of an expansion draft for Seattle in the last 2 years of his deal when he has a Modified NTC, NMC. Given the expansion draft rules will be similar, this may well likely cause us to be forced to use a protection spot on him and lose a younger, better player
3. By overpaying for Russell (and others), its causes Pete to think we are in a dire contract bind (that he caused) and rush to trade away players for cap relief (like the Eberle trade)
 
Last edited:

Aceboogie

Registered User
Aug 25, 2012
32,649
3,896
Serious question: Raise your hand if you are feeling positive about Chiarellis next big trade
 

shoop

Registered User
Jul 6, 2008
8,333
1,911
Edmonton
Serious question: Raise your hand if you are feeling positive about Chiarellis next big trade

Five posts in a row?! What a positive and interesting way to foster debate and the free exchange of ideas on the topic of Peter Chiarelli as general manager of the Oilers. :D
 

McGoMcD

Registered User
Aug 14, 2005
15,688
668
Edmonton, AB
Uhhhhh. Going from most liquid to least 2 2015 2nds, 2015 1st (15th overall), 2016 1st, Eberle, Schultz, Yakupov, Nurse, Klefbom, RNH, Draisaitl, Hall. What Chiarelli did have in June of 2015 was a vast wealth of assets he could have used for NHL roster players

From the above list, he dealt 7 of them and got back Reinhart, Larsson and some later round picks

Ya, every one who is supporting Chia just seems to be dodging the fact that he has squandered assets. They keep going on about how Larsson isn't that bad ect, just completely losing touch of the fact Hall is a better asset. Sure maybe Hall needed to be traded (I doubt it), but doesn't even matter. your job of a GM is to leave with more assets than you came with. So far Chia just lost assets. I have so little faith in him right now.

allegedly he has built a better team? losing individual assets but gaining in team chemistry, but even that I don't see at all. So something has to give.
 

shoop

Registered User
Jul 6, 2008
8,333
1,911
Edmonton
allegedly he has built a better team? losing individual assets but gaining in team chemistry, but even that I don't see at all. So something has to give.

If you don't see it then there is nothing that can really be said.

First playoff appearance in a decade? Check.

First 100+ point regular season in 30 years? Check.

The last two seasons are the Oilers best two seasons in the last nine years.

Now when you say "allegedly he has built a better team", what does the allegedly part mean?

Is there anything you would accept to prove the Oilers are a better team?
 

Little Fury

Registered User
Jun 21, 2006
17,831
6,800
If you don't see it then there is nothing that can really be said.

First playoff appearance in a decade? Check.

First 100+ point regular season in 30 years? Check.

The last two seasons are the Oilers best two seasons in the last nine years.

Now when you say "allegedly he has built a better team", what does the allegedly part mean?

Is there anything you would accept to prove the Oilers are a better team?

Call me crazy but I feel like getting gifted the best player in a generation may have something to do with that.

Improvement was basically a given the day those lottery balls dropped. The question that remains to be answered is whether Chia can build a team around McDavid that can actually compete for a Stanley Cup on a consistent basis.
 

shoop

Registered User
Jul 6, 2008
8,333
1,911
Edmonton
Call me crazy but I feel like getting gifted the best player in a generation may have something to do with that.

Of course that was going to be the anti-Chia answer. I replied to a post saying the Oilers were "allegedly" better since Chia took over. The Oilers are absolutely better since Chia took over.

But, but, but you gotta trip over yourself to find a reason to hack on Chia. At least you admit the Oilers are better, even if you are coming up with an excuse. Perhaps you could reply to @McGoMcD who "allegedly" isn't convinced the Oilers are better at all under Chiarelli.
 

Little Fury

Registered User
Jun 21, 2006
17,831
6,800
Of course that was going to be the anti-Chia answer. I replied to a post saying the Oilers were "allegedly" better since Chia took over. The Oilers are absolutely better since Chia took over.

But, but, but you gotta trip over yourself to find a reason to hack on Chia.

You know you're arguing with someone in full apologist mode when a comment like "Connor McDavid improved the Oilers" gets a sputtering rebuttal like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harpoon

shoop

Registered User
Jul 6, 2008
8,333
1,911
Edmonton
You know you're arguing with someone in full apologist mode when a comment like "Connor McDavid improved the Oilers" gets a sputtering rebuttal like this.

Not accurate at all. Of course McDavid improved the Oilers. I was pointing out the insanity of someone claiming that the Oilers hadn't improved under Chiarelli.

You called out an 'apologist' but can't call out someone in full out denial mode claiming that the team has only "allegedly" improved under Chiarelli. At least you admit the team has improved. Why not call out @McGoMcD for being in full attack mode?
 

harpoon

Registered User
Dec 23, 2005
14,194
11,343
your job of a GM is to leave with more assets than you came with. So far Chia just lost assets.
We can probably wrap the thread up right here, with this jewel of truth.
Can't wait to see what Peter has planned for the off season to 'improve' the team. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawunderboy

Zaddy

Registered User
Feb 8, 2013
13,058
5,850
We can probably wrap the thread up right here, with this jewel of truth.
Can't wait to see what Peter has planned for the off season to 'improve' the team. :laugh:

How is that a 'jewel of truth'? The job of a GM is to make his team win hockey games, not to collect assets. Which is exactly what this team did last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McCupofOil

KeithIsActuallyBad

You thrust your pelvis, huh!
Apr 12, 2010
71,822
30,733
Calgary
How is that a 'jewel of truth'? The job of a GM is to make his team win hockey games, not to collect assets. Which is exactly what this team did last year.
And has failed to do in 2/3 of his years.

With essentially every player from the previous regime gone (save RNH), the Oilers are starved of assets to improve their team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawunderboy

CupofOil

Knob Flavored Coffey
Aug 20, 2009
46,279
39,508
NYC
How is that a 'jewel of truth'? The job of a GM is to make his team win hockey games, not to collect assets. Which is exactly what this team did last year.

This is true but 2 out of his 3 seasons have been losing seasons so he's not doing his job in that respect either. Losing assets and losing games is a killer combo. It's make or break time for Pete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawunderboy

shoop

Registered User
Jul 6, 2008
8,333
1,911
Edmonton
This is true but 2 out of his 3 seasons have been losing seasons so he's not doing his job in that respect either. Losing assets and losing games is a killer combo. It's make or break time for Pete.

I think everybody agrees it's make or break for Chiarelli. What is the make though?

Does 92 points and just missing the playoffs mean he loses his job?
 

belair

Jay Woodcroft Unemployment Stance
Apr 9, 2010
38,541
21,721
Canada
Most of those D you listed are Russell level or above. Ron Hainsey is a better D, who was a better D the year before, and was a better D for the Leafs last year. He signed for 3 mil for 2 years. Not only is/was he a better D, he makes a mil less for 2 years less. This is a much begtter option than Russell, and one I was saying we should do last year. Kulikov had an off year, but even at this, hes still similar to Russel, and with being 4 years younger, has a better chance of recovering. Oh yeah, and he only has a modified NTC, not even a full NMC like Russell and signed for a year less. I would take the flexibility to trade him over the 300K difference any day. Alzner is a worse D and worse contract, but Habs are a rare team as stupid as the Oilers so I can see how that contract was made

Russell had a history of not being a good middle pairing D, which was why Calgary fans were ok with letting him go based on his contract demands. Then no team matches his contract demands because they are also aware, leaving him to go unsigned until late in the offseason when Oilers throw him a bone. He gets paired with the vastly, vastly superior Sekera, who proceeds to prop up Russell (and we had the numbers to show how much better Sekera was away from Russell, or how much Sekera raised him up). Then after a surprising year, Chiarelli and the fans became drunk and delusional thinking they somehow found the magic potion to turn Russell into a top 4 D (it was Sekera all along), and paid him as a good top 4 D. Not surprisingly, when Sekera was injured and missed most of this year, without his saving grace, Russell proceeded to look like he has for 95% of his career, which is a barely passable middle pairing D

Ive shown how the contract will lead to problems:
1. TM has a history of overplaying vets on bigger contracts. This directly hurts the team
2. There is the possibility of an expansion draft for Seattle in the last 2 years of his deal when he has a Modified NTC, NMC. Given the expansion draft rules will be similar, this may well likely cause us to be forced to use a protection spot on him and lose a younger, better player
3. By overpaying for Russell (and others), its causes Pete to think we are in a dire contract bind (that he caused) and rush to trade away players for cap relief (like the Eberle trade)

Ron Hainsey is also 37 and was coming off of a Stanley Cup Championship run. You can excuse him for settling for a less risky deal. The others? Sure they're in Kris Russell territory of what's expected from them. The point was the Oilers were in no position to let him walk. Every one of those other options were off the table July 1st. People were already pissed we didn't sign someone else from that crop of FAs due to the Sekera injury. But we can bitch and complain about Chiarelli signing someone who was ON THE OILERS playoff roster? For a minimal raise to boot? That no movement clause is nothing more than three letter that will never effect anything. The moment Kris Russell becomes redundant on the Edmonton Oilers is the day he waives it. Stop causing yourself senseless stress.
 

Zaddy

Registered User
Feb 8, 2013
13,058
5,850
And has failed to do in 2/3 of his years.

With essentially every player from the previous regime gone (save RNH), the Oilers are starved of assets to improve their team.

This is true but 2 out of his 3 seasons have been losing seasons so he's not doing his job in that respect either. Losing assets and losing games is a killer combo. It's make or break time for Pete.

Well to be fair I don't know if you can hold that 1st year against him. Coming in fresh on the job and with a new head coach. He tried to adress the defense and goaltending with the Talbot, Sekera and Reinhart trades and then wanted to evaluate what he had in terms of the forwards. Probably didn't help that McDavid got injured either.

2nd year the team exceeded all expectations and had an amazing season.

This year he didn't improve the team (which I've criticized him heavily for) and they flat out sucked. But again, to be fair I think it's a pretty tough situation when three of your top4 d-men struggle with injuries throughout the season and then combine that with below-average goaltending. That could sink any team (see TB last year), and I firmly believe this is a better hockey team than what they showed last year.

Also, realistically, what was Chia supposed to do about the injuries this year? It's not like top4 d-men are cheap and easy to acquire. Is it worth spending big assets to get a stop gap guy? Or do you just ride out the year and bounce back the following season? I'm genuinely curious what other options there were out there.

A competent backup goalie on the other hand shouldn't have been that hard or expensive to acquire, so that's a major fail in my book. This was a known issue for a while too. Betting on LB was stupid, same as betting on 'internal development' in terms of the forwards after trading away Eberle. Good GM's don't bet on unknowns unless they're absolutely forced to due to cap constraints. Oilers weren't in that position. Jokinen was a really bad gamble too, although I don't know if anyone here would've predicted he would've been as bad/useless as he was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoop
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->