Confirmed with Link: Kris Russell Signed for 4 years @ 4M per

[Shane Goudie]

This is the first major potential backfire, but the deal is front loaded to make him appealing to cap floor teams.

This is why the no trade was added during the final two seasons, so he could keep himself from being traded to the bottom feeders.

 

[Pointteen]

This is why the no trade was added during the final two seasons, so he could keep himself from being traded to the bottom feeders.

We don't know who will be on the list yet. This is all speculation. For all we know we trade him next offseason.

Good point! We should go into the year understaffed on d and make sure the two and three year experience defensemen get plenty of time and competition. What could possibly go wrong?

I've been big on replacing Russell with a right handed vet. I don't want Benning and Nurse playing on the second pairing unless they earn it.

 

[PositiveCashFlow]

Here's the Russell thread. I personally don't mind the signing myself.

 

[bobbythebrain]

Just keep in mind. He got signed to this contract out of loyalty and his fit in the locker room

Classic Chia signing

 

[Spawn]

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/kris-russell

Saw this discussed in the trade rumour thread regarding his contract.

Looks like a full NMC the first two years which becomes modified the final two years.

 

[shoop]

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/kris-russell

Saw this discussed in the trade rumour thread regarding his contract.

Looks like a full NMC the first two years which becomes modified the final two years.

Cap Friendly citing themselves as the source for the first two years is odd. I have tried the google machine and cannot find any other discussion of an NTC/NMC in the first two years.

It really makes the deal much different, and less palatable, if it's a full NTC/NMC in the first two years as opposed to nothing at all.

 

[McDNicks17]

Is it really a big deal?

I'm not worried at all about having him for those first two seasons.

 

[shoop]

Is it really a big deal?

I'm not worried at all about having him for those first two seasons.

That seems like a question that can be asked for the vast majority of the threads here.

It's good information to know in terms of potential trades and managing the cap.

Also interesting to know with respect to media coverage of the Oilers. If there is a full NMC/NTC clause in the first two years how come none of the regular Oilers beat guys have mentioned it anywhere?

 

[Pointteen]

That seems like a question that can be asked for the vast majority of the threads here.

It's good information to know in terms of potential trades and managing the cap.

Also interesting to know with respect to media coverage of the Oilers. If there is a full NMC/NTC clause in the first two years how come none of the regular Oilers beat guys have mentioned it anywhere?

Could me misconstrued as a negative. We all know how SOFT the Oilers media guys are.

 

[Bangers]

This article from Staples summarizes pretty much all of my thoughts on Russell:

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/h...hl-d-man-this-year-certainly-not-kris-russell

 

[CupofOil]

Just keep in mind. He got signed to this contract out of loyalty and his fit in the locker room

Classic Chia signing

I'm not a big fan of the contract by any means (the term, would have loved 2 years) but I'm pretty sure Chia signed him to the contract because he was one of the most important even strength defenders for the Oilers last season. Why he felt the need to go 4 years is beyond me but better to have him in the short term than not have him.

Not a fan of his style of game but he was surprisingly effective for large portions of last season and got rewarded for it, not solely because he's a good locker room guy although I'm sure that played a role as well.

 

[Asiaoil]

Well which option is preferred:

Russell plus a 1st and two 2nd round draft picks

or

Hamonic

Because that was the choice for both teams as Russell probably signs in CGY if the Oilers get Hamonic (he really was a perfect fit for them). In my mind the upgrade from Russell to Hamonic just isn't worth that (and it's not close either). Russell is just as tough but obviously smaller than Hamonic. More flexible too as he did OK playing his off-side last season on the 2nd pair which is not easy to do. In many ways he's a perfect #5 dman who can play up on either side of the 2nd pair when needed, and you need that a lot in today's NHL with all the injuries dmen get. Like I said - perfect fit for CGY and I'm kind of puzzled why they chose to get Hamonic instead of Russell and use the picks on a forward. Hamonic better return to the form he showed 2-3 years ago or the trade is a dud and they have seriously hurt their prospect depth trading all the picks over the last 2 years.

Don't like the term as it's one year too long, but that's the cost of doing business, and the contract is tradable. In a perfect world, Nurse develops into a 2nd pair LHD over the next 18 months, and Russell can slide into his perfect role as the "leatherman" all-purpose #5 dman until we trade the last year of the contract. I predict we trade Sekera before Russsell if Nurse and Benning develop into the 2nd pair we all hope for within the next two years.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

We need to develop our pipeline with #97 and #29 pulling in so much cap. Dealing a 1st and 2-2nd's would've been a tough pill to swallow unless we kept on adding Caggiula and Benning level guys as NCAA FA's.

 

[nexttothemoon]

Russell>>>Hamonic so this is an easy win for Chia.

Plus you have Russell wrapped up for 4 years at $4 million instead of Hamonic for just 3... so even better.

Great signing by Chia... and he didn't have to lose a single asset whereas with the inferior Hamonic he would've traded away several assets. Again, great value signing by Chia.

 

[Paralyzer008]

Russell>>>Hamonic so this is an easy win for Chia.

Plus you have Russell wrapped up for 4 years at $4 million instead of Hamonic for just 3... so even better.

Great signing by Chia... and he didn't have to lose a single asset whereas with the inferior Hamonic he would've traded away several assets. Again, great value signing by Chia.

In what world is Russell 3x better than Hamonic? I'd have it the other way around.

If Russell was worth MORE than a 1st and 2 2nds I'd be laughing my way from the robbery.

 

[Aceboogie]

Well which option is preferred:

Russell plus a 1st and two 2nd round draft picks

or

Hamonic

I think this is not framing the transactions correctly and heavily biasing the options. Its like when people framed the Hall trade as Hall for Larsson+ Lucic. Lucic is a non factor in the trade, we could have signed Lucic AND kept Hall.

Likewise in your example, if you want to include Russell in one scenerio, you have to factor in our ability to get another UFA D in another. What Im saying is getting Hamonic in a trade does not limit our ability to sign another UFA D. Or another way, its incredibly lazy to think we only had 1 binary decision for our D core this year (ie Sign/Not sign Russell). There is other options out there. A better comparison would be:

Russell + 1st (2018) + 2 2nds (2019)

or

Hamonic + MDZ

Had we traded for Hamonic but still needed a D we could have went for MDZ or another D. You could also stretch the comparison to bring in the 4m of cap space we would have kept and any trades we could have made with it, or trades we would avoid (Eberle)

For me, id take Hamonic. Hes a tad overrated but the picks were in a year or 2 years time. Hamonic is a actual RHD and a bigger need as he plays that position naturally. Hes also on a slightly lower contract. The gap between him and Russell is not big or anything tho. But fit wise if we picked up a natural RHD plus a puck mover like MDZ, I think our D core would pick up 2 major needs. Vs trying to fit a round peg in a square hole (aka putting a LHD low offense D in a RD position needing offense)

 

[Hockeyholic]

We need to develop our pipeline with #97 and #29 pulling in so much cap. Dealing a 1st and 2-2nd's would've been a tough pill to swallow unless we kept on adding Caggiula and Benning level guys as NCAA FA's.

PM me please.

 

[McTrashBoat]

it was Lucic + Larsson for Hall

where are you playing Hall if you sign Lucic

 

[PaPaDee]

Russell>>>Hamonic so this is an easy win for Chia.

Plus you have Russell wrapped up for 4 years at $4 million instead of Hamonic for just 3... so even better.

Great signing by Chia... and he didn't have to lose a single asset whereas with the inferior Hamonic he would've traded away several assets. Again, great value signing by Chia.

I'd say it's relatively even between them. Either way, I'd rather keep the draft picks and have Russell.

 

[Aceboogie]

it was Lucic + Larsson for Hall

where are you playing Hall if you sign Lucic

This type of framing always seems way to pro Oiler. You could have played Hall on the 2nd line, put Lucic on the third line. You would have had a wealth of talent in the top 9. People act like the 3rd line is some death zone you cant play skill guys. We could have rolled a great top 9 with RNH centering Lucic, LD + Hall and McDavid + Maroon

People can argue Hall for Larsson all they want. But dont include Lucic as a way to try and tip the tables. He should not factor into any decisions (FTR Im not saying im pro or anti Hall trade, just framing the trade correctly). Likewise, dont include Russell in the above comparison because we could have traded for Hamonic AND signed Russell, so using that logic the comparison could be:

1st, 2 2nds

or

Hamonic + Russell

Doesnt work like that. We can discuss the 4mil deal to Russell but no use in trying to justify it further using Hamonic

 

[McTrashBoat]

This type of framing always seems way to pro Oiler. You could have played Hall on the 2nd line, put Lucic on the third line. You would have had a wealth of talent in the top 9. People act like the 3rd line is some death zone you cant play skill guys. We could have rolled a great top 9 with RNH centering Lucic, LD + Hall and McDavid + Maroon

People can argue Hall for Larsson all they want. But dont include Lucic as a way to try and tip the tables. He should not factor into any decisions (FTR Im not saying im pro or anti Hall trade, just framing the trade correctly). Likewise, dont include Russell in the above comparison because we could have traded for Hamonic AND signed Russell, so using that logic the comparison could be:

1st, 2 2nds

or

Hamonic + Russell

Doesnt work like that. We can discuss the 4mil deal to Russell but no use in trying to justify it further using Hamonic

this was a pro oiler move

if NJ signs Shattenkirk you could say it was Larsson for hall and Shatt

 

[Aceboogie]

this was a pro oiler move

if NJ signs Shattenkirk you could say it was Larsson for hall and Shatt

We could say its Hall + Ekblad for Larsson if we assume by dealing for Larsson we gave up the ability to trade Hendricks for Ekblad since wed have no place to play Eklad.

Obviously a extreme example to show the issue with these type of stretches in framing the trade, but hopefully you see where I am coming from

People are essentially double counting the addition of Lucic because they say "we dealt Hall for Larsson + Lucic" then also say "Chiarelli made big FA signings like Lucic!". You dont count Lucic as being in the trade AND being a free agent signing. We could have signed Lucic regardless of the trade. If you wanted to make the comparison equal in reality it would be Hall + Demers for Lucic + Larsson. And ofcourse with hindsight id take what we have now, given how we finished this year

or since Eberle was dealt as a cap move, this comparison would be Eberle + Hamonic + MDZ or Russell + Strome + 1st, 2 2nds

 

[Aerchon]

Russell's contract is fine. Not great but not bad either.

Not sure how the Hall stuff relates but with how Hall and Larsson have both played in year one post trade you don't need to bring in any other factors outside the trade. Larsson absolutely outplayed Hall last year and at face value the Oilers won the trade by every conceivable metric. At least as much as you can compare a one dimensional 50 point offensive winger to a shutdown defender.

 

[Hockeyholic]

PM me please.

Nvm please disregard. Found my answer.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

PM me please.

PM sent. If you are unable to receive it you can let me know in this thread.

This type of framing always seems way to pro Oiler. You could have played Hall on the 2nd line, put Lucic on the third line. You would have had a wealth of talent in the top 9. People act like the 3rd line is some death zone you cant play skill guys. We could have rolled a great top 9 with RNH centering Lucic, LD + Hall and McDavid + Maroon

People can argue Hall for Larsson all they want. But dont include Lucic as a way to try and tip the tables. He should not factor into any decisions (FTR Im not saying im pro or anti Hall trade, just framing the trade correctly). Likewise, dont include Russell in the above comparison because we could have traded for Hamonic AND signed Russell, so using that logic the comparison could be:

1st, 2 2nds

or

Hamonic + Russell

Doesnt work like that. We can discuss the 4mil deal to Russell but no use in trying to justify it further using Hamonic

OK, so we keep Hall at $6 million, add Lucic at $6 million, add Russell at $3.1 million, add another D like Demers at $5 million long term and THEN we have to extend McDavid and Draisaitl?

Russell cost us $4 million in cap, Hamonic would've cost us a little less but also probably 2-1sts since most would anticipate us being better than Calgary over the next 2 seasons. A healthy Hamonic is probably worth that, but IMO Larsson takes the shutdown role on our team so we could use more of an offensive RHD behind Lars.