Rumor: Rumors and Proposals: The Frenzy continues: Still looking for one more RHD

[guymez]

My concern is that if they waited Hall's value would have continued to drop and then you're looking at an even worse situation of diminishing returns year by year.

Look at it this way... if Larsson isn't full value for Hall NOW, what would it have been next year after another losing season?

That was the risk management decision Chiarelli faced. It wasn't enviable.

So you could use that explanation on any deal at any time to justify why a bad deal was necessary.

My question remains....how can bad deals be considered part of a template to create a contending team?

How many contending teams got that way by making deals which involved trading away more value for less value with potential?

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

So you could use that explanation on any deal at any time to justify why a bad deal was necessary.

My question remains....how can bad deals be considered part of a template to create a contending team?

How many contending teams got that way by making deals which involved trading away more value for less value with potential?

How many teams win with the league's worst defense?

 

[McFlyingV]

??? confused, he gets paid USD and taxed the same regardless of where he signs

that being said i take Larsson over Demers 10/10

same with hamonic

Larsson>Hamonic

Thats simply not true. There's a reason that Stamkos signed for 8.5 because it was equivalent to 10 in a lot of other places.

 

[nabob]

Yup, Larsson just screams fayne 2.0 to me

Larsson was 21 at the time...Weird how most Dmen develop the most between the ages of 22-27.

Anyone who compares Larsson of last season to Faynr is just plain ignorant, and doesn't actually know anything about Larsson.

 

[Mr Positive]

So getting back to trade rumours.....

That Valentine guy says we are offering Pouliot, Yak and 1st for Barrie but Avs aren't biting.

haha, we aren't getting Barrie I guess. My bet is that RNH is off limits because our current top six centers are too young to bet a whole season on. Also maybe even Eberle is off limits because of our RW depth and his chemistry with McDavid.

 

[guymez]

If you wait for the perfect deal it's not going to come. At some point this team has to make progress and if that means a little destruction then that's fine. I fully believe an improved defense will push the team forward more than just adding Pulu and calling it a day like yesteryears.

You weren't likely to get a better deal than Larsson. Isles said no to Hamonic for Hall. Defensemen are just that valuable. If you keep waiting you're going to be left with nothing.

It's either Larsson or nothing. Which option is better?

Man...this is involving me repeating points ad nausium here.

This isnt about a perfect deal...you are missing the point entirely by framing my position that way.

Please do feel free to address my question on how exactly this deal reflects progress in terms of building a contending team.

 

[Cloned]

So you could use that explanation on any deal at any time to justify why a bad deal was necessary.

My question remains....how can bad deals be considered part of a template to create a contending team?

How many contending teams got that way by making deals which involved trading away more value for less value with potential?

guymez...

The Oilers are in a unique position.

Find me a team in the NHL that has missed the playoffs for 10 straight years, and missed them AS BADLY as the Edmonton Oilers have.

This wasn't a meddling team where the GM decided to make a brutal trade (Benning I'm looking at you) for no rhyme or reason to try to reach contending status. This was a basement dwelling team going on 10 straight years that needed a trade just to get an actual NHL defensemen so they could play respectable hockey. The needs were obvious. The assets were obvious. The return wasn't ideal.

But it was needed. And Larsson isn't chopped liver.

 

[guymez]

How many teams win with the league's worst defense?

That doesnt answer my question at all.

How can bad deals be considered part of a template to create a contending team?

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Man...this is involving me repeating points ad nausium here.

This isnt about a perfect deal...you are missing the point entirely by framing my position that way.

Please do feel free to address my question on how exactly this deal reflects progress in terms of building a contending team.

No problem.

It improves the defense.

 

[PatrikOverAuston]

Please do feel free to address my question on how exactly this deal reflects progress in terms of building a contending team.

I'm not really sure how addressing a major need for defence for a surplus forward piece doesn't, but you've not lived up to either explaining that or how the Oilers were to address said need otherwise so I don't expect much TBH.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

That doesnt answer my question at all.

How can bad deals be considered part of a template to create a contending team?

This was likely the best way to improve the defense. You can't win without defense. If you have to sacrifice Hall to upgrade the defense then see ya Taylor.

The team finished one point up on a team that was trying to lose. Something had to be done. Eberle and RNH don't get you what you want. Hall does.

At some point the Oilers were going to have to take one up the butt to improve the team. An improved defense means an improved Oilers. Where else was a good defenseman going to come from?

 

[Soli]

Everyone needs a time out and this thread needs to die.