Oilers a model franchise

[JiriHrdina]

This is not a "let's slame the Oil" thread. Rather I thought these were interesting comments by Moreau who is aiming to hold the Oilers up as a model franchise, pointing to their ability to maintain a budget and turn a profit.

All fine and dandy Ethan, but the Oilers are a perfect example of what ails the league. True - the Oilers are a franchise that has shown the discipline to stay on budget, however this has produced very little on-ice success. The system has to allow teams to be both competitive and profitable - not one of the two.

Anyhoo read for yourself:

Linky (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/Sports/2004/09/17/632492.html)

[Bingo]

Exactly ...

The Oilers did a great job of walking that line between cost awareness and on ice success, but what a shame. Do everything right for five years and either miss the playoffs or get knocked out in five games.

Those teams in a more level playing field era would have likely had a good run or two.

[Oiltalk]

Your telling me things wouldn't change, and the "on-ice success" wouldn't be there if the better players in the league were affordable for much much longer?

The Oilers system of staying within the budget is set, but now it's time for the league to crack down on contracts.

[ChipOne]

Originally posted by Oiltalk@Sep 20 2004, 11:26 AM
Your telling me things wouldn't change, and the "on-ice success" wouldn't be there if the better players in the league were affordable for much much longer?

The Oilers system of staying within the budget is set, but now it's time for the league to crack down on contracts.
wow. i don't think you read those posts at all.

anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.

changes are needed because a 'model team', in moreau's eyes, is one that breaks even and can't make the playoffs.

[CrzyCanuck]

Model franchise, I keep thinking of the parity of the NFL. I cheer for the Broncos, they have a decent defence and a great offence in recent years, and I would call them competive. But they haven't had an all out great team, and they are playing against other teams that are in the same boat as themselves. ( a few bad teams, many mediocore teams, and a few good teams)

Point is that I would rather watch the NFL because there is so much parity, and taking chances on one/two players is the difference between a winner and loser. The oilers run a tight fiscal ship, but they don't come close to the on ice product of the elite teams. Boo Ethan.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CrzyCanuck@Sep 20 2004, 06:01 PM
Model franchise, I keep thinking of the parity of the NFL. I cheer for the Broncos, they have a decent defence and a great offence in recent years, and I would call them competive. But they haven't had an all out great team, and they are playing against other teams that are in the same boat as themselves. ( a few bad teams, many mediocore teams, and a few good teams)

Point is that I would rather watch the NFL because there is so much parity, and taking chances on one/two players is the difference between a winner and loser. The oilers run a tight fiscal ship, but they don't come close to the on ice product of the elite teams. Boo Ethan.
There are some observors who say "parity" is simply another word for "mediocrity," that a league that denies dynasties also denies greatness.

I'm not in that camp, but that's one view.

Cowperson

[T@T]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 20 2004, 06:06 PM

There are some observors who say "parity" is simply another word for "mediocrity," that a league that denies dynasties also denies greatness.

I'm not in that camp, but that's one view.

Cowperson
What people fail to realize this "parity" or so called "mediocrity" in most cases make the game far more popular as a whole. i read the NFL's fan base has grown some 300% in the last few years and i suspect the NBA is about the same.

[daredevil]

What I cannot understand is this:

How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?

[kn]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 20 2004, 12:06 PM
There are some observors who say "parity" is simply another word for "mediocrity," that a league that denies dynasties also denies greatness.

I'm not in that camp, but that's one view.
Part and parcel of free agency associated with a salary cap. Now, if you had restricted free agency akin to what exists now, along with a hard cap, there's a possibility for dynasties to be created. But I'd much prefer a CBA that sees the possibility of a Calgary/Buffalo final followed by an Edmonton/Pittsburgh final followed by a Minnesota/Atlanta final than see Detroit rattle off four consecutive Stanley Cups.

[looooob]

Originally posted by daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 12:20 PM
What I cannot understand is this:

How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?
clap clap clap

exactly right my friend. it's funny that owners are supposed to be happy with a miraculous season that has 38 people making less than Tommy Salo

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 12:20 PM

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?
No.

As to the "parity = mediocrity" argument, and the lack of dynasties, I think that is wrong. If everyone is competing with roughly the same payroll, long forgotten concepts like scouting and player development can create a dynasty. Moreau's beloved Oilers were what some might call a "decent" team for a long time in the 80's and into the 90's. I think their payroll was pretty much on par with everyone else, wasn't it? What about the Islanders or the Habs before them?

[dustygoon]

A balance needs to be struck between 1) ensuring teams are competitive where the underdogs could eventually be a champ and 2) avoiding mediocracy by allowing enough financial flexibility for champs to retain their core players that would likely demand a raise. I like the idea of having dynasties once in a while in sport.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by ChipOne@Sep 20 2004, 05:56 PM
anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.
Did everything they were supposed to do?

Weren't they supposed to try drafting future NHL players instead of future ECHL journeymen?

The Oilers futility under the most recently expired CBA can be explained by their inability to draft worth a damn. Maybe if they hired a head scout that didn't live in Mexico they could have been a model franchise instead of one that just covered up their incompetence with excuses about the CBA.

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 06:20 PM
What I cannot understand is this:

How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?
You actually think that the majority of businesses out there have a 50/50 split with the owners making as much as the payroll of the business? There is a huge difference between the risk based investment of owning any entity (ie NHL teams) and the idea of marketing your labour for monetary gain (ie players). Risk based investment means that sometimes (read any other time in the history of hockey except for the past 6-8 years) the owners have made out like bandits, accumulating profits well in excess of 50/50, try 90/10 for the owners, but that there are times when your business will not be profitable. You do not have an inherent right to a profitable business, fold the business at the point that it is not profitable, if the workforce finds it more appealing to lose jobs as opposed to taking a 33% paycut, so be it. The owners want to have cost certainty so that all teams make out like bandits, with teams like Calgary and Edmonton making out less so. Furthermore, if the utopian goal of a salary cap is ever realized, it is going to be closer to 40-45 million, the owners are going to have to give a little anways, so without revenue sharing it is going to be difficult for any small market team to benefit immensely from a cap anyways. All it will mean is that there will be a difference of 5-10 million in terms of salary between teams instead of 10-20 million.

But I agree, it is a shame that the NHL is the only business where workers earn as much as the owner, it should be much more common place.

[looooob]

Originally posted by EddyBeers+Sep 20 2004, 01:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (EddyBeers @ Sep 20 2004, 01:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-daredevil@Sep 20 2004, 06:20 PM
What I cannot understand is this:

How is is that the players (as a group) each get to make 1.8 million avg. per year when the owners as a group make only 2 million TOTAL?
And this is his idea of a model franchaise...?
You would think that the owner of each team should be able to make as much as the players of that team as a collective group. A 50/50 share so to speak.
Since when do the individuals of an organization get to make as much as the president of the company, or the owner?
It's just assinine.

Do these players have any idea how the world really works outside their little happy bubbles?


But I agree, it is a shame that the NHL is the only business where workers earn as much as the owner, it should be much more common place. [/b][/quote]
I agree for most of hockey history the owners have screwed the players and that the pendulum needed to swing

but the current reality is that almost every player makes more than the owner of most teams right now...not the collective players making more than an owner (that I could deal with)

you honestly think that in the average business every employee should out-earn the owner, or am I not following your argument?

[daredevil]

too lazy to quote......see above


EXACTLY, my point was not that 50/50 is a fair split, but that is INSANE to think that the employees should out earn the owners (who had all the cash to start the teams to begin with).

Beyond the fact that the players "put their bodies on the line" (which I'd venture to say most of us would do for free, JUST becuase playing is FUN or for the LOVE of the game anyways), where is the risk involved for the players?

So you get hurt playing hockey, boo hoo, suck it up junior...guess you'll have to enroll in college and write some papers and then after a few years of that crap, you have years of some crappy dead end job (doing the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER) where you'll try pay off your stupid student loans.

Meanwhile you might get to listen to some baby millionaire whine about how his salary might not stay high enough to allow him to feed his dog STEAK for dinner every day.

Wow....

[e-townchamps]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ChipOne@Sep 20 2004, 05:56 PM
anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.
Did everything they were supposed to do?

Weren't they supposed to try drafting future NHL players instead of future ECHL journeymen?

The Oilers futility under the most recently expired CBA can be explained by their inability to draft worth a damn. Maybe if they hired a head scout that didn't live in Mexico they could have been a model franchise instead of one that just covered up their incompetence with excuses about the CBA. [/b][/quote]
while I agree with you that their drafting hasnt been great, they've done a magnificant job with the budget they have....they dont have a 7million dollar player on the team so they do what they can...
btw, their scouting and drafting has been better since the "dark Sather" era of drafting Steve Kelly and Jason Bonsignore :ph34r: :ph34r:

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by e-townchamps@Sep 21 2004, 12:53 AM
while I agree with you that their drafting hasnt been great, they've done a magnificant job with the budget they have....they dont have a 7million dollar player on the team so they do what they can...
btw, their scouting and drafting has been better since the "dark Sather" era of drafting Steve Kelly and Jason Bonsignore :ph34r: :ph34r:
They have done far from a magnificent job regardless of how low their budget was. Tampa has done a much better job. Ottawa has done a much better job. Vancouver has done a better job.

They've treaded water since their dynasty. Mediocrity is not magnificence. Mediocrity sucks.

Over the past 10 years, who have the Oilers been better then?

[amazing_oilers]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ChipOne@Sep 20 2004, 05:56 PM
anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.
Did everything they were supposed to do?

Weren't they supposed to try drafting future NHL players instead of future ECHL journeymen?

The Oilers futility under the most recently expired CBA can be explained by their inability to draft worth a damn. Maybe if they hired a head scout that didn't live in Mexico they could have been a model franchise instead of one that just covered up their incompetence with excuses about the CBA.[/b][/quote]
I don't think the Oilers are that bad at drafting. Here's some of the notables since 1992 that were kept, panned out later on, or were dealt for other current Oilers. Some I didn't include like Bonsignore and Kelly didn't work out but were traded for assets like Hamrlik who was traded for Brewer. So even some of the bad ones, turned out good.

Kirk Maltby
Jason Arnott
Martin Rucinsky
Tyler Wright
David Vyborny
Miroslav Satan
Ryan Smyth
Georges Laraque
Boyd Devereaux
Tom Poti
Fernando Pisani
Jason Chimera
Shawn Horcoff
Jani Rita
Alexei Semenov
Mike Comrie
Tony Salmelainen
Ales Hemsky
Doug Lynch
Jussi Markkanen
Jeff Deslauriers
Jarett Stoll

Anyone want to compare that to the Flames?

[CaramonLS]

I'm sure Oil Fans are happy when the team can't keep players like Hamrlik, Arnott, Guerin, Weight, Marchant all because of money.

Good Job Moreau, when you start to get good and it comes up to contract time I guess we'll see you on the way out, because the oil are a model franchise...

[amazing_oilers]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 21 2004, 02:39 AM
I'm sure Oil Fans are happy when the team can't keep players like Hamrlik, Arnott, Guerin, Weight, Marchant all because of money.

Good Job Moreau, when you start to get good and it comes up to contract time I guess we'll see you on the way out, because the oil are a model franchise...
Actually Moreau had a solid season last year, and signed for four years.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by amazing_oilers+Sep 21 2004, 02:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (amazing_oilers @ Sep 21 2004, 02:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Sep 21 2004, 02:39 AM
I'm sure Oil Fans are happy when the team can't keep players like Hamrlik, Arnott, Guerin, Weight, Marchant all because of money.

Good Job Moreau, when you start to get good and it comes up to contract time I guess we'll see you on the way out, because the oil are a model franchise...
Actually Moreau had a solid season last year, and signed for four years. [/b][/quote]
Well I guess we have different definitions of greatness.

I don't consider Moreau's seasons to be even close to anything that the other players I named put up.

[amazing_oilers]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Sep 21 2004, 02:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Sep 21 2004, 02:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by amazing_oilers@Sep 21 2004, 02:43 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Sep 21 2004, 02:39 AM
I'm sure Oil Fans are happy when the team can't keep players like Hamrlik, Arnott, Guerin, Weight, Marchant all because of money.

Good Job Moreau, when you start to get good and it comes up to contract time I guess we'll see you on the way out, because the oil are a model franchise...
Actually Moreau had a solid season last year, and signed for four years.
Well I guess we have different definitions of greatness.

I don't consider Moreau's seasons to be even close to anything that the other players I named put up. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, you threw me off when you included Marchant in your post.

[looooob]

Originally posted by amazing_oilers+Sep 20 2004, 08:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (amazing_oilers @ Sep 20 2004, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by BlackRedGold25@Sep 20 2004, 06:48 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ChipOne@Sep 20 2004, 05:56 PM
anyways, the point is that EDM did everything they were supposed to do as far as their end of the CBA and, under the current system, were unable to ice a competitive team that made it through the second round.
Did everything they were supposed to do?

Weren't they supposed to try drafting future NHL players instead of future ECHL journeymen?

The Oilers futility under the most recently expired CBA can be explained by their inability to draft worth a damn. Maybe if they hired a head scout that didn't live in Mexico they could have been a model franchise instead of one that just covered up their incompetence with excuses about the CBA.
I don't think the Oilers are that bad at drafting. Here's some of the notables since 1992 that were kept, panned out later on, or were dealt for other current Oilers. Some I didn't include like Bonsignore and Kelly didn't work out but were traded for assets like Hamrlik who was traded for Brewer. So even some of the bad ones, turned out good.

Kirk Maltby
Jason Arnott
Martin Rucinsky
Tyler Wright
David Vyborny
Miroslav Satan
Ryan Smyth
Georges Laraque
Boyd Devereaux
Tom Poti
Fernando Pisani
Jason Chimera
Shawn Horcoff
Jani Rita
Alexei Semenov
Mike Comrie
Tony Salmelainen
Ales Hemsky
Doug Lynch
Jussi Markkanen
Jeff Deslauriers
Jarett Stoll

Anyone want to compare that to the Flames? [/b][/quote]
I believe the person pointing out the Oilers subpar drafting is a Sens fan not a Flames fan

I don't think you'll get anyone from around here to admit the Flames have been stellar drafters through the 90s, which isn't really the point...neither Alberta team has done that well ...the last half of your list is still mostly guys considered 'prospects' at this point (which isn't the Oilers fault, just a statement on number of impact players drafted)

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by amazing_oilers@Sep 20 2004, 08:33 PM
Kirk Maltby
Jason Arnott
Martin Rucinsky
Tyler Wright
David Vyborny
Miroslav Satan
Ryan Smyth
Georges Laraque
Boyd Devereaux
Tom Poti
Fernando Pisani
Jason Chimera
Shawn Horcoff
Jani Rita
Alexei Semenov
Mike Comrie
Tony Salmelainen
Ales Hemsky
Doug Lynch
Jussi Markkanen
Jeff Deslauriers
Jarett Stoll

Anyone want to compare that to the Flames?
Flag on the play, you said 1992 on. As we all know Martin Rucinsky and Tyler Wright were both drafted in 1991. So your list drops by two players.:)
Since you are adding fringe NHL'ers and guys who are still considered prospects I will do the same. I will also include players who played just this last season as well.

1992 -
Cory Stillman
Joel Bouchard
Jonas Hoglund
Jamie Allison
German Titov
Chris Dingman
Chris Clark
Nils Ekman
Denis Gauthier
Clarke Wilm
Derek Morris
Steve Begin
Tony Lydman
Ronald Petrovicky
Rico Fata
Blair Betts
Dany Sabourin
Oleg Saprykin
Craig Anderson
Jarret Stoll
Chuck Kobasew
Matthew Lombardi

Then since you added prospects like Rita and Deslauriers I will do the same
Eric Nystrom, Dion Phaneuf, Tim Ramholt

So what did I discover? Besides a few good players scattered about both lists don't inspire much inpsiration. And if the only bragging right you have is that the Oilers have drafted better then the Flames in the 90's... well, that is lame. Everyone here will admit freely how bad our drafting was, and how mess up's at the draft table was a big reason we couldn't turn it around.

[looooob]

mmf...You forgot Robert Svehla ;)

[oilboy2]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25@Sep 21 2004, 02:27 AM


Over the past 10 years, who have the Oilers been better then?
Easy answer: Calgary Flames. And no 1 miracle run to the cup doesnt erase 7 years without playoffs. As an oiler fan i just want to see them get into the playoffs. After the cba is settled and if things dont improve then i will start questioning. For a team to make a profit without playoffs is a pretty good feat.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by oilboy2@Sep 21 2004, 08:44 AM
Easy answer: Calgary Flames.
Did you compare the lists with the timeframe your fellow Oiler fan gave?

Both lists freakin suck! If the only thing you cling too is drafting better then the Flames in the 90's.. well you basically need to wake up. The Flames did horrible in the 90's when it came to the draft table, if you are happy with being slightly less horrible, then well... wow.

[demzor]

Oilers list is bad.. but its alot less horrible than the Flames. Not slightly.. A LOT. Looking at that Flames list is painful.

Arnott, Satan, and Smyth are all better than anyone in the Flames pile, imo.


And yes I know we're just comparing poo and dung.. I'm just saying :P

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by demzor@Sep 21 2004, 11:27 AM
Oilers list is bad.. but its alot less horrible than the Flames. Not slightly.. A LOT. Looking at that Flames list is painful.

If you want to cling onto that fact, then go right ahead. The Oilers are still one of the worst drafting team from the 90's, that is a fact. That Flames are too. If you want to hold it up as some sort of trophy that they were slightly better then the Flames... then do so, I will continue to laugh.

[demzor]

Being slightly better than the Flames at anything is not something I'm going to be shouting about from a mountain top...

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by demzor@Sep 21 2004, 11:33 AM
Being slightly better than the Flames at anything is not something I'm going to be shouting about from a mountain top...
Yet, here you are. :lol:

[demzor]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Sep 21 2004, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Sep 21 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-demzor@Sep 21 2004, 11:33 AM
Being slightly better than the Flames at anything is not something I'm going to be shouting about from a mountain top...
Yet, here you are. :lol: [/b][/quote]
And?

I go to almost all hockey forums. Whats your point?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by demzor@Sep 21 2004, 11:36 AM

And?

I go to almost all hockey forums. Whats your point?
I meant, here you are, in this tread, protecting the Oilers draft record from the 90s to proclaiming it to be better then the Flames.

Just funny, thats all.

[demzor]

Yes.. if you call comparing the Oilers drafting record to dung "protecting" it...

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by oilboy2+Sep 21 2004, 02:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (oilboy2 @ Sep 21 2004, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BlackRedGold25@Sep 21 2004, 02:27 AM


Over the past 10 years, who have the Oilers been better then?
Easy answer: Calgary Flames. And no 1 miracle run to the cup doesnt erase 7 years without playoffs. As an oiler fan i just want to see them get into the playoffs. After the cba is settled and if things dont improve then i will start questioning. For a team to make a profit without playoffs is a pretty good feat. [/b][/quote]
Well, you obviously missed out that BlackRedGold was referring to draft history, not on ice history, but lets look at the past ten years, shall we?

In the last ten years, from 1994-95 to 2003-04...

Playoff appearances: Edmonton 6, Calgary 3
Playoff Rounds won: Edmonton 2, Calgary 3
Division Titles: Edmonton 0, Calgary 1
Conference Titles: Edmonton 0, Calgary 1

I wonder if three more first round losses equals one division title and one Conference Championship?

Simply put, aside from our "fluke" run, neither team has done squat in the past ten years, and both teams inability to draft worth a damn during that time played far more significant roles in those failures than the CBA did.

Prior to this past season, an Oilers fan and a Flames fan bragging about who's better is a lot like two bums fighting over the moldy crust in a pizza box.

[Iggy=Flames4ever]

I thought this was a flames message board not a stupid oilers one?? go post this on ur own board

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Iggy=Flames4ever@Sep 21 2004, 11:52 AM
I thought this was a flames message board not a stupid oilers one?? go post this on ur own board
With all due respect, shut up. A Flames fan posted this. Here at Calgarypuck we tend to post articles about every team in the leauge if it is noteworthy.

[e-townchamps]

Snakeeye, it is a rivalry right? I'm sure we'd be bragging if the Oilers beat the Flames at a game of chess...that one conferance championship can go along the the Ducks and 'Canes and Capitals...:):)

as for drafting, both teams seem to be on the upward swing and hopefully we'll battling it out for 1st again!

[BigRed]

Originally posted by e-townchamps@Sep 21 2004, 05:59 PM

as for drafting, both teams seem to be on the upward swing and hopefully we'll battling it out for 1st again!

don't know about that ... in all seriousness, i was kind of shocked with the oilers' 1st round picks this year. not that chucko has proven anything, either, but is there anyone in the oilers' system even close to phaneuf?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by e-townchamps@Sep 21 2004, 05:59 PM
Snakeeye, it is a rivalry right? I'm sure we'd be bragging if the Oilers beat the Flames at a game of chess...that one conferance championship can go along the the Ducks and 'Canes and Capitals...:):)

as for drafting, both teams seem to be on the upward swing and hopefully we'll battling it out for 1st again!
Heh, true enough. I never said I wouldnt be one of those bums fighting for that pizza crust. :D

Hopefully your last comment is accurate, but I have serious misgivings about Lowe's qualifications as GM. I believe the Oilers will have a couple more down years before it gets turned around.

[demzor]

Originally posted by BigRed+Sep 21 2004, 06:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigRed @ Sep 21 2004, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-e-townchamps@Sep 21 2004, 05:59 PM

as for drafting, both teams seem to be on the upward swing and hopefully we'll battling it out for 1st again!

don't know about that ... in all seriousness, i was kind of shocked with the oilers' 1st round picks this year. not that chucko has proven anything, either, but is there anyone in the oilers' system even close to phaneuf? [/b][/quote]
Theres not many teams who have a Phaneuf in the system.
But one bull dont make a farm, guy...

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by demzor@Sep 21 2004, 12:15 PM
Theres not many teams who have a Phaneuf in the system.
But one bull dont make a farm guy...
Nope, thankfully the Flames have a good -- not great -- prospect group to pull from. If the Russian trio decide to come over shortly I like our prospect group pretty good. Taratukhin, Medvedev, Trubachev. Then Nystrom, VanDerGulik, Ramholt, Tardiff, Krahn, Cunning, Chucko, Prust, Boyd, Seeitsonen. I am more then okay with that group. I think Nystrom, Phaneuf, Prust and maybe one more are going to make the jump to the NHL in 2-3 years.

So while Phaneuf is the only elite prospect, the rest of the group fills out nicely IMO.

[demzor]

Well, as we've discussed before, I'm taking the Oilers system by a country mile after Phaneuf.

And hey.. if the Oilers stink it up like the Flames did to get Phaneuf.. who knows who we might pick! :P

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by demzor@Sep 21 2004, 06:23 PM
Well, as we've discussed before, I'm taking the Oilers system by a country mile after Phaneuf.

And hey.. if the Oilers stink it up like the Flames did to get Phaneuf.. who knows who we might pick! :P
We do know. Jason Bonsignore.

:lol:

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by demzor@Sep 21 2004, 12:23 PM
Well, as we've discussed before, I'm taking the Oilers system by a country mile after Phaneuf.

I was talking about the Flames prospect pool, this wasn't an Edmonton vs Calgary prospect discussion. It was purely about me liking the Flames prospects and you saying that all they have is Phaneuf, which is incorrect. They have a a very good group of young players.

[demzor]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Sep 21 2004, 06:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Sep 21 2004, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-demzor@Sep 21 2004, 06:23 PM
Well, as we've discussed before, I'm taking the Oilers system by a country mile after Phaneuf.

And hey.. if the Oilers stink it up like the Flames did to get Phaneuf.. who knows who we might pick! :P
We do know. Jason Bonsignore.

:lol: [/b][/quote]
Hey.. we got Ryan Smyth low! :P

[demzor]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Sep 21 2004, 06:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Sep 21 2004, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-demzor@Sep 21 2004, 12:23 PM
Well, as we've discussed before, I'm taking the Oilers system by a country mile after Phaneuf.

I was talking about the Flames prospect pool, this wasn't an Edmonton vs Calgary prospect discussion. It was purely about me liking the Flames prospects and you saying that all they have is Phaneuf, which is incorrect. They have a a very good group of young players. [/b][/quote]
All well and good.. but the conversation you entered into WAS about the Oilers/Flames

[looooob]

well this thread has certainly derailed

what started out as a general interest topic with Ethan Moreau claiming that the Oilers are an example that the current CBA is just fine

evolved into a Sens fan saying that the Oilers could have had more on ice success if they had only drafted better (does anyone disagree with this?)

has de-volved into a p*ssing match about whether the Oilers or Flames have drafted better than each other, when clearly both have been terrible

[freakinsaprikin]

Originally posted by looooob@Sep 21 2004, 06:41 PM
well this thread has certainly derailed

what started out as a general interest topic with Ethan Moreau claiming that the Oilers are an example that the current CBA is just fine

evolved into a Sens fan saying that the Oilers could have had more on ice success if they had only drafted better (does anyone disagree with this?)

has de-volved into a p*ssing match about whether the Oilers or Flames have drafted better than each other, when clearly both have been terrible
I agree, in fact i think the flames have done a much better job then the oilers at drafting poorly. :D

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by demzor+Sep 21 2004, 06:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (demzor @ Sep 21 2004, 06:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Snakeeye@Sep 21 2004, 06:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-demzor@Sep 21 2004, 06:23 PM
Well, as we've discussed before, I'm taking the Oilers system by a country mile after Phaneuf.

And hey.. if the Oilers stink it up like the Flames did to get Phaneuf.. who knows who we might pick! :P
We do know. Jason Bonsignore.

:lol:
Hey.. we got Ryan Smyth low! :P [/b][/quote]
Ryan Smyth Lowe? that would be great if you were selecting a team ugly all stars. hehehe

but then again who has 5 cups?? I love Oiler Fans :lol:

[JiriHrdina]

I find it irritating that a Sens fan managed to start another p*ssing match between Oiler and Flames fans.

I say we gang up on him and cite Alexandre Daigle as the pinnacle of bad drafting.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Sep 22 2004, 12:00 AM
I find it irritating that a Sens fan managed to start another p*ssing match between Oiler and Flames fans.

I say we gang up on him and cite Alexandre Daigle as the pinnacle of bad drafting.
Like starting one of those between Oiler and Flame fans is SO difficult. Hell, it's easier to do that then to convince a Leaf fan that the Leafs can acquire anyone in the league with a package of Reichel, Berg and Domi.

C'mon Alex Daigle rules. That guy was money in Ott..... Phil... Tamp... Rang.. Pitts... Minnesota! Yeah! That's it! He was money in Minnesota!

At least Flames fans are under no illusions that their team had bad managment in the 90's. A lot of Oiler fans feel that they should have won the Cup if they didn't have to trade away a couple players who haven't done much elsewhere even though they couldn't draft worth a damn.

[speeds]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 20 2004, 06:39 PM
If everyone is competing with roughly the same payroll, long forgotten concepts like scouting and player development can create a dynasty. Moreau's beloved Oilers were what some might call a "decent" team for a long time in the 80's and into the 90's. I think their payroll was pretty much on par with everyone else, wasn't it? What about the Islanders or the Habs before them?
I very sincerley doubt that EDM had anything but a top 5 payroll when they were a dynasy club. I've never seen anything written about that that I can source, but I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere once upon a time. And I'm also pretty sure PITT had the highest NHL payroll in their heyday.

Stealing this point/question from another board, but it's one that IMO is worth repeating:

If we didn't know the salaries today like we didn't in the 80's, would we even have this talk about big markets, small markets, etc?

The reason the Oilers haven't been a top club in this CBA is their horrendous, and I mean horrendous, drafting. That's it. You can complain about money all you want, it's very likely that if they drafted worth a damn they'd have a better team, able to charge more for a ticket, have earned more home playoff gates, etc.

[e-townchamps]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied+Sep 21 2004, 08:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bertuzzied @ Sep 21 2004, 08:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
alOriginally posted by demzor@Sep 21 2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Snakeeye@Sep 21 2004, 06:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-demzor@Sep 21 2004, 06:23 PM
Well, as we've discussed before, I'm taking the Oilers system by a country mile after Phaneuf.

And hey.. if the Oilers stink it up like the Flames did to get Phaneuf.. who knows who we might pick! :P
We do know. Jason Bonsignore.

:lol:
Hey.. we got Ryan Smyth low! :P
Ryan Smyth Lowe? that would be great if you were selecting a team ugly all stars. hehehe

but then again who has 5 cups?? I love Oiler Fans :lol: [/b][/quote]
but then again, who was the WC championship? god I love Flamers :D ...
heed your own advice... ;)
although this has turned into a p*ssing match, I think we can all agree that we've both sucked in he drafting department

[Language]

Originally posted by speeds@Sep 22 2004, 03:51 AM
[QUOTE=RougeUnderoos,Sep 20 2004, 06:39 PM]

The reason the Oilers haven't been a top club in this CBA is their horrendous, and I mean horrendous, drafting. That's it. You can complain about money all you want, it's very likely that if they drafted worth a damn they'd have a better team, able to charge more for a ticket, have earned more home playoff gates, etc.

There's no denying that the drafting was horrendous, and that it is only improving now. But saying that is the only reason, and money isn't that big of a deal is a pretty big stretch.

If the Oilers were able to keep Guerin, Weight, Hamrlik, and Curtis Joseph, on top of already having Ryan Smyth, that is still a very good list of essentials. A number one centre, a number one winger, a #1-2 defenceman, and a number one goalie right there. That's a pretty good base to build around if we had the money to keep them.

[Seachd]

Originally posted by leonk19@Sep 22 2004, 04:24 AM
There's no denying that the drafting was horrendous, and that it is only improving now. But saying that is the only reason, and money isn't that big of a deal is a pretty big stretch.
I agree. Who exactly has Toronto drafted that makes them a competitive team (sickeningly enough)? There's got to be a bit of a balance between drafting, development, trading, signing, etc. I'm not prepared to say it was all about the drafting, because I have a hard time believing it's true.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Seachd+Sep 22 2004, 05:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Seachd @ Sep 22 2004, 05:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leonk19@Sep 22 2004, 04:24 AM
There's no denying that the drafting was horrendous, and that it is only improving now. But saying that is the only reason, and money isn't that big of a deal is a pretty big stretch.
I agree. Who exactly has Toronto drafted that makes them a competitive team (sickeningly enough)? There's got to be a bit of a balance between drafting, development, trading, signing, etc. I'm not prepared to say it was all about the drafting, because I have a hard time believing it's true. [/b][/quote]
I think the last player Toronto actually developed into something (well not much) Was Felix Potvin. Seriously.

I don't count Stajan at the moment since he hasn't really amounted to much of anything, but maybe down the line he could be #2 over the past 10 years.

[speeds]

Originally posted by Seachd+Sep 22 2004, 05:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Seachd @ Sep 22 2004, 05:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leonk19@Sep 22 2004, 04:24 AM
There's no denying that the drafting was horrendous, and that it is only improving now. But saying that is the only reason, and money isn't that big of a deal is a pretty big stretch.
I agree. Who exactly has Toronto drafted that makes them a competitive team (sickeningly enough)? There's got to be a bit of a balance between drafting, development, trading, signing, etc. I'm not prepared to say it was all about the drafting, because I have a hard time believing it's true. [/b][/quote]
I can see what you are saying, but TOR is IMO a bad example because they are a team that can make money no matter how awful their team is, so they can aford to buy players at their whim. DET doesn't have that advantage, COL doesn't, the only other team like that in the NHL might be NYR.

There was nothing stopping EDM from being OTT under this CBA besides putrid drafting and development of drafted players.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 22 2004, 05:37 AM
I think the last player Toronto actually developed into something (well not much) Was Felix Potvin. Seriously.

I don't count Stajan at the moment since he hasn't really amounted to much of anything, but maybe down the line he could be #2 over the past 10 years.
I'd argue guys like Modin, Sullivan, etc were all developed by Toronto. Doesn't make up for the fact they waived or dealt them in horrible deals but they were brought up through the system.

[speeds]

Originally posted by leonk19@Sep 22 2004, 04:24 AM
[QUOTE=speeds,Sep 22 2004, 03:51 AM]
There's no denying that the drafting was horrendous, and that it is only improving now. But saying that is the only reason, and money isn't that big of a deal is a pretty big stretch.

If the Oilers were able to keep Guerin, Weight, Hamrlik, and Curtis Joseph, on top of already having Ryan Smyth, that is still a very good list of essentials. A number one centre, a number one winger, a #1-2 defenceman, and a number one goalie right there. That's a pretty good base to build around if we had the money to keep them.
I suppose money was a factor, in that if they were TO or NYR they'd have kept them, but they'd probably be more like a STL than they would be a COL/DET had they kept them.

[speeds]

Originally posted by speeds@Sep 22 2004, 05:54 PM

I suppose money was a factor, in that if they were TO or NYR they'd have kept them, but they'd probably be more like a STL than they would be a COL/DET had they kept them.
I mean, if you undid every bad decision with hindsight, yeah, they'd have been a hell of a team, but who wouldn't?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Sep 22 2004, 11:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Sep 22 2004, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Sep 22 2004, 05:37 AM
I think the last player Toronto actually developed into something (well not much) Was Felix Potvin. Seriously.

I don't count Stajan at the moment since he hasn't really amounted to much of anything, but maybe down the line he could be #2 over the past 10 years.
I'd argue guys like Modin, Sullivan, etc were all developed by Toronto. Doesn't make up for the fact they waived or dealt them in horrible deals but they were brought up through the system. [/b][/quote]
A minor quibble but Sullivan was drafted and developed by the Devils, a team known for their ability to do both. By the time he came to the Leafs Sullivan's development was a fair bit a long.

[HOWITZER]

This got dug up in the "no good" thread. Thought I'd just say that there are a couple line items that Edmonton is a model at.

As a corporate entity, they have done well to sucker the city of edmonton out of so much cash for the new arena. They desperately needed it.
They do an excellent job keeping their fans loyal no matter what. The spin machine is strong up there.
They are arguably the best place in the league for offering top line minutes to newly drafted players.
They have the sports media on their side

[dash_pinched]

Blue Jackets management are getting their Oilers shots in re: on-going negotiations with Ryan Johansen:

Blue Jackets general manager Jarmo Kekalainen is countering: "We will bring Toews into the discussion only after Ryan has won two Stanley Cups and an Olympic gold medal. We will match any offer sheets, unless they come from the Oilers — in which case we’ll take three or four high draft picks and allow Ryan to play in Edmonton. We want to do a bridge contract so that Ryan can prove that he is worth telephone numbers the next time we sit down at this table. We will not do a four-year deal only to see him leave town for nothing in 2018."

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/07/03/its-just-negotiating-not-a-slap-in-the-face.html

[StrykerSteve]

That's a nasty burn.

[Point Blank]

Wow...you know you're no good when even the GM of the Blue Jackets makes fun of your no goodness

[Resolute 14]

I have serious misgivings about Lowe's qualifications as GM. I believe the Oilers will have a couple more down years before it gets turned around.

Unnecessary bump, but holy hell did I ever underestimate on this one!

[Ashasx]

Wow...you know you're no good when even the GM of the Blue Jackets makes fun of your no goodness

To be fair, the Blue Jackets management is very respectable right now.

[Trailer Fire]

No random drunken bump. No good.

[Rick M.]

The thread title should read 'Oilers Are A Model-T Franchise'. fify

[Table 5]

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think that Oilers bit from the Jackets is a direct quote...it reads more like what the writer is thinking that Kekalainen would say in his argument.

[zukes]

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think that Oilers bit from the Jackets is a direct quote...it reads more like what the writer is thinking that Kekalainen would say in his argument.

I agree, the title of the article even says: MIchael Arace commentary. Still hilarious and true, and potentially even something said off the record.

[nik-]

Do we really need two of these threads? :confused:

[CsInMyBlood]

Do we really need two of these threads? :confused:

This is a 10 year old thread that somebody bumped for some reason.

However it is funny how things haven't changed in Oilerland for 10 years.

[undercoverbrother]

Do we really need two of these threads? :confused:



Good Point!



I suggest that 99 would be a good number of threads to celebrate Mulletville's No Goodness.

[RyZ]

Oiler fans sure were a whole lot more numerous and brave 10 years ago. Tbat team has sucked all the life out of that fan base.

[SeeGeeWhy]

This is a 10 year old thread that somebody bumped for some reason.

So is the Edmonton is No Good thread.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14 http://forumcdn.calgarypuck.com/images/calpuck/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?p=36997#post36997)
I have serious misgivings about Lowe's qualifications as GM. I believe the Oilers will have a couple more down years before it gets turned around.


Unnecessary bump, but holy hell did I ever underestimate on this one!

Oh I don't know if you did THAT much. Just change "years" to "decades" and you would be close.

Now, if it goes into "centuries" then, yeah, kinda missed the mark.

:D

[Barbecue]

I'm beginning to think this was calculated all along

step 1) Put together a piss poor team and promise playoff hope
step 2) Oiler team fails time and time again
step 3) frustrate Oiler fans so much that they have thrown their jerseys on the ice
step 4) Increased sales of Jerseys in replacing the ones thrown away
step 5) Profit!

Genious...pure genious

[CaptainCrunch]

http://www.rcplanecrashes.com/Pictures/Galleries/G2009/planecrash_287.jpg

[Aarongavey]

Nm

[Traditional_Ale]

Edmonton is the EDM capital of Alberta, so obviously their problem is they don't play real hockey.

[BlackWallStreet]

Lol they picked 1st overall in the draft 3 years in a row. How are they a "model franchise"

They're a model of sucking ass

[keratosis]

The thread title should read 'Oilers Are A Model-T Franchise'. fify
Model T was a good car. So your post and the Oilers are no good.

[Shawnski]

Model T was a good car. So your post and the Oilers are no good.

Model Mac-T.... not so good.

[doctajones428]

Lol they picked 1st overall in the draft 3 years in a row. How are they a "model franchise"

They're a model of sucking ass

Well if you look at the date of the OP:

09-20-2004, 09:32 AM

Yeah...