I think one interesting thing about this is how having a horribly unbalanced pipeline is not really a positive thing for your team. This could apply to forwards, defencemen or goalies.
The conventional wisdom has always been "take BPA and trade for needs." How many years did it take for Nashville to finally cash in their plethora of D? What about those teams trying to extort Calgary for a good goalie?
And of course, the Oilers - everyone knew they needed a D, so they would have to overpay with forwards.
I think, that while Puljujarvi was the right call, I don't think it would've been that awful for the Oilers to have "reached" and took Murray or Larsson rather than take BPA (widely considered to be RNH and Yak). There is some value in drafting for need. Because otherwise you end up having to make a trade like this to get back on track.
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
+/- is not a great stat to compare with, however Larsson's +15 came on a terrible team. It's not like he was +15 on the Capitals. So it is a meaningful stat in his case.
There were 9 plus-players in NJ last season, and only 4 in Edmonton. While the Devils were the lowest scoring team in the BHL, the Oilers were less than 20 goals better, and they just traded away their second most productive player.
I could see this deal improving the Oilers' goals-against, but don't see how it contributes to improving their anemic offense. They might score even fewer goals next year.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Still don't see the relevance. Because the Flames made a cruddy deal a decade ago we can't take joy in a cruddy deal the Oilers made today?
You can take joy in it all you want, i'm just saying that it is no where near as bad as some of the deals we have seen in the past for stigmatized young core assets.
__________________
Calgary Flames, PLEASE GO TO THE NET! AND SHOOT THE PUCK! GENERATING OFFENSE IS NOT DIFFICULT! SKATE HARD, SHOOT HARD, CRASH THE NET HARD!
Qualify that statement. How did Brodie excel against very tough competition vs. Larsson not excelling? Brodie scored more points, sure, but he was only a +4 on a much better offensive team. Or does Brodie get to blame his goaltending, but Larsson doesn't get to blame his terrible forwards for his lack of points. Larsson was +15 on the worst scoring team in the NHL. Seems to me that he did pretty good. Also started in the defensive zone 70% of the time. The worst in the NHL. Brodie was 50%.
Edit; Want to clarify that I think Brodie > Larsson, but i have a feeling most people saying that Larsson isn't that great have never seen him play.
Brodie is miles ahead of him. And if you're going to make statements like "people saying that Larsson isn't that great have never seen him play", you're just going to get laughed at.
As to the stats - look them up. Giordano and Brodie face some of the toughest competition in the league, have some of the worst zone starts, and yet produce at an elite level. And they have been doing that for about three years.
I think too many people are getting hung up on defending Larsson. He's a good player. No one is disputing that. I'd take him on the Flames any day. He has is place in pretty much any NHL lineup. Larsson being good or bad is not the discussion. He's good. Edmonton got a good defenceman today. There is no debating that.
The issue with this trade is if Larsson is the best return for Hall. Yes, we laugh when Hall makes a leisurely skate to the bench when he should be backchecking but the guy can put up points. He's proven that in his career. He was an all-star because of his ability to score. When it comes to offensive production, he is one of the top wingers in the league. Is a defenceman with almost no offensive upside the right return for that kind of scoring? I don't think so. A lot of people feel the same way, obviously.
I'm a little concerned that by dealing Schultz and now Hall, the Oilers are considering making a serious run at finishing 9-11 in the WC instead of dwelling in the basement.
These deals may end up being your classic "addition by subtraction" kind of trades. In terms of the overall roster's Hockey IQ, it may be more of a case of multiplication by subtraction.
Them finishing 9th would be ideal. Keep the playoff drought alive and keep them from ruining other top prospects.
The Following User Says Thank You to mivdo For This Useful Post:
I think too many people are getting hung up on defending Larsson. He's a good player. No one is disputing that. I'd take him on the Flames any day. He has is place in pretty much any NHL lineup. Larsson being good or bad is not the discussion. He's good. Edmonton got a good defenceman today. There is no debating that.
The issue with this trade is if Larsson is the best return for Hall. Yes, we laugh when Hall makes a leisurely skate to the bench when he should be backchecking but the guy can put up points. He's proven that in his career. He was an all-star because of his ability to score. When it comes to offensive production, he is one of the top wingers in the league. Is a defenceman with almost no offensive upside the right return for that kind of scoring? I don't think so. A lot of people feel the same way, obviously.
He gets zero PP time, starts in the defensive zone and was on the worst offensive team in the league.
