[News] Oilers hire Chiarelli as Hockey Ops President and GM. MacTavish and Lowe stay in org

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The giant huge gaping hole in your analysis is that Crosby played almost all of Rimouski's games, McDavid did not. Otherwise McDavid's stats are more impressive.

You can't use % of total team goals of you aren't correcting for games played

But they're not though. Which stats were more impressive? Crosby had a pretty decisive advantage in PPG.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by 5by5

Beg to differ. Two recent events come to mind. The Kings won the cup last yr because of a deadline trade and ChiaPet is in Edmonton because he screwed up trading Boychuk and Thorton last yr. B4 u say it, yes injuries plyed a part in his demise (missing plyoffs by 1 pt) BUT he blew up the chemistry on the blue line. Cost him his job. No?

Thornton was let go as a UFA, but I think the deal that really did him in was the Seguin trade, which at the time wasn't bad, but in hindsight was a horrible evaluation of talent, which probably wasn't just his fault, but he took the blame for it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Trades are probably one of the least important thing a GM does nowadays.

Originally Posted by 5by5

Beg to differ. Two recent events come to mind. The Kings won the cup last yr because of a deadline trade and ChiaPet is in Edmonton because he screwed up trading Boychuk and Thorton last yr. B4 u say it, yes injuries plyed a part in his demise (missing plyoffs by 1 pt) BUT he blew up the chemistry on the blue line. Cost him his job. No?

While I agree that, generally, trading isn't one of the more important parts of the job, it is also true that some GMs trade more than others. While a guy like Holland is more of an organizational manager, some guys are total horse traders.

Also, trades can become defining moments for an organization. Sometimes a big trade is the catalyst that creates a great team (LA). Other times it tears a team apart.

The Seguin trade was a big one. Having to trade Boychuk, in part because of signing Iginla for $5m, was another. They clearly had large impacts on this team.

It would be wrong to simply dismiss them as not being a significant part of a GM's job.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Trades aren't the only duty of a GM. In fact, it isn't anywhere near the most important part of the job.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Trades are probably one of the least important thing a GM does nowadays.

I don't agree that trades are nowhere near the most important part of a GM's job. GWs are asset managers, and every trade moves assets out and brings new ones in. And, outside of coaching changes, they're the one tool to make changes to an organization outside of the offseason. Consistently "win" trades, and your asset base grows. Consistently "lose" trades, frittering away assets without meaningfully upgrading your organization, and you end up with much barer cupboards.

It's not THE measure of a GM, but it's one worthy of being scrutinized. Writing it off as of little importance is foolish.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Who is writing it off? I said it's the least important if I had to rank the items CliffFletcher gave. That doesn't mean you should be good at them, just that it isn't make our break.

For me, drafting and developing is number one. What's your first and last?

[CliffFletcher]

Trades are often attempts to fix mistakes in drafting, development, and cap management. Making lots of trades is usually a sign of bad or desperate management.

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Thornton was let go as a UFA, but I think the deal that really did him in was the Seguin trade, which at the time wasn't bad, but in hindsight was a horrible evaluation of talent, which probably wasn't just his fault, but he took the blame for it.

It's only horrible in hindsight because a perrenial 70 pt player suffered multiple concussions and became a shadow of former self.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How many trades does Ken Holland make?

Assuming the NHL Trade Tracker site is correct, Chiarelli made more trades in 9 seasons as GM of the Bruins (63) than Holland has made in 18 years as GM of the Wings (52).

Also, Holland took over the defending Stanley Cup Champions and had a virtually unlimited budget for the first half of his time in Detroit. His biggest challenge was making sure he didn't screw up a good thing.

In Boston, Chiarelli took over the 26th place team, that had missed the playoffs by 18 points. In Edmonton, he is taking over the 28th place team, that missed the playoffs by 35 points.

If the Oilers are ever going to return to being one of the top teams in the league, Chiarelli is going to have to make some big changes, which likely means trading a couple of their young "stars". Ultimately, his time as GM of the Oilers will be judged by how well those trades work out.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Who is writing it off? I said it's the least important if I had to rank the items CliffFletcher gave. That doesn't mean you should be good at them, just that it isn't make our break.

For me, drafting and developing is number one. What's your first and last?

Saying it's the least important isn't far from writing it off.

No one said you had to rank aspects of a GM's job. And you shouldn't as they all work together, and strength in one area can offset weakness in another. Yes, drafting is important, but if you're constantly throwing extra picks in trades and/or getting none back, your drafting and scouting aspects will be hamstrung. See the Flames under Sutter.

And if you can turn some prospects into a good established player in a trade, you can side-step some development difficulties in the organization. Look at the way Dallas accelerated their organization with the trade for Seguin.

Looking at a Chiarelli's trade history is valuable, IMO, because it gives a good synopsis of his strengths in a lot of areas you listed. You get to judge each trade to see if a GM is a shrewd dealer. You see what players are being brought in and out, which shows the strength of the team's scouting systems. And, for many of the trades, you see what players were chosen with the picks acquired, which shows the strength, or lack thereof, of the drafting and development.