One pretty crucial and mitigating factor may be his spouse.
As Edmonton knows well, their consent is important.
Agreed. And that's why I alluded to the fact that location may be a question mark. You can love where you grew up or really hate it. The spouse factor is another variable.
I don't think these deals are as bad as most of CP is making them out to be.
Worst case, Scrivens is a flop and not re-signed. Hendricks brings nothing at 1.85 million and is either buried in the minors or bought out this summer. Essentially the worst-case scenario is Edmonton forfeited at high 3rd-rounder and a goalie who was likely gone anyways.
Best case, Scrivens provides some stability in net and re-signs. Hendricks provides functional toughness and shootout prowess. All for the price of a 3rd and an under-performing UFA goalie.
The actual results should be somewhere in between, which (in my opinion) should make this deal a wash at worst. As much as I love to make fun of the Oilers, I think they did pretty well here. Low risk high reward.
EDIT: Hendricks' contract was signed after the new CBA came out, so he isn't eligible for compliance buy-out (not 100% of these rules, though). Could still bury him if needed.
This is laughable, how is he considered an upgrade over Dubnyk? Oilers keep doing what you're doing...clowns!
For once, BigTuna's massive Maple Leaf homer glasses are right... mostly.
We actually can't make a fair assessment on which goalie is better until we see how Dubnyk plays with a decent defensive team like the Preds, or how Scrivens plays with an AHL team like the Oilers.
They seem to be fairly similar type guys. Both are best suited for back-ups and if they are starters are going to be 25-30th type guys in the league.
Scrivens has benefited from a small sample size as a back-up as well as playing for a defensive team like LA. Dubnyk has been hurt by playing in Edmonton but that doesn't excuse the multiple bad goals he lets in or the fact he seems to rely on being big more than being quick, reading the play, having solid positioning etc.
It is possible that either guy could break out with their new teams but it seems much more likely that both guys will continue to be meh goalies that don't do much but provide mediocre to below average goaltending if relied on being anything more than a back-up.
Why don't we just give them few games? These guys have gotten to this point on some merit and ability so lets take off homer glasses for a sec and lets the games begin.
I don't think these deals are as bad as most of CP is making them out to be.
Worst case, Scrivens is a flop and not re-signed. Hendricks brings nothing at 1.85 million and is either buried in the minors or bought out this summer. Essentially the worst-case scenario is Edmonton forfeited at high 3rd-rounder and a goalie who was likely gone anyways.
Best case, Scrivens provides some stability in net and re-signs. Hendricks provides functional toughness and shootout prowess. All for the price of a 3rd and an under-performing UFA goalie.
The actual results should be somewhere in between, which (in my opinion) should make this deal a wash at worst. As much as I love to make fun of the Oilers, I think they did pretty well here. Low risk high reward.
EDIT: Hendricks' contract was signed after the new CBA came out, so he isn't eligible for compliance buy-out (not 100% of these rules, though). Could still bury him if needed.
The main reason it is bad is that they could just just done nothing and signed Scrivens as a FA in a few months. They took on a bad contract and gave up a high 3rd rounder to rent a goalie for a few months in a season that means nothing (this after they gave up an NHL defenseman for nothing to rent another goalie not so long ago).
Basically they gave up assets/took on a liability for a shot to sign Scrivens. So they are banking that being with the team for a few months will encourage him to sign. I'd argue that their better off not having in the dressing room and seeing the ongoing gong show situation if they want to sign him.
The Following User Says Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
The main reason it is bad is that they could just just done nothing and signed Scrivens as a FA in a few months. They took on a bad contract and gave up a high 3rd rounder to rent a goalie for a few months in a season that means nothing (this after they gave up an NHL defenseman for nothing to rent another goalie not so long ago).
Basically they gave up assets/took on a liability for a shot to sign Scrivens. So they are banking that being with the team for a few months will encourage him to sign. I'd argue that their better off not having in the dressing room and seeing the ongoing gong show situation if they want to sign him.
True, they definitely could have waited and made their pitch on UFA day. But I think the trade accomplishes a couple things:
1. It gives them a chance to make a pitch over the period of a few months, rather than competing with other teams for a few hours. I don't really believe that their dressing room is that 'toxic', that anyone who enters immediately wants out. He'll be more comfortable with the players and staff, which could lead to a better chance of signing, or a slightly better rate.
In 2012, Tampa traded Michel Ouellet and a 5th rounder for Benoit Pouliot, who was set to be a UFA just 8 days later. The Flames have done so for Dennis Wideman and Jay Bouwmeester. None of these deals gave the player a chance to play and become comfortable, which the Scrivens deal does.
2. It shows the fanbase that management is, in fact, not comfortable with losing. Whether or not you or I see Scrivens as an upgrade to Dubnyk, their management team does, and that's what they're pitching to the fanbase.
I really have no idea why I'm defending the Oilers, but the hate for these trades seems over the top.
Best case: Scrivens plays well, oilers move up to draft 10th, Scrivens signs for number 1 money, Scrivens and oilers stink next year, Mrs Scrivens (schwing!) requires trade of hubby to sunnier climes.
EDIT: oilers sign Toskala as a stop gap.
Last edited by Fighting Banana Slug; 01-16-2014 at 10:13 AM.
Not sure I'm sold on this one for the Oilers. A very high 3rd round pick for a guy that can walk at the end of the year? Maybe he re-signs and becomes a solid goalie, I guess we'll see. The moves they made today seem lateral at best, IMO.
Ditto.
I think what seals the deal for me is the Oilers' ability to absolutely ruin talented players.
LA and Edmonton are polar opposites. Literally. LA is #1 in fewest goals against and Edmonton are #30. From best to worst.
Maybe Scrivens is good, but what happens when he gets shelled in Edmonton for 30+ games?
One of the things we've seen in Edmonton is that the compete level can absolutely be sapped away after a while because there is no accountability and losing is okay because there will be a high draft pick at the end.
How will Scrivens fare in a situation like that?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
