View Single Post
Old
11-24-2004, 01:18 AM
  #7
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
You are right on this, sorry, and that makes the argument for paying him more for another year stronger. Still, I don't have a real problem with this choice.

What is the right to overpay Todd Marchant worth? On a really good team, Marchant is a third liner and even the big money teams won't pay third liners this kind of money. They aren't interested because they have stars to pay. On a bad team, he is worth second line money, but the bad team won't give up futures for him. Or at least they shouldn't. That's McLean's excuse really. He didn't cost them anything except money.

A couple of other points. First, Lowe probably shopped Marchant that spring. Trading him that year was one of his options, so Lowe probably had an idea about his trade value when he failed to give him the ALS.

Second, Todd made Lowe look really bad by having his career year. In other words, your call works out better for the Oilers when we have the benefit of hindsight. If he was worth anything in a trade, it was a more after the year he had.

(Although to be honest, I think giving too much in a trade is just a big of a mistake as overpaying him. I think sometimes teams get fooled by a good year or a bad year. Results flutuate a lot more than the underlying talent. I always want my team to pay for the talent not merely the latest result.)

Tom
That's a fair point in relation to Lowe having an idea of his worth by having shopped him at the trade deadline. I agree that he made the Oilers look bad by having a career year (massive increase in ice time due to injuries). I'm still fairly confident that Lowe could have gotten a decent return for him at the deadline though. If you look at the deals that go down every year, teams that think that they have a shot are massively overpaying if you consider the change that the new player will cause to the points they can expect to achieve. The playoffs are such a crapshoot that the difference one player makes is minimal as well. In spite of this you see these types of deal go down every year. I think sellers constantly make out like bandits at the deadline, particularly when it's a rent-a-player deal, where a guy is going UFA at the end of the year. The epic example of this is the Bobby Clarke three picks and a prospect for 14 games of Adam Oates. Inexcusable.

In fairness to me, I was posting at fanhome at the time, and thought it was a bizarre move then. If this was like baseball where there a significant number of non-tenders each year, I'd see the move making sense, but it didn't to me in this case.

It still seems nuts to me to say that there was a market for Marchant at 5 years/19 mil, but there was no market for him in a trade, where he would have been an RFA with limited earning power, albeit recourse to arbitration. It's illogical. The good outcomes for Lowe for a gamble of 250K seem pretty numerous to me, the risk low.

On a different topic, you're a Canucks fan, why did Burke let Letowski go? The topic of Moreau has been raised in the Lowe thread-I don't think it makes sense to pay him what he makes (excellent example of the results exceeding the underlying talent this year), and I've cited Letowski as an example of the type of replacement out there. He got two years and 1.5 mil in Columbus. I've always seen him as a third line type-am I wrong?

mudcrutch79 is offline