View Single Post
08-15-2013, 09:24 AM
Hunting A Cup
McCupofOil's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 5-14-6-1
Country: United States
Posts: 20,925
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Sheeshta View Post
I've said it twice: I think the difference between Horcoff and Gordon (net loss) and between Perron and Paajarvi (net improvement) is about the same. I think the bottom six will be as bad this year as it was last year. If RNH didn't have surgery, I'd say the forward corps would be no worse or better this year than last.

However, he did have surgery, he will likely be messed up/not in the line up for October. We will be playing, most likely, nine out of our first 14 games on the road with a centre depth of Gagner, Arcobello, Gordon and Lander. By December they're going to be in a hole they couldn't dig themselves out of with a back hoe.

All of that said, while I never think replacing one rookie with another rookie makes your team all that much better, Eakins will have a really really hard time being worse than Krueger was, so who knows. There almost has to be some improvement there.

If Horcoff was here, Gordon wouldn't be. Gordon was brought in due to the cap space freed up by the Horcoff trade.
You seem to think that losing Horcoff significantly hurt the Oilers when in reality, it would have been a lateral move to keep him.

Also, can you explain why replacing Horcoff with Gordon is such a big net loss? I fail to see how it is. There really isn't that big of a difference offensively as of now. The reason why Horcoff's numbers over the last few seasons have been better than Gordon's is because he played significantly more PP time. Otherwise, their 5 on 5 production is fairly equal with Horcoff having played with much better offensive players. Gordon is also significantly better on faceoffs and better defensively plus the fact that he's in his prime while Horcoff is declining.
Now that i think about it, i think i was being generous to Horcoff by saying that they are equal.

McCupofOil is offline   Reply With Quote