View Single Post
Old
08-15-2013, 10:34 AM
  #53
Sheeshta
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupofOil View Post
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.
I don't think it's a big net loss, I think it's likely a small to medium sized one - as much of a loss as Perron over Paajarvi is a gain.

Horcoff had a bad season last year relative to his career, Gordon had a good one. Their 2013 numbers relative to their career ones are probably outliers for both of them and I think next season (taken in isolation, which is what we're talking about here) Horcoff ends up being a better player than Gordon.

Would I, were I MacTavish, trade Horcoff and sign Gordon? Absolutely. I just don't think that it improves the team next year. The year after that and the year after that, when Gordon's 31 and Horcoff's 37? That's likely when the improvement comes.

This is a hair-splitting argument, really. I like Horc more than Gordon and think that last year was an anomaly rather than a trend. It's perfectly reasonable to think it's a trend rather than an anomaly, in which case you're right.

Sheeshta is offline   Reply With Quote