Thread: Prospect Info: David Musil vs. Oscar Klefbom
View Single Post
Old
02-19-2014, 02:22 AM
  #82
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupofOil View Post
You're not looking at the deal in context. It's not so easy to say that Penner was an NHL player who played a small part in the Kings run so it's an automatic loss for the Oilers. The fact of the matter is that the Oilers were a team that was clearly looking to get younger and Penner was becoming a depreciating asset.
I disagree with this the most, and because I don't subscribe to this notion that the org had that much of a concerted plan. If they had, why wouldn't they be stocking and hanging onto good D PRIOR to assembling good draft pick forwards? Most any team with a clue assures they have some solid D as backdrop forming the structure of a good club. Knowing that D take longer you have to get them FIRST.

The Penner trade was kind of stupid in that assets from that weren't going to be ready in time to help the young quality players that a tanking team was expecting to be drafting.
Something is odd in Denmark. You think the Oilers had a plan, what I just pointed out signifies they didn't have a valid plan.

Quote:
His play was becoming more and more apathetic by the game probably due to the frustration of playing for a losing team so Tambellini got value for him while he could and another big factor is that he was likely going to walk after the next season with an eye for California so Tambo sold him at the highest value that he could. Rebuilding teams make these type of moves all the time so it's not exclusive to the Oilers. It's actually one of the few smart moves that he made in his tenure.
He was never going to match his career year but lets be honest. We went from players like Penner to playing say Omark or Paajarvi. There simply wasn't a lot of point in that.


Quote:
Now, if you want to say that this was a win for L.A., i agree with that because they got exactly what they wanted out of the deal and really didn't have as much a need for prospects and draft picks. They were looking for a short term solution and it worked out for them.
But we didn't get what we needed really.


Quote:
Conversely, the Oilers needed draft picks and prospects considering what state they were in
Se above, they got it wrong. Should have hung onto solid D(they had some) and then start accruing forwards. You can't draft the D and think that they're going to be half baked on time. The clock is ticking. Those D prospects are nice but when..Of the whole Bunch Marancin is worlds apart.

Quote:
and less veterans who quite frankly, didn't seem to have much interest playing for a team that was going nowhere anytime soon so they were looking for a long term solution which has yet to bear fruit.
Yeah, give you that one. Couple years here where it stunk too much for anybody that knows any better to want to be here.

Quote:
I just take issue with those who say that the Oilers lost this deal. It's easy to say that without looking at context but the reality is that it is yet to be determined how the Oilers made out in the deal until we see what type of impact player Klefbom turns out to be or not.
Again I've introduced the notion that Klefbom will have to be a lot better than Penner to even have this be an equal trade due to the 6-7 yr asset deferral.
Few orgs are as comfortable with steadily deferring asset lineup value through prospects accumulation than the Oilers are. The history of this club over the last several years suggests that prospect leveraged assets, and continually stocking those, just keep pushing back the time when this club wll actually be competitive. Every bonafide NHL player, for prospect trade this club has made has set that clock back further.

We're always in 5yrs time here. Except year after year that's a moving target.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote