HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Some things MacT could've did to maybe stem the tide

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-06-2004, 04:17 PM
  #51
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neogeo69
Mizral, Matt,

Its with the benefit of hindsight that you say that "its obvious" that Salo was done. Yet for some reason, Pierre Lacroix, a GM that has a reputation for being pretty savvy, was willing to trade away a prospect in order to acquire him as a backup goalie for Colorado. Not so done perhaps?

Also, while it may be "obvious" that Salo was done, I've heard the same thing about other players at the start of the season. A lot of people wrote Ethan Moreau off as a 3rd line winger who just "had" to be traded because of his age, and contract status and also wanting to make room for Rita, or Isbister. Moreau has certainly had an outstanding season, MVP in fact.

The same with Jason Smith. A lot of people wanted him traded at the start of the season because of his impending RFA status, his age, his relatively good trade value and his subpar season last year. But he's come back in a huge way and shown why he's the Oiler captain.

And then there's Brewer. His doubters think he's an overrated, inconsistent defender who will never score the points that they think he should. He's proven to be solid down the stretch run and was the Oilers #1 guy back on the blueline.

We need less hindsight and more foresight. Lowe was right on 3/4 (Brewer, Smith, Moreau). He also brought in Cross, Dvorak, Torres and Isbister at the deadline last year and was again three for four (Isbister being the lone miss so far - mostly due to injuries). He also traded away valuable members - Niinimaa and Carter as well as Pisa for them and strangely enough they are not doing so well this year. (pisa is not in the NHL, Carter has been traded twice and was a disappointment in both LA and NYR and Niiniimaa is slowly rounding back into a top 4 defenseman in NYI after a very slow start). Again, Lowe was 3/3 in trading away assets.

So Lowe's two misses were Isbister (sofar) and Salo. Not too shabby. He works with foresight because he's not a poster who has the advantage of hindsight in his arguments.
Let me preface my comment by saying that I think Lowe is doing a fine job. I think MAB, York, Dvorak, and Torres make up for a lot, and I also think that overall he is doing a fine job.

However, you can't just use the "hindsight is 20/20" as a get out of jail free card to say that any problem could not have been predicted. This argument would have worked if Salo had begun stinking up the joint after the trade, but the truth is that he has been hugely inconsistent for years. Personally, I was very upset when we traded Markkanen away, and I know others here were too, because a lot of us thought that Salo was not playing very well. I'm not professing to be some kind of hockey guru, but to me, the signs were there that there was a good possibility that Salo would be bad again this year.

Finally I do like dawgs argument that this wasn't exactly a Stanley Cup year. There is a lot of truth to this, and I think that although it sucks that the goaltending was terrible this year, this wasn't exactly the Oilers destiny year anyways... so why trade away the future.

oil slick is offline  
Old
04-06-2004, 04:26 PM
  #52
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Yes

I'm not saying you sell the farm for a No.1 when this team isn't a contender. And I'm not saying that there's a Kiprusoff for everyone or that Lowe really erred in not taking him, even though his numbers for two seasons in the A and then one in the NHL certainly made a 2nd rounder not a huge bounty for him

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...3?pid=00015587

I mean he put together one of the best 40 game seasons in NHL history and no it wasn't a slamdunk that he'd be this good but it also wasn't a shot in the dark that he'd be good either.

That is if you put stock in AHL numbers and most of us do.

No, what I was and have said about Tommy is that Lowe should've went out and tried someone else, anyone else to tandem with Ty. There was no reason to believe Tommy was due for a bounceback season. And the longer they held onto him, the further the team sank.

Good point on the Jussi regression from '02-03 BUT you can still say yeah we don't like Jussi as part of a tandem but at the same time we realize Salo is no longer the awnser.

Matts is offline  
Old
04-06-2004, 08:14 PM
  #53
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,112
vCash: 500
Dawgbone,

I don't mind arguing with you, but as soon as you starting calling me names it looks like you're reeling.

Also, I made a great response to this thread, but the server died. So I'm going to respond but in a more concise manner. Forgive me for cutting out some quotes, but I will try to get at everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
See, I knew you would jump all over that one. I didn't think I would have to idiot proof the post, but you proved me wrong there. Thanks Miz. My, our, your... do you not hear fans talk about their team like that. "We need a win". Well I'm not playing on the team, but you get the gist of that don't you?
As I said above, you don't have to name-call, Dawgbone.

Quote:
Congrats that Lowe has had the honour of a your approval over a couple of issues. You've spent more time complaining about Salo, Comrie and Nedved than all of the positives put together, so where does that leave you?
Perhaps it's my negative remarks that garner the most attention, but I certainly do not think I only post negativity. A few things I've talked about all year in terms of positive stuff:

- Don't trade Moreau, he's the MVP of the team this year in the end, and is a key character guy on the team
- Even when Smyth was going bad, I said don't move him.
- York deserved the reigns of this team early on, and I credited MacTavish for giving it to him later on
- Loads of credit for the final 20 game run, along with crediting MacTavish about it.

These are just several examples. You are wrong about me being constantly negative, Dawgbone. You only wish to see it that way.

Quote:
And how do you know Edmonton didn't try that? Everything you talk about is based on hypothetical B.S. that you come up with off the top of your head. I mean, why didn't Lowe get Sakic, Forsberg and Hejduk for Comrie and two 8th round picks?
Trying isn't good enough. If you want a GM who does nothing but try, that's fine, but I'd prefer a guy who does things.

Quote:
Ah yes. Seing as you get to use hind sight all the time, my turn.

Hackett - Had to retire. That would have been a fantastic pickup. Cost $3mil in salary plus at least $2mil to buy out Salo. So that is $5mil for half a season and for goaltending that would have been marginally better. Ask Philly fans how they liked the goals Hackett gave up from centre.

Potvin - Cheaper alternative to Hackett, but are his 2.5 gaa and .902 sv% much better than Salo's 2.58 and .897 sv%? Or what about his 2.66 gaa and .894 sv% from the season before?

Shields - backup, couldn't hack it as a starter. He was over .500 twice in his career, one was where he played 16 games, the other 3.

Storr - Won't even go there. His dad coached my team one year and he's a great guy, but isn't a starter on anyone's team.

Hurme - 29 year old backup.

Hedberg - Was hurt for a good part of the season, put up numbers similar to Salo, would have cost the Oilers a 2nd round pick.

Cechmanek - He's about the only goalie in the list who would have been any kind of realistic upgrade on Salo.

Kipprusoff - already commented on him.

So basically, only 2 goalies on that list would have been better than Salo this season. One of them was coming off a horrible season, the other was Cechmanek. Instead of wasting my time and naming every goaltender that was moved. How about goaltenders that would have been a significant enough upgrade on Salo that it would have warranted both getting them and buying out Salo (as well as what ever compensation was required if a trade was needed).
You are ignoring the subject at hand, Dawgbone. There were goaltenders available. That was my point. Not how good they were. But as you can see, a couple of them could have been starters, and several of those guys had better stats than Salo.

Quote:
Reportedly this, reportedly that. If you don't have a link, it's coming out of your rear end for all I know. Reportedly means nothing, other than someone having a little too much free time, and not enough to do. Fernandez is one thing, but what has Ahonene ever accomplished that warrants being handed an NHL starting job?

Kolzig nearly went, and Gerber was pursued by the Leafs. Did any go? Maybe because the asking price for Kolzig (along with his salary) was way too high, and maybe Gerber didn't go because he wasn't available
Spector's Hockey had this on their archives, unfortunatly the archives only went back to March 11th though, so this is the only one about Gerber I could find. There were several others from many other sources regarding not only Gerber, but others.

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Chris Foster reports the Toronto Maple Leafs made an offer to the Anaheim Mighty Ducks for backup goalie Martin Gerber but Ducks GM Bryan Murray didn't get the high pick or prospect he was seeking from them and opted to retain the Swiss netminder. Murray did suggest he might trade Gerber this summer to make room for prospect Ilya Bryzgalov.

So you're wrong on Gerber for sure, Dawgbone.

Quote:
Boucher? Thanks. Took his 5 shutouts and disappeared. Bierk? Sure, let's trade for an injured goalie that missed 66 games. No wonder he was on the block.

Tugnutt's career is more or less at an end, and once again, is that an upgrade, or even a levelling off with regards to Salo? Nope.

Cujo stopped being available late November, and with all his injury problems this season, even $4mil was too much to pay for him. And guess what? He and Conklin were injured at the exact same time, meaning that during that 11 game stretch, Tyler Moss and Steve Valiquette were the Oilers goaltenders (during which time Salo went 5-3-1 with a 2.52 GAA and .907 sv%). Geez... this hindsight stuff is awesome.

Noronen and Biron reportedly were available here, and there and everywhere... they didn't get dealt meaning they might not be as available as you think.
Once again, you are not paying attention to the point of listing these goaltenders. In that there were guys available, which you were attempting to tell me was not the case. You are wrong here too, Dawgbone. There are a ton of guys out there Lowe could have moved for. Some maybe better than Salo, some maybe not. The point is, there were guys he could have went at, and this isn't including the other rumours I might be forgetting - maybe you can E-mail Spector's and I'm sure he'd give you a good list of goaltenders rumoured to be on the block this past season.

Quote:
Sometimes you have to take a chance... thanks. Lowe should have just taken a chance on Irbe then, would that have made you happy? It may have been possible for Lowe to acquire a #1 goaltender, but at what cost? Nedved came at virtually no cost. And what you said isn't even worth the dirt in between the keys on your keyboard. According to you, the Oilers should have used Jamie Storr as their starting goalie this year. That pretty much ended this whole conversation.
I never said Lowe should have taken a chance on Irbe. You took that way out of context.

What I am saying is that guys were out there, and Lowe could have took a chance on one. Several had better years than Salo this year, and no doubt some will have better numbers than Salo next year (if he ever plays in the NHL again).

Where did I say that the Oilers, 'should have used Jamie Stoff as their starting goalie this year?'

I would like you to find where I said that, as I don't believe I did - and if you are simply making things up to combat my arguements, I'd just as soon as quit this now.

Quote:
And what were they looking for in return? Links, mr. mod, links. If you can't provide one, I expect to see you banned for the required amount of time, just so we can all see that it's nice and fair here.
As you can see, I put a bit on Gerber above on this post. I couldn't find more on Spector's, but if you want to seek others out yourself, you can probobly E-mail the site.

Quote:
You don't even bother to check things out before you talk do you? He made 35 appearances, and 30 of them were starts. 5 out of 35 isn't many. You are right (imagine that, even the sun shines on a dog's ass every now and then), that Noronen didn't start many games down the stretch. And the Sabres may not have needed him down the stretch, but might they not need him next year? He's only 24, and he could very well fit into their plans for the future. Pretty short sighted of you on that aspect. Just because you don't see a need, it doesn't mean that the organization doesn't see a fit.
You said, '... but might they not need him next year?'

Might means they might need him, but they also might not. Which is what I was saying. Glad to see you're in agreement with me here, Dawgbone.

Quote:
Yeah, it's a good thing the Devils took that flyer on him with their 9th round pick.

Oh wait... he was picked in the first round wasn't he?
That's right. Somewhere after Trevor Kidd.


Quote:
Hmmm... are you really comparing the two deals?

Salo started 58 and 62 games the year before the Oilers traded for him. Kipper hadn't even played 45 in his career. Salo cost Matts Lingren and an 8th round pick. That wasn't a risk. That wasn't a chance.
Salo was not great on the Isle. Which is another example of something you said below here, but to keep on this part here, I am not comparing the two deals, but rather the situations. Kipper wasn't a starter, but both guys were coming off sitautions where the team didn't like him and was looking to move him. Also, at the time, Lindgren was thought of as a possible breakout player down the road, so it's no less of a risk than the 2nd rounder that the Flames gave up for Kipper probobly.

Quote:
If the Oilers were cup contenders this season, I would be singing a different tune. If Lowe had re-signed Salo at $3.9 mil to comeback this season, I would be singing a different tune. Lowe has a long term plan, and unless he can get a good young starting goalie, it isn't worth giving up assets for. I don't think Lowe thinks either guy is a 60+ game starter.
Rebuilding teams can still have good goaltending. I don't think a team has to go into a tank just to rebuild - or 'retool', whatever you want to call it. Also, doesn't this smack in the face of the addition of Markkanen in the Nedved deal? Apperantly Lowe doesn't agree with you here either.

You can have a long term plan, but you can't ignore the short-term either. As Lowe certainly didn't when he made those moves at the deadline.

Quote:
I never said Conklin is no longer a backup goalie. I said 2 years ago he was a backup in the AHL. Where do you come from with this stuff. Where were you at the beginning of last season saying the Oilers should get rid of Salo? Two years ago Kevin Lowe had to go with Salo, and if you don't think that is correct, you should consider taking up shuffle board, because hockey isn't the game for you. Do you bail on every player after a bad season?
Lowe *had* to go with Salo? Not true. There were several options with Salo at that point in time. At that time, Salo even had trade value. Later on, he could have bought him out (at this time it probobly wouldn't have been a great move) and went with other options such as what he's got no in Markkanen or Conklin. I believe you are trying to say that Lowe was putting all his eggs in one basket with Salo. I do not agree.

Quote:
No we can't. Once again, that is using hindsight, which no one has. It is completely ignorant and unfair to criticize because of hindsight. Just like if Salo has a bounce-back year next year, Lowe shouldn't be criticized. I mean if a player has a bad year after a pretty good career for your team, you give them the benefit of the doubt once. Salo got that and it didn't work.
This is a silly arguement. How else can you judge a general manager BUT with looking back on what he's done?

Isn't that the same arguement that Mike Milbury uses in his contract negotiations with the Isles ownership these days? Or Glen Sather with Dolan? Truely, if you feel this way, then you must also concede that it's not fair to laud praise on GM's for the moves that pay off too.

Quote:
Do you know who else was finished? Ed Belfour, Sean Burke and Grant Fuhr. Belfour has been one of the top goalies in the NHL for the past 2 seasons, despite being left for dead. Sean Burke was an also-ran goaltender who's career was almost dead before he went to Phoenix (where he put up his best numbers). When Fuhr went to St Louis, he had his best years (numbers-wise) and resurrected a hall of fame career from a downward spiral. All 3 of those guys were proclaimed finished by so-called experts and people who knew anything about goaltending.
Until Salo bounces back, this arguement is worthless.

Quote:
No one slags Matts for being right. Take your cranial cavity out of your anal one. Matts gets slagged because of the fact that he kept saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and (annoying isn't it?), over again. Once again, after idiot proofing my post from an obvious idiot, I didn't mean him as my GM. It's easier to say my our our team as opposed to the Edmonton Oilers all the time. There is also a difference between biased, and hating everything that goes on, which is what most of us see from yourself and Matts. Matts does not like Lowe as GM. He's inferred it on numerous occasions. Really tough to be unbiased (in the positive sense) when you don't like a guy.
I've seen Matts say some nice things about the Oilers team. Again, I think you only read what you want to read, Dawgbone. Matts may not like Lowe as a GM, but that's allowed you know. And does liking Lowe somehow make you move biased than not liking him?

Who would be the more biased guy - the guy that attacks Mike Milbury based on his past moves, or the guy that defends Milbury based on the arguement that hindsight in 20/20?

Quote:
If you were to actually make up your mind about what you are talking about, we could have a real conversation. You said Don't you think it's slightly fair to criticize Lowe's handling of the goaltending considering in the last two years, the Oilers GAA has been near the bottom of the league?

The Oilers GAA was exactly where I said it was. The Oilers GAA were the exact numbers I said it was. The Oilers GAA wasn't 34th overall (tough when there are only 30 teams). The Oilers GAA isn't based on 28 games, but 82. The Oilers GAA consists of more than just Salo.

So maybe you should get your arguments together before you start glue sniffing comments. You know, actually know what you are talking about before you talk.
Judging by the time of your post, you saw the edit Dawgbone.

Quote:
Well seeing as that Link is pretty meaningless, based on the fact you decided to change what you were talking about. In case you lived in a vaccum, Weekes was never an unknown. He was a very hyped goaltender on both Florida and Long island (at 24 he won most outstanding goalie in the IHL). Heck even Vancouver touted him as their goalie of the future when they first got him in the Bure deal. Manny Fernandez was never an unknown. He won the MVP in the Q. His first full season in the NHL he was a great backup. None of the goalies that you mentioned had a poor season like Kipper the year before they were traded. Not a single one of them.
I'm talking about the NHL here, not junior leagues. Try to follow along.

Weekes was terrible here in Vancouver, and missed a practice after making up a false story than he had been mugged. Hyped indeed.

Martin Brochu was also tagged with the 'goaltender of the future' mark here in Vancouver.

Fernandez didn't really make a name for himself until last year when he konked out the Avs in the playoffs.

How about Dan Cloutier for having a bad year before they were traded?

Heck, most of those guys weren't good before they were traded. If you want to use the term 'poor season', that's all about standards. If you are saying, which it sounds like you are, that a poor season for Kiprusoff would have been a TERRIBLE season, whereas a poor season for Patrick Roy would have been only top a 10 goaltender instead of a top 5 guy, then yes it makes sense. Too bad that's a silly arguement, and you know darn well what I was talking about. They weren't 'good' before they were traded. Now they are. Capiche?

Quote:
Once again, Most of those goaltenders were highly touted players who bounced around but still had good seasons. That is not Kippursoff. There are only 2 goaltenders that were truely available (in other words, who actually got dealt, not this reported BS that you are holding as gospel). They were Kipper and Cechmanek. The only one who had any faith in Kipper was his old coach.
This is pretty linear thinking. If a guy gets traded, he can turn around his play. Every fan of the NHL for any period of time should know that by now.

Quote:
And maybe it was the Oilers scouts who told Lowe to stay away from Kipper... ever think of that? Is that not a likely scenario? I mean the scouts are who the GM gets most of their info from. And after watching how Kipper played last year, and the fact that he lost his job as a backup, I don't really see how you can fault anyone for not taking a flyer on the guy.
It's Lowe's job to hire those scouts. If he isn't hiring smart talent around him, it reflects on him - as it should. Lou Lameriello is lauded for the picks that his head scout, David Conte makes - and that's just, as Lou hired Conte. Just as we get on Milbury for making some of his bonehead moves - no doubt some of those moves had to do with his scouts.


Last edited by Mizral: 04-07-2004 at 12:14 PM.
Mizral is offline  
Old
04-06-2004, 09:58 PM
  #54
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
I don't mind saying

that Lowe has done some good things. I don't mind saying that as all. In terms of good moves as opposed to bad moves, I think his positive record wins out.

In terms of total impact on the team on the ice, I think he loses because the one area he's failed in is the most important area on the nice. And we don't have the money like the Flyers where we can put a good enough team to mask poor netminding.

DB will say well we have to wait for five years to see Lowe's real impact and it's hard to argue with that logic unless you feel that maybe just maybe Lowe can be held accountable in the years leading up to this five year plan.

On the other hand, it's not hindsight for me to say that Lowe should've dealt Salo because I said it last year after the playoffs


Last edited by Matts: 04-06-2004 at 10:09 PM.
Matts is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 12:00 AM
  #55
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,023
vCash: 500
I hate to interupt this rivetting discussion but I need to know who the Oiler MVP was last year. Can anyone help me out with that as I feel that player would have been an excellent choice to sign to a long term contract extension. Lowe did that this year (ethan) and that took a lot of foresight. I would like to know if he has had this level of foresight more than just this last year.

For that matter, does anyone recall who our MVP was the year before last year? I think Salo wa the MVP the year before that year but I can't reacll who our MVP was for the 2 years before this year.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 01:48 AM
  #56
Narnia
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Narnia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Narnia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich
I hate to interupt this rivetting discussion but I need to know who the Oiler MVP was last year. Can anyone help me out with that as I feel that player would have been an excellent choice to sign to a long term contract extension. Lowe did that this year (ethan) and that took a lot of foresight. I would like to know if he has had this level of foresight more than just this last year.

For that matter, does anyone recall who our MVP was the year before last year? I think Salo wa the MVP the year before that year but I can't reacll who our MVP was for the 2 years before this year.
It was shared by Salo and Marchant.

__________________
"He just ate up Robyn Regehr for dinner, a spectacular play by Hemsky, and Robyn Regehr has got doo doo all over his face" - Rod Phillips call on Hemsky's goal vs the Flames
Narnia is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 09:37 AM
  #57
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemsky83
It was shared by Salo and Marchant.
I find it hard to beleive that some are saying that Lowe should have dumped our co-MVP for nothing because they knew Salo was going to be bad the next year. Are these people really trying to convince us that Lowe should have dumped our MVP and gone into the season with 2 question marks in goal???

I

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 12:19 PM
  #58
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich
I find it hard to beleive that some are saying that Lowe should have dumped our co-MVP for nothing because they knew Salo was going to be bad the next year. Are these people really trying to convince us that Lowe should have dumped our MVP and gone into the season with 2 question marks in goal???

I
Everyone at the time questioned that call. They missed the playoffs that year too, and Salo was miserable for stretches that year, and didn't have a great year either. He was the MVP because he was the goaltender. You guys could have plugged in 50% of the keepers in the NHL and you would have seen the goalie win the MVP that year.

Mizral is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 12:24 PM
  #59
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
Dawgbone,

I don't mind arguing with you, but as soon as you starting calling me names it looks like you're reeling.
Ah, but saying that I sniff glue is perfectly acceptable. I will remember that for next time.


Quote:
As I said above, you don't have to name-call, Dawgbone.
You're right, next time I will say that you sniff glue, because that is apparantly more acceptable.


Quote:
Perhaps it's my negative remarks that garner the most attention, but I certainly do not think I only post negativity. A few things I've talked about all year in terms of positive stuff:

- Don't trade Moreau, he's the MVP of the team this year in the end, and is a key character guy on the team
- Even when Smyth was going bad, I said don't move him.
- York deserved the reigns of this team early on, and I credited MacTavish for giving it to him later on
- Loads of credit for the final 20 game run, along with crediting MacTavish about it.
I am talking about sheer number of posts. I don't have time to do it, but I am willing to make a pretty decent wager that you posted far more negative things about the 3 topics I stated, than you did about anything positive all year. Through in the Parise thing, and i'd double up that wager in a heartbeat.

Quote:
Trying isn't good enough. If you want a GM who does nothing but try, that's fine, but I'd prefer a guy who does things.
How do you respond to something like this? If Garon cost Brewer, Comrie and York, should the Oilers have done it? Lowe would have done something, so I guess you would prefer that wouldn't you? I mean he got Garon, not just tried.

Quote:
You are ignoring the subject at hand, Dawgbone. There were goaltenders available. That was my point. Not how good they were. But as you can see, a couple of them could have been starters, and several of those guys had better stats than Salo.
I'm not ignoring anything Mizral. Like I said in my reply, just naming a bunch of crap goalies is a waste of time. At least name guys who were enough of an upgrade on Salo that it would warrant their cost to sign them, trade for them, and buyout Salo. Of all those guys you mentioned, only two were a real enough upgrade on Salo to warrant the move, and one of them had a worse year than Salo the year before.

Mizral, I don't mind arguing, but get real. You are saying Lowe should have gotten someone else. Fine, then who should he have gotten? You naming guys like Jamie Storr is a waste of your time for thinking about him, and my time for trying to figure out if he could or couldn't have made a difference for the Oilers. Yes, several of those guys had better stats, but they were marginally better at best. Now the question I posed is this: were they better enough to warrant the cost to get them and to get rid of Salo (as we don't know what that was)?

Quote:
Spector's Hockey had this on their archives, unfortunatly the archives only went back to March 11th though, so this is the only one about Gerber I could find. There were several others from many other sources regarding not only Gerber, but others.

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Chris Foster reports the Toronto Maple Leafs made an offer to the Anaheim Mighty Ducks for backup goalie Martin Gerber but Ducks GM Bryan Murray didn't get the high pick or prospect he was seeking from them and opted to retain the Swiss netminder. Murray did suggest he might trade Gerber this summer to make room for prospect Ilya Bryzgalov.

So you're wrong on Gerber for sure, Dawgbone.
A high pick or high prospect. For a backup 30 year old goaltender. That pretty much sums it all up right there. And this season wasn't this summer was it? When do you think Gerber became available? Probably right around the time the Ducks playoff chances went out the window. That is not aggressively shopping the guy around, which is what you said wasn't it?


Quote:
Once again, you are not paying attention to the point of listing these goaltenders. In that there were guys available, which you were attempting to tell me was not the case. You are wrong here too, Dawgbone. There are a ton of guys out there Lowe could have moved for. Some maybe better than Salo, some maybe not. The point is, there were guys he could have went at, and this isn't including the other rumours I might be forgetting - maybe you can E-mail Spector's and I'm sure he'd give you a good list of goaltenders rumoured to be on the block this past season.
Once again, you are not focusing on the objectvie here. Naming Jamie Storr, or Brian Boucher is akin to me naming Dominic Pittis as a guy who the Oilers could have gotten to replace Horcoff as the #1 centre in February. Mizral, if you are going to name guys, name guys who would have made a more positive impact on the team than Salo. Enough to warrant what it would have taken to both aquire them, and get rid of Salo. Out of all the goalies you mentioned, only Kipper and Cechmanek fit the bill. Cechmanek is the only guy I would have tried to pick up in September (out of the guys that went). As for guys who weren't available... as soon as Hasek went down, Cujo wasn't available. That is not fiction, that is fact. Noronen and Biron might have been available, but they might not have. We can sit here and say that they have to move one of those guys for Miller, but we don't make that decision do we? They can move one at the draft, they didn't have to move one this season.

And I ask you this. If you go with someone else, still spending $5+mil on goaltending and end up in the same position, what have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing. Is that what a good GM does? Explain to me the point in dumping Salo and buying him out for $2.5 mil, and signing Potvin to $1.3 mil? You save 100K, and get you get virtually the same goaltending. It's musical chairs Mizral, and it's a waste of time.

Quote:
I never said Lowe should have taken a chance on Irbe. You took that way out of context.

What I am saying is that guys were out there, and Lowe could have took a chance on one. Several had better years than Salo this year, and no doubt some will have better numbers than Salo next year (if he ever plays in the NHL again).

Where did I say that the Oilers, 'should have used Jamie Stoff as their starting goalie this year?'

I would like you to find where I said that, as I don't believe I did - and if you are simply making things up to combat my arguements, I'd just as soon as quit this now.
Mizral, read those 4 sentences. Look at them long and hard. You don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about do you?

Lowe could have taken a chance on one.

So he could have taken a chance on Irbe, or Storr couldn't he have? That is exactly what you are saying. You brought them up as goalies that were available. Mizral, I don't mind arguing with you, but you contradict yourself if 3 sentences, all in a row, then you get mad at me for "making things up to combat your arguments". I am not making a thing up, I am just going by what you are posting. If you don't think Storr was a better alternative to Salo, then WTF are you bringing his name into this?


Quote:
As you can see, I put a bit on Gerber above on this post. I couldn't find more on Spector's, but if you want to seek others out yourself, you can probobly E-mail the site.
Yes, Gerber went from being aggressively shopped around the league (your words), to the Ducks wanting a high pick/prospect for him (Spector's), to Murray saying he might tradehim in the off-season. There is huge difference between what you said, and what you provided.

Quote:
You said, '... but might they not need him next year?'

Might means they might need him, but they also might not. Which is what I was saying. Glad to see you're in agreement with me here, Dawgbone.
And might means they might not need him, but they also might need him. We can do this for hours Mizral. Might is a pretty useless word, and if that's the backbone of your argument, it's currently in a puddle on the floor.

Quote:
That's right. Somewhere after Trevor Kidd.
Yes... 9 picks. Mizral, lot's of guys out-perform the guys that were drafted ahead of them. Are we using the entry-draft now as an argument?

Quote:
Salo was not great on the Isle. Which is another example of something you said below here, but to keep on this part here, I am not comparing the two deals, but rather the situations. Kipper wasn't a starter, but both guys were coming off sitautions where the team didn't like him and was looking to move him. Also, at the time, Lindgren was thought of as a possible breakout player down the road, so it's no less of a risk than the 2nd rounder that the Flames gave up for Kipper probobly.
I never said he was great. I said he started 62 and 58 games the two years he got traded. The situations were also completely different. Kipper wasn't just not liked, he was coming off a horrible season and was a third stringer. Salo was coming off average seasons, but was still starting. As much as Milbury didn't like him, Salo was still the starting goalie for the Islanders. And Mizral, nobody at anytime thought Matts Lindgren was a breakout player. He was a solid defensive player, but that was about it. Lindgren was also a plugger on a team full of them.

Quote:
Rebuilding teams can still have good goaltending. I don't think a team has to go into a tank just to rebuild - or 'retool', whatever you want to call it. Also, doesn't this smack in the face of the addition of Markkanen in the Nedved deal? Apperantly Lowe doesn't agree with you here either.
I realize that, which is why I said unless you can pick up a good, young goalie, it isn't worth giving up very much. If Lowe has to trade away 3 good resources for a good veteran starting goalie, then do the same thing again in 3 years if the team is pushing for more success, is that good management? I don't think it is. Why not use duct tape and string for 3 years, keep your resources, then get your guy then?

Nedved and Markanen cost Steve Valiquette, Dwight Helmainen and a 4th round pick. Valiquette was expendable because of Moss (who was picked up while conks was hurt), and Morrison. Dwight was another in a long list of defensive centres that the Oilers have. These aren't good resources, they are the 8 cans of lima beans you give away to the food bank during the food drives at work. You have a tonne of them, you can't use them all, so you try things out with them so they don't go to waste.

Quote:
You can have a long term plan, but you can't ignore the short-term either. As Lowe certainly didn't when he made those moves at the deadline.
Like I said, those moves cost Lowe nothing.

Quote:
Lowe *had* to go with Salo? Not true. There were several options with Salo at that point in time. At that time, Salo even had trade value. Later on, he could have bought him out (at this time it probobly wouldn't have been a great move) and went with other options such as what he's got no in Markkanen or Conklin. I believe you are trying to say that Lowe was putting all his eggs in one basket with Salo. I do not agree.
Not true? Salo put up franchise best numbers for the Oilers in most statistical categories two years ago. After a performance like that, why would you get rid of him and go with a green rookie backup in Markkanen, and a guy who was a backup in the AHL (conklin)? Miz, this argument makes very little sense.

Quote:
This is a silly arguement. How else can you judge a general manager BUT with looking back on what he's done?
It's not a silly argument. Looking back on what a GM has done is only one part of it. You need some sort of balance, otherwise every GM is terrible. Simply looking back at the overall results is unfair, you also have to take into account the situation at the time, and the options. For example, you are saying Lowe should have dealt Salo 2 years ago and went with Markkanen and Conks. Mizral, that opinion is completely based on hindsight and hindsight alone. Take 2 seconds and think about what was going on back then. Salo was coming off a career year, Markkanen was a rookie backup and Conklin was a backup in the AHL. You tell me how, as a GM, you can honestly do what you are saying, and expect to remain competetive.

Quote:
Isn't that the same arguement that Mike Milbury uses in his contract negotiations with the Isles ownership these days? Or Glen Sather with Dolan? Truely, if you feel this way, then you must also concede that it's not fair to laud praise on GM's for the moves that pay off too.
I don't know what arguments they use, I am not there am I? Is it fair to praise a GM for trading a 20 year old kid for another 20 year old kid and having him in 5 years turn into an art ross winner? No, I don't think so. Is it fair to praise a guy who trades for a centre who is struggling on another team but shines on yours, especially when you have a big empty hole at centre? Yes, I do.

Quote:
Until Salo bounces back, this arguement is worthless.
No it isn't Mizral. Once again, you are using hindsight. This isn't should Lowe bring Salo back next year in case he bounces back, but rather should Lowe have brought Salo back last year in case he bounces back. the argument isn't worthless because it proves a point. Goaltenders have been written off before and have come back. Salo had a bad year, and he could have comeback. He didn't. Should we unload Smyth this season for nothing because he is coming off a bad season? It isn't uncommon to see a player have a bounce-back season.


Quote:
I've seen Matts say some nice things about the Oilers team. Again, I think you only read what you want to read, Dawgbone. Matts may not like Lowe as a GM, but that's allowed you know. And does liking Lowe somehow make you move biased than not liking him?

Who would be the more biased guy - the guy that attacks Mike Milbury based on his past moves, or the guy that defends Milbury based on the arguement that hindsight in 20/20?
Some nice things, yes. I never said he was negative all the time, I simply said he was more negative than he was positive. That isn't a stretch by any imagination, he's even admitted it. I can't find his post, but I believe it went along the lines of I would be more positive if there was something to be positive about. That is a huge paraphrasing, but it was the gist of the message.

And to answer your question Mizral, neither is more or less biased. If you like a guy you can be biased. If you don't like a guy, you can also be biased. Chances are if you like a guy, you will be biased towards the positve, and if you don't like a guy, you will be biased towards the negative. Biased means your personal feelings and how they interepret what you do.

Hindsight really is the tool of the dumb. Anyone can use hindsight to prove anything that they want to prove, and the real dumb ones stick to it like gospel and preach it around. It's one thing to use hindsight to look at a move in general, then to think about the scenario to make that move to form an opinion on it.

For instance, this Salo thing. Hindsight says that he's now had two bad seasons. That leads you to the obvious conclusion that Salo should have been dealt two years ago. And right here is where your argument ends mizral. However, in order to truely judge what the real options were, you have to look at the scenario at the time.

2 years ago, Salo set all kinds of goaltending franchise records. The backup was a rookie from finland, and they had Marc Lamothe (starting) and Ty Conklin (backup) in Hamilton. Salo still had two years and two club options left, Lamothe was a UFA, and Conks and Markkanen were under contract.

Now, you are saying that at this time, Lowe should have gone with Markkanen and Conklin as his starters and traded away Salo.

I think 30 other GM's and 99% of anyone with hockey knowledge says that you go with Salo as your number 1 again.

And if we want to go with last year, a slightly similar situation. You have 2 guys who you think are capable backups. One is a proven NHL backup, the other had a great playoff run in the AHL. You have a starter who had a poor year, after a fantastic year and who has played pretty good hockey for you throughout his career in Edmonton. I still think that you'd find a majority of the GM's and still a large % of people with hockey knowledge who would stick with the same thing.

Quote:
Judging by the time of your post, you saw the edit Dawgbone.
If I had seen your edit, It would have been in my quote. It wasn't. I was just doing several other things while I was responding, just like I am today.

Quote:
I'm talking about the NHL here, not junior leagues. Try to follow along.
Yet you brought up Martin Brodeur and the Q... Mizral, I am trying to follow, but you are going all over the place. In case you were unaware, alot of the hype that follows young goaltenders around is from minor and junior leagues.

Quote:
Weekes was terrible here in Vancouver, and missed a practice after making up a false story than he had been mugged. Hyped indeed.

Martin Brochu was also tagged with the 'goaltender of the future' mark here in Vancouver.
Did I not say when he first arrived in Vancouver. When the trade was announced, Weekes was touted as the Canucks goalie of the future, so he wasn't a virtual unknown.

And Mizral, stay on topic. I never said any goaltender who is touted is a sure fire star would always be one. You said that the goalies weren't touted, and I said they were. Let's stick to the story... try and follow along will you? I'm getting tired of stopping the wagon because you keep falling off.

Quote:
Fernandez didn't really make a name for himself until last year when he konked out the Avs in the playoffs.
Really? I recall wishing the Oilers would get Fernandez from the Stars when he was a backup there. I also remember him having a fantastic season in Minnesota his first year there. Yeah, the playoffs were a stepping stone for him, but he was known before that.

[/QUOTE]How about Dan Cloutier for having a bad year before they were traded?[/QUOTE]

He played for Tampa when they were the worst team in the NHL. His sv% of .885 and .891 as a 24 year old on the worst team in the NHL is more impressive than Kipper's .879 on a team that was supposed to challenge for a cup.

Quote:
Heck, most of those guys weren't good before they were traded. If you want to use the term 'poor season', that's all about standards. If you are saying, which it sounds like you are, that a poor season for Kiprusoff would have been a TERRIBLE season, whereas a poor season for Patrick Roy would have been only top a 10 goaltender instead of a top 5 guy, then yes it makes sense. Too bad that's a silly arguement, and you know darn well what I was talking about. They weren't 'good' before they were traded. Now they are. Capiche?
Mizral, I have no clue what you are talking about. I mean earlier on you put 4 sentences in a row that all contradict each other, and I am supposed to know what you are talking about. Kipper had the starting job on a team that was supposed to challenge for the cup. He played terribly. None of the other guys you mentioned failed that miserably before they were traded. None of them fell off the bridge like Kipper did when they got a chance to be a starter, especially starters on a good team.

Quote:
This is pretty linear thinking. If a guy gets traded, he can turn around his play. Every fan of the NHL for any period of time should know that by now.
Just like a guy can have a bounce back season... right Mizral?

Quote:
It's Lowe's job to hire those scouts. If he isn't hiring smart talent around him, it reflects on him - as it should. Lou Lameriello is lauded for the picks that his head scout, David Conte makes - and that's just, as Lou hired Conte. Just as we get on Milbury for making some of his bonehead moves - no doubt some of those moves had to do with his scouts.
I am not blaming scouts, or anything. I am just saying, they are the ones who watch the guys play. Sutter frigging coached Kipper, saw him every day, so he should have way more knowledge about him than any scout would. The scouts can only go with what they see on the ice during a game. Kipper last year was lousy in that aspect. Kipper was with the NHL team all season, mostly practicing after the first half. Sutter was pretty much the only one who saw him in any capacity at that time. Turek was hurt, and Sutter knew Kipper was at least a capable backup, even if he wasn't starter material, despite the poor season.


Last edited by dawgbone: 04-07-2004 at 12:34 PM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 12:26 PM
  #60
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
Everyone at the time questioned that call. They missed the playoffs that year too, and Salo was miserable for stretches that year, and didn't have a great year either. He was the MVP because he was the goaltender. You guys could have plugged in 50% of the keepers in the NHL and you would have seen the goalie win the MVP that year.
Amen. Go around to basically any team in the league that had a defined number 1 goaltender, and ask them who their MVP is, and they'll say their goaltender. They are right in a way... the goaltender is the most valuable player on these teams because it is the most important position, not because that player necessarily performs better than all the other players.

That was one of the things that irritates me when people have arguments about goaltenders... people always think that because their goaltender stole a few games, that he is worth keeping. Well, goaltenders often steal games... it's what they do.

oil slick is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 12:40 PM
  #61
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
Amen. Go around to basically any team in the league that had a defined number 1 goaltender, and ask them who their MVP is, and they'll say their goaltender. They are right in a way... the goaltender is the most valuable player on these teams because it is the most important position, not because that player necessarily performs better than all the other players.

That was one of the things that irritates me when people have arguments about goaltenders... people always think that because their goaltender stole a few games, that he is worth keeping. Well, goaltenders often steal games... it's what they do.
fair enough, but how many teams would name their goalie as their MVP and then actively shop him for a pair of hockey socks as Mizral and Matts suggest Lowe should have done?

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 12:42 PM
  #62
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
OH look at what Lowe said today

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich
fair enough, but how many teams would name their goalie as their MVP and then actively shop him for a pair of hockey socks as Mizral and Matts suggest Lowe should have done?
"You cannot have a starting goaltender in this league with a sub .900 save percentage," said Lowe.


Oh really, Lowe, rub your own face in this one

Matts is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 12:52 PM
  #63
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
"You cannot have a starting goaltender in this league with a sub .900 save percentage," said Lowe.


Oh really, Lowe, rub your own face in this one
Yeah, you mentioned that the first time he said it 3 weeks ago when he traded Salo.

The funny part is, for most of the Season Salo provided above .900 goaltending...

dawgbone is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 01:04 PM
  #64
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Yeah

both MacT and Lowe really had the knives out on Tommy yesterday. I'd say better late then never and that would apply to next season for sure.

As for now, well we know how it worked out for Lowe this year

Matts is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 01:46 PM
  #65
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,112
vCash: 500
This is becoming beyond bloated. I asked you to get at the part where I said I thought Jamie Storr should be the starting goaltender of the Oilers, and you didn't even mention it. Really, Dawgbone - making stuff up to win an arguement? Come on now, and let's stick to the facts. I am going to try to wittle this down a bit as the posts are becoming too much to handle. If you want me to go back and address some of the stuff I left out, let me know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I am talking about sheer number of posts. I don't have time to do it, but I am willing to make a pretty decent wager that you posted far more negative things about the 3 topics I stated, than you did about anything positive all year. Through in the Parise thing, and i'd double up that wager in a heartbeat.
Disagree with you here. I think I am more positive than negative on the boards, but actually, I can understand how some people could be more negative - I mean, the team missed the playoffs, Dawgbone. Kind of hard to stay positive sometimes. That said, I've been quite careful not to get overly negative actually. For instance, I don't think I'm being overly negative on this thread.

Quote:
How do you respond to something like this? If Garon cost Brewer, Comrie and York, should the Oilers have done it? Lowe would have done something, so I guess you would prefer that wouldn't you? I mean he got Garon, not just tried.
Garon would never have cost that much, Dawgbone. You're reaching here.

Quote:
I'm not ignoring anything Mizral. Like I said in my reply, just naming a bunch of crap goalies is a waste of time. At least name guys who were enough of an upgrade on Salo that it would warrant their cost to sign them, trade for them, and buyout Salo. Of all those guys you mentioned, only two were a real enough upgrade on Salo to warrant the move, and one of them had a worse year than Salo the year before.

Mizral, I don't mind arguing, but get real. You are saying Lowe should have gotten someone else. Fine, then who should he have gotten? You naming guys like Jamie Storr is a waste of your time for thinking about him, and my time for trying to figure out if he could or couldn't have made a difference for the Oilers. Yes, several of those guys had better stats, but they were marginally better at best. Now the question I posed is this: were they better enough to warrant the cost to get them and to get rid of Salo (as we don't know what that was)?


Once again, you are not focusing on the objectvie here. Naming Jamie Storr, or Brian Boucher is akin to me naming Dominic Pittis as a guy who the Oilers could have gotten to replace Horcoff as the #1 centre in February. Mizral, if you are going to name guys, name guys who would have made a more positive impact on the team than Salo. Enough to warrant what it would have taken to both aquire them, and get rid of Salo. Out of all the goalies you mentioned, only Kipper and Cechmanek fit the bill. Cechmanek is the only guy I would have tried to pick up in September (out of the guys that went). As for guys who weren't available... as soon as Hasek went down, Cujo wasn't available. That is not fiction, that is fact. Noronen and Biron might have been available, but they might not have. We can sit here and say that they have to move one of those guys for Miller, but we don't make that decision do we? They can move one at the draft, they didn't have to move one this season.
My point was that goaltenders were available, nothing more. You say they are crap - well, Kipper was crap at one point in time. That's it on this subject.

Quote:
A high pick or high prospect. For a backup 30 year old goaltender. That pretty much sums it all up right there. And this season wasn't this summer was it? When do you think Gerber became available? Probably right around the time the Ducks playoff chances went out the window. That is not aggressively shopping the guy around, which is what you said wasn't it?
and..

Quote:
Nedved and Markanen cost Steve Valiquette, Dwight Helmainen and a 4th round pick. Valiquette was expendable because of Moss (who was picked up while conks was hurt), and Morrison. Dwight was another in a long list of defensive centres that the Oilers have. These aren't good resources, they are the 8 cans of lima beans you give away to the food bank during the food drives at work. You have a tonne of them, you can't use them all, so you try things out with them so they don't go to waste.
First off, it was Nedved & Markkanen for Dwight Helminen and Stephen Valiquette.. + a 2nd round pick, not a 4th round pick. They moved a high pick in this deal. So moving a high pick and picking up a goaltender here is okay, but moving a high pick and picking up a goaltender like Gerber is not? Okay. Yes they got Nedved too, but the point is they moved a high pick.

Truely, you so undervalue goaltending. Moving a 2nd round pick for a guy like Gerber would have been a slam dunk and everyone here knows it. Heck, moving Philly's 1st for a Garon or Gerber wouldn't be too bad!

Quote:
And I ask you this. If you go with someone else, still spending $5+mil on goaltending and end up in the same position, what have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing. Is that what a good GM does? Explain to me the point in dumping Salo and buying him out for $2.5 mil, and signing Potvin to $1.3 mil? You save 100K, and get you get virtually the same goaltending. It's musical chairs Mizral, and it's a waste of time.
Who said I wanted Potvin? Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Moving a draft pick or prospect for a goaltender such as a Gerber-type, then buying Salo out, or better yet if you could, trade/waive him.

Quote:
Mizral, read those 4 sentences. Look at them long and hard. You don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about do you?

Lowe could have taken a chance on one.

So he could have taken a chance on Irbe, or Storr couldn't he have? That is exactly what you are saying. You brought them up as goalies that were available. Mizral, I don't mind arguing with you, but you contradict yourself if 3 sentences, all in a row, then you get mad at me for "making things up to combat your arguments". I am not making a thing up, I am just going by what you are posting. If you don't think Storr was a better alternative to Salo, then WTF are you bringing his name into this?
Once again, you are not reading my posts. I never said to get Irbe or Storr. However, getting a Gerber is not so bad. Taking a chance on a Noronen wouldn't be stupid. Heck, taking a chance on Sean Burke this coming off-season might be a heck of an idea!

Quote:
Yes, Gerber went from being aggressively shopped around the league (your words), to the Ducks wanting a high pick/prospect for him (Spector's), to Murray saying he might tradehim in the off-season. There is huge difference between what you said, and what you provided.
GM's all spin their yarn at the deadline, you know that Dawgbone. No GM is gonna say, 'Boy I can't wait to trade this guy!'.

Quote:
I never said he was great. I said he started 62 and 58 games the two years he got traded. The situations were also completely different. Kipper wasn't just not liked, he was coming off a horrible season and was a third stringer. Salo was coming off average seasons, but was still starting. As much as Milbury didn't like him, Salo was still the starting goalie for the Islanders. And Mizral, nobody at anytime thought Matts Lindgren was a breakout player. He was a solid defensive player, but that was about it. Lindgren was also a plugger on a team full of them.
You're clinging onto everything and anything. Lindgren was not a career 4th line centre like he is now back then. Salo was the starting goaltender on the Islanders like Sebastian Caron is the starting goaltender on the Penguins. Lack of choices, Dawgbone, lack of choices.

Quote:
I realize that, which is why I said unless you can pick up a good, young goalie, it isn't worth giving up very much. If Lowe has to trade away 3 good resources for a good veteran starting goalie, then do the same thing again in 3 years if the team is pushing for more success, is that good management? I don't think it is. Why not use duct tape and string for 3 years, keep your resources, then get your guy then?
3 years is a long time. Getting a great veteran keeper for 3 years would be a coup for Lowe. Why in gods name would you think that's a bad idea? That seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

Quote:
Not true? Salo put up franchise best numbers for the Oilers in most statistical categories two years ago. After a performance like that, why would you get rid of him and go with a green rookie backup in Markkanen, and a guy who was a backup in the AHL (conklin)? Miz, this argument makes very little sense.
They could have moved him DURING that year you know, Dawgbone. He was not good that year, despite the 'MVP' tag. They could have moved him mid-season when he still had value and made a trade for another guy if they wanted to. That would have lessened the salary big-time and the goalie market at that time was VERY nice, a team like the Oilers could have had their pick of the litter.

Quote:
It's not a silly argument. Looking back on what a GM has done is only one part of it. You need some sort of balance, otherwise every GM is terrible. Simply looking back at the overall results is unfair, you also have to take into account the situation at the time, and the options. For example, you are saying Lowe should have dealt Salo 2 years ago and went with Markkanen and Conks. Mizral, that opinion is completely based on hindsight and hindsight alone. Take 2 seconds and think about what was going on back then. Salo was coming off a career year, Markkanen was a rookie backup and Conklin was a backup in the AHL. You tell me how, as a GM, you can honestly do what you are saying, and expect to remain competetive.

I don't know what arguments they use, I am not there am I? Is it fair to praise a GM for trading a 20 year old kid for another 20 year old kid and having him in 5 years turn into an art ross winner? No, I don't think so. Is it fair to praise a guy who trades for a centre who is struggling on another team but shines on yours, especially when you have a big empty hole at centre? Yes, I do.
Wow, different worlds. I don't even know how to begin at this, so I'm not going to bother. Let's just say I think your wrong every step of the way here, and I'd be willing to bet that 95% of hockey fans would to.

Quote:
No it isn't Mizral. Once again, you are using hindsight. This isn't should Lowe bring Salo back next year in case he bounces back, but rather should Lowe have brought Salo back last year in case he bounces back. the argument isn't worthless because it proves a point. Goaltenders have been written off before and have come back. Salo had a bad year, and he could have comeback. He didn't. Should we unload Smyth this season for nothing because he is coming off a bad season? It isn't uncommon to see a player have a bounce-back season.
Of course I'm using hindsight. Salo was not looking good at the time and was overpaid, and showing very little signs of bouncing back.

I never said they had to unload Smyth to get a goaltender. You're reeling here, Dawgbone.

Quote:
Some nice things, yes. I never said he was negative all the time, I simply said he was more negative than he was positive. That isn't a stretch by any imagination, he's even admitted it. I can't find his post, but I believe it went along the lines of I would be more positive if there was something to be positive about. That is a huge paraphrasing, but it was the gist of the message.

And to answer your question Mizral, neither is more or less biased. If you like a guy you can be biased. If you don't like a guy, you can also be biased. Chances are if you like a guy, you will be biased towards the positve, and if you don't like a guy, you will be biased towards the negative. Biased means your personal feelings and how they interepret what you do.
I don't think Matts personally hates Lowe, I certainly don't. I respect Lowe a great deal personally, and I liked him as a player. But that doesn't make me think he's a great GM either. (Mind you, he's not terrible either)

Quote:
Hindsight really is the tool of the dumb. Anyone can use hindsight to prove anything that they want to prove, and the real dumb ones stick to it like gospel and preach it around. It's one thing to use hindsight to look at a move in general, then to think about the scenario to make that move to form an opinion on it.
I couldn't help but recall this Simpsons line when you said that:

'Anyone can use facts to support their case, Kent. 78% of the people know that.'

Anyways, I felt that paragraph of yours to be absolutely disagreable with myself, and would bet that most others feel the same way. The only way to measure a general manager is by looking back at what happens during his tenure.

Quote:
For instance, this Salo thing. Hindsight says that he's now had two bad seasons. That leads you to the obvious conclusion that Salo should have been dealt two years ago. And right here is where your argument ends mizral. However, in order to truely judge what the real options were, you have to look at the scenario at the time.
I'm developed a new drinking game. Everytime you read the word 'Hindsight' in Dawgbone's posts, you take a shot.

Sorry Dawgbone, that to me is, again, such a foreign idea. You must look back at a GM's tenure to grade him. You can't say, 'What did he try to do?'. You must say, 'What did he do?'.

Quote:
2 years ago, Salo set all kinds of goaltending franchise records. The backup was a rookie from finland, and they had Marc Lamothe (starting) and Ty Conklin (backup) in Hamilton. Salo still had two years and two club options left, Lamothe was a UFA, and Conks and Markkanen were under contract.
Dan Cloutier holds every Canuck goaltending record under the sun practically.

If you couldn't tell, goaltenders are setting records left and right. Setting goaltending records, particularly franchise goaltending records, is not what it used to be, Dawgbone.

Quote:
Now, you are saying that at this time, Lowe should have gone with Markkanen and Conklin as his starters and traded away Salo.

I think 30 other GM's and 99% of anyone with hockey knowledge says that you go with Salo as your number 1 again.
And look where it lead him going with Salo Oh wait, I used hindsight again. *takes a shot*

I never said he should have, only that it was an option that perhaps using.. well, hindsight *shot*, it would have been the better move. But again, he could have traded Salo and traded for another goaltender too. He didn't have to go with just Markkanen and Conklin.

Quote:
And if we want to go with last year, a slightly similar situation. You have 2 guys who you think are capable backups. One is a proven NHL backup, the other had a great playoff run in the AHL. You have a starter who had a poor year, after a fantastic year and who has played pretty good hockey for you throughout his career in Edmonton. I still think that you'd find a majority of the GM's and still a large % of people with hockey knowledge who would stick with the same thing.
Darryl Sutter is one GM who might disagree with you here.

Quote:
He played for Tampa when they were the worst team in the NHL. His sv% of .885 and .891 as a 24 year old on the worst team in the NHL is more impressive than Kipper's .879 on a team that was supposed to challenge for a cup.
More impressive or not, it was still a miserable season.

Quote:
Mizral, I have no clue what you are talking about. I mean earlier on you put 4 sentences in a row that all contradict each other, and I am supposed to know what you are talking about. Kipper had the starting job on a team that was supposed to challenge for the cup. He played terribly. None of the other guys you mentioned failed that miserably before they were traded. None of them fell off the bridge like Kipper did when they got a chance to be a starter, especially starters on a good team.
Let's get the full story here. Kiprusoff didn't play well, but it was the whole Sharks team that fell off the face of the planet. They missed the playoffs that year, and Kiprusoff played only 22 games of the season - it could not have been only him.

Quote:
Just like a guy can have a bounce back season... right Mizral?
Did you think Salo was gonna bounce back? Did anyone?

Quote:
I am not blaming scouts, or anything. I am just saying, they are the ones who watch the guys play. Sutter frigging coached Kipper, saw him every day, so he should have way more knowledge about him than any scout would. The scouts can only go with what they see on the ice during a game. Kipper last year was lousy in that aspect. Kipper was with the NHL team all season, mostly practicing after the first half. Sutter was pretty much the only one who saw him in any capacity at that time. Turek was hurt, and Sutter knew Kipper was at least a capable backup, even if he wasn't starter material, despite the poor season.
You're not blaming scouts? Then are you saying that nobody is to blame for letting Salo piss away the season for the Oilers?

If Sutter was the only guy who knew Kiprusoff and he picked him up, why then did Lowe & MacTavish, the main guys who knew Salo, hold onto him for so long?

Mizral is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 03:11 PM
  #66
barto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,465
vCash: 500
Wow...this feels like poking your toe ahead of you in a minefield, but having actually read all the posts in this thread some comments spring to mind.

Miz, as to your posts and +/- ratio (positive comments to negative ones) I'd say you lean towards the negative to some extent. Many positive comments seem to also include a little 'shot' that colors them. However, I actually enjoy reading many of your posts - you make some good points. At times.

And I would agree that you're not being overly negative in this particular instance, just that you (and db) are hammering away on this one point.

As for rating a GM, I really don't think it's realistic to look ONLY at the moves they did or didn't make. You really do need to look at them framed by the situation they were in at the time. What were the players doing then, what had they been doing just prior to the trade/non-trade, what was going on in the rest of the league, who was playing well/poorly, etc. Hindsight (oops!) without considering the situation at the time is really unfair, in my opinion.

Now saying something like "Lowe tried to move up in the draft the last few years" is where you can either look at it as he 'tried' but didn't actually *do* it, so he failed, or you can say that he wasn't willing to pay the asking price to do it, which could be looked upon as being 'prudent' and wisely managing a team's resources.

Obviously the coaching staff and Lowe thought Salo *could* have a bounce-back year...they were going to have Peeters work on his technique, maybe some personal distractions would be more settled by then, and so on. If the general attitude of the coaches and GM is to show loyalty to players who've shown loyalty to the team (e.g., Salo signing a long-term deal for less than market value AT THE TIME), then I've gotta generally agree with that. If you don't do that to a large extent, nobody will want to be on your team.

Giving Salo another chance to turn things around for this year made more sense to me than going into the year with Conklin and Markkanen. And I can't really think of anyone else out there AT THE TIME who I would've been happy dealing Salo for, either...not even Cechmanek, who'd been REALLY inconsistent for Philly his last year.

The comment about the Oilers also sending a 2nd-round pick for Markkanen and *incidentally* getting Nedved in the deal doesn't come across as your brightest moment - Nedved was the prize in that package deal, so don't dismiss his part in the trade.

And I think dawgbone's point about getting a #1 goalie who'll last for 3 years isn't that it's not a good idea, but it's not a good idea if you have to give up key players who were supposed to be part of the team's future success, esp. if that success was really going to happen around the end of that #1 goalie's tenure.

BTW, setting goaltending records IS still a big deal, at least in Edmonton. I don't know what other goaltending records you were referring to - maybe Boucher's 5-game shutout streak? You really don't see THAT many records being set, esp. Edmonton ones.

dawgbone also never suggested that Smyth be traded for a goaltender - he was comparing the situation with Salo to that of Smyth. Salo was coming off a poor year but was brought back hoping for a 'bounce-back' year. db was suggesting that Smyth should have the same chance after an off year...or rather, pointing out the ironical (sic) nature of others saying we should dump a player after they've had an off year...OK for Salo, not OK for Smyth.

Anyway, there are some thoughts. Fire away!
Bart

barto is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 03:18 PM
  #67
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
Did you think Salo was gonna bounce back? Did anyone?
I did. I also have no problem admitting that I was wrong.

I understand what both Mizral and Matts are saying and I understand what Dawgbone is saying.

The way I am seeing the debate right now is that Mizral and Matts are arguing from the position that this year should have been the priority where as Dawgbone seems to be arguing that in the big picture - the multi year picture, Lowe did just fine - including how he handled Salo.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I agree with Dawgbone. Without rehashing all the reasons why and what if's, by choosing to gamble this year with Salo he doesn't compromise the future.

Based on what transpired at the end of the season, it seems to me that the Oilers figured they could address the position from within. He was able to correct the mistake of trading Markanen and as of right now he has good enough goaltending to take the team through the next step and there were no players lost in the process.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 03:58 PM
  #68
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
This is becoming beyond bloated. I asked you to get at the part where I said I thought Jamie Storr should be the starting goaltender of the Oilers, and you didn't even mention it. Really, Dawgbone - making stuff up to win an arguement? Come on now, and let's stick to the facts. I am going to try to wittle this down a bit as the posts are becoming too much to handle. If you want me to go back and address some of the stuff I left out, let me know.
Mizral, you named him as a goaltender that Lowe could have used instead of Salo. Those were your words, not mine.

Mizral, I asked you this question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Which other goaltenders? Which ones would be decent starters?
Your response included Hackett, Potvin, Shields, Storr, Hurme, Markkanen, Hedberg, Cechmanek, and Kipprusoff.

Mizral, I am not making this stuff up. Go to your post on the third page in this thread. It's your response after you quoted me for the 3rd time. It's right there. I asked which would be decent starters, and Storr was included in your post.

Quote:
Garon would never have cost that much, Dawgbone. You're reaching here.
Yeah, I am reaching. But If Lowe calls Montreal several times asking what else it would take in a Garon-Comrie deal, and Monteal doesn't budge on a price that Lowe thinks is too high, good for him for not taking the deal. You said trying isn't good enough. And that a GM who actually does something is better. Well at what cost Miz? Obviously not the cost I said, as high as it was. So maybe trying is better than doing, in some instances, at some prices.

Quote:
My point was that goaltenders were available, nothing more. You say they are crap - well, Kipper was crap at one point in time. That's it on this subject.
Then why respond to a question of which goaltenders would have been better? Mizral, we've been writing essays back and forth because you don't read. If you are going to answer a question and stick to your answer, fine. Don't answer a question and when you are challenged on it later go and say well I just said blah, blah, blah...

I asked you which goaltenders who were available would have been worth acquiring and would have been better than Salo all things considered. Miz, every one of your posts ducks that question. Every single one. I don't care if you were just naming goalies who were available, that wasn't the question. When you posted the answer to the question I asked, I was figuring you were answering the whole question, so I called you on it. Since then, you've proceeded to duck the question over and over and over again, while more or less saying that I am reaching and misinterpreting.

The question, once again was which of the available goaltenders would have been a better option than Salo.

That is the question. You answered with guys like Shields and Storr... what am I a supposed to think? So don't say I am reaching, or making stuff up to win an argument... these are your very own words. I didn't even cut them from different posts to fit my needs. You responded to my question with an answer (which is provided above).

and..

Quote:
First off, it was Nedved & Markkanen for Dwight Helminen and Stephen Valiquette.. + a 2nd round pick, not a 4th round pick. They moved a high pick in this deal. So moving a high pick and picking up a goaltender here is okay, but moving a high pick and picking up a goaltender like Gerber is not? Okay. Yes they got Nedved too, but the point is they moved a high pick.
First off, the 2nd was a pick that they got from the Leetch signing. And it was Markkanen and a 4th rounder to get that pick. I know what the trade was Mizral. They Basically got Nedved for Valiquette, Helmainen and a 4th pick. That is what the whole thing boils down to. They moved a high pick and filled two holes instead of getting a backup goalie to try and fill just one hole. See the difference there Miz?

Quote:
Truely, you so undervalue goaltending. Moving a 2nd round pick for a guy like Gerber would have been a slam dunk and everyone here knows it. Heck, moving Philly's 1st for a Garon or Gerber wouldn't be too bad!
Mizral, I was a frigging goalie in Hockey for 16 years and a goalie in lacrosse for 10. I don't undervalue goaltending at all. Aside from being slighty older than both Conklin and Markkanen, is he any better than either guy? Realistically, he and Markkanen are very comparable. Both were experienced starters back home before coming over. Both have been comparable in terms of performance as backups up to this point in their careers.

Mizral, what is the real difference between these two guys? Like I said, how available was Gerber before the Ducks fell out of the playoff race?

And Garon and Gerber aren't comparable, so don't put them in the same sentence. Would Phi's 1st for Garon be a good deal? Hell yeah, it would be a steal... but Bob Gainey isn't an idiot. If I am the Habs I don't make a deal like that, at least not until I know what the CBA holds and what kind of money I'll have to pay Theodore.

Quote:
Who said I wanted Potvin? Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Moving a draft pick or prospect for a goaltender such as a Gerber-type, then buying Salo out, or better yet if you could, trade/waive him.
Mizral, once again, you mentioned him in the list of guys who were available and a better option than Salo. Your words, not mine. Mizral, you don't go into a season with a guy with under 22 NHL starts and call him your #1. It's one thing to trade for the guy mid-season if you had a need (like Calgary did), it's another to put yourself in that position from day one.

Quote:
Once again, you are not reading my posts. I never said to get Irbe or Storr. However, getting a Gerber is not so bad. Taking a chance on a Noronen wouldn't be stupid. Heck, taking a chance on Sean Burke this coming off-season might be a heck of an idea!
Mizral, yes I am reading your posts... you just keep stepping all over your feet trying to dodge everything. Gerber is no different from Markkanen or Conklin. Noronen didn't go anywhere, so I have my doubts as to how available he actually is. This coming off-season doesn't address last year.

Quote:
GM's all spin their yarn at the deadline, you know that Dawgbone. No GM is gonna say, 'Boy I can't wait to trade this guy!'.
Mizral, then don't spew garbage about him being "Aggressively shopped". It's not my fault that you can't choose words, or you mis-represent stuff. Gerber, according to the info you provided, was not being aggressively shopped now was he?

Quote:
You're clinging onto everything and anything. Lindgren was not a career 4th line centre like he is now back then. Salo was the starting goaltender on the Islanders like Sebastian Caron is the starting goaltender on the Penguins. Lack of choices, Dawgbone, lack of choices.
Clinging.... Mizral, these are all your words. Lindgren was a footsoldier then, and he was always going to be a foot soldier. There is nothing wrong with that. 15 goals for him was going to be a career high, and that still hasn't changed. BTW, Caron played 40 games this season, not 58 or 62.

Quote:
3 years is a long time. Getting a great veteran keeper for 3 years would be a coup for Lowe. Why in gods name would you think that's a bad idea? That seems absolutely ridiculous to me.
6 resources used as opposed to 3 resources used. I'd rather keep the resources for when we truely need them. If we get a guy now that you know you'll need to replace in 3 years, during which time you know your team won't win the cup, why get him? I mean if you think you can swap him off for a similar return than what you paid, it's a no lose situation, and that is different. But if you have to trade him in 3 years for nothing, or lose him to retirement/free agency what have you done? Wasted resources. And good veteran goalies don't cost your team lima beans. Hell I'd rather use all 6 resources to pick up a superstar type guy if my team is on the cusp.

Quote:
They could have moved him DURING that year you know, Dawgbone. He was not good that year, despite the 'MVP' tag. They could have moved him mid-season when he still had value and made a trade for another guy if they wanted to. That would have lessened the salary big-time and the goalie market at that time was VERY nice, a team like the Oilers could have had their pick of the litter.
Mizral... you keep losing me. Are you talking about last season, or two seasons ago? This is nuts.

Quote:
Wow, different worlds. I don't even know how to begin at this, so I'm not going to bother. Let's just say I think your wrong every step of the way here, and I'd be willing to bet that 95% of hockey fans would to.
I don't. Actually Mizral, I am willing to think that most people look at the end result, and not just judge on that, but also on what happened leading up to that end result. If that were not the case, why do Oiler fans have some pretty positive memories from this season despite the team missing the playoffs? In your world, you just look at the standings and complain. I don't see that. There have been lots of positives from this season that posters talk about, not just the negatives.


Quote:
Of course I'm using hindsight. Salo was not looking good at the time and was overpaid, and showing very little signs of bouncing back.

I never said they had to unload Smyth to get a goaltender. You're reeling here, Dawgbone.
Mizral, what are signs of bouncing back? did Belfour show signs of bouncing back after his last year in Dallas? The only way you know if a guy will bounce back is if he comes back next year and does it. That is exactly the reason hindsight is a stupid tool to use exclusively as your determining factor on everything.

Where did I say Smyth should be traded for a goalie? God Mizral... you've mad this a giant cluster-**** of confusion because you don't read. I said should we unload Smyth because of a bad season now? Iam comparing Smyth to Salo. Smyth is coming off of a bad year, his style of play and injuries might be catching up to him. Should we get rid of him for nothing? He makes $3+ mil/season, and he's showing no signs of being able to bounce back.

Try using a little forsight for a change Mizral... it's not quite as easy.


Quote:
I couldn't help but recall this Simpsons line when you said that:

'Anyone can use facts to support their case, Kent. 78% of the people know that.'

Anyways, I felt that paragraph of yours to be absolutely disagreable with myself, and would bet that most others feel the same way. The only way to measure a general manager is by looking back at what happens during his tenure.
Mizral, I'm not really concerned with whether it is disagreeable with you or not. I personally believe in it. Do you brow beat your self for every bad decision you made when you had a tough choice to make? Do you judge yourself or others solely on the outcomes of their decisions? That's pretty shallow if that's how you view and judge everyone.

Quote:
I'm developed a new drinking game. Everytime you read the word 'Hindsight' in Dawgbone's posts, you take a shot.

Sorry Dawgbone, that to me is, again, such a foreign idea. You must look back at a GM's tenure to grade him. You can't say, 'What did he try to do?'. You must say, 'What did he do?'.
You won't get any more hammered than you do in my drinking game... take a drink any time Mizral states a fact without actually checking it up, or when he mis-quotes you and derives something you never said from it.

How about...

What did he do?
and
What were the realistic options at the time?

Mizral, do the Canucks go with Dan Cloutier next season, or should they trade for Kristian Antilla?

Obviously go with Cloutier, duh!

What if Antilla wins the Vezina next year for another team? Is it fair to criticize Burke for that? I don't think so. Mizral, GM's don't have the option of hindsight (take a drink). So to grade them exclusively on that is a pretty pathetic way of doing anything.

Quote:
Dan Cloutier holds every Canuck goaltending record under the sun practically.

If you couldn't tell, goaltenders are setting records left and right. Setting goaltending records, particularly franchise goaltending records, is not what it used to be, Dawgbone.
Regardless, it was still a very good season for him. Explain to me the reason you deal a goalie away after a career year to go with 2 backups, one of whom was an NHL backup. You wouldn't have done it at that time, and don't ******** us that you would have. That is a bold face lie, and quite frankly is quite pathetic if you need to lie to get your point across.

Quote:
And look where it lead him going with Salo Oh wait, I used hindsight again. *takes a shot*
Yeah, it didn't work out... not arguing that am I?

Quote:
I never said he should have, only that it was an option that perhaps using.. well, hindsight *shot*, it would have been the better move. But again, he could have traded Salo and traded for another goaltender too. He didn't have to go with just Markkanen and Conklin.
Like who?

Jamie Storr?

Quote:
Darryl Sutter is one GM who might disagree with you here.
Did Darryl Sutter have much of a choice? Turek (who oddly enough, Sutter decided to go with as his starter), got hurt.

Sutter's options were Kipper, or a bunch of other crap (like Jamie Storr). If Turek hadn't gotten hurt, do you think he would have dealt for Kipper? I doubt it.

Quote:
Let's get the full story here. Kiprusoff didn't play well, but it was the whole Sharks team that fell off the face of the planet. They missed the playoffs that year, and Kiprusoff played only 22 games of the season - it could not have been only him.
Kipper got them into a hole they couldn't get out of. He only played 22 game because he was horrible, and Toskela was better than him. Do you think the Oilers played well the first 4 months of the season Mizral? Did I say that it was only him? Another mis-quote for the king of them... Mizral (*shot). I said he had the was the starter for a team that was supposed to challenge for the Cup, and that he played terribly.

Quote:
Did you think Salo was gonna bounce back? Did anyone?
I did, and so did a lot of posters. Actually, most posters shared the same mind frame I did... give him another chance to prove himself. I certainly wasn't alone in that regards.

And Mizral, last summer, did you think Kipper was going to bounce back and put up a 1.68 goals against average in 40 starts this season?

I didn't think so.

Quote:
You're not blaming scouts? Then are you saying that nobody is to blame for letting Salo piss away the season for the Oilers?
What's all this blame crap? Blame is a big time sign of insecurity. Do you live your life like this too? Always looking for someone to blame whenever something doesn't go wrong? It was a bad decison.

Quote:
If Sutter was the only guy who knew Kiprusoff and he picked him up, why then did Lowe & MacTavish, the main guys who knew Salo, hold onto him for so long?
Salo was hurt early in the season after a rough start. Tough to trade a guy then isn't it? Then when he came back, Salo was relatively decent (no different than he had been in the past) up until his last 4 or 5 games.

But hey, I guess they should have dumped him and went with Jamie Storr at that point right Mizral?

Do you think Sutter picked up Kipper because he figured he would be a great starting goaltender? I don't. He picked him up because he needed a backup, and he knew Kipper could fill that role. The Oilers had Salo, and maybe they didn't know anyone who would be able to fill in the starters role as well as he could.

I mean, goaltenders don't move during the regular season very often Mizral, especially from Nov-Feb. There is a reason for this. Most teams want to wait until the trade deadline to assess their needs and whether they want to pick up a veteran goaltender for a playoff drive, or maybe dump one off.


Last edited by dawgbone: 04-07-2004 at 04:02 PM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 04:24 PM
  #69
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
I did. I also have no problem admitting that I was wrong.
Yup, me too. I was also wrong. I didn't think he'd bounce back to his form of 3 years ago. I didn't think he'd pull a Belfour and go from two years of awful to top-tier again. But I thought he'd be decent. But he wasn't. I personally don't know anyone that doesn't feel that Tommy was downright awful for the first half of the year, and cost his team a lot of points in the standings.

Quote:
I understand what both Mizral and Matts are saying and I understand what Dawgbone is saying.
Although I'm frequently guilty of long posts on here myself ... I couldn't bring myself to read all the monstrous posts on this thread. But partly because I trust your judgment, but mostly because I'm feeling lazy ... I'm gonna take your word for it.

Quote:
Based on what transpired at the end of the season, it seems to me that the Oilers figured they could address the position from within. He was able to correct the mistake of trading Markanen and as of right now he has good enough goaltending to take the team through the next step and there were no players lost in the process.
Yup, that seems to be it in a nutshell. IMO Lowe took a gamble on Salo and lost ... and that's probably the main reason they missed the playoffs. But in the long run ... its not a move that cost the Oilers long-term.

igor* is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 05:58 PM
  #70
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barto
Wow...this feels like poking your toe ahead of you in a minefield, but having actually read all the posts in this thread some comments spring to mind.
It's a great thread.

(By the way, Dawgbone if you're reading this, I hope you don't take too much of what I'm saying personally - you're a great poster and this is a great thread. Hope we can keep it going)

Quote:
Miz, as to your posts and +/- ratio (positive comments to negative ones) I'd say you lean towards the negative to some extent. Many positive comments seem to also include a little 'shot' that colors them. However, I actually enjoy reading many of your posts - you make some good points. At times.

And I would agree that you're not being overly negative in this particular instance, just that you (and db) are hammering away on this one point.
I dunno, I really don't feel like I'm a negative poster. If that's what I'm viewed as, that's fine. However, there is a lot of reason this year for negativity. I cannot say it doesn't bother me that some folks are optimistic to the bitter end. I don't mean that everyone should be cynical - but that I think it'd be nice to get more than one side of the story from folks here. Perhaps when myself and Matts (and others) post about negative things, in a way, we are balancing out the boards. I don't think anybody would like to see a 24/7 love in about Kevin Lowe any more than they'd want to see a 24/7 hate-a-thon.

Quote:
As for rating a GM, I really don't think it's realistic to look ONLY at the moves they did or didn't make. You really do need to look at them framed by the situation they were in at the time. What were the players doing then, what had they been doing just prior to the trade/non-trade, what was going on in the rest of the league, who was playing well/poorly, etc. Hindsight (oops!) without considering the situation at the time is really unfair, in my opinion.

Now saying something like "Lowe tried to move up in the draft the last few years" is where you can either look at it as he 'tried' but didn't actually *do* it, so he failed, or you can say that he wasn't willing to pay the asking price to do it, which could be looked upon as being 'prudent' and wisely managing a team's resources.
Absolutely, the situation matters. However, ultimatly, we must look at the results. The Wins/Losses ratios, the players statitsics, how they played, and how the team did. We can say, 'Well, Kevin Lowe tried his damndest!' all we want, but at the end of the day, it's about winning.

A good example is the Weight trade. Many folks feel that Lowe could not have gotten anything better considering the situation, whereas others feel that even with the situation, he could have done better. Either way, what probobly matters the most is what actually DID happen, and how it affects the team.

Quote:
Obviously the coaching staff and Lowe thought Salo *could* have a bounce-back year...they were going to have Peeters work on his technique, maybe some personal distractions would be more settled by then, and so on. If the general attitude of the coaches and GM is to show loyalty to players who've shown loyalty to the team (e.g., Salo signing a long-term deal for less than market value AT THE TIME), then I've gotta generally agree with that. If you don't do that to a large extent, nobody will want to be on your team.

Giving Salo another chance to turn things around for this year made more sense to me than going into the year with Conklin and Markkanen. And I can't really think of anyone else out there AT THE TIME who I would've been happy dealing Salo for, either...not even Cechmanek, who'd been REALLY inconsistent for Philly his last year.
Don't get me started on Cechmanek. That guy is the worst starting goaltender in the league, I really believe that.

As for Salo, here is exactly how I feel, not in terms of options, but in terms of how I felt:

2 years ago: I felt going with Salo was wise at the start of the season. Midway through the season, I felt Salo was really losing it. In around January, I was wanting to see another goaltender brought in, and felt Salo could have been traded. The money Salo was making for the performance he was putting up was simply inexcusable some nights. Besides, I reckoned that Salo wasn't getting any younger, and he should have been in his prime, not having bad stretches like he did.

1 Year ago: I felt that Salo was more or less going to bring the team down, but I felt he could have played at least not bad enough to have them out of it by Christmas. After a very strong team play early on, Salo played DREADFUL and was tossing games left and right. At this point, I was AFFIRMED that he was beyond hope and wanted him gone immediatly. I made a post here suggesting that Kevin Lowe put him on waivers and cross his fingers, and make a trade for another goaltender. When Salo went down to injury, I suggested that Lowe ought to trade petty assets to the Yotes and get Zac Bierk (at the time, the Yotes had a 3-goalie situation and it was no secret that they were wanting to move one). Still didn't happen. Salo was then finally moved (better late than never), but I felt that Markkanen/Conklin wasn't going to be enough.

Quote:
The comment about the Oilers also sending a 2nd-round pick for Markkanen and *incidentally* getting Nedved in the deal doesn't come across as your brightest moment - Nedved was the prize in that package deal, so don't dismiss his part in the trade.
Yes, I should not gloss over Nedved as being part of that deal. What I was trying to illustrate was that I don't think a high draft pick should be too much to give up for a good goaltender, so long as they weren't going to be a UFA. In all honesty, I would have moved a 2nd pick & a prospect for a goaltender like Gerber in a minute. Still would.

Quote:
And I think dawgbone's point about getting a #1 goalie who'll last for 3 years isn't that it's not a good idea, but it's not a good idea if you have to give up key players who were supposed to be part of the team's future success, esp. if that success was really going to happen around the end of that #1 goalie's tenure.
Who said you've gotta give up key players? If Kevin Lowe wanted to, he could move one of his 1st picks to Montreal & a prospect like Rita for Garon I suspect. Would that be so bad?

Quote:
BTW, setting goaltending records IS still a big deal, at least in Edmonton. I don't know what other goaltending records you were referring to - maybe Boucher's 5-game shutout streak? You really don't see THAT many records being set, esp. Edmonton ones.
Dan Cloutier set Canuck records across the board this year. And Cloutier sucks!

Quote:
dawgbone also never suggested that Smyth be traded for a goaltender - he was comparing the situation with Salo to that of Smyth. Salo was coming off a poor year but was brought back hoping for a 'bounce-back' year. db was suggesting that Smyth should have the same chance after an off year...or rather, pointing out the ironical (sic) nature of others saying we should dump a player after they've had an off year...OK for Salo, not OK for Smyth.

Anyway, there are some thoughts. Fire away!
Bart
I see, I guess I missed it. However, with Smyth you saw things that made you think he was going to come back and play better. With Salo, you didn't really. Sure Salo would have the occasional good game, but he never really got hot for great periods of times. He may have had good stats for 10 game spurts, but usually during those times he'd still be letting in some really soft goals or being caught out of position more than other guys. Not to mention that for 20 games a season, you can expect Salo to play below-average hockey.

Mizral is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 06:33 PM
  #71
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
I thought Salo would recover, but it was also clear time was running out on Tommy Gun.

I think its important to remember that Salo's big contract came at a time when the Oilers were shedding veterans, and most of us (me certainly) were pretty happy with the signing at the time.

When Salo had a poor year, Lowe had to look at the numbers, plus the usual (age,etc) that might contribute to a players talent level diminishing.

imo, Lowe probably began shopping Salo shortly after that Game 6 debacle last spring, and it took him this long to deal him. I think you could make a fairly strong argument that had Salo been dealt last summer (there were rumors) that the tandem we have now would have been the tandem last fall.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 06:39 PM
  #72
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Come-on there are only 84600 second in a day here!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
It's a great thread.

(By the way, Dawgbone if you're reading this, I hope you don't take too much of what I'm saying personally - you're a great poster and this is a great thread. Hope we can keep it going)...

"However, I actually enjoy reading many of your posts - you make some good points. At times.

And I would agree that you're not being overly negative in this particular instance, just that you (and db) are hammering away on this one point
."
Hey do you guys (non-gendered term) need to get a room or what?

If this thread hadn't already beaten this subject matter into daugfood, I'd vote for having this thread made into a "stinky!" oops I meant "sticky!"

I say let's start arguing about how Miikka Kiprusoff is going to kick Dan Cloutier's butt!

OYLer is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 07:37 PM
  #73
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
It's a great thread.

(By the way, Dawgbone if you're reading this, I hope you don't take too much of what I'm saying personally - you're a great poster and this is a great thread. Hope we can keep it going)
Meh, taking things personally is half the fun. It's usually water over the bridge anyways.

Quote:
As for Salo, here is exactly how I feel, not in terms of options, but in terms of how I felt:

2 years ago: I felt going with Salo was wise at the start of the season. Midway through the season, I felt Salo was really losing it. In around January, I was wanting to see another goaltender brought in, and felt Salo could have been traded. The money Salo was making for the performance he was putting up was simply inexcusable some nights. Besides, I reckoned that Salo wasn't getting any younger, and he should have been in his prime, not having bad stretches like he did.

1 Year ago: I felt that Salo was more or less going to bring the team down, but I felt he could have played at least not bad enough to have them out of it by Christmas. After a very strong team play early on, Salo played DREADFUL and was tossing games left and right. At this point, I was AFFIRMED that he was beyond hope and wanted him gone immediatly. I made a post here suggesting that Kevin Lowe put him on waivers and cross his fingers, and make a trade for another goaltender. When Salo went down to injury, I suggested that Lowe ought to trade petty assets to the Yotes and get Zac Bierk (at the time, the Yotes had a 3-goalie situation and it was no secret that they were wanting to move one). Still didn't happen. Salo was then finally moved (better late than never), but I felt that Markkanen/Conklin wasn't going to be enough.
Mizral, last season Salo didn't start playing bad until January. I think the majority of us felt that after last season, we should give Salo the chance to redeem himself.

And I don't know what Oiler team you were watching, but Strong team play didn't happen early this season.

Quote:
Who said you've gotta give up key players? If Kevin Lowe wanted to, he could move one of his 1st picks to Montreal & a prospect like Rita for Garon I suspect. Would that be so bad?
If they would go for it... which I am not sure they would. Rita didn't necessarily endear himself to Julien last season in Hamilton.

Quote:
Dan Cloutier set Canuck records across the board this year. And Cloutier sucks!
No offense, but it's not like the Canucks have had a history of some pretty good goaltending. I mean if you think of Moog, Fuhr, Ranford, Cujo and Salo, Tommy isn't the guy you think about if you think goaltending records. Cloutier's main competition?

Kirk McLean.

Quote:
I see, I guess I missed it. However, with Smyth you saw things that made you think he was going to come back and play better. With Salo, you didn't really. Sure Salo would have the occasional good game, but he never really got hot for great periods of times. He may have had good stats for 10 game spurts, but usually during those times he'd still be letting in some really soft goals or being caught out of position more than other guys. Not to mention that for 20 games a season, you can expect Salo to play below-average hockey.
Actually Mizral, this is where you are really off-base. last year in November-December, Salo was playing phenomenally. Even during January - early feb this year, he had a great set of games (including 3 shutouts in 6 games).

Mizral, the honest difference between Salo these past 2 years and other years...

1 hot streak. He used to have 3 or 4. Last year he had 2, this season 1. Those hot-streaks always balanced out his play because he would get the Oilers points in games they shouldn't. That is really the only difference. You tend not to notice bad games when a goalie has a .907 sv%, but they are glaring when you have a .896 sv%.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
04-07-2004, 07:58 PM
  #74
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Bottom line: the Oilers don't have a "goaltending situation" anymore. I can't speak for other Oilers fans, but I'm hoping Jussi & Ty will be like a Roloson/Fernandez combo. I am happy with our goalies now, I really am.

Judging from Lowe's and the teams recent comments - I wouldn't be surprised if Lowe was shopping Salo all season but found no takers.

If I had choice and had to take a risk on goalies that were supposedely avaliable, I would still pick Markkanen - ahead of Cechmanek, Kolzig, Storr, what have you, because Juice is cheap and has already exceeded expectations for Edmonton, in my humble opinion.

Of course if given the choice, if the Oilers had a chance to pick up a true #1 goalie this season (which they did not) then I wouldn't object. But it would have to be a great goalie with potential - not some random name like Storr, etc.

My $0.02.

Oilers Hockey is offline  
Old
04-08-2004, 12:28 PM
  #75
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,638
vCash: 500
Yah I'll fess up in this one too. Like many posters, I thought that Salo would bounce back to respectability. Not exactly top tier, but at least "decent" level. I'm too lazy to find it, but I remember at the start of the season there was a thread posted about expectations of the Oilers seasons and a lot of posters had some faith in Salo turning it around.

And I've always hated the argument of hindsight. How about this Mizral? Which goalie would you currently pick up who could be a #1 goaltender? I'm guessing you're saying Garon. What if a) Montreal doesn't want to trade Garon away and LIKE him as a #2? b) Montreal would only trade him away through an overpayment. You say Rita + Philly pick would be enough. What if Gainey laughs at that and says, well since you're looking at getting Garon as a future #1, I need a #1 gritty LW with size like Smyth. Would you do a Smyth for Garon trade? I certiainly wouldn't.

Otherwise, there's not that much out there. You don't like Cechmanek or Cloutier. There's a lot of third tier goalies like Storr, Shields, Hackett etc. There's a number of second tier goalies who are good enough to be capable backups and MAY be a future #1 : Boucher, Garon, Gerber, Bierk, Ari Anohen (sp?), Noronen. I don't see a lot of top tier goalies available. Hasek... for $8 million. Maybe Cujo for $8 million. Biron? who knows what Buffalo wants for him.

Master Lok is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.