HFBoards

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

Oilers pushing hard for Ovechkin?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-25-2004, 09:15 PM
  #51
Guy Flaming
HFB Partner
 
Guy Flaming's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Press Box & on Air
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,227
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Guy Flaming Send a message via Skype™ to Guy Flaming
Bishai!

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

Guy Flaming is offline  
Old
06-25-2004, 09:17 PM
  #52
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Flaming
Bishai!

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

EXACTLY!

Lowetide is offline  
Old
06-28-2004, 02:37 PM
  #53
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Alert

Quote:
Originally Posted by igor
Personally, I agree with everything you've said on the subject until now. but the Oilers PP needed help, and they were desparately thin at centre.

Oates should have helped the Oilers PP, Larionov should have helped the NJ powerplay ... neither did. Probably something to do with coaching (If you think MacT's PP personnel decisions defy logic ... watch a Burns team ). But most of it is probably that these guys are old, and old players fall off the map in a hurry at the end of their careers. Its a gamble.

One thing you cannot deny ... is that Adam "cancer" Oates, who has been a defensive liability his entire career, and just terrible in that regard here. ... somehow Lowe and MacT turned him into "a great leader and a terrific defensive player". Bloody hilarious! But talk to fans ... you'd here them echo Lowe's and MacT's words in this town, the media were even worse. For Christmas sakes ... was no one actually watching the games?

It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.

someone besides me nailed the Edm media

When it comes to arguing for/against veteran leadership and what a difference it can make, you'll never lose the argument.

But you'll never win it either

Matts is offline  
Old
06-28-2004, 03:02 PM
  #54
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Hindsight is wonderful ain't it

I laugh of all the people that are NOW saying that Lowe shouldn't have signed him but many of you were the same people that thought the move would help.

Man is is so easy to be a critic after the fact.

We all knew it was a "gamble" when it happened. Lowe rolled the dice and I know if he doesn't do anything he is accused of sitting on his hands (Matts that is for you).

Not every gamble pays off for any team. Colorado paid how much for Selanne? How much is Jagr costing per year? Signing Jagr to a long term contract was a gamble and it is obviously a failure.

Lowes gamble was that Oates would help them make the playoffs, he really didn't help but IMO it really didn't hurt either. So it was IMO a lowe risk gamble, and I have no problem with those kind of gambles.

The signing of Igor Ulanov was a gamble too and that one IMO paid off.

As a GM you take those gambles and not every one is going to work but it is far too easy to criticize after the fact when most people supported the gamble at the time.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
06-28-2004, 04:22 PM
  #55
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
So we signed Oates to get to the summer? What were we endanger of losing summer this year? That's my whole point, if your just building up prospect depth and trying to stay finacially afloat until 2004, why sign an over the hill forward. Why not pocket the money and let your kids play?
With all the hubbub about the draft, I forgot about this thread.

Anyhow, I think you were missing my point here.

The Oilers were not in danger of losing anyone.
The Oilers also didn't have the team to do any damage last year either (barring a Calgary style miracle run).

What the Oilers had, as far as the center spot goes, was good 2 through 4 depth and a couple underage guys that were a year or two away from making the club.

The point I am trying to make is, with the discounted UFA's coming up this summer, with some depth in the system that needs to mature a little what sense does it make for Lowe to go out and take on a contract that extends past this year, may cost a roster player to get and may prove to be an inflated value after this summer?

It doesn't, in my mind, so irregardless of Oates' lack of out put, irregardless of the debatable leadership issue, irregardless of the debatable face off issue - Lowe took the right approach in this case. He signed a veteran at a reasonable price for the remainder of the season to try and fill the hole. The season is over and the Oilers are none the worse for wear because of it. They aren't on the hook for any contract, they still have all their roster guys and have more options because of it.

As far as pocketing the money and playing the kids, look at the scrutiny that occurs on this board and tell me if you honestly think that Lowe holding firm and playing Bishai all year would have gone over well. Try and tell me that if Lowe went out and got a 3.5 million dollar player that had two more years on his contract or his RFA status that no one would have called him out on it.

I think it is safe to say that if Lowe did nothing and brought up a borderline NHLer from T.O. and the team continued to struggle then he would have been underfire for standing pat.

I think it is safe to say that if Lowe brought in say a Radek Bonk and his 3.5 mil contract and impending RFA status he would have been roasted because come this summer he could have signed a Center for perhaps 2.5 or 3.0 mil instead.

And that says nothing of the idea that maybe the upcoming lockout drags for a year and a kid like Pouliot knocks some socks off when the league starts up again.

Actually I think it is safe to say that for every unabashed Lowe lover, there are some here that will call him out irregardless of what he does.

Let me end with a question, instead of saying Lowe was wrong, why don't you tell us what he should have done.

What would have been the better approach to take (and don't say play the kids because that idea would wear thin very quickly as soon as the annual January slump came along)?

copperandblue 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 10:17 AM.

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.