HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

David Musil vs. Oscar Klefbom

View Poll Results: In 2013-14, who is the better prospect?
David Musil 1 0.96%
Oscar Klefbom 92 88.46%
Tie 5 4.81%
No opinion 6 5.77%
Voters: 104. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-19-2014, 12:15 AM
  #76
topchowda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
OKC is not a very good team and with not exceptional D either. I note a lot of posts in the thread not making much difference between Mucil and Klefbom. with those tending to be from noted OKC viewers.

As far as SEL we know that performance in one means next to nothing in the other. Results, performance really not being transferrable.

But anyway good discussion, and again ftr I'm not counting Klef out or anything as he is still very young. You don't find a lot of 20old D that look all that good.
Results in the SEL arent always transferrable, but his play gives merit to the Oilers wanting to bring him over. Its not like they wanted to bring him over even though he was getting his lunch handed to him in the SEL


Here are some quotes from Jonathan Willis, a big OKC follower

Quote:
Klefbom has been the third most-impressive AHL blueliner, and his numbers back that up. He’s been playing mostly on a pairing with David Musil too, so his results have not been goosed by having a difference-making partner

As things stand now, both Fedun and Klefbom are legitimate NHL recall options, with my preference being to give Fedun the first crack at the job because the clock’s ticking on him to a degree it isn’t with Klefbom and it would be nice to know now whether he can make the jump
Fedun being #1, Gernat 2, Klefbom 3

Heres an explanation for Gernats better numbers

Quote:
Gernat’s strong numbers are likely attributable to two things: playing a lot with Fedun and spending a disproportionate amount of his time on the roster late in the year (the team’s Fenwick numbers have improved significantly over the course of the season). He’s been good, but he has not been the second best defenceman on the roster.
I think Klefbom is near NHL ready. But then he could bust and we lose this trade.

topchowda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 12:15 AM
  #77
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topchowda View Post
I guess well have to agree to disagree, because if Penner was on the Oilers, he wouldn't have made the playoffs, so wed have to judge his regular seasons (which were horrible)

The Kings traded beans for a useful playoff player, and won the cup, so they are happy.

But just because they won the cup doesn't automatically make the Oilers lose the deal. If we had kept Penner he would have had 2 horrible seasons, and would have signed elsewhere. So we would have literally been left with nothing. His depature marginally hurt the Oilers, and Klefboms emergence will have a bigger impact
This is pure speculation for all we know Penner could have exceled here playing with RNH or something. More speculation but if we had Penner perhaps we wouldn't have been playing guys like MPS above his head or have guys like Phillip Cornet in the fricken lineup. Maybe we could have took a step in not being the worst team in the league and have been competing for the playoffs by now. To me that would have been worth more then Teubert and a mid 1st round pick.

raab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 12:18 AM
  #78
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
While this is a pretty solid post it overlooks that the assets in this case are long ranged deferred. By quite a lot. LA already got everything they wanted out of the deal, got the ultimate prize, a SC and with Penner playing a reasonable part in that.

In terms of assets you can't just look at who will be better. The deferred factor should also be considered. Like it would in any asset mix trade. To wit whats better a mid earning asset that is earning every year or one that doesn't even start to accrue until 6-7yrs after the trade, if that. Really, how many people would pick the asset that starts earning in maybe 7yrs? Hell people don't even lock in for 7years on investment products and that's with annual accrual.

At this point what we know is LA won this bigtime in a lol transaction that got them the holy grail and didn't even cost a roster player. Not to mention the huge financial benefit there is to an org for winning the cup. Which does great things to even lukewarm markets. Kings already cashed in their chips and hit the jackpot. Klefbom needs to be a way better asset then Penner for us to even talk about this deal being close to even. Due to the long range deferred benefit. There is a cost in that. We're seeing that nature of cost every game, every year, in what is a sad sack lineup. That could probably use Penners size and intangibles.

Oilers needed immediate help when they made the deal. Not long range deferred assets.

WE don't need more draft picks. We didn't then either.
Good post Replacement, I don't often agree with you but in this post your spot on.

raab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 12:19 AM
  #79
CupofOil
Registered User
 
CupofOil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rock Bottom
Country: United States
Posts: 13,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
While this is a pretty solid post it overlooks that the assets in this case are long ranged deferred. By quite a lot. LA already got everything they wanted out of the deal, got the ultimate prize, a SC and with Penner playing a reasonable part in that.

In terms of assets you can't just look at who will be better. The deferred factor should also be considered. Like it would in any asset mix trade. To wit whats better a mid earning asset that is earning every year or one that doesn't even start to accrue until 6-7yrs after the trade, if that. Really, how many people would pick the asset that starts earning in maybe 7yrs? Hell people don't even lock in for 7years on investment products and that's with annual accrual.

At this point what we know is LA won this bigtime in a lol transaction that got them the holy grail and didn't even cost a roster player. Not to mention the huge financial benefit there is to an org for winning the cup. Which does great things to even lukewarm markets. Kings already cashed in their chips and hit the jackpot. Klefbom needs to be a way better asset then Penner for us to even talk about this deal being close to even. Due to the long range deferred benefit. There is a cost in that. We're seeing that nature of cost every game, every year, in what is a sad sack lineup. That could probably use Penners size and intangibles.

Oilers needed immediate help when they made the deal. Not long range deferred assets.

WE don't need more draft picks. We didn't then either.
You're not looking at the deal in context. It's not so easy to say that Penner was an NHL player who played a small part in the Kings run so it's an automatic loss for the Oilers. The fact of the matter is that the Oilers were a team that was clearly looking to get younger and Penner was becoming a depreciating asset. His play was becoming more and more apathetic by the game probably due to the frustration of playing for a losing team so Tambellini got value for him while he could and another big factor is that he was likely going to walk after the next season with an eye for California so Tambo sold him at the highest value that he could. Rebuilding teams make these type of moves all the time so it's not exclusive to the Oilers. It's actually one of the few smart moves that he made in his tenure.

Now, if you want to say that this was a win for L.A., i agree with that because they got exactly what they wanted out of the deal and really didn't have as much a need for prospects and draft picks. They were looking for a short term solution and it worked out for them.
Conversely, the Oilers needed draft picks and prospects considering what state they were in and less veterans who quite frankly, didn't seem to have much interest playing for a team that was going nowhere anytime soon so they were looking for a long term solution which has yet to bear fruit.

I just take issue with those who say that the Oilers lost this deal. It's easy to say that without looking at context but the reality is that it is yet to be determined how the Oilers made out in the deal until we see what type of impact player Klefbom turns out to be or not.

CupofOil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 12:22 AM
  #80
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
Losing the Penner trade is a joke, he would have done nothing here and would be gone now as he would have bolted via UFA. I wouldn't even want him back any way, too lazy.

Klef will be a solid D man at the NHL level. HE will either be a better Smid or a poor mans Doughty. I don't think he has that kind of upside, but, He will be a monster defender and will get 20-30 points per year.
pass me the pipe, Klefbom wont even be able to carry Doughty's jock strap!

raab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 12:29 AM
  #81
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupofOil View Post
You're not looking at the deal in context. It's not so easy to say that Penner was an NHL player who played a small part in the Kings run so it's an automatic loss for the Oilers. The fact of the matter is that the Oilers were a team that was clearly looking to get younger and Penner was becoming a depreciating asset. His play was becoming more and more apathetic by the game probably due to the frustration of playing for a losing team so Tambellini got value for him while he could and another big factor is that he was likely going to walk after the next season with an eye for California so Tambo sold him at the highest value that he could. Rebuilding teams make these type of moves all the time so it's not exclusive to the Oilers. It's actually one of the few smart moves that he made in his tenure.

Now, if you want to say that this was a win for L.A., i agree with that because they got exactly what they wanted out of the deal and really didn't have as much a need for prospects and draft picks. They were looking for a short term solution and it worked out for them.
Conversely, the Oilers needed draft picks and prospects considering what state they were in and less veterans who quite frankly, didn't seem to have much interest playing for a team that was going nowhere anytime soon so they were looking for a long term solution which has yet to bear fruit.

I just take issue with those who say that the Oilers lost this deal. It's easy to say that without looking at context but the reality is that it is yet to be determined how the Oilers made out in the deal until we see what type of impact player Klefbom turns out to be or not.
The fact that Tambo couldn't get ANY useful roster player or prospect ready to make the jump makes this deal a complete loss. If Tambo gets Clifford or Dwight King or Voynov or basically any prospect thats ready to step in the deal would have looked respectable. And I'm willing to bet we could have got the same deal for Penner in 2012 as 2011. Especially when you consider he'd have ended up playing with either RNH or Gagner full time.


Last edited by raab: 02-19-2014 at 09:58 AM.
raab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 02:22 AM
  #82
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupofOil View Post
You're not looking at the deal in context. It's not so easy to say that Penner was an NHL player who played a small part in the Kings run so it's an automatic loss for the Oilers. The fact of the matter is that the Oilers were a team that was clearly looking to get younger and Penner was becoming a depreciating asset.
I disagree with this the most, and because I don't subscribe to this notion that the org had that much of a concerted plan. If they had, why wouldn't they be stocking and hanging onto good D PRIOR to assembling good draft pick forwards? Most any team with a clue assures they have some solid D as backdrop forming the structure of a good club. Knowing that D take longer you have to get them FIRST.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 04:17 PM
  #83
topchowda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
The fact that Tambo couldn't get ANY useful roster player or prospect ready to make the jump makes this deal a complete loss. If Tambo gets Clifford or Dwight King or Voynov or basically any prospect thats ready to step in the deal would have looked respectable. And I'm willing to bet we could have got the same deal for Penner in 2012 as 2011. Especially when you consider he'd have ended up playing with either RNH or Gagner full time.
So your saying youd rather have gotten Clifford, then the package we got, simply because he would be in the NHL?

Are we also forgetting Penner got 17 points in 2012, on a better team? We would have not gotten the same package (good prospect, 1st, 3rd)

Anyone can grab a Clifford in FA, heck Joensuu brings pretty much exactly what Clifford brings.

Try finding a prospect like Klefbom without trading assets to get him

topchowda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 04:21 PM
  #84
topchowda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
This is pure speculation for all we know Penner could have exceled here playing with RNH or something. More speculation but if we had Penner perhaps we wouldn't have been playing guys like MPS above his head or have guys like Phillip Cornet in the fricken lineup. Maybe we could have took a step in not being the worst team in the league and have been competing for the playoffs by now. To me that would have been worth more then Teubert and a mid 1st round pick.
Penner would not be on this team right now. He had 2 chances to sign with the Oilers since then. If we was going to sign with the Oilers, he would of. Plus Im betting we offered big money to him to and he turned it down. He was/ and would have continued to be the whipping boy on the Oilers, and he is the opposite of guy who can handle it.

Perron is a better player than Penner, playing the same position and brings girt (plus way more competitiveness), and we aren't a playoff team. So how would Penner make us a playoff team? assuming he was still here. And theres no way wed have both Perron and Penner. The only reason we got Perron was because we had cap space, if we kept Penner wed have no cap space and couldn't make that deal

We need better D to become a playoff team, if only we had good D prospects....

Im not speculating he had 2 bad seasons, he actually had two bad seasons (3 to be exact). Its speculation he would have had good seasons

topchowda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 04:43 PM
  #85
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topchowda View Post
So your saying youd rather have gotten Clifford, then the package we got, simply because he would be in the NHL?

Are we also forgetting Penner got 17 points in 2012, on a better team? We would have not gotten the same package (good prospect, 1st, 3rd)

Anyone can grab a Clifford in FA, heck Joensuu brings pretty much exactly what Clifford brings.

Try finding a prospect like Klefbom without trading assets to get him
Im saying we should have got Clifford+1st or King+1st or just Voynov as he was worth more then the other two. We were trying to get bigger and tougher to play against. Also Penner played 3rd line in LA IIRC. Do you think he only puts up 17 points if he plays with RNH, and gets prime PP time? I know I don't.

raab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 04:48 PM
  #86
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topchowda View Post
Penner would not be on this team right now. He had 2 chances to sign with the Oilers since then. If we was going to sign with the Oilers, he would of. Plus Im betting we offered big money to him to and he turned it down. He was/ and would have continued to be the whipping boy on the Oilers, and he is the opposite of guy who can handle it.

Perron is a better player than Penner, playing the same position and brings girt (plus way more competitiveness), and we aren't a playoff team. So how would Penner make us a playoff team? assuming he was still here. And theres no way wed have both Perron and Penner. The only reason we got Perron was because we had cap space, if we kept Penner wed have no cap space and couldn't make that deal

We need better D to become a playoff team, if only we had good D prospects....

Im not speculating he had 2 bad seasons, he actually had two bad seasons (3 to be exact). Its speculation he would have had good seasons
I'm pretty sure that we still could have got Perron even if we added Penner to the current roster. Its what good teams do, so maybe your right and the Oilers wouldn't have done it but it would have been stupid of them not to make that trade. And I don't care if Penner would have resigned here, the point is he could have played above several of the guys on the team in 2012 and protected some of our younger players and perhaps helped improve the team moral as I doubt finish DFL in the NHL for the 3rd time in a row. And I have no doubt we could have gotten at least a low 1st for Penner in 2012.

raab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 04:49 PM
  #87
LTIR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,445
vCash: 500
we couldve also gotten Penner back when he became a UFA .. Lets stop all this Penner non-sense its derailing this thread.

LTIR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2014, 02:07 PM
  #88
Oi'll say!
Registered User
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topchowda View Post
Penner would not be on this team right now. He had 2 chances to sign with the Oilers since then. If we was going to sign with the Oilers, he would of. Plus Im betting we offered big money to him to and he turned it down. He was/ and would have continued to be the whipping boy on the Oilers, and he is the opposite of guy who can handle it.

Perron is a better player than Penner, playing the same position and brings girt (plus way more competitiveness), and we aren't a playoff team. So how would Penner make us a playoff team?
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...000412010.html
The way the Oilers handled this guy was ridiculous. MacT spouted off about him and then they traded him. LMAO, the reverse pump-and-dump didn't work. Who'da thunkit?

Oi'll say! is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:51 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.