HFBoards

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

Lowe should look at these numbers

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-02-2004, 01:03 PM
  #26
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
Mizral, I think the biggest difference was that the Oilers mantra has been to have a young, competetive, financially viable team for 2004... and they have.

It's why Lowe traded Guerin for a guy who missed 9 months, and 2 picks.

It's also why Lowe dealt Weight for a pair of young cheap guys who weren't going to command huge money in a couple of seasons (remember the Demitra arguments?).

I think the important thing to remember is that alot of the Oilers resources from those trades are just starting to surface. For instance Hemsky, Lynch, Stoll, DesLauriers. So as of right now, the perceived value of Weight/Guerin is Dvorak and Reasoner, but that isn't the case.

It's not fair to compare the Oilers to the Canucks and how things have gone for the past 6 seasons because it's like comparing apples to sausages.

In 1998 the Oilers had a very good top 4 defence, a very good first line, and a bunch of pluggers with very little talent in the system. Right now they have a very good 2nd-4th line, a tonne of solid young players ready to challenge for spots, and a very wily defence corp, who actually stacks up well as a unit. They aren't better, but they are both deeper and better prepared for the future. Now it's a matter of putting the best elements of the 98 team (that first line, with that solid top 4 defence) with the best elements of the 04 team. The situation now is certainly better than it was in 98. The team is more stable, and better players on the team aren't about to be traded away for money reasons (we hope).

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-03-2004, 10:08 PM
  #27
kraigus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Waterloo, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,173
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to kraigus Send a message via MSN to kraigus
hmpf, I looked at the same thing, except over more than one season here - http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=80148 .

I didn't look at a team's final standings. I was thinking about it, but nobody really seemed all that interested and it was going to be a LOT of work.

Edmonton has consistently had one of the lowest payrolls in the league though. Bottom 10 all the way.

I wonder how that correlates to staff salaries? I bet teams like Detroit and the Devils, in addition to paying their players a lot more, also have more $ available for staff and staff-related purchases. Not to say that Edmonton's scouting staff must get paid less and that they're obviously inferior, but are there *enough* of them?

I haven't read that entire other thread yet though.

kraigus is offline  
Old
06-03-2004, 10:42 PM
  #28
kraigus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Waterloo, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,173
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to kraigus Send a message via MSN to kraigus
... and now that I've read most of it, I've remembered that oilswell posted an analysis even better than mine less than a month beforehand. I knew I've been out of it lately, but...

needless to say, I agree with oilswell more than I did CH.

Cheap teams can win sometimes, but it takes money to win consistently. I'd argue that that's not necessarily always been the case; it's really only been since the 90s that you can correlate salary with success. Before that, there was little to choose from, economically speaking. The NHL was small. It's a different league now - the gap between the haves and the have-nots has been growing, I think.

oilswell, please accept my apologies - I knew I'd seen a thread earlier on a similar subject, but I'd forgotten where & when (I even posted in yours!)...

kraigus is offline  
Old
06-04-2004, 12:39 AM
  #29
oilswell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wandering the globe
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigus
... and now that I've read most of it, I've remembered that oilswell posted an analysis even better than mine less than a month beforehand. ...Before that, there was little to choose from, economically speaking. The NHL was small. It's a different league now - the gap between the haves and the have-nots has been growing, I think....oilswell, please accept my apologies - I knew I'd seen a thread earlier on a similar subject, but I'd forgotten where & when (I even posted in yours!)...
You don't have anything to apologise for. We posted on a similar topic but that's it: our analyses were completely different. In truth, I should apologise for reading your thread and not replying into it. I was going to mull it over for a while....and I guess it just slipped my mind.

I should really add this to your other thread, but looking back over the numbers, it really is staggering what the differences are in just a few years. The Oilers had, what?, a 34M payroll last year? The Dallas Freakin Stars had "only" a 39M payroll in 1999, which was 10M above the median.

Meanwhile, as the Oilers catch up to 1999, the New Jersey Devils (a favourite "small market" winner) won in 2003 with a 56M payroll, fully 20M above the median. The Devils won in 2000 with 31M payroll, meaning they added 24M in 4 years. Is that the cost of keeping a winning team together?

When you list it like that, I get a few comments that spring to mind.

1. That's a helluva inflation rate. Wow.
2. 20 million. That's really a lot of dough. Even if the disparity may not be worse percentage wise (I'd have to calculate it), its really significant.

To make up 20M difference the Oilers would have to suck an extra $1400CAD/head in the stands per year (approx), or about $20CAD per man, woman, and child in the Greater Edmonton area (after other expenses). I have doubts about that. Maybe 15 playoff dates would do it if they could be the home team and go 7 each round........... (yeah, right).

oilswell is offline  
Old
06-04-2004, 02:27 AM
  #30
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YKOil
OOOOOOOOO... an asset management post........ must resist... just fight with db again.... must fight....

Okay, I'll talk about luck instead.

...

The trick is to have more luck than not and you do that by making the highest percentage plays you can - something Lowe had mastered as a d-man but not so much as a GM.

Calgary had some incredible run of luck this year - the emergence of Donovan and Kiprusoff alone took that team forward a good 3 years of development time.

Given Lowe's penchant for lateral trades I honestly don't see us competing for the Cup in 5 years let alone 3.

YKOil
Good post, YK.

I agree completely with the sentiment. Though I think you are being a bit harsh in your assessment of Lowe.

The team is in a good position going into the CBA renegotiation IMO. I think (hope) that Lowe has benn making most of his deals with a stronger influence on the future than on the present. If he hasn't ... well then he's been doing a terrible job, because pressing issues (centreman and goaltending) were not addressed when they had to be if the Oilers were serious about taking a run at the playoffs this past season.

But he has most of the right type of players now IMO. It is a solid team. And when the NHL starts playing again ... expectations should be higher, and deals should start being made for the 'now' rather than for tomorrow.

igor* is offline  
Old
06-04-2004, 02:53 AM
  #31
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigus
hmpf, I looked at the same thing, except over more than one season here - http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=80148 .

I didn't look at a team's final standings. I was thinking about it, but nobody really seemed all that interested and it was going to be a LOT of work.

Edmonton has consistently had one of the lowest payrolls in the league though. Bottom 10 all the way.

I wonder how that correlates to staff salaries? I bet teams like Detroit and the Devils, in addition to paying their players a lot more, also have more $ available for staff and staff-related purchases. Not to say that Edmonton's scouting staff must get paid less and that they're obviously inferior, but are there *enough* of them?

I haven't read that entire other thread yet though.
Good stuff.

I think an even clearer way of looking at it is the correlation between payroll and regular-season points ... and independently the correlation between regular-season points and playoff success.

Bottom line ... having more money to spend on players generally leads to better regular season teams. And better regular season teams have a better chance of playoff success than the teams that just scrape in.

When it comes to the playoffs ... anything can happen. If your goalie gets hot and you get a few bounces ... any team can beat any other team at leasy some of the time.

Always strikes me as strange the way some hockey fans go overboard when a playoff longshot has some success. I remember seeing essays on here blueprinting schemes for the Oilers to copy the Carolina pattern a couple of years ago ... and these posts from guys who are otherwise down-to-earth. Yeesh!

Fact is ... some upsets are inevitable. A year WITHOUT any upsets is the oddity, only happens once in a blue moon. Two significant 1st round upsets is the median. 3 and 1 first-round-upsets per season are the next most common.

BTW: Not to stir up CGY fans ... but let's be frank: Calgary is a bad team with Kiprusoff and Iginla on it. When Iggy's on the ice the Flames have impressive #s, when he isn't ... they get outscored 5on5 (only Gelinas and Montador are in the black in the ice-time they play WITHOUT Jarome). When he isn't ... the PP is just terrible. He is also their best skating PKer (by the numbers at least) as well.

And Kiprusoff ... we all know. And his even-strength Save% (league best .941 this season) has actually improved a bit in the playoffs. Yikes.

And, like Matts mentioned on another thread ... its not at all unusual for a team to win in spite of being outchanced ... but you know the Gods are smiling on you when your winning most games that you are ebing outchanced in.

I really hope CGY wins the thing. TBay will get more kicks at it, that's a good team ... but this is probably a one-off for the cowtowners, I hope they can cash it in.

igor* is offline  
Old
06-04-2004, 08:16 AM
  #32
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor
Good stuff.

I think an even clearer way of looking at it is the correlation between payroll and regular-season points ... and independently the correlation between regular-season points and playoff success.

Bottom line ... having more money to spend on players generally leads to better regular season teams. And better regular season teams have a better chance of playoff success than the teams that just scrape in.

When it comes to the playoffs ... anything can happen. If your goalie gets hot and you get a few bounces ... any team can beat any other team at leasy some of the time.

Always strikes me as strange the way some hockey fans go overboard when a playoff longshot has some success. I remember seeing essays on here blueprinting schemes for the Oilers to copy the Carolina pattern a couple of years ago ... and these posts from guys who are otherwise down-to-earth. Yeesh!

Fact is ... some upsets are inevitable. A year WITHOUT any upsets is the oddity, only happens once in a blue moon. Two significant 1st round upsets is the median. 3 and 1 first-round-upsets per season are the next most common.

BTW: Not to stir up CGY fans ... but let's be frank: Calgary is a bad team with Kiprusoff and Iginla on it. When Iggy's on the ice the Flames have impressive #s, when he isn't ... they get outscored 5on5 (only Gelinas and Montador are in the black in the ice-time they play WITHOUT Jarome). When he isn't ... the PP is just terrible. He is also their best skating PKer (by the numbers at least) as well.

And Kiprusoff ... we all know. And his even-strength Save% (league best .941 this season) has actually improved a bit in the playoffs. Yikes.

And, like Matts mentioned on another thread ... its not at all unusual for a team to win in spite of being outchanced ... but you know the Gods are smiling on you when your winning most games that you are ebing outchanced in.

I really hope CGY wins the thing. TBay will get more kicks at it, that's a good team ... but this is probably a one-off for the cowtowners, I hope they can cash it in.

Great post, igor. Another point in regard to more dollars is that you can decide the exact amount of turnover season to season, or at least somewhat dictate how much of the roster is going to be kicked to the side of the curb.

Smaller market teams (and fans) are constantly aware of a player's ufa/rfa status, and MANY deals Lowe has made have been dictated by something other than the team and the talent base.

Lowetide 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 12:06 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.