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

Kevin Lowe

View Poll Results: Is Kevin Lowe overrated as a GM?
Yes 20 18.18%
No 90 81.82%
Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-03-2004, 12:38 PM
  #26
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Too me, being a good GM is sorta like being a good goalie. You can be the cream of the crop but until you actually bring home the cup, you will never likely ever get considered in the "best of the best" group. And no, that is not suggesting that Lowe should be considered in that group right now.

I traditionally have been a bit of a Lowe appologist but I don't think that is because I don't think he can do no wrong, I believe it has more to do with the idea of not really wanting to judge him while his job is only half done or 3/4's done, as I think is the case now.

I think on a case by case basis, he is well above .500 in how his dealings have worked out. I think that his mistakes (and there have been a number of them) have not cost the organization very much when keeping an overall perspective on how the team has progressed.

I also think his job coming in was much bigger than anyone has really given him credit for. The end of the Sather era left many fans blinded to how bad a shape the organization was actually in. I think many (certainly myself) got caught drinking Sather's Kool Aid and paid way more attention to his excuses and way too little to his performance.

With NO experience, Lowe took this team from being empty of prospects, relying on one or two top end talents and a cycle of regurgitating that talent in what seemed like an impossible cycle to break and in 4 years filled the prospect cupboard, spread out the talent and created a real team for the first time in 10 years. He has also managed that while not having a real adverse effect in the standings. Yes, the team missed the playoffs a couple times but as far as regular season points go, he has managed to rebuild the organization while keeping the team as competetive as they were before. In fact, how many years do you have to go back to see 4 straight years of over .500 hockey?

Some of the critisisms I would levy towards him would be for the most part limited too some of his contracts. The Comrie situation was developing into a lose-lose proposition for him and I think he managed to do ok with it and to buck the trend, I don't have a big problem with the Salo situation. I think as a GM, Lowe made logical decisions as they came up and I put the onus of poor goaltending squarely on Salo's shoulders.

The other thing to consider is Lowe's involvment with team Canada. Wether he was brought in as a FOG or not, wether he was only an equal voice amongst a round table of good hockey people or not - Lowe was part of a group that was able to correctly assess a formula for success when provided a blank slate in assembling talent. It may seem like a slam dunk when looking over the players that Canada can choose from but as Bobby Clark prooved, nothing is a sure thing.

I would rate Lowe in the 8-12 range of NHL GM's. Definately above average and with experience I think he will only get better.
Strongly agree. To think that you can come in as a GM and hit the road running is to give little credit to how complicated the job can be. There is no doubt that there have been moves that Lowe would like back but he has made no moves that have jeapordized the future even if there have been stumbles. Probably the move that was his poorest (the Weight trade imo) he found a way to rescue.

He has turned this team from a place where nobody wanted to play to one of the best places to play hockey unless the ONLY reason you play hockey is to make money. And he took a team that had plateaued and had nowhere to go but down and kept them above .500 while giving them a much higher potential upside. And kept the budget.

Complaints? I have a few. Failure to balance the d after trading Niinniimaa and left the wings too crowded. Another move was needed last off season and none was made.
Sami Salo to Vancouver and Kiprusoff to Calgary. Lowe had better material and did nothing.


Compliments? I have a few. Fearless. Only interested in winning it all, not in being respectable. Understands the role players must play. Demands and gives loyalty - most important intangible in my opinion in winning it all. Has re-stocked the farm and built an attitude of expecting more.

I give Lowe a B for his first four years and expect him to be an A in the next four.

theoil is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 12:45 PM
  #27
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
Tough call but I voted Overrated. Going by his game plan he's where he wants to be - competitive at the CBA impasse. Lowe's been great with stockpiling for the future but for the present he has been sub-par. Unfortunately most of it isn't his fault but he has to be judged by the role he is in. The whole Comrie thing was ugly and I think KLo procrastinated on getting it done. Either that or he was just making mini-Mike worry but he did not address the needs for a centre last year and that's as big a reason for us not making the playoffs IMO as Salo. Salo and Brewer's contracts also don't bode well for KLo. Smyth and Moreau's contracts probably level the playing field but like other posters have said a GM needs to be judged on his team's performance and the Oilers 6 playoff games in the last 3 years isn't cutting it.

Having said all that I'm glad to have Lowe at the helm and wouldn't trade him for another GM. I just don't think his poop smells like roses.

mackdogs* is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 12:47 PM
  #28
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackdogs
Tough call but I voted Overrated. Going by his game plan he's where he wants to be - competitive at the CBA impasse. Lowe's been great with stockpiling for the future but for the present he has been sub-par. Unfortunately most of it isn't his fault but he has to be judged by the role he is in. The whole Comrie thing was ugly and I think KLo procrastinated on getting it done. Either that or he was just making mini-Mike worry but he did not address the needs for a centre last year and that's as big a reason for us not making the playoffs IMO as Salo. Salo and Brewer's contracts also don't bode well for KLo. Smyth and Moreau's contracts probably level the playing field but like other posters have said a GM needs to be judged on his team's performance and the Oilers 6 playoff games in the last 3 years isn't cutting it.

Having said all that I'm glad to have Lowe at the helm and wouldn't trade him for another GM. I just don't think his poop smells like roses.
Good post. And let's be clear here. I don't think anyone in the "overrated" category would trade K-Lo for almost any other GM in the league. In a short time he has gone from a player to coach to one of the better GM's in the league.

There are just a number of folks that have on the rose coloured glasses when it comes to him, that make him seem better than he actually has been.(Not to say he won't be great, but isn't yet)

For example, I truly in my heart of hearts believe that part of the Comrie situation was personal and Lowe wanted to stick it to the little so and so. That is a sign that Lowe needed to mature as a GM. He stuck with Salo too long, and the ship sunk with him. He needed to address things from a positional standpoint that really could have been done a long time ago (How long have the Oilers had too many wingers?)

So if I was going to rate the guy, I would say that he would be a B+ for what he has put in place for the future and a C+ for what he has done right now. Maybe a B- overall. His grade increases as the future comes to fruition.


Last edited by Slats432: 08-03-2004 at 12:53 PM.
Slats432 is online now  
Old
08-03-2004, 12:50 PM
  #29
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
From my POV, it's hard to say whether or not he is one of the brightest minds in hockey.

If things start to pan out, and guys like Lynch, Wyo, JDD, Pouliot, Niinimaki, Schremp, etc... start to develop and grow into important roles on the team and start to have success as a team, then Lowe has obviously done something very right, first and foremost is surrounding himself with excellent hockey people in areas like scouting and coaching.

If things don't pan out, and our top prospects do nothing but fizzle, it'd be pretty obvious that he hasn't made the right moves and that he doesn't have the right people around him.

Until either of these things happen, it's tough to judge where he is in terms of being one of the brightest minds in hockey. I mean we can continue to look at things like not addressing the centre situation or Salo, but the fact of the matter is neither situation hurt the team long term, nor would addressing those needs by dealing prospects necessarily help long term.

His time table may not match up with some people's, but it doesn't mean he is wrong.

Also, in terms of Comrie, I think this was one of the best situations that could have happened to Edmonton.

The message is "You aren't bigger than the team, and if you think you are, we'll be fine without you."

I think it's going to be tough to hold Lowe for Ransom, either through contracts or not being accountable for what you did on the ice since the Comrie incident. If it keeps guys like Hemsky or Schremp in line, focused and wanting to improve to make themselves and the team better, I'm not going to hold the Comrie handling against Lowe. Likewise, if it becomes a pattern, there is obviously a flaw there.

That being said, now isn't the time to be trying to figure that stuff out yet... time will tell.

__________________
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
08-03-2004, 12:55 PM
  #30
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackdogs
Lowe's been great with stockpiling for the future but for the present he has been sub-par.
I see this type of statement every so often and to me it's a contradiction. Usually it comes more in the form of "this team is only .500 so it's time for a re-build".

I gotta ask, because maybe I am overlooking something, but how do you build for the future AND have substantial success in the present? To compound that, how do you do it when you have nothing in terms of "future" when you start?

Too me this has been one of Lowe's more remarkable accomlishments since he has been here. He has essentially rebuilt this team with players that should be around for years to come, all while not seeing a real dip in regular season play. (Obviously missingthe playoffs twice appears to show less success BUT the point totals from regular season play suggests that he has rebuilt while maintaining close to the same level)

Now if anything, the big problem I see with that is for most rebuilds it includes a year or two in the absolute basement of the league which can ultimately help do to a #1,2 or 3 draft pick. However can you really critisize Lowe for not allowing the team to tank one or two seasons completely?

copperandblue is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 12:55 PM
  #31
Fists of Fuhry
Registered User
 
Fists of Fuhry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynastydays

Once these begin to pan out, and Im confident they will, we can have a more fair evaluation of K-Lo in comparison with his peers.

Plus lets not ignore the fact that not many GM's bleed the colors of their team straight from their heart. K-Lo truely loves the Oilers and that matters in my books.
Agree and agree even more: right now is not a really good time to evaluate Lowe as GM, he's delivered on the promises based on his timeline and there is no need for us to demand that he have a fluke year the way that sutter did. And on the second point, I think that a GM who loves the team he works for will only do what's in the best interests of the team - I have faith that the Oilers are in good hands.

Fists of Fuhry is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 01:01 PM
  #32
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynastydays
The difference between K-Lo and Brian Burke (who I think is the best GM over the past 5+ years bar none) is that Kevins homeruns has to be hit from his ankles, and Burkes are within the strike zone. To clarify, they have very similar hard-line attitudes, they believe in building through prospects, but Burke has hit the grand slams with bringing in Bertuzzi / Naslund / Morrisson. .
actually, Bertuzzi was aquired in Feb of 1998, 4 months before burke was hired. Naslund was aquired in 1996. Ohllund was drafted in 1994. Burke inherited the core of a very strong team and had the benefit of a large payroll. He has done little to improve that team other than Jovo (he had to give up the best player in the league to get him , Bure)

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 01:09 PM
  #33
MoeLemayStays
Registered User
 
MoeLemayStays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 292
vCash: 500
Without checking the other forums, I think the "overated" tag has some part to do with the Canada selections. Everybody wants their guy on the team (such as Bertuzzi) so nobody is always happy.

I remember when Sather cut Wendel while camp was in Toronto. Hoo boy did he get it.

MoeLemayStays is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 01:33 PM
  #34
dynastydays
Registered User
 
dynastydays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich
actually, Bertuzzi was aquired in Feb of 1998, 4 months before burke was hired. Naslund was aquired in 1996. Ohllund was drafted in 1994. Burke inherited the core of a very strong team and had the benefit of a large payroll. He has done little to improve that team other than Jovo (he had to give up the best player in the league to get him , Bure)

My bad, I guess he did inherit those two homeruns on his scoresheet hey. But how he restocked the farm team, turned the money losing seasons around, built a great supporting cast including bringing Linden back was impressive. Thats not the basis of my respect for Burke tho, its his integrity that lets you know his team wont ever knowingly be shafted by any team nor player. He handles himself and his team extremely well (or used to). I see many of these qualities in Lowe, and im more than happy for him to be here. Overrated may only apply when considering that hes named to the Olympic group without having ever hit his major grand slam yet. The key word though is yet, because they are coming. Maybe its this winning essence that got him selected, and not him being rated higher than he has earned thus far

dynastydays is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 02:22 PM
  #35
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
When the team is ready for some serious competetiveness, then I understand being critical for your GM not identifying a visible weakness...
I think you're being a little too narrow-minded in regards to what Lowetide was talking about. It doesn't necessarily have to be a legitimate top two line center right away but perhaps someone that will grow into one. When you have dealt Janne Niinimaa, Bill Guerin, Anson Carter, Roman Hamrlik, Mike Comrie, etc. (all great assets) without receiving an NHL center back in return... that's a little bit questionable. Center has never been a strength for this organization for the past few years. To trade Rem Murray, Doug Weight, Mike Comrie, and lose Todd Marchant and only have Marty Reasoner to show for it... is not a great picture. I realize this might be glossing the picture over a bit but the underlying point remains the same.

But it's absolutely true that the center problem has not been addressed and assets were used in order to attain wingers in which we were supposedly deep in. That's a weird sense of asset management to me and I'm sure that's what Lowetide was getting at.

I'm with Lowetide. Kevin Lowe is a little above average as a GM.

momentai is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 02:26 PM
  #36
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich
San Jose badly missed the playoffs the year before. If Lowe would have led his team to a 73 point regular season, he gets fired. The Sharks did not do better because of anything Wilson did, it was coaching and goaltending. They allowed 66 fewer goals than the year before. What exactly did Wilson do that led to that? What top notch goalie did he bring in? He traded away a goalie for a 2nd round pick that ended up with the best gaa in the history of the NHL, that sure looks good on your resume.
Top notch goalie? A signed Nabokov that was ready for training camp was sure nice this past season. A year ago when San Jose badly missed the playoffs, both Nabokov and Stuart were sitting out at least a month into the season. You can't tell me that didn't have a significant effect on their standings. A goaltender that isn't comfortable and into form leads to trouble.

momentai is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 02:38 PM
  #37
Sethis
Registered User
 
Sethis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,402
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
To trade Rem Murray, Doug Weight, Mike Comrie, and lose Todd Marchant and only have Marty Reasoner to show for it... is not a great picture.
Tom Poti and Rem Murray got us Mike York
Doug Weight got us Reasoner and what ended up being Jarret Stoll
Comrie got us Robbie Schremp

So we traded Rem Murray, Doug Weight, Mike Comrie and lost Todd Marchant and had Mike York, Marty Reasoner, Jarret Soll and Robbie Schremp to show for it.

Throw on the draftings of Marc-Antoine Pouliot and Jesse Niinimaki, the acquisition of Petr Nedved and the unsuccessful but completely valid and low risk moves (which was all he could really do with a hand-cuffing pay-roll) to get Adam Oates and Jiri Dopita who generated alot of buzz upon their arrivals and you get a man who has done more to improve this situation then you seem to think.

Dwight Helminen < Robbie Schremp (Helminen went in the Nedved deal)
Rem Murray < Jarret Stoll
Todd Marchant > Marty Reasoner
Mike Comrie < Mike York
Doug Weight > Petr Nedved

edit: Added Helminen and Schremp

edit #2: Forgot to point out that the other side is alot older, with less potential, more injuries and a couple of guys getting ready to hit the decline. Also regardless of what Lowe would have done/could have gotten back there is always the possibility that Marchant, Weight and even good ol' Rem could have left the team regardless.


Last edited by Sethis: 08-03-2004 at 02:48 PM.
Sethis is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 02:42 PM
  #38
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
The problem with the Is he overrated? question is to whom the question is inferring about. Us on HF boards, Edmonton fans in general, the entire NHL? On the whole, though, I would imagine he might be a little overrated depending on the reputation his persona radiates as a hockey person.

Lowe is usually great with media relations. It seems he's given the scouting staff (along with KP) relatively free reign on how to select for the future of the franchise - something Barry Fraser wouldn't let the scouting staff do. That has led directly to more success in the prospect trail and certainly a brighter future than the team Lowe inherited.

However, Lowe is still a little uneven when it comes to handing out contract terms (some players like Smyth come to mind and overpaying some players like Conklin recently). He has to get better and harder at the negotiation table IMO. Also, he needs work on addressing team needs in terms of trades. Not to say that the value isn't there for the club afterwards but initially the assets going out don't equalize the assets coming in... IE/ extra second rounder in the Niinimaa deal, Carter for Dvorak who was struggling in New York mightily, etc.

All that being said, Lowe is still learning on the job and I realize that. That's the reason why I can't see him being one of the best GM's in hockey. He's still learning and improving his skills as a GM.

momentai is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 02:49 PM
  #39
Bohologo
Registered User
 
Bohologo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Tokyo
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,230
vCash: 500
Watching teams like Carolina, Anaheim, Minnesota, and yes, Calgary make improbable runs in the last few seasons has generated a lot of "there but for the grace of Kevin Lowe go the Oilers" talk. It's frustrating to see teams that are not arguably much better than the Oil make deep runs into the playoffs, and a reasonable response may seem to be, "How come our guys aren't doing the same? Is Lowe asleep at the switch?"

To these people I say: you can't have it both ways. True, these teams made some great runs, but (Calgary notwithstanding, it's too soon to tell in their case) none of these teams have accomplished anything sustainable. This is the key for me. I want to see the Oilers forge an enduring foundation for success, and I've been patiently waiting for the post-2004 CBA landscape to emerge for this to happen.

Lowe has articulated his vision, and for the most part, his activities support the goal of post-2004 competitiveness. For those of you who are upset because there was no Cup run sooner, I submit that you were suffering from unrealistic expectations-this was never promised. Lowe's objective was for the Oilers to survive until now, and arrive at the new CBA poised for some success. The first part of this objective is accomplished, we will see about the second.

Bohologo is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 02:51 PM
  #40
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis
Tom Poti and Rem Murray got us Mike York
Doug Weight got us Reasoner and what ended up being Jarret Stoll
Comrie got us Robbie Schremp

So we traded Rem Murray, Doug Weight, Mike Comrie and lost Todd Marchant and had Mike York, Marty Reasoner, Jarret Soll and Robbie Schremp to show for it.
Mike York was primarily a winger in New York at the time and still a winger in the Edmonton organization after he came over. I was merely addressing the lack of a centers coming back after one being dealt. IMO, you cannot just add a guy like Jarrett Stoll or Rob Schremp into the equation? Why? Because at the time of the trade, they are merely draft picks. It could have easily happened that Lowe drafted two wingers instead. Way too much ambiguity there in order to address what I'm talking about. Draft picks are just that. Draft picks. It is up to the scouting staff to address what gets picked in that situation. Until that point, the players selected are unknown.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis
Throw on the draftings of Marc-Antoine Pouliot and Jesse Niinimaki, the acquisition of Petr Nedved and the unsuccessful but completely valid and low risk moves (which was all he could really do with a hand-cuffing pay-roll) to get Adam Oates and Jiri Dopita who generated alot of buzz upon their arrivals and you get a man who has done more to improve this situation then you seem to think.
While I like Pouliot and Niinimaki, they are at least 2 years away from the NHL. What I have been discussing is the fact that nothing has bridged the gap in regards to qualifiable NHL players at the pivot. Only Stoll was able to make that jump early and is that something that can be expected of all those young players?

Adam Oates and Jiri Dopita were stop-gap players signed/traded for in order to alleviate the strain of not having enough centers. Oates was signed halfway into the season because it looked like Reasoner was not going to return. Petr Nedved was also, basically, a one year rental at his option at 5 million. Whether or not he signs long-term now is up in the air but we all knew the option was there in order for Petr to walk at the end of it.

momentai is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:05 PM
  #41
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
Momentai, you are taking two different sides here...

first you say that Lowe didn't need to acquire an immediate top 2 line centre, rather someone who could possibly grow into that role, then you say guys like Pouliot and Niinimaki (who can grow into that role) are too far away.

Sometimes you need to go and get a guy you like, like a Torres or a Dvorak because you like what they can do. Getting a position for position trade may not be what you want at the time because you can make a future move, and still get the player that you want right now.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:07 PM
  #42
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
Mike York was primarily a winger in New York at the time and still a winger in the Edmonton organization after he came over. I was merely addressing the lack of a centers coming back after one being dealt. IMO, you cannot just add a guy like Jarrett Stoll or Rob Schremp into the equation? Why? Because at the time of the trade, they are merely draft picks. It could have easily happened that Lowe drafted two wingers instead. Way too much ambiguity there in order to address what I'm talking about. Draft picks are just that. Draft picks. It is up to the scouting staff to address what gets picked in that situation. Until that point, the players selected are unknown.
You also can't completely ignore the draft picks in the equation either especially in this case.

Lowe traded Hecht DURING that draft, he knew which players would most likely still be available and then made the trade. If I remember he made that trade right after the first round was completed or close to it.

He knew for example that Deslauriers had dropped and that Stoll was still available when he made that trade.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:08 PM
  #43
Cujo_31
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis
Tom Poti and Rem Murray got us Mike York
Doug Weight got us Reasoner and what ended up being Jarret Stoll
Comrie got us Robbie Schremp

So we traded Rem Murray, Doug Weight, Mike Comrie and lost Todd Marchant and had Mike York, Marty Reasoner, Jarret Soll and Robbie Schremp to show for it.

Throw on the draftings of Marc-Antoine Pouliot and Jesse Niinimaki, the acquisition of Petr Nedved and the unsuccessful but completely valid and low risk moves (which was all he could really do with a hand-cuffing pay-roll) to get Adam Oates and Jiri Dopita who generated alot of buzz upon their arrivals and you get a man who has done more to improve this situation then you seem to think.

Dwight Helminen < Robbie Schremp (Helminen went in the Nedved deal)
Rem Murray < Jarret Stoll
Todd Marchant > Marty Reasoner
Mike Comrie < Mike York
Doug Weight > Petr Nedved

edit: Added Helminen and Schremp

edit #2: Forgot to point out that the other side is alot older, with less potential, more injuries and a couple of guys getting ready to hit the decline. Also regardless of what Lowe would have done/could have gotten back there is always the possibility that Marchant, Weight and even good ol' Rem could have left the team regardless.

we got 2 - 2nd rounders from Buffalo in the Hecht deal, so not only did we get Stoll, we took Jeff-Drouin Deslauriers with the other 2nd rounder we got. unless your just couting the centres in deals.

Cujo_31 is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:14 PM
  #44
Sethis
Registered User
 
Sethis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,402
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
Mike York was primarily a winger (but primarily as a center every year except that one as the Czech line was playing extremely well and he had great chemistry with Fleury and Lindros) in New York at the time and still a winger in the Edmonton organization after he came over. I was merely addressing the lack of a centers coming back after one being dealt. IMO, you cannot just add a guy like Jarrett Stoll or Rob Schremp into the equation? Why? Because at the time of the trade, they are merely draft picks. It could have easily happened that Lowe drafted two wingers instead. Way too much ambiguity there in order to address what I'm talking about. Draft picks are just that. Draft picks. It is up to the scouting staff to address what gets picked in that situation. Until that point, the players selected are unknown.


Mike York was used primarily as a winger in New York but after he came over despite playing some time on the wing he has been used primarily as a center and a damn good one at that and while we're on that point, Rem Murray was also versatile in the same way so if we're striking York from the equation for that, how come Murray was involved? I involved Schremp sparingly as a straight-across comparison for Dwight Helminen as neither have made the NHL but Stoll has made a name for himself as a solid NHL Center (Which is what we are judging) and if we are judging Lowes GM abilities and use of assets here, he DID turn Jochen Hecht (Who also played Center and was used at Center in some cases) into a draft pick but it was on draft day and he obviously knew what he wanted in Stoll and went out and got him mere minutes after the deal was made so I consider that to be valid.

While I like Pouliot and Niinimaki, they are at least 2 years away from the NHL. What I have been discussing is the fact that nothing has bridged the gap in regards to qualifiable NHL players at the pivot. Only Stoll was able to make that jump early and is that something that can be expected of all those young players?

Granted, this is why they were struck from the big equation and were mere after thoughts

Adam Oates and Jiri Dopita were stop-gap players signed/traded for in order to alleviate the strain of not having enough centers. Oates was signed halfway into the season because it looked like Reasoner was not going to return.

You just said "What I have been discussing is the fact that nothing has bridged the gap in regards to qualifiable NHL players at the pivot" so isn't this exactly what we're talking about, he got a couple of center's who were thought to be capable of being effective 2nd-3rd line centers, it was a risky situation on both accounts but due to salary-based hold-backs he couldn't go out and sign a big name Center.

Petr Nedved was also, basically, a one year rental at his option at 5 million. Whether or not he signs long-term now is up in the air but we all knew the option was there in order for Petr to walk at the end of it.

If his signing being in question is a reason to strike him from the list then we would have to strike Marchant from the list as well, and an arguement could be made for Weight, Lowe traded for a well-known, capable center to remain competitive and strong for a playoff drive, again exactly what we're discussing, it was well-known that he would not have his option picked up but it seems a viable chance he will stay in Edmonton, much the same as the case was for Marchant or might have been for Weight.


Last edited by Sethis: 08-03-2004 at 03:21 PM.
Sethis is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:18 PM
  #45
Sethis
Registered User
 
Sethis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,402
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cujo_31
we got 2 - 2nd rounders from Buffalo in the Hecht deal, so not only did we get Stoll, we took Jeff-Drouin Deslauriers with the other 2nd rounder we got. unless your just couting the centres in deals.
Yah, I'm just trying to prove a point for his attempt at finding centers, as everyone seems to be discrediting him for this.

Sethis is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:22 PM
  #46
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Sometimes you need to go and get a guy you like, like a Torres or a Dvorak because you like what they can do. Getting a position for position trade may not be what you want at the time because you can make a future move, and still get the player that you want right now.
I agree and would even go a step further in saying that it is almost impossible to trade position for position in an attempt to get better.

Why would a team trade a good up and coming center (for example) when they are getting a not quite as good up and coming center back?

If your trading position for position it is generally in a case where you are trading experience for youth....such as the Hamrlik for Brewer deal. It serves both teams in different ways.

The trade that Lowe made for Comrie this past year is probably more realistic of what Lowe will have to do to bring a good young center back should he choose to go that route. In which case the young depth on defence or the over abundance of wingers will likely very much play a role in getting that needed center.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:23 PM
  #47
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
Top notch goalie? A signed Nabokov that was ready for training camp was sure nice this past season. A year ago when San Jose badly missed the playoffs, both Nabokov and Stuart were sitting out at least a month into the season. You can't tell me that didn't have a significant effect on their standings. A goaltender that isn't comfortable and into form leads to trouble.
totally agree. My point is that Lowe was unfavourably compared to Wilson despite Wilson horribly pooching his goaltending situation. Wilson mishandled the goalies far worse than Lowe ever did. Could you imagine what would be posted here if Lowe traded away (for a 2nd round pick in a week draft) the goalie who THAT YEAR sets the all-time NHL record for best gaa?

One thing that doesn't get mentioned here is that Lowe recognizes the effect a hold-out can have on his team and the player. Comrie is the only guy who held out and the only reason that one lasted as long as it did was that Lowe HAD to be patient to wait for an acceptable offer. He could have easily caved.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:24 PM
  #48
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Momentai, you are taking two different sides here...

first you say that Lowe didn't need to acquire an immediate top 2 line centre, rather someone who could possibly grow into that role, then you say guys like Pouliot and Niinimaki (who can grow into that role) are too far away.

Sometimes you need to go and get a guy you like, like a Torres or a Dvorak because you like what they can do. Getting a position for position trade may not be what you want at the time because you can make a future move, and still get the player that you want right now.
Personally, I don't think so. Pouliot and Niinimaki are fairly new in terms of prospect and their development in terms of actually making it to the NHL isn't at all done yet. Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was trying to get at? They are a couple of years from making it to the NHL and learning what it takes to be players there.

The general type of player I am talking about would be learning at the NHL level right away. I wouldn't assume to know what was available at the time... but for example taking a guy like Lundmark. (paid his dues at the minor league level and is currently learning at the NHL level). At least that kind of player bridges the gap between guys like Pouliot/Niinimaki that are a few years from even making the NHL.

I'm not saying handcuff Lowe in terms of making a trade. It's merely that there have a couple of assets that "could" have garnered a center back and didn't. It merely adds up after a while is all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaz44
You also can't completely ignore the draft picks in the equation either especially in this case.

Lowe traded Hecht DURING that draft, he knew which players would most likely still be available and then made the trade. If I remember he made that trade right after the first round was completed or close to it.

He knew for example that Deslauriers had dropped and that Stoll was still available when he made that trade.
Certainly not. But when you are directly saying Weight got Stoll and Deslauriers is where I draw the line to a point. That, to me, assumes Hecht was directly acquired with Lowe knowing he'd trade him at the draft and resultantly draft both Deslauriers and Stoll with the two second rounders. It's certainly good value but I don't think a direct connection like that can be made.

momentai is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:32 PM
  #49
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
So, the big knock on Lowe is that he hasn't tried to fix the Oilers up the middle... Ok, well - that's off quite a bit. Oates, Nedved, and Dopita were all considered legit top six forwards when brought in by Lowe by the entire hockey world (extremely poor luck that only Nedved worked out). Even at that though, they were only stop gaps with a very short term purpose. Well, what has he paid attention to in the draft? He's taken three centers in the first round. Lowe is more then aware of what the Oilers need, and he's acting very wisely to cure that problem. For our future up the middle we have (all around age 20) Stoll, Pouliot, Niinimaki and Schremp...... now not all of them will make it, but Lowe has concentrated on center enough that the team won't need all of them to turn out to their max potential.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=160 - the Unofficial HF Political board
thome_26 is offline  
Old
08-03-2004, 03:34 PM
  #50
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
Certainly not. But when you are directly saying Weight got Stoll and Deslauriers is where I draw the line to a point. That, to me, assumes Hecht was directly acquired with Lowe knowing he'd trade him at the draft and resultantly draft both Deslauriers and Stoll with the two second rounders. It's certainly good value but I don't think a direct connection like that can be made.
Another way to look at it would be that irregardless of what Hecht did in Edmonton, the fact that he garnered those two players AT a draft that was pretty deep and still had some good players on the board, simply confirms the value that Lowe got back for Doug Weight.

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 02:36 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.