I don’t want to be a downer because I love the Condors but I see more of a group of guys that might excel at bottom 6 or bottom pairing D (minus Jones I think he is top 4 material).....Benson could be a good top 6 player along with Yamamoto but who knows at this point
- RatedR80

I'm more so pointing out the fact that we actually have positives to build on. I'm not classifying them by their magnitude, but by the actual fact that things are going in an upward trend.

Which is precisely one of the things we desperately need. A productive bottom-6 alleviates some of the burden of scoring from the top-6 and helps drive teams to success.

If we're talking long-term impact players, I see Jones, Bouchard and one of Yamamoto or Benson achieving such out of the players currently in the system with an outside shot to Maksimov and Samorukov. The rest seem well-positioned to fill out our depth admirably and hopefully save us from the pit of mediocrity that is overpaying depth UFAs.

Russell and Gambardella are safe bets to compete for a bottom-6 spot next year (could probably do it now) while Benson and Marody should probably see another start in Bako unless they take their skating to a new level over the summer. Jones and Lagesson could likely do well in a bottom pairing role next year and, if it weren't for our LHD depth, they might already.

I'll just say, don't be surprised if this Bakersfield team graduates 3 or 4 players to start next year and another 1 or 2 by season's end.
- MaximumBone

Depth is a great thing to have now it’s really just a matter of shedding cap and adding some help with the top 6......if this team can shed some dead weight then I can easily see guys on the Condors now playing next season in Edmonton.....I left the guys in JR hockey out just because they shouldn’t be with the big club next season....or at least I’m hoping they aren’t with the Oilers next year

Russell trade/buyout, Sekera can stay as he's proven to be his usual effective self, bring in a RD (Gudas) and then bring up one of the two. Draft Byram.

Klefbom- Larsson
Nurse- Gudas
Sekera- Benning
Gravel, Lagesson

Klefbom- Larsson
Sekera- Barrie (Nurse for Barrie?)
Lagesson- Benning
Gravel

Jones*, Bouchard, Byram, Bear, Samorukov, Berglund and Kemp in the system.

* only because I prefer him dominating offensively w/ Bouchard to floating between 6 & 7 D
- MaximumBone

Sekera really hasn’t been bad since he has been back....curious to see how the team handles the LHD situation due to the depth that is there and then there is Nurse needing a new contract soon

Standardization as in account for anomalies and outliers, and minimize their impact in the grand scheme of things.

If you had used all three, that would have been far better in terms of analysis, but I understand your constraints.
- EdmHockeyMan

I believe my means of standardization in this respect is irrelevant in this particular discussion. As we were discussing the apex of the league's wingers, I didn't deem any adjustment necessary as we're not going to confuse them being inferior to one of these small sample, 4th line anomalies (like Martel).

Had I been assessing 3rd and 4th liners who I value and want the Oilers to acquire, I can see your argument having merit but were I doing that I would've featured a greater emphasis on their deployment compared to one another instead of changing my stat set all that much.

I think the most robust case against my argument is that my sample size wasn't large enough. Had I wanted to really drive home my point, I would've used more than a single season sample, but I didn't have the time nor desire to calculate the weighted (20%, 30%, 50%) 3-year average trend of data.

I'm more so pointing out the fact that we actually have positives to build on. I'm not classifying them by their magnitude, but by the actual fact that things are going in an upward trend.
- EdmHockeyMan

It’s nice to have some positive things to look forward to with this team....the one thing they actually got right through the past few years

Depth is a great thing to have now it’s really just a matter of shedding cap and adding some help with the top 6......if this team can shed some dead weight then I can easily see guys on the Condors now playing next season in Edmonton.....I left the guys in JR hockey out just because they shouldn’t be with the big club next season....or at least I’m hoping they aren’t with the Oilers next year
- RatedR80

I'll be grading the new GM's offseason. My criteria requires adding a legitimate top-6 scorer with a history of outproducing across all the "shares" to a reasonable term, adding a middle-6 two-way forward on a shorter term deal, add prospect depth to the AHL team to equalize the loss of the potential graduates and alleviating the team of at least of the "burden contracts" (Lucic, Russell, Sekera) without selling the farm to do so. My scoring for the offseason will be as follows:

Top-6 winger: /4 (qual. of player worth 2, cap worth 1, term worth 1)
Middle-6 forward: /3 (qual. of player worth 1, cap worth 1, term worth 1)
Prospect depth: /2 (quan. of prospects, qual. of prospects)
Burden contract(s): /1 (additional points available)

Extra points are awarded for every additional "burden contract" that's moved and for every possible million not retained in the trade of said contract. Minus points possible for the significance of the assets moved in acquiring these players/making these trades.

As much as I don't love the idea of acquiring the guy (if only considering the optics), I'm not hating the concept of a Puljujarvi for Eriksson-Ek trade. Ideally, I'd like to expand it to include Zucker and our 2020 1st + a prospect.

No Bear?
- Oilers4Life14

I don't view him as having the tools to be an impact player. I see him more within the range of a Yannick Weber or Matt Grezlyck; a depth Dman that brings value but only in a sheltered role where his skillset is maximized.

I'll be grading the new GM's offseason. My criteria requires adding a legitimate top-6 scorer with a history of outproducing across all the "shares" to a reasonable term, adding a middle-6 two-way forward on a shorter term deal, add prospect depth to the AHL team to equalize the loss of the potential graduates and alleviating the team of at least of the "burden contracts" (Lucic, Russell, Sekera) without selling the farm to do so. My scoring for the offseason will be as follows:

Top-6 winger: /4 (qual. of player worth 2, cap worth 1, term worth 1)
Middle-6 forward: /3 (qual. of player worth 1, cap worth 1, term worth 1)
Prospect depth: /2 (quan. of prospects, qual. of prospects)
Burden contract(s): /1 (additional points available)

Extra points are awarded for every additional "burden contract" that's moved and for every possible million not retained in the trade of said contract. Minus points possible for the significance of the assets moved in acquiring these players/making these trades.
- MaximumBone

Looking at this system the prospect one shouldn’t be hard seeing as we should have 3-4 guys coming from JR hockey (I’ll add McLeod who should Center Maksimov) but the ditching contracts might be hard (minus the buyout option)

Lol, another site I check in on suggested Calgary might be able to get out of Neal's contract to Seattle with a mid round pick. Neal is as bad if not worse than Lucic this year. If Edmonton wants to shed itself of Looch to Seattle its gonna cost a 1st. Same can be said for Neal IMO.

To address your point regarding Kucherov's level of dominance, I looked into creating a small data sample of players who I think represent an elite level of play from the wing. The names I've included are those who populate the upper echelon of quality on the wings. I've got Wheeler, Gaudreau, Tarasenko, Hall, Ovechkin, Kucherov and Stone and tossed in a couple Cs you mentioned in McDavid and Johansen just to diversify the data set. Let's see how you do distinguishing who is who out of their even strength numbers.

A: 53.8% CF, 55.2% FF, 54.1% HDCF, 61.3 HDGF, 48.5% GF
B: 53% CF, 53.7% FF, 58.9% HDCF, 58.8 HDGF, 57.5% GF
C: 54.3% CF, 53.4% FF, 52.7% HDCF, 55.4 HDGF, 56.2% GF
D: 50.7% CF, 50.3% FF, 48.9% HDCF, 50 HDGF, 51% GF
E: 53.1% CF, 53.3% FF, 50.9% HDCF, 49.3 HDGF, 56% GF
F: 56.6% CF, 55.1% FF, 54.5% HDCF, 50.1 HDGF, 50.4% GF
G: 54.5% CF, 54.9% FF, 59.1% HDCF, 51.8% HDGF, 53.5% GF
H: 49.1% CF, 48.8% FF, 43.6% HDCF, 56.5% HDGF, 53.2% GF
I: 48.5% CF, 48.5% FF, 42.7% HDCF, 47.9% HDGF, 54.7% GF

With the exception of the bottom one, most of these blend in relatively well, wouldn't you say? Now for their /60 rates at EV and their team relative GF numbers:

A: +8.5 RelGF%, 3.69 GF/60, 3.92 GA/60
B: +8.1 RelGF%, 4.09 GF/60, 3.31 GA/60
C: +3.08 RelGF%, 3.85 GF/60, 3.01 GA/60
D: +9.4 RelGF%, 3.86 GF/60, 3.71 GA/60
E: -0.6 RelGF%, 4.16 GF/60, 3.27 GA/60
F: -9.49 RelGF%,3.84 GF/60, 3.78 GA/60
G: +2.7 RelGF%, 3.13 GF/60, 2.72 GA/60
H: +0.3 RelGF%, 3.72 GF/60, 3.28 GA/60
I: +2.5 RelGF%, 4.09 GF/60, 3.38 GA/60

Full disclosure, I've edited one of these numbers quite significantly just to not give away who Mark Stone is yet because his numbers here would make it obvious.

Obviously team-quality influences these kinds of numbers quite heavily hence the one egregious positive example and the one particularly bad negative one. Specifically, quality of linemates is bound to have a pretty exceptional impact on these numbers, right? They're bound to be playing with their fellow best players, right? Well, here is each of the players' most common linemates (expressed with their experience and even strength production):

A: A sophomore w/ 35 points and a veteran w/ 30 points
B: A rookie w/ 30 points and a rookie w/ 28 points
C: A veteran w/ 50 points and a veteran w/ 43 points
D: A young player w/ 55 points and a veteran w/ 32 points
E: A young player w/ 49 points and a veteran w/ 30 points
F: A veteran w/ 35 points and a veteran w/ 31 points*
G: A veteran w/ 44 points and a veteran w/ 32 points
H: A veteran w/ 52 points and a sophomore w/ 36 points
I: A veteran w/ 40 points and a veteran w/ 39 points

*both main linemates missed significant time w/ injuries

With the information provided, can you figure out who is who and, more specifically, who is Stone?
- MaximumBone

Find some friends.

Poor showing

Glad my pointing out a blog ago that Stones new contract is gonna cost an assload to retain Nuge turned into a geekfest of who who can provide more stats. Is it not safe to say it will now cost apx 7.5-8 for nuge to be extended unless he wants to stay and excepts a lesser offer because of the Stone contract? That was more or less what i was attempting to say. And to say with his EYE CHECK, comparative to recent guys, it's the market value. Stats dont mean poop when you watch the game. Leave the stat sheets to Tanner, I want to see the guy play not his paper.

Glad my pointing out a blog ago that Stones new contract is gonna cost an assload to retain Nuge turned into a geekfest of who who can provide more stats. Is it not safe to say it will now cost apx 7.5-8 for nuge to be extended unless he wants to stay and excepts a lesser offer because of the Stone contract? That was more or less what i was attempting to say. And to say with his EYE CHECK, comparative to recent guys, it's the market value. Stats dont mean poop when you watch the game. Leave the stat sheets to Tanner, I want to see the guy play not his paper.
- wreckage

I figured at least 7 per prior to the Stone deal. Nuge owes Edmonton nothing, and his next deal will be his payday.

Really !!! You have to bash Keith Gretzky for Chipets mistakes...You are a chronic whiner... You have nothing to write about unless you can female dog and complain...
- oilpatch

What the (frank) else is there to do about this team when Nicholson and company have been nothing but inept fools since drafting McDavid? (frank) off.

Glad my pointing out a blog ago that Stones new contract is gonna cost an assload to retain Nuge turned into a geekfest of who who can provide more stats. Is it not safe to say it will now cost apx 7.5-8 for nuge to be extended unless he wants to stay and excepts a lesser offer because of the Stone contract? That was more or less what i was attempting to say. And to say with his EYE CHECK, comparative to recent guys, it's the market value. Stats dont mean poop when you watch the game. Leave the stat sheets to Tanner, I want to see the guy play not his paper.
- wreckage

Lol

As for Nuge's next contract, I don't think Stone is the contract you ought to look at as a comparable. As of now, Kane's 7x7 and whatever a guy like Nyquist gets this offseason will be a good lower bar for Nuge's eventual contract.

I think the most robust case against my argument is that my sample size wasn't large enough. Had I wanted to really drive home my point, I would've used more than a single season sample, but I didn't have the time nor desire to calculate the weighted (20%, 30%, 50%) 3-year average trend of data.
- MaximumBone

Understandable.

Interesting that you didn't note any particulars about the link (http://www.thelightninglo...-kucherov-get-connor.html) I provided that compared McDavid's and Kucherov's contributions to the team when it came to comparing those two. Sure the link was based on the 2016-2017 season, but the fact that Kucherov was able to keep up or excel in the same stats, at even strength, (against Stone as well) you utilized should provide some merit for the discussion. Not to mention I referred that "Kucherov's dominance has statistically put him on the same level as McDavid. Not saying Kucherov is a McDavid, but Kucherov's underlying stats in terms of contribution are similar or even better than that of McDavid's [in the past]" in the initial post.

However, as for Stone's value, I did some more digging and looked into more stats, as well as did a 3-year comparison (using relative values) between him, Kucherov, as well as throwing McDavid into the mix. I think I might have to actually change my stance. I'm gonna try and watch a some Vegas Knights games just to specifically look at the impact he brings via the eye test.

But from what I'm now going by, perhaps 9.5m might actually be exactly what he deserves. When comparing the difference between the rel. GF/60 and rel. GA/60 numbers in the last 3 seasons, you begin to really see just how much of an impact he makes on both ends of the ice, as you mentioned. Not to mention when you look at Stone's offensive zone starts, his %'s by ascending year is 51.97, 58.31, and 50.96 without factoring the 6 games with Las Vegas. Kucherov's on the other hand is 66.04, 66.82, and 60.05. What a difference...

Kucherov (GF/60 rel, GA/60 rel., relGF%):


McDavid:


Stone:


But if this may be true, and it goes to that McDavid vs Kucherov statistical comparison that I brought up, along with comparing Kucherov to Stone. Is Kucherov's 9.5m a bargain or is exactly what he deserves considering his advanced stats and how well rounded Tampa Bay is? Also, more investigation should be done in why Kucherov's relGF% drops so significantly compared to the 2016-2017 season while Kucherov may arguably be having his best season in terms of point totals and the current position of this team in terms of standings. Perhaps, dare I say that Kucherov is merely a benefactor of the system and team TBL has in place? I'm so confused now lol. So many questions.

*All parameters are at even-strength and from natural stat trick

How would you guys rank Taylor Hall, Kucherov, and Stone?

Edit: And Why?

Glad my pointing out a blog ago that Stones new contract is gonna cost an assload to retain Nuge turned into a geekfest of who who can provide more stats. Is it not safe to say it will now cost apx 7.5-8 for nuge to be extended unless he wants to stay and excepts a lesser offer because of the Stone contract? That was more or less what i was attempting to say. And to say with his EYE CHECK, comparative to recent guys, it's the market value. Stats dont mean poop when you watch the game. Leave the stat sheets to Tanner, I want to see the guy play not his paper.
- wreckage

Bone beat me to it, but Stone isn't a good comparable for RNH.

I don't think Stone's contract will affect what RNH will get.

Higher end (in F/A), I see RNH getting 8m in F/A. If he wants to stick with us and play it out, here is hoping to 7m. These numbers aren't completely backed by objective measures though. I'd have to look at specific comparables to actually analyze what RNH could get when bringing in advanced metrics into the equation and previous contracts given out to similar players. I'd still have to factor in the notions of the GM, taxation, and other influences though.

What the (frank) else is there to do about this team when Nicholson and company have been nothing but inept fools since drafting McDavid? (frank) off.
- RafiDRW

You give them too much credit....it’s been happening long before McDavid

How would you guys rank Taylor Hall, Kucherov, and Stone?
- EdmHockeyMan

Kucherov
Stone
Hall

Kucherov
Stone
Hall
- Wildschwein

Interesting.

I forgot to include this in the original post, but why in that order? What leads you to order them in this way? Also, how far apart are they between each other in terms of value, in your opinion?

Interesting.

I forgot to include this in the original post, but why in that order? What leads you to order them in this way? Also, how far apart are they between each other in terms of value, in your opinion?
- EdmHockeyMan

Well... uhhh... I just listed them longest name to shortest really.

You give them too much credit....it’s been happening long before McDavid
- RatedR80

It all started with Gretzky coaching Arizona. Should’ve been the first Old Boy hired as coach of the team. Would’ve shown them how poopty that practice is.

Well... uhhh... I just listed them longest name to shortest really.
- Wildschwein