Straight up thats probably very close to what another team would offer under ordinary circumstances.

But hes worth more than that to the oil, so they probably wouldnt go for it
- hugefemale dog77

I agree. I would say Luke Schenn has similar value (a late first), but trading him for one wouldnt make any sense.

Completely incorrect, and I don't care who disagrees with me. You're overvaluing late first round picks. Of course there is the odd later pick that turns out being a stud, but 9 times out of 10 they do not equal the quality of Gagner... I'm not willing to take chance on that.

I should add... There is added value in later round picks, because of the POSSIBILITY of lucking out and getting an Eberle. In reality, this actually makes later first round picks more valuable than they actually are. It's kind of like buying a lotto ticket. But if we take away this element of hope, Gagner actually >>>>> a late first round pick. I guess it all depends on how much value you place on hope... Regardless, I'm sure the Oilers are more than happy with Gagner, and see his value as more than a late first round pick.
- laughs2907

I agree that Gagner is better than a late first. What im saying is that is probably what his value on the market is. As in, if he was traded tomorrow, he would probably return a late first, maybe a mid first.

I agree that Gagner is better than a late first. What im saying is that is probably what his value on the market is. As in, if he was traded tomorrow, he would probably return a late first, maybe a mid first.
- Leafs43

He would return something similar to what Phoenix got for an UNPROVEN Turris

Completely incorrect, and I don't care who disagrees with me. You're overvaluing late first round picks. Of course there is the odd later pick that turns out being a stud, but 9 times out of 10 they do not equal the quality of Gagner... I'm not willing to take chance on that.
- laughs2907

From the 2000-2007 draft, there were 77 picks 20th-30th overall. From a cursory glance, Gagner has shown more than around 65% of them, and about 18% of them have shown more than Gagner (there are a lot on the same level as him, or more promising that have shown less - and of course some of the "better" players I have are more established than Gagner). Still, of that 18% who are better talents than Gagner, 5 of them (Burns, Kesler, Richards, Boyle and Perry) were from the 2003 draft (35% of that 18%).

This has little to do with people's percieved value of draft picks, but barring an inordinately amazing crop of draft talent the likelihood that a 20-30 pick will be better than Gagner is not that high. That being said, I'd bet GMs would lowball Tambs if he was shopping Gagner. i.e. I believe Gagner to be worth more than a late first, but he might not fetch that at this juncture (which is why we should keep him).

Sources of error:
i) The evaluations here are subjective and somewhat binary (I measured whether players were better, worse or at the same level as Gagner, and not the extent).
ii) It's quite possible that players drafted as late as 2005 could have made a calder-elligible NHL debut this year, so evaluations are not necessarily indicative of who will be the best player (we could be judging one season of player A vs. seven of player B).

He would return something similar to what Phoenix got for an UNPROVEN Turris
- Starbuck

Eh, I think Ottawa paid extra for potential, as opposed to actual production.

So how would Gagner fit in as our 2nd line C if hes behind Elias and Henrique
- bobert836

I was contesting the notion that 55 points is average 2nd line, good 3rd line numbers on a contender by using New Jersey as an example. Elias is a top line centre, and Henrique scored fewer than 55. After that, no one came close to 50 points.

You don't need a 55 point 3rd line centre to compete is all I was saying.

From the 2000-2007 draft, there were 77 picks 20th-30th overall. From a cursory glance, Gagner has shown more than around 65% of them, and about 18% of them have shown more than Gagner (there are a lot on the same level as him, or more promising that have shown less - and of course some of the "better" players I have are more established than Gagner). Still, of that 18% who are better talents than Gagner, 5 of them (Burns, Kesler, Richards, Boyle and Perry) were from the 2003 draft (35% of that 18%).

This has little to do with people's percieved value of draft picks, but barring an inordinately amazing crop of draft talent the likelihood that a 20-30 pick will be better than Gagner is not that high. That being said, I'd bet GMs would lowball Tambs if he was shopping Gagner. i.e. I believe Gagner to be worth more than a late first, but he might not fetch that at this juncture (which is why we should keep him).

Sources of error:
i) The evaluations here are subjective and somewhat binary (I measured whether players were better, worse or at the same level as Gagner, and not the extent).
ii) It's quite possible that players drafted as late as 2005 could have made a calder-elligible NHL debut this year, so evaluations are not necessarily indicative of who will be the best player (we could be judging one season of player A vs. seven of player B).
- Morris

My main issue with that is that Gagner is 22, and players selected prior to 2007 are more mature (age-wise at least), and have had more time to craft their game.

My main issue with that is that Gagner is 22, and players selected prior to 2007 are more mature (age-wise at least), and have had more time to craft their game.
- laughs2907

Yeah it's not the most flattering comparison for Gagner, but I thought showing that you have a less than 1 in 5 chance of getting a player better than Gagner and probably a 1 in 3 chance of getting a guy that will never play significant minutes in the NHL suggests Gagner > a 20-30 pick.

I was contesting the notion that 55 points is average 2nd line, good 3rd line numbers on a contender by using New Jersey as an example. Elias is a top line centre, and Henrique scored fewer than 55. After that, no one came close to 50 points.

You don't need a 55 point 3rd line centre to compete is all I was saying.
- Morris

The 2nd and 3rd line center on the cup winner had 44 and 21 points respectively

Eh, I think Ottawa paid extra for potential, as opposed to actual production.
- Leafs43

I think this is probably right.

Doesnt seem fair, but i think turris was still looked on as a 3rd overall, whereas gagner isnt still looked on as a 6th overall. And theres a multitude of possible reasons.
5 seasons played etc. Etc.

speaking for myself at least, i put turris' value higher than sams for no other reason than potential. Cause he was certainly less proven.

Right or wrong, i kinda think this was the consensus outside edm. And opinion on potential cant really be argued too much. Its an argument based on conjecture..not facts.

I think this is probably right.

Doesnt seem fair, but i think turris was still looked on as a 3rd overall, whereas gagner isnt still looked on as a 6th overall. And theres a multitude of possible reasons.
5 seasons played etc. Etc.

speaking for myself at least, i put turris' value higher than sams for no other reason than potential. Cause he was certainly less proven.

Right or wrong, i kinda think this was the consensus outside edm. And opinion on potential cant really be argued too much. Its an argument based on conjecture..not facts.
- hugefemale dog77

Too much of Gagner's evaluations are based on what he's shown he's not, as opposed to what he's shown he is. Then again, he'd be worth more than a career 40-50 point 30 year old, so maybe the overrating of potential is still somewhat applied to everyone.

I said this in the other blog, but no one really commented on it mainly probably cause people thought i was trolling, which i kinda sorta was, but after having a discussion about it with my friends im curious as to who thinks who is over paying in this deal.
To Edm: Landeskog
To Col: Hemsky, 2012 1st

I said this in the other blog, but no one really commented on it mainly probably cause people thought i was trolling, which i kinda sorta was, but after having a discussion about it with my friends im curious as to who thinks who is over paying in this deal.
To Edm: Landeskog
To Col: Hemsky, 2012 1st
- ALEDDO

In Actual assets, edm probably is overpaying.
But its all about circumstances.
Landeskog is exactly what colorado wants so they probably dont do it. Hes their future captain and about to win rookie of the year.

I dont think theyd trade for a more 'offensively talented player(s)' and give up all the intangibles landeskog brings. His grit, 2way play, leadership, toughness all outweigh the numbers argument right now.
Not only that, but landeskog has the potential to put up great numbers too.

Eh, I think Ottawa paid extra for potential, as opposed to actual production.
- Leafs43

You realize that they're from the same draft class and Turris hasn't exactly shown that he will ever live up to his "potential"

I said this in the other blog, but no one really commented on it mainly probably cause people thought i was trolling, which i kinda sorta was, but after having a discussion about it with my friends im curious as to who thinks who is over paying in this deal.
To Edm: Landeskog
To Col: Hemsky, 2012 1st
- ALEDDO

It's a close one.... it's pretty even.

I said this in the other blog, but no one really commented on it mainly probably cause people thought i was trolling, which i kinda sorta was, but after having a discussion about it with my friends im curious as to who thinks who is over paying in this deal.
To Edm: Landeskog
To Col: Hemsky, 2012 1st
- ALEDDO

It's a lot to give up, but damn I'd love to have Landeskog... (frank) it... You know what? I'd do it.

I said this in the other blog, but no one really commented on it mainly probably cause people thought i was trolling, which i kinda sorta was, but after having a discussion about it with my friends im curious as to who thinks who is over paying in this deal.
To Edm: Landeskog
To Col: Hemsky, 2012 1st
- ALEDDO

Looks like 19 year old Brendan Morrow for Hemsky and 18 year old Kovalchuk to me.

I'd pass.

- laughs2907

It's funny that people keep saying Galy and Grigs are "big centers"

I said this in the other blog, but no one really commented on it mainly probably cause people thought i was trolling, which i kinda sorta was, but after having a discussion about it with my friends im curious as to who thinks who is over paying in this deal.
To Edm: Landeskog
To Col: Hemsky, 2012 1st
- ALEDDO

Edmonton would be overpaying definitely down the road... if not the whole time IMO... But Landeskog is a great player now and should be even better... Its a tough one...I would not do it...

Sources of error:
i) The evaluations here are subjective and somewhat binary (I measured whether players were better, worse or at the same level as Gagner, and not the extent).
ii) It's quite possible that players drafted as late as 2005 could have made a calder-elligible NHL debut this year, so evaluations are not necessarily indicative of who will be the best player (we could be judging one season of player A vs. seven of player B).

Both you and Laughs have very valid points. Stats aside I think anyone that watches Oiler hockey on a regular basis realizes what Sam brings to the table every night. He battles hard and makes plays. He has gotten so much better in the last 2 years in his own end it's crazy. I hope Sam is here to stay. I also think if we see him in the playoffs he will be a beast. One of those players that just gets it done when the season is on the line. For what the media perceived value of him is I wouldn't trade him. People go crazy when I compare him to Logan Couture but as far as age and stats go Sam is younger more proven and is at the very least an equal talent. This should be Sam's year to break out. If he nets another 50 I'll be happy but if he is ever going to be a 70 pt guy this is the year he needs to do it.

It's a lot to give up, but damn I'd love to have Landeskog... (frank) it... You know what? I'd do it.
- laughs2907

I just love the idea of him and PRV on a line together, my friends being the classic oilers homer thinks this is waaaay to much of an over payment and suggested "omark and our first for landeskog" in which i replied with a smack upside his head. At the end of the day i think Oilers do this trade and Avs don't.

It's funny that people keep saying Galy and Grigs are "big centers"
- Zombie

I love how Galy just TOWERS over Yakupov.

I think this is probably right.

Doesnt seem fair, but i think turris was still looked on as a 3rd overall, whereas gagner isnt still looked on as a 6th overall. And theres a multitude of possible reasons.
5 seasons played etc. Etc.

speaking for myself at least, i put turris' value higher than sams for no other reason than potential. Cause he was certainly less proven.

Right or wrong, i kinda think this was the consensus outside edm. And opinion on potential cant really be argued too much. Its an argument based on conjecture..not facts.
- hugefemale dog77

Rundblad also wasn't very close to being an impact player at the NHL level, and he also didn't blow the doors off in the AHL, so maybe the Sens didn't overpay the way most thought they did.

It's funny that people keep saying Galy and Grigs are "big centers"
- Zombie

who is that between subban and murray?