Craig MacTavish Explores 'Set Theory'
Posted 8:13 AM ET | Comments 4
Obviously, much hoopla about the trades. Many ins and outs, and perhaps even at this point injecting another opinion about the trades into the blogosphere is just tossing another token on the heap, but I thought I'd examine an angle that's perhaps not been covered.
For the second time this year, MacT has made a set of moves specifically meant to be judged as a whole.
Instance One
On November 8th, MacTavish trades Smid to the soon to be canned Jay Feaster in exchange for an AHL and a Junior prospect. The move is essentially to clear cap space and recoup whatever assets possible.
Later that day, Bryzgalov is signed to a one-year prorated contract.
Instance two
Yesterday, MacTavish trades Dubnyk (cap retained) to the previously on the bubble but perhaps not now David Poile in exchange for Matt Hendricks. The deal saves us essentially no cap but opens up a roster spot for a goaltender.
Later that day, he trades a 3rd round pick to happy to help Dean Lombardi for a 3rd round pick.
What's Your Point?
To me, each set of trades are like magic mirrors: depending on what angle you look at it, it looks either normal or horrible.
Take the Smid-Bryz venture for instance. Objectively speaking, whether Smid is tailing (and there's recent evidence that that was a 'just in time' move), we didn't maximize that asset. Brossoit could be our best goalie prospect (which isn't saying much) and Horak is essentially a less polished Lander. There's a possible universe that vindicates our patience in the rebuild where Brossoit starts in goal for us and Horak is a brilliant pair of bottom 6 centres, but it's about three or four quantum leaps away.
Let's just say that whatever you think about Smid, we didn't get a ton for him. Even if you think he sucks, he was still well enough regarded that a Smid trade for futures had fleece potential.
However, slap it together with the Bryzgalov move, and suddenly it doesn't look so bad.
IN
Horak
Brossoit
Bryzgalov
OUT
Smid
CAP DIFFERENCE
(-1.233766)
Yeah! Now that’s two prospects and a better backup than we have for a guy that may or may not have been part of the long term solution.
Now looking at the Dubnyk-Hendricks deal, on the surface we acquired a declining, underwhelming 4th liner who’s overpaid (if you’ve heard me rant I REALLY don’t care about this point and it seems unreasonable that anyone would but I’m including it because this is a public knock on the deal.) in exchange for a guy we spent years grooming after drafting him 14th overall, and who has shown he can play at least 30 competent games and whom we might have gotten away with not paying post departure.
However, slap it together with the Scrivens deal and it’s again a different story.
IN
Hendricks
Scrivens
OUT
Dubnyk
3rd
CAP DIFFERENCE
(+ 2.4 this year, + 1.85 next three years)
Now we’ve taken on a miniscule amount of cap on, got a guy who if he’s not an upgrade in skill, will likely be an upgrade in confidence from Dubnyk and added a 4th line character guy, for an expiring contract and a pick in a position that rarely yields us NHLers.
Whether MacTavish is rushing to make one deal so he make another, or is waiting until he has a good deal to pull the trigger on the ugly deal he feels he has to make, his chaining of moves together is absolutely deliberate so that we think of them as one move.
I think we as Oilers fans will have to keep a critical eye on this principle as we move into an era where anyone from Nick Schultz and Ales Hemsky through Sam Gagner and Jeff Petry to Nail Yakupov and Jordan Eberle could get traded.
Is it good enough if Gagner goes in a deal for peanuts if a subsequent deal brings back a big two-way centre? On one hand, a simple crunching of who goes in and who goes out shows the Oilers get better today than they are yesterday. On the other hand, A GM who’s in the habit of making a bad deal to make a good deal is probably not working on maximizing each and every asset? Remember, this is a GM that traded Horcoff and bought out Belanger well before they signed Gordon, knew when Nuge was coming back, had re-signed Gagner, and knew Arcobello’s favourite colour. And it’s worth noting that even though we got Gordon, we found out quite soon our centre depth was still supremely lacking.
Having deals lined up is all well and good, but if you need both deals to make the “set” look pretty, you have to wonder how long that “set theory” can yield positive results.
One last point: Why rush? Why did we rush in getting rid of Dubnyk (or get rid of him at all) and why did we rush to dump Smid for prospects when there might have been a deal for a roster player available? Could it be that despite having a higher spending limit than any time in Oilers history, this team still DOES in fact have an internal cap?
For the second time this year, MacT has made a set of moves specifically meant to be judged as a whole.
Instance One
On November 8th, MacTavish trades Smid to the soon to be canned Jay Feaster in exchange for an AHL and a Junior prospect. The move is essentially to clear cap space and recoup whatever assets possible.
Later that day, Bryzgalov is signed to a one-year prorated contract.
Instance two
Yesterday, MacTavish trades Dubnyk (cap retained) to the previously on the bubble but perhaps not now David Poile in exchange for Matt Hendricks. The deal saves us essentially no cap but opens up a roster spot for a goaltender.
Later that day, he trades a 3rd round pick to happy to help Dean Lombardi for a 3rd round pick.
What's Your Point?
To me, each set of trades are like magic mirrors: depending on what angle you look at it, it looks either normal or horrible.
Take the Smid-Bryz venture for instance. Objectively speaking, whether Smid is tailing (and there's recent evidence that that was a 'just in time' move), we didn't maximize that asset. Brossoit could be our best goalie prospect (which isn't saying much) and Horak is essentially a less polished Lander. There's a possible universe that vindicates our patience in the rebuild where Brossoit starts in goal for us and Horak is a brilliant pair of bottom 6 centres, but it's about three or four quantum leaps away.
Let's just say that whatever you think about Smid, we didn't get a ton for him. Even if you think he sucks, he was still well enough regarded that a Smid trade for futures had fleece potential.
However, slap it together with the Bryzgalov move, and suddenly it doesn't look so bad.
IN
Horak
Brossoit
Bryzgalov
OUT
Smid
CAP DIFFERENCE
(-1.233766)
Yeah! Now that’s two prospects and a better backup than we have for a guy that may or may not have been part of the long term solution.
Now looking at the Dubnyk-Hendricks deal, on the surface we acquired a declining, underwhelming 4th liner who’s overpaid (if you’ve heard me rant I REALLY don’t care about this point and it seems unreasonable that anyone would but I’m including it because this is a public knock on the deal.) in exchange for a guy we spent years grooming after drafting him 14th overall, and who has shown he can play at least 30 competent games and whom we might have gotten away with not paying post departure.
However, slap it together with the Scrivens deal and it’s again a different story.
IN
Hendricks
Scrivens
OUT
Dubnyk
3rd
CAP DIFFERENCE
(+ 2.4 this year, + 1.85 next three years)
Now we’ve taken on a miniscule amount of cap on, got a guy who if he’s not an upgrade in skill, will likely be an upgrade in confidence from Dubnyk and added a 4th line character guy, for an expiring contract and a pick in a position that rarely yields us NHLers.
Whether MacTavish is rushing to make one deal so he make another, or is waiting until he has a good deal to pull the trigger on the ugly deal he feels he has to make, his chaining of moves together is absolutely deliberate so that we think of them as one move.
I think we as Oilers fans will have to keep a critical eye on this principle as we move into an era where anyone from Nick Schultz and Ales Hemsky through Sam Gagner and Jeff Petry to Nail Yakupov and Jordan Eberle could get traded.
Is it good enough if Gagner goes in a deal for peanuts if a subsequent deal brings back a big two-way centre? On one hand, a simple crunching of who goes in and who goes out shows the Oilers get better today than they are yesterday. On the other hand, A GM who’s in the habit of making a bad deal to make a good deal is probably not working on maximizing each and every asset? Remember, this is a GM that traded Horcoff and bought out Belanger well before they signed Gordon, knew when Nuge was coming back, had re-signed Gagner, and knew Arcobello’s favourite colour. And it’s worth noting that even though we got Gordon, we found out quite soon our centre depth was still supremely lacking.
Having deals lined up is all well and good, but if you need both deals to make the “set” look pretty, you have to wonder how long that “set theory” can yield positive results.
One last point: Why rush? Why did we rush in getting rid of Dubnyk (or get rid of him at all) and why did we rush to dump Smid for prospects when there might have been a deal for a roster player available? Could it be that despite having a higher spending limit than any time in Oilers history, this team still DOES in fact have an internal cap?
Slow clap...
Why Rush?? I see your points but this will be 8 years and no playoffs. The only way this team gets any better is to change a couple of guys in the top 6 , add a legit top pairing D tandem , and in all likelihood make another 3 or 4 changes to the bottom 6, how many years of missing the playoffs is acceptable? 10 , 12 , 14.
Message Posted
Nice article, I think he makes deals to alleviate the concerns of the disgruntled fans.