Comments on: Plante and Chorney sent back to Springfield

By: mrgod2u

mrgod2u — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:54:30 +0000

Yeah, I hear that. One of my hopes with Katz taking over was that it would inject a bit of ego into the running of the team (not Pocklington levels, but enough to add some spice). One of my big concerns with the EIG was that there would never be a motivation to make drastic change on a team that kept the luxury boxes full (you can always count on a committee to take the path of least resistance). With a single owner he has to watch the team that he loves stink it up, and listen to the other owners mock his once-proud team.

I am a fairly patient person, and I do think that there are some deadlines in place and that the clock is ticking on some careers. Katz gave management an imperative to fix the team. I think MacT had his chance. Tambellini is in the middle of his right now. His actions as far as the rebuild and draft will either cement his job for 5 years+ or wash him out next season.

Like I said we need enough owner-ego to care about more than the bottom line, but not so much that they are meddling and mucking about with the team. Hopefully Katz puts the money paid to Horcoff at less of a premium than having a competitive team.

Regardless the time to do it would be after this season (when we will need the cash), Horcoff is merely guaranteeing us a first pick at this rate.

By: Racki

Racki — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:47:17 +0000

This is correct.. Horcoff has a NTC not a NMC. I don’t see the Oilers doing it though. That’s a LOT of cash for Katz to swallow, and well, … I just don’t see them doing it. Aside from a few stupid decisions, the Oilers always seemed to be a pretty loyal organization. They should have waived Moreau long ago and haven’t… can’t see them stuffing Horcoff in the minors. However, maybe they’d eat half the tab though by recalling him

That half would count to the cap though, but still might be worth it. As much as I hate to say it we could sign two players that bring more than Horcoff does for that $2.75M savings.

By: mrgod2u

mrgod2u — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:38:19 +0000

Well keeping Brule off the ice is so far only making the other players look better by comparison.

ie. Moreau scored as many goals as Brule did in our last game.

Although even at that point we have to really bend the stats to make them look even as good as a benched player.

I guess maybe they think that by keeping Brule off the ice the old vets will not be shown up by his flare and work ethic.

Pretty sad though if that is the case. Seriously who would want any of these guys after watching a game tape anyway. If I was a scout there is no way I would risk my paycheque on recommending a trade for anybody that we want to move.

I did notice in the Horcoff thread on the OMB that people have noted Horcoff’s contract as having a NTC rather than a NMC. If this is true then the good news is that we can bury his contract in the Minors and have the room to deal with our cap issues. For the cost of his contract we could hire enough low-cost players to completely blow out the vets.

By: chucker

chucker — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:14:48 +0000

Tencer had a bird over the Brule benchings. It’s the closest I’ve heard to a rant from him on what’s going on here. He figures it’s likely Brule sitting to “showcase” the veterans we want to move, but he also said it would be better to play Brule to make them look better. I agree.

If Brule is traded for less than a very good NHLer on term, then management has to be cleaned out completely. He’s one of the only small guys who shows up to play and plays well in my view. Trading him would be a mistake.

By: Racki

Racki — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:03:46 +0000

Yah I don’t get why Quinn benched Brule. Everyone has their dogs and their golden childs though I guess. But that one just doesn’t make sense. Especially for two games. Unless it’s like mrgod2u said – keeping him healthy for a trade. That would suck.