Do we need a trade to get our offence going ?

[Dabura 12,207]

What's wrong with Yakupov: drafted by and plays for the Edmonton Oilers.

He had a shift last night - against the Blackhawks - where he hauled ass on the backcheck and got back just in time to break up a 'hawks scoring chance. He also had an assist and a beautiful goal-scorer's goal.

He's a great kid. His heart's in the right place. He could be a partyer and a womanizer and an egotistical punk, but that's not him. He's religious, hangs out with his mom.

He just needs a change of scenery, an organization that knows what it's doing, has its act together.

[Dabura 12,207]

Can he play defence?

Assume we're getting a defenseman.

Chiasson's big, physical, right-handed, a decent scorer, young. We're always saying we could really use a right-shooting power-forward.

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

Not that I'm advocating a trade for Yakupov, but this team's had its fair share of issues with Swedish kids going back, too. Ryno, Axelsson, Larsson, Almqvist and now Backman.

I've wondered before if axelsson and ryno would of been nhlers if they would of played some time in the ahl, guess it's not like it use to be back in the day , some Europeans are just as happy being home and surrounded by there family and friends (can't imagine it being easy leaving, thus many returning when there nhl careers are done)

That being said in the khl it's worse because a lot of players can make more money there than here ... Well see if anything changes with the economy going down

[kipwinger 8,520]

Assume we're getting a defenseman.

Chiasson's big, physical, right-handed, a decent scorer, young. We're always saying we could really use a right-shooting power-forward.

Didn't Ottawa get Chaisson in the Spezza deal? I don't think they're going to turn around and cut bait on the guy after a year.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

What's wrong with Yakupov: drafted by and plays for the Edmonton Oilers.

He had a shift last night - against the Blackhawks - where he hauled ass on the backcheck and got back just in time to break up a 'hawks scoring chance. He also had an assist and a beautiful goal-scorer's goal.

He's a great kid. His heart's in the right place. He could be a partyer and a womanizer and an egotistical punk, but that's not him. He's religious, hangs out with his mom.

He just needs a change of scenery, an organization that knows what it's doing, has its act together.

Yakupov is on record talking about how he doesn't like being physical or playing defense. He wants to score, that's it.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

Yakupov is on record talking about how he doesn't like being physical or playing defense. He wants to score, that's it.

I feel I need to see a quote on that. It's hard to believe a player would be stupid enough to say that in public.

Edited January 10, 2015 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[kipwinger 8,520]

I feel I need to see a quote on that. It's hard to believe a later would be stupid enough to say that in public.

I vaguely recall hearing him say that he's just there to score. Although, he's hardly the first player to have said something like that in public.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

I vaguely recall hearing him say that he's just there to score. Although, he's hardly the first player to have said something like that in public.

I understand saying you're their to score. But that's a differeInt thing than bluntly say that you're not there to play defence or that you don't like playing defense. I don't know that I've heard that from contemporary players. They might say something like I'm trying to round out my game if their not the best defensively. Maybe I just haven't heard certain players.

If he did I'd be curious to see.

Edited January 10, 2015 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

Yakupov is on record talking about how he doesn't like being physical or playing defense. He wants to score, that's it.

Guess we should have got rid of Yzerman when he only wanted to play offense as well...

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

Okay I think I found the quote Dickie was refering to:

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/27/nail-yakupov-has-had-enough-of-the-questions-about-his-defense/

Yakupov: Every day I’m talking to media just all about defense, so I don’t want to talk about this. Sometimes it just piss me off. So, let’s do something different. Let’s talk about different things.

Reporter: What pisses you off? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Yakupov: Everyone asking me about defense. I’m not defensive and I like to play forward. OK, let’s do another question

If this is the quote, I take I think it's obvious Dickie has twisted it for his paraphrase. I take it as "You guys criticize my defence every day, fine I suck defensively, let's move on."

Guy is 21 and is now fighting a reputation that for selfish play, lack of defensive play. Most 19 years old scorers would be that way. He should have never been playing in the NHL for at least his first year. Fault of the organization. I also refuse to believe this reputation of refuses to change his game. Here's an article on his improved defence:

“You have to be strong in the defensive zone, you can’t cheat, because that’s when you give up opportunities to score,” Yakupov said. “When you play good defence, you have more time in the offensive zone.”

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/07/edmonton-oilers-forward-nail-yakupov-using-defence-to-gain-more-offence

Edited January 10, 2015 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Guess we should have got rid of Yzerman when he only wanted to play offense as well...

Different era, and they almost did.

The quotes I was talking about are here: Yakupov returned to the lineup for Tuesday’s 3-2 loss to Pittsburgh but was ineffective, finishing minus-1 with just one shot on goal in 17:29 of action — this coming after he said “I’m not going to change,” adding, “I really don’t like skating all the time, and forechecking, and hitting somebody every shift.”

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/17/russian-olympic-scout-blasts-yakupov-if-hes-not-going-to-change-his-game-he-has-no-future/

Igor Kravchuk blasted him in the same article while he was scouting for the Russian Olympic team:

He has to make up his mind, if he’s not going to change his game, then he has no future (in the NHL),” Kravchuk told TSN 1200 Radio Ottawa. “From what I see, his team game is really, really poor. He tries to do a lot of things by himself, he has absolutely no defense.

“That’s what really concerns us as scouts.”

The first thing I thought when he said those things was "more talented Leino." I can't see him meshing with any coach that requires defense.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

Different era, and they almost did.

The quotes I was talking about are here: Yakupov returned to the lineup for Tuesday’s 3-2 loss to Pittsburgh but was ineffective, finishing minus-1 with just one shot on goal in 17:29 of action — this coming after he said “I’m not going to change,” adding, “I really don’t like skating all the time, and forechecking, and hitting somebody every shift.”

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/17/russian-olympic-scout-blasts-yakupov-if-hes-not-going-to-change-his-game-he-has-no-future/

Igor Kravchuk blasted him in the same article while he was scouting for the Russian Olympic team:

He has to make up his mind, if he’s not going to change his game, then he has no future (in the NHL),” Kravchuk told TSN 1200 Radio Ottawa. “From what I see, his team game is really, really poor. He tries to do a lot of things by himself, he has absolutely no defense.

“That’s what really concerns us as scouts.”

The first thing I thought when he said those things was "more talented Leino." I can't see him meshing with any coach that requires defense.

Ah, but the reporter from your article cuts a very important part of that quote. Pretty horrible journalism.

Here's the whole quote from that article:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=21397

"I’m not happy about it. I just want to play every game," Yakupov said. "I’m going to play my game … I’m not going to change but maybe play better without the puck, or forecheck more, but I love playing with the puck. I really don’t like skating all the time, and forechecking, and hitting somebody every shift. I don’t think it’s my game."

He sort contradicts himself and it's not the best English, but the impression I get is quite different with the full quote. It more like I'm not going to change, except that I'll change by adding these defensive things to my game though I don't like doing them.

However if I just saw the NBC article I would have had the same impression you had. I feel like there's been a media bias against Yakupov. From the first time I heard about him as a prospect it's been pretty much nothing but negative. There was the time in WJC where he supposedly called Canada dirty and Don Cherry ripped him apart (it turned out to be a misquote of Nail). Then he was drafted but he's lazy, going to leave for the KHL... Nobody wants to focus on the fact that he's got 33 goals in 153 games(under 2 seasons) at 21 years of age.

Yes, he was -33 last year and he's not good defensively. He does play for the Oilers, though. Shultz was -22, Gagner -29. Their best players: Hall was -15. Eberle -11

Edited January 11, 2015 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[Dabura 12,207]

He wants to score, that's it.

Nope. Watch him play. Going back to that game against the Blackhawks, for example...

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2015/01/09/player-grades-nail-yakupov-derek-roy-and-anton-lander-exceptional-in-edmonton-oilers-win-over-chicago-blackhawks/

#10 Nail Yakupov, 8. Finished a hard check on Brent Seabrook as the Chicago defenceman cycled the puck to Duncan Keith; Keith gave the puck away and Pouliot cashed in for Edmonton’s first goal of the night…

tried to pass across to Roy but it was blocked and the puck almost bounced right into the Chicago net…

made a bad giveaway to create a shorthanded rush for Chicago but recovered [My note: didn't just recover. Skated as hard as he could on the backcheck] and broke up the play in the Oilers’ zone…

He hits, backchecks, and tends to pass when he should shoot. That's him in 2014-15. I'd actually say his play with the puck has been more concerning than his play without it.

He's a good kid who's learning to play the right way.

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

Nope. Watch him play. Going back to that game against the Blackhawks, for example...

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2015/01/09/player-grades-nail-yakupov-derek-roy-and-anton-lander-exceptional-in-edmonton-oilers-win-over-chicago-blackhawks/

He hits, backchecks, and tends to pass when he should shoot. That's him in 2014-15. I'd actually say his play with the puck has been more concerning than his play without it.

He's a good kid who's learning to play the right way.

Good post.

Too bad people on here just side with whatever the media is writing. When will you people get it, Canadian media is a joke.

[e_prime 1,936]

I still want a RH offensive d-man.

[e_prime 1,936]

Fluto Shinzawa of the Boston Globe: To get Keith Yandle, the Bruins would have to trade Torey Krug, maybe another young roster player, a draft pick and a prospect. The Bruins would also have to move out some salary, which isn’t easy.

So, the Bruins are going to go after Yandle? How does that make sense for them?

The second part of that quote: "Uh, no duh?!"

...but really, if that's the asking price for Yandle. What does that translate into for us?

[krsmith17 7,191]

What does that translate into for us? Not getting him. There's no way Holland gives up the roster players / prospects / picks necessary to land Yandle, and personally, I'm okay with that. I don't want to give up the assets for a Yandle type player anyway.

I think it would cost us something along the lines of Smith, Tatar/Jurco, Ouellet/Marchenko and a pick... Way too much in my opinion...

I still think a Petry type player is our best bet to go after. Immediate improvement on our backend, without having to give up the assets to cripple us in the future.

[kipwinger 8,520]

As I said in the other thread, we've got to win some games (convincingly) before Holland makes a trade. In the past he's made trades to "get us over the hump", not "get us to the hump". This team can't beat good teams right now, and doesn't really look impressive when they beat bad teams. Why give up good young assets for a playoff rental when you are clearly more than a piece or two away from being a contender?

If we play like we did in November, and do it consistently, Holland makes a trade. If we play like we did Saturday, then Holland stands pat. Which is good, because the team I watched Saturday needs a lot more than Jeff Petry to make them a contender.

[Jesusberg 1,256]

What does that translate into for us? Not getting him. There's no way Holland gives up the roster players / prospects / picks necessary to land Yandle, and personally, I'm okay with that. I don't want to give up the assets for a Yandle type player anyway.

I think it would cost us something along the lines of Smith, Tatar/Jurco, Ouellet/Marchenko and a pick... Way too much in my opinion...

I was going to say something along these lines. I imagine it would mean Smith, Jurco, Pulkkinen/Ouellet/Sproul + 2nd (at least).

Since we don't have a Krug, those other parts have to be more appealing, so the Jurco, Pulu, etc. would have to be included. Too much, for sure.

I actually think Boston could be better equipped than us to pull this off. Krug, Spooner/Griffith, Kelly+ high pick might be able to get it done. Though, like they say in the post, Boston needs to shed salary. The "young roster player" might be where Arizona would have to leave some wiggle room. The deal doesn't get done without Boston moving Kelly (or perhaps Eriksson, but I think he's still a solid player). If AZ is asking for someone like Smith or Soderberg, I think Boston laughs and walks. That deal itself seems a little steep, IMO, but I think Boston might get desperate. With Vermette looking like he's going to walk, Kelly might be somewhat appealing to the 'Yotes.

[rick zombo 3,739]

As I said in the other thread, we've got to win some games (convincingly) before Holland makes a trade. In the past he's made trades to "get us over the hump", not "get us to the hump". This team can't beat good teams right now, and doesn't really look impressive when they beat bad teams. Why give up good young assets for a playoff rental when you are clearly more than a piece or two away from being a contender?

If we play like we did in November, and do it consistently, Holland makes a trade. If we play like we did Saturday, then Holland stands pat. Which is good, because the team I watched Saturday needs a lot more than Jeff Petry to make them a contender.

I agree. But the last two trades Holland made were to "get us to the hump" with the Legwand deal falling more obviously into this category than the Quincey one. Don't rule out Holland making another deal like this.

[kipwinger 8,520]

I agree. But the last two trades Holland made were to "get us to the hump" with the Legwand deal falling more obviously into this category than the Quincey one. Don't rule out Holland making another deal like this.

He clearly did that just to make it to the playoffs. This year it looks like that shouldn't be a problem, so I don't see him doing something similar. I guess I'm talking about an impact trade more than anything. Nobody expected the Legwand deal to make us a contender.

[krsmith17 7,191]

Kip, what's up with all the doom and gloom lately? We are just a few points away from the top teams in the league. You compare a month of playing good hockey to a game of bad hockey, which also came right after the dreaded west coast trip. I know, we haven't exactly been lighting the league on fire lately, but I think it's also very clear that none of our players are playing at their highest level right now. Most of our goals against in the past few games have been on horrible giveaways, right in front of our net (Ericsson). I'm confident they (he) will get that cleaned up.

Overall, I don't think we have been that bad, just not finding ways to win games. We've been falling behind early in a ton of games lately, and like Babcock says, "catch-up hockey is losing hockey"...

I do still think we're a key piece or two away from being a legitimate contender, whether we get that piece(s), is up to Holland.

[kipwinger 8,520]

Kip, what's up with all the doom and gloom lately? We are just a few points away from the top teams in the league. You compare a month of playing good hockey to a game of bad hockey, which also came right after the dreaded west coast trip. I know, we haven't exactly been lighting the league on fire lately, but I think it's also very clear that none of our players are playing at their highest level right now. Most of our goals against in the past few games have been on horrible giveaways, right in front of our net (Ericsson). I'm confident they (he) will get that cleaned up.

Overall, I don't think we have been that bad, just not finding ways to win games. We've been falling behind early in a ton of games lately, and like Babcock says, "catch-up hockey is losing hockey"...

I do still think we're a key piece or two away from being a legitimate contender, whether we get that piece(s), is up to Holland.

The only teams we've beat in a month are Buffalo, New Jersey, Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary. Seriously, we haven't beat a playoff bound team in a month.

And at some point we've got to stop with all this "we're not competing", "we're not playing our best hockey", "this group is better than that", "we need a 60 minute effort".

I'm not being negative just to be negative. But regardless of how many points you've got, to be a good team you've got to beat good teams. We aren't. Which makes me think all the points we've got are the product of a weak early season schedule, and not because we're that great.

Here's hoping Babs and the boys prove me wrong. I'd love to be. But to do that they've got to go at least .500 against playoff caliber teams.

Edited January 12, 2015 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

I agree, we do need to stop making the excuses and prove we are a top team again. But until we start falling in the standings, I think we're doing okay. We are a playoff team, despite our recent struggles.

In the next week, we will win 3 out of 4 games, beating one or both of Nashville and St. Louis, who are both great teams, the other two against Buffalo, we'll see...

[kipwinger 8,520]

I agree, we do need to stop making the excuses and prove we are a top team again. But until we start falling in the standings, I think we're doing okay. We are a playoff team, despite our recent struggles.

In the next week, we will win 3 out of 4 games, beating one or both of Nashville and St. Louis, who are both great teams, the other two against Buffalo, we'll see...

I hope you're right (about the upcoming games), but I'm not holding my breath.

As far as the first part, I don't doubt we'll make the playoffs. But I"d like to make a little noise once we get there. And I don't hold out a lot of hope for that when I see how we play against playoff caliber teams.

Again, I'd love to be wrong. I'm not even saying the sky is falling. But I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks this team is a contender, or even "heading in the right direction", when they haven't beat anyone good in a month, and have lost to quite a few BAD teams (Florida, Columbus, Toronto, Colorado) during that same stretch.

They need to figure out what they were doing right in November and early December. I wish I knew what it was. I'd email them the answer right now.