Oilers must be bold and consider moving Nugent-Hopkins (NHL)

With their sub-sub-par start to the 2015-16 season, the 30th-overall Oilers have proven one thing: they are to making the playoffs as the San Jose Sharks are to winning the Stanley Cup. Every season, it’s tempting to look at them and say, “You know what? This is gonna be the year they actually do it, dammit. This year, for sure.… And every year, for one reason or another, they don’t do it. It’s all so much Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football, and Edmonton’s fans are right to be sickened to death by it.

After numerous coaching and management changes, the Oilers Link reportedly are prepared to make serious changes to the team’s core of young talent – something that’s been regularly suggested by many pundits, professional and amateur, over the years. And if it’s true, that’s where the real debate – which dynamic young talents do you keep, and who do you send packing to address the franchise’s other needs – kicks in.

Of course, even with the prospect of adding consensus 2016 first overall pick Auston Matthews this summer via the NHL draft lottery, the notion of dealing burgeoning superstar and 2015 No.1 1 pick Connor McDavid is an absolute non-starter and a $250 fine in Edmonton if you say it out loud while inside city limits during regular business hours. And personally, I wouldn’t move forwards Leon Draisaitl or Taylor Hall, or defenseman Darnell Nurse, either. You’ve got to retain some youngsters to grow alongside McDavid, and any GM in the league would kill to have those four to build around.

But I’ve got to be honest: at this stage in the Oilers' non-development, I’d listen to offers on everybody else – and yes, that includes star forwards Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Jordan Eberle and Nail Yakupov.

Don’t take that to mean I’m advocating for Oilers GM Peter Chiarelli to deal any of those three big names immediately or at all if he doesn’t have his asking price met. With Nugent-Hopkins and Eberle currently struggling on an individual basis, it’s not the ideal time to maximize their value. And certainly, I’m not suggesting Chiarelli accept anything less than a steep return, particularly for someone of Nugent-Hopkins’ calibre. The 22-year-old center is one of Edmonton’s best competitors and absolutely is still a franchise player.

But that’s the thing: the Oilers have other franchise players. If you really want to address the Oilers’ biggest issue – depth (especially on defense, but also, in support roles) – you need to have something of value to trade. Fortunately, the Oilers have enough things of great value to be able to part with one or two of them and still have an embarrassment of riches, but they have to have the courage to part with them.

And other teams – teams far more successful than today’s Oilers – have long accepted a certain amount of risk in the hope a major trade would reward them. In 1995, the Colorado Avalanche – in their first year in Denver after relocating from Quebec City – dealt winger Owen Nolan to the San Jose Sharks for defenseman Sandis Ozolinsh. Nolan was 23 years old, already had scored at least 30 goals in three of his five seasons with the Nordiques, and was one of three No. 1 picks the organization had amassed in three consecutive drafts (1989-91).

The Nords’ other two No. 1 picks? Oh, those were only guys named Eric Lindros and Mats Sundin. And guess what happened to them? They were traded (in Sundin’s case, after five years with the organization, and in Lindros’ case, before he ever played a game for them or any NHL team), too.

Imagine if that sequence of events happened in today’s world. Three straight No. 1 picks, all traded in half-a-decade or less with an organization. There would be so many mass faintings, non-hockey fans would think they were being flash-mobbed. Social media would form a literal black hole of negativity, sucking into its vortex people, planets and entire blogs. Little old ladies who followed the game would be springing up the sides of buildings, parkour-style, howling their discontent.

Many of those people would not remember what the Nords/Avs accomplished with those deals: Ozolinsh became a key component on their blueline; Sundin was dealt to the Leafs for Wendel Clark, who then was traded to the Islanders in a three-way swap that made Claude Lemieux an Av, and eventually, an Avs legend; and most famously, Lindros was sent to Philadelphia in exchange for Peter Forsberg, Mike Ricci, Steve Duchesne, Ron Hextall and Kerry Huffman.

In sum, for the price of three No. 1 picks, the Avs wound up with four players (Ozolinsh, Ricci, Forsberg and Lemieux) who helped them to the team’s first Cup championship in 1995. Those are some well-utilized assets, I say.

Yes, there’s no guarantee Chiarelli will be able to acquire the right type of players to push Edmonton to the next echelon. But it’s become painfully clear that the status quo isn’t an option. And so long as he’s patient, open-minded and willing to be creative (perhaps putting a couple of young players together to make one mega-deal), Chiarelli has enough talent he can part with to give his Oilers the depth, veteran guidance and culture change they require.

You want to know a team that's allowed to agonize this long over which key players to keep? Try the Blackhawks. They’ve won a few Cups in the past few years. And even then, they’ve never shied away from trading talented young players. Ask Dustin Byfuglien or Brandon Saad.

The Oilers? They can’t even win half their regular-season games. Again, they don't have to trade Nugent-Hopkins, Eberle and Yakupov, but this is not a gang to be kept intact at all costs. Yes, it seems unsettling to imagine them without a top-tier talent such as Nugent-Hopkins, but the Nords/Avs of the early 1990s probably furrowed a brow or two thinking about dealing away Sundin, Lindros and Nolan. They did it anyway. They were bold, smart and rewarded for it.

The Oilers can follow their lead, take some risk, and try to take the next step. Or, they can maintain their status as the Ellis Island for No. 1 picks, welcome Matthews this summer, and every No. 1 pick thereafter. Sometimes, safe-is-death isn't just true on the ice.

Loading...
Loading...