I have been debating for a while now if the Oilers should have more than two rookies in the lineup next season. Most of you know that --before the changes by Tamby to make the team tough-- I have thought that only Hall and Paajarvi would start the year in the NHL and Eberle and Omark would go to the Oklahoma City Barons. But the more I talk to people about it, there is just so many questions that need to be answered and scenarios to think of.
Would the rookies be better off spending a year in Oklahoma City instead of playing in the NHL? Probably. It's only logical and makes sense.
Would it be a great way to fill the Cox Convention Center and build a fan base by adding players like Eberle and Paajarvi to the opening day roster? You bet it would and that's what the OKC Barons are going to need. You can't just open the doors and expect people to just come watch a game. Names sell.
But you also need to think that since players like Eberle and Paajarvi are signed to a contract, it would essentially burn up a year on their respective deals. Not exactly a good thing right? Hmmmm....
Then you look at the way that Tambellini is building the current Oilers roster. He's added some big boys with the likes of Vandermeer, MacIntyre and Foster to go with a talented and skilled small team. It seems like he's preparing to ice a young rookie squad with large muscle to surround them. The writings on the wall one would think.
But is it the right thing to do? Is it too soon?
So now I have myself thinking about another young Oilers team. The first cup winning team from the 1983/84 season. That team is a fairly young team much like the current one we may possibly have now.
How did that team from the 80's get so good so quick? Well I have a theory.

So here we have a team with no real veteran leadership yet, the won the Stanley Cup. How is that possible?

-Written by Smokin' Ray-