Confirmed with Link: Oilers Do Not Match Broberg ($4.58M X2) & Holloway ($2.29M x 2) Offer Sheets | Oilers acquire STL 3rd '28 & Paul Fischer for Futures

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I love the concept, but NHL Edge's skating numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.

It shows Vinny as having a higher top speed than Kulak or Nurse. Plus Ceci also being right there with them. The old starting 6 are all also within 1 mph of eachother when it comes to top speed... It's just not reliable data.

Ranked

Vinny
22.91 top speed with 29 bursts over 20mph

Kulak
22.85 top with 81 bursts

Nurse
22.68 top with 94 bursts

Ceci
22.56 top with 62 bursts

Bouchard
21.96 top with 75 bursts

Ekholm
21.92 top with 27 bursts

Stecher
21.53 top with 31 busts (54games)

It's a strong concept because it is real tracked data using multiple in arena cameras to track activities much like the forerunners at MLB. It hasn't changed the results which you just again affirm in your post. Which again disproved your assertion about Stetcher's speed.

 

[Drivesaitl]

The part you're citing only applies for the 7 day period, I don't think it tells you what you can/can't do for the duration of the contract.

As far as I know the only way to prevent yourself from being waived outside of a offer sheet week as a player is to have a NMC.

I think its oversight in wording on Clause B. The implication of A, should logically be carried to B. Why wouldn't it be. Waiving the player is circumvention of the rules implied and stated under the offersheets right of refusal.

its careless wording, but its implied from one clause to the next,

Stupid really for the CBA to spell it out more thoroughly in clause A than clause B. Should be the same wording in both.

 

[Soundwave]

Its again as I said carelessly worded. and clear as mud. Clause A says can't trade or reassigning a player. Clause B fails to mention reassigning, and only mentions can't trade player when I think clearly both are implied and in the gist of the document as worded.

In anycase the wording would give ample cause for the league to cancel such a deal.

Again I maintain the CBA is carelessly worded. Unprofessional really. Should be better spelled out.

Fair point in anycase.

Clause B is the only relevant thing in the long term. Clause A just specifies what can and can't happen in the matching period of 1 week. If they wanted to stipulate you can't in the long term waive an offer sheeted player it should be there in Clause B, it's not. So if they want to pull out the rule book, that would actually support the Oilers case.

 

[McShogun99]

It says we can’t waive him during the 7 day offer sheet period it doesn’t say we can’t decide to waive him after matching the offer.

At least that’s how I read it.

If that's allowed then you do a trade with San Jose if they want him. Something like a prospect for a late draft pick. Then you waive Broberg before the season starts and San Jose claims him. It's up to the NHL to prove that it was 100% the intent of both teams and not Broberg being waived because he didn't earn a spot or the Oilers need to save some cap.

 

[Drivesaitl]

The nhl also loves to interpret the CBA differently depending on the team

It’s not saying the same thing on purpose though, when an offer sheet is out that asset is essentially frozen

What your saying is possible. But this is the standard garden poorly worded CBA that results in loopholes even being possible. I would assert that waiving is circumention. others would disagree. But it shouldn't even be a matter of speculation. It should be clear.

 

[SupremeTeam16]

Just answered my own questions. The wording on the CBA is clearer than many have postulated.

The Prior Club, within seven (7) days after36ARTICLE 10 10.3-10.3the date it receives the Offer Sheet, may exercise or not exercise its Right of First Refusal, whichshall have the legal consequence set forth below. Once an Offer Sheet for a Restricted FreeAgent has been received by the Prior Club, the Prior Club may not Trade or otherwise Assign itsRight of First Refusal for such Restricted Free Agent.


The key words being the prior club "may not trade or otherwise assign" the player. Clearly waiving the player would be "otherwise assigning"

So that the whole speculation of the lowetide thread was complete bunk as its not allowed in first place. just as I thought.

The CBA wording though is careless. its spelled out completely in a clause A, and not in a clause B. But the ruling is quite clear. People have carelessly read the CBA document thinking that only a trade is prohibited. Trade AND reassigning is prohibited for a one year period as per the CBA.

I think you are misunderstanding. The article you are quoting is for the 7 day period once the offer sheet has been signed but before the matter has been resolved. So during that 7 day period a team cannot trade, waive or otherwise assign their right of first refusal to another team.

I might be wrong but once the matter has been resolved, if the offer is matched then the cba only lays out that the player can’t be traded for a year, as far as I know there’s nothing about waiving said player.

That being said, the NHL loves the make things up as it suits them so if they wanted to I’m sure they’ve got some mechanism that allows them to veto a move even if it isn’t explicitly laid out in the cba.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Clause B is the only relevant thing in the long term. Clause A just specifies what can and can't happen in the matching period of 1 week. If they wanted to stipulate you can't in the long term waive an offer sheeted player it should be there in Clause B, it's not. So if they want to pull out the rule book, that would actually support the Oilers case.

Plausible, but subject to interpretation. I didn't read it that way, others did. Anyway here we are after reading CBA its clear as mud. Thanks for clearing that up CBA

 

[Soundwave]

It isn't really a "loophole" in the wording though. There is no stated protection against waiving a player in the the CBA long term.

It's not twisting words, there is no described protection for a player.

You need to have a NMC to prevent being waived, the clauses the NHL has for matching offer sheets only prevents a trade for 1 year. Nothing else. They'd have to rewrite the CBA if they want to change that now after the fact.

 

[oobga]

I shared context of his NHL sample play over multiple seasons which showed promised a month into his first year North American play in a lineup missing two veteran LD (Keith and Nurse). Prior to the Ekholm deal, he had a strong 10+ game run with fellow kiddy blue liner Bouchard. Notably both situations played on his natural shooting side. Exception snapshots like in year one a 22 minute big all situational play performance in Calgary playing right side due to Barrie's injury.

What I didn't include is the reality of killing his AHL demotion with mid-twenty toi all situational play including strong point production. A game high of low-mid 30 minutes reported. Critically most success coming on his natural shooting side.

He jumped into NHL Playoff Final 4 competition after missing a month of on-ice performance and delivered on his off-shooting side. That's exceedingly rare to do and this contribution was noted by his coach and truth speaker Ekholm, to name two.

St. Louis blew their own free agency defenseman letting Peter Angel walk out the door and then reacting in the market overpay to pick up Krug, hoping to extend their team's decade long success. Good example to hold on homegrown defensemen. However they built a championship level, league top d-corp via draft and solid trading. Edmonton's track record is largely forced to trade or go to market, both with high cost.

The Oilers now have to choose on their two young, entering prime years pedigree NHL talent because they took their eye off the ball of market conditions and the way it was always done.

I know you showed me breakdowns, and I appreciate it, but it was still only 81 regular seasons games with an average of ~12:30 a night. You picked out some of the 3 games of his entire career that he cracked 20 minutes. He had a very chaotic appearance in the playoffs a year ago having to come in with Nurse out that lead to 2 bad penalties because he was totally overwhelmed, and a very fortunate 10 games with 15:50 average per night that could have done horribly wrong if Skinner wasn't on his game. Yes, against good comp, but it is what it is, fortune favored him and Nurse for a week and a half, a lot of the best times when the entire team was rolling and Florida got on their heels a bit. Looking good in the AHL is nice. Countless players that couldn't consistently do it at a high level in NHL level have that on their resume as well.

So, we have that info, but I don't think there is any way around the fact that it's not enough to be anywhere near sure this is a 4.5M player, or even a 3M one. He simply didn't get enough opportunity to show what he could do. The only consistent high pressure situation ice time he had, against florida, almost no mistake he made was paid for with a goal against because of some good fortune. Loads of quality chances against, but Skinner was on a roll and stopped them. What do you do with that info? Just mark it off as spectacular and these 10 games, and 81 regular season games of 3rd pair sheltered ice time (aside from maybe 5% of the games), are sure proof that he can play with Nurse for 82 games at 20 mins a night plus a full 4 rounds of playoffs? That would be quite a leap, but maybe that was JJ's plan until St Louis messed us up. I would hate if that was the case honestly.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I think you are misunderstanding. The article you are quoting is for the 7 day period once the offer sheet has been signed but before the matter has been resolved. So during that 7 day period a team cannot trade, waive or otherwise assign their right of first refusal to another team.

I might be wrong but once the matter has been resolved, if the offer is matched then the cba only lays out that the player can’t be traded for a year, as far as I know there’s nothing about waiving said player.

That being said, the NHL loves the make things up as it suits them so if they wanted to I’m sure they’ve got some mechanism that allows them to veto a move even if it isn’t explicitly laid out in the cba.

I get it. It is interesting the NHL stipulates no reassigning in Clause A. Which gives it enough license (we know the NHL) to say thats implied stipulation in clause B. I mean I would bet on that being the NHL ruling if this occurred.

The clause wording remains unclear. The 7 days refers to the right of refusal or prior club. I.e. matching and having only 7 days to do so. At least as I read it.

The further question is that of course the prior club cannot move the player within the 7 day window. The player is not their sole property at that time. I still think the no reassignment is intended for the year.

 

[Soundwave]

I get it. It is interesting the NHL stipulates no reassigning in Clause A. Which gives it enough license (we know the NHL) to say thats implied stipulation in clause B. I mean I would bet on that being the NHL ruling if this occurred.

They wouldn't have much of a case. It has to be stated.

Beyond that I don't think you realize that would be opening a can of worms. Teams get to have broad discretion in waiving players, it's a central tenant of the CBA, not an after thought.

Even if we legitimately wanted to keep him lets say, and he's stinking it up 1/3 into the season and we wanted to send him down to the AHL ... how is that supposed to work? We're not allowed? I don't think that's intention of the CBA. NHL teams are to have broad discretion on waiving any player, the only way they don't is if the player has (earns) a NMC.

 

[Old Boys Club]

I think the waiving talk is all moot anyway. Mid 2nd value is likely more than 30 other teams would offer, especially with the disgusting 4.5M contract. Considering Brobergs value was next to nil 5 months ago, just take the 2nd for his 6 good games and move on.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

Its again as I said carelessly worded. and clear as mud. Clause A says can't trade or reassigning a player. Clause B fails to mention reassigning, and only mentions can't trade player when I think clearly both are implied and in the gist of the document as worded.

In anycase the wording would give ample cause for the league to cancel such a deal.

Again I maintain the CBA is carelessly worded. Unprofessional really. Should be better spelled out.

Fair point in anycase.

I don’t know seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I don’t know seems pretty clear to me.

I rue legal documents. Especially poorly worded ones. If it was clear there wouldn't be all this speculation and wouldn't be loophole.

I maintain the spirit of the document would be to prevent teams from manipulating or circumventing. They stipulate no trade consistent with that. They also stipulated no reassignment which either refers to the 7 days or does not. (its unclear) But the intent would be that if a team is matching they are respecting the contract, and as it says throughout having to agree to terms of that contract.

The players input into the CBA would want the player to be protected from such malfeasance.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

This isn’t like losing Draisaitl and Bouchard, people are acting like the sky is falling over potentially losing 2 guys who have proven very little. They are replaceable, hell their replacements might turn out even better. Move on

 

[Whoshattenkirkshoes]

In no world does Holloway or Broberg make or break the status of this team.

And cup or bust was last season. Get your timelines right

It was last season and this season. That is fact

 

[Broberg Speed]

I think the waiving talk is all moot anyway. Mid 2nd value is likely more than 30 other teams would offer, especially with the disgusting 4.5M contract. Considering Brobergs value was next to nil 5 months ago, just take the 2nd for his 6 good games and move on.

that was my first thought but these other guys discovered gold

 

[Whoshattenkirkshoes]

Yes you can - you arent looking at the cap scenario.

Holloway is 4th line LW right now buried on our team.
Broberg 2 or 3RD depending.

To keep both you need to trade Ceci, LTIR Kane before the season (bad as we cant accrue cap for deadline), and bury 3 players (playing with a short roster). We are screwed if we have non-LTIR injuries.

When Kane is back (he doesnt want to waive his NMC supposedly) you need to make another $5MM of space. In a cup or bust year we cant bank on overpaid potential and lose deadline flexibility while gutting our forward depth to try and keep them. You legit need to move some combo or Kulak, Henrique, etc and gut our depth. Then figure out a way to replace them for free since we dont have the space due to Broberg/Holloway.

I would much rather look at rolling same D as last year with Stecher as 3RD and upgrade at the deadline. If you dont want Savoie/Hamblin/Ryan/Lavoie on the 4th line bury them in the minors (no cap penalty) and try and get JVR/Wheeler whoever the hell is remaining at forward since the names are actually decent and sell them on a cup chance before retirement for a cheap contract. Otherwise meh our 4th line with our forward depth will barely play.

At the deadline upgrade the D for the run.


Sure the D on paper is worse than end of playoffs but the team is better for letting him walk as it isnt just move Ceci and we can keep him now since he isnt cheap. It is move multiple players out and gut our depth.

In a cup or bust year unless broberg exploded (he didnt want to play RD) then we are actually likely deeper and better overall letting him walk sadly as long as we use cap space at the deadline effectively.

What you guys are getting is the Oilers didn't trade these guys last year for a reason. They aren't going anywhere.

Mve ceci, Move kulak. Attach assets if needed.

It's shitty, but we keep the two young players.

 

[Canovin]

I rue legal documents. Especially poorly worded ones. If it was clear there wouldn't be all this speculation and wouldn't be loophole.

I maintain the spirit of the document would be to prevent teams from manipulating or circumventing. They stipulate no trade consistent with that. They also stipulated no reassignment which either refers to the 7 days or does not. (its unclear) But the intent would be that if a team is matching they are respecting the contract, and as it says throughout having to agree to terms of that contract.

The players input into the CBA would want the player to be protected from such malfeasance.

Young player getting sent to play in Dub Nation for 4.5M with Celebrini and Smith leading the charge. How cruel. While the team that drafted him spent 5 years in developing, only receives a 2nd in compensation

 

[Oilslick941611]

It was last season and this season. That is fact

No one said cup or bust this year. They said it last year.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I know you showed me breakdowns, and I appreciate it, but it was still only 81 regular seasons games with an average of ~12:30 a night. You picked out some of the 3 games of his entire career that he cracked 20 minutes. He had a very chaotic appearance in the playoffs a year ago having to come in with Nurse out that lead to 2 bad penalties because he was totally overwhelmed, and a very fortunate 10 games with 15:50 average per night that could have done horribly wrong if Skinner wasn't on his game. Yes, against good comp, but it is what it is, fortune favored him and Nurse for a week and a half, a lot of the best times when the entire team was rolling and Florida got on their heels a bit. Looking good in the AHL is nice. Countless players that couldn't consistently do it at a high level in NHL level have that on their resume as well.

So, we have that info, but I don't think there is any way around the fact that it's not enough to be anywhere near sure this is a 4.5M player, or even a 3M one. He simply didn't get enough opportunity to show what he could do. The only consistent high pressure situation ice time he had, against florida, almost no mistake he made was paid for with a goal against because of some good fortune. Loads of quality chances against, but Skinner was on a roll and stopped them. What do you do with that info? Just mark it off as spectacular and these 10 games, and 81 regular season games of 3rd pair sheltered ice time (aside from maybe 5% of the games), are sure proof that he can play with Nurse for 82 games at 20 mins a night plus a full 4 rounds of playoffs? That would be quite a leap, but maybe that was JJ's plan until St Louis messed us up. I would hate if that was the case honestly.

The fog and cost of poor development. The Oilers need to make a margin call on someone they've invested pedigree draft collateral and more than a million dollars of development time. St. Louis cuts the line and greatfully accepts those investments for an out-of-the box NHL ready defenseman they can play at his natural side and with Parayko or Faulk.

Funny how some perspective has changed from Broberg stepping in to NHL Final 4 competition and keeping his head above water and to now retroactively picking at it. Florida dominated all opposition with offensive zone time. I've invited you and other posters to help show an apples to apples comparison in how their Eastern Conference d-corps align with Broberg and more broader Oiler defending team results. Good chance to test these assumptions.

Skinner delivered final four level goaltending expected and needed to win. Having a black ace step into that competition level and not at his natural position is exceptionally rare (hence the comments by coach and player(s).

I've said the test in this is how Jackson and Bowman respond to the offer sheet. It's been perfectly executed to buy low on high pedigree NHL ready talent. We wait and see.

 

[aspin3]

This isn’t like losing Draisaitl and Bouchard, people are acting like the sky is falling over potentially losing 2 guys who have proven very little. They are replaceable, hell their replacements might turn out even better. Move on

smh.......same kind of attitude that had many on here trading Bouch for Pennys because his defensive gafs, had trading Drai for Subban and also had trading him for Karlsson......

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

smh.......same kind of attitude that had many on here trading Bouch for Pennys because his defensive gafs, had trading Drai for Subban and also had trading him for Karlsson.....

Those 2 were way better prospects, it’s not comparable at all. Also I'm pretty sure few wanted them traded.

The same kind of attitude as you is why we didn’t trade Jp and Yams when they were worth something and wasted 6+ mill of cap and lost them for nothing. (Actually had to pay to drop yams) And they both showed more than Broberg and Holloway.

Sometimes you just need to know when to walk away.

 

[Canovin]

Long term. Letting them walk in might actually be a good thing. We have to continue this whole players taking discounts to play and win in Edmonton

 

[ujju2]

Well worded and not at all wrong.

Yup. The only way to ensure loyalty is an NMC. That's why a guy like Nuge was able to take a discount for the team - he got his guarantee of returned loyalty for the long-term.