Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
That's the crux of the issue. The Oilers took their eye off the ball on two cost controlled young players. They missed the signs of discontent and frustration of in-house cheap options while walking themselves into significant double jeopardy.Exactly. In asset management how is it not incumbent on a team to maintain communication, make other offers etc.
People are forgetting that its Management role to manage assets, acquire assets, retain assets. Its their bloody job. So that the contacts should be coming from the Manager further to closing a deal. Not to make one lowball offer and never say anything on it again. The latter conveys not even caring about the assets.
There's a really good article in The Athletic about the situation. We know Broberg's camp asked for a trade this past season. But here's a quote from Holloway's agent in terms of how they viewed the relationship/situation with Oilers management.
“Both of our clients were in the same situation with the Oilers, being up and down and tossed around a bit,” Robson said. “I reached out to (Ferris) to see where he was at with the whole situation and get some feedback on what they were thinking. That was the early steps, and then I heard from St. Louis and it snowballed from there.”
The market based inflationary contracts happened because the Oilers management completely misread the relationships with their young NHL pedigree talent, a growth marketplace with record free agency spending after a prolonged covid stalled flat cap, and external team conditions. Snaked by the guy who wanted both at the trade deadline and who made noise in June about prospectively using Offer Sheets as a CBA tool to improve his team. Then the same guy in mid-July LTIR's an expensive, marginal left handed d-man he couldn't trade freeing up money and cherry roster spot.
It is fair game to question how a deeply experienced management group with player negotiations and CBA fringe considerations missed all these signs to prevent or mitigate worst case scenario of being squeezed out of their protected assets. Not sure any questions their reactive paddle to salvage their mistake and walk away when they couldn't afford the external market pressure they enabled to be imposed on them.
Last edited: