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

[Bryanbryoil]

If he did not learn anything he'd sign Broberg to an awful deal. It's almost certainly what Holland would do.

Yamamoto and Puljujarvi can attest to this! I don't think that the Holloway deal would've bit us too hard but the Broberg one had the potential to screw us if he regressed or pouted all season long.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Nurse might be over payed but we'll miss him big time when Ekholm starts to decline and we have no LD in the pipeline with top 4 potential.

We need to improve our leftorium. I wonder if there are any quality LHD that are NCAA FA's? Surely they should look at Ekholm's age and Nurse's decline and see that it's a good place to sign?

 

[CupofOil]

Oilers lost control over a controllable business situation letting an inflationary market determine a new value beyond the one and done lowball offer made.

I keep seeing the term "lowball" but the reality is that RFAs who aren't franchise players especially ones with very little track record and no arb rights get squeezed all the time, McLeod being the most recent Oiler example, and offer sheets are very rare occurrences so I don't know why the Oilers management is getting criticized for not caving to the demands of RFAs who quite frankly didn't have any leverage outside of the threat of an offer sheet unless you thought they should have traded the players before the offer sheets came rolling in.

We'll never know what truly happened behind the scenes but it appears that there's a strong possibility that Broberg's representation caught wind of teams potentially lining up offer sheets and were willing to wait it out until that became an option. Broberg also requested a trade and there were rumors, from Friedman I believe, that he didn't move off that stance so what is JJ and Bowman to do if a player wants to use his OS leverage for a one way ticket out of town. There were also the rumors that Broberg and Holloway's reps were tied together in signing the OS so nothing could be done there either.

I suppose one can make an argument that the Oilers should have matched the OS but I don't think there's much they could have done to prevent this.
Blame the previous regime for $9.25m, $5m for backup goalie turned into dead cap and 3.6m Brown bonus for putting them in this bind and making them vulnerable to predatory offer sheets.

 

[CupofOil]

Would you stay in a dead end job? Moreover would you move to an ideal play situation with strong mentorship and three times the bag because you were stuck with questionable career advancement which risked stalled earning potential? It's silly for virtually anyone to.

Manage your most treasured assets better. Get ahead of the issue and don't let it get to the point where you enable the Quicky Mart down the street to snake your stalled employee. One lowball didn't cut it and the bullish rising cap market filled it. After a clear indication of character and ability in hardest situational conditions.

Dead end job? When exactly did Broberg EARN a spot over one of the lefties on this team? Maybe they could have shifted one of the lefties over and given Broberg an opportunity on his strong side but he consistently dropped the ball in Training Camps/preseason even as recently as last offseason and never gained the coaches trust on a win now team, he wasn't ready until late season.
I don't understand why Broberg is getting the victim card when the team simply thought he hadn't earned a spot and wanted to send him down to hone his game like what happens with a lot of other young players, who don't request trades?

Whatever happened to earning your keep? Why should he have been gifted a spot?
He went down to the AHL and eventually got an opportunity on the biggest stage which parlayed him into being attractive enough to be offer sheeted. It just illustrated that the Oilers took the right development path with him, not that he stuck in some dead end position with the organization (poor Broberg).

I'm not happy with him being gone, I thought he was a big piece of their future, but it seemed like he didn't want to be here and very well voiced his displeasure. Not a good look in an organization that is win now and looking for players who want to be on board not just want selfish gains.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I keep seeing the term "lowball" but the reality is that RFAs who aren't franchise players especially ones with very little track record and no arb rights get squeezed all the time, McLeod being the most recent Oiler example, and offer sheets are very rare occurrences so I don't know why the Oilers management is getting criticized for not caving to the demands of RFAs who quite frankly didn't have any leverage outside of the threat of an offer sheet unless you thought they should have traded the players before the offer sheets came rolling in.

We'll never know what truly happened behind the scenes but it appears that there's a strong possibility that Broberg's representation caught wind of teams potentially lining up offer sheets and were willing to wait it out until that became an option. Broberg also requested a trade and there were rumors, from Friedman I believe, that he didn't move off that stance so what is JJ and Bowman to do if a player wants to use his OS leverage for a one way ticket out of town. There were also the rumors that Broberg and Holloway's reps were tied together in signing the OS so nothing could be done there either.

I suppose one can make an argument that the Oilers should have matched the OS but I don't think there's much they could have done to prevent this.
Blame the previous regime for $9.25m, $5m for backup goalie turned into dead cap and 3.6m Brown bonus for putting them in this bind and making them vulnerable to predatory offer sheets.

They missed the signs of a changing market and didn't come off initial lowball offers. They ultimately moved on both the McLeod and Bouchard first lowball offers. Thank goodness Bouchard's situation was in Covid stalled cap world and not this year with $5 million bump and the record free agency spend with more money in the system.

Oilers management deserves criticism for not reading the relationships with two key young players counted on for cheap salary draft contracts now and sustaining role to extend the winning window. It's about actively managing important assets versus getting caught off guard a month and a half later when the changed market imposed unreachable salary numbers on them. Poof. Gone. Clearly they misread the relationships with the players. Clearly they misread the changing market dynamics.

There's good reporting coming on the situation with Rutherford St. Louis beat writers and others.

What Jackson and Bowman could do is act pro-actively like the McLeod trade to explore all options with their vulnerability. Step 1. Raise offer to show good will and desire to keep them. If no take-up its phone calls to prospective trade partners to a. inquire about prospective interest in the players and what trade scenarios might look like for a McLeod like return. b. advise there is a plan to retain under all circumstances by matching offers. Put poachers on notice especially the guy who allegedly wanted them both at trade deadline. Indicated the trade scenario helps all involved if necessary including avoiding maximum inflated contracts which hurts all teams. Simply good business to manage your best assets and mitigate the worst case scenario of a vulnerable cap team getting squeezed by one or two offer sheets. That's got to be in your risk management scenarios when you know day 1 is to spend remaining budget on short-term veteran deals.

Of course there's blame for all. The Oilers cap situation has been a disaster for multiple managers as has the ability to build a roster. But that said, Jackson's been leading this organization for a full hockey calendar season. He knew the dynamics with Broberg and opted to risk the route of a passive slow cook negotiation all the while with double jeopardy of a second young RFA in the mix. We saw his strong knowledge and negotiation of CBA quirks a year prior with the Connor Brown contract. His expertise is player relationships and negotiations leveraging the system.

There was a month an a half to make pro-active movement on these players.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Dead end job? When exactly did Broberg EARN a spot over one of the lefties on this team? Maybe they could have shifted one of the lefties over and given Broberg an opportunity on his strong side but he consistently dropped the ball in Training Camps/preseason even as recently as last offseason and never gained the coaches trust on a win now team, he wasn't ready until late season.
I don't understand why Broberg is getting the victim card when the team simply thought he hadn't earned a spot and wanted to send him down to hone his game like what happens with a lot of other young players, who don't request trades?

Whatever happened to earning your keep? Why should he have been gifted a spot?
He went down to the AHL and eventually got an opportunity on the biggest stage which parlayed him into being attractive enough to be offer sheeted. It just illustrated that the Oilers took the right development path with him, not that he stuck in some dead end position with the organization (poor Broberg).

I'm not happy with him being gone, I thought he was a big piece of their future, but it seemed like he didn't want to be here and very well voiced his displeasure. Not a good look in an organization that is win now and looking for players who want to be on board not just want selfish gains.

It's hyperbolic. The context discussion was blurring both real life situations of 'everyman' and a hockey business where young players are increasingly less patient taking measures to control their livelihood if they don't feel there's movement. Some posters seem to think hockey players should take less money and stay in circumstances out of a sense of loyalty or duty. Broberg and Holloway are likely proving points on a trend that young, non financially secured players with choose money and opportunity over running at championships. It's a trend happening more and more with unproven players using the system to choose their location to play. Saw it again with Winnipeg who handled the situation very well.

Who's played the victim card with Broberg? I did yet another long post where I noted a long list of accountabilities on his part which led to his circumstances as well. All parties have accountability in development. I peg players like 80% for their own development. The Oilers however especially with Woodcroft treading water with his job security did what all coaches do in those circumstances by playing veterans. Erratically playing a 7-11 system with your young pedigree guy in limbo with 5-7 minutes toi and press boxed after good games is not a good plan for development. Finally with a new stable coach there was quick action to get the player ice-time with Bakersfield. Broberg didn't have to like it but he went down and did the work. Unfortunately come pay day time, the Oilers management group misread the broken relationship and sat on a lowball contract offer for a month and a half. Choices.

In a volatile market with big new money and a highly vulnerable cap situation exposure, contingency plan with all options. Be pro-active to explore trades and while doing inhibit offers with assurances to match. Pretty low level stuff.

My first post immediately after the OfferSheets was Broberg gone and Holloway retained as the value to Edmonton was gone from their contracts. The bull market with new money infusion set a different value that the Oilers experienced management group didn't account for in their risk management and they operated from an old paradigm of trying to slow cook young talent.

The discussion from my pov isn't decision not to match Broberg and Holloway at the market set price points. It's rather how the signs were missed and a pro-active approach plan to manage control of at risk talent not part of their planning. There was a month and a half of inactivity.

 

[Cloned]

It's hyperbolic. The context discussion was blurring both real life situations of 'everyman' and a hockey business where young players are increasingly less patient taking measures to control their livelihood if they don't feel there's movement. Some posters seem to think hockey players should take less money and stay in circumstances out of a sense of loyalty or duty. Broberg and Holloway are likely proving points on a trend that young, non financially secured players with choose money and opportunity over running at championships. It's a trend happening more and more with unproven players using the system to choose their location to play. Saw it again with Winnipeg who handled the situation very well.

Who's played the victim card with Broberg? I did yet another long post where I noted a long list of accountabilities on his part which led to his circumstances as well. All parties have accountability in development. I peg players like 80% for their own development. The Oilers however especially with Woodcroft treading water with his job security did what all coaches do in those circumstances by playing veterans. Erratically playing a 7-11 system with your young pedigree guy in limbo with 5-7 minutes toi and press boxed after good games is not a good plan for development. Finally with a new stable coach there was quick action to get the player ice-time with Bakersfield. Broberg didn't have to like it but he went down and did the work. Unfortunately come pay day time, the Oilers management group misread the broken relationship and sat on a lowball contract offer for a month and a half. Choices.

In a volatile market with big new money and a highly vulnerable cap situation exposure, contingency plan with all options. Be pro-active to explore trades and while doing inhibit offers with assurances to match. Pretty low level stuff.

My first post immediately after the OfferSheets was Broberg gone and Holloway retained as the value to Edmonton was gone from their contracts. The bull market with new money infusion set a different value that the Oilers experienced management group didn't account for in their risk management and they operated from an old paradigm of trying to slow cook young talent.

The discussion from my pov isn't decision not to match Broberg and Holloway at the market set price points. It's rather how the signs were missed and a pro-active approach plan to manage control of at risk talent not part of their planning. There was a month and a half of inactivity.

Eh.

Has an agent of one player ever colluded with an agent of another player on the same team to poison the well like Holloway and Broberg did here?

Not sure how management could have foreseen something happening that’s never happened before in the history of the league.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Now that the dust has settled. Oilers were never going to match either. We just did not have the money

 

[TB12]

If the GM and coach approaches a player and tells him that they have to move on from his contract so they can sign McDavid, Bouchard and Draisaitl does the player say f**k you Im staying?

Of course he does. "I ain't f***in leaving" will be the exact answer.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Eh.

Has an agent of one player ever colluded with an agent of another player on the same team to poison the well like Holloway and Broberg did here?

Not sure how management could have foreseen something happening that’s never happened before in the history of the league.

It's about pro-active vs passive management of your limited best assets. One or two doesn't matter. Prepare all contingencies of risk threat of someone in a bull market with $5 million more bucks available and annual growth projected to follow. With a management team of several assistant GM's it's not even like everything falls to Jackson to do in terms of preliminary check-ins with other general managers. Most certainly the guy that allegedly went into trade talks identifying these two players as desirable return in trade.

Control what you can control and don't passively wait a month and a half on first lowball offers. In a stalled cap world they got McLeod done on August 2 for $2.1 AAV which was more than many of us expected. I thought $1.5-$1.75 would be reasonable. Bouchard signed his on August 24. So even take that approach to stagger your at risk pedigree young talent signings is risk mitigation. In both cases the Oilers came off their initial lowball offers. They would have a line in the sand budget number for them and likely all prospective free agents.

And boom, one year later, the Oilers move on McLeod with a cherry cost controlled high pedigree prospect with team control and build up a weak prospect pool. Had they even acted like they did last year there's some control of your destiny.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Now that the dust has settled. Oilers were never going to match either. We just did not have the money

Even without the Nurse and Campbell boners, the Oilers are in a mode right now where they have to get value out of cheap deals in order to accomplish their only meaningful goal There is zero room for contracts that might or might pan out. While we can whine about previous cap management, for the next few years it’s the stage of the cycle we are in.

 

[CupofOil]

It's hyperbolic. The context discussion was blurring both real life situations of 'everyman' and a hockey business where young players are increasingly less patient taking measures to control their livelihood if they don't feel there's movement. Some posters seem to think hockey players should take less money and stay in circumstances out of a sense of loyalty or duty. Broberg and Holloway are likely proving points on a trend that young, non financially secured players with choose money and opportunity over running at championships. It's a trend happening more and more with unproven players using the system to choose their location to play. Saw it again with Winnipeg who handled the situation very well.

Who's played the victim card with Broberg? I did yet another long post where I noted a long list of accountabilities on his part which led to his circumstances as well. All parties have accountability in development. I peg players like 80% for their own development. The Oilers however especially with Woodcroft treading water with his job security did what all coaches do in those circumstances by playing veterans. Erratically playing a 7-11 system with your young pedigree guy in limbo with 5-7 minutes toi and press boxed after good games is not a good plan for development. Finally with a new stable coach there was quick action to get the player ice-time with Bakersfield. Broberg didn't have to like it but he went down and did the work. Unfortunately come pay day time, the Oilers management group misread the broken relationship and sat on a lowball contract offer for a month and a half. Choices.

In a volatile market with big new money and a highly vulnerable cap situation exposure, contingency plan with all options. Be pro-active to explore trades and while doing inhibit offers with assurances to match. Pretty low level stuff.

My first post immediately after the OfferSheets was Broberg gone and Holloway retained as the value to Edmonton was gone from their contracts. The bull market with new money infusion set a different value that the Oilers experienced management group didn't account for in their risk management and they operated from an old paradigm of trying to slow cook young talent.

The discussion from my pov isn't decision not to match Broberg and Holloway at the market set price points. It's rather how the signs were missed and a pro-active approach plan to manage control of at risk talent not part of their planning. There was a month and a half of inactivity.

I have no problem with him going for the big money, none whatsoever. I do have a problem with him requesting a trade when he should have just kept his mouth shut go to work (like the majority of players do) and kill it in the AHL in a big minutes role so he can earn his next callup and be more ready for the NHL grind. I'm sure McDavid and co. caught wind of that and weren't too thrilled with a teammate thinking "me" in a time when it should be "us".

Now, I do acknowledge that Woodcroft dicked him around for a bit two seasons ago with the limited minutes and press boxing. That was valuable development time that would have been better served on the farm so, yes, there's blame on both sides but the majority to me is on the player for not earning his role then pouting with the trade request when the role wasn't given to him.

We've already touched on the lowball offer comment. Teams squeeze their non-franchise level RFAs all the time, this isn't exclusive to the Oilers. Minimal track record of success, no arb rights etc. Happens all the time with teams coming in with lowball offers. The only leverage a player has in that situation is the oft chance of an offer sheet. It happened to work in Holloway and Broberg's favor this time but this was like a 5% chance of happening.
Should the Oilers have planned for this contingency by getting out ahead of it and trading them? Maybe, but what's the market for these players at this point. Surely more than a 2nd+3rd but maybe the trading team has the worry of an offer sheet to and is unwilling to part with prime assets for a player that might be offer sheeted. Complicated situation for sure and the reality is that all sides share at least a little blame when something like this happens but I really don't think there's much management could have done tbh. Even if upped their offer slightly, I don't think that makes a difference with the possibility of a much more lucrative offer sheet on the horizon.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I have no problem with him going for the big money, none whatsoever. I do have a problem with him requesting a trade when he should have just kept his mouth shut go to work (like the majority of players do) and kill it in the AHL in a big minutes role so he can earn his next callup and be more ready for the NHL grind. I'm sure McDavid and co. caught wind of that and weren't too thrilled with a teammate thinking "me" in a time when it should be "us".

Now, I do acknowledge that Woodcroft dicked him around for a bit two seasons ago with the limited minutes and press boxing. That was valuable development time that would have been better served on the farm so, yes, there's blame on both sides but the majority to me is on the player for not earning his role then pouting with the trade request when the role wasn't given to him.

We've already touched on the lowball offer comment. Teams squeeze their non-franchise level RFAs all the time, this isn't exclusive to the Oilers. Minimal track record of success, no arb rights etc. Happens all the time with teams coming in with lowball offers. The only leverage a player has in that situation is the oft chance of an offer sheet. It happened to work in Holloway and Broberg's favor this time but this was like a 5% chance of happening.
Should the Oilers have planned for this contingency by getting out ahead of it and trading them? Maybe, but what's the market for these players at this point. Surely more than a 2nd+3rd but maybe the trading team has the worry of an offer sheet to and is unwilling to part with prime assets for a player that might be offer sheeted. Complicated situation for sure and the reality is that all sides share at least a little blame when something like this happens but I really don't think there's much management could have done tbh. Even if upped their offer slightly, I don't think that makes a difference with the possibility of a much more lucrative offer sheet on the horizon.

I'm not in his shoes. But allegedly players often make trade requests that public doesn't hear about. The circumstances with Woodcroft's handling - out of his own circumstantial necessity - put the young player in limbo. Even when he had a good game it was right back to the press box.

My points about Broberg's development and his own accountability are laid out in another one of my consistent long posts. However not coincidental that day 1 on the job Jackson identified improving player development was a high priority. He acted on that months later with an external hire above Holland's decision making job description.

I'm not sure why you take offence at the word low ball offer. It's a reference to the strategy and opening offer in a two party negotiation. And as I just outlined had they even just followed the signing timeline last year with McLeod 1 leg of the 2 legged offer sheet issue would have been muted. Maybe Armstrong doesn't go out and get his draft pick back realizing the leverage play is gone. In the case of McLeod, the Oilers moved off their first tendered offer and by quite a bit to sign the player.

Decisions have consequences. Of course they made the right call with their July 1st work. But the consequences showed they did not have a handle on the controlled players relationships or the changing bull market with a big cash infusion and more annualized to come. Had they followed the timeline and early contract movement used to sign McLeod this organization likely has control instead of being forced to react to market and missed threat signals.

You don't know the trade market if you don't inquire. The reference point they would have is alleged discussion with St. Louis of Bushnevich x2 years 50% retained for Broberg and Holloway. That's the first call you make to a qualified prospect trade partner with a pro active check-in call to assess interest and softly reinforce commitment to match any prospective offer sheet scenario. The Blues have stockpiled pedigree young talent in their system. Work from top of their system (McLeod trade as reference) and see where it lands. Likely better than a 2nd round pick.

If your salary control players reject your second offer (hopefully best offer) then it elevates to trade discussions to see what two NHL ready pedigree talent will net you. Control and manage the system not leave room for the market to set pricing as happened.

 

[Cloned]

It's about pro-active vs passive management of your limited best assets. One or two doesn't matter. Prepare all contingencies of risk threat of someone in a bull market with $5 million more bucks available and annual growth projected to follow. With a management team of several assistant GM's it's not even like everything falls to Jackson to do in terms of preliminary check-ins with other general managers. Most certainly the guy that allegedly went into trade talks identifying these two players as desirable return in trade.

Control what you can control and don't passively wait a month and a half on first lowball offers. In a stalled cap world they got McLeod done on August 2 for $2.1 AAV which was more than many of us expected. I thought $1.5-$1.75 would be reasonable. Bouchard signed his on August 24. So even take that approach to stagger your at risk pedigree young talent signings is risk mitigation. In both cases the Oilers came off their initial lowball offers. They would have a line in the sand budget number for them and likely all prospective free agents.

And boom, one year later, the Oilers move on McLeod with a cherry cost controlled high pedigree prospect with team control and build up a weak prospect pool. Had they even acted like they did last year there's some control of your destiny.

I’m not sure how you can contingency plan for something that’s never been seen before.

They likely game planned for offer sheets to one player, not two by the same team.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I’m not sure how you can contingency plan for something that’s never been seen before.

They likely game planned for offer sheets to one player, not two by the same team.

Simple fact, had they simply followed last year's timing to sign their RFA McLeod the risk is muted. Then risk is down to one. If Holloway or even Broberg don't bite on your revised offer then risk mitigation kicks in and trade exploration initiated.

GM's do informal check-ins all the time and no harm to do good business by doing that and also casually bluffing that you'll match all offer sheets should they come. Working out a trade is ultimately win, win, win. Trade partner gets coveted player and without max inflationary contract; Oilers manage acceptable trade return vs. pennies on the dollar assigned in CBA; player gets new home and salary bump.

About risk management, good businesses alway go through the exercise of imaging the absolute work case scenario and pro-actively plan how to respond. In hockey terms, Brian Lawton called it as having to look behind every tree in conducting one's business. Jackson is a strategic thinking with expertise in wrangling the CBA for player value. This was missed and consequences is that a cash flush system filled the void.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Even without the Nurse and Campbell boners, the Oilers are in a mode right now where they have to get value out of cheap deals in order to accomplish their only meaningful goal There is zero room for contracts that might or might pan out. While we can whine about previous cap management, for the next few years it’s the stage of the cycle we are in.

yep. we were behind the 8 ball and we have two massive contacts coming up next year

 

[Fourier]

So the team will potentially have $30M - $35M tied up in 3 players and that doesnt include McDavid.
That could total close to $50M when its all said and done. If the cap stays at $88M thats approaching 60% of the cap on 4 players.
One of which will never come close to outperforming his contract and limits the options on defence because of the cap space taken up.
How is that sustainable?
The team simply cant afford Nurse.

Why would the cap stay at $88M. At the very least it will increase 5% per year based on the current CBA and likely a tad more given where revenues are right now. If I had to guess I'd put the cap at about $98M the year McDavid's deal starts.

With Broberg and Holloway gone the Oilers don't have many players poised for significant raises outside of the core guys. Once they are signed long term the Oilers cap situation should opne up substantially.

Its not a perspective that Nurse will be one of 4 players taking up almost 60% of the total cap space.
Its an impending reality.
The team cant afford to carry dead weight like that.

A more realistic number is about 47-48% of the cap.

 

[guymez]

Why would the cap stay at $88M. At the very least it will increase 5% per year based on the current CBA and likely a tad more given where revenues are right now. If I had to guess I'd put the cap at about $98M the year McDavid's deal starts.

With Broberg and Holloway gone the Oilers don't have many players poised for significant raises outside of the core guys. Once they are signed long term the Oilers cap situation should opne up substantially.


A more realistic number is about 47-48% of the cap.

Your projections of ~5% increase per season puts that cap at about $96 -$97M by the time Mcdavid is signed. So if that plays out (and it might not...could be less based on economic projections) then we are still at best around 52-53% of the cap for 4 players.
That includes Darnell Nurse and his albatross contract as well.
Not exactly an effective use of resources when you have a little over $47 -$48M to fill out 18 roster spots.
Throw in 4 - $5-$6M players and now we are looking at approx $24 - $28M for 14 roster spots.
The kicker...one of those $9M+ roster spots (part of the original 52-53%) is being used on a player that is no better than a 2nd pairing dman. That is something this team just cant afford.
Not exactly a recipe for success.

 

[Fourier]

Your projections of ~5% increase per season puts that cap at about $96 -$97M by the time Mcdavid is signed. So if that plays out (and it might not...could be less based on economic projections) then we are still at best around 52-53% of the cap for 4 players.
That includes Darnell Nurse and his albatross contract as well.
Not exactly an effective use of resources when you have a little over $47 -$48M to fill out 18 roster spots.
Throw in 4 - $5-$6M players and now we are looking at approx $24 - $28M for 14 roster spots.
The kicker...one of those $9M+ roster spots (part of the original 52-53%) is being used on a player that is no better than a 2nd pairing dman. That is something this team just cant afford.
Not exactly a recipe for success.

I am not sure what you expect the contracts to be but I am using: Draisaitl 13.5M, McDavid $14.5M, Bouchard $9M, Nurse $9.25M which I think is very realistic. The Bouchard number is flexible in both directions since they could always go with a shorter term if need be at a lower hit using guys like Hughes, Heiskanen and Makar as comparables. That is $46.25M for the four which would be a hair over 47% of my projected cap.

I am also not sure what "current economic conditions" you are speaking of but current revenue is $6.2B. Under the previous formula the cap at that number would have had a ceiling of around $102M. If you cap escrow at 6% as is the case under the current CBA it would have already been around $94-95B. For revenues to get you to my number of say $98M with a 6% cap on escrow, they would have to increase at about 2% per year over the next two years.

With the escrow debt paid off the NHL is in catch-up mode wrt to the cap. The 5% number I chose is from the current CBA. It is the maximum that the cap can increase year over year under the CBA without permission of both parties. This year they bumped it up by $300K over the 5% max. The addition of Utah will likely present revenue opportunities to go even further than that. The difference in what one might expect out of Utah vs Arizona this year alone could well add more than 1.5% which would mean that my prediction really requires actual organic growth of about 1.2% per year while the NHL revenues have been far outpacing inflation since the end of the pandemic.

Looking further ahead, the NHL has been aggressively growing their sponsorship (team sponsorship grew at over 10% last year) and has a target of $10B for revenue at the end of the decade. If they were on track to hit that number by year 2 of the McDavid deal with a new CBA in place you could see a cap of $110-115M. Even if they only get to say $8.5B with a cap on escrow of 6% we would still be looking at a cap in the 2030-2031 season of close to $130M. So while the cap may be tight for the next few years by the second year of the McDavid deal you should already see a lot of new space coming on as everyone of the teams key players would be locked up long term, the cap should be rising aby $5M+ per year and all but $1.5M of the current over $6M in dead cap would be gone.


Even if you want to quibble about these numbers what actually matters is the team total not just the top 4 guys. The next three core players in line are Ekholm, Hyman and Nuge who are all on great contracts. As I have repeatedly pointed out to another poster, the Oilers overall payroll even with those four would still be in line with previous championship teams like the Pens.

No one is arguing that Nurse's deal is not a drag. It is. But it is unlikely that he is going anywhere. And while this does put a limit on the team making significant additions without some subtraction, they can still do so within the context of their current roster. They have other places they can look to save with Kane and Kulak being the two most obvious pieces. Moving on from Kane and replacing him on the roster with Savoie for example would probably allow them to add a RHD at about $5-6.5M.

 

[Louis Cypher]

But thats part of the problem with Arviddson that I've been citing. That we won't be getting many games from the player and LA didn't either. he missed a ton of time there, including playoffs.

The sum of a players contribution is as important, his GP. You should want players that are healthy in the lineup.

I just thought it was interesting that Foegele had more EV goals here last 3 seasons than Arvie had in LA. People have this impression the latter is some kind of star player, and I think they feel that maybe on basis of just seeing him in playoffs against us.

When taking health into account Arviddson isn't even an improvement on Foegele here. Arvie was more important in LA where he would get first unit PP. They needed his skill there. We don't here.

Yeah I questioned this signing and the value. In hindsight should probably should have signed Holloway and Broberg first.

 

[Soundwave]

Yeah I questioned this signing and the value. In hindsight should probably should have signed Holloway and Broberg first.

Not having wingers who were scoring enough on their chances is probably the no.1 reason we lost a Stanley Cup. The Foegeles of the world don't get it done.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Not having wingers who were scoring enough on their chances is probably the no.1 reason we lost a Stanley Cup. The Foegeles of the world don't get it done.

We got rid of players that scored a full 8 of our EV goals in the SC final. All 3 of the goals we scored in game 4 are from players that are gone. Foegele, McLeod, Holloway. Ironically. The players we got rid of scored as many SC final goals as anybody on the team. They weren't why we lost. None of our guns were scoring either EV or on our PP that disappeared in a critical stretch of games.

So weird argument.

Conversely Arviddson is a poor playoff finisher having only 13 playoff goals his whole career in 72 games played. Arvidsson has scored only 1 goal in his last 3 playoffs while missing another one completely due to injury. So that Arvie has one playoff goal in last 5yrs.

Jeff Skinner is such a shitty team player he doesn't have playoff stats, he's never been in the playoffs, lol So that its hard to say if he turns into an impact player when games are pressure packed.

Its not like we went out and fixed the problem. Even if thats the one you say cost us. Several of our top players had trouble scoring in final and thats maybe even more the problem..

 

[Drivesaitl]

Yeah I questioned this signing and the value. In hindsight should probably should have signed Holloway and Broberg first.

Yeah. Its the standard garden variety name type signing that helps sell some tickets and fool people into thinking this is the big help. That notion will be dispelled by Xmas. I think what it is too is that most fans younger than myself grew up playing NHLEA, making trades, building rosters and love that sort of thing of just having new players in the mix. I'm often told it gets boring having the same players. Yet having the same players is what builds teams and cohesion and consistency. It also develops younger starters. Whoops we don't have those anymore..

 

[Soundwave]

We got rid of players that scored a full 8 of our EV goals in the SC final. All 3 of the goals we scored in game 4 are from players that are gone. Foegele, McLeod, Holloway. Ironically. The players we got rid of scored as many SC final goals as anybody.

So weird argument.

Conversely Arviddson is a poor playoff finisher having only 13 playoff goals his whole career in 72 games played. Arvidsson has scored only 1 goal in his last 3 playoffs while missing another one completely due to injury. So that Arvie has one playoff goal in last 5yrs.

Jeff Skinner is such a shitty team player he doesn't have playoff stats, he's never been in the playoffs, lol So that its hard to say if he turns into an impact player when games are pressure packed.

Its not like we went out and fixed the problem. Even if thats the one you say cost us. Several of our top players had trouble scoring in final and thats maybe even more the problem..

A lot of those goals were when the Oilers were running up the score in some of their blow out wins.

When we needed scoring punch particularily in game 1, 2, 3, and 7 ... you need better than one real top 6 winger (Hyman) who scores 5 on 5.

Oilers were trying to win a Cup the last two years with really 1 actual top 6 winger. RNH's 5 on 5 scoring can only really be looked on as a bonus, if you get something there fine, otherwise he's basically a PP/PK specialist. Kane has been cooked in the playoffs outside of LA the last two years.

Who on this team even has an elite level shot outside of McDavid/Draisaitl? The Foegeles of the world are below average at finishing, they can score, but for every goal there's 2-3 glorious chances left on the table because they have awful finishing ability.

 

[Drivesaitl]

A lot of those goals were when the Oilers were running up the score in some of their blow out wins.

When we needed scoring punch particularily in game 1, 2, 3, and 7 ... you need better than one real top 6 winger (Hyman) who scores 5 on 5.

Oilers were trying to win a Cup the last two years with really 1 actual top 6 winger. RNH's 5 on 5 scoring can only really be looked on as a bonus, if you get something there fine, otherwise he's basically a PP/PK specialist. Kane has been cooked in the playoffs outside of LA the last two years.

Who on this team even has an elite level shot outside of McDavid/Draisaitl? The Foegeles of the world are below average at finishing, they can score, but for every goal there's 2-3 glorious chances left on the table because they have awful finishing ability.

When we needed scoring punch in games 1,2,3,7 NOBODY on the team was scoring and even the superstars we have eating up all the minutes on the PP. Thats why we lost the SC final, our guns weren't going. Again the vast majority of our goals in SC final were scored by bottomsix guys.

It was even those bottom guys that got the team going in game 4 and finally scoring some goals in the series. They're all gone now.