Are we sure that St.Louis was retaining much salary? Lets say it was even $2M. Last year you still would have had to dump salary. Probably Ceci. I doubt they would have been willing to go into the playoffs with no real option but VD on the right side for the second pairing RHD.
As for this year, even if the retention was 2 years. That costs you one of Skinner or Arvidsson. So you can have the current roster, a decent 2nd, two thirds, Fischer and either Skinner or Arvidsson or you can have Buch with no chance of extending him. It's not clear to me that the St. Louis deal trumps what they now have.
We also don't know what the breakdown with Broberg is all about. If it is a dispute over usage, then again it is not clear that the Oilers were obviously in the wrong. Last year was a crucial year. Broberg had not shown that he was ready. If he wanted a slot on the left side this would have meant moving on from Kulak and essentially gifting him a spot with no option if it went sour. It could just as easily be a case of a kid who had a higher expectation of his own value wanting more than the team was prepared to give.
As for Necas, I don't really see the relevance. First off Necas was far more consequential to the Cane's and a much more established player. But more to the point, it is complete speculation that the Canes handled this any better than the Oilers would have in a similar situation which was literally a pure salary negotiation with few constraints on how they could manage his contract. The Canes had space to give Necas what he wanted without impacting any other significant moves.
The old paradigm was in place literally until this OS. You know I have great respect for you as a poster. I think you also know that I have complained about management lacking foresight and creativity for years. But in this case I honestly have not seen any compelling evidence that suggests that the Oilers could have played this differently and come out much if any better.
I was talking about the trade deadline alleged scenario gives a reference point to perceived market value of Broberg and Holloway. It was a top line forward with x2 retention. You contend the return could prospectively had been a 2nd and 3rd round pick on unproven talent. My bad for not being clear on this.
The McLeod trade is the model where young talent that doesn't fit your budget or window roster is flipped for qualified future, non-cap, pedigree talent. Build up a weak pipeline to help goal 1 of a sustaining winning window.
Necas is a reference point to managing relationships and actively problem solving. Of course he's a cornerstone player for them. It's a bet on homegrown talent you know and remedying issues to retain versus losing. He's a no brainer non-risk as an RFA offer sheet because the CBA value is high and likelihood low. Manage your relationships especially strained ones.
I really recommend listening to the interview with Broberg's agent, notably beginning at the 30 minute mark. Really fascinating stuff on how an agent works including re-evaluating a clients career and circumstances all the time. Most especially with restricted free agents.
But as he said, an agent working for his client's best interests, is going to explore all scenarios within the CBA. There's no reason to think Oilers experienced management under a former super agent wouldn't have anticipate this strategy or that there might be real, viable threat with the spending frenzy in new market conditions; a public related trade request by a good young pedigree player coming off quality ice-time in final four Cup competition.
He says that no formal offer was made. They made it known they were looking at $2 million on a one year deal. References LA client Spence signed at $1.5 was price point they imagined might be where it settled if there were no offer sheets. When a formal Oilers offer was made it was at $1.1 million. So with a gap of $900,000 on a prospective 1 year deal, the Oilers had three choices: i. submit a revised offer to try to bridge the gap to a final budget line in the sand they likely had;
ii. explore prospective trade options to understand potential market while also putting potential poachers on notice intent to match;
iii. don't do anything, wait and hope for capitulation (unlike their McLeod contract signing early last August).
Unfortunately the choice of iii. led to Holloway's agent reaching out to Ferris to discuss the negotiation dynamics with the Oilers which led them right into a poison pill double indemnity historic offer sheet. It's reasonable I believe for the Oilers in risk management to project risk of one offer sheet or even two offer sheets given their cap spending priorities and exposure; the changing market conditions of big cap infusion; even public comment by one GM saying offer sheets could be on the table.
I have great respect for you too. I'm a big advocate of Jeff Jackson and the vision he has for this team. But as Ferris lays out how he actively always evaluates and re-evaluates his client's circumstances and will uncover all situations to find best deal for them, I have to believe this is a similar practice that Jackson would utilize and the risk factors missed to control the situation.
