Confirmed with Link: Oilers sign Connor Brown to 1-year incentive laden deal ($775K caphit, potentially $3.25M in bonuses)

[MessierII]

I've been racking my brain since the signing trying to think of ways that we can get out of this performance bonus for next season. I feel like Holland has a creative plan that maybe none of us have thought of yet.

From what I can tell the performance bonus gets added to our cap hit at the end of the regular season and any overage gets applied to next season's cap. I'm wondering what the rules say about sending a few guys down (on paper) to the AHL before game 82 of the season and running a 20 man roster for the last game. In theory we could end the season with $3.375 million in cap space by doing this. I do know there are rules around sending down and recalling players post-deadline so I'm not sure if this is an actual loophole that we could use or not. Any capologists out there that know?

The cap is calculated daily not what you end the year with.

 

[Fourier]

Holland could probably save $200-400K over the course of the season by creative roster moves but I doubt he will do that. It does not seem to be his style. Other teams like the Leafs have been aggressive in this regard but it has a bit of a price. The guys who they would move are the kids and it takes money out of their pockets.

 

[bucks_oil]

Thanks for that. I wonder if paying the price of Kostin to get Yamo to leave as a 3 million player vs paying this guy for 4 million in exchange for ~10 more EVP a year. Wonder if that's a difference maker for an extra 1 million dollars. I doubt anyone can rationalize that as being worth.

You rationalize it based on timing.

$3.1M Yamamoto was a "luxury" we couldn't afford. He needed to go and be replaced with a guy at league minimum for this year. Brown is not a $4M player this year. He's a $750K player, which happens to be all we can afford THIS YEAR. He becomes $3.25M in dead cap next year.

What would you rather, Brown at $750K or all of Holloway, Bourgault and Lavoie pushed into roles they may not be ready for this year?

 

[duul]

You rationalize it based on timing.

$3.1M Yamamoto was a "luxury" we couldn't afford. He needed to go and be replaced with a guy at league minimum for this year. Brown is not a $4M player this year. He's a $750K player, which happens to be all we can afford THIS YEAR. He becomes $3.25M in dead cap next year.

What would you rather, Brown at $750K or all of Holloway, Bourgault and Lavoie pushed into roles they may not be ready for this year?

I would prefer getting someone who actually costs 750k and who isn't messing our year up next year man. It's as simple as that. Yes I'd rather Holloway and one of Bourgault/Lavoie step in instead.

 

[Whyme]

You rationalize it based on timing.

$3.1M Yamamoto was a "luxury" we couldn't afford. He needed to go and be replaced with a guy at league minimum for this year. Brown is not a $4M player this year. He's a $750K player, which happens to be all we can afford THIS YEAR. He becomes $3.25M in dead cap next year.

What would you rather, Brown at $750K or all of Holloway, Bourgault and Lavoie pushed into roles they may not be ready for this year?

You can always make moves if needed. It's not like they'd let McDavid go if there's a couple of million lacking in cap space. It's all about choices and Holland decided to make a deal that's very good for the first year (supposing Brown stays healthy and plays well), but very bad for the second. It's all about deciding how much you want to eat from the 2nd year for the 1st one. I'm not saying it's a good or bad move, but I think Holland wants to put all eggs to his final season. We're not there yet, but getting Brown was a move towards that. It probably isn't a huge deal as itself, but practically means there'll be one pretty good player less in the following season. However, Holland/the new GM could try to compensate that by trading picks and prospects.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Trade him to a low-cap team right now with a wink, wink.

Then gain him back via trade after the bonus is paid.

First round pick? Prospect?

 

[FlameChampion]

Contracts like Nurse and Campbell are the reason we don't have any space and the reason we have to do contracts like this.

It is also just a byproduct of the flat cap. I know people think Holland is making excuses when he says it hasnt went up but it is part of the reality as well.

 

[bucks_oil]

I would prefer getting someone who actually costs 750k and who isn't messing our year up next year man. It's as simple as that. Yes I'd rather Holloway and one of Bourgault/Lavoie step in instead.

... ok fair perspective, but I thought you said we should be all in this year?

How are you going to be "all in" this year if you aren't giving up some futures?

The past is gone man, the future is all that you can spend. Next year's cap space is a future asset, in much the same way as a draft pick.

Holland was creative in offloading cap for this year to next year... he ran the numbers with his team, he felt that future sacrifice was worth the present gain.

You don't like it... we all get it... but you haven't offered any tangible alternative. Playing the youth, as you suggest above you would do... certainly isn't "going all in" for this year.

Unless you have better ideas, the only other thing that Holland could do, would be to offload Foegele and Kulak, replace them with league min guys, and save that cap for the TDL. That would effectively net us $4M (in todays dollars) which we could spend as follows:
1) Set aside 1.5M of it to go from a 1 year ($3.5M) bridge of Bouchard to a 2-3 year bridge at $5M.
2) Save the remaining $2.5M x 4.7X, which becomes nearly $12M at the deadline. Spend that on upgrading Ceci and then spend the rest on an elite shutdown guy and two-way winger.

The above would be a great solution if it were possible, but we might be stuck with Kulak and Foegele for another year.

Short of that, Holland has taken the perspective, that next years cap is next year's problem. Given our current cap situation, I can't say I disagree.

 

[bucks_oil]

You can always make moves if needed. It's not like they'd let McDavid go if there's a couple of million lacking in cap space. It's all about choices and Holland decided to make a deal that's very good for the first year (supposing Brown stays healthy and plays well), but very bad for the second. It's all about deciding how much you want to eat from the 2nd year for the 1st one. I'm not saying it's a good or bad move, but I think Holland wants to put all eggs to his final season. We're not there yet, but getting Brown was a move towards that. It probably isn't a huge deal as itself, but practically means there'll be one pretty good player less in the following season. However, Holland/the new GM could try to compensate that by trading picks and prospects.

I agree with the above.

Next year we could be more or less the same roster, less Foegele and less Brown. Replace Foegele with a $1M Janmark-type you don't lose much and that saves you $1.75M of Brown's deferred $3.25M... Now you only have to find another $1.5M to save

That's before factoring in any cap increase.

Maybe we sign another $4M guy for a cap deferred contract, next summer? The more we punt down the road at this point, IMO the better.

 

[Drivesaitl]

... ok fair perspective, but I thought you said we should be all in this year?

How are you going to be "all in" this year if you aren't giving up some futures?

The past is gone man, the future is all that you can spend. Next year's cap space is a future asset, in much the same way as a draft pick.

Holland was creative in offloading cap for this year to next year... he ran the numbers with his team, he felt that future sacrifice was worth the present gain.

You don't like it... we all get it... but you haven't offered any tangible alternative. Playing the youth, as you suggest above you would do... certainly isn't "going all in" for this year.

Unless you have better ideas, the only other thing that Holland could do, would be to offload Foegele and Kulak, replace them with league min guys, and save that cap for the TDL. That would effectively net us $4M (in todays dollars) which we could spend as follows:
1) Set aside 1.5M of it to go from a 1 year ($3.5M) bridge of Bouchard to a 2-3 year bridge at $5M.
2) Save the remaining $2.5M x 4.7X, which becomes nearly $12M at the deadline. Spend that on upgrading Ceci and then spend the rest on an elite shutdown guy and two-way winger.

The above would be a great solution if it were possible, but we might be stuck with Kulak and Foegele for another year.

Short of that, Holland has taken the perspective, that next years cap is next year's problem. Given our current cap situation, I can't say I disagree.

But this seems like absolving Holland for creating this cap nightmare. From a GM with a history of being hard up against cap, and even filling up the cap with teams that were bad.

I can't really adopt the past is past theme. We have Campbell on a longterm here at considerable cost, a goalie the Coach didn't even want to use, we have overpay contracts,

To me the job of a GM involves responsible asset management. pricing of assets and allocation of cap, and value are requisites. We lost for instance value of players like Kostin, and Bjugstad who were among our top goal scorers in playoffs because we couldn't afford them. We only had Bjugstad on a TDL rental because we wouldn't afford anything else last season after getting Ekholm. Even last season if we had some bucks laying around we could have solidified our goaltending spot. The way its shaking out we're the same way this season. We will be unable to add reasonable players even if they cost little. Whatever lineup we have is what we got. That doesn't speak all in to me.

 

[Fourier]

But this seems like absolving Holland for creating this cap nightmare. From a GM with a history of being hard up against cap, and even filling up the cap with teams that were bad.

I can't really adopt the past is past theme. We have Campbell on a longterm here at considerable cost, a goalie the Coach didn't even want to use, we have overpay contracts,

To me the job of a GM involves responsible asset management. pricing of assets and allocation of cap, and value are requisites. We lost for instance value of players like Kostin, and Bjugstad who were among our top goal scorers in playoffs because we couldn't afford them. We only had Bjugstad on a TDL rental because we wouldn't afford anything else last season after getting Ekholm. Even last season if we had some bucks laying around we could have solidified our goaltending spot. The way its shaking out we're the same way this season. We will be unable to add reasonable players even if they cost little. Whatever lineup we have is what we got. That doesn't speak all in to me.

You can be critical of past mistakes and be in favour of this move at the same time.

I will say for the 356th time, there is risk in the Brown signing. I don't think I have seen a single poster contradict that. Nor have I seen anyone suggest that Holland has been a cap savant. It is definitely not his strength.

This is not specifically directed at you but I think some of the arguments against the signing have been off the mark. It was not Brown or Yamamoto, or Brown or Kostin/Bjugstad. One of Yamamoto or Foegele were gone regardless of the Brown signing just to have a chance to fill out the roster, and unless both went or unless they punted McLeod, Kostin was gone as well. (Actually I would probably have been ok with moving out Foegele as well and signing Kostin and Bjugstad or Kostin and another $1.5M player.)

So the improvement from the Brown signing is not Brown over Yamamoto/Foegele but Brown over generic $775K player for this year. Unlike @duul, who to me seems to be describing some player I have never seen, I think that Brown, if healthy, is not only a huge step up over Mr. generic $775K guy but is also a fairly significant plus over Foegele. This is a point that can be debated of course. But from there it becomes a question of how much being better this year costs next year. And again, while I would have liked the bonus to be $500K-1M less I am ok with trying to win now and manage the cap next year.

 

[Drivesaitl]

You can be critical of past mistakes and be in favour of this move at the same time.

I will say for the 356th time, there is risk in the Brown signing. I don't think I have seen a single poster contradict that. Nor have I seen anyone suggest that Holland has been a cap savant. It is definitely not his strength.

This is not specifically directed at you but I think some of the arguments against the signing have been off the mark. It was not Brown or Yamamoto, or Brown or Kostin/Bjugstad. One of Yamamoto or Foegele were gone regardless of the Brown signing just to have a chance to fill out the roster, and unless both went or unless they punted McLeod, Kostin was gone as well. (Actually I would probably have been ok with moving out Foegele as well and signing Kostin and Bjugstad or Kostin and another $1.5M player.)

So the improvement from the Brown signing is not Brown over Yamamoto/Foegele but Brown over generic $775K player for this year. Unlike @duul, who to me seems to be describing some player I have never seen, I think that Brown, if healthy, is not only a huge step up over Mr. generic $775K guy but is also a fairly significant plus over Foegele. This is a point that can be debated of course. But from there it becomes a question of how much being better this year costs next year. And again, while I would have liked the bonus to be $500K-1M less I am ok with trying to win now and manage the cap next year.

Thats all fine but the forest is that Holland mismanagement still occurring and we're still suffering grievous cap problems due to it, and we have a disconnect between a GM paying a goalie longterm, and paying a lot, and a coach not even wanting to start the player. We have this situation longterm and after the debacle of disrespect shown to Campbell I don't know that there isn't even an impasse by now. How awful would a vet goalie feel seeing the other goalie pulled 4 times and not even being considered to start. Not just Campbell, several players that were in the org were not being used, that were available, helpful.

We just came off a playoffs where an opponent player is saying how easily they unlocked our schemes. I'm not of the opinion that great D play is player specific. I've seen some ordinary teams be able to play a reasonably tight game with the right coaching.

Can't speak for others but faith in the current regime is again tenuous. Kind of seen what they do by now.

 

[guymez]

Thats all fine but the forest is that Holland mismanagement still occurring and we're still suffering grievous cap problems due to it, and we have a disconnect between a GM paying a goalie longterm, and paying a lot, and a coach not even wanting to start the player. We have this situation longterm and after the debacle of disrespect shown to Campbell I don't know that there isn't even an impasse by now. How awful would a vet goalie feel seeing the other goalie pulled 4 times and not even being considered to start. Not just Campbell, several players that were in the org were not being used, that were available, helpful.

We just came off a playoffs where an opponent player is saying how easily they unlocked our schemes. I'm not of the opinion that great D play is player specific. I've seen some ordinary teams be able to play a reasonably tight game with the right coaching.

Can't speak for others but faith in the current regime is again tenuous. Kind of seen what they do by now.

Teams get oiutcoached in the playoffs. Thats especially true when we are talking about very experienced coaching vs less experienced coaching. I have asked the question...why didnt Woody adjust to what Vegas was doing?
I would really like a reporter to ask that question.
All that aside...
What exactly did Campbell do to earn the benefit of the doubt from the coach?
Campbell didnt just fail this season he failed spectacularly. He tanked so thoroughly that I cant even remember a time when had happened before. Thats almost 45 years of history and I have seen virtually every moment and Campbell manged to surpass all of that history with his performance this season.
Putrid doesnt even begin to describe what he pulled off.

So its one thing to look back with 20/20 vision at what should have happened but lets not get carried away about what Campbell deserved. Based on his regular season performance (the only sample size that matters) he is lucky that the team didnt have the means to buy him out.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Teams get oiutcoached in the playoffs. Thats especially true when we are talking about very experienced coaching vs less experienced coaching. I have asked the question (which has never been answered by anyone on here) why didnt Woody adjust to what Vegas was doing?
I would really like a reporter to ask that question.
All that aside...
What exactly did Campbell do to earn the benefit of the doubt from the coach?
Campbell didnt just fail this season he failed spectacularly. He tanked so thoroughly that I cant even remember a time when had happened before. Thats almost 45 years of history and I have seen virtually every moment and Campbell manged to surpass all of that history with his performance this season.
Putrid doesnt even begin to describe what he pulled off.

So its one thing to look back with 20/20 vision at what should have happened but lets not get carried away about what Campbell deserved. Based on his regular season performance (the only sample size that matters) he is lucky that the team didnt have the means to buy him out.

We won't agree on this. Goalies are in flux, nearly always. By nature of position its up and down from one season to next and within season. Fact of the matter is Campbell is here and wasn't used. Despite campbell being solid in relief and being a huge part of a critical comeback in LA series. That Campbell didn't start any games was bizarre at the time and being stated at the time. Not just in retrospect.

its the line of "goalie failed" thinking that is the reason we lost Dubnyk, Talbot etc and keep thinking we're going to find better. Goalies have down times. you ride through that and still value them.

In anycase that the org specifically obtained Campbell at considerable price and term and was reluctant to use him is a huge and continuing problem. A problem that hasn't even been remotely addressed by either Holland or Woody.

 

[guymez]

We won't agree on this. Goalies are in flux, nearly always. By nature of position its up and down from one season to next and within season. Fact of the matter is Campbell is here and wasn't used. Despite campbell being solid in relief and being a huge part of a critical comeback in LA series. That Campbell didn't start any games was bizarre at the time and being stated at the time. Not just in retrospect.

its the line of "goalie failed" thinking that is the reason we lost Dubnyk, Talbot etc and keep thinking we're going to find better. Goalies have down times. you ride through that and still value them.

In anycase that the org specifically obtained Campbell at considerable price and term and was reluctant to use him is a huge and continuing problem. A problem that hasn't even been remotely addressed by either Holland or Woody.

You watched Campbells regular season performance just as I did. Maybe not as objectively but you watched it none the less.
You know full well that Campbell failed miserably and did so for an extended period of time (the entire f*cking regialr season) despite having multiple opportunities to string together some wins. As a matter of fact it was Campbells performance more than anything which prevented this team from having home ice advantage for the entirety of the playoffs.

It was an abject failure and no rewriting of history is going to change that reality.
Is that something you can come to terms with?

 

[Drivesaitl]

You watched Campbells regular season performance just as I did. Maybe not as objectively but you watched it none the less.
You know full well that Campbell failed miserably and did so for an extended period of time despite having multiple opportunities to string together some wins. As a matter of fact it was Campbells performance more than anything which prevented this team from having home ice advantage for the entirety of the playoffs.

It was an abject failure and no rewriting of history is going to change that reality.
Is that something you can come to terms with?

Campbell had a slightly higher win percentage than Skinner had. Not attributing, but the bolded is fiction.

You sometimes have an odd idea of facts. Just stating defacto that something is a fact doesn't make it so.

The bolded is an opinion, it may even be reasonable opinion, still opinion.

In anycase what do you suggest be done with the Campbell impasse. We have this player longterm at considerable cost. Thats yet another reason the player that is going to be with us for quite awhile on an untradeable contract should have been played the times he found his game. To not do so was asinine, all things considered. Refusing to even start this vet goalie in the playoffs just poured gasoline over the tirefire that this contract seems to be. We just advertised to the whole league that the org now considered the player to not even be playable, even while playing well. If there was any interest at all in the player that would have been blown up. For a cap strapped team this is just an untenable problem to have.

 

[guymez]

Campbell had a slightly higher win percentage than Skinner had. Not attributing, but the bolded is fiction.

You sometimes have an odd idea of facts. Just stating defacto that something is a fact doesn't make it so.

The bolded is an opinion, it may even be reasonable opinion, still opinion.

This is abject nonsense.
For you to come on here and defend Campbells regular season and suggest that it should have garnered some benefit from the coaches is incomprehensible.

 

[Drivesaitl]

This is abject nonsense.
For you to come on here and defend Campbells regular season and suggest that it should have garnered some benefit from the coaches is incomprehensible.

? You made the false claim that Campbell " As a matter of FACT More than anything else cost this club first place" I responded to that.

Its a pet peeve of mine when people so often use the term fact or matter of fact in circumstances not involving fact.

You have such a penchant for stating your opinion is fact that occasionally there is going to be response to that.

I never stated Campbell had earned respect on basis of his regular season. That wasn't what I stated at all.

 

[guymez]

Campbell had a slightly higher win percentage than Skinner had. Not attributing, but the bolded is fiction.

You sometimes have an odd idea of facts. Just stating defacto that something is a fact doesn't make it so.

The bolded is an opinion, it may even be reasonable opinion, still opinion.

In anycase what do you suggest be done with the Campbell impasse. We have this player longterm at considerable cost. Thats yet another reason the player that is going to be with us for quite awhile on an untradeable contract should have been played the times he found his game. To not do so was asinine, all things considered. Refusing to even start this vet goalie in the playoffs just poured gasoline over the tirefire that this contract seems to be. We just advertised to the whole league that the org now considered the player to not even be playable, even while playing well. If there was any interest at all in the player that would have been blown up. For a cap strapped team this is just an untenable problem to have.

So you ignore every single relevant stat (including advanced stats) that clearly outline Campbells failure and then hang the entirety of your argument on a winning percentage and suggest that is the reason why Campbells season garnered him the benefit of the doubt?

Did you even bother to look at the number of times Campbell was pulled and still got the win because Skinner and the NHLs best offence bailed him out?

An odd idea of facts indeed.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

You watched Campbells regular season performance just as I did. Maybe not as objectively but you watched it none the less.
You know full well that Campbell failed miserably and did so for an extended period of time (the entire f*cking regialr season) despite having multiple opportunities to string together some wins. As a matter of fact it was Campbells performance more than anything which prevented this team from having home ice advantage for the entirety of the playoffs.

It was an abject failure and no rewriting of history is going to change that reality.
Is that something you can come to terms with?

Given how close the Vegas v Oiler series played out, I think there's a few panacea theories floating about including mythical Campbell starting game 6 and small sample stuff like McLeod could have stopped Eichel's dominance (the play was McDavid v Eichel).

The Oilers were beaten by a better structured, more disciplined and playoff experienced team. Oilers discipline lagged with dumb penalties; their own zone play and systems were exposed by Vegas forwards; and a young head coach faced his own growth, learning situation against a top end veteran coach. Vegas elite, deep d-corp insulated a fourth string goaltender. The margin was small. But Oil reliance on a historic PP run in which PP chances tend to dry up as series progress was letdown by EV scoring dominated by Vegas.

The team play in front of these respective goaltenders was the difference in this series.

 

[Drivesaitl]

So you ignore every single relevant stat (including advanced stats) that clearly outline Campbells failure and then hang the entirety of your argument on a winning percentage and suggest that is the reason why Campbells season garnered him the benefit of the doubt?

Did you even bother to look at the number of times Campbell was pulled and still got the win because Skinner and the NHLs best offence bailed him out?

An odd idea of facts indeed.

I never once stated fact. Nor did I state that Campbell had earned on the basis of this regular season. Nor did I hang my argument on the one stat. I fleshed out my thought process which you either did not read and seemingly reacted to without reading. Which doesn't make for ideal conversation. Maybe go back and look at what I did state.

 

[guymez]

Given how close the Vegas v Oiler series played out, I think there's a few panacea theories floating about including mythical Campbell starting game 6 and small sample stuff like McLeod could have stopped Eichel's dominance (the play was McDavid v Eichel).

The Oilers were beaten by a better structured, more disciplined and playoff experienced team. Oilers disciplined lagged with dumb penalties; their own zone play and systems were exposed by Vegas forwards; and a young head coach faced a growth, learning situation of his own against a top end veteran coach. Vegas elite, deep d-corp insulated a fourth string goaltender. The margin was small. But Oil reliance on a historic PP run in which PP chances tend to dry up as series progress was letdown by EV scoring dominated by Vegas.

The team play in front of these respective goaltenders was the difference in this series.

I completely agree.
Thats what I saw as well which is why I spent very little time going over the goaltending choice by Woody in that series.

It was a lesson for the coach and the team.

That said...I would still like to know why Wooody didnt adjust when it was obvious to me and other fans that Vegas was exploiting the Oilers defensive scheme.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Given how close the Vegas v Oiler series played out, I think there's a few panacea theories floating about including mythical Campbell starting game 6 and small sample stuff like McLeod could have stopped Eichel's dominance (the play was McDavid v Eichel).

The Oilers were beaten by a better structured, more disciplined and playoff experienced team. Oilers discipline lagged with dumb penalties; their own zone play and systems were exposed by Vegas forwards; and a young head coach faced a growth, learning situation of his own against a top end veteran coach. Vegas elite, deep d-corp insulated a fourth string goaltender. The margin was small. But Oil reliance on a historic PP run in which PP chances tend to dry up as series progress was letdown by EV scoring dominated by Vegas.

The team play in front of these respective goaltenders was the difference in this series.

meh. Without Campbell coming in and salvaging a game we had to have its arguable we don't even get to 2nd round. The Kings even were getting to Skinner, and they sure did in staking out a 3-0 lead in a first period where Skinner looked ridiculous in a game the Oilers needed to have.

Goalie changes can make a difference. As it did for Vegas. Prior to Adin Hill getting in the Vegas goaltending looked problematic to their playoff run. They weren't suffering much after the change. Same team in front of Adin Hill.

 

[guymez]

I never once stated fact. Nor did I state that Campbell had earned on the basis of this regular season. Nor did I hang my argument on the one stat. I fleshed out my thought process which you either did not read and seemingly reacted to without reading. Which doesn't make for ideal conversation. Maybe go back and look at what I did state.

Thats a fair comment. I stopped my work and went back and took the time to reread your posts.
Here is what you stated....

We have this situation longterm and after the debacle of disrespect shown to Campbell I don't know that there isn't even an impasse by now. How awful would a vet goalie feel seeing the other goalie pulled 4 times and not even being considered to start.
That was what I was taking to task.

If this quote from you (especially the bolded) isnt referencing his regular season performance and how that impacted the coaches confidence in the playoffs then please do tell me what it is you are referencing.
Keep in mind that you then tried to support your argument by bringing up Campbells reg season win %.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

meh. Without Campbell coming in and salvaging a game we had to have its arguable we don't even get to 2nd round. The Kings even were getting to Skinner, and they sure did in staking out a 3-0 lead in a first period where Skinner looked ridiculous in a game the Oilers needed to have.

Goalie changes can make a difference. As it did for Vegas. Prior to Adin Hill getting in the Vegas goaltending looked problematic to their playoff run. They weren't suffering much after the change. Same team in front of Adin Hill.

Full credit for his relief win against LA. It was Campbell or white flag. But clearly the coaching staff did not have confidence in Campbell who required all facets of his game rebuilt in the first extended in-season sabbatical I've ever seen. Skinner quite likely saved the Oilers season as an onboarding rookie goaltender gig had by necessity became a diamond cutter thrill ride as a #1 on a win now team. Such was the reality when the big money free agent signing wilted.

Vegas' team play insulated Hill and they exploited Oiler dumbness (Nurse's suspension likely a series turning point); they exploited Oilers mistakes in own zone defending discipline and systems which opened up cherry high-scoring danger chances that they converted. Their team defense stabilized to insulate their 4th string goaltender with few home plate rebound opportunities and a largely perimeter one-and-done Oiler attack as the series went on. Vegas big, deep defense is a template for how to win without elite goaltending. Cassidy's systems and team structure steeled throughout the regular season without their #1 goaltender got better as the playoffs went on. Limiting dumbness in the winning series is critical to success.

Hill won the goaltending battle. But the war was lost with the discrepancy between Vegas and Oiler lack of discipline; erratic own zone play; and coaching decisions that failed to mitigate Eichel's domination over Draisaitl's line. Skinner's result mirror every opposition goaltender including two elite ones that were all buzz sawed by the best two way team play in the playoffs.