I think you would be cutting yourself off from substantial roster building options if you operated under the assumption that you need to keep enough cap space to overpay unproven RFA’s by 2x-4x because another desperate gm might do something foolish.
We can talk about how these players were unhappy about their development and I think there is some merit to the fact it probably wasn’t handled flawlessly but individual player development doesn’t always line up with what’s best for a team trying to compete at the highest level. The fact is both players had ample opportunity over 2 seasons to make their mark and they never performed, it’s a results driven league and they weren’t delivering.
If an unproven player wants to prioritize getting paid substantially more then he’s worth, that’s his right but I don’t think that’s the type of character a Cup contending team wants in the room, which is likely why they chose not to match even on Holloway, who’s compensation was minimal and cap would of been manageable.
Prioritizing veterans with established track record of performance who are willing to take less to player here over entitled kids who haven’t proven anything and want to be paid like they have is a pretty easy decision for a team trying to win a Cup.
That's what teams did this summer with major RFA's and frankly even Toronto with a low likely mid-roster winger Robertson. The exception was Edmonton which as a Cup Finalist chose to finish its roster with veterans. We know the consequences of their choices.
With these players, the hard fact is one had an in-season trade request after being a press box player on a team that had a catastrophic start. There's more than enough grey area with development accountability on both players and team.
The character slings and arrows are pointless. Majority of people praised both players when stepping up into deep playoff competition. Holloway moving up to a 2W role and Broberg keeping his head above water despite not playing in a month. Performance situations reveal character and notably the head coach and captain praised the player. The issue stemmed from a lack of playing time within a mature phase organization that had to mitigate real blueline issue through trades across years for Keith, Kulak, Ekholm. It was also a team that went through 3 coaches in recent history with severe yo you performance extremes. Naturally as most coaches do they lean on veterans.
Obviously St. Louis is not in the same mature phase as Edmonton. They saw no character concerns with the players and the free market cap and need to take a run at poaching two young NHL ready players coming off solid support work on a Cup Final team.
Per your last point, the Oilers prioritized their choices, gambled on the youth, and the free market assigned new financial values that were beyond the Oilers choice to retain on. There's also a trend worth watching with young players opting for financial security and choices where to play. Most people in similar situations likely take the money. Professional sports careers are often short so not sure there's need to denigrate an easy decision financially that virtually anyone would make if extended the situation.
