We never filled the 1B goalie role and wouldn’t have needed a 2RD if Broberg stayed. Everyone knew how good he was going to be after the Cup run. The Panther players were raving about his play. As for Kane, I’m sure the team knew he’d be out until at least when his NTC comes up. They were just doing smoke and mirrors for the fans and league to make it not seem like they were going to abuse the LTIR loophole.
1) For whatever reason, Edmonton was not convinced that Broberg was the answer. It could be perceived on-ice risk, or it could be his general attitude (trade request) last season. Whatever it was, they weren't going to hitch their wagon to him. I think we all agree his play showed he was ready to take the leap... but clear that wasn't enough for Oilers mgmt. Who knows, maybe it was the off-ice stuff that made them gun-shy...
2) Once that decision was made, it is clear they were going for optionality. If Emberson had taken a bigger step, maybe no Klingberg. If Klingberg were back to a 50 point puck mover, no Walman. If no Walman maybe it was easier to pull off Gibson. We all see how the decision tree played out, but the point is that the cap space gave them optionality, which is useful in any type of management role. Anyone with business training should at least be acknowledging that logic.
3) If Broberg stayed and was our 2RD, you are right, we'd not need Walman... but we'd have been in LTIR, so we still wouldn't have $$$ for a goalie. So not really any better off than we are right? With Broberg gone, there was a scenario where we get both an RD and a goalie... seems clear to me that was Plan A (Klingberg + cap for goalie). Plan B was only an RD (Walman). Why paint yourself into a corner with Broberg?
4) Kane Point 1: I'm just responding to your point that it would have been easy to get themselves cap compliant if he came back. You just said yourself it was known he'd not be back until at least after his NTC. That means limited trade options and ZERO guarantees they can make themselves cap compliant (without trading a Nuge or Hyman who WOULD have buyers) in mid-season. How can you enter a season with that level of risk hanging over your cup aspirations?
5) Kane Point 2: Of course there was a plan to deal with that uncertainty... have you forgotten it was widely rumored we tried to trade him this summer? Did you miss part where Kane provided his NTC list prior to acquiring Walman? It stands to reason that the sequential surgery (hip--> recovery --> knee scope --> recovery) was in reaction to the failed plan to trade him... if we'd traded him in the summer, we'd have kept both RFAs.
Taking it all together, I think the plan was:
1) Sign UFA forwards, Keep Ceci, Trade Kane, sign RFAs cheap, accrue space for TDL
EXTERNAL EVENT --> Offer sheets
2) Trade Ceci, Trade Kane, sign RFAs at offer sheet prices
3) Let RFAs go, accrue space, execute our wink-wink-nudge-nudge agreement with him to have his knee scoped, accrue space for RD, then if enough left over, use LTIR space 1bG at deadline
All I'm saying is that once they couldn't trade Kane in the summer, the option of keeping Broberg (and only Broberg) was less palatable than 3 which still could have worked out with both RD & 1bG... admittedly they failed to pull that off (blame Klingberg), but it was on the table as a possibility.
There's no question they F'd up on plan 1 above (by spending too much on UFA forwards), but trading Broberg allowed them an upside scenario of adding BOTH RD & 1bG and a downside scenario of adding only one of those (whichever seemed higher priority at deadline). I support that type of thinking.
