Quote:
Originally Posted by butterfly
It would be a choice between trading him, doing nothing, or a short term deal.
Trading would have given them premium picks and prospects, the likes of which are rarely available. It also would have cleared the deck for a Bouchard deal who actually is at an age where a long term offer can be considered. Drafting star players and turning them into younger players (hopefully future stars) instead of funding their decline is a good idea.
Doing nothing would have given them the exact same shot at this year that they already have - without hitching their wagon to Draisaitl's decline. He also would have no reason to relax in a contract year where everyone would be watching.
A 1-3 year deal would have made sense for the Oilers and would be something I'd see if their camp was interested in. If that was a non-starter, it would boil down to the first two options.
What they did gives them the same thing as doing nothing, plus signing him to a negative value contract. If Draisaitl had been FA at age 29 (instead of 30) and the options were 1x$8.5 or 9x$13.4, which one would you be interested in? The former is doing nothing, and the latter is what the Oilers chose.
|
The situation is Edmonton is looking bad after next season, but it's hard to say for 100% that the Draisaitl contract is bad. Yes, it's not a discount, but it's hard to argue they should have done anything other than keeping him. Trading him would have made more sense a few years ago than now.
Failing to draft for years, terrible cap management lead to the situation. Leon is getting paid a fair amount considering the cap should rise yearly for a few years, the contract isn't bad and really the Oilers should have signed it