I don't think Holland would accept that deal. Although JVR could be an upgrade, and there is a possibility he might flourish playing along side McDavid, Neal is a known commodity and will have a defined, albeit limited, role with Edmonton. The Oilers are already suffering with too much dead cap space consumed by buy-outs and retained salary, adding a bigger AAV and more retention could be very difficult to manage. I also don't think Holland is prepared to gamble with a prospect like Samorukov ahead of the Seattle expansion draft, particularly on a player like JVR. The risks just appear too great for a GM who has already had to give away a player like John Marino, had an underwhelming return on the Kassian contract extension, lost with the trade for Athanasiou, and also had to watch Benning walk away and sign elsewhere. I think Holland hangs onto his top prospects unless he receives an offer that is sure to make his team better for years to come.

Yes, as it stands the trade has Edmonton losing. The post above you outlines the newer "Oiler friendly" offer that may be closer to what the fanbase would stomach (if they are open minded enough, that is). I do agree the 750k retention is excessive, Samorukov to be too high profile, so I based it on that.

Just on a few points though that may shed light into us losing out or getting bad ROI:

John Marino: informed the organization he had no intention of signing with the Oilers. Think Fox in Cgy, Shultz in Ana. Something out of nothing.

Kassian: at the time, the cap was projected to jump. 3.2M back then was hailed as "decent" if anything.

AA: ditto, see above. Also, thought market would pay him more than the 2yr 2-something deal on the table. Was dead wrong.

Benning: Oilers informed him of his new role, didn't like it. Was, is, and forever will be a 3rd pairing guy on a crap team or a contender. Not a huge loss with the addition of Barrie and eventual arrival of Bouchard.

Marino is gone, and Edmonton received a return that does not appear commensurate with the role and performance he provided in Pittsburgh. Edmonton lost two second round draft picks and AA is gone. Benning walked, and nothing was received in return. Kassian's contract, within the current environment, is not an ideal distribution of salary. Now, Holland could not have predicted a pandemic and the subsequent impact it has had on the league, but that does not change the fact that his current circumstances strongly suggest very little interest in gambling in a trade for JVR.

Be that as it may, you cannot judge future trades because of past failures. Remember Tambellini? That dude was so scared of screwing up, he ended up doing next to nothing.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the point. Marino, one who was not in the Oilers' immediate plans, was never signing here to begin with. He was walking for nothing regardless. He could have turned out to be Coffey 2.0, but if he wasnt willing to do it for the team that drafted him, then it's all for naught. He panned out in Pitts, good for them. Not Holland's fault.

At the time of Kassian's extension the cap was predicted to jump to 85-86M. 3.2M was not a dealbreaker.

At the time of AA's trade, to sign him up to his qualifying offer was no issue. 3M when the cap was supposed to rise was not a dealbreaker either.

These are things we live with. You have 30 other team's whose job is to help themselves, not help the Oilers. Sacrifices will still be made, flat-cap era or not. Trades will still be made, flat-cap era or not.

Thanks for the input anyways.

I think you might be misinterpreting what I have written. I am not judging the merit of the proposed trade, I am speculating the mindset of a GM who would have to consider all of the implications of making that kind of trade.

Every GM works to improve their team, Holland is no different. The transactions I noted did not turn out well, through no fault of the GM. However, the consequences of those transactions contribute to the situation Holland finds himself operating within today.

Ken Holland has often stated his intention to gradually build the Oilers into a perennial playoff team, and a potential cup contender. He has spoken of short, mid, and long term objectives and the need to avoid sacrificing the future for the now. His situation today includes a deep pool of promising young defence, a very shallow pool of young scoring forwards, and some questions yet to be answered regarding his young goaltenders. He also has a team that overachieved last season, largely on the strength of 2 superstars, a very good third forward, a promising rookie, and some outstanding special teams. He carries a lot of dead salary that limits his ability to do much today, and he is also unsure when his top d-man is going to be available to play again.

Edmonton's top six have no problems scoring, the bottom six do. If adding Turris and bringing back Puljujarvi can add just 20 more goals than the bottom six managed last season, then the Oilers match the same offensive output that Tampa Bay produced this past season. As much as media and fans continue to wring their hands and worry that McDavid doesn't have a strong complimentary line mate, that really is not a huge priority. Edmonton is better off holding off on moving any of its good young prospects, at least until Seattle has had its opportunity to raid the roster. At that point, Holland will have Kris Russell on a more reasonable AAV, determined Adam Larsson's future, shed Alex Chiasson's contract, have the ability to bring Konovalov over, and watch another year of development for Bear, Jones, Bouchard, Samorukov, Broberg, and Lavoie, and Benson. He will have some ability to change the way his salary is distributed across the roster, and access to more NHL ready prospects. At that point he will be in a much better position to figure out what to do with Neal.

Then I'm afraid you're missing the point of ACGM. We assume and wear the hat of NHL GM. There are no repercussions to 100% of the ACGM threads that are proposed on here or any site similar.

If I made a thread outlining what I would trade Auston Matthews for, real world events have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the topic discussed.

"Well, from an organizational standpoint, trading Matthews would not be good for the bottom line.. jersey sales.. team morale.. etc, etc"

That just does not happen. Outlandish as it may be, ACGM is just that: a gigantic 'what-if' machine we as fans use to pass the time and maybe gain some insight along the way in the form of community feedback.

For example, if I had a lopsided trade favoring the Oilers "50% salary retention by PHI, oh and we want a 1st round pick too", then PHI fans would be grilling me right now. So far, it's my own fanbase lol, so I knew my mistake was undervaluing one or more of Edmonton's assets in this transaction and/or overvaluing the incoming player, maybe even a combination of them all.

Now I know, corrections are made, the next ACGM I may write up will be more accurate.

Seems to me that you are making an assumption and projecting it as a factual statement. I think it is great that some who access this site choose to explore any and all possibilities. I think it is equally great that others choose to discuss and exchange ideas that are pragmatic. Neither is incorrect.

Not really. It's just the hill you're willing to die on is, to put it bluntly, dumb. The only time it isnt is when it might affect the scenario at hand ie. "trade Nurse no matter what cause he bad" so one might correctly inquire as to whether having either Jones or Russel as the 1LD would even make sense given Klefbom's absence this year.

Your reasons for vetoing the trade were simply "we've screwed up on a no-win prospect panning out elsewhere, the pandemic ramifications screwed us over with adjusted values in the Kassian extension, and oh Lord AA's sunken acquisition cost so any trade, even spit-balling an idea, is unrealistic". Trivial, added zero value to the overall conversation, and quite Karen-esque.

Anyways, good morning and have a great day!

Okay, I can accept that you may be challenged with recognizing context and interpreting what you are reading. You take care.

Nah man, that opinion was just so dumb I had to call you out on it. There's a time and place for that viewpoint and this wasn't it, but you just went ahead and spewed it out regardless.

Just cause you have a mouth and some free time doesn't mean all your opinions suddenly fit into every scenario. I'll give you a 'like' as a participation trophy so you feel like you matter in the world somehow. Enjoy!