You've made the team worse though - what was the point in that?

How is the team worse?

Out: Yamamoto, Ceci and Janmark
In: Holloway, Broberg, Cogliano and Lavoie

Holloway will contribute to the team next year, Lavoie has an outside shot to help the team.
Kulak is cheaper than Ceci and able to play both sides of the ice, Foegele is cheaper than Yam and brings an element that Yams does not.
Kostin over Janmark is on spot that I could agree but that is why you bring in Cogliano.

At the end of the day the point is to maintain as much of the current roster without sacrificing a Bouchard long term deal.

You didn't effectively replace Yamamoto or Ceci.

Broberg is already on the roster, Holloway and Lavoie are available already. So you removed a top-6 forward and a 1st pairing defenseman and replaced them with an over-35 13th forward. If you can't see how that's worse then I can't be of much help to you.

Ya I don't think you're looking at this with open mind.

- Broberg hasn't played a feature role with the Oilers yet which is where I have elevated him too. It is my belief that he and Kulak can all but replace Ceci's minutes at a cheaper rate.

- Holloway and Lavoie will be featured in the lineup because teams need players on ELC's or sub-million dollar deals to contribute. They will take much of the minutes that Yam was playing at 5v5. The PK minutes will likely fall to Foegele with an outside chance that Holloway sees some.

- Suggesting Ceci is a 1st pair defencemen is a disservice to your argument, same as calling Yamamoto a top-6 forward. Neither player contributes at the level that they too in order to be considered in that light. Furthermore EDM has its 1st pair RHD that they need to prioritize and that is Evan Bouchard. Moving Ceci in order to afford a long term deal for Bouchard makes plenty of sense.

- Suggesting the only replacement is Cogliano is silly, internal development from Broberg, Holloway and Lavoie needs to occur and be encouraged by management.

The way I see it is you are putting no stock in the young players abilities to step up and contribute. Bouchard will continue to take on more and more, Broberg will take a step forward in his development. Holloway and Lavoie need to be afforded the opportunity to contribute.

I don't see the team in a worse position, yes they are down 3 veteran NHLers but not giving the youth an opportunity to play isn't helpful and neither is being short cap that needs to be used in locking up Bouchard long term. But in your own words "If you can't see how that's worse then I can't be of much help to you."

Woodcroft has Ceci playing among the toughest minutes in the league. He had Kulak sheltered as much as possible in the 2nd pairing role BEFORE the deadline, guess which guy they decided to upgrade? To suggest that Kulak and Broberg (playing 2nd pairing on the wrong side!) can replace Ceci tells me you don't actually understand QoC at all. But Woodcroft certainly does, so I'm confident that Edmonton will never do the things you're suggesting - including Bouchard at 1RD and Holloway on the 1st line.

You are ignoring 75% of my response because it provides logic to my stance.

I never once suggested Ceci wasn't a good player but ignoring the salary component attached to a player is looking at the problem with 1 eye closed. Edmonton once again is facing a cap crunch, saving $500K is critical to them fielding a strong team again.

Hahaha its sad that when people don't have an argument they just start throwing random things out. We all understand quality of competition, you're trying to change the narrative away from my points which is internal development and promotion are critical to EDM maintaining a competitive team.

Because you seem incapable of following along, answer this: How would you resign Bouchard to a long term deal, assuming the deal is $5.5m to $6.0m? Considering your stance on Ceci and Yam, who do you move in order to make space? Cap is assumed to be $83.5m .

I don't feel obligated to respond to every point in your 1000 word post, lol. At the end of the day you have a bunch of guys playing above their established level of ability, having dumped the established guys without adequate replacement. That's simply not something Holland and Woodcroft would do, as shown by their past history.

Also, looking at Holland's body of work I'd say Bouchard is heading for a bridge deal.

Only respond to what fits your narrative.

Sadly guys playing above their "ability" is todays NHL, hard cap makes it impossible to keep everyone. ELC's need to contribute in order for teams like EDM to be successful.

IF Holland bridges Bouchard that could be a major mistake, they need to lock as many core pieces up beyond the McD/Drai window as possible. This will likely be the only opportunity for Holland to lock up Bouchard at a number that doesn't start with an 8 or higher.

I'm totally fine with a 3-year bridge for Bouchard. Ekholm's contract will expire at the same time, as will Kane's. There will be plenty of money to give Bouch a long-term contract at that time.

Noah Dobson's 3 year, $12M deal remains the closest comp.

Great Comp but here is the issue with doing that deal as I see Edmonton's future:

Cap Help
- Kane, Kulak & Ekholm deals expire
- salary cap increase (could be substantial)
- Campbell Buyout?

Cap Concerns
- Holloway & Bourgault 2nd contract
- Broberg & Lavoie 2nd or 3rd contracts
- Mcleod 3rd line center contract
- Skinner starter money contract
- Bouchard big money contract
- Leon Draisaitl MAX contract pending
- Connor McDavid MAX contract pending (following season)

So yes you are seeing some alleviation with the cap in 3 seasons however you are pushing 3 monster deals within a year of each other, while also needing to replace the talents of those outgoing players.
Additionally bridging Bouchard eats up lots of RFA years, you push him closer to UFA and if you do go bridge to max term your signing a 26/27 year old deep into his 30's when a players production will begin to fall.

I just think that EDM should be able to look back at two of their own previous signings and pick the better path (Klefbom long term vs Nurse bridge to bridge to bad).