Bissonette on the Oilers

[DawgDad]

Very animated comments about Oilers lack of team defensive play and the roster turnover, citing Jeff Skinner at $3m vs Holloway, saying a bunch of people need to fall on grenades for what they did with the roster in the offseason. Got himself so worked up he jumped out of his seat playing a turkey trot on his harmonica!

[Hooking]

Bissonette is a tool that just does that stuff to be "that guy" like on NFL broadcasts or ESPN shows. A lot of sports / media today is about clout and views and hot takes instead of just good production of the sports coverage.

He plays a character.

[DawgDad]

Sure. I was struck by how forcefully he tore into the Oilers play and management. They aren't talking about the Blues like that, but of course the Blues don't bear the expectations of last year's Cup Finalists.

[somni]

Regardless, the Oilers might be in trouble. Next game is huge.

[a smell of green grass]

2 observations:

1) When the history books record why Edmonton failed to get a Cup with McDavid and Draisitl, the Blues theft will be cited as a primary reason.

2) We've seen the NHL take revenge on St Louis before (Scott Stevens signing). I'm curious to know what blood will be extracted for this infraction in the end.

[PPG]

NOTHING- The Stevens situation and the Holloway/Broberg signing are completely different.
Way, way back in 1991, the 2 teams involved had 7 days to agree on fair & proper compensation. If they couldn't, then it went to an "Independent Arbitrator".
At that time it was Judge Houston, who was appointed by the league...wink, wink
That's why NJ asked for Stevens rather than accepting the Blues very generous offer of Cujo & Brindamour.
The Holloway/Broberg situation, Edmonton had 7 days to match the offer OR accept the pre-determined compensation, which was based entirely on the size of the contracts.
That's why the Blues offered the max contracts, knowing that only a 2nd round & a 3rd round pick were involved.
Had they gone $1 higher on both contracts, the compensation would have been a 1st & a 2nd.
Both teams going in, knew exactly what was involved.
That was Not the case in 1991

[TAFKAP]

2 observations:

1) When the history books record why Edmonton failed to get a Cup with McDavid and Draisitl, the Blues theft will be cited as a primary reason.

2) We've seen the NHL take revenge on St Louis before (Scott Stevens signing). I'm curious to know what blood will be extracted for this infraction in the end.

The Blues got punished by the League because in 1991, it was a good old boys club and the Blues came in throwing money around and driving up salaries for other teams. It's a cap league, the NHL doesn't care as long as it's in the rules.

[MrPostman01]

Yep and the NYR tampered with the Blues when their GM very publicly stated he would love to have Gretzky on their team. Gretzky dumped the Blues and joined the NYR. No punishment.

[blues2112]

2 observations:

1) When the history books record why Edmonton failed to get a Cup with McDavid and Draisitl, the Blues theft will be cited as a primary reason.

2) We've seen the NHL take revenge on St Louis before (Scott Stevens signing). I'm curious to know what blood will be extracted for this infraction in the end.

1. Oilers went to Game 7 and lost by one goal. Winning cup? No, but 2,112 times closer than the other 30 teams.

2. In addition to PPG's well-written post, the — BY RULE — compensation for Stevens' contract was five first-round picks. Blues knew the risk. There was no "revenge" by the league. Blues double-down the next year by signing Shanahan, knowing the team did not have the necessary picks — BY RULE — and were taking a huge risk.

[TBone]

1) When the history books record why Edmonton failed to get a Cup with McDavid and Draisitl, the Blues theft will be cited as a primary reason.

Yes sir.

[DawgDad]

2 observations:

1) When the history books record why Edmonton failed to get a Cup with McDavid and Draisitl, the Blues theft will be cited as a primary reason.

2) We've seen the NHL take revenge on St Louis before (Scott Stevens signing). I'm curious to know what blood will be extracted for this infraction in the end.

1. Oilers went to Game 7 and lost by one goal. Winning cup? No, but 2,112 times closer than the other 30 teams.

2. In addition to PPG's well-written post, the — BY RULE — compensation for Stevens' contract was five first-round picks. Blues knew the risk. There was no "revenge" by the league. Blues double-down the next year by signing Shanahan, knowing the team did not have the necessary picks — BY RULE — and were taking a huge risk.

1. Coming close but not prevailing is the driver for the heightened scrutiny. It cast expectations that this year's Oilers team is a top contender. Money flows on these expectations, players moved, the front office realigned. If the bubble bursts there will be intense heat in their kitchen.

[seattleblue]

NOTHING- The Stevens situation and the Holloway/Broberg signing are completely different.
Way, way back in 1991, the 2 teams involved had 7 days to agree on fair & proper compensation. If they couldn't, then it went to an "Independent Arbitrator".
At that time it was Judge Houston, who was appointed by the league...wink, wink
That's why NJ asked for Stevens rather than accepting the Blues very generous offer of Cujo & Brindamour.
The Holloway/Broberg situation, Edmonton had 7 days to match the offer OR accept the pre-determined compensation, which was based entirely on the size of the contracts.
That's why the Blues offered the max contracts, knowing that only a 2nd round & a 3rd round pick were involved.
Had they gone $1 higher on both contracts, the compensation would have been a 1st & a 2nd.
Both teams going in, knew exactly what was involved.
That was Not the case in 1991

In 1991 the compensation for a free agent who was not worth five first round picks was a player on your team who was worth five first round picks, it was corrupt and absurd. Sept 3, 1991 was a dark day. I still remember where I was when I heard the news. It was a Tuesday and all the way until Friday there was still talk of Stevens refusing to go to NJ. It led the local news broadcasts for three days.

[Army's Mom]

NOTHING- The Stevens situation and the Holloway/Broberg signing are completely different.
Way, way back in 1991, the 2 teams involved had 7 days to agree on fair & proper compensation. If they couldn't, then it went to an "Independent Arbitrator".
At that time it was Judge Houston, who was appointed by the league...wink, wink
That's why NJ asked for Stevens rather than accepting the Blues very generous offer of Cujo & Brindamour.
The Holloway/Broberg situation, Edmonton had 7 days to match the offer OR accept the pre-determined compensation, which was based entirely on the size of the contracts.
That's why the Blues offered the max contracts, knowing that only a 2nd round & a 3rd round pick were involved.
Had they gone $1 higher on both contracts, the compensation would have been a 1st & a 2nd.
Both teams going in, knew exactly what was involved.
That was Not the case in 1991

In 1991 the compensation for a free agent who was not worth five first round picks was a player on your team who was worth five first round picks, it was corrupt and absurd. Sept 3, 1991 was a dark day. I still remember where I was when I heard the news. It was a Tuesday and all the way until Friday there was still talk of Stevens refusing to go to NJ. It led the local news broadcasts for three days.

NGL, half of my intention in starting the Uncle Lou thread is just my desire for revenge over those dark days! And, when we tampered and signed Stevens back - I still remember the smile Stevens had on his face as the live guest at the VP fair newscasts.

[BalotelliMassive]

1) When the history books record why Edmonton failed to get a Cup with McDavid and Draisitl, the Blues theft will be cited as a primary reason.

Lack of defense or goalie will be the reasoning.

[blues2112]

2 observations:

1) When the history books record why Edmonton failed to get a Cup with McDavid and Draisitl, the Blues theft will be cited as a primary reason.

2) We've seen the NHL take revenge on St Louis before (Scott Stevens signing). I'm curious to know what blood will be extracted for this infraction in the end.

1. Oilers went to Game 7 and lost by one goal. Winning cup? No, but 2,112 times closer than the other 30 teams.

2. In addition to PPG's well-written post, the — BY RULE — compensation for Stevens' contract was five first-round picks. Blues knew the risk. There was no "revenge" by the league. Blues double-down the next year by signing Shanahan, knowing the team did not have the necessary picks — BY RULE — and were taking a huge risk.

1. Coming close but not prevailing is the driver for the heightened scrutiny. It cast expectations that this year's Oilers team is a top contender. Money flows on these expectations, players moved, the front office realigned. If the bubble bursts there will be intense heat in their kitchen.

Even with Broberg and Holloway, they didn't win!

I know it's not your point, but to say the Blues' "theft" is the reason Oilers failed to win Cup collapses on itself.

[seattleblue]

Blues double-down the next year by signing Shanahan, knowing the team did not have the necessary picks — BY RULE — and were taking a huge risk.

This is a slight mischaracterization of the Shanahan signing. Stevens was I think they called a Group VI free agent where it was defined as 5 first round picks, but there was not a required template for a different kind of free agent (Group III?) and for that procedure the teams were supposed to negotiate themselves in good faith for compensation. But failing that, and the way it was told was Lou simply refused to discuss it, the teams were each supposed to come up with a single offer and Judge Houston had to pick either theirs or ours, he couldn't craft his own alternate deal for example. We all heard what the Devils offered and dismissed it out of hand, and in fact were kind of surprised by how much value they had to offer (Joseph, Brind'Amour, plus two second round picks which would have been in the 40s overall). When Houston picked the Devils offer is was shocking. We had just witnessed Stevens essentially turn around the entire team there was no way Shanahan (4 years into his career averaging the same 50pts a year Stevens was on defense) equaled Stevens, just on its face.

I could be wrong about which category # of free agent they each were but it was different rules for Stevens than it was for Shanahan.