At the time, he was also FAR worse than either Koskiken or Smith, so why would you risk taking on $6.25m for not only this year but the next 2 years.. He's been much better since his recall, but when he was placed on waivers he had a year and a half of injuries and extremely poor play.. I agree, I feel Buffalo could've benefit from claiming him, and ensure they hit the floor for the remainder of his deal AND gives Ukka Pekka a good platoon situation while he slowly takes the reigns...

Murray has been good since last April when the new goalie coach was hired. In his last 5 games last season, his numbers were

1.37 GAA, .954 save%

His first two games this season were

1.60 GAA, .936 save%

He left the second game after 54:17, when he took a knee to the head by Kreider. Forsberg comes in and gives up 2 goals on 3 shots, and loses the game.

When he returned, too soon, he gave up 5 to Chicago, and it was apparant he wasn't right. He then gave up 4 to the Lightning. He was better, but still off. He then gave up 3 to Boston. He was getting better each game, especially considering it was the Lightning and Bruins.

Murray then got Covid-19. As soon as he came out of protocol, still fatigued, he gives up 4 to SJS. The team sends him to Belleville. They recalled him for Jan 1, and then proceed to hang him out to dry. The coach, in the post game, said the entire team was terrible, and Murray didn't deserve the way they played in front of him. They gave up 6 goals.

So in those five games, Murray goes 0-5, 4.45 GAA, and a .867 save%.

It may have continued except the league started cancelling games, and the next game after Jan 1st was on Jan 13th. Murray, recovered from the Kreider knee, recovered from Covid-19, went on to make 27 saves on 28 shots.

In 8 games since the block of canecelled games, Murray has a 1.72 GAA and .949 save%

So Murray has played well since last April, and his 5 bad games each has an extenuating circumstance to explain it.

Edit: so compare his last 8 games numbers to the numbers from the 5 games at end of last season and the two games before the Kreider knee.
1.72 GAA and .949 save% - 8 games
1.44 GAA and .949 save% - 7 games

Oilers couldn’t have claimed him even if they wanted to can’t just fit in that much cap out of nowhere and at that time with smith being hurt couldn’t trade kosk + more money out and count on Murray the way he was performing.

Imagine trying to justify taking on a player with a $6.25m caphit for 2.5 more seasons when the previous season his stat line actually looked like this:
2020-21 Ottawa Senators NHL 27 1 2 1404 79 0 2 3.38 10 13 1 659 0.893

While also knowing he's been Injury prone virtually his entire career, hence Jarry being the No.1 in Pitts, and Forsberg playing more than he should over the last 2 seasons in Ottawa. I'm not disputing that he's been much much better since his recall, my point is when he was placed on waivers, it would make 0 sense for Edmonton to claim him at that time, when they already had 2 goalies playing better than he was at the time, while taking on MORE in Cap AND a longer term too.. Plus in your heart of hearts, do you really see Murray's play since his recall sustainable?? The dudes entire career has been get hot, gets hurt and comes back from injury mediocre... Gets hot, gets hurt and comes back from injury mediocre.. Yes, Mike Smith has been the same his entire career, and I would love nothing more than to see him and Koskinen no longer as the No 1 in Edmonton, but I wouldn't make that type of commitment to Murray, while already having an inconsistent tandem- needing to free up space in the process.. Realistically claiming Murray would mean they would need to at least deal Koskinen's contract at $4.5m, needing to a trade partner, you're ultimately going to need to give an incentive for them to take on his contract for you, so if they went to a Arizona or Jersey or Buffalo(hoping none of these teams are on his 15 Team NTC) you'll likely have to give up a 4th or 5th round pick for legitimately nothing(ala Andrew Ladd to Arizona trade). So, at this point you're essentially trading Koskinen and a 4th for at the time a Matt Murray who was playing worse than Koskinen, while taking on another $1.75m in cap space AND 2 more years after this, it just didn't make sense for them to do this.. Again, I believe Buffalo would've benefit from claiming him tho...

I'm not reading a response that starts, "Imagine trying to justify" because it tells me you either didn't read what you responded to, or don't care. I'm not starting another back and forth with a closed minded individual.

They didn't pick up Murray, and I really don't care why.

Main points, you're basically arguing they would've been better off claiming him off waivers based on his current play- which again he's been great and yes right now he would be a significant upgrade for what they have right now. But, at the time, he had played worse than even Koskinen over the last season and a half, and would cost more cap wise, and asset wise to get him on the team. I am 1000% not a "closed minded individual" I look at the bigger picture, which had you read the thread, you would've saw the moves needed to take place in order for it to work for Edmonton at the time(Koskinen and a mid to late pick to a team not on his NTC for cap relief) to acquire the younger more expensive and longer term version of Mike Smith basically.. I'm not disputing he's been good since he's been recalled, but not worth it for Edmonton, BUT, it would've been worth it for Buffalo for a number reasons.... Talk about a closed minded individual...