Could the Oilers’ Stan Bowman Be Playing the Long Game?

At first, when the Edmonton Oilers traded Stuart Skinner to the Pittsburgh Penguins, I had to admit that I was outraged. But I’ve come to wonder, after turning this one over for a bit, whether it really sits as neatly as the outrage around it suggests.

---

Most Oilers Fans Have Been Critical of Bowman’s Trade

When Stan Bowman moved both goalie Stuart Skinner and defenseman Brett Kulak out of Edmonton — two players who grew up here, lived here, and genuinely wanted to be Oilers — the reaction was swift and loud. People didn’t just question the move. They questioned Bowman. He became the target, and not politely.

Related: Top-Ten Talent? Penguins Insider Gives Oilers Scouting Report on Tristan Jarry

What made it even more confusing was Bowman’s earlier comment that the Oilers had originally envisioned a tandem approach. Not a clear No. 1 and backup, but something closer to a 1A/1B situation. And then, not long after, both pieces were gone. From what we heard, he wanted a Skinner-Jarry twosome patrolling the crease for the Blue and Orange.

Is There a Chance a Bigger Oilers’ Plan Has Been Enacted?

On the surface, the trade looks confusing. But the more I stare at it, the more I wonder if it might be deliberate. Here’s why:

Pittsburgh, not Edmonton, is the team deeper into a rebuild. Kyle Dubas dumping Tristan Jarry’s contract and taking on two expiring deals makes sense given where the Penguins are. Skinner and Kulak provide the Penguins with flexibility. If one pops, great. If neither does, they’re not married to either. That’s clean rebuilding logic.

Edmonton, meanwhile, is supposed to be a win-now team. That’s why this whole thing feels backwards — unless Bowman isn’t thinking purely about this season. Both Skinner and Kulak are on expiring contracts. That matters. It means the Penguins didn’t lock themselves into long-term money or term risk.

From the Oilers’ perspective, it also means (without being said) that the door isn’t closed on the goalie tandem that had been talked about before the trade.

Could Bowman Have Chosen Short-Term Pain for Long-Term Gain?

Is it possible that Bowman looked at the goalie market, looked at what was available internally and externally, and decided to absorb short-term pain for a reset? Let the noise die down. Let both goalies experience a different room, different coaching, and different expectations. And then, if the timing and price are right, bring one — or even both — back next summer?

Stranger things have happened. Hockey is full of reunions that once felt impossible.

I’m not saying this is the plan. But it’s not impossible. And it would explain why Bowman seems oddly unmoved by the reaction. Sometimes the loudest criticism comes when people think they’re seeing the whole picture — and aren’t.

If There’s a Bigger Oilers’ Plan, It’s Risky But Not Illogical

Would it be risky? Absolutely. But if Bowman believes Skinner still has upside and that a true tandem could actually protect both goalies instead of breaking up one, this could be a bet on environment as much as on talent. If that’s the thinking, this season becomes the bridge. Next season becomes the reveal.

Is Bowman a step ahead, or just wrong? That’s still open for debate. But I’m not convinced this story is finished yet — and I wouldn’t be shocked if, a year from now, we’re talking about an Edmonton crease that looks strangely familiar.

Might it be that the guy getting pelted from the cheap seats isn’t lost at all? Sometimes he’s just waiting for the timing to catch up.

Next: Oilers Criticized for Years of Mishandling Goalie Situation Ending in Tristan Jarry