Buyout Discussion

[PuckMunchkin]

This has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say signing Holtby rather than any other goaltender was a good idea. I was disputing the claim that Washington's plan to go with two largely inexperienced goaltenders was successful. It wasn't -- they performed poorly in both the regular season and playoffs.

I'm agreeing with you. The poster you quoted left out that one game to suit his argument.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I'm agreeing with you. The poster you quoted left out that one game to suit his argument.

My response to what he said didn't hinge on that one game or even incorporate it, and if you think it did you didn't understand what you read.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

My response to what he said didn't hinge on that one game or even incorporate it, and if you think it did you didn't understand what you read.

I dont get what you are saying then.

If you leave that game out the Washington kids outperformed Holtby by a pretty decent margin with ½ the cap hit, combined.

Why would you let him omit that 1 game that pushes the needle the other way...?

 

[bandwagonesque]

I dont get what you are saying then.

If you leave that game out the Washington kids outperformed Holtby by a pretty decent margin with ½ the cap hit, combined.

Why would you let him omit that 1 game that pushes the needle the other way...?

I never claimed they didn't outperform him and it has nothing to do with what I said. MS claimed that Washington successfully used two inexperienced goaltenders this season. In fact, they performed relatively poorly and were outperformed by a 39-year-old veteran in the playoffs. At no point did I suggest signing Holtby as opposed to any other veteran goaltender was a good idea or make a comparison between him and any other goaltender.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

This has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say signing Holtby rather than any other goaltender was a good idea. I was disputing the claim that Washington's plan to go with two largely inexperienced goaltenders was successful. It wasn't -- they performed poorly in both the regular season and playoffs.

But then you leave your self open to an argument like;
- Vanecek provided exactly league average .908 for 36 starts
- Samsonov .902 for 18 starts

He would argue that is incredible value for only spending $716,667 + $925,000 cap hits.

Might even go as far as saying it was part of the reason that allowed them to ice a roster as strong as they did since they were capped out.


Make sure you dont let him leave that 1 .750 game out or it will really deflate your argument.

I never claimed they didn't outperform him and it has nothing to do with what I said. MS claimed that Washington successfully used two inexperienced goaltenders this season. In fact, they performed relatively poorly and were outperformed by a 39-year-old veteran in the playoffs. At no point did I suggest signing Holtby as opposed to any other veteran goaltender was a good idea or make a comparison between him and any other goaltender.

I think he might have a case that they were successful with how the team was structured.

Their scoring dried up in the playoffs.

 

[opendoor]

MS claimed that Washington successfully used two inexperienced goaltenders this season.

No he didn't. He said they were comfortable going into that situation vs. keeping Holtby because the chance of Holtby at his cap hit being a net positive compared to two inexperienced goalies at low cap hits was essentially nil:

Ironically Washington as a Cup contending team was totally confident going into the season dumping Holtby and giving the reins to two guys with a combined 26 games of NHL experience.

I'd expect someone who focuses so much on pedantry to get that correct.

 

[MS]

This has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say signing Holtby rather than any other goaltender was a good idea. I was disputing the claim that Washington's plan to go with two largely inexperienced goaltenders was successful. It wasn't -- they performed poorly in both the regular season and playoffs.

Their #1 had his season ruined by a severe case of COVID and they *still* basically had league average goaltending going with a career minor-leaguer and a fossil both making $700k. And it was vastly improved from the previous season when they were spending $millions more.

If anything should highlight the folly of signing an overpriced old backup, it’s what happened in Washington this year.

 

[F A N]

Agreed with the idea of getting a proven goalie to share load and mentor Demko, no disagreement with that thinking. It's the salary amount, the term, the backloading of the contract that makes him harder to get taken by Seattle, that collectively raises the pressure to make sure that Holtby would be worth it, so while getting a 1b goalie was the right goal, given what it cost us to get Holtby then an alternative 1b choice would have been better.

Holtby was one of the decisions where I could understand what Benning was thinking (less so the Erikssons and Gudransons and Sbisas of the world), but we should have put a limit on how far we'd go to get him, and if he goes beyond that budget then we walk away and go after an alternate option even if that option would be less impressive. In the end, Holtby ended up performing as bad or worse than alternate options we should have gone with, and shouldn't be in denial about that.

Right and my point was that if you are to pursue a proven goalie to share the load (especially in an anticipated shortened season with lots of back to backs), pretty much all the reasonably viable options signed for at least 2 years. Even Corey Crawford (who was going to be 36) signed for 2 years.

Backloading of the contract was an economic decision for both sides. Literally all multi-year contracts were being backloaded. There's no ifs or buts here. Criticizing Holtby's contract because it was backloaded is just stupid IMO.

 

[MarkMM]

Right and my point was that if you are to pursue a proven goalie to share the load (especially in an anticipated shortened season with lots of back to backs), pretty much all the reasonably viable options signed for at least 2 years. Even Corey Crawford (who was going to be 36) signed for 2 years.

Backloading of the contract was an economic decision for both sides. Literally all multi-year contracts were being backloaded. There's no ifs or buts here. Criticizing Holtby's contract because it was backloaded is just stupid IMO.

Then this is the consequence of Benning's previous bad decisions; if the cap situation handicapped us such that we couldn't be competitive on a back-up goaltender market for 20/21 then we should have bitten the bullet and not signed another bad contract for two years.

If we didn't carry the dead weight in the bottom six then we could afford the cost to pair Demko up with a higher-end 1b, but as was warned so many times to the Benning defenders who kept saying that cap space didn't matter when rebuilding sooner or later we'd have to sacrifice something,. So if this was Holtby's price then we should have gone with a less proven goalie.

Benning's mistakes have a cost, and we should have acknowledged that we couldn't afford what Holtby was demanding. In the end, his performance ended up being just as bad as some cheaper options likely would have been, AND we now are cap constricted for an extra year.

Simply put we should have walked away from Holtby at that price/term, even if it meant going with a "lesser" goalie. Now we're stuck with more cap damage. Would be nice to be able to afford a good 1b, but that's what happens when you tolerate Benning's chronic over-payments and now we've done it again.

 

[Grumpy1]

Aqualini is being cheap, can’t see anyone bought out other than Virtanen since his would save team money

 

[m9]

Aqualini is being cheap, can’t see anyone bought out other than Virtanen since his would save team money

Most of the buyouts will save Aquilini money.

 

[Hit the post]

Most of the buyouts will save Aquilini money.

lol. It ain't his money. It's his Dad's money.

Guy didn't make his bones when his dad made him a capo.

 

[StreetHawk]

Most of the buyouts will save Aquilini money.

When you factor in the replacement cost of the incoming player, even at a low salary to take the spot of the bought out player, the savings are minimal now, given the front loaded salaries and SB that were part of the contracts.

Roussel has $1.9 mill left in salary only. Still gets $1.26 mill. Savings is just $633K to spend on a replacement, which is less than the minimum NHL salary.
Beagle has $1 mill in SB that must be paid in full. $1.2 mill in salary. Of the $2.2 mill left, he will be paid $1.8 mill. Savings of $400K. Again, that's like just over half the minimum NHL salary.
Eriksson - $1 mill in SB, $3 mill in Salary. Savings is $1 mill.

Cash savings from these 3 buyouts is just over $2 million, but when you factor in a replacement player cost, that's under $700K per replacement player.

Different story if each had their cap hit in salary left. Savings would be $4 mill of the $12 million. So, there would be a cash savings.

It's just Jake and Holtby that would save money. Holtby would still colletc $3.8 mill of the $5.7 mill he is owed. $1.9 mill is just a couple hundred K in cash savings for another backup veteran goalie.

There's no cash savings, not when the buyout rate is 2/3 of the remaining salary.

 

[m9]

When you factor in the replacement cost of the incoming player, even at a low salary to take the spot of the bought out player, the savings are minimal now, given the front loaded salaries and SB that were part of the contracts.

Roussel has $1.9 mill left in salary only. Still gets $1.26 mill. Savings is just $633K to spend on a replacement, which is less than the minimum NHL salary.
Beagle has $1 mill in SB that must be paid in full. $1.2 mill in salary. Of the $2.2 mill left, he will be paid $1.8 mill. Savings of $400K. Again, that's like just over half the minimum NHL salary.
Eriksson - $1 mill in SB, $3 mill in Salary. Savings is $1 mill.

Cash savings from these 3 buyouts is just over $2 million, but when you factor in a replacement player cost, that's under $700K per replacement player.

Different story if each had their cap hit in salary left. Savings would be $4 mill of the $12 million. So, there would be a cash savings.

It's just Jake and Holtby that would save money. Holtby would still colletc $3.8 mill of the $5.7 mill he is owed. $1.9 mill is just a couple hundred K in cash savings for another backup veteran goalie.

There's no cash savings, not when the buyout rate is 2/3 of the remaining salary.

Holtby and Virtanen would obviously save actual money. Eriksson would save a million and would likely be replaced by a two-way contract. Nobody else are realistic buyout options anyway.

I guess the better way to word it - generally the buyouts won't cost ownership money. It's a weird misconception our local media clings to. Maybe they're just confused from the time when compliance buyouts were a thing.

 

[m9]

lol. It ain't his money. It's his Dad's money.

Guy didn't make his bones when his dad made him a capo.

Who cares?

 

[StreetHawk]

Holtby and Virtanen would obviously save actual money. Eriksson would save a million and would likely be replaced by a two-way contract. Nobody else are realistic buyout options anyway.

I guess the better way to word it - generally the buyouts won't cost ownership money. It's a weird misconception our local media clings to. Maybe they're just confused from the time when compliance buyouts were a thing.

If you are just looking at it from just the money to be paid in 21-22, then yes. But, in totality, it's minimal.

$1.9 mill from Holtby is saved, but what is the cost to bring in a replacement goalie? Don't foresee Dipietro as the Canucks typically are more conservative with their goalie development. A veteran guy is coming in at what like $1.5 million?

A 2 way contract for Eriksson's replacement is still around $750K. So, we're looking at what a $250K total savings?

 

[m9]

If you are just looking at it from just the money to be paid in 21-22, then yes. But, in totality, it's minimal.

$1.9 mill from Holtby is saved, but what is the cost to bring in a replacement goalie? Don't foresee Dipietro as the Canucks typically are more conservative with their goalie development. A veteran guy is coming in at what like $1.5 million?

A 2 way contract for Eriksson's replacement is still around $750K. So, we're looking at what a $250K total savings?

No, it would be like 100-200k for someone in the minors.. if they even replaced the him. Anyways, the main point is that they don't cost the owners a bunch of extra money or anything.

 

[Lindgren]

Other than Virtanen, these buy-outs won't save significant cap space and won't help the team to improve. (Holtby could be considered an exception, but the cap pain from his buy-out is just kicked down the road one season, and the Canucks can more reasonably be expected to be truly competitive then, so buying Holtby out would be short-sighted.)

The Canucks should keep all these players, playing some and burying others in Abbotsford. Maybe they'll get lucky and one will retire a year early. Or one will have a weird bounce-back season and actually get traded for an asset at the deadline, like a late round pick in 2030.

 

[VanJack]

If it was based strictly on 'merit', Roussel, Eriksson and even Beagle would start the year in Abbotsford.....which of course would mean the Canucks farm team would have easily the highest payroll in the entire AHL.

But I doubt it ever comes to that......a rookie or anyone signed to a two-way contract at the league minimum, would have to be twice as good in training camp as those overpaid, over-the-hill veterans, before the Canucks would ever step up and bury them in the minors.

So you can expect Green will trot out Beagle and Roussel again.....and what happens to Eriksson is anyone's guess. Sadly it's another year before these disastrous contracts are finally off the books....the Canucks will also lose the Luongo cap recapture penalty. That's $15.4m in cap room tied up for one more year, in case anyone is counting.

It's not much wonder that the Canucks faithful are swallowing hard with the news that Benning 'wants to aggressive in terms of trades and free agency.

 

[MarkMM]

No, it would be like 100-200k for someone in the minors.. if they even replaced the him. Anyways, the main point is that they don't cost the owners a bunch of extra money or anything.

Sorry, just to clarify what you mean by $100-200k for someone in the minors, isn't the issue that we'd have to replace Eriksson and Holtby with people making at least league minimum (IIRC $700k), and likely more for Holtby? Even if we brought someone up from the minors they'd still have to get the league minimum salary so there'd be very little cash or cap savings (and would push a degree of cap problems into next year).

 

[m9]

Sorry, just to clarify what you mean by $100-200k for someone in the minors, isn't the issue that we'd have to replace Eriksson and Holtby with people making at least league minimum (IIRC $700k), and likely more for Holtby? Even if we brought someone up from the minors they'd still have to get the league minimum salary so there'd be very little cash or cap savings (and would push a degree of cap problems into next year).

For Holtby, sure you would have to replace him. For Eriksson, he's very likely not on the team anyway so there's nothing to replace other than a warm body in Abbotsford.

 

[MarkMM]

For Holtby, sure you would have to replace him. For Eriksson, he's very likely not on the team anyway so there's nothing to replace other than a warm body in Abbotsford.

Ah, yeah, I guess I had him pencilled in for one of the bottom six winger positions...but happy to give that spot to someone else, and would be happy to make him sit it out in Abbotsford.

 

[m9]

Ah, yeah, I guess I had him pencilled in for one of the bottom six winger positions...but happy to give that spot to someone else, and would be happy to make him sit it out in Abbotsford.

Not me. One of the main reasons he should be bought out is you give that roster spot to someone else in Abbotsford who may have a future with this team. I actually don't understand the logic at all with wanting Eriksson buried vs being bought out, other than people are basing it purely on emotion and they want to stick it to Eriksson and possibly Benning by him having less cap space this year.

 

[MarkMM]

Not me. One of the main reasons he should be bought out is you give that roster spot to someone else in Abbotsford who may have a future with this team. I actually don't understand the logic at all with wanting Eriksson buried vs being bought out, other than people are basing it purely on emotion and they want to stick it to Eriksson and possibly Benning by him having less cap space this year.

Biggest thing I have against buyouts is we've been suffering long enough with dead cap space, buying people out in a mean-nothing year and having the legacy of this extend further into the future when we will actually want to start competing doesn't sit right with me.

If Eriksson really is blocking someone on the 4th line in the AHL then that's a prospect pool I'd be happy to have, and Eriksson can be a healthy scratch in Abbotsford so he doesn't block anyone.

Virtanen is the only one I'd want to buy out and that's due to extenuating circumstances.

I don't like other buyouts simply because I want to get dead cap space behind us, not push it into the future.

 

[bertuzzi2bure]

lol. It ain't his money. It's his Dad's money.

Guy didn't make his bones when his dad made him a capo.

Major tard alert whenever I read these types of comments.

Many rich people inherited a large portion of their wealth... who cares. FA and his brothers have continued the family financial success and multiplied their wealth even more.

Not sure how they can be labelled cheap when they spend to the cap every year. As NHL team owners they have other faults, but being "cheap" isn't one of them.

Im not even a fan of them. But damn some people here are ignorant.