Proposal: Edmonton - Montreal

[TheOrangeDesk]

Id rather buyout Campbell than burn two 1st rounders

 

[Deus ex machina]

Id rather buyout Campbell than burn two 1st rounders

Or course. Oilers need their 1st rounders to improve the team via trades.
That's why they need to get rid of Campbell's cap hit this year without giving up assets.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Even if it could be done, I wouldn't do it. Loved Gallagher in his heyday but he's completely cooked and his buyout is even worse than Campbell's.

 

[Deus ex machina]

Even if it could be done, I wouldn't do it. Loved Gallagher in his heyday but he's completely cooked and his buyout is even worse than Campbell's.

I swear, i could have proposed a 1st for Campbell and some Oilers fans would still complain about something...lol

What do you care if Gallagher is cooked? He's not gonna play for your team.

You're getting 3.85M in cap space now and give back 2.5M later. Usually when borrow something, you have to give more later.
Don't you want to upgrade your team and win the Stanley Cup this year?

 

[ChaoticOrange]

I swear, i could have proposed a 1st for Campbell and some Oilers fans would still complain about something...lol

What do you care if Gallagher is cooked? He's not gonna play for your team.

You're getting 3.85M in cap space now and give back 2.5M later. Usually when borrow something, you have to give more later.
Don't you want to upgrade your team and win the Stanley Cup this year?

This year isn't all that matters. We don't want to kneecap ourselves next year and beyond just for one run.

I care that Gallagher is cooked because his buyout stinks even worse than Campbell's does.

 

[Deus ex machina]

This year isn't all that matters. We don't want to kneecap ourselves next year and beyond just for one run.

I care that Gallagher is cooked because his buyout stinks even worse than Campbell's does.

You'd actually save 333K next year on top of the 3.85M.

Does Draisaitl re-sign long term this summer if you fail again in the playoffs?

 

[ElPrimeTime]

I swear, i could have proposed a 1st for Campbell and some Oilers fans would still complain about something...lol

What do you care if Gallagher is cooked? He's not gonna play for your team.

You're getting 3.85M in cap space now and give back 2.5M later. Usually when borrow something, you have to give more later.
Don't you want to upgrade your team and win the Stanley Cup this year?

Outside of some humorous responses like not honouring the deal, you've been told no by both fanbases... walk away.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

You'd actually save 333K next year on top of the 3.85M.

Does Draisaitl re-sign long term this summer if you fail again in the playoffs?

and then we take it in the teeth after that. Pass. Not interested.

We've made it to the third round and second round the last two seasons and the only teams to beat us won the Cup. If he's going to leave over that, then he's going to leave.

 

[pth2]

Outside of some humorous responses like not honouring the deal, you've been told no by both fanbases... walk away.

And even those who admire the thought experiment realize this would be likely blocked as cap circumvention (or through blocking overly specific future considerations which are required to get management and ownership on either team to sign off on something like this)

 

[Deus ex machina]

Outside of some humorous responses like not honouring the deal, you've been told no by both fanbases... walk away.

I've only counted a few people.
Does that qualify as a fanbase?

Or are you the spokesperson for the 2 fanbases now?

 

[Deus ex machina]

And even those who admire the thought experiment realize this would be likely blocked as cap circumvention (or through blocking overly specific future considerations which are required to get management and ownership on either team to sign off on something like this)

Nobody came forward with hard proof though, other than they feel like it's cap circumvention.

For you, is a team taking a one year cap dump from another team called cap circumvention?

 

[82Ninety42011]

future consideration can’t be a player making 6.5M and only be traded to the team after the season. Doesn’t work like that

Not saying your wrong but I actually remember this happening before. Jim Sandlak was traded as a future consideration to the Whalers after the season had concluded. To clarify deal was made during season Canucks then sent Sandlak after the season ended to complete deal.

Scroll to number 9.

Loading…

dailyhive.com

 

[Fourier]

You'd actually save 333K next year on top of the 3.85M.

Does Draisaitl re-sign long term this summer if you fail again in the playoffs?

The problem with your argument is that your plan is a cap deferral plan and you are shifting much of the cap cost to the years where space is most needed.

You question whether Draisaitl or McDavid will resign if the Oilers don't win. We have no idea what their actual plans are but history is fully on the Oiler's side if they are still as competitive as they currently are. If you are Draisaitl for example and you are looking at 8 years and $13M+ from the Oilers or a seven year deal somewhere else what drives your decision? Let's say it is split between money and winning. It's not like there will obviously be a better team with $13M+ in cap space sitting there free. Similarly with McDavid. (The Tavares signing is a tale of caution here. Moreover, if you want to convince them to stay the worst thing you can do is to have a major cap crunch in the year they come up. Your proposal has a $4M+ dead cap hit in the year McDavid is a UFA.

I have previously said that your trade proposal is creative and in the right circumstance could work well. A better choice from the Oilers would be to add something to Campbell for Andersson whose contract fits better now and going forward. This might not be attractive to the Habs but it certainly works better for the Oilers.

 

[viceroy]

Size, grit, heart and likability are pointless if the player is not NHL caliber.

Gally may not be the player he used to be but he's still an NHL'er. And why the heck are you so dead set on buying out players? Criminy we're still paying for Karl Alzner even now.

 

[Deus ex machina]

Gally may not be the player he used to be but he's still an NHL'er. And why the heck are you so dead set on buying out players? Criminy we're still paying for Karl Alzner even now.

What are you talking about?
I'm trying to avoid having to buy out Gallagher.

 

[viceroy]

What are you talking about?
I'm trying to avoid having to buy out Gallagher.

By buying out Campbell. Either way that handicaps us when we'll need our cap space to sign Guhle, Xhekaj and Slafkovsky.

 

[Deus ex machina]

By buying out Campbell. Either way that handicaps us when we'll need our cap space to sign Guhle, Xhekaj and Slafkovsky.

By sending Campbell to the minors. He can actually go there, unlike Gallagher.

 

[Deus ex machina]

The problem with your argument is that your plan is a cap deferral plan and you are shifting much of the cap cost to the years where space is most needed.

You question whether Draisaitl or McDavid will resign if the Oilers don't win. We have no idea what their actual plans are but history is fully on the Oiler's side if they are still as competitive as they currently are. If you are Draisaitl for example and you are looking at 8 years and $13M+ from the Oilers or a seven year deal somewhere else what drives your decision? Let's say it is split between money and winning. It's not like there will obviously be a better team with $13M+ in cap space sitting there free. Similarly with McDavid. (The Tavares signing is a tale of caution here. Moreover, if you want to convince them to stay the worst thing you can do is to have a major cap crunch in the year they come up. Your proposal has a $4M+ dead cap hit in the year McDavid is a UFA.

I have previously said that your trade proposal is creative and in the right circumstance could work well. A better choice from the Oilers would be to add something to Campbell for Andersson whose contract fits better now and going forward. This might not be attractive to the Habs but it certainly works better for the Oilers.

I can't see the Habs taking on Campbell on top of Gallagher. It's one or the other.
That was the whole point of the post. Finding a way to send Gallagher away.

If you focus on the additional 2M on the cap in 3 years instead of the 3.85M you get this season, then i guess it's not gonna work for you.

My thinking was that the cap is gonna go up by 10+M and Oilers will have time to figure things out before the 2026-27 season.
I heard that the Oilers are going for it this season and need cap space to get another top 6 forward and other pieces.
It's money in, money out, right?
I figured they would be interested in creating cap space without sacrificing assets or roster players.
But maybe they're not.

 

[Qwijibo]

Not saying your wrong but I actually remember this happening before. Jim Sandlak was traded as a future consideration to the Whalers after the season had concluded. To clarify deal was made during season Canucks then sent Sandlak after the season ended to complete deal.

Scroll to number 9.

Loading…

dailyhive.com

Rules have changed substantially since 1993. Not to mention there was no cap back then. This is CLEARLY cap circumvention. Plus there's no value to Montreal. Its just a poorly thought out proposal. Time to give it up.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

What are you talking about?
I'm trying to avoid having to buy out Gallagher.

By buying out Campbell instead. LOL

Mensa candidate!

 

[pth2]

By buying out Campbell instead. LOL

Mensa candidate!

I think his logic is that his strategy means circumventing Gallagher's NMC, on the assumption he'd accept a trade to Edmonton, to be bought out there, and Montreal could send Campbell to the AHL, whereas the Habs can't send down Gallagher.

I suspect Gallagher might prefer Laval to a buyout, personnally.

 

[Deus ex machina]

Rules have changed substantially since 1993. Not to mention there was no cap back then. This is CLEARLY cap circumvention. Plus there's no value to Montreal. Its just a poorly thought out proposal. Time to give it up.

Since it's so clear to you, please explain to me, in detail, how that's cap capcumvention.

 

[Fourier]

I can't see the Habs taking on Campbell on top of Gallagher. It's one or the other.
That was the whole point of the post. Finding a way to send Gallagher away.

If you focus on the additional 2M on the cap in 3 years instead of the 3.85M you get this season, then i guess it's not gonna work for you.

My thinking was that the cap is gonna go up by 10+M and Oilers will have time to figure things out before the 2026-27 season.
I heard that the Oilers are going for it this season and need cap space to get another top 6 forward and other pieces.
It's money in, money out, right?
I figured they would be interested in creating cap space without sacrificing assets or roster players.
But maybe they're not.

My suggested variant would be based on the assumption that the Habs will buyout both of Gallagher and Anderson next off season. Both players are untradable without significant retention and without giving up assets or taking back salary. Moreover, between them they are using up $12M in cap space over the next three years. Anderson in particular is probably tradable in the off season with retention. This is actually a key to why the Oilers might bite. But the Habs have already used one retention spot for Petry next year and for a team in their position retention spots have value. (The Oilers on the other hand could retain on a subsequent trade involving Anderson.) As such, absent a trade, buying out both players makes sense for the Habs in that it opens up a lot of cap space that could be used to gain assets via trade or to actually add players who will impact the rebuild. The dead cap space over the next three seasons is not going to be an issue since the Habs have no big money extension on the horizon. And for the last three the cap should rise enough to make the additional dead cap mostly irrelevant. If that were the case, and I am only speculating that the plan would be to buy out both, changing your deal to Anderson could actually return an asset. It might look like

To Montreal: Campbell Oilers 2024 6th
To Edmonton Future Considerations (Anderson in the off season)

The Hab's incentive to do this, again assuming the plan was to buyout Anderson, is that this deal gains them a small asset while also saving them about $1.3M in real money and $833K in cap space by buying out Campbell vs Anderson.

Again, from the Oiler's perspective, this deal makes more sense than the Gallagher trade in that it would give them more options next off season.

 

[Deus ex machina]

My suggested variant would be based on the assumption that the Habs will buyout both of Gallagher and Anderson next off season. Both players are untradable without significant retention and without giving up assets or taking back salary. Moreover, between them they are using up $12M in cap space over the next three years. Anderson in particular is probably tradable in the off season with retention. This is actually a key to why the Oilers might bite. But the Habs have already used one retention spot for Petry next year and for a team in their position retention spots have value. The Oilers on the other hand could retain on a subsequent trade involving Anderson. As such buying out both players makes sense in that it opens up a lot of cap space that could be used to gain assets via trade or to actually add players who will impact the rebuild. The dead cap space over the next three seasons is not going to be an issue since the Habs have no big money extension on the horizon. And for the last three the cap should rise enough to make the additional dead cap mostly irrelevant. If that were the case, and I am only speculating that the plan would be to buy out both, changing your deal to Anderson could actually return an asset. It might look like

To Montreal: Campbell Oilers 2024 6th
To Edmonton Future Considerations (Anderson in the off season)

The Hab's incentive to do this, again assuming the plan was to buyout Anderson, is that this deal gains them a small asset while also saving them about $1.3M in real money and $833K in cap space by buying out Campbell vs Anderson.

Again, from the Oiler's perspective, this deal makes more sense than the Gallagher trade in that it would give them more options next off season.

I understand why you would want Anderson instead of Gallagher and that's the reason it's not realistic.

What i proposed is basically a trade of cap dumps.
Anderson is not a cap dump.
There's no need to buy out Anderson.
Even buying out Gallagher would be a last resort thing if he's becoming too much of a problem for the team.

 

[Deus ex machina]

I think his logic is that his strategy means circumventing Gallagher's NMC, on the assumption he'd accept a trade to Edmonton, to be bought out there, and Montreal could send Campbell to the AHL, whereas the Habs can't send down Gallagher.

I suspect Gallagher might prefer Laval to a buyout, personnally.

Not sure about the last part, but that's basically it.

You put the 14M of cap space you have this season to good use and free 2.65M for the next 3 years in the process.
You don't have to be a Mensa candidate to see the benefit.