I think there's two separate points to be made here
1. there's certain information that people ITK are privy to that we aren't as fans. i didn't think the ferland contract was that bad in a vacuum but i wouldn't have signed that contract if doctors weren't even willing to insure it. we didn't know that until he couldn't play and then the reports surfaced that it was uninsured. seems people ITK, except on the canucks, thought OEL's knee was shot and he was toast. he lasted about 40-50 games playing at a decent level last season but fell off a cliff at the end and has continued to be shit this season.
2. i actually don't think the canucks methodology of targeting players with term in exchange for bad short term inefficiencies was a bad idea given the constraints set upon you by a shitty path of having to be competitive each year. i think my suggestion in the 2021 summer was someone like voracek. it would obviously have to be at a justifiable cost.
hell you've seen the hurricanes do it this year with brent burns. they got a far better player than OEL (an actual good one) and the sharks retained Burns from 8 to 5.3. He's playing 24 minutes a night. They gave up a 3rd round pick for 24 minutes a night 0.6 ppg at a 5.3 cap hit.
Just adding to this. I wish the whole "Ferland's contract was not insured" talking point doesn't keep getting repeated here. NHL teams typically insure between 4 to 6 contracts and can only do so up to 80% of the contract's value. Teams typically insure the $$$ long term contracts for obvious reasons. Teams can also insure contracts with exclusions for pre-existing injuries. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Edler's contract was insured but not against a career-ending back injury.
The Canucks are not a small market team. Say what you will about Aquilini, he's been willing to shell out money for things like the mind room, fired Gillis who reportedly had $8M left on his contract and Torts who had $6M left, and he's been willing to pay massive signing bonuses (just look at Eriksson's contract).
Ferland's contract, after the signing bonus was paid, was worth $12M. Had they insured Ferland's contract the risk difference was $9.6M spread out over 4 years. That's $2.4M a year difference between being able to insure Ferland's contract and not being able to do so. In comparison, at the time Columbus traded Horton, he had more than $26M left on his contract. People forget that Ferland was a relatively young guy. He's now in the last year of his deal and he doesn't turn 31 until April.
To your second point, I agree. Moving Eriksson's, Roussel, and Beagle's contract would cost a 1st and a 2nd at minimum. The bet was that we get a competent top 4 Dman out of the deal. We had that for one season so far. The way Burns' career turned out still surprises me.
