Player Discussion Oliver Ekman-Larsson

[Bankerguy]

i dont understand. why would we buy him out right now?
we're not contending, we dont need the cap space.... delaying the buyout only make the impact less painful for when we WILL be competing.
what am i missing here?

 

[M2Beezy]

The tank is missing OEL thats for sure

 

[iceburg]

i dont understand. why would we buy him out right now?
we're not contending, we dont need the cap space.... delaying the buyout only make the impact less painful for when we WILL be competing.
what am i missing here?

As far as I can tell you're not missing anything. It makes no sense. A worst case is sitting on his contract for 4 years. That's way better than 8 years of riding the buyout while only saving about $5M after filling the roster spot with a close to league minimum player.
As I said early, figuring out a double retention strategy to place him at $1.8M as an insurance policy on a contending team and being completely out from under the contract in 4 years is likely the best option.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

i dont understand. why would we buy him out right now?
we're not contending, we dont need the cap space.... delaying the buyout only make the impact less painful for when we WILL be competing.
what am i missing here?

If the question is buy out or not. That is really a complicated question because you need to know what the actual plan is for cap structure. Eating just over 2 mill might not be so bad if you have everyone on good contracts, its like paying 1 mill over for a couple players.

If the question is buyout or retention, a buyout costs us nothing and gives better cap flexibility now. If we are sucking until after the 26-27 season when his contract runs out. We could even use the cap savings to take on a bad contract and a first or something like that.

If the question is buy out now or later, then have a play with the buyout calculator, and see what year you think is best, because each year offers different structures of cap hit. But if you buy him out this season you have no cap hit (basically) for the next two seasons. And we have to show a certain player we are going to be competitive and have the cap room to pay for him. (Then pray the cap goes up).

Waiting a year for the buyout actually costs us more each year for the remainder of the contract but less after it ends. So its picking your poison.

If we are going to suck for two to four years we should do something crazy like buy out oel use the cap savings to sign and trade ep40 and take on 15 million of bad contracts and try and set up that way.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

If this TDL has emphasized anything it's that cap space is effectively like acquiring or paying cash in a deal. The best way to move OEL is a O'Reilly-esque deal that includes 2 x 50% retentions (is that actually allowed given that Arizona is already retaining?). Anyway, assuming it's allowed:

Vancouver trades OEL at $3.6M (50% retained) plus Asset A to team X for, e.g. 7th round pick
Team X trades OEL with 50% retention ($1.8M) to Team Y for Asset B
Team Y gets OEL at $1.8M

Result:
Canucks: keep $3.6M cap hit and lose asset A, but gain $3.6M in cap flexibility for 4 years and a 7th
Team X: Retains $1.8M cap hit for four years and loses a 7th but gains Asset A and Asset

As far as I can tell you're not missing anything. It makes no sense. A worst case is sitting on his contract for 4 years. That's way better than 8 years of riding the buyout while only saving about $5M after filling the roster spot with a close to league minimum player.
As I said early, figuring out a double retention strategy to place him at $1.8M as an insurance policy on a contending team and being completely out from under the contract in 4 years is likely the best option.

Your proposal is indeed the best course of action…. the only problem is your proposal is an absolute pipe dream.

 

[iceburg]

Your proposal is indeed the best course of action…. the only problem is your proposal is an absolute pipe dream.

Because you think no team will be interested in OEL at $1.8M? Or the middle team won't want to take on $1.8M cap space for four years? The term is the biggest issue I think.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Because you think no team will be interested in OEL at $1.8M? Or the middle team won't want to take on $1.8M cap space for four years? The term is the biggest issue I think.

I think every time you use a letter, like team X, or Asset A, its an unknown. And I think there are too many unknown to be considered realistic. It works in theory but getting actual teams and assets to line up well enough (in real life) for this to go through is as rear as hens teeth.

You are dealing with other teams that are trying to achieve their plans, and summing up whats best for them. They are not just sitting around waiting for a situation that complicated.

 

[VanJack]

Whatever OEL's contract status, the Canucks are really aren't in a position to give big minutes to a declining player on the wrong side of 30.

After the conclusion of the schedule and the TDL, heading into the off-season this team will be in the midst of at least a semi rebuild. They need to completely re-tool their blueline, hopefully with younger players, and then grow with them.

Giving valuable development minutes to the likes of Myers and OEL would be a complete waste. So a buy-out remains the only option. It'll be painful, but inevitable. Hopefully an increase in the salary cap partially bails them out of the worst of his contract.

 

[iceburg]

I think every time you use a letter, like team X, or Asset A, its an unknown. And I think there are too many unknown to be considered realistic. It works in theory but getting actual teams and assets to line up well enough (in real life) for this to go through is as rear as hens teeth.

You are dealing with other teams that are trying to achieve their plans, and summing up whats best for them. They are not just sitting around waiting for a situation that complicated.

It's not hard to put names to the assets and teams. That wasn't really the point of the post.
But before yesterday would Boston have been interested in OEL at $1.8M...for sure. And most of the teams in the wildcard mix, especially those such as Pittsburgh whose window is about to close, could use a veteran LHD for depth in a playoff run.

Then it just comes down to value of the assets. The value of a 7th is nominal. How much would Team Y give up for OEL at $1.8M? At that cap hit it would probably be a 2nd or a 3rd. The biggest challenge in moving OEL is the amount of his cap hit and the term of 4 years. Getting him at $1.8M removes a lot of that challenge. Boston just paid a very big price for Orlov. Using that as a market setter, OEL for a 2nd is not out of the question.

That leaves to be determined how much Vancouver would have to pay to offload $3.6M of OELs contract. A 2nd and a prospect (e.g. Rathbone)? Anaheim has a lot of cap space and is looking to get younger assets in.

So that would be:

Vancouver trades OEL (50% retained), Rathbone, 2nd to Anaheim in exchange for a 7th (expensive and IDK if I'd do it but it is realistic)
Anaheim trades OEL (50% retained) for a 2nd.
Pittsburgh trades a 2nd for OEL at $1.8M

Anaheim nets two 2nds and Rathbone and loses a 7th to take on $1.8M of OELs contract. That's actually pretty decent for them.

And, if Vancouver can use some of its LTIR space to take on a bad contract, that move it further in their favour. Maybe they don't have to give up Rathbone.

I don't disagree that it is difficult to line things up. But Boston/Washington and St Louis/Toronto just showed that it isn't too complicated to make happen.

 

[iceburg]

Whatever OEL's contract status, the Canucks are really aren't in a position to give big minutes to a declining player on the wrong side of 30.

After the conclusion of the schedule and the TDL, heading into the off-season this team will be in the midst of at least a semi rebuild. They need to completely re-tool their blueline, hopefully with younger players, and then grow with them.

Giving valuable development minutes to the likes of Myers and OEL would be a complete waste. So a buy-out remains the only option. It'll be painful, but inevitable. Hopefully an increase in the salary cap partially bails them out of the worst of his contract.

The only thing I'd push back on is that cap space should not be an issue as part of this "semi rebuild". As part of this process I expect that they will move Myers and two wingers for a total of about $15M cap space opening up. EP is the only forseeable expensive contract upcoming during OELs term. In otherwords, it won't be necessary to move him for cap reasons. The flip side of that is deferring payments out to years 5 to 8 which could have significant impact on the team acquiring assets during the window in which they are expected to be competitive.
I'd rather have him sit in the press box for 4 years than have an 8 year hangover.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

It's not hard to put names to the assets and teams. That wasn't really the point of the post.
But before yesterday would Boston have been interested in OEL at $1.8M...for sure. And most of the teams in the wildcard mix, especially those such as Pittsburgh whose window is about to close, could use a veteran LHD for depth in a playoff run.

Then it just comes down to value of the assets. The value of a 7th is nominal. How much would Team Y give up for OEL at $1.8M? At that cap hit it would probably be a 2nd or a 3rd. The biggest challenge in moving OEL is the amount of his cap hit and the term of 4 years. Getting him at $1.8M removes a lot of that challenge. Boston just paid a very big price for Orlov. Using that as a market setter, OEL for a 2nd is not out of the question.

That leaves to be determined how much Vancouver would have to pay to offload $3.6M of OELs contract. A 2nd and a prospect (e.g. Rathbone)? Anaheim has a lot of cap space and is looking to get younger assets in.

So that would be:

Vancouver trades OEL (50% retained), Rathbone, 2nd to Anaheim in exchange for a 7th (expensive and IDK if I'd do it but it is realistic)
Anaheim trades OEL (50% retained) for a 2nd.
Pittsburgh trades a 2nd for OEL at $1.8M

Anaheim nets two 2nds and Rathbone and loses a 7th to take on $1.8M of OELs contract. That's actually pretty decent for them.

And, if Vancouver can use some of its LTIR space to take on a bad contract, that move it further in their favour. Maybe they don't have to give up Rathbone.

I don't disagree that it is difficult to line things up. But Boston/Washington and St Louis/Toronto just showed that it isn't too complicated to make happen.

Its easy for us to put it on paper. Next to impossible for real life gms of real life teams to all agree and get it done.

 

[iceburg]

Its easy for us to put it on paper. Next to impossible for real life gms of real life teams to all agree and get it done.

I would have said something similar two weeks ago. But GMs learn and the toronto/StLouis and Boston/Washington deals are showing that they are learning. Double retention is now a real, and with a couple more examples, common thing. As I mentioned in my original post on the subject, teams are treating it as cash. Basically buying assets by taking on contracts. It's been done before but this trade deadline season seems to be making it a go to structure.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

I would have said something similar two weeks ago. But GMs learn and the toronto/StLouis and Boston/Washington deals are showing that they are learning. Double retention is now a real, and with a couple more examples, common thing. As I mentioned in my original post on the subject, teams are treating it as cash. Basically buying assets by taking on contracts. It's been done before but this trade deadline season seems to be making it a go to structure.

Ok, it sounds like it will happen then.

 

[Canuckle1970]

Is there any info on the impact of the pending Bally Sports bankruptcy on NHL revenues? If it's bad, is there a possibility the League might offer teams one compliancy buyout? That would be incredible to get rid of OEL's albatross contract.

And will those buyouts will have an escrow impact? The business of sport is complicated.

 

[Raistlin]

It's not hard to put names to the assets and teams. That wasn't really the point of the post.
But before yesterday would Boston have been interested in OEL at $1.8M...for sure. And most of the teams in the wildcard mix, especially those such as Pittsburgh whose window is about to close, could use a veteran LHD for depth in a playoff run.

Then it just comes down to value of the assets. The value of a 7th is nominal. How much would Team Y give up for OEL at $1.8M? At that cap hit it would probably be a 2nd or a 3rd. The biggest challenge in moving OEL is the amount of his cap hit and the term of 4 years. Getting him at $1.8M removes a lot of that challenge. Boston just paid a very big price for Orlov. Using that as a market setter, OEL for a 2nd is not out of the question.

That leaves to be determined how much Vancouver would have to pay to offload $3.6M of OELs contract. A 2nd and a prospect (e.g. Rathbone)? Anaheim has a lot of cap space and is looking to get younger assets in.

So that would be:

Vancouver trades OEL (50% retained), Rathbone, 2nd to Anaheim in exchange for a 7th (expensive and IDK if I'd do it but it is realistic)
Anaheim trades OEL (50% retained) for a 2nd.
Pittsburgh trades a 2nd for OEL at $1.8M

Anaheim nets two 2nds and Rathbone and loses a 7th to take on $1.8M of OELs contract. That's actually pretty decent for them.

And, if Vancouver can use some of its LTIR space to take on a bad contract, that move it further in their favour. Maybe they don't have to give up Rathbone.

I don't disagree that it is difficult to line things up. But Boston/Washington and St Louis/Toronto just showed that it isn't too complicated to make happen.

I dont think any team is lining up to shoulder 1.8m x4 for 2 2nds and Rathbone. The term is too long, that team may need that space in 2 years? I cannot see an owner greenlighting the deal.

All the while you are paying 3.5 *4 a top prospect and a 2nd pick for a guy to not play for you.

 

[iceburg]

Ok, it sounds like it will happen then.

I dont think any team is lining up to shoulder 1.8m x4 for 2 2nds and Rathbone. The term is too long, that team may need that space in 2 years? I cannot see an owner greenlighting the deal.

All the while you are paying 3.5 *4 a top prospect and a 2nd pick for a guy to not play for you.

Kinda like Ferland. Bad contracts have consequences.

 

[dez]

If this TDL has emphasized anything it's that cap space is effectively like acquiring or paying cash in a deal. The best way to move OEL is a O'Reilly-esque deal that includes 2 x 50% retentions (is that actually allowed given that Arizona is already retaining?). Anyway, assuming it's allowed:

Vancouver trades OEL at $3.6M (50% retained) plus Asset A to team X for, e.g. 7th round pick
Team X trades OEL with 50% retention ($1.8M) to Team Y for Asset B
Team Y gets OEL at $1.8M

Result:
Canucks: keep $3.6M cap hit and lose asset A, but gain $3.6M in cap flexibility for 4 years and a 7th
Team X: Retains $1.8M cap hit for four years and loses a 7th but gains Asset A and Asset B
Team Y: Gets OEL at $1.8M and loses Asset B

Note: $1.8M would be closer to $1.5M in real dollars for 4 years.

Team X should be happy provided Assets A and B are worth the $1.8Mx 4 cap hit and a total of about $6Mish in real $$.

Finally, it only works if OEL is better than a replacement level player. I know some here don't believe that he is.

A contract can only be retained twice, Arizona has already retained 900k.

 

[Raistlin]

A contract can only be retained twice, Arizona has already retained 900k.

there ya go. Thanks Benning


F U

 

[iceburg]

A contract can only be retained twice, Arizona has already retained 900k.

Thank you.

 

[valkynax]

there ya go. Thanks Benning


F U

This perhaps is the first and only time when JEB had two brain cells to rub together: If I left a giant mess and make sure the next GM won't be able to do anything, it will make my own ineptitude seem less pathetic!

 

[Hit the post]

This perhaps is the first and only time when JEB had two brain cells to rub together: If I left a giant mess and make sure the next GM won't be able to do anything, it will make my own ineptitude seem less pathetic!

What does Jethro rub together?

 

[Green Blank Stare]

Can you please explain how you think this is a mitigating factor?

It keeps getting repeated here. I don't understand the logic at all.

Eight years ago, the cap was $69 million; this year it's $82 million and that's after COVID essentially froze it for a couple years.

It's safe to say those final four years when the cap hit from a buyout would be a little over $2 million, the cap will be up enough that the price will be less than 3% of the cap.

If this team doesn't sign anymore idiotic contracts like Tyler Myers, Boeser, Garland, OEL, Ferland, Poolman, Dickinson, Pearson, etc. this will have no effect on the team.

The broader point of buying him out is that he's already a sunk cost. Over $7 million up in flames every season he's on the roster. OEL brings NOTHING to the table. A league minimum player would provide the same value.

 

[racerjoe]

Eight years ago, the cap was $69 million; this year it's $82 million and that's after COVID essentially froze it for a couple years.

It's safe to say those final four years when the cap hit from a buyout would be a little over $2 million, the cap will be up enough that the price will be less than 3% of the cap.

If this team doesn't sign anymore idiotic contracts like Tyler Myers, Boeser, Garland, OEL, Ferland, Poolman, Dickinson, Pearson, etc. this will have no effect on the team.

The broader point of buying him out is that he's already a sunk cost. Over $7 million up in flames every season he's on the roster. OEL brings NOTHING to the table. A league minimum player would provide the same value.

I generally agree with you, but there is still a lot of unknown with the cap with Bally's/RSN

 

[RebuildinVan]

Does it make a difference that so much is still base salary for the next two years? That makes at least trading him with retention that much harder, theres so much cash left on his deal

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Does it make a difference that so much is still base salary for the next two years? That makes at least trading him with retention that much harder, theres so much cash left on his deal

He makes 18.5 million over the next two years then 5.2 for each of his last two. I think it’s easier to convince him to retire after the next two years then to trade him but thats just me.