Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | The Trade Deadline Has Come & Gone

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ibanez

Registered User
Dec 1, 2014
4,252
6,457
Looked at what the Jack Campbell buyout would look like and it’s not horrible, especially when I think of his performance. Unfortunately I would consider that an option this summer.
The amount isn’t crazy but having it on the books for so many years would be rough.

Still Id think you’d have to consider it

Realistically I do think Holland gives it another year. He’s a stubborn old goat
 
  • Like
Reactions: Faelko

Macblender

Registered User
May 5, 2014
2,582
860
Looked at what the Jack Campbell buyout would look like and it’s not horrible, especially when I think of his performance. Unfortunately I would consider that an option this summer.
There isn’t really much on the market goalie wise unfortunately in UFA though. I almost think it is the sad truth you keep him as a pure backup next season unless you need the cap and go a close to league minimum backup.

We save like 3.5M on the cap next year with a buy out so could really could bring in a league minimum type backup I guess or slightly over and have some extra cap for a larger acquisition or better depth

The amount isn’t crazy but having it on the books for so many years would be rough.

Still Id think you’d have to consider it

Realistically I do think Holland gives it another year. He’s a stubborn old goat
Cap will jump a ton though once the player debt is paid off I believe. Like if in 4 years the cap is $10-15M higher then we are probably fine it is just years 3-4 which sucks where the dead cap is above $2M but Neal will be coming off dead cal for those years so really it is just a continuation of that for 2x years then it is pretty low like 1-2% of potential cap so I don’t think it is as big a deal
 

5 Mins 4 Ftg

Life is better with no expectations.
Sponsor
Apr 3, 2016
49,350
82,731
Edmonton
Yeah there isn’t much in the goaltender market for UfA this off-season.

My hope is we come in revenue wise enough for the debt to be paid off and we get a larger cap increase. Winnipeg falls way off and hellebyuck leaves in the off-season we buy out Campbell and sign him after next season. Or saaros legitimately becomes available.

If debt is paid off I expect we would be low 90s or so cap? Not sure if that is reasonable as I don’t know how quickly they would escalate from the projected 86.5M in September to where mouser and co have use at $97M as midpoint based on $6Bn of revenue.

Edit: at this point basically have to be resigned that Campbell is a very overpaid backup and hope skinner can take the reigns as a low end number 1

2 of the big regional TV broadcasters are in or near bankruptcy, that could affect the cap so I wouldn't hold my breath.

My vote is to package a 1st and high prospect not named Holloway or Broberg, dump Ceci and use the money towards a good RD and find a goalie anywhere, Campbells stats are league worst so anything is an improvement.
 

Soli

Supervision Required
Sep 8, 2005
21,769
11,317
The amount isn’t crazy but having it on the books for so many years would be rough.

Still Id think you’d have to consider it

Realistically I do think Holland gives it another year. He’s a stubborn old goat

I’d bite the retention bullet if it was $1.5 to maybe a shade under $2M. Anything more and I would take the cap savings from buyout and try to win in the Drai contract. I don’t ever let Campbell start a playoff game.

Campbell has left such a bad taste in my mouth I’ve switched soup providers, now strictly buying Chunky brand.
 

Raab

Registered User
Oct 6, 2007
18,085
2,777
This morning I looked at what the Jack Campbell buyout would look like and it’s not horrible, especially when I think of his performance. Unfortunately I would consider that an option this summer.
You have to. The question is can you find a backup for 3.5M who is better than Campbell. If the answer is yes and I think it is. He needs to go.

2 of the big regional TV broadcasters are in or near bankruptcy, that could affect the cap so I wouldn't hold my breath.

My vote is to package a 1st and high prospect not named Holloway or Broberg, dump Ceci and use the money towards a good RD and find a goalie anywhere, Campbells stats are league worst so anything is an improvement.
Who is that?
 

Macblender

Registered User
May 5, 2014
2,582
860
2 of the big regional TV broadcasters are in or near bankruptcy, that could affect the cap so I wouldn't hold my breath.

My vote is to package a 1st and high prospect not named Holloway or Broberg, dump Ceci and use the money towards a good RD and find a goalie anywhere, Campbells stats are league worst so anything is an improvement.
Revenue is $6Bn a year based on that the supposed cap should be $97M right now apparently. Read this in the business forum but I have no clue how those guys calculate the number a few actually argued it should be as high as $103M.

Sure there may be some impact but let’s say even if revenues stay flat we probably still get a pretty decent rise. We are at 82.5M right now so that is a big gap.

You have to. The question is can you find a backup for 3.5M who is better than Campbell. If the answer is yes and I think it is. He needs to go.


Who is that?
Bally sports or something
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raab

Soli

Supervision Required
Sep 8, 2005
21,769
11,317
There isn’t really much on the market goalie wise unfortunately in UFA though. I almost think it is the sad truth you keep him as a pure backup next season unless you need the cap and go a close to league minimum backup.

We save like 3.5M on the cap next year with a buy out so could really could bring in a league minimum type backup I guess or slightly over and have some extra cap for a larger acquisition or better depth


Cap will jump a ton though once the player debt is paid off I believe. Like if in 4 years the cap is $10-15M higher then we are probably fine it is just years 3-4 which sucks where the dead cap is above $2M but Neal will be coming off dead cal for those years so really it is just a continuation of that for 2x years then it is pretty low like 1-2% of potential cap so I don’t think it is as big a deal

We aren’t getting league minimum goaltending out of Campbell at $5M. I’d literally fill Bakersfield with sub $1M goalies and wait for someone to Phoenix Copley, Cam Ward, Mike Morrison their way to Skinners backup spot.

It literally could not be worse.
 

Soli

Supervision Required
Sep 8, 2005
21,769
11,317
You have to. The question is can you find a backup for 3.5M who is better than Campbell. If the answer is yes and I think it is. He needs to go.


Who is that?
Bally is one. There was another with news this past week (was sorta like… find a new distributor cause we’re done in a month).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raab

alphahelix

Registered User
Feb 15, 2007
7,078
2,875
Mike Smith was in the managers box for the Leafs game. Hopefully they asked him if his equipment is in order "just in case"...

I fully believe that hes a quick 2 week bootcamp away from providing superior quality backup goaltending for 3 or 4 more games to close out his career.
 

Macblender

Registered User
May 5, 2014
2,582
860
We aren’t getting league minimum goaltending out of Campbell at $5M. I’d literally fill Bakersfield with sub $1M goalies and wait for someone to Phoenix Copley, Cam Ward, Mike Morrison their way to Skinners backup spot.

It literally could not be worse.
Sure I am not opposed there just is crap on the mkt either way

The extra cap could help a lot. I think you have to view it as the cost benefit of what you could add for the 1st + with a Campbell buyout vs trading Campbell with the 1st+ with less than 1.5M of retention (the money would then go to ufa market) vs keeping Campbell and having less cpa and shit goaltending.

I think I probably lean the buyout after thinking more and chasing a big fish with the $2 extra cap or so we would have.

Mike Smith was in the managers box for the Leafs game. Hopefully they asked him if his equipment is in order "just in case"...

I fully believe that hes a quick 2 week bootcamp away from providing superior quality backup goaltending for 3 or 4 more games to close out his career.
Where did you see that haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leonardlizard

5 Mins 4 Ftg

Life is better with no expectations.
Sponsor
Apr 3, 2016
49,350
82,731
Edmonton
Revenue is $6Bn a year based on that the supposed cap should be $97M right now apparently. Read this in the business forum but I have no clue how those guys calculate the number a few actually argued it should be as high as $103M.

Sure there may be some impact but let’s say even if revenues stay flat we probably still get a pretty decent rise. We are at 82.5M right now so that is a big gap.


Bally sports or something

That revenue includes regional cable rights that are about to either disappear or be drastically reduced.

The projections recently show increased revenue but with still a portion of debt to be outstanding. They would have to renegotiate during the playoffs to change the current agreement, something the league doesn’t sound keen on doing.

I wouldn’t count on anything but the negotiated $1M cap increase right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anarchism

Macblender

Registered User
May 5, 2014
2,582
860
That revenue includes regional cable rights that are about to either disappear or be drastically reduced.

The projections recently show increased revenue but with still a portion of debt to be outstanding. They would have to renegotiate during the playoffs to change the current agreement, something the league doesn’t sound keen on doing.

I wouldn’t count on anything but the negotiated $1M cap increase right now.
Yeah I am not saying this year. If we end up with a high viewership playoffs we could very well have the debt be paid off no? Like TO, Boston, NYR going far.

The regional sports I though were potentially getting absorbed by like ESPN + and or MSG+ where they are bundling teams? Maybe I read that wrong but like MSG+ is going to do rangers, islanders, buffalo, and I think two other teams?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 Mins 4 Ftg

Ritchie Valens

Registered User
Sep 24, 2007
28,935
40,516
The entire offseason should be dedicated to moving Campbell for anything, even with retention.

This morning I looked at what the Jack Campbell buyout would look like and it’s not horrible, especially when I think of his performance. Unfortunately I would consider that an option this summer.

The amount isn’t crazy but having it on the books for so many years would be rough.

Still Id think you’d have to consider it

Realistically I do think Holland gives it another year. He’s a stubborn old goat

A buyout vs a trade at 50% retention is almost 6 in one hand, a half dozen in the other. Is it more feasible to have $2.5 million in dead cap for the next four years in comparison to a buyout which is more minimal but spread out over eight?

The first two years of a buyout are $1.5 and $1.1 against the cap but it jumps to $2.3 and $2.6 in years three and four before dropping down into the $1.5 range for the balance. I'm almost leaning towards a 50% retention trade as he has only a 10 team no trade list so at least there's 21 teams he can't nix a trade on.
 

Raab

Registered User
Oct 6, 2007
18,085
2,777
A buyout vs a trade at 50% retention is almost 6 in one hand, a half dozen in the other. Is it more feasible to have $2.5 million in dead cap for the next four years in comparison to a buyout which is more minimal but spread out over eight?

The first two years of a buyout are $1.5 and $1.1 against the cap but it jumps to $2.3 and $2.6 in years three and four before dropping down into the $1.5 range for the balance. I'm almost leaning towards a 50% retention trade as he has only a 10 team no trade list so at least there's 21 teams he can't nix a trade on.
That 1.5 number will be worth less against the cap as time goes on and the cap goes up. Having an extra 1M per year over the next two years is more important IMO than having 1.5M in cap space 6 years from now.

Only way a trade makes sense is if you are getting a half decent goalie back and minimal retention. But what assets do we have to add to move Campbell?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macblender

Zerotonine

Registered User
Apr 23, 2017
4,595
4,188
Be better to retain say 1.5 - 2 million on Campbell for 4 years in a trade then buying him out and have the extra year if dead cap space several years after the fact. It's obvious he isn't an echl caliber goaltender let alone an NHL one at 5 million

Has probably cost us as much as 20 points on the season from his poor play. That's insane
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oilhawks

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,259
5,197
Regina, Saskatchewan
This morning I looked at what the Jack Campbell buyout would look like and it’s not horrible, especially when I think of his performance. Unfortunately I would consider that an option this summer.

Yeah it really isn't THAT bad. $1.5 million basically forever (8 years I think). You would need to replace him with an average backup at around $1.5-2 M. So even at a $2 replacement, you'd still save $1.5 M on the cap, and have SIGNIFICANTLY better tending as a result.

Be better to retain say 1.5 - 2 million on Campbell for 4 years in a trade then buying him out and have the extra year if dead cap space several years after the fact. It's obvious he isn't an echl caliber goaltender let alone an NHL one at 5 million

Has probably cost us as kuch as 20 points on the season from his poor play. That's insane

Well he is something like -20.6 goals above expected, meaning he has given up 21 extra goals on the year (Skinner is -0.2 for reference, so giving us almost exactly "expected goaltending"). 21 goals would result in around extra 4-7 wins on the year. So roughly 8-14 more points
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oilhawks
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

  • Finland vs Norway
    Finland vs Norway
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Slovakia vs USA
    Slovakia vs USA
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $150.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Lecce vs Udinese
    Lecce vs Udinese
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $50.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Czechia vs Switzerland
    Czechia vs Switzerland
    Wagers: 3
    Staked: $775.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Sweden vs Germany
    Sweden vs Germany
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad