Confirmed Buy-Out [VAN] D Oliver Ekman-Larsson bought out by the Canucks ($19.333333M over the next eight years)

[summer tooth]

Would he even be able to sign in Arizona? They're already retaining salary/buyout money on him, I don't know if that's ever happened before.

If he went back to AZ it would just cancel out.

 

[67 others]

Would he even be able to sign in Arizona? They're already retaining salary/buyout money on him, I don't know if that's ever happened before.

Ths funny thing is, this buyout locks up one of Arizona's 3 retain Salary slots for the next 8 years...LOL

 

[Mr Positive]

I don't get why buyouts have the cap hits jump all over the place. The Canucks have a year where they get a huge cap benefit and then later on it has years of nearly a 5 million dead cap hit. Why not make buyouts smoother?

 

[me2]

I don't get why buyouts have the cap hits jump all over the place. The Canucks have a year where they get a huge cap benefit and then later on it has years of nearly a 5 million dead cap hit. Why not make buyouts smoother?

Unnecessarily complex for reasons I can't fathom. A lot of the intricacies around the cap seem to follow that the same overly complex design.

 

[VintageBure]

Wouldn't it have made more sense for them to take another year of the deal before buying him out?

This was my hope. Way better if they went this route, but they had no options after trading for Hroenik and were too high over the cap.

Many people are rewriting history. Most thought it was a good deal at the time and that both Garland and OEL would thrive outside of Arizona

I personally thought it was catastrophically bad from the beggining. But some people are wishful thinkers haha

 

[NYVanfan]

Asinine move from the start, and i called it so at the time. Every other freaking team takes their lumps and rebuilds the way its supposed to be done, but not the Canuquillinis ….always cutting corners, always think theyre better than they are. Now we’re saddled with this ridiculous penalty for taking someone elses trash, and paid them good assets to do so.
We have major holes through the lineup, crap farm depth, and once again less than a full set of picks, its ridiculous. The Kings and Hawks will have won cups, completely rebuilt and won more cups while the canucks are still on this joke of a path, paying for this broken down player. So frustrating.

 

[Brookbank]

Miller has never hit 100 points AND when Benning traded for him, he wasn’t even a consistent 50 point player!

Difference between Vlasic and OEL is 1 GM signed him to that deal while he was still elite, the other traded a top 10 pick + top 45 pick for someone everyone knew was done.

1 of these gms only made the playoffs twice in their 8 year tenure while making win now moves yearly with the goal being playoffs every single year.
1 of these gms lost the overwhelming majority of trades he made.
1 of these gms had almost no ufa signings work out.

Guess what, all 3 of those are Jim Benning.

Vlasic was elite when he signed his deal ? I'd like to see a sharks fan verify that.

Your bullet points negate nothing. Chiarelli, Botteril and Doug Wilson were worse.

 

[Brookbank]

The Sharks didn't trade a top ten pick to acquire Vlasic, and the Couture contract isn't worse than OEL's. What did Chiarelli do that was as bad as the OEL trade?

What ?? Watch

 

[Canuck Luck]

Vlasic was elite when he signed his deal ? I'd like to see a sharks fan verify that.

Your bullet points negate nothing. Chiarelli, Botteril and Doug Wilson were worse.

You can easily see it for yourself.

In 2017-2018, San Jose was coming off being tied for 10th best team in the reg season, losing in round 2 in the playoffs to the Western Conference champions, Vegas. Vlasic had put up 11 goals and 32 points while being considered if not the best, amongst the best shutdown d-man. Vlasic was San Jose's 2nd best d-man after Brent Burns.

In the summer of 2018, Vlasic was signed to the 8 year 56M deal. In the 2018-2019 season, San Jose was the 6th best team in the league, and made it to the Western Conference finals in the playoffs. Vlasic put up 25 points and was their 3rd best d-man behind Burns + Karlsson. He had started slowing down this season but was still considered a top 5 shutdown d-man.

2019-2020, the 2nd year into his new contract, is when his play fell off a cliff.

Once again, you fail to answer the question, why is paying 7M x 8 years for a d-man EVEN IF he was washed (which he wasnt at the time) considered worse than trading a #9 overall + 2nd for a KNOWN to be washed 7.2M x 6 years d-man?

You have backed up your claims with nothing as to why anyone was worse than Benning. Fact is Benning inherited a playoff team and dismantled it into being a bottom 3 team overall in the last 8 years combined that he was in charge, alll the while being capped out yearly. He made the playoffs twice in those 8 years even though every year the goal was playoffs or bust. At the time of his firing, the Canucks were left with one of, if not the worst cap situation in the entire league. The Canucks were left with having minimal tradeable assets besides future picks. No other GM had as bad of a record, and left the team as capped out, or as bare as Benning did.

 

[mc1laren]

You can easily see it for yourself.

In 2017-2018, San Jose was coming off being tied for 10th best team in the reg season, losing in round 2 in the playoffs to the Western Conference champions, Vegas. Vlasic had put up 11 goals and 32 points while being considered if not the best, amongst the best shutdown d-man. Vlasic was San Jose's 2nd best d-man after Brent Burns.

In the summer of 2018, Vlasic was signed to the 8 year 56M deal. In the 2018-2019 season, San Jose was the 6th best team in the league, and made it to the Western Conference finals in the playoffs. Vlasic put up 25 points and was their 3rd best d-man behind Burns + Karlsson. He had started slowing down this season but was still considered a top 5 shutdown d-man.

2019-2020, the 2nd year into his new contract, is when his play fell off a cliff.

Once again, you fail to answer the question, why is paying 7M x 8 years for a d-man EVEN IF he was washed (which he wasnt at the time) considered worse than trading a #9 overall + 2nd for a KNOWN to be washed 7.2M x 6 years d-man?

You have backed up your claims with nothing as to why anyone was worse than Benning. Fact is Benning inherited a playoff team and dismantled it into being a bottom 3 team overall in the last 8 years combined that he was in charge, alll the while being capped out yearly. He made the playoffs twice in those 8 years even though every year the goal was playoffs or bust. At the time of his firing, the Canucks were left with one of, if not the worst cap situation in the entire league. The Canucks were left with having minimal tradeable assets besides future picks. No other GM had as bad of a record, and left the team as capped out, or as bare as Benning did.

I think what he means is that a top 10 pick wasnt moved for OEL alone. We also dumped 3 contracts and took on Connor Garland. For all we know the 1st was added to get ARI to include Garland in the deal.

 

[RandV]

I think what he means is that a top 10 pick wasnt moved for OEL alone. We also dumped 3 contracts and took on Connor Garland. For all we know the 1st was added to get ARI to include Garland in the deal.

That may have been the case, and still a terrible deal as we'd be lucky to get a 3rd rounder for him right now. Or it was the other draft picks starting with a 2nd that went for Garland, and the 1st with cap dumps for OEL. Either way absolutely terrible trade all around, and as I pointed on the Canucks board we could have just kept Nate Schmidt who OEL was supposed to be an upgrade on.

That's the Jim Benning special right now, pay more to increase your cap and make your team worse.

 

[biturbo19]

It's going to be fun if OEL comes back healthier and ends up signing with a deeper team for a reasonable price and fills a bunch of really solid #3/4D sort of minutes.

Curious to see which teams are interested, and which teams OEL is interested in signing with now that he's out on the open market. He'll probably get scooped up by Florida and promptly have a massive career resurgence on a cheap deal. Basking in the sunshine, out of the spotlight and pressure, with a fresh start and a ton of money in his pocket. St.Louis, Washington, or Long Island would be my other next guesses.

 

[Canuck Luck]

I think what he means is that a top 10 pick wasnt moved for OEL alone. We also dumped 3 contracts and took on Connor Garland. For all we know the 1st was added to get ARI to include Garland in the deal.

Its not at all what he meant which is why he refuses to clarify what he meant. We dumped 3 contracts and took on a much much worse contract instead, where was the payment to the Canucks for that? There wasnt because OEL was viewed as a #1 d-man as said by Benning. Thats why he paid #9 for OEL since he got to dump 3 contracts while getting someone he thought was a #1 d-man.

This trade will go down as one of if not the worst trade made since the nhl cap was introduced.

At least with Chiarelli, he traded #15 for a bust of a prospect. Benning traded #9 + a mid 2nd for the largest buyout ever in the nhl + a no value 5M winger. We would be better off with a bust of a prospect instead of a no value winger and that buyout on our books for 8 more years

 

[Eye of Ra]

He should go back to SHL

 

[mc1laren]

Its not at all what he meant which is why he refuses to clarify what he meant. We dumped 3 contracts and took on a much much worse contract instead, where was the payment to the Canucks for that? There wasnt because OEL was viewed as a #1 d-man as said by Benning. Thats why he paid #9 for OEL since he got to dump 3 contracts while getting someone he thought was a #1 d-man.

This trade will go down as one of if not the worst trade made since the nhl cap was introduced.

At least with Chiarelli, he traded #15 for a bust of a prospect. Benning traded #9 + a mid 2nd for the largest buyout ever in the nhl + a no value 5M winger. We would be better off with a bust of a prospect instead of a no value winger and that buyout on our books for 8 more years

Agree with all except the part where you consider Garland as a no value winger. Garland absolutely has value in my opinion.

 

[rocketdan9]

Without this buyout. What was left/remaining - contract again?

Can a player refuse a buyout?

 

[rocketdan9]

Is he still a servicable third pairing D?

He is likely going to "Shattenkirk" ....2nd life with some contender

He looked like he didnt give a s%#%# with Zona or Canucks

 

[Canuck Luck]

Agree with all except the part where you consider Garland as a no value winger. Garland absolutely has value in my opinion.

I like garland myself, I think he should and will have value in a year when the cap jumps up. Fact of the matter is our opinions are just that, opinions.

Garland was made available for free yet he is still a Canuck. That means he is at best a no value winger. If he had value, at least 1 of the other 31 GMs would have taken him for future considerations. Instead, the Canucks had to buyout OEL since they didn’t wanna attach assets to ditch Garland.

Hopefully both of us are right and if he is moved, it’s next year when his value should be at its peak as a Canuck

 

[uncleben]

Without this buyout. What was left/remaining - contract again?

Can a player refuse a buyout?

There was $29M cash left over 4 years

No, a player cannot refuse a buyout. I guess they could ask the NHLPA to appeal it? But there would be absolutely no precedent to stand on, and the CBA is pretty clear on how and when buyouts can be done

 

[rypper]

Vlasic was elite when he signed his deal ? I'd like to see a sharks fan verify that.

Your bullet points negate nothing. Chiarelli, Botteril and Doug Wilson were worse.

Did any of those GMs have to have their hand held by the NHL to set his opening night roster?

Did any of those GMs get fined for tampering on two different players, in the same interview?

Did any of those GMs say to the other team "I'm guessing you guys probably want more then x" and then proceed to offer more, effectively negotiating against himself?

Other trade, moves, etc aside, the stretch he had between late 2015 to late 2016, maybe even 2017 was a masterclass of terrible general managing and that alone makes him the worst of the list.

 

[Breakers]

I don't get why buyouts have the cap hits jump all over the place. The Canucks have a year where they get a huge cap benefit and then later on it has years of nearly a 5 million dead cap hit. Why not make buyouts smoother?

Vancouver's owner doesnt think past 1 year
they told him what what happens in year 1, then he cut them off before they could say the rest

 

[RebuildinVan]

There was $29M cash left over 4 years

No, a player cannot refuse a buyout. I guess they could ask the NHLPA to appeal it? But there would be absolutely no precedent to stand on, and the CBA is pretty clear on how and when buyouts can be done

$10M and $8.5M in cash over the next two years with a 7.25 cap hit. Somehow Benning traded for worse contract than he signed

 

[RebuildinVan]

Did any of those GMs have to have their hand held by the NHL to set his opening night roster?

Did any of those GMs get fined for tampering on two different players, in the same interview?

Did any of those GMs say to the other team "I'm guessing you guys probably want more then x" and then proceed to offer more, effectively negotiating against himself?

Other trade, moves, etc aside, the stretch he had between late 2015 to late 2016, maybe even 2017 was a masterclass of terrible general managing and that alone makes him the worst of the list.

Running out of time to call his own free agents
Offering a 4 year deal to a player that couldnt be insured to see him play 20 games

So many highlights to choose from

 

[seanlinden]

The idea is to at least compete for the playoffs this year (but still unlikely to make it) and convince Petterson to stay. Could gradually get them to a point of being a playoff team if it all works out but likely capped their ceiling.

That's a fools errand. Honestly better off to cash out on Pettersson, and accelerate the rebuild to win at the latter years of Hughes' contract.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

That's a fools errand. Honestly better off to cash out on Pettersson, and accelerate the rebuild to win at the latter years of Hughes' contract.

Hughes is turning 24, these are about to be the latter years of his contract. Who ya gonna get better than EP to help him out?