[Discussion] Arizona/OEL

[oldnews]

6 minutes ago, skategal said:

https://www.tsn.ca/seravalli-at-least-17-nhl-teams-have-reduced-pay-amid-covid-19-crunch-1.1522380

 

Sources say the Sabres are considering an internal salary cap in the low $70 million range; the Arizona Coyotes, who recently failed to make on-time signing bonus payments to a number of players, may be operating just south of $70 million under their next GM; the Pittsburgh Penguins are reportedly planning to budget in the low-to-mid $70 million range on an $81.5 million limit.

 

I think the original article was probably posted somewhere else in the threads as it came out on Sept 10, but thought the bit about Arizona was interesting relative to any discussion regarding OEL and what they may be willing to take back in trade.   Boston may also be a less willing dance partner based on the contract costs unless there is significant contract going back.  

So... the Yotes are looking to move 10 million of unreturned cap...

But are supposed to eat Eriksson in this deal?

In exchange for....one prospect...

LE could 'help' them artificially lower their salary to cap ratio - but still, they'd be looking to unload other contracts in a market that doesn't seem terribly accommodating....

How sellable are Kessel, Stepan, Grabner types? even Goligoski?...

 

I can't force that kind of math into making any of these proposals make sense...

 

 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

 

[peaches5]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

So... the Yotes are looking to move 10 million of unreturned cap...

But are supposed to eat Eriksson in this deal?

In exchange for....one prospect...

LE could 'help' them artificially lower their salary to cap ratio - but still, they'd be looking to unload other contracts in a market that doesn't seem terribly accommodating....

How sellable are Kessel, Stepan, Grabner types? even Goligoski?...

 

I can't force that kind of math into making any of these proposals make sense...

 

 

You could take Dvorak and OEL and dump Eriksson to them. Something like Eriksson + Virtanen + Gaudette + Juolevi + 1st + 3rd for OEL + Dvorak

[Provost]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

I agree in general - but weren't you recently endorsing the idea of pursuing a Sergachev ie 'not rule anything out?' - (of course he's younger, but regardless, the underlying roster and futures implications are very similar otherwise) - which would cost probably more significantly in assets up front, and possibly a fairly heavy contract as well - and then requiring more moves to clear cap - 'keeping our options open' if we can get a top flight LHD seemed to be your position - and then worrying about the fallout afterwards?  I get the age difference, but the asset cost might be mitigated as a result of that....I'm seeing some inconsistency in your disposition here and I think we might have to realistically take into consideration that Benning may have to serve two masters here - where I might prefer to be conservative, I only both own and manage the team in my armchair fantasy world...

 

Like with Dr Bonnie - I imagine if it were strictly up to her, 'we' may not have opened bars, restaurants, etc - however, it's a 'democracy'...and where the Canucks are concerned, I temper my criticism of Benning in the context of wondering how final his own say on matters like this truly is (no 'conspiracy' theory here - simply dual objectives that he has to balance - one, to build for the future, but two, to win, gain revenue, etc in the shorter term.  If it were up to me, I might be keeping those bullets in the chamber until I see the likes of Cal Foote (or whomever Tampa moves for example) off the market....and attempting to avoid the need to fire off those next wave of bullets, as much as possible....

 

I share the anxiety - we've been well baited/trolled by Friedman, Dreger, Dhaliwal, Button et al  lol - raising our expectations.....of a low cost grand slam....

 

I think people are probably underestimating the cost here - the one factor that seems to be underplayed in the lowball estimations of this deal is why Boston would tap out at such a low cost, when they are probably even more motivated by their conditions (entire left side expiring, older core/team in general, best two D are young RHD, assets to spend, etc).

If they're just not that interested/motivated and have other plans - then we may get lucky -  but otherwise, I hope we drive the price up for them, and in the end wind up tapping out ourselves once it hurts them enough...

 

Damnit.  Here I was pining for deals - and now here I am trapped indoors when it's beautiful outside and I should be watching birds instead of OEL threads....

 

 

There is a significant difference between "not ruling anything out" as possibilities and locking yourself into a trade that mathematically doesn't work and puts us in a really bad spot.  That is apples and oranges so no discrepancy between those positions at all.  Being open to any sort of moves doesn't mean you make them even if they are bad for you...

I am open to the idea of OEL, just like I am open to the idea of Sergachev, Ekblad, Cernak, Carlo, Pesce, Ristolainen, Philipe Myers, etc.  I don't do the OEL deal if it is a bad deal just like I don't do any of the other deals if they are a bad deal.

We simply can't take on OEL without moving a lot of cap in the 2021-22 season, doing that deal without also including cap going the other way just costs us too much and is a bad deal.  You have to include the opportunity cost of the players you can't sign because of that cap spent, and the additional cost of getting rid of dead cap to fit under the ceiling.

If you trade for OEL with only Sutter as "bad" cap space going the other way, it means we sign NONE of Toffoli, Tanev, or Markstrom.  We can currently afford one of them, but the extra in cap that OEL costs compared with Sutter takes up those dollars.  So if you are really optimistic and think you can get OEL for Sutter, Juolevi, and a 2021 2nd rounder... you add all those costs together.

OEL costs you one of Toffoli/Markstrom/Tanev, plus Sutter, Juolevi, and a 2nd

The cost gets worse next year because we have to pay Petterson and Hughes, but are still paying Eriksson, Roussel, and Beagle.

It means we for sure can't re-sign Edler.  On top of that is means we absolutely HAVE to get rid of one of our bad contracts otherwise we can't sign Petterson and Hughes even to bridge deals, so what will that cost us?  A 1st round pick?  Another top prospect?  A 2nd rounder.  Add that cost to the acquisition of OEL.

It becomes a terrible deal, and cumulatively worse.... One of Toffoli/Markstrom/Tanev, plus Sutter, Juolevi, a 2nd rounder, and a 1st rounder or top prospect.

On the other side, if you can do a deal that gets rid of our bad contracts for at least his $8.25 million cap hit for both this year AND next year... then it is a home run.  You have completely rebalanced your lineup by spending money efficiently rather than inefficiently.  You also have left yourself completely open to make any other deals.  The 3-7th year of his contract are much less of a concern as we (presumably) aren't going to be in a position where we have to overpay for guys to fill the bottom end of out roster.  Just the value of Podkolzin and Hoglander on ELCs for most of that time makes it possible to fit in without any concern.

A good deal is not equal to a bad deal....
 

[86Viking]

Roussel and 1 of Sutter/Baertschi need to be going back. Send them OJ and a 2021 2nd, if they ask for a 2021 1st just decline.

[goblix]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

So... the Yotes are looking to move 10 million of unreturned cap...

But are supposed to eat Eriksson in this deal?

In exchange for....one prospect...

LE could 'help' them artificially lower their salary to cap ratio - but still, they'd be looking to unload other contracts in a market that doesn't seem terribly accommodating....

How sellable are Kessel, Stepan, Grabner types? even Goligoski?...

 

I can't force that kind of math into making any of these proposals make sense...

 

 

Well one has to remember that cap hit is different than actual salary... A team not wanting to spend over 70m would only care about the actual dollars. In the case of Erickson after a 3m signing bonus he only requires 1m this year and then a total of 4m next year and considering they would be clearing OEL whose owed a bagillion dollars total having a return of 5m back is likely appealing to them

[aGENT]

56 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Eriksson's contract could actually be ideal for Arizona. Cheap actual dollars paid out for rest of term. Oel has put their manager in a tough spot. If the offers are similar and they get Eriksson back they may like that. He gets paid like 2.5m per season in actual cash or something. 

 

Wonder if Arizona would have interest in markys rights. Might be a nice sweetener could be worth a third in value. Give them an inside track on him.

 

Except Boston doesn't really need to send much/any salary or cap back.

 

Eriksson's 'upside down' contact may be better than taking back actual salary but it's not better than less or no salary.

[Gaudette Celly]

7 minutes ago, oldnews said:

So... the Yotes are looking to move 10 million of unreturned cap...

But are supposed to eat Eriksson in this deal?

In exchange for....one prospect...

LE could 'help' them artificially lower their salary to cap ratio - but still, they'd be looking to unload other contracts in a market that doesn't seem terribly accommodating....

How sellable are Kessel, Stepan, Grabner types? even Goligoski?...

 

I can't force that kind of math into making any of these proposals make sense...

 

 

And yet, behold:

 

6 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

 

"Way lower".  The bargains will be out there, for those willing to step up and grab them.

[Outsiders]

I wouldn't be shocked if the Canucks don't give up a 1st round pick.

 

Sutter, Juolevi, 2nd round pick, 4th round pick

 

 

Very similar to the Mccann 2nd and 4th for Gudbranson only we are sending them a roster player. 

 

 

Arizona won't want to retain any salary on a 7 yr deal so why should the Canucks give up a top assets to acquire him? All reports indicate they need to shed money and the relationship with the player is damaged. If they were to retain money I could see a 1st rounder involved or a higher prospect (Rathbone) being attached. But until that happens I don't think ARI can ask for a lot. Especially when it is only two teams bidding.

[theo5789]

7 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

 

Why are they handcuffed? Technically OEL didn't ask for a trade, management requested if they could explore moving him and he gave them options. If it's for cap reasons, I'd just buyout Goligoski, replace him with Soderstrom. Trade Dvorak for a pick/prospect and fill the roster with cheap players and they're fine.

[UKNuck96]

1 minute ago, Outsiders said:

I wouldn't be shocked if the Canucks don't give up a 1st round pick.

 

Sutter, Juolevi, 2nd round pick, 4th round pick

 

 

Very similar to the Mccann 2nd and 4th for Gudbranson only we are sending them a roster player. 

 

 

Arizona won't want to retain any salary on a 7 yr deal so why should the Canucks give up a top assets to acquire him? All reports indicate they need to shed money and the relationship with the player is damaged. If they were to retain money I could see a 1st rounder involved or a higher prospect (Rathbone) being attached. But until that happens I don't think ARI can ask for a lot. Especially when it is only two teams bidding.

Would you potentially throw an RFA in there instead of say the 4th with a view that ARI would flip their rights somewhere else. Effectively cap dumps while also giving them another pick?

[Gaudette Celly]

1 minute ago, Outsiders said:

I wouldn't be shocked if the Canucks don't give up a 1st round pick.

 

Sutter, Juolevi, 2nd round pick, 4th round pick

 

 

Very similar to the Mccann 2nd and 4th for Gudbranson only we are sending them a roster player. 

 

 

Arizona won't want to retain any salary on a 7 yr deal so why should the Canucks give up a top assets to acquire him? All reports indicate they need to shed money and the relationship with the player is damaged. If they were to retain money I could see a 1st rounder involved or a higher prospect (Rathbone) being attached. But until that happens I don't think ARI can ask for a lot. Especially when it is only two teams bidding.

Of course, but they will almost certainly need to do so to get a deal done without getting relatively low return.  I'm expecting the Canucks to offer up at most a 2nd, as they won't want to go two years without a 1st.

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, goblix said:

Well one has to remember that cap hit is different than actual salary... A team not wanting to spend over 70m would only care about the actual dollars. In the case of Erickson after a 3m signing bonus he only requires 1m this year and then a total of 4m next year and considering they would be clearing OEL whose owed a bagillion dollars total having a return of 5m back is likely appealing to them

hence the point about salary to cap ratio in the post you responded to.

Edited October 2, 2020 by oldnews

[Maketherightmove]

3 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Why are they handcuffed? Technically OEL didn't ask for a trade, management requested if they could explore moving him and he gave them options. If it's for cap reasons, I'd just buyout Goligoski, replace him with Soderstrom. Trade Dvorak for a pick/prospect and fill the roster with cheap players and they're fine.

It's not cap reasons it's that they have no money. They couldn't make bonus payments to players on time. Absolutely nothing to do with cap here and everything to do with cash flow. They can't afford OEL, period, and he's given them two options. They're handcuffed, by their own doing.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Maketherightmove

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, Gaudette Celly said:

And yet, behold:

 

and yet, behold, the huge advantage negotiation wise to the Canucks....while what is not noted - is that it is still subject to Boston's level of interest.

 

forgive me if I don't get carried away based on an ?Andy Cole? tweet referencing "speculation".

[Provost]

21 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

It's not cap reasons it's that they have no money. They couldn't make bonus payments to players on time. Absolutely nothing to do with cap here and everything to do with cash flow. They can't afford OEL, period, and he's given them two options. They're handcuffed, by their own doing.

Everyone keeps forgetting that OEL carries a real dollar liability of $54 million dollars over the remaining part of his contract, including 3 years of $10.5 million actual salary coming up.

Swapping him for Eriksson frees up $49 million in REAL dollars off the books.  That is worth it if they are looking at big losses for the next several seasons.  I have no idea if Boston is interested or not.  Just that we should explore it and we should also walk away if the price is anywhere near real market value.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Provost

[theo5789]

Just now, Maketherightmove said:

It's not cap reasons it's that they have no money. They couldn't make bonus payments to players on time. Absolutely nothing to do with cap here and everything to do with cash flow. They can't afford OEL, period, and he's given them two options. They're handcuffed, by their own doing,

And the solution from us is that we give them cap dumps and they have to retain as well? The NHL has propped them up for so long, they will continue to do so. Plus Arizona has other options to shed cap.

 

Boston has the cap space to add OEL with giving much back. If this was really the case, it's a no brainer that he goes to Boston and likely at a bargain price considering the fact that they can afford to not have to give much money back and can take on the whole contract in full. We are handcuffing ourselves to make this trade if we expect to balance out the cap and not give up anything of tangible value in the process.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

2 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Why are they handcuffed? Technically OEL didn't ask for a trade, management requested if they could explore moving him and he gave them options. If it's for cap reasons, I'd just buyout Goligoski, replace him with Soderstrom. Trade Dvorak for a pick/prospect and fill the roster with cheap players and they're fine.

I dunno. I agree they have other options. Just posting what that TSN guy tweeted. Hopefully it’s true, because if Arizona feels they are handcuffed, and they still press on to do a deal, it could work out well for us.

 

Basically, the chatter seems to confirm 2 of the 3 conditions I’d want, for an OEL trade.

 

(1) Arizona in a tough spot negotiating wise. “Handcuffed” or not, it seems they might have to take pennies on the dollar, as far as the assets coming back in their return, if they move OEL.

 

(2) Canucks shipping out a bad contract. All the rumours around the offers suggest there will be a cap dump going back. Ideally, that’s Eriksson.

 

Now, we just need to see condition #3: Arizona willing to retain salary on OEL to make the deal happen.

 

If all three of those happen, this could be a tidy bit of business for Benning and the Canucks.

[Maketherightmove]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

And the solution from us is that we give them cap dumps and they have to retain as well? The NHL has propped them up for so long, they will continue to do so. Plus Arizona has other options to shed cap.

 

Boston has the cap space to add OEL with giving much back. If this was really the case, it's a no brainer that he goes to Boston and likely at a bargain price considering the fact that they can afford to not have to give much money back and can take on the whole contract in full. We are handcuffing ourselves to make this trade if we expect to balance out the cap and not give up anything of tangible value in the process.

Read Provost's post directly above yours. Loui vs OEL saves them significant real dollars. I'm sure if they prefer Boston's offer, he will end up there, but we have no idea what Van or Bos real offers are, so we'll see. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Maketherightmove

[theo5789]

Just now, Provost said:

Everyone keeps forgetting that OEL carries a real dollar liability of $54 million dollars over the remaining part of his contract, including 3 years over $10.5 million actual salary coming up.

Swapping him for Eriksson frees up $49 million in REAL dollars off the books.  That is worth it if they are looking at big losses for the next several seasons.

If they are downgrading their team that significantly, then they can kiss any future revenue goodbye. Might as well fold the team. If they are taking back Eriksson, we are also giving up much more in terms of quality picks/prospects.