[Discussion] Arizona/OEL

[Gaudette Celly]

1 minute ago, 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.

Ba-zingle.  Big real-world diff between cap and actual dollars spent, especially for teams like the 'Yotes.

[Smashian Kassian]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

I just think BOS end up out bidding us. Benning giving it the old college try our not. They have more ability to make the winning offer and he's a better fit there. Benning would need to hedge more.

 

Given the tens of millions owed still, I'd hope to snag him for some young roster players and B prospects that don't include the guys I listed, but I think it's unlikely.

 

Does Boston really have alot better pieces? They are in a similar situations. No first round pick this year, DeBrusk is better than Virtanen, otherwise is Vaakananien much better than Juolevi? Studnicka better than Gaudette? 

 

Both are against the cap. I think they both help each other keep the price lower.

[theo5789]

1 minute ago, Maketherightmove said:

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. 

Eventually things will/should bounce back. They don't need to worry about the next 7 years of the contract, they need to worry about short term. With us giving back money short term, it really negates the benefit to them. And while it could happen, it's surely going to cost us in additional assets in the return on top of Eriksson/Sutter/etc.

[Maketherightmove]

2 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Eventually things will/should bounce back. They don't need to worry about the next 7 years of the contract, they need to worry about short term. With us giving back money short term, it really negates the benefit to them. And while it could happen, it's surely going to cost us in additional assets in the return on top of Eriksson/Sutter/etc.

You do understand the dude that just purchased the Yotes is interested in running a business, and anyone running a business is ABSOLUTELY worrying about the next 7 years of cashflow. What a ridiculous assertion.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Maketherightmove

[Provost]

9 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

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.

What, both fans aren't going to show up anymore?  Almost all of their revenue is from the league pool of things like TV deals.  That is what is going to tank dramatically.  As was noted above, they didn't pay their bonuses on time and also are behind on payments for the arena. 
https://arizonasports.com/story/2395454/coyotes-late-on-payments-to-company-that-manages-gila-river-arena/#:~:text=Coyotes late on payments to company that manages Gila River Arena,-Share&text=Multiple sources have confirmed that,43%2C750 due on July 15).

They will want future cheaper contracts.  That may cost them some downgrade in the short term (while they are desperately broke in terms of real cash), but also give them a better future with younger, cheaper players who can benefit them down the road.  Just the savings swapping Eriksson and OEL is $3 million this year and $6.5 million next year in real dollars.  Then you add the $40 million after that when they aren't paying Eriksson anything... That isn't chump change at all...

Like I have said, we do the deal if they are bent over a barrel.. we don't give them value for it.  If Boston wants to outbid us, let them.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Provost

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Does Boston really have alot better pieces? They are in a similar situations. No first round pick this year, DeBrusk is better than Virtanen, otherwise is Vaakananien much better than Juolevi? Studnicka better than Gaudette? 

 

Both are against the cap. I think they both help each other keep the price lower.

They're more inclined to add to that given their need for LD, the age of their core etc. With Krug leaving they also have some cap space whereas we'd need to move some (here or elsewhere).

 

They're better positioned to make a deal and pay a higher asset cost given those circumstances. We'd need to hedge more. Will they? Who knows.

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Does Boston really have alot better pieces? They are in a similar situations. No first round pick this year, DeBrusk is better than Virtanen, otherwise is Vaakananien much better than Juolevi? Studnicka better than Gaudette? 

 

Both are against the cap. I think they both help each other keep the price lower.

?

Boston has all of Krug, Chara, and Grzelcyk expiring - their entire left side.

They actually have a handful of D prospects - not simply Vaakanainen.  Lauzon, Lindgren, Zboril - as well as Vaakanainen - all had NHL looks, all nearing NHL ready or at the very least, been given carrots as incentive.

Their two best D are young RHD.

 

And what cap dump - relative to Eriksson, does Boston need to include in a deal?

 

 

[Smashian Kassian]

I think OEL makes the Canucks much better now & going forward. He's 29, Giordano won a Norris in his mid 30's, Duncan Keith won a Smythe at 32. I think OEL still has good years in the tank. And it sets us up for the next number of years.

 

The contract is a risk but also it's what gives us the opportunity to do this. 

 

Let's say Arizona retains 1.75, get his cap hit down to 6.5 then throw in Sutter or Eriksson along with some young pieces for their end & it doesn't seems so bad. 

[peaches5]

14 minutes ago, aGENT said:

They're more inclined to add to that given their need for LD, the age of their core etc. With Krug leaving they also have some cap space whereas we'd need to move some (here or elsewhere).

 

They're better positioned to make a deal and pay a higher asset cost given those circumstances. We'd need to hedge more. Will they? Who knows.

We also have a need of LD Edler has one year left where he is going to be an effective player and you can't count of Joulevi or Rathbone to replace him. If you can snag OEL you do it.  Edler becomes the odd man out after next year but he can always take a discount and play around 15-18 mins a game outside of the top 4.. or you just let him walk or retire. Our PP2 was awful so OEL can play on that or play his off side on PP1.. We need him as much as anybody does and we have the cap space. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by peaches5

[oldnews]

Boston has 12 forwards under contract - one RFA - DeBrusk - that they appear to be shopping/entertaining dealing the rights to.

 

They have 14 million of cap space - and while they have 3 expiring LHD - that also have plenty of candidates to take at least one of those spots (and might re-sign Gryzelcyk - who knows about Chara..).

 

They don't really have cap to dump (and they only have one year of Backes x 1.5 in the background).

 

They have a wealthy, powerful owner and have enjoyed A LOT of bonus playoff revenue, year after year to this point....

 

They are FAR BETTER positioned to make a deal like this work.  They haven't exactly shown an aversion to veterans at any point of their continuing build.

 

They'd have to literally, borderline reject this out of hand in order for the Canucks to walk away with OEL with the kind of proposals optimistically being 'believed' in here.

 

I'm not going to pretend to know what is going to happen  - I don't - and the variables are even more interesting and complex than usual (but a lot of people 'usually' lack much perspective in trade rumours / or trade assessements like these).....

 

so I'll be holding out with some skepticism until these chips fall - because - word of unsolicited advice here - it's better to go into a movie theatre with low expectations and leave pleasantly surprised, than it is to go into it expecting a blockbuster and leave having seen....what we typically do (and that's in spite of having seen a lovely blockbuster last offseason - which nevertheless, was met with rage, fury, and disbelief that Benning would spend a 1st on a 'cap dump').

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by oldnews

[CANUCK-EXPRESS]

 

[theo5789]

13 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

You do understand the dude that just purchased the Yotes is interested in running a business, and anyone running a business is ABSOLUTELY worrying about the next 7 years of cashflow. What a ridiculous assertion.

And running a business means trading away one of your best players and taking away from the value of the franchise while taking on short term money and doesn't solve your immediate problem of needing money now due to covid? Yes ridiculous indeed.

 

In 3 years time, things could be on the up and up and the cap could rise once again, but they've already crippled themselves because they're worried about money they will spend over 7 years. Their future revenues would take a massive hit if they pulled off some of the moves some here believe could happen and how does that not also affect their long term finances?

[oldnews]

I promised myself I wouldn't spend the day tracking this, lol - and here I am...

 

I gotta break out of the huddle.

 

I look forward to returning later to news that my 'expectation' of seeing the usual hollywood production has been proven unfounded! 

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by oldnews

[MeanSeanBean]

6 minutes ago, CANUCK-EXPRESS said:

 

This is important. Only make a trade if it's a good deal for us. It seems, to me at least, that they need to trade him more then we need to acquire him.

[Kobayashi Maru]

To me this is somewhat similar to what happened in Chicago with Keith and Seabrook.  Both were signed until they were 40 at a relatively comparable cap number given the inflation of contract at the time.  OEL is only signed until 35 for the same equivalent value so that's a bit less risk.  If we look at Seabrook that was an absolute disaster of a contract and with Keith it's still actually pretty good value. Because of playing style I would expect a player like OEL to still be closer to the top of his game at 35.  Obviously there will be a decline, but it will be much more significant after 35. 

 

On the contract side: For the first couple years it can only happen with the bad contracts moved out (Eriksson, Sutter etc), then in the next couple of years it replaces Edler's contract (He may still come back at a further discount for 3rd pairing mins by then) and then you are into the territory of the cap likely going up and new contracts only going higher.  Yes, there is a risk, but I don't think it's as large a risk as people make it out to be.  This is not an Eriksson situation (Post concussion scoring winger) as OEL is at a completely different level and plays a style that will age well barring major incident/injury.  OEL is a game changer and will likely be close to that for most of the duration of the contract.  This is more of a Lidstrom, Keith, Gio type player than a Pronger, Seabrook (Physical player leading to early career end) type player.     

Edited October 2, 2020 by Kobayashi Maru

[Maketherightmove]

3 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

And running a business means trading away one of your best players and taking away from the value of the franchise while taking on short term money and doesn't solve your immediate problem of needing money now due to covid? Yes ridiculous indeed.

 

In 3 years time, things could be on the up and up and the cap could rise once again, but they've already crippled themselves because they're worried about money they will spend over 7 years. Their future revenues would take a massive hit if they pulled off some of the moves some here believe could happen and how does that not also affect their long term finances?

That's the thing about running a business. It's not an emotional thing (or shouldn't be). They're forecasting out their next 5 years, and clearly seeing that OEL is an anchor on the team from a cash flow perspective, especially given their cash issues. Keeping him likely means that they won't be able to do what they want moving forward. 

 

You're thinking about this from a pure hockey perspective, but this has very very little to do with hockey. It's all business. Hockey just happens to be their product, and the impact of not having to pay OEL $50+ million is probably far more beneficial to their business than the impact not having him will have on ticket sales, etc. 

[Petey Castiglione]

According to Dhaliwal on 1040, Canucks have an offer on the table and are waiting for Coyotes reply.  Take from that what you will.

[Smashian Kassian]

19 minutes ago, oldnews said:

?

Boston has all of Krug, Chara, and Grzelcyk expiring - their entire left side.

They actually have a handful of D prospects - not simply Vaakanainen.  Lauzon, Lindgren, Zboril - as well as Vaakanainen - all had NHL looks, all nearing NHL ready or at the very least, been given carrots as incentive.

Their two best D are young RHD.

 

And what cap dump - relative to Eriksson, does Boston need to include in a deal?

 

 

 

In terms of roster they are different. I meant similar in that there's other cap considerations & they traded a first/don't have a ton of great prospects. (We prob have more)

 

They don't have cap dumps like we do but they are pressed for cap space. They got DeBrusk to do now (27 goal scorer), Krug & Chara to replace and then; Carlo, Krejci & Rask expiring the year following. Alot of holes to fill & you can't handcuff yourself filling them b/c McAvoy is up the following year & due for a huge raise. It also depends how they want to go with an aging core, I assume if they are getting OEL they are going for it.

 

And wouldn't exactly call any of those prospects sure fire anymore than Juolevi, Rafferty or Rathbone. Lauzon & Zboril are 2015 picks idk if your betting on them taking over for Chara & Krug.

 

[Nucker 67]

7 years left, and he's 29. This means he would be 36 when his contract expires and probably near the end of his career. Good timing, as 36 isn't that old for a Swedish Dman (Lidstrom was 42, Kronwall was 39), and he's had a history of being healthy. 

 

Edler is 34, and even though he only has one year left on his contract, I can see him re-signing and playing another 2-3 years as well.

[theo5789]

18 minutes ago, Provost said:

What, both fans aren't going to show up anymore?  Almost all of their revenue is from the league pool of things like TV deals.  That is what is going to tank dramatically.  As was noted above, they didn't pay their bonuses on time and also are behind on payments for the arena. 
https://arizonasports.com/story/2395454/coyotes-late-on-payments-to-company-that-manages-gila-river-arena/#:~:text=Coyotes late on payments to company that manages Gila River Arena,-Share&text=Multiple sources have confirmed that,43%2C750 due on July 15).

They will want future cheaper contracts.  That may cost them some downgrade in the short term (while they are desperately broke in terms of real cash), but also give them a better future with younger, cheaper players who can benefit them down the road.  Just the savings swapping Eriksson and OEL is $3 million this year and $6.5 million next year in real dollars.  Then you add the $40 million after that when they aren't paying Eriksson anything... That isn't chump change at all...

Like I have said, we do the deal if they are bent over a barrel.. we don't give them value for it.  If Boston wants to outbid us, let them.

Yes but Boston has the leg up by no needing to give them any money back in return and thus can offer a "lesser" package than we would if we expect to give them any money back in return even if it's Loui. If it's about short term, then the least money in return with the best package is going to win out. Adding LE/Sutter/etc is only going to force us to pay higher in the prospect/pick/player in return above what Boston will offer (nevermind the fact that some actually think they will retain anything at all).

 

The 40 million over 5 years that they have to deal with is something they can deal with after the covid effect has hopefully ended and will see the league bounce back. They are in better position long term to not make a move that cripples them if they expect to bounce back in revenue in the future. If they cannot afford to keep their team in Arizona, making a move detrimental to the team would also affect the sale value of the team.

 

So while I agree that we likely get a better deal than in normal conditions, it doesn't make sense for them to take on equivalent cap space/a couple million of savings in actual dollars short term and not have to give up a solid package in return. Either we take on more cap/significant money here and deal with the cap through other avenues or be prepared to pay a hefty price. It won't take much for Boston to outbid us and if anything, they probably could get away with a lower package than us because they have no problem taking on the full cap. We are not in a equal bargaining position as they are.

 

We have seen this story before with Kesler and we took the best we could get from the team that had the cap space to offer more (even if it wasn't the best package we could get) and we weren't burdened with the money issue ourselves like Arizona is, so they simply will take the best return that saves them the most money now.