[Discussion] Arizona/OEL

[24K PureCool]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Hughes is also exempt FYI.

Lol so we literally don't have to protect any dman. 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

HE IS??

Yessir 

 

4 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Lol so we literally don't have to protect any dman. 

Well, say we nab OEL, there'd be him, potentially Myers and if we don't move Juolevi, him as well.

 

Depends on who else we have at that point though... Stecher could be a candidate, say we sign Dillon etc.

 

But yes, we're well positioned to acquire D other teams can't protect.

Edited October 2, 2020 by aGENT

[Kobayashi Maru]

I think if you have the opportunity to bring in a top D you do it and adjust the plan around that.  Especially if you have the ability to move some short term dead cap back which we have to do anyways.  Strike while the iron's hot!  It may mean we adjust our plans with Markstrom and Tanev but I think that is acceptable.  If we go with Demko because Markstrom wants too much, there is a saturation of 1Bs or maybe Lundqvist that can fill the need and if we need to go a bit cheaper on Tanev we could sign Zach Bogosian.  OEL and Bogosian without a doubt cover the defensive side of the game from Tanev alone.  Ultimately if we can bring in game changing talent because of a favorable situation, you do it.  

[Junkyard Dog]

Just now, aGENT said:

Yessir 

 

Well, say we nab OEL, there'd be him, potentially Myers and if we don't move Juolevi, him as well.

 

Depends on who else we have at that point though... Stecher could be a candidate, say we sign Dillon etc.

In that case we could easily give Tanev or Dillon a NMC for the 1st year in order to cheapen the cap hit. Something we should/could take advantage of.

[Screw]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Yessir 

 

Well, say we nab OEL, there'd be him, potentially Myers and if we don't move Juolevi, him as well.

 

Depends on who else we have at that point though... Stecher could be a candidate, say we sign Dillon etc.

 

But yes, we're well positioned to acquire D other teams can't protect.

OEL has a no movement clause I believe and would require mandatory protection.

[aGENT]

Just now, Screw said:

OEL has a no movement clause I believe and would require mandatory protection.

Hence why I included him in that post...(that and he's worth protecting).

[Gaudette Celly]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Well, say we nab OEL, there'd be him, potentially Myers and if we don't move Juolevi, him as well.

 

Depends on who else we have at that point though... Stecher could be a candidate, say we sign Dillon etc.

 

But yes, we're well positioned to acquire D other teams can't protect.

Or... could go the 8 skaters route.

 

Pettersson

Boeser

Horvat

Miller

Toffoli

Gaudette

Virtanen

OEL

[Kobayashi Maru]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yessir 

 

Well, say we nab OEL, there'd be him, potentially Myers and if we don't move Juolevi, him as well.

 

Depends on who else we have at that point though... Stecher could be a candidate, say we sign Dillon etc.

 

But yes, we're well positioned to acquire D other teams can't protect.

Agreed.  I think we would protect OEL, Myers, Joulevi.  Any free agents on top of that would be exposed.

[Junkyard Dog]

Just now, Gaudette Celly said:

Or... could go the 8 skaters route.

 

Pettersson

Boeser

Horvat

Miller

Toffoli

Gaudette

Virtanen

OEL

I mean you're still protecting 7 forwards in 7/3/1 so you don't need too.

 

Just offer NMC to Tanev or Dillion for a cheaper contract. Hell you could do both if they both came at a bargain and we shed a lot of cap, that's wishful though.

[theo5789]

39 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

Like I've said a number of times, we have no idea what Boston or the Canucks are offering, so to speculate about who is offering what because of the current makeup of each team is not a constructive discussion. 

 

We know why the Yotes are getting rid of OEL. We have a pretty good idea that he's telling AZ he's only interested in going to two teams. We have no idea what either team is offering, but we know that AZ's goal is to make the best decision for their team (aka their business) moving forward, and logically, that's exactly what they'll do. 

Yes and a business decision could mean they want immediate savings rather than be concerned about 3 or 4 years down the road when things could be better. They could be saving money down the road when it isn't necessary only to the detriment of the team. That's not smart business planning to me. I mean if they want to do that, then I'll be glad to take advantage of that stupidity. They might as well fold the franchise if they did. Like I've said numerous times, their ownership okayed the signing, they were committed to spending the money. The problem is now and the next couple of years. Not to concern them about the 40 million down the road when things could drastically change.

 

They will get the best deal they can get that also serves the purpose of saving them money now. They may be willing to take back a bit to get a better return or they could take a lesser return to unload as much cash as possible. There's no need to speculate anything as it's pretty simple logic that if they need money, taking back money is a bad idea (unless there is incentive). And for us, if we can't give back money, then it isn't favourable to us. So worst case scenario for us is they trade him to Boston for a small return because they desperately need the money from a financial decision only (I think this is where I differentiate a business decision as everyone should be wanting to make a decision for their business to succeed, but financials play a part in this decision).

[Barry_Wilkins]

Harman Dayal on 1040, 3 hours ago, says that OEL is a "high-end 2nd pairing" Dman. I'd love to pick apart his list of (at least) 62 Dmen that are supposedly better than him.

[Odjick the Warrior]

everybody thinking the Coyotes are going to take LE and Roussel are drinking their bong water because Arizona only wants draft picks and prospects and maybe younger cheaper players still with RFA status. It is said they need a top prospect defenseman or there is no deal and the Canucks have 3 so I would let Arizona choose between Juolevi, Rathbone and Woo and include Virtanen and Stetcher and LE and throw in Lockwood and I don't see Boston doing a deal this good with their cap problems and I would have thought if Boston had $8 million in cap space they would resign Krug. 

[Petey Castiglione]

49 minutes ago, oldnews said:

thanks.  he ends up acknowledging that he doesn't really know to extent of Boston's interest - but how could he, really?

 

could the LE contract/cap savings actually translate into an implicit advantage?  with the unforseen (just months ago) economic leverage....hard to go that far, but willl the Canucks actually be able to balance off their cap disadvantage (the Luongo recrap and stalled cap) with a relative gain due to their leverage in this strange, reductive/limited to 2 team context?

 

This reads like the trailer at the end of a DBZ episode.  "tune in next time, on the next episode of, DBZ!!!"

 

*waits all week for the next episode* episode is just them powering up.  ie. no trades yet but it's heating up! 

[Noseforthenet]

15 hours ago, IjustNEEDaTROYgamble said:

*stands on chair* slow clap

thank you someone else that sees his value if the owners can pay for it then the salary is no concern because at the end of OEL contract the worst he will be is Edler to mentor Juolevi and turn him into a great player. 

If there is a trade to be made, Juolevi is going the other way. I guarantee that. I would be more surprised if he WASN'T going the other way.

[Provost]

4 minutes ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

Harman Dayal on 1040, 3 hours ago, says that OEL is a "high-end 2nd pairing" Dman. I'd love to pick apart his list of (at least) 62 Dmen that are supposedly better than him.

They had someone else on earlier (maybe Drance?) who said that OEL was a #2.  That makes more sense really, the suggestion was that he was in the 30-40 range of top D.

 

There are competing speculations on his future performance.  On one side, the advanced ranking model that predicts how aging impacts a player says he drops off to a repayment level player late in the contract.  Other folks point to playing on Arizona as suppressing his production and performance, so he could easily be significantly better in Vancouver.  That also holds water, especially if he is on a 2nd pairing and getting easier matchups because of Hughes.

[aGENT]

13 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Yes and a business decision could mean they want immediate savings rather than be concerned about 3 or 4 years down the road when things could be better. They could be saving money down the road when it isn't necessary only to the detriment of the team. That's not smart business planning to me. I mean if they want to do that, then I'll be glad to take advantage of that stupidity. They might as well fold the franchise if they did. Like I've said numerous times, their ownership okayed the signing, they were committed to spending the money. The problem is now and the next couple of years. Not to concern them about the 40 million down the road when things could drastically change.

 

They will get the best deal they can get that also serves the purpose of saving them money now. They may be willing to take back a bit to get a better return or they could take a lesser return to unload as much cash as possible. There's no need to speculate anything as it's pretty simple logic that if they need money, taking back money is a bad idea (unless there is incentive). And for us, if we can't give back money, then it isn't favourable to us. So worst case scenario for us is they trade him to Boston for a small return because they desperately need the money from a financial decision only (I think this is where I differentiate a business decision as everyone should be wanting to make a decision for their business to succeed, but financials play a part in this decision).

Eriksson's deal already paid his bonus. He's only owed $1m more actual dollars, spread over next season. And then another $4 next year.

 

OEL is still owed $4m this year and $10.5 next.

 

That's a LOT of pretty immediate saving.

 

 

[theo5789]

33 minutes ago, Provost said:

You keep bringing up that our offer doesn’t make sense because Boston could do better.

 

There is no indication that Boston is interested or even a factor in this.  You are negotiating against a bogeyman as pure speculation.  OEL having Boston on his list doesn’t mean they are players in this at all.

 

We make the offer that makes sense for our team, and if it gets beat by some unknown Boston offer, so be it.  No one is arguing otherwise.  You are arguing that our package doesn’t make sense because of an imaginary competing offer.

 

All we have been talking about it how OUR potential offers helps them dramatically, cash flow and business wise.  That is compared with their current situation, what Boston may be capable and willing to do is not a counter argument to that.

Assuming Boston has no interest (which I find absurd considering they need LD with them not extending Krug and may see Chara retire or take a super cheap deal and have the cap to make it work easily), then it becomes a one team only deal, in which case, yes we can bend them over a barrel if they are so desperate to move OEL, which I also don't think is an absolute must. OEL never demanded a trade out, he was requested if he is okay to be moved and he apparently has said yes, but to these two teams only. I think OEL is perfectly fine staying in Arizona and Arizona will keep him if they cannot make a deal work. They could trade Dvorak for a pick/prospect and save 4.5 million just like that and he has no clauses (hell Boston could take both of them and still fit them in the cap space they have left, but who cares about that right?).

 

If we are the only team in the game, then we don't have to pay as high of a price. But with that said, that also doesn't mean we can unload cap dumps on them. That's them taking money back on when they want to free themselves of it. Let's go with the premise of a pick, prospect, player as the return. If that player is Eriksson, then the value of that pick and prospect has to go up. You want to pay a lesser pick/prospect, then the quality of the player goes up. They rather make the deal without Eriksson altogether, so let's not act like we are doing them a favour by offering him, it's still going to cost us in value if he's included.

 

I am arguing that Boston could easily out-bid us in many ways. We paid a 1st for JT Miller because you have to pay to acquire a good asset regardless if it's viewed as a cash/cap dump. We jumped on that deal and TB liked it because it benefitted them. There are always two sides and Benning has said himself that hockey trades are more common nowadays rather than GM's trying to bend one over a barrel.

[Odjick the Warrior]

2 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said:

If there is a trade to be made, Juolevi is going the other way. I guarantee that. I would be more surprised if he WASN'T going the other way.

he most likely will be but Arizona could also like Rathbone or Woo and be scared off by his injury history, I would let Arizona pick 1 of those three because we might all be valuing Juolevi higher then Arizona has him and think they need Rathbone or Woo.

[Barry_Wilkins]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

They had someone else on earlier (maybe Drance?) who said that OEL was a #2.  That makes more sense really, the suggestion was that he was in the 30-40 range of top D.

 

There are competing speculations on his future performance.  On one side, the advanced ranking model that predicts how aging impacts a player says he drops off to a repayment level player late in the contract.  Other folks point to playing on Arizona as suppressing his production and performance, so he could easily be significantly better in Vancouver.  That also holds water, especially if he is on a 2nd pairing and getting easier matchups because of Hughes.

Maybe I'm just being a biased homer, but I'd lean toward the second option. Tocchet's suffocating style must have driven OEL nuts. Aside from stifling his offensive creativity, it certainly must have made him at least a bit unmotivated to come to the rink every day to play yet one more game of boring no-event hockey.

 

Green, OTOH, wants to play an uptempo game, especially from the back end. I think OEL would be a great fit here, with Hughes driving play on one pairing, and OEL on the other top-minute pairing.

[peaches5]

Look at how Boston signs players. I don't see Boston trading for OEL unless salary is retained. You can't be paying Bergeron, Pastrnak and Marchand under 6.9m and then trade for OEL who is making 8.2m. It's a slap in the face to all those guys who took really cheap contracts. Those are basically 3 players who took Mackinnon like contracts.