Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

If the Canucks Can't move Eriksson look for them to buy out these 2 players......And some other thoughts

Rate this topic


Arrow 1983
 Share

Should the Canucks stay the course   

58 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I have search and I have not been able to find out if there is a new buyout period for this season. As the league was suspended during the original buyout period I would assume that there will be a new one prior to the NHL draft. If I'm right I believe they could or should buy out Ferland and Roussel and I am positive that this sounds crazy at first glance so let me explain.

 

Ferland (cap hit 3.50mill) has 3 years remaining and is due no bonuses in those 3 years and has been paid 4.5mill in the first season. He is owed 9.5 million of 14million contract. If he where to be bought out this year it would be spread out over 6 years for a total of 6.333 million. This year would cost the Canucks 1.5555 million instead of 3.5mill on the cap and next year would only cost them .805mill on the cap the year they have to re-sign Hughes and Pettersson. After those two seasons they get Eriksson Luongo cap hits 9mil+ off the books and owe Ferlend 1.055mill on the cap over the next 4 seasons.

 

Roussel (cap hit 3.0mill) has 2 years remaining and is due no signing. He is owed 4.4mill. If bought out this year 2.9333mill would be spread out over 4 seasons. This season cap hit would be 1.233mill the next season after 1.833mill and the next 2 season would be .733mill.

 

So what does it all add up to, this seasons total for the 2 players would be 2.788 million instead of 6.5mill a savings of 3.712mill. Next season saving (Hughes and Pettersson re-sighing year) 2.638mill a savings of 3.862 mill. Then 2 years of 1.788mill a cap cost of 1.788 and 2 years at 1.055mill a cap cost of 1.055mill. Taking into account that Spooner's cap hit of 1.033mill comes off at the end of this coming next season and Eriksson and Luongo's come off the season after this scenario doesn't look as crazy as it did at the start of the post IMO.

 

What I think the team Should look like next season and Why

 

Forwards

 

Miller 5.25  Pettersson 0.925 Toffoli 5.25 (4-6 years)

Pearson 3.75  Horvat 5.50 Boeser 5.875

 

Bottom six in any possible order

Hoglander 0.891 (Eriksson AHL if Hoglander wins a spot (Eriksson NHL salary 4.925)) Gaudette 1.250 (2 years ?) Virtanen 2.75 (2 years ?)

Motte .975 (2-3 years)   Beagle 3.00  Sutter 4.375

MacEwen .925 (1-2 years)

 

Defence

 

Hughes 0.916  Tanev 5.00 (4-5 years)

Edler 6.0  Myers 6.00

Benn 2.00 and 2 of (Juolevi 0.863 Rafferty 0.700 Rathbone 0.925)

 

Goalies

 

Demko 1.050

Crawford 2.250 (2 years) Meets expansion draft requirement 

 

Other Cap hits

 

Baertschi  NHL cap hit 2.291

 

Luongo cap recovery 3.035

 

Buy outs 

Spooner 1.033

Ferland  1.555

Roussel  1.233

 

Cap overages from bonuses 1.700

 

Total Cap Hit  81,270,767

Cap Space 229,233

 

Not much of a change from last season other then the losses of Marky and Stecher and in coming of Hoglander if he can make the team and 2 rookie dmen. Some might ask why is this ok. My response is simple first, flat cap most of the competitive teams are in Cap trouble and will not be as good as they where this year due to it and if you disagree with this at least I can not see them getting better. Second, I would consider Toffoli an addition this coming season and one that I would consider a better addition then some other UFA as we already can see he has chemistry with the rest of the team.

 

Third, a lot will disagree with me about the loss of Marky but the truth is he was going to be hard to re-sign prior to covid and I would say almost impossible to re-sign now without dismantle more of the current team. Furthermore, this decision is going to have to be made now or next season with the expansion draft coming. Demkos next contract is most likely to be a better cap hit then Markys this just makes it easier to decide now with the flat cap. Plus why dismantle more of the team If down the road Marky is the one they are going to get rid of anyways. It really comes down to this if they are going to sign Marky Benning really has to trade Demko now well his stock is high because as Markys back-up his stock will just start to decrease. 

 

Forth and most important, to re-sign Hughes and Pettersson the Canucks are going to have to have cheap options on defense and forward we need to keep introducing young players into the lineup and having 2 of Juolevi, Rafferty, or Rathbone make the team as 6th and 7th defensemen gives them a spot to play and the experience in the NHL they need and the 3rd one out is the first call up. Hughes is the clear predecessor to Edler but this team needs a 2nd pairing left hand Defenseman after next season. On forward we can slot Holglander in on the left side, the Canucks need to do this so when Pearson is lost after next season we have someone to fill that left wing spot.

 

The importance to all this is to insure the rebuild stays on track Benning has drafted well. Now is the time to slot guys in get them experience and let older and more expensive vets go. This year it is Marky next year it will be Edler, Sutter and Pearson. This year coming in will be Juolevi, Rafferty, Rathbone hopefully (1-2 of these guys can stick) on forward Hoglander next year Podkolzin, year after Dipietro. They sign Tanev and Toffoli because they fill roles now that no one else can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Arrow 1983
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'd put those at about option(s) #?   8?  13?  I dunno - way down the list of preferred alternatives imo.

 

I'd look at moving players long before buyouts.  my 2 c.

Moving players with a flat cap is going to be difficult and this is not just a flat cap this is total uncertainty I think this is the only option that Benning can truly control and Ownership would still have to agree to it. Plus by signing the teams own free agents it allows Benning to control the teams internal cap structure. If he throws 9mill at a certain defenseman that is the starting point for Hughes and Pettersson. IMO Hughes number is about 8mill as a campareable to Thomas Chabot  and I can see Hughes And Pettersson signing similar deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mll said:

The buyout period opens on 25 September and will close on 8 October - 1 day before the opening of free agency.

 

It's not possible to buy out injured players and Ferland might still be considered injured.  

Thanks for the info, where did you find it

 

I thought there was talk that had the Canucks made it to the next round he could have been back so I was kind of figuring he be buyout eligible 

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We only have a specific buyout window, you can’t buy out an injured player without their permission and I don’t think Ferland will be cleared by the time the window closes.  It is also not really that much savings to the cap, and adds a lot of cap in future years.
 

We could also end up locking in a cap hit for the buyout that we would otherwise have available if he was on LTIR instead... which is probable given the recent history.  The only benefit to buying him out is that LTIR space can’t be used to pay ELC bonuses.  Ferland is probably one of the least likely guys to be bought out this year I think.  A retained salary transaction or burying his cap in the minors (when he isn’t on his NMC) seems to save us about as much cap space without the pain of adding buyout cap hits for 6 years.

 

Similar with Roussel.  We save about $700k more on the cap this season by buying him out compared with demoting him.  Next season a buyout costs us just as much cap as demoting him.  It doesn’t give us much flexibility and comes at a price of extra buyout costs going forward.  To me it would be way down the list of choices if we aren’t able to move cap hits in other ways.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Moving players with a flat cap is going to be difficult and this is not just a flat cap this is total uncertainty I think this is the only option that Benning can truly control and Ownership would still have to agree to it. Plus by signing the teams own free agents it allows Benning to control the teams internal cap structure. If he throws 9mill at a certain defenseman that is the starting point for Hughes and Pettersson. IMO Hughes number is about 8mill as a campareable to Thomas Chabot  and I can see Hughes And Pettersson signing similar deals.

There are various options - players that are moveable, players that are borderline moveable, players that would cost assets to move.

You can debate where each falls in that scheme, but buyouts would fall beneath about a half dozen of those options, imo. 

The market is just starting to be tested/set.   That comes before buyouts.

And I'm not convinced yet that you'd have to buy Roussel out - you don't yet know the cost, if any, of moving him.  Where does his value fall in the moveable, borderline moveable, cost to move scale?  You don't know that, so buying him out is premature to that assessment.   What if it took a late pick for Ottawa to take him - or both him and Benn - serviceable enough veterans.   I think you have the cart ahead of the horse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, oldnews said:

There are various options - players that are moveable, players that are borderline moveable, players that would cost assets to move.

You can debate where each falls in that scheme, but buyouts would fall beneath about a half dozen of those options, imo. 

The market is just starting to be tested/set.   That comes before buyouts.

And I'm not convinced yet that you'd have to buy Roussel out - you don't yet know the cost, if any, of moving him.  Where does his value fall in the moveable, borderline moveable, cost to move scale?  You don't know that, so buying him out is premature to that assessment.   What if it took a late pick for Ottawa to take him - or both him and Benn - serviceable enough veterans.   I think you have the cart ahead of the horse.

 

 

I do not disagree with you at all really my post is an alternative to everything else out there. IMO if the team has to loss a draft pick or any prospect to move a player I would choose buyout. I posted this because after scrolling through all the teams on  capfriendly there is only three teams that is going to take bad contracts OTT as you have mentioned but we all ready know there motive is to have high cap hits with little money remaining Eriksson fits that Roussel not so much and it will cost the Canucks then there is NJ and Det. There is also 15 other teams that need or would want to dump cap and they have 1st round draft picks this year. The question then becomes who is the Canucks fan base willing to let go of and would it be enough. So lets play that game for a second Juolevi has lost some love here how about him is he enough maybe maybe not about throw in a 3rd round pick this season or a second next season to much now. My post is just an alternative. We also have to remember Ferland is Damage goods and Roussels not much better.

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Moving players with a flat cap is going to be difficult and this is not just a flat cap this is total uncertainty I think this is the only option that Benning can truly control and Ownership would still have to agree to it. Plus by signing the teams own free agents it allows Benning to control the teams internal cap structure. If he throws 9mill at a certain defenseman that is the starting point for Hughes and Pettersson. IMO Hughes number is about 8mill as a campareable to Thomas Chabot  and I can see Hughes And Pettersson signing similar deals.

 

Somehow, I don't think the owner would be happy about always paying high to bring in multiple players each year on long contracts, and the next year talk of buying them out or adding picks or prospects

 

Thomas Chabot signed his contract BEFORE covid, when revenues were expected to GROW each year  so I don't see it as a comparable

Those contracts were also based on revenue over 42 home games and hopefully playoffs

These are still restricted free agents and the rich owners will look at income coming in before paying out imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

 

Somehow, I don't think the owner would be happy about always paying high to bring in multiple players each year on long contracts, and the next year talk of buying them out or adding picks or prospects

 

Thomas Chabot signed his contract BEFORE covid, when revenues were expected to GROW each year  so I don't see it as a comparable

Those contracts were also based on revenue over 42 home games and hopefully playoffs

These are still restricted free agents and the rich owners will look at income coming in before paying out imo

The most likely scenario the contract dollars are going to stay the same but they will be pro-rated to revenues for the next couple seasons so really its not a flat cap but a over inflated one. All the players salaries if they play next season will be pro-rated if they can not play in front of fans IMO it is pretty simple to figure it out the only question is do the players want to make some or nothing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

 

Somehow, I don't think the owner would be happy about always paying high to bring in multiple players each year on long contracts, and the next year talk of buying them out or adding picks or prospects

 

Thomas Chabot signed his contract BEFORE covid, when revenues were expected to GROW each year  so I don't see it as a comparable

Those contracts were also based on revenue over 42 home games and hopefully playoffs

These are still restricted free agents and the rich owners will look at income coming in before paying out imo

Hughes is better then Chabot IMO but he will give a home town discount

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I do not disagree with you at all really my post is an alternative to everything else out there. IMO if the team has to loss a draft pick or any prospect to move a player I would chose buyout. I posted this because after scrolling through all the teams on  capfriendly there is only three teams that is going to take bad contracts OTT as you have mentioned but we all ready know there motive is to have high cap hits with little money remaining Eriksson fits that Roussel not so much and it will cost the Canucks then there is NJ and Det. There is also 15 other teams that need or would want to dump cap and they have 1st round draft picks this year. The question then becomes who is the Canucks fan base will to let go of and would it be enough. So lets play that game for a second Juolevi has lost some love here how about him his he enough maybe maybe not about throw in a 3rd round pick this season or a second next season to much now. My post is just an alternative. We also have to remember Ferland is Damage goods and Roussels not much better.

is the question whether I'd give up Juolevi to create cap space? 

no, I would not.

I've gone into this elsewhere - but the asset cost to move players like Roussel and Benn would be significantly less, if not a fraction - if a cost at all - and alone nearly sufficient to create the needed cap this offseason.

If you are talking about moving Eriksson - then you have to consider that asset cost alongside the alternatives - ie if it cost you Gaudette, or a 1st, or Juolevi - how do you value those players relative to moving a tradeable asset - ie Pearson, who combined with assigning LE to the minors gives you comparable cap flexibility to moving LE - and more than your multiple buyout proposal, which leaves the team with lingering cap penalties into the future.

Juolevi no.  Gaudette maybe.  However, neither of those are determined to be necessary at this point - ie if they spent marginal assets to move Roussel, Benn, and assigned LE - is that better than the higher cost of dumping Eriksson outright.

 

And my ace in the hole would be this - given the team can create this cap flexibility via other means - that essentially means that they could simply inform Eriksson that there will be no trades - no considerable assets spent to enable him to play elsewhere - the team is taking other means, in their best interest, at lower asset cost, and will be assigning him to the AHL - so prepare to ride busses for a few years.

At which point Eriksson has to ask himself this - is it worth it to hold out for what he is owed over the next couple years in salary (minus the bonus already past), or does it make more sense for him to mutually agree to terminate, and then sign a deal elsewhere, at a reasonable cap hit - possibly in the range of money he left on the table, or possibly lower, but how much?  If he can't find that kind of offer in free agency, then perhaps he's prepared to realize that he is a 15th forward here, and possibly not a top 12 anywhere....does he really want to stick it out under those circumstances?  Does he want to ride AHL busses?   Most veterans that performed at the level he once did - do not want to toil at this stage of their career, in the AHL.  Most retire when they reach that reality.

Edited by oldnews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, oldnews said:

is the question whether I'd give up Juolevi to create cap space? 

no, I would not.

I've gone into this elsewhere - but the asset cost to move players like Roussel and Benn would be significantly less, if not a fraction - if a cost at all - and alone nearly sufficient to create the needed cap this offseason.

If you are talking about moving Eriksson - then you have to consider that asset cost alongside the alternatives - ie if it cost you Gaudette, or a 1st, or Juolevi - how do you value those players relative to moving a tradeable asset - ie Pearson, who combined with assigning LE to the minors gives you comparable cap flexibility to moving LE - and more than your multiple buyout proposal, which leaves the team with lingering cap penalties into the future.

Juolevi no.  Gaudette maybe.  However, neither of those are determined to be necessary at this point - ie if they spent marginal assets to move Roussel, Benn, and assigned LE - is that better than the higher cost of dumping Eriksson outright.

 

And my ace in the hole would be this - given the team can create this cap flexibility via other means - that essentially means that they could simply inform Eriksson that there will be no trades - no considerable assets spent to enable him to play elsewhere - the team is taking other means, in their best interest, at lower asset cost, and will be assigning him to the AHL - so prepare to ride busses for a few years.

At which point Eriksson has to ask himself this - is it worth it to hold out for the 3.6 in salary he is owed over the next couple years, or does it make more sense for him to mutually agree to terminate, and then sign a deal elsewhere, at a reasonable cap hit - possibly in the range of money he left on the table (ie. 1.8 million per).  If he can't find that kind of offer in free agency, then perhaps he's prepared to realize that he is a 15th forward here, and possibly not a top 12 anywhere....does he really want to stick it out under those circumstances?  Does he want to ride AHL busses?   Most veterans that performed at the level he once did - do not want to toil at this stage of their career, in the AHL.  Most retire when they reach that reality.

I hope Eriksson retires to however, that said I still would buyout Ferland and Roussel if no other alterative was remaining and here is why

The Canucks would still be holding 6.5mill after next season if you can not trade them this season and it cost them a higher cap hit if they where to buy them out after next season. Getting rid of both plus Eriksson gives the Canucks even more flexibility after next season and truly this is all about next season. Benn means nothing to me he is gone after next season so is Sutter. I would never argue with anyone if you can trade Roussel or even Ferland and it cost the Canucks nothing then absolutely do it. But not at the cost of picks or prospects.

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, oldnews said:

is the question whether I'd give up Juolevi to create cap space? 

no, I would not.

I've gone into this elsewhere - but the asset cost to move players like Roussel and Benn would be significantly less, if not a fraction - if a cost at all - and alone nearly sufficient to create the needed cap this offseason.

If you are talking about moving Eriksson - then you have to consider that asset cost alongside the alternatives - ie if it cost you Gaudette, or a 1st, or Juolevi - how do you value those players relative to moving a tradeable asset - ie Pearson, who combined with assigning LE to the minors gives you comparable cap flexibility to moving LE - and more than your multiple buyout proposal, which leaves the team with lingering cap penalties into the future.

Juolevi no.  Gaudette maybe.  However, neither of those are determined to be necessary at this point - ie if they spent marginal assets to move Roussel, Benn, and assigned LE - is that better than the higher cost of dumping Eriksson outright.

 

And my ace in the hole would be this - given the team can create this cap flexibility via other means - that essentially means that they could simply inform Eriksson that there will be no trades - no considerable assets spent to enable him to play elsewhere - the team is taking other means, in their best interest, at lower asset cost, and will be assigning him to the AHL - so prepare to ride busses for a few years.

At which point Eriksson has to ask himself this - is it worth it to hold out for what he is owed over the next couple years in salary (minus the bonus already past), or does it make more sense for him to mutually agree to terminate, and then sign a deal elsewhere, at a reasonable cap hit - possibly in the range of money he left on the table, or possibly lower, but how much?  If he can't find that kind of offer in free agency, then perhaps he's prepared to realize that he is a 15th forward here, and possibly not a top 12 anywhere....does he really want to stick it out under those circumstances?  Does he want to ride AHL busses?   Most veterans that performed at the level he once did - do not want to toil at this stage of their career, in the AHL.  Most retire when they reach that reality.

What if there is no AHL for a few years? what then?

Still to be determined of playing NHL, AHL, Jr Leagues, or on how the league will allow players who would have been shipped down that isn't actually playing or existing

 Maybe they pretend to still send them down and have teams pick up players on waivers still ? 

If players are sent down to a league not actually playing , do they still pay that player, not playing any games?

I don't ever recall hearing these answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Provost said:

We only have a specific buyout window, you can’t buy out an injured player without their permission and I don’t think Ferland will be cleared by the time the window closes.  It is also not really that much savings to the cap, and adds a lot of cap in future years.
 

We could also end up locking in a cap hit for the buyout that we would otherwise have available if he was on LTIR instead... which is probable given the recent history.  The only benefit to buying him out is that LTIR space can’t be used to pay ELC bonuses.  Ferland is probably one of the least likely guys to be bought out this year I think.  A retained salary transaction or burying his cap in the minors (when he isn’t on his NMC) seems to save us about as much cap space without the pain of adding buyout cap hits for 6 years.

 

Similar with Roussel.  We save about $700k more on the cap this season by buying him out compared with demoting him.  Next season a buyout costs us just as much cap as demoting him.  It doesn’t give us much flexibility and comes at a price of extra buyout costs going forward.  To me it would be way down the list of choices if we aren’t able to move cap hits in other ways.

If I bury them my roster is over the cap by 1.3million

 

my point is not to make my roster work but to point out that every cent matters in a cap era you steal from the future to make the present work and and make the future cap work when the future is the present in 2 years you do not have the Eriksson contract or Luongo recapture to deal with. Ever team plays the cap like this it is not a new theory 

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ba;;isticsports said:

What if there is no AHL for a few years? what then?

Still to be determined of playing NHL, AHL, Jr Leagues, or on how the league will allow players who would have been shipped down that isn't actually playing or existing

 Maybe they pretend to still send them down and have teams pick up players on waivers still ? 

If players are sent down to a league not actually playing , do they still pay that player, not playing any games?

I don't ever recall hearing these answers?

No fans in the stand will probably mean no games for any hockey league 

 

The Playoffs work for then NHL because the players do not get payed their salary salary is based on regular season. The Players agreed to play my guess is that with out playoff revenue from TV they would have lost all their escrow

 

NFL has huge TV dollars their gate Admission is secondary revenue

 

NHL Gate admission is King and TV dollars are Secondary Revenue

 

I think I once read and i will try to find the article for most teams in the NHL 70-80 percent of all revenue is from gate admission 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

No fans in the stand will probably mean no games for any hockey league 

 

The Playoffs work for then NHL because the players do not get payed their salary salary is based on regular season. The Players agreed to play my guess is that with out playoff revenue from TV they would have lost all their escrow

 

NFL has huge TV dollars their gate Admission is secondary revenue

 

NHL Gate admission is King and TV dollars are Secondary Revenue

 

I think I once read and i will try to find the article for most teams in the NHL 70-80 percent of all revenue is from gate admission 

That's the AHL figure 

 

The NHL figure is 36.6% for 2019.  See:

 

https://novacapsfans.com/2020/05/13/how-much-money-does-an-nhl-home-game-generate

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...