An Oliver Ekman-Larsson buyout is the only way the Canucks can re-tool the defence

[Ghostsof1915]

5 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Makes no sense imo. Its purely a move for the immediacy.

So it's a perfect Benning style move.

[Ghostsof1915]

19 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Should we just be copy and pasting full articles from for profit websites?

Yes. :D

 

[nergish]

25 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Should we just be copy and pasting full articles from for profit websites?

My posts are always free

Go as far back as you'd like - there's even some bickering about Hunter Shinkaruk vis a vis Markus Granlund.

 

 

 

 

 

I may have even defended the OEL trade...

Edited March 16, 2023 by nergish

[HorvatToBaertschi]

3 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I would pause considering a buyout and hope there's a GM somewhere that values OEL the same way Benning did. 

He has a 2-team trade list that we were a part of with Boston, hence why tons of people were in uproar with what we had to give up, seeing as how Arizona had obviously soured on OEL. Only thing that could happen is for him to waive his full NMC, which is unlikely. 

[DrJockitch]

5 minutes ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

He has a 2-team trade list that we were a part of with Boston, hence why tons of people were in uproar with what we had to give up, seeing as how Arizona had obviously soured on OEL. Only thing that could happen is for him to waive his full NMC, which is unlikely. 

They had soured yeah but the contract was structured to be traded and he had $31.5 M over three years due him as the contract ballooned in the middle. 
They were desperate to get out of that money and we should have been receiving a first or more for taking that contract, not giving one away.  Don’t think there is another GM bad enough in the league to do what Benning did. 

[stawns]

6 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

An Oliver Ekman-Larsson buyout is the only way the Canucks can re-tool the defence (msn.com)

 

Story by Noah Strang, Canucksarmy • Yesterday 3:31 p.m.

 

The Vancouver Canucks are playing well. They’ve won five straight and have a 7-2-1 record over their last ten games, making them one of the hottest teams in the league.

 

There are a lot of factors that the Canucks’ recent stretch of strong play can be attributed to. The return of Thatcher Demko, a soft schedule, and head coach Rick Tocchet having more time to set his systems are definitely all big reasons for the recent winning streak. However, the Canucks have also just flat-out been playing some of their best hockey of the season.

 

This is especially true on the defensive side of things. Since February 20th, a sample size of exactly 10 games, the Canucks rank seventh in the NHL with 2.16 goals against per sixty 5-on-5 minutes. The Canucks also rank in the top ten league-wide for shots against per sixty 5-on-5 minutes and goals against per sixty minutes on the penalty kill over the same time frame.

 

The return of Thatcher Demko, who is playing much better than he did at the start of the season, has definitely helped a ton, but the Canucks are also making life much easier for him. The most shocking part of this may be that the team has posted these impressive defensive results while running with a mishmash defence corps made up of multiple AHL regulars.

 

Quinn Hughes – Noah Juulsen

Guillaume Brisebois – Tyler Myers

Christian Wolanin – Kyle Burroughs

 

The Canucks are rolling out the six players listed above and having more success than ever. The most notable absence is that of Oliver Ekman-Larsson, the veteran defenceman currently missing time with a lower body injury. Despite being paid like a top-pairing defenceman, Ekman-Larsson’s lack of foot speed and quickness has made him a liability and the Canucks have been finding more success with quicker options.

 

If the Canucks want to be competing for a playoff spot next season, and every move made by management suggests that to be true, they need to buyout Ekman-Larsson this offseason. The savings over the next few seasons would help alleviate the team’s cap pressure while perhaps even improving the roster at the same time, as AHL options have shown they can outperform Ekman-Larsson.

 

What would an Oliver Ekman-Larsson buyout look like?

 

If the Canucks were to buy out Ekman-Larsson this offseason, this is how the money would shake out. The team would save just over $7 million in cap space for next season, as well as just under $5 million in the year after that. However, the Canucks would have to take a penalty of $2.126 million each season between 2027-28 and 2030-31.

 

For the current management regime, this has to look enticing. The savings over the next two seasons are huge, giving them a chance to make more moves and manipulate the roster in their vision. If they can’t make progress with that cap space before 2026-27, they might not be around to deal with the headache of the buyout at the end of the decade.

 

Replacing Ekman-Larsson’s production 

 

When the Canucks acquired Ekman-Larsson, it was widely acknowledged that taking on his contract was a huge risk and that he would definitely not be able to live up to that number in the latter years of the deal. However, Ekman-Larsson’s fall from grace has happened more suddenly than even most of the Coyotes/Canucks trade’s harshest critics predicted. This is just his second year with the Canucks and not only has he not played anywhere close to his $7.26 million cap hit, he’s barely been a replacement level defenceman.

 

The Canucks get completely dominated while Ekman-Larsson is on the ice at 5-on-5. He’s got a 38.54 GF% on the year, and the Canucks allow shots at a higher rate with him on the ice compared to any other defenceman that’s played at least 10 games this season. Part of this has to do with the fact that he’s forced to matchup against opponent’s top-six forwards, but players that the Canucks have acquired for practically nothing such as Ethan Bear, Christian Wolanin, and more have done a better job.

 

The Canucks would not struggle to replace Ekman-Larsson’s on-ice production if they were to buy out his contract this offseason. The money could be used to target cheaper, faster, and quicker options that would be able to perform just as well for the Canucks next season. Ekman-Larsson’s speed was already a huge issue and after ageing another year, as well as dealing with this ankle injury, things are not going to be better next season.

 

Planning ahead

 

Another reason why the Canucks would be wise to buy out Ekman-Larsson this offseason is that it maximizes the cap space they can get over the next few seasons. The Canucks have some large extensions on the horizon, most significantly for Elias Pettersson and Filip Hronek who will both need new deals after next season.

 

While buying out Ekman-Larsson won’t be enough alone, it would be a massive step towards clearing the money needed to handle those extensions while also still being able to improve the team.

 

The Canucks can’t afford to keep paying Ekman-Larsson to be a liability on defence. They must get younger and faster and they can do so for much less than the $7 million they’re paying Ekman-Larsson at the moment. While swallowing the $2.126 million for four consecutive seasons after this contract expires is less than ideal, it’s the cheapest way for the Canucks to get out of this sticky situation.

 

And if they hope to compete next season, it’s the only way for them to navigate this situation.

Read that yesterday ........doesn't come across any less stupid here than it did on FB

[Putgolzin]

6 minutes ago, stawns said:

Read that yesterday ........doesn't come across any less stupid here than it did on FB

That's what I thought, but it was presented in such a way that I wondered if I'm not in the minority on this one (or if I'm just straight up wrong).

Alvin has already said he doesn't want to do any buyouts, but I wonder if this is something they've started to actually consider?

Or is it just media/fan conjecture?

[DrJockitch]

3 minutes ago, Putgolzin said:

That's what I thought, but it was presented in such a way that I wondered if I'm not in the minority on this one (or if I'm just straight up wrong).

Alvin has already said he doesn't want to do any buyouts, but I wonder if this is something they've started to actually consider?

Or is it just media/fan conjecture?

Paid 22M for 2 years.  Buyout 19M. So 41M for 2 years here. Don’t think FA is going to swallow that. 
People keep saying the cap increase should cover the buyout costs but nobody thinks about the fact that when the cap goes up so do the player contracts. 
When the cap finally jumps we are going to see some crazy contracts. Wouldn’t be surprised to see Matthews next contract with TO be $15M/year. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by DrJockitch

[Ghostsof1915]

3 minutes ago, Putgolzin said:

That's what I thought, but it was presented in such a way that I wondered if I'm not in the minority on this one (or if I'm just straight up wrong).

Alvin has already said he doesn't want to do any buyouts, but I wonder if this is something they've started to actually consider?

Or is it just media/fan conjecture?

Might be a backup plan given other teams don't seem to be interested in our players. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

 

[HKSR]

17 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Paid 22M for 2 years.  Buyout 19M. So 41M for 2 years here. Don’t think FA is going to swallow that. 
People keep saying the cap increase should cover the buyout costs but nobody thinks about the fact that when the cap goes up so do the player contracts. 
When the cap finally jumps we are going to see some crazy contracts. Wouldn’t be surprised to see Matthews next contract with TO be $15M/year. 

Exactly.  If I were a player agent, I'd be negotiating on % of the cap limit.  If you negotiate in real dollars, you're already setting up your client to leave dollars on the table unless the comparables were really, really recent.

 

[Maniwaki Canuck]

An OEL buyout would be historically large.  They won't do it without being certain that he is permanently as bad as he's looked for most of this year.  If he's been hurt for most of this season, they will know that and cut him some slack.  The first option is still to recuperate some value out of him so I doubt they make any drastic moves before at least trying him on a pairing with Hronek.   It looks like they can be cap compliant for next year without buying him out even if they can't move off of any of our wingers.  The main reason for a buyout would be to go after a free agent D like Gavrikov.  Personally, I'd rather just re-up Wollanin and wait for D-Petey to be ready in 2-3 years. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Maniwaki Canuck

[jyu]

Nice analysis Noah!

 

Initially, I would have said absolutely no way. The team is retooling and 3 seasons later is when we are ready to compete but then we are on the hook for 4+ mil in cap for two seasons and 2+ mil for the following 4 seasons. That's 6 seasons of cap inefficiency just when our window should truly open.

And, I still lean towards no. 

 

But at this point, I'd at least wait to see how much increase in cap we are going to get. If we will have enough space to sign a top 4LD without OEL buyout, I'd do that and just put OEL on the third pairing getting 15 minutes a game and no more than 18 minutes, assuming he is free of injury. He will need a fleet footed partner to help out with puck retrieval. 

 

Also, if the cap increases significantly, maybe the cost to dump his contract on another team gets a bit more palatable. We need to explore every avenue possible to either dump his contract without too much strain on our cap or play him in a situation where he won't be a liability.

 

We can re-sign Wolanin and have Breezer, Wolanin, and OEL share the 3LD position. Reduce the workload on OEL and see how he does, especially if his injury is something that is permanent and at which point, we can put him on the LTIR.

 

Buyout is too terminal. It's like death. Can't be undone... 

[jyu]

58 minutes ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

He has a 2-team trade list that we were a part of with Boston, hence why tons of people were in uproar with what we had to give up, seeing as how Arizona had obviously soured on OEL. Only thing that could happen is for him to waive his full NMC, which is unlikely. 

If the cost were a late 1st, I think that would have been more palatable.

 

It was determined that our pick was 9th overall at the time of the trade. 9th overall don't get traded around these days unless you are getting back a player in his prime.

 

We had 12 mil coming off our books if we waited one season and with COVID cap crunch, we would have been able to acquire good players cheaply.

 

A short sighted move that got extremely worse because OEL has physically deteriorated more than initially imagined. 

 

[HKSR]

Buying out OEL is not the ONLY way to revamp the D core.  The other way is to unload 2 players -- Myers and one of Boeser/Garland.

 

Trading Myers and Boeser/Garland gives us over $10M in cap space next year and ~$5M in each of the following 2 seasons.  That includes major increases for Petey, Kuzmenko, and Hronek.  As well as a UFA signing of Gavrikov at $4.5M AAV.

 

Personally I think OEL would be a very effective blueliner if he were playing only 10 to 12min a night.  No different than how effective Erik Johnson has been on the 3rd pair in COL making $6M per year.  Of course he's overpaid, but if you're replacing OEL with Brisebois or another player, you really should be adding the cap hit from the buyout to the replacement player's cap hit.  So is OEL at $7.26M that much worse than a $1M AAV 3LHD at the following cap hits for the next 4 years?

 

2023-24 - $1.1M

2024-25 - $3.3M

2025-26 - $5.8M

2026-27 - $5.8M

 

That's the true cost of a replacement 3LHD for OEL over the next 4 years. 

 

Personally, I rather keep OEL knowing we have depth guys that could step up at any point if needed.  Who knows, if Erik Karlsson can find his game again, why can't OEL find his defensive game again?  That's all we really need.  A reliable defensive LHD.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by HKSR

[DrJockitch]

I think CA’s analysis quality has been slipping. They are less vitriol now but less analysis too.  

‘You are writing an article about buying out OEL but only discuss one option. 
‘What does the buyout look like next year or the year after when the ballooning part of his contract is paid. 
The buyout this season is least likely option.  It is too much money period. $40M for 2 years of work is not something FA is likely to sign off on. 
‘My expectation is he will be back, see how he looks healthy in Tocchet’s system, hopefully with a better partner. At this point most likely seems OEL-Bear as second pairing but college UFAs and the rest of the off-season may change that.

‘I know everyone thinks they are going to saddle Hronek with him but they didn’t burn that many assets for Hronek if they weren’t expecting him to play with Q. 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, cocanuck said:

He wont retire and much like all others on the blueline he had no chance playing against other teams top players with the teams defensive structure and no help from the forwards.  He is still a good player that will be fine when healthy and with the team playing better defensively as a whole.  Cant afford to buy him out.  Coaching can make a huge difference for his play

Maybe OEL gets healthy and fit enough to play on our second pairing and be carried by Hronek? He could play PK too. Then next summer, when Hronek is do his new contract we buyout OEL?

 

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I think CA’s analysis quality has been slipping. They are less vitriol now but less analysis too.  

‘You are writing an article about buying out OEL but only discuss one option. 
‘What does the buyout look like next year or the year after when the ballooning part of his contract is paid. 
The buyout this season is least likely option.  It is too much money period. $40M for 2 years of work is not something FA is likely to sign off on. 
‘My expectation is he will be back, see how he looks healthy in Tocchet’s system, hopefully with a better partner. At this point most likely seems OEL-Bear as second pairing but college UFAs and the rest of the off-season may change that.

‘I know everyone thinks they are going to saddle Hronek with him but they didn’t burn that many assets for Hronek if they weren’t expecting him to play with Q. 

Hronek with Hughes would be one of the best D pairs on the league. Heck, Hughes with Bear was very good too. Hughes with AHL D works. Hughes is an amazing player. If Hronek anchors our second pairing then we have one of those two on the ice for 50 minutes. 
I wonder how many minutes OEL can manage? 15? 

[Fanuck]

OEL had a couple very good seasons under Tocchet. 

Granted that was a few years ago, but perhaps a full season of good health and actual 'team structure' with the new coaching staff (including Foote) could prove beneficial to his game.  Find him an actual NHL defenceman who will be responsible in his own end to pair him with and don't play him every single shift against McJesus/MacKinnon/Raantanen/Crosby/Kuch/ect.... then after one or two more seasons, his buyout is way, way more realistic. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Fanuck said:

OEL had a couple very good seasons under Tocchet. 

Granted that was a few years ago, but perhaps a full season of good health and actual 'team structure' with the new coaching staff (including Foote) could prove beneficial to his game.  Find him an actual NHL defenceman who will be responsible in his own end to pair him with and don't play him every single shift against McJesus/MacKinnon/Raantanen/Crosby/Kuch/ect.... then after one or two more seasons, his buyout is way, way more realistic. 

We have a great player now in Hronek to carry OEL on our second pairing. 

[iinatcc]

1 hour ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

He has a 2-team trade list that we were a part of with Boston, hence why tons of people were in uproar with what we had to give up, seeing as how Arizona had obviously soured on OEL. Only thing that could happen is for him to waive his full NMC, which is unlikely. 

Unless Benning returns to Boston ?