iinatcc Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 19 minutes ago, Pure961089 said: I hated the idea of letting Garland go for peanuts. Now they can talk to teams on equal footing. The Canucks areabetter team with Garland in the lineup on the third line. Him and Beauvillier. Management picked the one choice that hurt the team the least. This is the thing Canucks again with freeing up cap space. Leverage. I was thinking Canucks would have to give up an asset to trade Garland or get basically nothing. Now the team can actually get something for him if they decide to trade him 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 43 minutes ago, Hockey God said: This management group would blow my mind if they now sign OEL as a free agent for veteran league minimum salary, whatever that is. Moneyball, hockey-style. You can't re-sign a person you've bought out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) This just popped up on my Google news feed... OEL to shore up their "right side". Edited June 17 by coryberg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 53 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said: What's irritating - as in the clip - is this panel. Started off rational, grounded, but ended playing both sides in alarmism for views. You know when OEL joined the team people here kept saying his contact is not that bad and scoffed at the local media when they said OEL is a future buy out candidate. I think we have to give the media and analyst more credit even if they are quite alarmist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, dougieL said: This interview just keeps getting better with age Daniel: "Talking to Oliver, he took full responsibility for the last couple years." Mgmt: That statement is literally meaningless. Daniel: "He loves the pressure of being 'the guy'." Mgmt: He's not 'the guy'. Daniel: "He'll do anything to help the team win." Mgmt: He does less than nothing Mgmt: (*clicks "buyout player"*) He's six foot five measured. He's got a good looking body. It's what you want. Edited June 17 by Kevin Biestra 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, dougieL said: This interview just keeps getting better with age Daniel: "Talking to Oliver, he took full responsibility for the last couple years." Mgmt: That statement is literally meaningless. Daniel: "He loves the pressure of being 'the guy'." Mgmt: He's not 'the guy'. Daniel: "He'll do anything to help the team win." Mgmt: He does less than nothing Mgmt: (*clicks "buyout player"*) Seeing as its the 20th time you have brought it up? Definitely not better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 If only FA had allowed buying out LE, likely the Canucks would not have gotten OEL and Garland. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 6 minutes ago, BPA said: If only FA had allowed buying out LE, likely the Canucks would not have gotten OEL and Garland. Or wait another year for those contacts to expire 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 3 minutes ago, iinatcc said: Or wait another year for those contacts to expire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 59 minutes ago, Pure961089 said: I hated the idea of letting Garland go for peanuts. Now they can talk to teams on equal footing. The Canucks areabetter team with Garland in the lineup on the third line. Him and Beauvillier. Management picked the one choice that hurt the team the least. Very good point. hopefully this move may give them some leverage going forward I like garland on the 3rd line cause he drives play on his own, but like you said those 2 are the most likely to go around the draft 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey God Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said: You can't re-sign a person you've bought out. Wasn't that only for the compliance buyouts of the past? Wouldn't stop them from trying it in a year's time, then. Plug in a returning Schenn for a year, bring back OEL after that if he heals up and shows he can still go, and boom, big brain move! Just trying to make sense of this ... Edited June 17 by Hockey God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Oh boy this is massive. I joked about an OEL buyout at the end of the year, obviously the short-term cap savings are nice, those 2 years at 4.7ishM hurt us big time, especially because we'll have some big contracts in place then too (the Petey extension as well), but we can cope with the 2M cap hit at the end of the deal. I'm very surprised by this knee-jerk reaction by PA. I thought OEL really deserved 1 year without an injury with these good defensive coaches to see what he could do. We desperately needed 1, maybe 2 top-4 defencemen this off-season, not to lose one. Going forward now, we're in a real mess. I guess every team has dead cap and we'd just lost all of ours so it's about managing it - we can't add to it and retain on trades (eg. Myers, Garland) so we have to sit with the OEL dead cap and really not add to it. This move tells us we want to fix the D so that is promising, I'd have been happy going into next season with OEL as our bottom pairing LD but not 2nd pairing guy. Obviously now we need a rock solid relatively young LD to play 20-22 minutes to take some pressure off Quinn. Whether that's a free agent (Graves?) or via trade (Hanifin, Marcus Pettersson), we have to be active now. Makes me wonder if Allvin already has something in place... Next season we have cap to play with, looking I suppose Allvin thinks we'll have some big contracts off the board (Boeser, Myers) which is where OEL's buyout really hurts us, but we have to replace these guys and if we're trading picks away, it's not going to be cheaply coming from within. I'm not overly mad with the move but the follow up moves will determine whether this was worth it or not. Right now we have Hughes, Hronek, 1 year of Myers left aaaand that's our defence. We need 1 top-4 defenceman to be considered an NHL team. We need 2 top-4 defencemen if we want to be talking playoffs. Myers for me right now is a 5th guy at best and doesn't crack any playoff top-4. As it stands I suppose Hirose or Rathbone is starting at 3rd pairing LD with Myers but there's an entire top-4 pairing missing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Just watch some team sign him for like 2-3M and he go on to be a great defenceman for them and drop 20+ minutes, 20-30 points. It'd be too funny if it's Edmonton or Calgary. He's really not a bad defenceman, just a bad contract, and would be a great 5th defenceman pick up for any team. Obviously we saw how bad and slow he was but he's only 30 - we've seen guys like Burns and Karlsson re-start their careers, I think OEL will too just to spite us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 12 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: The management team better not f**king complain when they find they're out of f**king cap space in a few years - all because of this f**king short-sighted move. The cap penalties over the coming years will not be felt as strongly as people worry about. You will see a sharp increase in cap over a few years coming very soon. Its not a problem it just optically doesn't look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 31 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said: Oh boy this is massive. I joked about an OEL buyout at the end of the year, obviously the short-term cap savings are nice, those 2 years at 4.7ishM hurt us big time, especially because we'll have some big contracts in place then too (the Petey extension as well), but we can cope with the 2M cap hit at the end of the deal. Yep so management has to be careful (and luck) in managing the next 4 years. The hope is that you can get someone in a D for a 2 or 3 year contract (if that is even possible lol) and maybe some D-prospect emerges as an NHL caliber d-man within 2 to 3 years so he can be can be paid with this ELC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 15 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said: Just watch some team sign him for like 2-3M and he go on to be a great defenceman for them and drop 20+ minutes, 20-30 points. It'd be too funny if it's Edmonton or Calgary. He's really not a bad defenceman, just a bad contract, and would be a great 5th defenceman pick up for any team. Obviously we saw how bad and slow he was but he's only 30 - we've seen guys like Burns and Karlsson re-start their careers, I think OEL will too just to spite us. A 5th defenseman he is. Actually that's how folks in the Coyotes media saw him (4th and 5th dman). But of course Benning, in his infinite wisdom, said in the media he saw OEL as a top pairing dman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 12 hours ago, Coconuts said: Gross, shades of the Dickinson trade. Should have given him at least another season to see if he could bounce back. We could not afford to keep him, apart from the fact that he was an awful defenceman. So long as we were the only team over the cap, no-one was willing to throw Vancouver a lifeline - the rest of the predators in the league wanted to take advantage of Vancouver’s vulnerability. Management tried to trade Benning’s other overpaid mistakes: Myers, Garland, Etc., but there is no market for them when Vancouver is desperate. In the NHL if team’s can get something for nothing; they’ll take it. Now that Vancouver is under the cap, they will be in a position to gain some kind of return. To give OEL another year of being awful just condemns Vancouver to another year of misery. I presume that most fans want the Canucks to succeed, it appears that ownership and management are willing to part with 20 million bucks in order to do that - I’m sure that such a decision was made only because no other alternative was available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 The replies on here are pretty funny… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 35 minutes ago, iinatcc said: Yep so management has to be careful (and luck) in managing the next 4 years. The hope is that you can get someone in a D for a 2 or 3 year contract (if that is even possible lol) and maybe some D-prospect emerges as an NHL caliber d-man within 2 to 3 years so he can be can be paid with this ELC. Problem is...we don't have any good D prospects really. Elias Pettersson? Maybe, but he's far from elite, he's a former 3rd rounder. Maybe if they take a defenceman with our 11OA pick, one of ASP, Willander or Reinbacher could probably be an NHL defenceman in 3 years but that's a heck of a gamble. We'll have to be very careful with our cap during the 4+M dead cap years and hope we have a lot of ELCs going then, but that would equate to draftees last year/this year and we don't have that many top end picks to really justify that (because we traded them away lol). For example, if we had 2 firsts and a 2nd this year, surely one or two of them would be NHL-worthy and on a cheap ELC during the 4.5M OEL buyout years. Just going to have to be very careful cap wise going forward. I think once Boeser and Myers' deals are up we'll see some big changes too but don't forget that big fat Petey extension coming up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post DeltaSwede Posted June 17 Popular Post Share Posted June 17 I think you have to ignore the Benning era when making a judgment here. The current management group inherited the player and the contract. I put 0 blame on them for the cap penalty. Benning should have never made that trade to begin with. We've heard of the Canucks being one of the busier teams in the league in the trade market and I really believe they exhausted all other avenues before arriving at this point. I can't blame them for improving the team. They've put in work. So far I've mostly been happy with the moves and players they've brought in. Even if they opened up some cap space, they've coincidentally added more pressure to themselves constructing a roster. From what they've shown so far, I've got confidence in them being able to work around it. Hopefully this forces a continued emphasis on getting younger (and also cheaper). 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now