[News] Canucks to buyout OEL

[keenan87]

Sign him to a 1 year deal in Calgary and trade him at the deadline.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Sign him to a 1 year deal in Calgary and trade him at the deadline.

Good lord. To whom? For what??

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Good lord. To whom? For what??

You hope he rebounds a little bit and hope to pick up a 3rd at the deadline when teams go bananas to pick up depth dman for a playoff run.

[Galakanokis]

Ha ha ha. Still one of the funniest things the canucks have ever done. They had one year left on the three bad contracts they shipped out for Garland and OEL. One year and they would have been free and clear of bad contracts and in a great spot to rebuild. Now this. Such a poorly run team. It's awesome.

[Tkachukwagon]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1669798880475488271

[Blaster86]

Copying and pasting from the other thread.

This is super questionable, since if they waited one more year the buy out was a lot more palatable long term.

But they tried to move Boeser, Garland and Myers and the only offers they got back were "Sure, what will you give us for it?" which just doesn't work either.

His first season in Vancouver was good. His second season was an unmitigated disaster as he apparently never got into an NHL game shape after the foot injury at the Worlds. The original plan was to see if he could bounce back in the third season, but I guess there was no other way to get cap space without giving up assets.

Wanting assets for Boeser or Myers tracks but I think teams passing on Garland will regret that. Guy is still a 5on5 machine and could have been had for the cheap. Asking for assets on top was just silly.

One addendum to the above: The apparent justification for the buy out is that the expected cap in the coming years would offset the two big buy out years. While this may be true, the reality is that they tried everything else to stay afloat and only got offered anchors.

[Jordan!]

HAHA, Stupid Canucks.. one of the worst deals ever.

[bluejays]

Remember a couple seasons ago he was the hot commodity? Every GM was licking their chops to get at that flavour of the month? Well, once again age showed it’s true colours. Gentle reminder to acknowledge age hits most players and you should avoid media hype over most.

[Sandman]

He was in the Conversation for the Norris for a few years....

[868904]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Remember a couple seasons ago he was the hot commodity? Every GM was licking their chops to get at that flavour of the month? Well, once again age showed it’s true colours. Gentle reminder to acknowledge age hits most players and you should avoid media hype over most.

I think you are exaggerating a bit. Reports were only Benning and Treliving were interested. OEL wanted to go to Boston but they didn’t seem that interested.

He was not a hot commodity. Canucks fans were livid when that trade went down.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by 868904

I think you are exaggerating a bit. Reports were only Benning and Treliving were interested. OEL wanted to go to Boston but they didn’t seem that interested.

He was not a hot commodity. Canucks fans were livid when that trade went down.

It was an exaggeration. More a shot at Treliving getting sucked into Hamonic just based on hype. OEL was slowing down by that point and I do believe a few other teams were picking at it but yes, I was exaggerating.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is absolutely the stupidest thing they could do. Instead of having him on a 7.2 cap hit for 4 years, they get a cap savings next year, then 2.3M of dead cap the following year, then $4.7m for the next two years, followed by $2.1M of dead cap until 2031.

It's even a bit worse when you factor a replacement player, so you have to subtract league minimum from the cap savings.

So it kinda works out to spreading 23M of cap over 8 years, instead of 29M over 4.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Copying and pasting from the other thread.

This is super questionable, since if they waited one more year the buy out was a lot more palatable long term.

But they tried to move Boeser, Garland and Myers and the only offers they got back were "Sure, what will you give us for it?" which just doesn't work either.

His first season in Vancouver was good. His second season was an unmitigated disaster as he apparently never got into an NHL game shape after the foot injury at the Worlds. The original plan was to see if he could bounce back in the third season, but I guess there was no other way to get cap space without giving up assets.

Wanting assets for Boeser or Myers tracks but I think teams passing on Garland will regret that. Guy is still a 5on5 machine and could have been had for the cheap. Asking for assets on top was just silly.

One addendum to the above: The apparent justification for the buy out is that the expected cap in the coming years would offset the two big buy out years. While this may be true, the reality is that they tried everything else to stay afloat and only got offered anchors.

Thing is...why not wait another week.

As the trade market evolves as the draft approaches maybe somebody goes..."Yeah adding Garland for free is better than moving picks for a different forward".

Just seems weird to do this on June 16 when you had until June 30th to do so.

Unless you have something else planned with the cap space.

[opendoor]

Poor Arizona. Now they lose one of their salary retention spots for the next 8 years instead of just 4.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Poor Arizona. Now they lose one of their salary retention spots for the next 8 years instead of just 4.

Actually sounds like it's the opposite and they gain the spot back.

Answer. Once a player is bought out, the retained cap hit is converted to a buy-out cap hit for the player that was traded/bought-out, and it no longer counts as one of the team's 3 permitted active retained transactions.

https://puckpedia.com/salary-cap/ans...20transactions.

So Canucks do Arizona a favor here too.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

sorry, posted the wrong one, but this one is good too

https://twitter.com/user/status/1669798880475488271

Showing both is even better.

Because it actually shows he's been better in Vancouver than he was in Arizona when they traded a top 10 pick for him...and then still bought him out.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Actually sounds like it's the opposite and they gain the spot back.

https://puckpedia.com/salary-cap/ans...20transactions.

So Canucks do Arizona a favor here too.

I don't know, I'm just going off CapFriendly:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1669805584093249537

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

If Flames trade some of their UFAs (Toffoli, Lindholm) I'd easily take Garland back for nothing.

I don’t think Garland fits the Flames unless they moved even more players. If they added him with Mangiapane, Dube, Coleman that would make up the middle 6 wingers. This blocks a natural spot for Pelletier and/or Coronato.

I do like Garland as a player so I could see a scenario where it fits but I think the Flames would need to move one of those other high priced (or in Dube’s case soon to be high priced) middle 6 wingers.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Sign him to a 1 year deal in Calgary and buy him out at the deadline.

Corrected for accuracy.

He’d still be bad for his cap hit.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1669846530994446337