For the Hawks on that deal, they were taking back I think 8.6 mil in cash over two years. I believe they took less than they probably should have to get that done and I won't argue with someone that thinks that alters the landscape of this sort of trade. I think that's fair but I also still think it's fair for a team to ask for two 1st round picks to eat 13.5 mil or the retention ask of a 1st and a 2nd for approximately 9.5 mil after retention. I would respect someone thinking either is too rich for their blood. I think the retention ask is still probably better for the Oilers in the short term than the alternatives. You're still dealing with a similar amount of dead cap on the buyout but for longer or dealing with a larger dead cap if he's buried.
I'd be willing to work with the Oilers to find a creative way to get the deal done but at least one 1st round pick caliber asset has to come the Sharks way to keep me listening. I think the rest of it comes down to making the money work on both ends. If you want to get rid of all of his cap hit, the Oilers need to either pay in futures or take money back if they don't want to retain.
The 1.5 mil retention as an idea allows you to only have that sort of dead cap for three years instead of six with a buyout that would likely occur if they can't find a deal before the end of the buyout window. But I'm willing to listen to offers organized differently but the money has to make sense. I don't see a full dump of Campbell with a 1st and a 2nd for Kahkonen at 50% as worthwhile. In that scenario, we're still eating 13.5 mil in the final three years. That amount of money is typically 6 mil for a 1st sort of equation. I would probably be okay with a 1st and two 2nds in this situation or two 1sts. Or a suitable prospect to replace any of these picks if they're at that level.
The other thing is that this could all be a huge waste of time because if the Sharks are on Campbell's no-trade list, I doubt he'd waive it even if he's playing in CA anyway for the most part. lol
K just look at this from an Oilers perspective. We would be doing this deal to be able to go all in during the McDavid window. That’s 3 years. Why would we pay 1st and 2nd for these measly savings equal to a 4th line grinder added to the roster? The 1st and 2nd reduces what we can buy during the TDL in these 3’years too. So bye bye Top 6 and Top 4 additions we need for the McDavid window.
Buyout Cap vs Retention Cap
1.1M vs 1.5M = Net Loss 400K
2.3M vs 1.5M = Net Savings 800K
2.6M vs 1.5M = Net Savings 1.1M
Then in years 4-6 it’s 1.5M net savings against a 100M Cap, which is close to league minimum today. It’s hardly worth the asset cost with retention.
The deal with retention just doesn’t make it worth it as the only reason we’d do it is to make an all-in cup or bust move. By the way Holland in his most recent presser was excited about Campbell’s improved play now sporting a save percentage of .920 in this recent stretch. Rishaugh from TSN speculated that this means Campbell will be back up on the team and Holland is not willing to pull the plug just yet. And with our team defence playing better than ever it makes sense for him to do this.
I suspect if teams want to pretend that 3.8Mx3 years is going to kill their franchise and they want the moon+++ to take it on, Holland will just keep doing what he has been doing which is saying NO DEAL.
Simply put, the free 1st and 2nd are going to sail away if no team comes to the table with a deal that makes sense for the Oilers. Holland will make a deal and even take a slight fleecing for the mistake that he made, but there’s a limit. Either a team is going to take advantage of Hollands mistake and take a 1st + 2nd or Holland will just try to revive his mistake behind a now elite team defence.
