Value of: Dumping Campbell with 1.5 retained

[TheNumber4]

If you were the Oilers in the Sharks situation, this is not the honesty you'd run with because you aren't going to do a team in your division any favors. Paying a dead cap contract like Campbell 13.5 mil over three years is hardly a free 1st and 2nd. It's overpaying for draft picks that are still long odds. I'm amenable to the Oilers only forking over a 1st and a 2nd but if they're going to hardline that, they need to take back some contracts to cover the difference. A 1st and a 2nd pays for about 9 mil of the 13.5 mil you're trying to dump on us that has no value. So then take back a contract or two that comes close to covering that. That could be some combination of Blackwood, Rutta, Sturm, Burroughs, and Givani Smith. I think those are reasonable terms and a reasonable way to bridge the gap.

And if those terms don't work for you, the Sharks are likely perfectly content with the free cap space and can use it on many other priorities that would actually help them be better sooner rather than later.

I won’t pretend to know the Sharks revenue/expenses scenario. So sorry I just can’t see it as 13.5M or whatever; what matters is that it’s 3.8M x 3 years with any team willing to spend to the cap for maximum potential of success. So let’s call it what it should be to any acquiring team, 3.8M x 3 years.

On that front I do agree that we should take some cap back that is unwanted or unneeded on the Sharks side.

My offer has always been and remains to be:

1st
2nd
Campbell

For

Blackwood or Kahk (Sharks choice)

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I won’t pretend to know the Sharks revenue/expenses scenario. So sorry I just can’t see it as 13.5M or whatever; what matters is that it’s 3.8M x 3 years with any team willing to spend to the cap for maximum potential of success. So let’s call it what it should be to any acquiring team, 3.8M x 3 years.

On that front I do agree that we should take some cap back that is unwanted or unneeded on the Sharks side.

My offer has always been and remains to be:

1st
2nd
Campbell

For

Blackwood or Kahk (Sharks choice)

You refusing to see the other side of the cap dump is a you problem. It's only 3.8 x 3 years if they bury the player but they're still spending 13.5 million in that time paying him or they're spending 9 mil on the buyout over six years. The buried cap hit is largely irrelevant to the acquiring team. Your offer is simply not enough to warrant the deal. If you're stuck on the 1st and 2nd with Campbell being sent out, the only way I'd be okay with it is if you took Blackwood and either Sturm or Rutta.

 

[TheNumber4]

You refusing to see the other side of the cap dump is a you problem. It's only 3.8 x 3 years if they bury the player but they're still spending 13.5 million in that time paying him or they're spending 9 mil on the buyout over six years. The buried cap hit is largely irrelevant to the acquiring team. Your offer is simply not enough to warrant the deal. If you're stuck on the 1st and 2nd with Campbell being sent out, the only way I'd be okay with it is if you took Blackwood and either Sturm or Rutta.

No no I acknowledged the money argument. I just don’t look into a teams financials and think it should matter in a cap league. As a fan, my concern is what affects stuff on the ice, im not looking out for nor care about the owners pocket book. That kind of stuff doesn’t matter in a lot of hockey markets, maybe it does for the Sharks though and if that’s the argument then sure. But from a purely cap based analysis, let’s be honest the cap hit to Jack is nearly irrelevent to a rebuilding team.

I do appreciate the counter thought. I admit at this point I don’t know the players Sturm or Rutta enough to say. I’d look into them though for sure if your saying the offer then would be something like:

Campbell
1st
2nd

For

BlackWood
Sturm or Rutta?

Let me ask, does Rutta play Right Side? And is Sturm playing RW?

 

[russ99]

Makes zero sense for the Oilers, buy him out in the summer, and pay less or close to the same as retention on a trade, and no giving away assets that will be needed in future seasons.

 

[Czechboy]

You refusing to see the other side of the cap dump is a you problem. It's only 3.8 x 3 years if they bury the player but they're still spending 13.5 million in that time paying him or they're spending 9 mil on the buyout over six years. The buried cap hit is largely irrelevant to the acquiring team. Your offer is simply not enough to warrant the deal. If you're stuck on the 1st and 2nd with Campbell being sent out, the only way I'd be okay with it is if you took Blackwood and either Sturm or Rutta.

That's funny because I think my Oil shoudl target Rutta is a cheap (to attain) RHD. He's over 20 minutes a game and have a good season, won a cup and is good at playing with better players (he was Hedman's sidekick for awhile).

So if Rutta for Campbell happened.. I'd be ecstatic.

I also wanted Campbell for Mrazek but Mrazek just signed today.

Yes, I know we'd have to add more to make those trades happen.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No no I acknowledged the money argument. I just don’t look into a teams financials and think it should matter in a cap league. As a fan, my concern is what affects stuff on the ice, im not looking out for nor care about the owners pocket book. That kind of stuff doesn’t matter in a lot of hockey markets, maybe it does for the Sharks though and if that’s the argument then sure. But from a purely cap based analysis, let’s be honest the cap hit to Jack is nearly irrelevent to a rebuilding team.

I do appreciate the counter thought. I admit at this point I don’t know the players Sturm or Rutta enough to say. I’d look into them though for sure if your saying the offer then would be something like:

Campbell
1st
2nd

For

BlackWood
Sturm or Rutta?

Let me ask, does Rutta play Right Side? And is Sturm playing RW?

Rutta has been on the right side with maybe a game or two on the left depending on lineup choices because we have a ridiculous amount of defensemen...a lot of RHD's. Sturm has been our 3C but would be a 4C on a competing team for faceoffs and PK's.

That's funny because I think my Oil shoudl target Rutta is a cheap (to attain) RHD. He's over 20 minutes a game and have a good season, won a cup and is good at playing with better players (he was Hedman's sidekick for awhile).

So if Rutta for Campbell happened.. I'd be ecstatic.

I also wanted Campbell for Mrazek but Mrazek just signed today.

Yes, I know we'd have to add more to make those trades happen.

I suspect that Rutta would be available for a trade like this. It's tough to gauge his value given he's a prototypical veteran depth defenseman on a playoff team. My guess is that he'd be maybe a 3rd or 4th rounder on his own so if he has to be thrown in to make the money work for an opportunity to snag an extra 1st round pick, I'm fine with that. The Sharks could use the spot opened up anyway since they traded for Addison and claimed Emberson while having Benning on the shelf the rest of the season and wouldn't likely be wanted on the trade market due to his injury. They also have Kyle Burroughs on the right side with an early 2nd rounder in Mattias Havelid probably coming over next year.

 

[bernmeister]

Oilers are a wagon again, Corey Perry signing is a NICE little add as long as the moms are locked away.

I know trading Jack Campbell has been beaten to death as an impossible task -price to move him likely being somewhere from 1st + 2nd to 2 1sts- and it doesn't make sense for the Oilers to do that given what a summer buyout looks like. That being said, Oilers window is wide open but they could still use a top 4 upgrade and a better goalie to pair with Skinner. They need the cap space now and don't really have other options to create it.

So curious what the cost of dumping Campbell at 3.5 would be? What would they have to add to Campbell @3.5 to send him to a rebuilder, say for Mrazek @50% or Kahkonen? Even if the acquiring team bought Campbell out in the summer of 2025, I don't really see tying up a retention slot long-term as an issue for Edmonton

prob is both term AND $$$
Oil will not like reality of high cost of this ^
so likely is maybe the offseason at earliest

If a suitor would have absorbed that much at compensation acceptable to EDM, a deal would have been done by now

 

[Jared Dunn]

prob is both term AND $$$
Oil will not like reality of high cost of this ^
so likely is maybe the offseason at earliest

If a suitor would have absorbed that much at compensation acceptable to EDM, a deal would have been done by now

I don't think Edmonton was overly willing to move their 1st (at least unprotected) before they turned their season around so circumstances could have changed where they'd now be willing to pay a certain price to move him, and I doubt they ever discussed a cost with retention honestly

 

[McOvechking]

With Hart out for who knows how long, is there a scenario where the Flyers trade for Campbell?

 

[Mr Positive]

Makes zero sense for the Oilers, buy him out in the summer, and pay less or close to the same as retention on a trade, and no giving away assets that will be needed in future seasons.

The problem is that his cap hit will be higher than 1.5 with a buyout, right during the years to re sign McDavid, Draisiatl and Bouchard

 

[Junohockeyfan]

With Hart out for who knows how long, is there a scenario where the Flyers trade for Campbell?

No, why would the Flyers want an AHL backup goaltender with a 5M caphit for another 3 years?

 

[FunkyChicken]

With Hart out for who knows how long, is there a scenario where the Flyers trade for Campbell?

What kind of pick would you have to add with Campbell for Petersen?

 

[nhlfan9191]

The problem is that his cap hit will be higher than 1.5 with a buyout, right during the years to re sign McDavid, Draisiatl and Bouchard

A cap hit of $1.1-$2.6 million spread over 6 years is better then absorbing it all over 3 years. I don’t see anyone touching that contract even with retention. And even if you found a team who would take him with max retention, you’re not saving much of anything in comparison to a buyout and you have pay assets for someone to take him.

 

[TheNumber4]

A cap hit of $1.1-$2.6 million spread over 6 years is better then absorbing it all over 3 years. I don’t see anyone touching that contract even with retention. And even if you found a team who would take him with max retention, you’re not saving much of anything in comparison to a buyout and you have pay assets for someone to take him.

Makes sense. That's why the Oilers have a set ask. We're willing to send futures to help a rebuilding team expedite their rebuild and fill the cupboards but there's a limit to the damage we are willing to take on for Holland's mistake. If a rebuilding team wants to take advantage of Holland's mistake for a 1st+2nd, so be it. But any more than that and we just do the buyout of $1.1-$2.6 million spread over 6 years.

 

[mkatcherin00]

Edmonton needs to bring him up and let him play a few games behind this new system. He had better numbers than Skinner when he got sent down.

Look at Samsanov. He came back and is killing it. Problem is that they would have to put Pickard on waivers. Can't do that.

Soups been burning in the AHL. Some GM is legitimately going to miss out on this guy with some retention and they will be kicking themselves.

 

[ottawagm]

Campbell for Korpisalo

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

Assuming Andersen is LTIRetired

Andersen

For

Campbell with 1.5 million retained, Broberg, 24 2nd and a conditional 26 pick. If he makes less than 20 starts for the canes during his contract its a 2nd, if he makes more its a 3rd.

You get your 3.5 million in space next year and the following with Andersen on LTIR. Canes get a 3LD for next year, an extra pick, ability to accrue cap space, and a 3rd goalie for 3 years for 2.4 million in the AHL

 

[ManofSteel55]

An interesting twist in all of this is that Campbell seems to have turned his game around in the AHL. It wouldn't shock me if Edmonton gave him another chance this season if that continues, and if they can accrue enough cap space to make it work. He is never going to have positive value in my opinion, but if he gets back to the point where teams see him as an NHL caliber goalie they could use at a lower cap hit, it changes the dynamic of these trade talks a bit.