OEL Buyout Revisited

[F A N]

I know that most posters here disagree with me given the success of last season, but I wonder if sentiments have changed at the midpoint of the 2024-2025 season after seeing what has transpired.

Prior to the OEL buyout, I have maintained that we should just suck it up and buyout OEL in summer 2024. Instead, we bought out OEL in summer 2023 which led to around $7M in savings in 2023-2024. I can't find the comparison chart, but I'm 99% certain that by buying out OEL in Summer 2024 instead of 2023, it would have led to less dead cap every single year aside from this season on AND the dead cap would be on the books for one year less. If we bought out OEL in summer 2023, OEL's dead cap would be slightly less this year and is less than $3M every year.

Of course by buying OEL in summer 2023, there was a bit more than $7M in cap space freed up last year ($6.25M of which was spent on Soucy and Cole). Of course, we also had our fun last season.

I know a lot of posters think that the OEL buyout last season was neccessary for "culture change" reasons. But does the culture really change if we can't build upon the previous year's success? I think having a winning culture is important and players need to learn to win together, but has that goal been accomplished with the success of last season? Columbus pushed to make the playoffs with Panarin and Bob and they made the playoffs the following season. What followed was years of misery.

Maybe Quinn doesn't win the Norris last season and maybe we don't even make the playoffs. We then keep our 1st round pick. We could probably move a 2nd with Kuzmenko for an asset. Maybe Petey doesn't sign his extension. Maybe DeBrusk doesn't sign here or maybe he still does but for more money. Sherwood I think would still sign here as I think we gave him the best offer. Heinen would still sign here given he's local and we gave him a fair deal. It's possible one of Suter or Blueger won't be here. Maybe Joshua doesn't re-sign or maybe he does.

Don't forget that OEL, while historically a poor fit under Tocchet, remains a solid defenseman when healthy. Squeaking into the playoffs without an OEL buyout last season is not out of the question.

Click to read more...

 

[Killer Orcas]

It's unfortunate but we needed the cap space badly last season hence the buy out. The experience gained from the run last year also not only helped the players but the fans badly needed it as well. Sure be nice to have the pick still but another year of not making the playoffs would not have been good for anyone. The cap hit for OEL will hurt but with the cap moving up as much as 97 possibly (according to player agent Walsh) I think we'll be fine.

Quinn winning the Norris was worth whatever we did last year. OEL had to go and I don't hate the player but that deal was not good when signed and even worse when we traded for him. Sometimes you gotta move on. I'm happy he's doing well in Toronto now and beat the Oilers to win Cup last season !!

 

[Isi]

I wasn't particularly a fan of the buy-out. I wasn't a fan of the player either, to be clear. The trade was probably one of the stupidest in our history. I understand the discussions around needing cap money, but we were partly in that position due to the re-signing of Kuzmenko in January 2023 for ~$5M which was a terrible decision. When we bought out OEL, we still had Mikheyev, Beauvillier & Pearson on the books, + Kuzmenko, all of whom would go on to be salary dumps* within the next few months. If we don't re-sign Kuzmenko, do we need to buy-out OEL? I think it's probably a good example of the incredible lack of tarmac Allvin operates in thanks to the previous regime. A silly re-signing in Kuzmeko arguably leads to having to buy out OEL which in the end probably only makes things more difficult going forward. A decision like that shouldn't be as important as it turned out to be. Oh well.

*(I suppose that doesn't quite describe the Pearson trade)

 

[Kryten]

f*** Jim Benning

 

[ChilliBilly]

What we really needed to do was never acquire OEL in the 1st place. If dim Jim had just been willing to ride the crap he had signed for one more year, we would have been in much better shape. We would have a bunch of draft picks that could have been very important pieces (and/or prospects).

almost every one of the free agent signings that Dim Jim made turned into wasted money.

 

[Curm]

They would have been better off not signing Soucy and re-signing Kuzmenko. But then there's the Tocchet factor, and as much as it was clear Kuz was never going to work with him, which makes his extension mind-boggling, it's apparent he hasn't been a fan of OEL either. Running Hughes, OEL, and Cole down the left side would have produced the same results last season.

 

[Baby Pettersson]

OEL would be our 2nd best Dman right now. So in hindsight I'd have just kept him.

 

[Diamonddog01]

I didn’t hate OEL as much as the majority despite him being a very poor fit. I also preferred buying him out later.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Toronto with a great signing getting OEL for 3.5M x 4 years after a stellar playoff performance and Stanley Cup championship, we have a tendency to throw our defence under the bus in Vancouver.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I was very apprehensive about buying OEL out due to the next two years we're going to be dealing with, but I accepted it if the money would be spent wisely.

Forbort, Desharnais and Heinen plus the 2.3M we're already paying for that buyout amounts to 8M. Next season, we can add Hoglander's 3M to replace Forbort, bringing that number up to 9.5M

To say Allvin didn't spend that money wisely would be a comical understatement.

 

[rypper]

Put me firmly in the camp of OEL and the team both needed a change.

 

[theguardianII]

I know that most posters here disagree with me given the success of last season, but I wonder if sentiments have changed at the midpoint of the 2024-2025 season after seeing what has transpired.

Prior to the OEL buyout, I have maintained that we should just suck it up and buyout OEL in summer 2024. Instead, we bought out OEL in summer 2023 which led to around $7M in savings in 2023-2024. I can't find the comparison chart, but I'm 99% certain that by buying out OEL in Summer 2024 instead of 2023, it would have led to less dead cap every single year aside from this season on AND the dead cap would be on the books for one year less. If we bought out OEL in summer 2023, OEL's dead cap would be slightly less this year and is less than $3M every year.

Of course by buying OEL in summer 2023, there was a bit more than $7M in cap space freed up last year ($6.25M of which was spent on Soucy and Cole). Of course, we also had our fun last season.

I know a lot of posters think that the OEL buyout last season was neccessary for "culture change" reasons. But does the culture really change if we can't build upon the previous year's success? I think having a winning culture is important and players need to learn to win together, but has that goal been accomplished with the success of last season? Columbus pushed to make the playoffs with Panarin and Bob and they made the playoffs the following season. What followed was years of misery.

Maybe Quinn doesn't win the Norris last season and maybe we don't even make the playoffs. We then keep our 1st round pick. We could probably move a 2nd with Kuzmenko for an asset. Maybe Petey doesn't sign his extension. Maybe DeBrusk doesn't sign here or maybe he still does but for more money. Sherwood I think would still sign here as I think we gave him the best offer. Heinen would still sign here given he's local and we gave him a fair deal. It's possible one of Suter or Blueger won't be here. Maybe Joshua doesn't re-sign or maybe he does.

Don't forget that OEL, while historically a poor fit under Tocchet, remains a solid defenseman when healthy. Squeaking into the playoffs without an OEL buyout last season is not out of the question.

It was total idiocy.
Then the owned media came up with "they needed the cap space" and "no team would take him with retention" and "the team would never spend assets to move a player" and "but it had nothing to do with Tocchet"

First off they didn't need that much cap space, they already had some available, enough to sign Soucy. And the team could go over the cap by 10%, 8.4 million, until next season start. Lots of time to work out something. Obviously Florida had no issues paying him 3.5 million so how far away from 3.88 mil is that?
Next no team would take him, bullsheet, he had a no trade clause still in effect and he was never notified or asked about teams he would agree to go to.
The team would never spend assets to move a player. Well Mikheyev's trade put that straight, a 2nd as well as a NHL asset and retention.
Nothing to do with Tocchet, unsolicited. Got to wonder after all that 2 years of OEL trying to get away from Tocchet and well known issues between them.

This with a player coming off a serious injury with no summer work outs and asked to play the most difficult assignments. But not what he got that big contract for and all the Norris votes, a PP QB, not the second coming of Chris Tanev.

So no shopping him around, no asking him for a trade list, telling him he was set to stay just 24 hours earlier, then retention on Mikeheyev, a sweetener added as well as a NHL player.

All things Rutherford state he would not do until that changed after he hired Allvin to run the team and Allvin hired his bum buddy, Tocchet.

Ludicrous and stupid.

And now the team has depth issues and the Canucks will be paying OEL to play against them today AGAIN and they give him a raise next year to boot.

If this has Rutherford's hands on it anywhere the team is in deep shat, because he must be exhibiting the onset of dementia.
NO, I think this was at the insistence of the new coach wanting "his" guys here and the rookie GM did what he thought was the right thing, but it wasn't, it will still be hurting the team every time they get close to the cap.

 

[Green Blank Stare]

It had to be done but they completely squandered it this past summer.

 

[Jyrki]

I was very apprehensive about buying OEL out due to the next two years we're going to be dealing with, but I accepted it if the money would be spent wisely.

Forbort, Desharnais and Heinen plus the 2.3M were already paying for that buyout amounts to 8M. Next season, we can add Hoglander's 3M to replace Forbort, bringing that number up to 9.5M

To say Allvin didn't spend that money wisely would be a comical understatement.

Yep. Buying out OEL and letting him walk was 100% correct. How the cap space made for this season was spent, absolutely not.

 

[arttk]

10/10 will do again without any hesitation

 

[Wisp]

was miller also bullying oel

 

[sting101]

i was prepared to wait another year to see if we could get him back to respectable (which is what happened to his play) but management wanted to get respect back for the jersey and you don't accomplish that with Country Club Gold members making 7 plus million.

Understandable painful move.

Was always going to be though to move on from that terrible contract to some degree so last year was a big success

 

[archangel2]

He didn't fit in with our team and the system. Also add his 8.25 cap hit to the roster and there are a few players we could not have gotten

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

I like to believe OEL getting bought out helped Florida deny the Edmonton Oilers a cup.

The buyout was 100% worth it for that reason alone.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

We bought OEL as a #2, and were once again puzzled when the square peg didn't fit in the round hole. It was kind of a theme with that regime.

 

[Luck 6]

Obviously, I would have rather traded him at 50% retention, but assuming that wasn't on the table (and I firmly believe it wasn't. Just because they didn't ask him to waive, doesn't mean they didn't try to trade him. Often times a team will find a taker, then pitch that team to a player, rather than ask for a list) then I would say it was a reasonable course of action and a bold statement.

Why we are doing poorly now has very little to do with cap space, in my opinion. We had cap space, we just constructed the roster in a way that we essentially have no depth on the back end. Then, we got hit with a rash of injuries, and a boat load of locker room drama.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Obviously, I would have rather traded him at 50% retention, but assuming that wasn't on the table (and I firmly believe it wasn't. Just because they didn't ask him to waive, doesn't mean they didn't try to trade him. Often times a team will find a taker, then pitch that team to a player, rather than ask for a list) then I would say it was a reasonable course of action and a bold statement.

Why we are doing poorly now has very little to do with cap space, in my opinion. We had cap space, we just constructed the roster in a way that we essentially have no depth on the back end. Then, we got hit with a rash of injuries, and a boat load of locker room drama.

I dont think the bolded part can ever be true.

The NHL is a efficiency contest where teamS try to get as much out of their cap space as possible.

 

[Luck 6]

I dont think the bolded part can ever be true.

The NHL is a efficiency contest where teama try to get as much out of their cap space as possible.

I understand what you're saying, but I think in select circumstances, that isn't the case.

What about teams in the midst of a re-build? They typically have boat loads of cap space, but that doesn't mean they can build contending teams. In our specific case, I don't think having a few extra million in cap space would have resulted in a much different result at the mid-point of the season. Our issues extend beyond that, is essentially what I am trying to get at.

 

[Nick Lang]

Obviously, I would have rather traded him at 50% retention, but assuming that wasn't on the table (and I firmly believe it wasn't. Just because they didn't ask him to waive, doesn't mean they didn't try to trade him. Often times a team will find a taker, then pitch that team to a player, rather than ask for a list) then I would say it was a reasonable course of action and a bold statement.

Why we are doing poorly now has very little to do with cap space, in my opinion. We had cap space, we just constructed the roster in a way that we essentially have no depth on the back end. Then, we got hit with a rash of injuries, and a boat load of locker room drama.

I dont think the bolded part can ever be true.

The NHL is a efficiency contest where teama try to get as much out of their cap space as possible.

Yup, it's always about cap space and the reason we signed the players we did. If we had an extra $5 mil we would have a way better defence.

 

[Luck 6]

Yup, it's always about cap space and the reason we signed the players we did. If we had an extra $5 mil we would have a way better defence.

The point you are trying to make isn't lost on me. What I am saying is, what good is another 5mil player if your 1D, 2D, 1C, 1G, and a whole bunch of depth players miss considerable time? Or, if there is some sort of broken down locker room culture? Sure, another 5mil defender would be great, but I don't think that alone fixes what we have been experiencing this year. I don't think "cap space" is the present excuse for our issues, is essentially what I'm getting at.