Is that really the 3rd option? I only gave 2 options and retaining on Zibanejad was my first option.
Apologies
you said
"Buying him out should not be an option. I get addition by subtraction, but these buy-out proof contracts make it difficult to replace a player while maintaining that cap hit. I
f they can't find a trade for Zibanejad (NMC waived), to a team who willingly taking 100-50%,
then the only option left is retaining 50% with an overpayment to a 3rd team eating half of what's left.
What's worse, giving up an overpayment removing a couple of years of assets, or keeping Zibanejad? I'm not really sure anymore. The future looks to have a set back either way."
As indicated I emphasized the bold.
I am noting now you covered it in the underline
Howev I think if you go for a modest return from, say VAN, as I have already posted, then you wind up not having to make an overpayment to a 3rd team.
If what you extract from VAN is minimal, they are underwriting the risk/cost of retaining 2 on balance of zib deal if they need to send him to cap cellar dweller.
So the '3rd option' is max retain, min but useful return, = min overpayment for a 3rd team that 'nucks charge us upfront