Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | Post Draft, Pre Free Agent Frenzy

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Ritchie Valens

Registered User
Sep 24, 2007
29,778
42,797
I wish Campbell all the best. He took the money--the same way we all would have.

The Oilers scouting staff dropped the ball on the deal but that's on them and not Campbell. He was really only a starter in the NHL for 1 year.
I do too. Hell of a good dude, but put too much pressure on himself to live up to his contract. Funny how some people can rise above the challenge and others seem to make more and more mistakes, despite their best efforts.

I hope he catches on somewhere else in the world and continues his career. I don’t think an NHL team will pick him up unless it’s league minimum and two way deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoontoScott

foshizzle

Registered User
Feb 1, 2007
5,289
4,714
Why would you trade Campbell with retention? So you put 2.5M of dead cap over the next 3 years and then still have to pay to get rid of his remaining 7.5M.
Because retention will end sooner. Who says it would be 2.5M? This season they have Brown’s bonus, Perry’s bonus, Neal’s buyout, and now Campbell’s buyout. That’s what 7M? That’s a significant player. That’s just a bad way to do business. All this is my opinion, of course. You are entitled to yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDoused

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,485
5,651
Regina, Saskatchewan
Campbell will be one of the reasons the owners will try to get out of guaranteed contracts in a future negotiation . He will make 20 million off of us for something like 40 games of horrible goaltending.
I think there should be some sort of situation where you can get out of a bad contract once every 2 or 3 years or something like that. There are situations like reoccurring injuries that make a player all but useless, but not actually injured anymore, so you can't LTIR them. I think a situation where the team still has to buy out the player, but that buyout doesn't count against the cap would be a win/win for the teams and the NHLPA. If you made it a rare thing, only available once every 2 years or something, it would help all teams with cap flexibility and wouldn't hurt players at all when it comes to money. It might even HELP players on the whole, as you'd have teams willing to take chances a bit more on players, which would help drive up average salary a bit.

I wouldn't be in favor of such a thing being available every year or multiple times per year. But something more rare should be easy enough to figure out. It would be better for the game as a whole for certain, allowing more player movement and signings, which increases interest in the league from fans.
 

K1984

Registered User
Feb 7, 2008
14,302
14,564
Because retention will end sooner. Who says it would be 2.5M? This season they have Brown’s bonus, Perry’s bonus, Neal’s buyout, and now Campbell’s buyout. That’s what 7M? That’s a significant player. That’s just a bad way to do business. All this is my opinion, of course. You are entitled to yours.

An even worse way to do business is to carry Campbell at $5M so that we have $9.5M of dead cap instead of $7M.

Even worse than that, imagine if we still had Neal on the roster so that we had less technical dead cap. It would have been great to have him moping around a 4th line as we don’t have one of Kane, Nuge or Hyman actually playing.

“Dead cap” is an investment. It’s a way to improve your team by getting rid of shit players and opening up room to replace them with better players.
 

foshizzle

Registered User
Feb 1, 2007
5,289
4,714
I remember being so excited when we signed Campbell. Oh how naive I was.
I think a lot of analytics folks were baffled. He was terrible the last half of that year, his high danger save % was nothing to write home about, his xGA weren’t great. Honestly, if they had an analytics department or a goaltending department they would have know to stay away.

By the way- does anyone know of Oilers are building a goalie department like almost all other NHL teams have now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk Dangler

KeithIsActuallyBad

You thrust your pelvis, huh!
Apr 12, 2010
73,905
33,234
Calgary
I think a lot of analytics folks were baffled. He was terrible the last half of that year, his high danger save % was nothing to write home about, his xGA weren’t great. Honestly, if they had an analytics department or a goaltending department they would have know to stay away.

By the way- does anyone know of Oilers are building a goalie department like almost all other NHL teams have now?
It's gotta be a combination of bad scouting and buying into the Leafs hype.

Campbell himself admitted he gets down on himself easily. That right there should've been the biggest red flag.
 

RipsADrive

Registered User
Sep 16, 2008
9,374
7,182
Edmonton
I do too. Hell of a good dude, but put too much pressure on himself to live up to his contract. Funny how some people can rise above the challenge and others seem to make more and more mistakes, despite their best efforts.

I hope he catches on somewhere else in the world and continues his career. I don’t think an NHL team will pick him up unless it’s league minimum and two way deal.

Ya I don't hate Campbell despite how awful this situation turned out.

Maybe I would if I felt like it was a matter of effort or commitment, but it seems like this was a matter of a good guy and teammate who, while talented, can't handle the pressure of being asked to be "the guy" for a team with expectations.

The contract was a misatke, yes, but it was just one mistake in a long line of mistakes that led the Oilers to need to pick a goaltender to overpay as a FA that year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ritchie Valens

foshizzle

Registered User
Feb 1, 2007
5,289
4,714
An even worse way to do business is to carry Campbell at $5M so that we have $9.5M of dead cap instead of $7M.

Even worse than that, imagine if we still had Neal on the roster so that we had less technical dead cap. It would have been great to have him moping around a 4th line as we don’t have one of Kane, Nuge or Hyman actually playing.

“Dead cap” is an investment. It’s a way to improve your team by getting rid of shit players and opening up room to replace them with better players.
Dead cap isn’t an investment when it lowers your overall cap space. Dead cap is literally a punishment for poor management. Calling it an investment is like saying your Tesla stock is down 30% so you’re jumping ship and calling your stop loss an investment. Your overall portfolio is down. You lost money. Sure you freed up some money to buy other stock- but you’re buying power is way less.

Anyways- he’s being bought out- no point discussing further
 

foshizzle

Registered User
Feb 1, 2007
5,289
4,714
I think there should be some sort of situation where you can get out of a bad contract once every 2 or 3 years or something like that. There are situations like reoccurring injuries that make a player all but useless, but not actually injured anymore, so you can't LTIR them. I think a situation where the team still has to buy out the player, but that buyout doesn't count against the cap would be a win/win for the teams and the NHLPA. If you made it a rare thing, only available once every 2 years or something, it would help all teams with cap flexibility and wouldn't hurt players at all when it comes to money. It might even HELP players on the whole, as you'd have teams willing to take chances a bit more on players, which would help drive up average salary a bit.

I wouldn't be in favor of such a thing being available every year or multiple times per year. But something more rare should be easy enough to figure out. It would be better for the game as a whole for certain, allowing more player movement and signings, which increases interest in the league from fans.
You’re referring to compliance buyouts. I agree.
 

Trafalgar Sadge Law

Registered User
Nov 8, 2007
11,518
6,971
I think a lot of analytics folks were baffled. He was terrible the last half of that year, his high danger save % was nothing to write home about, his xGA weren’t great. Honestly, if they had an analytics department or a goaltending department they would have know to stay away.

By the way- does anyone know of Oilers are building a goalie department like almost all other NHL teams have now?
He was, no exaggeration, the worst possible goalie for us to sign that offseason based on analytics profile and I said as much the weeks leading up to him hitting free agency. Did well into low/medium danger shots and had decent puck freeze stats, near the worst in the league for high danger shots, bad goals saved above expected, bad consistency, bad against tips/deflections. Then he came here and somehow couldn't stop low danger shots or freeze pucks either (probably Dustin Schwartz effect). As for the goalie department thing, we could literally hire the Rangers and Islanders staff combined and it still wouldn't matter b/c Dustin would find a way to ruin them anyway.
 

oobga

Tier 2 Fan
Aug 1, 2003
24,451
20,499
In an alternate universe Marky accepted our UFA offer, and bombed in playoffs, and we bought him out to try again by signing Campbell :laugh:

Our goalie pro scouting needs to be way better. Hopefully the last inconsistent headcase we go all in on. We tried to go all in on 2 of them in the last 5 years.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iCanada

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad