dont know how to feel about this one. nuck fans help me out

This might be an unpopular opinion with Canucks fans but I don't think it's necessary to deal OEL yet unless it's a CLEAR and easy win for the Canucks. As I see it, every year that passes makes it easier to deal or buyout OEL. I don't believe any current options the Canucks have to fill his spot are better enough to offset the cost of what it would take to deal him.

Ie. is it worth trading away Raty and a pick just to have Breisbois replace him? Not yet imo. This conversation shifts year to year depending on cap space and the resigning of players like Petey, Hronek, Podz, Hog,, etc. but seeing as there's still a year from that happening I say keep him playing 3rd pair minutes and pray that he plays at or above replacement level until their hand is forced in dealing him.

I wondered if an OEL retained to Pitt could make some sense with Granlund coming back but I was to sheepish to propose it for fear of being destroyed.

My idea had Miller going with OEL(retained) for Granlund, Carter, 1st and picks and/or prospects.

Pitt would immediately be much better. As we know their window is closing quick so why not go all in. And they'd presumably just take the hit on those guys later into their contracts.

There will be a time when OEL is simply unmoveable. It may have already come. It doesn't usually get better as players age (though Karlsson might contest that). The big key would be moving his money out so you could replace him with a UFA defenseman like Graves, Gavrikov, Severson.

I didn't mean he'd play his way out of being a cap dump, just that it would cost less to dump 2 years of 7mil vs 4 years of 7mil.
Also, the key to my post was the Canucks don't have any CURRENT options to replace him. And frankly, I'd rather not overpay a Graves or Gavrikov,, I have zero trust in Canucks management going into Free agency

The only selling point you'd have on an OEL trade is that if you retained he might be worth 4-5 mil to some team as their 4-5 dman if he had a bounce back yr. The longer you wait on that the less likely that could happen. As a pure and known cap dump of 7.8 mil it would cost like 3 1sts to move him.

Three 1st's is an absurd price, it won't hit that.
Andrew Ladd 35yo 2x5.5mil (2nd, 2nd, 3rd)
Patrick Marleau 39yo 1x6.25 (buyout) (1st rd pick)
Mark Staal 33yo 1x5.7 (2nd rd pick)

OEL 31yo 4x7.2

In a couple of years OEL will be 33 with 2x7.2 left. At that point, with the Canucks wanting (trying) to contend, it won't be much to send a 1st and a prospect like Raty away to make room. Even less with ~1m retention if necessary.
Currently, moving Boeser and/or Garland while Myers expires in a year is more than enough room to sign everyone they need.

Can people please stop putting random ass players with Sid just because they're good. Like have u ever watched us play you need an insanely Niche style of game to pay with Sid and Laff dose not have good enough change of direction.

Those examples prove my point though. 6 mil for one yr was a 1st. Seems you can kinda x that by the yrs left if he isn't nhl calibre.

I don't see it being tradable from you POV until the final season. Unless you wanna go significantly above a 1st which is not smart. I doubt the Canucks will be better is 3-4 yrs than they are now. Why would they be they have one of the worst prospect pools, OEL contract, Miller's contract, and likely moving more picks and young players to win now. It's all a big mess really. I would buy him if all trade options are exhausted. Those would include 50% retention +

I disagree, I think he is a streaky offensive producer, but he is an excellent forechecker (in a similar way that rakell is) and has a solid 2 way game. Usually those players play well with Sid, like recently with Evan Rodrigues and McCann (whenever someone got injured and he played in the top 6)

But McCanna and Rodriguez were both significantly better at: 1m Changing directions to protect the puck, 2: Making short choppy passes. This is not a nock on Laffreniere but it just takes such a speacial Niche to play with sid that he doesn't have

True, but I’m willing on risking a 2nd and 4.2M to acquire a 21 year old ex 1st overall pick. I think that NY has been bad at developing young talent, and he’s still young enough to have a breakout and reach close to his potential, if given a change of scenery.

Just buy out Granlund my guy. And that St Louis trade probably gets rejected all around.

Oh don't get me wrong I ****ing love the trade he just can't play with Sid, could work well with Malkin, could be a perfect peace to center the new third line around

Switch Rakel and Laffreneire and its the best pens forward ACGM I have seen yet

It’s rare to find a compliment/positive comment on this site so I did exactly that lol

I agree that VAN shouldn’t add assets to dump OEL, but I still really like this deal because it turns 7.1M x4 into 4.1M x4 (3.1M in year 1) and they can even get a mid to late round pick back in a Rutta trade. This is imo VAN’s best deal to dump OEL.

Why buy out a player when you can get something in return. I think Krug still has 1-2 years of competitive middle pairing/top 4 hockey left, and then you can buy him out. This pushes the elongated cap hit back for the pens cause they will be buying out 4M x 2 after their window is closed, instead of buying out 5M x 2 this offseason. Plus STL saves more cap space as the trade goes on which is good for them considering they will probably go into a retool and attempt to be competitive in 2-3 years in which the original Krug contract would still be affecting them at 6.5M, instead of the 2.5M cap hit that this trade provides. The only year that they pay more money than the original cap hit is next year, which they will most likely not spend up to the cap anyways since they will most likely be uncompetitive.

Because you're just trading for other bad contracts. If you were getting value in return then yeah, trade him. That's the way I look at it.

Carter has a full NMC. He blocks the trade. There's also a chance Petry can reject it too. That's the issue there.