Los Angeles has no interest in one season of 33-year-old Reilly Smith, even at 50% retention.

Edmontons not paying a 2nd when they can buyout Campbell for nothing.

Fair enough, Just picked LA cuz their wings look weak and i think he would be a good fit. Some1 should find a use for him

No way the Oilers want 10m caphit over 6years they already have enough cap probs

And Rakell isn't a potential cap problem? He has severe injury issues, is barely a 0.5 point player and still has 4 years left at 5.5 million dollars. Why pay a 2nd just to trade cap problems? Yeah I'd happily dump Campbell for a 2nd but not to get another cap problem in return

And Rakell at $5 million instead of buying Campbell out for $1.1 million solves any cap problem Edmonton has?

Years 2 and 3 of Campbell's buyout will be $2.5 million hits against a cap ceiling that will be at least $87 million and may well be more, after which it becomes a ridiculously affordable $1.5 million x 3.

Ok I concide, u can keep Jack Cambell

I figured EDM would rather have Rakells 50 points at 5m rather than Cambells 5m sitting in Bakersfield. I was wrong u guys can keep ur goalie

Were you not listening? Edmonton aren't keeping him -- they're buying Campbell out.

How bout Riley Smith @50% instead of rakell

LAK were explicitly said to be interested in Smith at the deadline but couldn't make the money work according to Friedman.

More importantly, Holland is up for an extension and going to Katz with $9m in guaranteed dead money on a buyout isn't exactly an appealing argument to receive a contract extension. But here on CF we prefer to pretend like all the numbers are just monopoly money and ignore the reality that franchises are profit generators or they don't exist.

LA was linked to Reilly Smith and i think they may have been trying to get a deal done with Pittsburgh but the cap wasn’t going to work for LA. There could be a third team that could come in this time to retain on Smith as he has one year left and teams are likely to be more interested in retaining on a rental player.

And what would you call $13.5 million spent on Campbell in Bakersfield if not "dead money"?

Holland is the GM who signed Campbell to that contract, so he's going to have an unpleasant conversation with Katz no matter what. Which approach do you think sounds better: "I think we should just ride Campbell out in the hope that he improves" or "Here's how we fix the mistake I made"?

Campbell still has the possibility of improving and playing in the NHL conferring some value. A buyout is a 100% guaranteed dead money. Much like I accurately predicted last offseason with Karlsson and Grier not being allowed to have major retention on his deal, or Markstrom getting traded at the deadline for that matter, ownership has the final say in all matters and most GMs don't have the luxury of unlimited revenue like CF posters pretend. Very easy for fans to just click the "buyout" button for ACGM. Very different when ownership is paying those millions for absolutely nothing.