The Vancouver Canucks are already over next season’s salary cap limit with just 19 players signed.* Changes are coming, and one of the most heavily debated is whether an Oliver Ekman-Larsson buyout makes sense.
Postcards From the Edge
Canucks President of Hockey Operations Jim Rutherford recently penned a letter to the fans which held no surprises. It’s a change from the usual author but otherwise consisted of the standard “I like us! You should, too!” stuff.
Other than perhaps the most awkward photo available, it’s a smooth bit of writing. Some shock at the volatility of the fanbase and a reminder that this management group has only been here for 15 months.
Faith in the future and better coordination with their farm club. Congratulations to Abbotsford coach Jeremy Colliton, and a reminder that Henrik and Daniel Sedin are both working for the club now.
A list of the more successful players they’ve brought in: Ethan Bear, Ilya Mikheyev, Filip Hronek, and obviously Andrei Kuzmenko. Jack Studnicka and Vitali Kravtsov seem to have slipped his mind somehow.
But there’s also this bit:
There is still much work to do to upgrade areas of our team. This includes being active in the college and European free agent markets along with managing our cap space by using all options available to us.
The magic words are, of course, “all” and “options”.
The Ekman-Larsson Debate for Beginners
Oliver Ekman-Larsson, along with Conor Garland, came to Vancouver in an absolutely staggering trade two seasons ago. Instead of waiting one more year for the team’s worst deals to expire, then-GM Jim Benning sent those deals to the Arizona Coyotes along with three draft picks – the last of which is being paid this season.
It was a wild swing from an increasingly desperate manager, and a huge risk taken on. There was little chance Ekman-Larsson would live up to his deal, but if he came close? The Canucks really, REALLY needed help on their blue line. An increasing salary cap would ease the burden somewhat even as the team improved!
The salary cap did not increase, and the burden was not eased. Whispers of an Ekman-Larsson buyout were around before that first year had even ended. But the news wasn’t all bad.
Same OEL, Same OEL?
Along with the rest of the Canucks, Ekman-Larsson had a miserable start to the 2021-22 season. Also along with the rest of the Canucks, he found his game after the coaching change.
Over the second half of the season, he was used as part of a shut-down pair with Tyler Myers. Not only that, but he regained his scoring touch with two goals and 21 points in their last 37 games.
It was, well, okay. Not brilliant, but as we said at the time it would suffice to be useful, even at his elevated price point. Getting back to 40-45 points while being solid defensively? Fine! That’ll do fine!
Alas, Ekman-Larsson continued to mirror the team as a whole. Another miserable start to 2022-23 led to another coaching change which led to… This part is incomplete, because he was soon injured and his last game was on February 15th.
Since Rick Tocchet took over as coach on January 22, that only left eight full games for them to work together. That’s hardly enough for an evaluation, right?
Relationship Status: Complicated
Tocchet coached Ekman-Larsson for four years in Arizona, with both player and coach leaving after the 2020-21 season. Like Vancouver, the Coyotes reached the NHL playoffs once in their last seven seasons, and that because of the “play-in round” added in 2019-20.
It can’t be said that he had his best seasons under Tocchet, but he scored 40 goals and 140 points in their 275 games together. He isn’t the primary defender in Vancouver, so the responsibilities here are different.
Did Tocchet see enough to make any kind of call on his play? We know that Ekman-Larsson played over 21 minutes in five of Tocchet’s first six games. Then he played just over 18 minutes in game seven, and just over 17 in game eight.
On the other hand, Tocchet has said that he expects Ekman-Larsson to use his lack of playing time as “motivation” and believes he’ll work hard at regaining his form. Certainly, seeing how the team is playing in his absence has got to be galling to the former top-pair defender.
Any decision on an Oliver Ekman-Larsson buyout is a huge one. If ownership is even the slightest unsure about what to do, Tocchet’s opinion might be enough to sway their final verdict. At least for one year.
Cash(out) is King
Make no mistake: nobody makes any decision here without the owner’s say-so. The money involved isn’t in the realm of day-to-day general manager decisions, though Patrik Allvin will get every chance to make his pitch.
That understood, let’s talk about the three paths of the Vancouver Canucks and an Oliver Ekman-Larsson buyout, trade, or keeping him here for the duration.
No Move, No Way
The Canucks would love to get some kind of value back for any trade they make, but that just isn’t going to happen. Even if they keep the maximum 50% retained salary, Ekman-Larsson’s cap sits at $7.26 million. Is he a $3,63 million defender, and will he be for another four years?
Not this year, he wasn’t. And – Erik Karlsson notwithstanding – the odds of Ekman-Larsson suddenly having the best season of his career after the age of 31 seems low.
Now, maybe the team could swing a deal by taking back a higher salary with a briefer term. The Ekman-Larsson trade reversed, in other words. They could take a cap hit for another year with so few salaries needing renegotiation just yet.
The problems here are twofold. First, Ekman-Larsson needs to agree to any trade with his no-move clause. And he said outright that he didn’t want to play anywhere besides Boston and Vancouver the last time he was shopped around.
Second, a move like that will cost the Canucks plenty in the form of draft picks or prospects. If, say, the Nashville Predators agreed to move Ryan Johansen‘s two years for Ekman-Larsson’s four, what ELSE is Nashville getting? They are, after all, paying $13 million more in the deal.
Buy, Bye, Birdie
Cash matters. For the owners to agree to an Ekman-Larsson buyout, management will need to convince them to shell out just over $19.3 million. That’s so a player won’t for them. It’s a tough ask.
On the other hand, it’s also over eight years. Compare that to paying $29 million cash owed over four seasons. The difference, obviously, is that the team would still have a player during those four seasons. That player, though, would be Oliver Ekman-Larsson, and he is very much not worth that much money.
Having “dead money” on the books always sucks, no doubt. But if the team can replace a third-pair defenceman – the level Ekman-Larsson has barely reached this year – with a cheaper AND more effective model? Suddenly it hurts a whole lot less.
At its peak, the cap hit is $4.77 million. That lasts for two years, in 2025-26 and 2026-27. After that, it drops to $2.13 million for four more years. Christian Wolanin just signed a two-year contract worth $775K per season. Kyle Burroughs costs $750,000.
Heck, Ethan Bear is at $1.8 million right now and might not get that next season. Add that $1.8 million to the worst buyout year hit and that’s $6.5 million compared to $7.26 million. And without even considering the money, who would you rather have on the ice?
He’s a Keeper
The bottom line is the bottom line. An Oliver Ekman-Larsson buyout is EXPENSIVE, and if you aren’t the one signing the cheques your say is going to be limited. If the Aquilinis don’t want to pay it, they won’t.
But that doesn’t have to be bad news. Yes, third-pair defencemen are available for cheap, but there’s a reason for it. Ekman-Larsson has a track record of double-digit goal-scoring and 40-point seasons. He even played a defensive role reasonably well last year.
And, of course, there’s the main difference between last year and this one: coaching. With the team tightening up on the defence, having another blue-liner who can score isn’t a bad thing at all. It’s a need the Canucks have, and he’s second in scoring on their defence.
And if we’re talking about cash, guess who’s sitting on a new contract right when those “peak buyout years” hit? The Tyler Myers deal is done then, so money is opening up, but Elias Pettersson isn’t going to want to pass to $4.77 million worth of no one.
The Verdict
For us, the buyout makes the most sense. It provides the greatest flexibility to improve the team in the short and long term. And management has said they want playoff-level improvement within the next two years. That’s harder when one of your most expensive players is getting worse.
But if the team chooses to hold on to Ekman-Larsson, it’s understandable. And who knows? New coach, new system, and maybe a new player.
*Hat tip, as ever, to the invaluable CapFriendly.
Main Photo: Bob Frid-USA TODAY Sports
The post The Pros and Cons of an Oliver Ekman-Larsson Buyout appeared first on Last Word On Hockey.