Kenji wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 8:07 am
Isn’t LA the obvious landing spot?
His wife has ties there and is an influencer.
He once used to aspire to having a brand and I dare say his scooter riding ways would be more acceptable than in sneering Raintown.
They need a star center after Kopitar and are not rebuilding.
They have a 17th OA to play but maybe taking their 2027 or 2028 would be juicier.
For the sake of hockey, I also want EP40 to get his game back and it’s possible that he is never going to get over whatever happened to him in Vancouver
This is true. Even If EP40 can regain 75point form here, certain fans and media will never forgive him for the damage to the lockerroom.
And I am all in for taking 1st round picks 3-4 years down the road. This is a weaker draft, and we need to layer the prospects into the development system. It would really suck to have 4-5 guys coming off ELC's all at the same time and all needing 7-9 million each (we want that to be 1-3 guys a year)
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with until you understand I am in charge.
If there is csp retention involved, just say NO. Its hard enough you win with a full deck. But, retaining on EP40, and the OEL payouts would be crippling as we try to rebuild.
Tciso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:32 pm
If there is csp retention involved, just say NO. Its hard enough you win with a full deck. But, retaining on EP40, and the OEL payouts would be crippling as we try to rebuild.
How? When do you think the Canucks will be spending to the cap?
Isn't the point of "weaponizing cap space" taking on a cash liability (or cap space) in order to get a better asset than you otherwise would get? If you retained $3M on EP40 to improve the assets coming back, don't you entertain it? I understand why the owner wouldn't (its his money), but from the cap management perspective the whole point of the space not spent on the on ice product is to increase future assets. Retaining, taking on a bad contract, it doesn't matter the form.
Tciso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:32 pm
If there is csp retention involved, just say NO. Its hard enough you win with a full deck. But, retaining on EP40, and the OEL payouts would be crippling as we try to rebuild.
How? When do you think the Canucks will be spending to the cap?
Isn't the point of "weaponizing cap space" taking on a cash liability (or cap space) in order to get a better asset than you otherwise would get? If you retained $3M on EP40 to improve the assets coming back, don't you entertain it? I understand why the owner wouldn't (its his money), but from the cap management perspective the whole point of the space not spent on the on ice product is to increase future assets. Retaining, taking on a bad contract, it doesn't matter the form.
Take it on for a year or perhaps 2. No long term fuckenings please.
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with until you understand I am in charge.
Tciso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:32 pm
If there is cap retention involved, just say NO. Its hard enough you win with a full deck. But, retaining on EP40, and the OEL payouts would be crippling as we try to rebuild.
How? When do you think the Canucks will be spending to the cap?
Isn't the point of "weaponizing cap space" taking on a cash liability (or cap space) in order to get a better asset than you otherwise would get? If you retained $3M on EP40 to improve the assets coming back, don't you entertain it? I understand why the owner wouldn't (its his money), but from the cap management perspective the whole point of the space not spent on the on ice product is to increase future assets. Retaining, taking on a bad contract, it doesn't matter the form.
Hey, no problem if we are talking cap back for the next 2 or 3 years. But, once our current muppet babies on defence hit their 2nd contracts, they are going to eat up a lot of cap. We really don't want to be entering our competitive period with $4.5 or $5 million tied up in retained salaries in 2029 or 2030. OEL is still $2.126 for 5 more years. Adding $2 or $3 more for 6 years retaining on EPete means we are playing with less depth when we will be needing every penny, and every depth piece available.
To be clear, I have no problem picking up a 2 or 3 year cap dump contract for the proper picks in return. But, having dead cap in years 4 to 6 on our rebuild is dumb.
(we want that to be 1-3 guys a year)
