Quoting: dgibb10
2 contracts at 4.75≠ 1 contract at 5.4. Because then we have to find a 4th line Bastian replacement.
This is very fair, but it is much easier to find a 4th-line wing replacement making league minimum than a starting goalie. I don't know that the Devils are a fit either, they just seem to be one of those team that keep popping up that supposedly "have interest".
Quoting: dgibb10
I view Elvis as about a 3.5 million dollar goalie (at 2.7 that’s 3.2 million in surplus value)
And vitek as about a 2 million dollar goalie. (That’s -2.8 mill in surplus value)
Overall 6 million, which I would pay a 1st for.
An Elvis unretained? That’s a significant negative value asset in my view
The biggest thing from CBJ's point of view is clearing as much of the contract out as possible, and the return matters much less. He's already viewed as not the long-term answer (The FO thinks it's Tarasov, I think it's Greaves). We're already stocked on prospects and picks. We'll probably load up on more with other pieces at the TDL and offseason.
We just can't hamstring ourselves with more dead cap, especially when literally 1/3 of the roster is on ELC's right now (Fantilli, Johnson, Marchenko, Sillinger, Chinakhov, Voronkov, and Jiricek), all of whom are due raises before Elvis' contract is up. If Elvis' deal was up in 2026 when Fantilli and Jiricek are due, great, we could realistically retain more, but the objective has to be taking back shorter-term money now over retaining.
There's got to be something in the middle, like Elvis at $1.2M retained. If Vitek goes the other way, that's +2.8M total out and -2.8M total back in on surplus value over the life of both deals, if I recreated your math correctly. It's not ideal, but that's a lot more manageable.