Toronto gets all of that in a contract that only pays them $3.5 million per season over this year and the next three years.

Long story short, OEL is a success in the TO, which is obviously relevant here in this market, as the Leafs aren’t the only team paying Ekman-Larsson in the 2024/25 season. Due to his prior buyout, the Canucks assess a $2.347 million penalty for Ekman-Larsson this year – not far from his cap hit – and next year that will rise to $4.767 million. That’s right, starting in 2025/26 the Canucks will pay OEL more than the Leafs for OEL to play in Toronto.

Which, naturally, led to discussions about whether the Canucks made a mistake in acquiring Ekman-Larsson in the first place. But it’s an argument that doesn’t really hold water, because all the Ekman-Larsson situation really proves is that NHL players simply can’t be divorced from the context of their contracts.

Ekman-Larsson making $3.5 million in Toronto just isn’t the same player who was making $8.25 million per year (split between the Canucks and Arizona Coyotes) in Vancouver.

The same could be said for Ekman-Larsson, who won the Cup with Florida on a one-year deal worth $2.25 million last season. But, at least in this case, there was an argument that Ekman-Larsson was simply succeeding with fewer expectations, responsibilities and spotlight. In Florida, OEL played just 18:24 per night in the regular season, the lowest ice time since his rookie campaign, and responded with 32 points, his most since the 2018/19 season.

Even there, the context of the contract was important, as it helped reduce expectations, responsibilities and visibility.

He played even less, and probably better, in the playoffs.

But today, the situation in Toronto is radically different.

Here Ekman-Larsson signed a much bigger contract. He did it in probably the most pressure-filled market in sports. And not only does he play well, he plays well in the exact same role in which he failed in Vancouver, that of one of the four best two-way defenders. This is where we really get to the idea that the Canucks made a mistake.

The key question is: if they had simply waited and not reacquired Ekman-Larsson, would he have achieved the same form in Vancouver?

And the answer is no. Or at least, almost certainly not.

There are other factors at play. It was rumored that Ekman-Larsson suffered a long-term injury in Vancouver from which he has since fully recovered. However, the contract is also an essential factor, perhaps the main one. It was obvious to anyone watching OEL in Vancouver, and then last year in Florida, that this was a player who was once burdened by a hefty contract and the expectations that came with it, then suddenly freed from this burden and responded kindly.

We are not going to try to get into Ekman-Larsson’s head here. A pessimist might suggest that OEL hasn’t put as much effort into Vancouver because of the comfort that such a high income brings. A more sympathetic person might suggest that it was the weight of salary responsibilities that held OEL back, his desire to do more than he was capable of.

Regardless, the contract was a factor, meaning OEL’s current reinvention was not possible without the removal of that contract. Which means the Ekman-Larsson birth would never have taken place in Vancouver.

He was able to skate in Florida with minimal expectations and leave with a Stanley Cup. He then arrived in Toronto with expectations as reasonable as possible in this city and a contract already described as a bargain.

These were circumstances OEL was never going to encounter with the Canucks.

So, the Canucks still made the right choice by buying Ekman-Larsson. Just like the Panthers, and then the Maple Leafs, did the right thing by giving him second and third chances that the Canucks simply couldn’t.

Once again, this is proof that NHL players must still exist within the framework of their contracts. And the somewhat parallel story of Tyler Myers provides further proof.

We all know this story quite well. In the summer of 2019, Myers signed a five-year UFA deal with an average annual value (AAV) of $6 million with the Canucks, and immediately felt those personal expectations rise. His first season went pretty well, including that bubble series in the playoffs. But by the second year, the gaffes had become a story, and Myers was labeled with the dreaded label “overpaid” – which is a hard thing to shake. In 2021/22, Myers was firmly in Goat territory, and we don’t mean it like the kids say.

But then a funny thing started to happen. Yes, Myers started playing a lot better when head coach Rick Tocchet took over. But another factor at play was that the big UFA contract Myers signed was slowly, but surely, ending with four or five years still remaining on the deal. It seemed like a heavy burden. But with only a year or two left? It became a lot more swallowable, and Myers played as well.

Bring it to the present day, and Myers has since signed a second contract with the Canucks, this one for the next three seasons and an AAV of $3 million, half of what he previously made. And, to be honest, Myers’ play so far in 2024/25 isn’t up to par with his performance last year. But that doesn’t really matter because he’s not going bankrupt anymore.

Myers has made quite the evolution from a near-hated figure to a downright popular figure, and much of that is due to the changing context of his contract.

Myers was fortunate to have his big contract expire and then be replaced by a much smaller contract, all without ever having to leave Vancouver. It was an opportunity that Ekman-Larsson, who was set to remain on the books until 2027, was simply never going to receive.

Leaving the OEL wasn’t a bad choice for the Canucks, as it was barely a choice. It was just an economic reality caused by the context of his contract. There’s no point crying over overturned hits.