Loui Eriksson | #21 | LW/RW

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, -AJ- said:

I think if Loui's cap did somehow disappear, we wouldn't really be adding--we'd be looking to keep more pieces than expected. I think with all the raises and LTIR room we're currently using, we'd need substantially more money to keep the team we even just currently have.

I'm fine with cutting some fat. Too much being made of us 'downgrading' next year IMO.

 

I think Roussel's gone. Baer (at least at 50%) gone and again, hopefully some portion of Eriksson (retention, buyout, retire/termination etc) gone.

 

From there we're likely only keeping one of Benn/Stecher at around $2m (the other moved in the summer). Leivo's only back at something like his current hit (his injury may help us there).

 

I think Marky's back at around $6m +/-, Gaudette around $1.5, Virtanen around $2-$2.5, Tanev $4-4.5, Toffoli $5'ish.

 

Fill in a couple of the periphery slots with MacEwan, Tryamkin, Rafferty etc as required.

[-AJ-]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm fine with cutting some fat. Too much being made of us 'downgrading' next year IMO.

 

I think Roussel's gone. Baer (at least at 50%) gone and again, hopefully some portion of Eriksson (retention, buyout, retire/termination etc) gone.

 

From there we're likely only keeping one of Benn/Stecher at around $2m (the other moved in the summer). Leivo's only back at something like his current hit (his injury may help us there).

 

I think Marky's back at around $6m +/-, Gaudette around $1.5, Virtanen around $2-$2.5, Tanev $4-4.5, Toffoli $5'ish.

 

Fill in a couple of the periphery slots with MacEwan, Tryamkin, Rafferty etc as required.

I think you're probably not too far off, but I see Gaudette, Virtanen, and Tanev all getting a bit more than you, so that's probably where I see the potential issue. Bridge deals may save our bacon with Jake and Gaud though, especially with Gaud. 

[aGENT]

Just now, -AJ- said:

I think you're probably not too far off, but I see Gaudette, Virtanen, and Tanev all getting a bit more than you, so that's probably where I see the potential issue. Bridge deals may save our bacon with Jake and Gaud though, especially with Gaud. 

Gaud will likely see a slight bump from Virtanen's current deal of $1.25mX2.

 

Virtanen likely gets 1 year deal around $2-2.5 maybe a hair over $2.5. He's continued to develop nicely but he's far from shown he's anything resembling a consistent player worth paying more, or long term.

 

Not sure how anyone could argue either's going to see much more than that.

 

What contender is going to give injury prone, 60 game, 30+ year old Tanev more than $4-4.5 over 3-4'ish years? Thank blessed Gordie he's been healthy this year but, come on. Is he going to uproot himself from the city he's called home his entire NHL career and leave the team that's finally on it's way up to a contender, over a few hundred K? I doubt it.

 

 

 

[-AJ-]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Gaud will likely see a slight bump from Virtanen's current deal of $1.25mX2.

 

Virtanen likely gets 1 year deal around $2-2.5 maybe a hair over $2.5. He's continued to develop nicely but he's far from shown he's anything resembling a consistent player worth paying more, or long term.

 

Not sure how anyone could argue either's going to see much more than that.

 

What contender is going to give injury prone, 60 game, 30+ year old Tanev more than $4-4.5 over 3-4'ish years? Thank blessed Gordie he's been healthy this year but, come on. Is he going to uproot himself from the city he's called home his entire NHL career and leave the team that's finally on it's way up to a contender, over a few hundred K? I doubt it.

 

 

 

When Virtanen signed for $1.25M, he had just had 20 points in 75 games for a points-per-game of 0.27. Gaudette is currently at 28 points in 51 games for a points-per-game of 0.55. He's a far superior player to when Jake signed that deal and on top of that there's a bit of inflation, since by July, it will be 2 years ago that Jake signed that deal. I'd put Gaud at $1.5M if he signed for one year, but a two-year deal probably pushes it to at least $1.75 or $2M I think.

 

On the same day that Virtanen signed his current deal (July 1, 2018), Sven Baertschi signed for 3.36M over 3 years. He had just finished a year of 0.55 points-per-game and 0.51 points-per-game the year prior, though was showing some injury problems. Virtanen is currently at 0.54 points-per-game, very similar to Baertschi, though unlike Baer, he's only done it for one year so far. However, unlike Baertschi, he also has had far fewer injury problems. Again, Baertschi's deal was signed two years ago, so there's also a bit of inflation to factor in. I would say Virtanen is probably closer to $3M right now, assuming he signs for 2 or 3 years.

 

Sounds like you mostly agree that Tanev is worth probably more than your suggested contract, but just that Tanev won't be willing to leave Vancouver for it. That could possibly be the case and would be a great boon to us. Personally, I have Tanev at around $4.75-$5M right now, given that he hasn't deteriorated since signing his current $4.45M deal way back in March of 2015, when the cap was only $73M. Assuming an $80M cap for next year, inflation alone would put Tanev's pay at $4.88M--anything less would be a pay cut, which I don't makes sense.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, -AJ- said:

When Virtanen signed for $1.25M, he had just had 20 points in 75 games for a points-per-game of 0.27. Gaudette is currently at 28 points in 51 games for a points-per-game of 0.55. He's a far superior player to when Jake signed that deal and on top of that there's a bit of inflation, since by July, it will be 2 years ago that Jake signed that deal. I'd put Gaud at $1.5M if he signed for one year, but a two-year deal probably pushes it to at least $1.75 or $2M I think.

 

On the same day that Virtanen signed his current deal (July 1, 2018), Sven Baertschi signed for 3.36M over 3 years. He had just finished a year of 0.55 points-per-game and 0.51 points-per-game the year prior, though was showing some injury problems. Virtanen is currently at 0.54 points-per-game, very similar to Baertschi, though unlike Baer, he's only done it for one year so far. However, unlike Baertschi, he also has had far fewer injury problems. Again, Baertschi's deal was signed two years ago, so there's also a bit of inflation to factor in. I would say Virtanen is probably closer to $3M right now, assuming he signs for 2 or 3 years.

 

Sounds like you mostly agree that Tanev is worth probably more than your suggested contract, but just that Tanev won't be willing to leave Vancouver for it. That could possibly be the case and would be a great boon to us. Personally, I have Tanev at around $4.75-$5M right now, given that he hasn't deteriorated since signing his current $4.45M deal way back in March of 2015, when the cap was only $73M. Assuming an $80M cap for next year, inflation alone would put Tanev's pay at $4.88M--anything less would be a pay cut, which I don't makes sense.

Benning also had far less leverage when he signed Baer's etc deals 

 

Either way, we're 'arguing' over a few hundred K here and there. I'm pretty sure Benning can figure out how to fit them in, under hits that fit...  

 

 

[-AJ-]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Benning also had far less leverage when he signed Baer's etc deals 

 

Either way, we're 'arguing' over a few hundred K here and there. I'm pretty sure Benning can figure out how to fit them in, under hits that fit...  

 

 

Agreed, I just enjoyed the opportunity to do some research, haha. Benning & Co. have impressed me time and time again, so I'm excited to see what they do this time.

[Kanukfanatic]

On 2/24/2020 at 8:58 PM, AriGold2.0 said:

$31,000,000 for 88 points. He owes the team a mutual termination.

I mean...I have liked Loui's game for the past little while...but...

 

...THAT IS DISGUSTING!!!

 

Normal people scrape by and Loui got paid that much??!!  That is when my faith in society gets shaken badly lol........Jeebus...

[stawns]

On 2/25/2020 at 12:06 PM, aGENT said:

As per Provost in the cap thread, looks like we'd still be on the hook for his bonus money, on top of the $667k x 4 years so that's probably not the out we were hoping for.

 

Back to reality...buyout or retention look like our best options.

 

And after his bonus is paid this summer, he's only owed $5m of actual cash over 2 seasons or $2.5m/year. Retain 50% and that drops to $1.25m (with only $500k of actual cash this year). Take back a +/- $1m AHL contract and that becomes basically a wash. 

 

So fingers crossed!

or he stays on the roster and finds ways to contribute like he did this season.  That's the most probable outcome, imo.

[aGENT]

9 hours ago, stawns said:

or he stays on the roster and finds ways to contribute like he did this season.  That's the most probable outcome, imo.

Given we need to clear cap and presumably would like to re-sign Toffoli... I'm not so sure it is.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Given we need to clear cap and presumably would like to re-sign Toffoli... I'm not so sure it is.

I just don't see how Loui is on the team, even if he has a good playoff performance (hopefully he does for many reasons). 

 

He has a 15 team no trade list, which hopefully he's not a hard ass about. But if he is, then I guess its off to Utica. 

 

Just spitballing the money saving ideas over the last few days, Jim can create 4.9 mil in cap space by sending Loui to Utica, and buying out Sutter and Baer. Crappy options yes, but it can be done and if its the difference between losing Toffoli or not then yeah it has to be done. And its 100% within Jim's control which is why i see it as a real option. 

 

The other option for creating cap is somehow doing 50% retained salary deals for all 3 of Loui, Sutter and Baer, which could net up to 6.8 mil in cap space. More than enough to keep the band together. But thats going to cost us a lot of prospects and make the Madden freak out look tame.

 

Part of all this is I think the team is better than management though it would be by a year. After next season we have 40 mil in cap space and lose a player to Seattle. Its only next season where we are cap squeezed. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[-AJ-]

I don't think a lot of folks are terribly realistic with the idea of trading Eriksson. I honestly don't think you'll find any of the 30 teams who would be willing to trade a 7th round pick for 50% retained on Eriksson. We would need to give up more even if we retained 50%. Unless we're willing to give up another prospect/pick, we're not trading him. I think the most realistic way would be to send him to Utica in hopes that he tires of the AHL and then wants out.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I just don't see how Loui is on the team, even if he has a good playoff performance (hopefully he does for many reasons). 

 

He has a 15 team no trade list, which hopefully he's not a hard ass about. But if he is, then I guess its off to Utica. 

 

Just spitballing the money saving ideas over the last few days, Jim can create 4.9 mil in cap space by sending Loui to Utica, and buying out Sutter and Baer. Crappy options yes, but it can be done and if its the difference between losing Toffoli or not then yeah it has to be done. And its 100% within Jim's control which is why i see it as a real option. 

 

The other option for creating cap is somehow doing 50% retained salary deals for all 3 of Loui, Sutter and Baer, which could net up to 6.8 mil in cap space. More than enough to keep the band together. But thats going to cost us a lot of prospects and make the Madden freak out look tame.

 

Part of all this is I think the team is better than management though it would be by a year. After next season we have 40 mil in cap space and lose a player to Seattle. Its only next season where we are cap squeezed. 

Not impossible, but I don't see us moving Sutter (particularly with retention) when Roussel's sitting there as very movable cap. He'd return some sort of asset. No reason to gut our NHL capable C depth to clear cap, when there's other options on a position we're far deeper at IMO. Especially with him as part of the leadership group. Sutter will be gone soon enough anyway ('21 TDL or following summer). Or at least re-signed FAR cheaper if he does wish to stay/we want to retain him.

 

Baer I definitely see either being moved (with 50% retention and/or with assets...hopefully the one's we got from moving Roussel, so not really a 'loss') or bought out. Either option is about $1.6m savings (the buyout adding $800K the following year as well). Management may consider buyout the better option as it at least won't cost us assets and the cost/savings difference is minimal. But if we can swing it for a guy like Keppen or similar etc...by all means.

 

There's $4.6m +/- right there.

 

From there, yes Loui... The options are buyout, which only saves $333K next year (which as you point out, is our only real 'crunch' year, so not ideal), trade with retention (and likely assets) or retire/mutually terminate. I'm crossing all my toes and fingers we can find a trade partner as that's by FAR our best (realistic) route. Though I did like Provosts post on the threat of clawing back his bonus...that may yet help us with something like the earlier scenario you posted (threaten to claw back bonus after buyout if he doesn't retire).

 

There are options though. Trade him to OTT for Colin White for example and buy White out and his cap hit becomes $1.566m next year and $816K the nine years after. Yeah, ten years of buyout penalty sucks but that's very manageable dollar amounts. Saving us a further $4.4m next year and $5.2m the year following (while costing us a minimal $816k for 8 years after).

 

Or conversely, wait until Loui's bonus is paid and then retain 50% to a team like OTT, DET etc. That leaves him at an effective $1.25m/year of actual cash ($5m left owing/2 years x 50%). Take back an AHL contract ($700K-$1.1m) + and that's only at most, +/- $500K/year to upgrade from an AHL player to a depth 'little things,' bottom 6 NHL'er for the other team. That might not even cost us a TONNE in assets. That saves us a further $3m the next two years (more if the other team buys him out...which would cost us more assets).

 

Retirement/termination (after bonus) saves us $3m next year and $6m the year following.

 

Edit: Oh and of course waiving him which saves $1m - the likely ELC to replace him = +/- $300K. In which case buyout is likely a better option as it likely saves a hair more cap space next year but far more the year following and gets him out of our hair.

 

However the Canucks sort it out... we should, without too much pain/assets, be able to clear somewhere between $5-9m +/- there.

 

Then we have places we can possibly trim some more...like moving Benn and replacing him for an ELC saving $1.2m, not re-signing Leivo (or at a reduction due to his injury) etc.

 

They've got a lot of work to do but it's definitely manageable.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by aGENT

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I don't think a lot of folks are terribly realistic with the idea of trading Eriksson. I honestly don't think you'll find any of the 30 teams who would be willing to trade a 7th round pick for 50% retained on Eriksson. We would need to give up more even if we retained 50%. Unless we're willing to give up another prospect/pick, we're not trading him. I think the most realistic way would be to send him to Utica in hopes that he tires of the AHL and then wants out.

As I just outlined above, while it's certainly no slam dunk, it's not as impossible as you're making it out to be. You just have to have it make sense financially to the other team (which is not that hard to do). Add a decent prospect or the like for their trouble and it's certainly possible.

 

I will also hold out hope that between @Provost's information on team's ability to threaten bonus claw back and @Jimmy McGill's discovery of his $2.66m divided by 4 years non bonus, buyout salary, that we might yet convince him to retire/mutually terminate.

 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

As I just outlined above, while it's certainly no slam dunk, it's not as impossible as you're making it out to be. You just have to have it make sense financially to the other team (which is not that hard to do). Add a decent prospect or the like for their trouble and it's certainly possible.

 

I will also hold out hope that between @Provost's information on team's ability to threaten bonus claw back and @Jimmy McGill's discovery of his $2.66m divided by 4 years non bonus, buyout salary, that we might yet convince him to retire/mutually terminate.

 

I missed the clawback thing - how does that work? wouldn't there be a major battle with the PA? 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I missed the clawback thing - how does that work? wouldn't there be a major battle with the PA? 

 

On 2/25/2020 at 1:56 PM, Provost said:

I read it in the CBA a couple of weeks back.

 

If a player retires in a season where he has gotten a signing bonus, the team is allowed to go to arbitration and get the bonus back.  It is up to the team to do so, and that is how they can save the cap hit from it.

It stops players from taking the money and running.  Most situations teams don’t want that to happen, but we could use it as leverage to get him to play ball... we say we won’t take him to arbitration for it if he retires in time for us to actually use that cap space in free agency to re-sign players.

Not sure if it's only retirement or if you can claw back via arbitration after buyout as well...perhaps @Provost knows?

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by aGENT

[Provost]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I missed the clawback thing - how does that work? wouldn't there be a major battle with the PA? 

If a player decides to retire after getting their signing bonus for that season, the team is able to go to arbitration to get the money back.  Presumably in most cases teams wouldn't want to be giving out money and then having the player leave (we would love that).

It could just be used as a pressure point for Eriksson "IF" we decided to play hard ball.

The idea would be in his exit interview to tell him that he is going to be assigned directly to Utica next year and we are moving on.  Give him the opportunity to retire July 1st after getting his signing bonus and choosing not to claw it back from him.  That would only be on the table if he announced his retirement on July 1st so that we could actually use that cap space.

 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

If a player decides to retire after getting their signing bonus for that season, the team is able to go to arbitration to get the money back.  Presumably in most cases teams wouldn't want to be giving out money and then having the player leave (we would love that).

It could just be used as a pressure point for Eriksson "IF" we decided to play hard ball.

The idea would be in his exit interview to tell him that he is going to be assigned directly to Utica next year and we are moving on.  Give him the opportunity to retire July 1st after getting his signing bonus and choosing not to claw it back from him.  That would only be on the table if he announced his retirement on July 1st so that we could actually use that cap space.

 

So a no go with the claw back if we go the route of a buyout? 

 

It would just add to our leverage if it was possible.

[Provost]

8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

So a no go with the claw back if we go the route of a buyout? 

 

It would just add to our leverage if it was possible.

No, it is just a claw back if he takes a signing bonus and then decides not to fulfil his part of the contract (by retiring).

It is just a way to avoid him just refusing to retire and dealing with it when the season starts or afterwards (which is no good for us trying to be cap compliant).  If he agrees to retire on July 1st we won't take him to arbitration.

[aGENT]

Just now, Provost said:

No, it is just a claw back if he takes a signing bonus and then decides not to fulfil his part of the contract (by retiring).

It is just a way to avoid him just refusing to retire and dealing with it when the season starts or afterwards (which is no good for us trying to be cap compliant).  If he agrees to retire on July 1st we won't take him to arbitration.

[c00kies]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

No, it is just a claw back if he takes a signing bonus and then decides not to fulfil his part of the contract (by retiring).

It is just a way to avoid him just refusing to retire and dealing with it when the season starts or afterwards (which is no good for us trying to be cap compliant).  If he agrees to retire on July 1st we won't take him to arbitration.

Oddly enough, Darian Durant did something similar with the Blue Bombers, where he signed as a free agent, took his bonus, then retired before the off-season was even over. With a clawback, the Bombers would have been able to keep that money.