D-Money Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Matthew Peca is a 25 year-old center in the Tampa Bay organization. He was a former 7th round pick, but is another example of a great late round find by Yzerman & Co. He's only 5'9", but has dominated at the AHL, and played well in some NHL stints (5 points in 10 games this season), but due to the depth on Tampa hasn't been able to crack the roster on a regular basis. Because of this, he's a pending group VI UFA, having not played enough NHL games by age 25 to maintain RFA status. Tampa may convince him to stay, but if I'm his agent I'd be pretty firmly telling him to go somewhere where he has a chance to finally play regularly. If he does go to market, I propose throwing a strong offer at him - perhaps 2-3 years at $1.5 million per. It's a risk, but it's the type of risk that is probably worth taking. It doesn't cost anything but the contract. He's young, and just entering his prime. If it works out, fantastic. If it doesn't, no loss whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 I was looking at his stats yesterday and he seemed to have some real upside despite his low stature. Free acquisition: I'm game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 He stood out when I saw him live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyndall2 Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 When can we buy out Erikson? I say try and get this guy, for that price. We are paying way more for too many plugs that don't perform year after year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Tyndall2 said: When can we buy out Erikson? I say try and get this guy, for that price. We are paying way more for too many plugs that don't perform year after year. Buying out Eriksson would be silly. We don't need the cap now. As it is, if we do nothing, he's completely off the books in 4 years, and we won't be ready to contend in those years anyways. But if we buy him out, we have a $2 million penalty for EIGHT years. It stands to reason that in some of those years, we'll be a good team, and would really love to have that cap room. There's no reason not to keep Eriksson. If we get good ahead of schedule, maybe we'll be able to find a taker for the last year or two of his deal, when his actual salary is only $4 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 30 minutes ago, Tyndall2 said: When can we buy out Erikson? I say try and get this guy, for that price. We are paying way more for too many plugs that don't perform year after year. Eriksson won't be bought out, there's no reason to. We have plenty of cap space and this guy does bring other qualities besides goal scoring. His production isn't there, but he's no where near as bad as some fans try and paint him. Yes he's overpriced right now, but its not hurting us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Ha, I was thinking of Mike Peca. Isn't he too old? Man he was a beauty, him Dave Scatchard and Scott Walker... Not a lot of winning during those days but a lot of ass kicking at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Might be an interesting signing. I wouldn't go that kind of dollars and term tho. 2 years at 750k or so maybe, if you really liked his game and wanted to protect him from loss to waivers a little bit. He's pretty tiny tho so if he's not scoring like Gaudreau I'm not sure where he fits or if he'll be an upgrade on Palmu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, Tre Mac said: Ha, I was thinking of Mike Peca. Isn't he too old? Man he was a beauty, him Dave Scatchard and Scott Walker... Not a lot of winning during those days but a lot of ass kicking at least. Hahah, yes. I was a big fan of his after he blew up Teemu Selanne. I was really excited when I heard Vancouver acquired Alex Mogilny...until I discovered who we were sending back the other way. However, AFAIK, Mike Peca and Matthew Peca are not related in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Might be an interesting signing. I wouldn't go that kind of dollars and term tho. 2 years at 750k or so maybe, if you really liked his game and wanted to protect him from loss to waivers a little bit. He's pretty tiny tho so if he's not scoring like Gaudreau I'm not sure where he fits or if he'll be an upgrade on Palmu. Counting your chickens before they've hatched, Jimmy? Peca is ready to challenge for a spot now. We should confidently know if he's worth keeping long-term before Petrus has even a sniff of an NHL game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, D-Money said: Counting your chickens before they've hatched, Jimmy? Peca is ready to challenge for a spot now. We should confidently know if he's worth keeping long-term before Petrus has even a sniff of an NHL game. probably. My concern with Peca is IF he doesn't have the offensive side and with no size I don't see where he fits in. Thats a lot of money and term to throw at an unproven guy, thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 Just now, Jimmy McGill said: probably. My concern with Peca is IF he doesn't have the offensive side and with no size I don't see where he fits in. Thats a lot of money and term to throw at an unproven guy, thats all. Well, if he was a slam dunk, he'd cost a lot more, and have his pick of teams lining up for him. As it is, it's a slight risk, but $1.5M won't exactly break the bank. Even if he flames out and ends up in the AHL, it's less than a $500K hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, D-Money said: Well, if he was a slam dunk, he'd cost a lot more, and have his pick of teams lining up for him. As it is, it's a slight risk, but $1.5M won't exactly break the bank. Even if he flames out and ends up in the AHL, it's less than a $500K hit. very true, if they did something like that for a 1 year deal if the scouting was great... sure why not? Its just multi year term I had an issue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: very true, if they did something like that for a 1 year deal if the scouting was great... sure why not? Its just multi year term I had an issue with. I'd prefer 1-year too, I was just proposing something I thought would be definitely the best offer, to seal the deal. 2 years at decent money will almost certainly pique his interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 1 hour ago, D-Money said: Buying out Eriksson would be silly. We don't need the cap now. As it is, if we do nothing, he's completely off the books in 4 years, and we won't be ready to contend in those years anyways. But if we buy him out, we have a $2 million penalty for EIGHT years. It stands to reason that in some of those years, we'll be a good team, and would really love to have that cap room. There's no reason not to keep Eriksson. If we get good ahead of schedule, maybe we'll be able to find a taker for the last year or two of his deal, when his actual salary is only $4 mil. CapFriendly says his CAP hit would be as follows: There is no financial benefit to buying him out at all. As you say, no reason not to keep him. Loui Eriksson is 32 years old at the date of the buyout Salary remaining: $6,000,000 (with an additional $14,000,000 in signing bonuses remaining) The buyout ratio is 2/3, which results in a total buyout cost of $4,000,000 There are 4 years remaining on this contract The buyout will be spread out over 8 years The annual buyout cost is $500,000 The buyout cap hit is displayed in the far right column Buyout Details SEASON SALARY INITIAL CAP HIT ACTUAL COST SAVINGS BUYOUT CAP HIT 2018-19 $1,000,000 $6,000,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,500,000 2019-20 $1,000,000 $6,000,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,500,000 2020-21 $1,000,000 $6,000,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,500,000 2021-22 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 $3,500,000 2022-23 $0 $0 $500,000 -$500,000 $500,000 2023-24 $0 $0 $500,000 -$500,000 $500,000 2024-25 $0 $0 $500,000 -$500,000 $500,000 2025-26 $0 $0 $500,000 -$500,000 $500,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ojibwa72 Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: probably. My concern with Peca is IF he doesn't have the offensive side and with no size I don't see where he fits in. Thats a lot of money and term to throw at an unproven guy, thats all. Matthew Peca Career Stats Season Team GP G A P +/- PIM PPG PPP SHG SHP GWG OTG S S% FO% 2014-2015 Syracuse 8 1 3 4 -1 0 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 10 10 -- 2015-2016 Syracuse 65 8 35 43 -11 10 2 -- 0 -- 1 -- 79 10.1 -- 2016-2017 Syracuse Crunch 68 12 29 41 -6 14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2017-2018 Syracuse Crunch 63 13 33 46 -1 18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Season 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Non-NHL statistics provided by EliteProspects.com I would say he might have some upside to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris12345 Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 3 hours ago, D-Money said: Buying out Eriksson would be silly. We don't need the cap now. As it is, if we do nothing, he's completely off the books in 4 years, and we won't be ready to contend in those years anyways. But if we buy him out, we have a $2 million penalty for EIGHT years. It stands to reason that in some of those years, we'll be a good team, and would really love to have that cap room. There's no reason not to keep Eriksson. If we get good ahead of schedule, maybe we'll be able to find a taker for the last year or two of his deal, when his actual salary is only $4 mil. That's a good post. Base on your input I'd rather he stayed at home and Aqua paid him to stoke the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 How about a defenceman instead or is that too logical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 56 minutes ago, Ojibwa72 said: I would say he might have some upside to him. I guess if he brings a ton of speed too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 He's the type of Low Risk/High Reward signing the Canucks should make. With guys like Jonathan Marschessault and Yanni Gourde showing themselves as small guys who Yzerman uncovered, it's hard to think Peca couldn't have some impact in the NHL if given a chance. Canucks can give Peca that chance to see if he's the next M or G or not. We do have a little feisty guy in Brendan Lepisic who I think may have a standout season next year but we'll see. But yeah, I'd sign Peca. He seems worth it. And at worst, is an upgrade over the Megna/Chaput/Dowd types Canucks management has used in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.