[Speculation] Lucic says he would like to play here

[18W-40C-6W]

9 hours ago, mll said:

It's not about him being a bad person but the team just being caught in limbo - it's not only about Eriksson.  They need to make decisions and move this thing forward.

Boeser's contract is going to give an idea of the window and what to expect for future salary demands.  There might not be all that much time to build a contender.  You have to build a team - not just a bunch of guys who play hockey together.  Murray says he has a lot of good players but he does not have a good team.  Coyle just took an indirect shot at Minnesota by saying what impressed him the most in Boston is their leadership - Minnesota never built a team.

The veterans have to be secure enough in their roles to help the younger players progress.  Eriksson wants to play in an offensive role and feels he is misused by Green.  It's not an ideal situation.  It's really not just about that but also roster construction.

 

The Canucks are a patchwork with so many different style of play where it's difficult to create lines that fit - probably why Green is always putting everything in the blender.  They need to decide what kind of team they are and adjust the roster accordingly.  I am not convinced Eriksson fits with how Green ultimately wants to play.  He's not the only one.  At one point you have to start to shape the roster into the kind of team you want.  You can't continuously delay because players get closer to UFA status and there's the salary cap.

 

Very well put. And a real vet and leader would accept his game has fallen off but he can contribute in other ways and work his tail off to set an example and teach the kids. Instead Louie whines about his ice when he was gifted so many chances despite his play. I think the whining is now why he’s going to be moved or bought out. The canucks have never allowed that type of me first attitude in their room and they have always been about character and team building. I’ll be very surprised to see him back next year and if he is, he’ll be quickly traded, in the press box or in the minors. 

[Provost]

8 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

all fair points, mil. 

 

Sounds like Bob Mckenzie thinks there will be movement on Loui:

 

 

The Erikkson for Lucic idea never really made much sense to me practically.

 

Edmonton badly needs to shed cap space, not just swap cap problems.  They are going to have to add an asset to move Lucic somewhere and take less salary back.

 

From us it would have to be something like Spooner+Schaller for Lucic and the 8OA.

 

Edmonton gets a little cap relief now but a butt ton after next year.

 

We would have to be confident that we could move Eriksson though.

[Smashian Kassian]

 

 

9 hours ago, aGENT said:

Rather keep 10th and gain another asset. There's pretty minimal value difference between the 8 and 10 picks.

 

I'm in no hurry to see us do EDM a favour, certainly not for peanuts.

I don't agree. 10 to 8 could be the difference between getting Boldy/Cozens & not getting Boldy/Cozens.

 

And I said something else aswell, the pick swap wouldn't be the only thing.

 

 

6 hours ago, theo5789 said:

I also believe the skating is blown out of proportion. He's not the fastest guy, but that's never been his game.

 

My concerns are more about his character. He's said and done some cringe-worthy things. Also he's got the extra year on his deal, plus Edmonton would be removing his NMC. It's a non-starter if he keeps his NMC unless they are giving us McDavid or Draisaitl with 50% retention. And even though LE would balance out the cap for the meantime, most of his salary will be paid out after July 1st and will be much more moveable with a lesser sweetener added. While LE is getting older, his skating looked fine in the World Championships. He just seems less motivated here.

 

These factors suggest to me that they would have to give up quite a bit in return even if LE is headed back the other way. Swapping 8 and 10 means nothing really, but swapping their 8 for our 40 is more reasonable. Even then I think I'd prefer more to be added simply because of what they will be gaining by moving Lucic.

 

Completely agree with the bolded. 

 

And again, I said they'd have to add something else like another younger player. I see value in 8 to 10 because that could be the difference between getting a big top 6 winger like Boldy vs taking a 2nd pair D like Soderstrom or Broberg.

 

Add another good piece from EDM & I see value you in. Its a great opportunity to draft a better player & get another asset back.  Plus Lucic is a need for us, contracts aside if you were to take 1 guy on your team I'd much rather Lucic than Eriksson. Atleast he provides some needed muscle & intimidation in a bottom 6 role.

 

I see where your coming from but personally I don't view his character as an issue. I think he tends to lose his cool alot more than the average guy, he's done somethings for sure. But overall I think he's a solid vet who's been there & done that, and he's willing to be the first guy to stand up for his teammates. Which we need with this young group IMO. 

 

10 hours ago, oldnews said:

So Lucic's hands are declining as or more rapidly than his legs?

Sounds good to me!

Perhaps that explains the 6 goals he scored.

 

Anyhow, sarcasm aside, let's not outsmart ourselves here.  The idea that 'the problem' wasn't being a slug, but losing his hand-eye/upside... is not really reassuring.

 

I'm not strictly against fleecing them and moving Eriksson in the process, but otherwise, if the payoff isn't significant enough (and imo moving up 2 spots is nowhere near enough incentive), trading BC Ferries for the Titanic....maybe there's a better solution out there?

 

 

It doesn't matter what he does offensively, that's now why we'd bring him in. I don't want to watch this young group be pushed around. Gudbranson while not fighting alot (I'd argue b/c of his position) does leave a hole in our lineup.

 

And again, everyone responding seems to conveniently ignore the part where I (clearly) said they'd have to add something else. And by that I mean a younger player/asset that can grow with our young group.

 

Ultimately if Lucic ditches the NMC (which the whole deal would hinge on) its only 1 extra year your taking on, and getting assets to aid the rebuild in the process. Plus the player can actual add something to the team, unlike Loui who's just taking up a roster spot. 

 

[theo5789]

2 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Completely agree with the bolded. 

 

And again, I said they'd have to add something else like another younger player. I see value in 8 to 10 because that could be the difference between getting a big top 6 winger like Boldy vs taking a 2nd pair D like Soderstrom or Broberg.

 

Add another good piece from EDM & I see value you in. Its a great opportunity to draft a better player & get another asset back.  Plus Lucic is a need for us, contracts aside if you were to take 1 guy on your team I'd much rather Lucic than Eriksson. Atleast he provides some needed muscle & intimidation in a bottom 6 role.

 

I see where your coming from but personally I don't view his character as an issue. I think he tends to lose his cool alot more than the average guy, he's done somethings for sure. But overall I think he's a solid vet who's been there & done that, and he's willing to be the first guy to stand up for his teammates. Which we need with this young group IMO. 

There's value from going to 8 to 10, but not enough value for me to make this deal. What is the add? It would still take quite a bit more because you have to consider what Edmonton is gaining here by dumping Lucic. Getting a get out of jail free card should not come cheap. Perhaps Boldy gets taken by 7, then what are we left with at 8? If it's based on a certain player falling to that position and thinking that player won't fall more then it'll have to be a draft day deal made just before the 8th pick is made. Plus Edmonton likely wants a dman anyway, so it's also favourable for them to trade down anyway and still nab their target while dumping an anchor.

 

If we are simply looking for physical intimidation, there are far better options than taking a 6 million dollar guy. For example, I bet we could nab a Zack Smith for LE. I believe the actually salary after July 1st for LE would be about the same if not less than the cost of Smith while putting them closer to the cap floor. Smith had as many majors as Lucic did last year and had 28 points to Lucic's 20 and Smith clearly was on a much worse team. They're both the same age and Smith doesn't have a long of a contract to affect our cap space in the future. Another option could be someone like Kyle Clifford who I'm sure could be had for cheap and had double Lucic's majors. Or we could even look at someone like Pat Maroon if he hits UFA that could be signed for free and he also had double the majors.

 

Losing your cool easily is something you have to be careful with. What if it turns onto your own teammates? I mentioned 3 guys where Clifford has also won a Cup and the other two so far have gone on decent runs, so they have the experience as well and can provide the same role and will be much cheaper to acquire. The only reason I would take on Lucic over those other options is because Edmonton would be making it incredibly enticing to free themselves of a major burden.

[Smashian Kassian]

38 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

There's value from going to 8 to 10, but not enough value for me to make this deal. What is the add? It would still take quite a bit more because you have to consider what Edmonton is gaining here by dumping Lucic. Getting a get out of jail free card should not come cheap. Perhaps Boldy gets taken by 7, then what are we left with at 8? If it's based on a certain player falling to that position and thinking that player won't fall more then it'll have to be a draft day deal made just before the 8th pick is made. Plus Edmonton likely wants a dman anyway, so it's also favourable for them to trade down anyway and still nab their target while dumping an anchor.

 

If we are simply looking for physical intimidation, there are far better options than taking a 6 million dollar guy. For example, I bet we could nab a Zack Smith for LE. I believe the actually salary after July 1st for LE would be about the same if not less than the cost of Smith while putting them closer to the cap floor. Smith had as many majors as Lucic did last year and had 28 points to Lucic's 20 and Smith clearly was on a much worse team. They're both the same age and Smith doesn't have a long of a contract to affect our cap space in the future. Another option could be someone like Kyle Clifford who I'm sure could be had for cheap and had double Lucic's majors. Or we could even look at someone like Pat Maroon if he hits UFA that could be signed for free and he also had double the majors.

 

Losing your cool easily is something you have to be careful with. What if it turns onto your own teammates? I mentioned 3 guys where Clifford has also won a Cup and the other two so far have gone on decent runs, so they have the experience as well and can provide the same role and will be much cheaper to acquire. The only reason I would take on Lucic over those other options is because Edmonton would be making it incredibly enticing to free themselves of a major burden.

 

But your almost forgetting that its Loui Eriksson going the other way. Edmonton gets out of the expansion draft problem, but they are still taking a bad contract at the same cap hit. For in some ways a more useless player.

 

So if look elsewhere, say we pay a decent contract in free agency, and we are still stuck with Loui Eriksson.

 

If we weren't to look this route, and just try to ditch Eriksson, then we are adding assets for other teams to take him which we can't afford. Sure you help Edmonton free up an ED spot & 1 year of bad contract, but we are also getting out a bad contract & getting rid of a terrible player in the process. 

 

We can't forget that Eriksson has a bad contract & is also a terrible player. 

 

I think Lucic has tightened up his act over time, when I say that I'm thinking of the 2014 montreal series where he was going off in the handshake line. As far as I know there's no history of teammate problems, he just sometimes has the wires cross in the head of the battle.

 

 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

There's value from going to 8 to 10, but not enough value for me to make this deal. What is the add? It would still take quite a bit more because you have to consider what Edmonton is gaining here by dumping Lucic. Getting a get out of jail free card should not come cheap. Perhaps Boldy gets taken by 7, then what are we left with at 8?

Moving up two spots for Benning and our scouts is big value I’d say.  In the past few years, teams have paid a high price to move up just one spot (something like a 3rd and 6th rounders). 

I think you are undervaluing going from 10th to 8th. 

 

36 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

If we are simply looking for physical intimidation, there are far better options than taking a 6 million dollar guy. For example, I bet we could nab a Zack Smith for LE. 

... for sure, and I think that trading LE to Ottawa actually makes more sense since they will be trying to reach the cap floor.  Zack had a terrible year but I’d really like to get him here and see if he can get his mojo back. 

 

 

Lucic is a bigger deterrent then any of the guys not named Reaves. You want your deterrent to be able to fight well and also have a little bit of psycho/edge to his game (I miss Gino).  

 

 

Sending LE to EDM doesn’t make too much sense from their point of view. If we send them capable players instead, then I agree that the 1st round swap is not enough. 

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

Edmonton hired on Dave Tippett who did coach Loui Eriksson when they were both part of the Stars organization.  

 

Would not surprise me though with Jim's Connection to Lucic, Tippetts connection with Loui that this reality of a deal could very well occur.

[73 Percent]

3 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Edmonton hired on Dave Tippett who did coach Loui Eriksson when they were both part of the Stars organization.  

 

Would not surprise me though with Jim's Connection to Lucic, Tippetts connection with Loui that this reality of a deal could very well occur.

I'm fine with it so long as we are compensated with a good asset for taking on the extra year.

 

I see both players as equal albeit their very different play styles.

[aGENT]

8 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

I don't agree. 10 to 8 could be the difference between getting Boldy/Cozens & not getting Boldy/Cozens.

 

And I said something else aswell, the pick swap wouldn't be the only thing.

 

 

 

Completely agree with the bolded. 

 

And again, I said they'd have to add something else like another younger player. I see value in 8 to 10 because that could be the difference between getting a big top 6 winger like Boldy vs taking a 2nd pair D like Soderstrom or Broberg.

 

Add another good piece from EDM & I see value you in. Its a great opportunity to draft a better player & get another asset back.  Plus Lucic is a need for us, contracts aside if you were to take 1 guy on your team I'd much rather Lucic than Eriksson. Atleast he provides some needed muscle & intimidation in a bottom 6 role.

 

I see where your coming from but personally I don't view his character as an issue. I think he tends to lose his cool alot more than the average guy, he's done somethings for sure. But overall I think he's a solid vet who's been there & done that, and he's willing to be the first guy to stand up for his teammates. Which we need with this young group IMO. 

 

 

It doesn't matter what he does offensively, that's now why we'd bring him in. I don't want to watch this young group be pushed around. Gudbranson while not fighting alot (I'd argue b/c of his position) does leave a hole in our lineup.

 

And again, everyone responding seems to conveniently ignore the part where I (clearly) said they'd have to add something else. And by that I mean a younger player/asset that can grow with our young group.

 

Ultimately if Lucic ditches the NMC (which the whole deal would hinge on) its only 1 extra year your taking on, and getting assets to aid the rebuild in the process. Plus the player can actual add something to the team, unlike Loui who's just taking up a roster spot. 

 

 

I see Theo largely covered what I was going to write.

 

Boldy could be gone by 8 or make it to ten anyway. And if he's gone, there's a good chance someone we had ranked higher has fallen. I'm not saying there's no value, there's just not a LOT of value. And that value would depend heavily on who's still available at 8. And I suppose it would also depend HEAVILY on who this 'other young player' is.

 

And 'toughness'/fighting may be a need for us but we could fill it a hell of a lot cheaper than a $6m, slow, 4th liner/13th F (while also doing EDM a huge favor for the ED). And I disagree that Eriksson is less useful. He could fill a middle 6 role for them, play 2nd PP, PK etc. And while certainly not fast, can at least still play at today's pace.

[theo5789]

6 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

But your almost forgetting that its Loui Eriksson going the other way. Edmonton gets out of the expansion draft problem, but they are still taking a bad contract at the same cap hit. For in some ways a more useless player.

 

So if look elsewhere, say we pay a decent contract in free agency, and we are still stuck with Loui Eriksson.

 

If we weren't to look this route, and just try to ditch Eriksson, then we are adding assets for other teams to take him which we can't afford. Sure you help Edmonton free up an ED spot & 1 year of bad contract, but we are also getting out a bad contract & getting rid of a terrible player in the process. 

 

We can't forget that Eriksson has a bad contract & is also a terrible player. 

 

I think Lucic has tightened up his act over time, when I say that I'm thinking of the 2014 montreal series where he was going off in the handshake line. As far as I know there's no history of teammate problems, he just sometimes has the wires cross in the head of the battle.

 

 

I think this is the problem. We can't be some enamoured into getting rid of LE at all costs. The only think Loui is doing "wrong" is only putting up like half of the offensive output expected of him. But he at least is one of our best PK guys and can play part of a shutdown role. Yes Lucic would add something we don't have in his physical play, but take away the defensive game and his offensive production is even worse. Some are optimistic with maybe turning Lucic around, but the reality is he's also not the player he once was. It's simply a case of thinking the grass is greener elsewhere, but the reality it's the same sh*t of having an overpaid player that doesn't provide enough to warrant his contract. That's not resolving the situation.

 

So with that said, Lucic has an extra year of futility to his deal and LE's contract will be much more attractive in a trade after July 1st in which Edmonton would likely just flip him out after that date and free themselves of not only cap, but save an expansion spot and can proceed on with "retooling" their team once again, while we have an unmovable anchor. So in this case, it would take quite the return like adding their 1st and more vs swapping our 1sts and more (depends on what the more is though like if it's their 2nd and Puljujarvi on top of the swap then it would interest me more).

 

But yes it's a couple of bad contracts, but it's far worse for Edmonton than it is for Vancouver should this swap never happen. I've brought up a couple other options we may have while Edmonton is very limited in what they can do.

[rekker]

Our team is pillow soft so I can at least entertain the idea of adding Lucic. I would need certain checks in order to even entertain the idea. Lucic would have to agree to waiving for the expansion draft, Seattle wouldn't take him anyways. LE would have to go the other way. That's the start of a deal. Now the sweeteners and what the Oileds would have to add. Swapping firsts isnt enough. Poolparty isnt enough in my mind as I just dont see the hockey smarts there and we already have a top pick with that issue on the roster. I would offer LE, Goldy for Lucic and their first. Take it or leave it. They aren't going to see any better offers. Maybe similar offers but that's it. 

[Boudrias]

43 minutes ago, rekker said:

Our team is pillow soft so I can at least entertain the idea of adding Lucic. I would need certain checks in order to even entertain the idea. Lucic would have to agree to waiving for the expansion draft, Seattle wouldn't take him anyways. LE would have to go the other way. That's the start of a deal. Now the sweeteners and what the Oileds would have to add. Swapping firsts isnt enough. Poolparty isnt enough in my mind as I just dont see the hockey smarts there and we already have a top pick with that issue on the roster. I would offer LE, Goldy for Lucic and their first. Take it or leave it. They aren't going to see any better offers. Maybe similar offers but that's it. 

Cannot argue with your assessment. I doubt they will give up their 1st. I think LE's CAP comes off the books in 1 year? That is worth something. 

[PhillipBlunt]

I can't see Eriksson coming back after how he whined to the Swedish press. This team will be better off without that type of floating, empty jersey type player on the roster.

 

Even though Lucic has slowed down considerably, I'd prefer to see a player interested and willing to be a part of a roster here, than one who's main concern is his icetime (which he never did enough with anyways).

 

If the trade happens, I truly hope that Benning not only ensures that Lucic waives his clauses (therefore saving an ED spot), but ensures that he receives more than just Milan back in the trade. Otherwise, it doesn't really put the team in a better place.

[grandmaster]

4 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Cannot argue with your assessment. I doubt they will give up their 1st. I think LE's CAP comes off the books in 1 year? That is worth something. 

We are stuck with LE for 3 more years. 

 

Also so would like to point out to some of you wanting this trade....LE would not go for this. He also has a NTC for next season and a modified NTC in his last two. Just brutal.  

 

I think our only way out of this contract is a buy out. 

[Wolfgang Durst]

Canucks and Oilers have/haven’t talked Lucic-Eriksson 

TSN Radio Vancouver: Jason Gregor: “I heard from a really good source that Jim Benning and his staff did sit down and discuss a Loui Eriksson for Milan Lucic trade. I see it from both sides. Here’s our bad guy for your guy who’s underachieved. I was told it happened in April, May, this offseason.”

 

Radio Vancouver: Bob McKenzie on TSN 1040 radio: “When I first heard the Lucic for Eriksson talk, I initially thought “oh that’s creative, fans and media thinking about how to get rid of a problem”. Like a fantasy thing you sometimes talk about. But do I think it’s within the realm of possibility?”

 

TSN Radio Vancouver: McKenzie continued: “As of recently, there were no conversations between the teams on the subject matter. But that’s not to say there won’t be, particularly as we get closer to the draft. I would think you’re dealing with close to an untenable situation on both sides.”

 

TSN Radio Vancouver: McKenzie continued: “But as of right now, no tangible discussions. But I think it’s one where it’s worth keeping an eye on, as it might turn out to be something that has some legs.”

[theo5789]

8 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Moving up two spots for Benning and our scouts is big value I’d say.  In the past few years, teams have paid a high price to move up just one spot (something like a 3rd and 6th rounders). 

I think you are undervaluing going from 10th to 8th. 

This would be draft day dependent. We will have to see if a high target is even available at 8 that we think Edmonton or the team above us would take. If it costs 3rd and 6th (we have many of those) to move up, then I'd just do that rather than swap anchors and free up Edmonton from a massive headache.

 

8 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

... for sure, and I think that trading LE to Ottawa actually makes more sense since they will be trying to reach the cap floor.  Zack had a terrible year but I’d really like to get him here and see if he can get his mojo back. 

 

 

Lucic is a bigger deterrent then any of the guys not named Reaves. You want your deterrent to be able to fight well and also have a little bit of psycho/edge to his game (I miss Gino).  

 

 

Sending LE to EDM doesn’t make too much sense from their point of view. If we send them capable players instead, then I agree that the 1st round swap is not enough. 

We simply want a guy willing to stand up for our teammates and Zack Smith would provide that as much as Lucic would. He has challenged guys as big as Tryamkin and gone after pests like Marchand. It solves a physical element and takes LE off our hands. I don't think Smith had a bad year (his team did though) and his production offensively is right amongst some of his better seasons. Plus considering that they waived him at the start of last year, they likely want to dump his salary. We may have to add a bit, but it won't be significant.

 

Reaves is quite overpaid for what he provides on a regular basis, Lucic costs nearly double what Reaves does and Reaves is the best in the business for what he provides.

 

Keep in mind we also could simply bring up a guy like MacEwen for physicality, so we aren't desperate for a guy like Lucic.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, grandmaster said:

We are stuck with LE for 3 more years. 

 

Also so would like to point out to some of you wanting this trade....LE would not go for this. He also has a NTC for next season and a modified NTC in his last two. Just brutal.  

 

I think our only way out of this contract is a buy out. 

He doesn’t have a NMC... it is easy to play hardball here, especially since he went public with his discontent.

 

”You aren’t in our plans moving forward. We can either trade you or if we can’t arrange one that you agree to, we will assign you to the minors.”

 

Does anyone really think Eriksson would rather ride the bus rather than going to any NHL team willing to take him?

 

I still think Ottawa is a more likely destination for him after July 1st.

[rekker]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Cannot argue with your assessment. I doubt they will give up their 1st. I think LE's CAP comes off the books in 1 year? That is worth something. 

Yip. We can agree. The Oilers are the one in a pickle. A big pickle. LE is a drag but we do not need to move him. Oilers are against the cap, and need to mix things up. 

[PhillipBlunt]

24 minutes ago, Provost said:

He doesn’t have a NMC... it is easy to play hardball here, especially since he went public with his discontent.

 

”You aren’t in our plans moving forward. We can either trade you or if we can’t arrange one that you agree to, we will assign you to the minors.”

 

Does anyone really think Eriksson would rather ride the bus rather than going to any NHL team willing to take him?

 

I still think Ottawa is a more likely destination for him after July 1st.

Yeah. There's no way he returns to Vancouver this fall. Like none.

[bassetgreg]

On 5/1/2019 at 4:18 PM, I.Am.Ironman said:

Honestly Eriksson is a more useful player at this point; Lucic is a liability, Eriksson isn't. 

Last year

Lucic -9

Eriksson -11

Eriksson last 3 years   24,23 and 29 pts

Lucic last 3 years   50,34 and 20 points

Eriksson is not useful at all. 

Oh yes and Eriksson only had 3 hits last year....yes, only 3    https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/e/erikslo01.html

Lucic 259 hits...big body hits   https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lucicmi01.html