JM_ Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, teepain said: He got 1 extra year, at the same aav . If you had a chance to play for your hometown/favourite team, you gotta weigh your options. For me i would have taken a year less term for my team also Benning was targeting him im sure of this. Lucic probably didnt expect the team to do that bad + he regressed too Edmonton has been a place to get the worst out of otherwise good players for a few years now. We've seen the resurrections happen once guys leave. If Lucic could be counted on for 15 goals and be a positive presence on a line with Petey and Bo... how many people would change their mind about acquiring him, particularly if it came with the 8th oa this year? Edited May 2, 2019 by Jimmy McGill 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Hey Looch From what I have seen you don't actually play hockey anymore 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
komodo0921 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 17 hours ago, Fanuck said: Pass. He had his opportunity and chose elsewhere. Now that he struggles to contribute he thinks we want him? Agreed. As much as we could use a modern-day, much younger version of Milan, I hope the ship has sailed on any notion that he may play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownky Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Provost said: I just put them in the order I looked them up on my phone. I also literally said in the post that last year was the low year for Lucic. That isn't pretending his points have gone up. If I knew you in real life, I would bet actual cash that he is going to get more points next season. The downward trend is due in large part to a declining role in Edmonton. Now is the time to buy low on him if it means getting some good assets back or unloading Eriksson. 100 out of 100 times Insoildntake a super competitive guy who just doesn’t have the production he used to than a disinterested floater who also isn’t producing. Eriksson’s defensive play is overrated from people trying to justify that he can’t really be that bad. The dude doesn’t even break a sweat during games, never mind charging back on a back check. Lucic is so slow he's only backchecking because he hadn't caught up to the play in the offensive zone yet. He's a dinosaur in a league where his kind of play is passed. I'd MAYBE take him as a 3rd or 4th liner, but certainly not one with a Bobby Ryan contract that's longer than our own albatross deal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borvat Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, oldnews said: Lucic would have been 14th on this team in goal scoring this past season. That extra year of cap waste on a player like Lucic is very significant, particularly at that stage.....what is the incentive to eat that? He's too slow to play with EP/Boeser Too slow, declining rapidly, and lacking the versatility to take Pearson's spot on Horvat's line. To vacant, slow an inefective to play a shutdown role with either Sutter or Beagle - and nowhere near as effecitve defensively as Roussel, Motte - or Eriksson. Where is the fit? What is the point? To have a misfit bottom 6 forward that can punch faces? The team needs toughness that can play / be effective....Not a 6 million dollar 6 goal scorer, At least Eriksson can kill penalties, play matchup, more around the lineup, pitch in a bit of secondary scoring while doing so. I don't see the point or incentive of doing Edmonton that favour - at all. If Edmonton wanted to unload that - a hockey trade for Eriksson is not gonna cut it imo - not even close. Totally agree. Only way I consider taking Lucic is if the Canucks can move Eriksson AND the Oilers sweeten the pot. Pick(s) or prospect to boot. They have some depth in youngish D. Even then Lucic still can't skate so I'm not really interested. Edited May 2, 2019 by Borvat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justdean10 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 16 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: So we keep him at $6 million for 3 more years just to kill penalties? He's taking up a roster spot. If he's just a penalty killer then he's on the bottom 2 lines. So he's going to be taking a spot away from Virtanen, Leivo, Motte, Roussel or MacEwen. There is no room for him. At least with Lucic you stick him with Petey and Brock and see what happens. Who knows maybe he can go see BO's skating coach in the summer to get some of his footspeed back. Lucic would still be taking up one of those spots too. Do you not think at 30 years old he hasn't tried skating coaches? and if he hasn't, you think he's going to start now or the fact that he hasn't, do you want someone who won't put in the effort to get better? You want to stick a slow ass Lucic with our two most skilled players? makes sense. They tried putting him with McDavid. Arguably the best player in the league and look how that ended up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: I'd be happier with: To EDM: Eriksson, Sutter 50% retained. To VAN: Lucic, Edmonton 1st. It would result in Edmonton having to move some players to make more cap room. But it would give them some forward depth and some defensive responsibility. Gives Vancouver the 8th and 10th spots in the first round. The team can draft a forward and a defenceman. Not sure they have cap to swap Lucic/Eriksson and take on Sutter (even at 50%) So hey, let's go big or go home! To EDM: Sutter @50%, Eriksson, rights to Granlund (look a whole 3rd line!) and rights to Pouliot. To VAN: Lucic (NMC completely waived/void for, 10% retained for duration), Russell (he'd have to accept/waive), Puljujarvi, 8th OA, Ethan Bear. Edited May 2, 2019 by aGENT 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 I wouldn't trade Eriksson for Lucic straight across. I would if they added a sweetener like Pool to the deal. I'd also take Lucic in a cap dump situation for the 8th. Taking on Lucic without dumping Loui could be a tough situation cap wise though. Hopefully you can negotiate with some of our up and coming core players to take reasonable bridge deals with the payday coming once those hits are off the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justdean10 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: Edmonton has been a place to get the worst out of otherwise good players for a few years now. We've seen the resurrections happen once guys leave. If Lucic could be counted on for 15 goals and be a positive presence on a line with Petey and Bo... how many people would change their mind about acquiring him, particularly if it came with the 8th oa this year? IF.... if he doesn't become a positive presence then he is useless. He can't backcheck. He would become a reliability. I think having Lucic is more risk than reward. Loui obviously is making way too much money for what he is worth but he does bring some positive to the team already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Lucic is such a selfish and undisciplined player, I don't want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBossy Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Correct me if I am wrong please - but with Loui and his modified NTC we don't have to protect him in the expansion draft? Now if we obtained Lucic we would have to protect him correct? If that's the case it's just another reason why it does not make sense to acquire him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, MikeBossy said: Correct me if I am wrong please - but with Loui and his modified NTC we don't have to protect him in the expansion draft? Now if we obtained Lucic we would have to protect him correct? If that's the case it's just another reason why it does not make sense to acquire him. Looch would have to agree to waive his NMC for expansion as part of the trade, which he can do, so its not set in stone. Thats a deal-breaker for sure, and every team is going to ask for that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
250Integra Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 We can wait until he gets bought out and then offer him a 1 year contract 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 10 minutes ago, 250Integra said: We can wait until he gets bought out and then offer him a 1 year contract The only reason to acquire him is for the sweeteners that would come for taking on the contract. We're not signing him if we don't need to. And if we do acquire him, I'd be shocked if we didn't use the compliance buyout that will likely accompany the new CBA in a couple years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, aGENT said: The only reason to acquire him is for the sweeteners that would come for taking on the contract. We're not signing him if we don't need to. And if we do acquire him, I'd be shocked if we didn't use the compliance buyout that will likely accompany the new CBA in a couple years. That is actually a good point that slightly reduces the risk of that extra year of term compared with Eriksson. We will probably have a chance to escape it, and we don’t have other terrible contracts to unload. I honestly have a feeling that Eriksson won’t be on the books next year regardless of this trade idea. Are they going to tell him that he is going to get waived so that he retires, mutually terminates his contracts, or plays in Europe after getting his bonus on July 1st? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-P Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 After thinking about I still feel a year or maybe two could be ok, but with four years remaining I say let the oilers chew on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Provost said: That is actually a good point that slightly reduces the risk of that extra year of term compared with Eriksson. We will probably have a chance to escape it, and we don’t have other terrible contracts to unload. I honestly have a feeling that Eriksson won’t be on the books next year regardless of this trade idea. Are they going to tell him that he is going to get waived so that he retires, mutually terminates his contracts, or plays in Europe after getting his bonus on July 1st? Yeah, I mean that's still a few years off but at least it helps with the extra term and makes it a less daunting burden. Yeah I have a tough time seeing Eriksson back here. I'm sure they'll look for something like a Lucic ++ trade or post-bonus/July 1 trade to a cash poor team looking to reach the cap floor first, to try to do well by the player...but beyond that, there's a very real possibility he's riding pine/getting waived. Once his bonus is paid he'll have made the VAST majority of his current contract and something approaching $60m over his career. Does he want to ride buses in Utica the next few years and move his family to New York for what's left....? If he mutually terminates he also has the option to either sign to another NHL team to recoup some of his 'lost' income or take his family home to Sweden and play in the SHL, again recouping some of his 'lost' money as well. He's got options that don't include continued stress and ridicule for him and his family of staying in this market or riding buses in Utica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, aGENT said: Yeah, I mean that's still a few years off but at least it helps with the extra term and makes it a less daunting burden. Yeah I have a tough time seeing Eriksson back here. I'm sure they'll look for something like a Lucic ++ trade or post-bonus/July 1 trade to a cash poor team looking to reach the cap floor first, to try to do well by the player...but beyond that, there's a very real possibility he's riding pine/getting waived. Once his bonus is paid he'll have made the VAST majority of his current contract and something approaching $60m over his career. Does he want to ride buses in Utica the next few years and move his family to New York for what's left....? If he mutually terminates he also has the option to either sign to another NHL team to recoup some of his 'lost' income or take his family home to Sweden and play in the SHL, again recouping some of his 'lost' money as well. He's got options that don't include continued stress and ridicule for him and his family of staying in this market or riding buses in Utica. Can you just mutually terminate a contract and sign with another team? Seems like it would be circumventing the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 4 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Doesn't Edmonton need a GM before looking at moving Lucic? The Oilers are fairing better without one since having Chiarelli removed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now