D-Money Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 17 minutes ago, sampy said: Was it the Clarkson/Horton trade? Horton was done and Clarkson was still playing. Columbus wanted the player that was still playing not on LTIR and the Leafs wanted the LTIR, so they flipped bad contracts. The main part for Columbus was that Horton's contract was not insured, so they had to pay him full cash when he was on LTIR. At the time they weren't a cap team, so they figured if they have to pay cash may as well have someone who is contributing something. Whereas Leafs just wanted LTIR cap relief. Clarkson ended up on LTIR for them anyways, so it worked out great for them. They saved a ton of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, babalu said: Sending Eriksson to the minors or Sweden has the same effect cap wise. This season only 1.075M can be buried whether in the minors or abroad so he would still carry a 4.925M cap hit (6M - 1.075M). David Rundblad was loaned to the Swiss LNA for parts of the 2015/2016 season. His cap hit was 1.05M and that season 950K could be buried - Chicago still had to carry a 100K cap hit (1.05M - 950K). You can note it here on CapFriendly if you click on the bar chart next to his name. You will see that the cap hit doesn't change and stays at 100K from his time in the minors to his time loaned abroad: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/blackhawks/cap-tracker/chart/2016 Edited July 11, 2019 by mll 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 https://www.tsn.ca/loui-eriksson-s-agent-j-p-barry-says-they-re-discussing-options-with-vancouver-canucks-1.1335901 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted July 11, 2019 Author Share Posted July 11, 2019 33 minutes ago, Monteeun said: https://www.tsn.ca/loui-eriksson-s-agent-j-p-barry-says-they-re-discussing-options-with-vancouver-canucks-1.1335901 It is funny when he says lots of teams would want Eriksson in their rosters.... if it wasn’t for his contract. It is is an easy problem to resolve... terminate his contract. It sounds from all his interviews so far, they are strongly pushing for a trade and want the Canucks to offer up a big sweetener and return salary to have it happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundernuts Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 10 hours ago, sampy said: Was it the Clarkson/Horton trade? Horton was done and Clarkson was still playing. Columbus wanted the player that was still playing not on LTIR and the Leafs wanted the LTIR, so they flipped bad contracts. Yeah. I think it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucklehd Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 35 minutes ago, Provost said: It is funny when he says lots of teams would want Eriksson in their rosters.... if it wasn’t for his contract. It is is an easy problem to resolve... terminate his contract. It sounds from all his interviews so far, they are strongly pushing for a trade and want the Canucks to offer up a big sweetener and return salary to have it happen. Screw that, he can play 3rd/4th line minutes. We don't NEED to lose him yet. He wants out that bad, he can agree to terminate contract. Why should the canucks bear the burden of trading his contract with sweeteners when it is his on ice play that is causing the problem. His responsibilty for being in this position. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph. Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 16 hours ago, The Lock said: Just a random thought on trading Eriksson to entice another team. I don't normally do this kind of thing but here goes.... Tanev happens to only have 1 year left on his contract and is injury prone anyway, so what about a package that involves both Eriksson and Tanev and we retain some of Tanev's contract? We're then only on the hook for 1 year retained. We'd probably have something come back the other way, perhaps something of reasonable value even, but it might be enough to actually get rid of Eriksson. I suggested something like this earlier in a thread; garnered some negative feedback. They want to get rid of the Boedker contract; I would suggest Loui and Tanev (50%) for Boedker. Swapping Loui for Mikkel is a bad-for-bad situation, while Tanev at 50% can make up for the extra cap+term on Loui's contract. Add in/swap some picks to fine tune value and bam. Make a pick conditional on Tanev re-signing with Ottawa (not unlikely; he's from Toronto and would be closer to home — Only threat might be him wanting to bolt to the Leafs). Who knows tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 12 hours ago, wai_lai416 said: so what team is willing to take on 8mil worth of salary for a 1 year rental that's not at the cap floor? lol anyone taking on tanev and eriksson is not a rebuilding team.. and are already at or near the cap lol It would have to be a team with enough cap space to do it. In no way did I suggest a team like Vegas take cap, If you look at a team like Colorado or New Jersey, they have tons of cap space and are looking to make a splash this coming year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted July 11, 2019 Author Share Posted July 11, 2019 (edited) It did also sound like maybe Barry has a potential deal lined up for a “player in a similar position” as he dropped that nugget and that BOTH sides have been exploring trade opportunities. That could well be the genesis of the Lucic-Eriksson swap rumours, and the tram just isn’t willing to do it straight up. The Ferland signing probably puts a lot of pressure back into the Eriksson camp as it isn’t likely to happen now, unless we can get rid of other salary as well. Edited July 11, 2019 by Provost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, Provost said: It did also sound like maybe Barry has a potential deal lined up for a “player in a similar position” as he dropped that nugget and that BOTH sides have been exploring trade opportunities. That could well be the genesis of the Lucic-Eriksson swap rumours, and the tram just isn’t willing to do it straight up. The Ferland signing probably puts a lot of pressure back into the Eriksson camp as it isn’t likely to happen now, unless we can get rid of other salary as well. sutter erikkson for Lucic and poolparty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Provost said: It is funny when he says lots of teams would want Eriksson in their rosters.... if it wasn’t for his contract. It is is an easy problem to resolve... terminate his contract. It sounds from all his interviews so far, they are strongly pushing for a trade and want the Canucks to offer up a big sweetener and return salary to have it happen. Reading that article, I don't get any sense that they want us to trade him at all costs. It does sound like a trade would be favourable, but they are far from pushing for it (at least from what I'm reading) not expect the Canucks to punish themselves to make it happen. All that is said is that it's like someone else in the same situation likely heading back to make this work so they are scoping the league to see if there is a fit. They're saying that if it wasn't for his contract then likely there would be more suitors, so that could really mean that if we retained some cap, it could also work. Just looks like they're working together to find a solution. I'm not sure of the rules, but I believe terminating the contract would mean he still can't play in the NHL for the duration of the terminated deal so he would have to play in a different league (at least from what I gathered from other posters). Clearly it's been discussed that Utica/AHL is a possibility, but his agent is trying to sell hard to not have that happen. Benning is simply showing that he's trying what he can and willing to do what makes sense, but getting Barry to do the legwork finding a trading partner. This shows that Benning does care and if it gets to the point that he doesn't send him to the AHL that all avenues were explored so the team and management should not be looked down upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RakuRaku Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 It just sucks that being stuck with Eriksson means a roster spot taken away from a deserving young player like Gaudette... Also, I feel like we should give Schaller one more chance to show up... he clearly has the tools to be a successful 4th line winger based on his sweet YouTube videos when with the Bruins... not a bad stop-gap solution for Roussel anyway. And once Roussel returns, it'll be between Schaller vs. Motte to be sent down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where'd Luongo? Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 5 hours ago, Provost said: It is funny when he says lots of teams would want Eriksson in their rosters.... if it wasn’t for his contract. It is is an easy problem to resolve... terminate his contract. It sounds from all his interviews so far, they are strongly pushing for a trade and want the Canucks to offer up a big sweetener and return salary to have it happen. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Crossbar Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 17 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YummyCakeFace Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 (edited) Benning is gonna hafta take on someone else’s headache in order to move Eriksson. (He’s gonna have to find cap space somewhere else by way of other trades.). It’s just a matter of finding the right headache that fits this team better than Loui does. My thought is Eriksson and Goldobin for Lucic and Puljujärvi. We get the younger prospect to make up for the extra year in Lucic’ contract. Eriksson of course would have to say yes to this. This may have been suggested already. Haven’t read the whole topic. Edited July 11, 2019 by YummyCakeFace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Anyone know if LEs signing bonus was paid on July 1st or if it due on the 15th? Have seen conflicting reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zigmund.Palffy Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, babalu said: Anyone know if LEs signing bonus was paid on July 1st or if it due on the 15th? Have seen conflicting reports. due on JULY 14th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted July 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Where'd Luongo? said: 51 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said: Canucks contract policy going forward: 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 6 hours ago, Provost said: It did also sound like maybe Barry has a potential deal lined up for a “player in a similar position” as he dropped that nugget and that BOTH sides have been exploring trade opportunities. That could well be the genesis of the Lucic-Eriksson swap rumours, and the tram just isn’t willing to do it straight up. The Ferland signing probably puts a lot of pressure back into the Eriksson camp as it isn’t likely to happen now, unless we can get rid of other salary as well. I agree, with Ferland coming in there is no way we need Lucic any more! I was wondering tho if maybe a swap could be made with the Islanders. Ladd for Eriksson? Ladd was playing well before going down with an ACL tear last season. He's not a 50 point guy anymore but a solid 30 point 3rd liner.. it would be nice to bring another BC boy home too! Both have 3 years left, but Ladd's cap hit is 5.5 compared to Louie at 6 mil. So a bit of savings there too. Why would they do the trade? Ladd had a bad injury last year, and they may want out because he is 33 and had and ACL injury. And like LE is not producing to what his contract is worth... The gamble would be on us hoping he can still play effective 3rd line minutes. In Ladd you get way more leadership and player mentorship qualities than LE. Which our team definitely needs, he would be great in a role supporting Horvat as captain. He can play up and down our line up as needed (if healthy) and can still provide that much needed defenisve forward role that LE's gap will leave. Eriksson on the other hand gives the Islanders a healthy body to play in the line up and is the kind of player Trotz likes to employ thru his line ups (the guy goes to bed dreaming of defense lol). LE still has high defensive awarness and can still play the game at a good pace and gives Trotz roster flexibility to play LE where he needs defensive support... LE is not a leader or a mentor, but NYI does not need him to do those things they have those guys already in place. I see a fit, but who knows what happens here. I just hope Louie is off the roster come next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 8 hours ago, Provost said: It is funny when he says lots of teams would want Eriksson in their rosters.... if it wasn’t for his contract. It is is an easy problem to resolve... terminate his contract. It sounds from all his interviews so far, they are strongly pushing for a trade and want the Canucks to offer up a big sweetener and return salary to have it happen. Rather send him to Utica. Entitlement. You are paying me alot of money, but you also have to make me happy and sacrifice other club assets and salary to make me happy somewhere else. Utica. Send a message to guys who don't put in the effort. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts