Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, theo5789 said:

No one is going to want to take that salary in the minors. The reason why we got rid of Gagner is because we took on a player with the same cap hit that was in a similar position. It would be no different than trading for Lucic (with the theory that they are both under the same contract and if he cleared waivers as well). This isn't a one year remaining deal, teams aren't going to add him as potential playoff call up depth and they are gone.

 

I understand putting pressure on LE, but it sets a bad example and it's really unnecessary to do so for cap reasons. His comments weren't welcome, but also weren't bad enough to warrant this treatment IMO. This is a stiff arm move that could backfire long term for little short term gain.

depends on how it all develops. If Loui tries to block a move then it is an option. Hopefully tho he just accepts the move, whatever it is, assuming we're able to get one. Which I doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

depends on how it all develops. If Loui tries to block a move then it is an option. Hopefully tho he just accepts the move, whatever it is, assuming we're able to get one. Which I doubt. 

He has a NTC that was negotiated into his contract. If he wants to be moved which his agent claims would be best for his client, then I'm sure he's opened to be moved, but I'm not going to hold it against him if he some destinations that he's not interested in going to. I would suggest that he gives a list like in his modified no trade years and we go from there. Now of course if we suggest all this and he's going to be a primadonna and suggest only one team he's willing to go to or whatever, then I understand the need to start forcing the situation. I don't think we are anywhere near escalating to that just yet, so I don't see the need to put him on waivers now pre-emptively as a scare tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

He has a NTC that was negotiated into his contract. If he wants to be moved which his agent claims would be best for his client, then I'm sure he's opened to be moved, but I'm not going to hold it against him if he some destinations that he's not interested in going to. I would suggest that he gives a list like in his modified no trade years and we go from there. Now of course if we suggest all this and he's going to be a primadonna and suggest only one team he's willing to go to or whatever, then I understand the need to start forcing the situation. I don't think we are anywhere near escalating to that just yet, so I don't see the need to put him on waivers now pre-emptively as a scare tactic.

I was actually just posing the question if it was even possible to do this week outside of a buyout. Its good to know what the options are if they're needed. 

 

And it doesn't have to be a scare tactic, it might be the only way he gets a new situation. I can see several teams taking him for free but not wanting to give an asset for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if anyone has touched on this, but I believe Eriksson gets 4 million of his salary this season as a signing bonus  on July 1st. I can't see him being moved before that unless the Canucks add a lot of sweetener or take back a bad deal in return. 

 

One deal that makes sense to me is for Vegas to ship the David Clarkson deal to the Canucks for Eriksson, the Canucks eating some of Eriksson's contract. Wonder what Vegas would part with to make that kind of a deal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chickenman92 said:

Not sure if anyone has touched on this, but I believe Eriksson gets 4 million of his salary this season as a signing bonus  on July 1st. I can't see him being moved before that unless the Canucks add a lot of sweetener or take back a bad deal in return. 

 

One deal that makes sense to me is for Vegas to ship the David Clarkson deal to the Canucks for Eriksson, the Canucks eating some of Eriksson's contract. Wonder what Vegas would part with to make that kind of a deal? 

 

Vegas is close to the cap and can't take on Eriksson - not that they would have interest.  They have their own players to sign.

 

They can receive cap relief for Clarkson's contract by putting him on LTIR.  His contract is also insured and ends in a year - after Clarkson's bonus payment it's only 200K in salary.  Eriksson takes a roster spot and it's a 6M cap hit for another 3 years.  

 

Edited by mll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LE might be looking to go to a team were he is not the highest paid player because on the Canucks he is the highest paid player (even more than Horvat) and with this stunt it is now too obvious in that locker room that he is also overpaid....

Edited by ShawnAntoski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I was actually just posing the question if it was even possible to do this week outside of a buyout. Its good to know what the options are if they're needed. 

 

And it doesn't have to be a scare tactic, it might be the only way he gets a new situation. I can see several teams taking him for free but not wanting to give an asset for him. 

If it was that easy to free up 6 million in cap for 3 years, surely we wouldn't be the only team to try it. Teams will want a sweetener, even if it benefits their team to take on the cap with less salary. No one is doing anyone any favours here. So really if we don't want to give up a sweetener, then we need to look at a deal where we swap bad contracts in hopes that each player finds new life on a new team (eg Gagner for Spooner where both cleared waivers). This is why the Lucic possibility is actually potentially appealing simply because we could actually gain from moving LE, but the caveat is taking on Lucic who if limited at least provides a role that we are lacking (not that I'm trading him for that value though, just hoping that it's the added benefit if we do acquire him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

If it was that easy to free up 6 million in cap for 3 years, surely we wouldn't be the only team to try it. Teams will want a sweetener, even if it benefits their team to take on the cap with less salary. No one is doing anyone any favours here. So really if we don't want to give up a sweetener, then we need to look at a deal where we swap bad contracts in hopes that each player finds new life on a new team (eg Gagner for Spooner where both cleared waivers). This is why the Lucic possibility is actually potentially appealing simply because we could actually gain from moving LE, but the caveat is taking on Lucic who if limited at least provides a role that we are lacking (not that I'm trading him for that value though, just hoping that it's the added benefit if we do acquire him).

Hypothetically, LE and the Canucks can terminate the contract and LE can bet on himself to get a better/similar contract since a good chunk of this contract had been paid already.

 

I dont blame him for wanting to get paid but he was given ample opportunities to up his value and he did not produce.  Not sure how this situation will unravel but the only bright side I can think of is that: it is happening right now before free agency; and hopefully, it will be a stark reminder to the Canucks to shop wisely before putting ink on paper....

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Hypothetically, LE and the Canucks can terminate the contract and LE can bet on himself to get a better/similar contract since a good chunk of this contract had been paid already.

 

I dont blame him for wanting to get paid but he was given ample opportunities to up his value and he did not produce.  Not sure how this situation will unravel but the only bright side I can think of is that: it is happening right now before free agency; and hopefully, it will be a stark reminder to the Canucks to shop wisely before putting ink on paper....

Don't think it's allowed if he wants to stay in the NHL.  He would have been paid an average of 9M but the Canucks only had a cap hit of 6M.  It would be too easy for teams to artificially reduce the cap hit by agreeing with players at the contract signing date that they would mutually part ways a few years before the contract is up.  It's pretty similar to recapture contracts where they tagged on additional years to reduce the cap hit with the understanding that the player could retire before the contract is fully played out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mll said:

 

Vegas is close to the cap and can't take on Eriksson - not that they would have interest.  They have their own players to sign.

 

They can receive cap relief for Clarkson's contract by putting him on LTIR.  His contract is also insured and ends in a year - after Clarkson's bonus payment it's only 200K in salary.  Eriksson takes a roster spot and it's a 6M cap hit for another 3 years.  

 

I might be wrong, but doesn't Clarkson count against them on opening day, then they can move him to IR on day 2 of the season. I know there's ways around it by sending a rookie down to start the year, but moving the contract would give them more flexibility. 

 

All in all, I could see Eriksson having some value to teams that are generally at the cap floor, ei, Ottawa, Florida, Carolina, Arizona, etc... They'd only be paying him 9 million I believe if added after July 1st and he'd count for 3 X 6 million against the cap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chickenman92 said:

I might be wrong, but doesn't Clarkson count against them on opening day, then they can move him to IR on day 2 of the season. I know there's ways around it by sending a rookie down to start the year, but moving the contract would give them more flexibility. 

 

All in all, I could see Eriksson having some value to teams that are generally at the cap floor, ei, Ottawa, Florida, Carolina, Arizona, etc... They'd only be paying him 9 million I believe if added after July 1st and he'd count for 3 X 6 million against the cap. 

There's another approach that allows to exceed the cap up to his cap hit.  Under that approach it's assumed his replacements are already on the roster.

 

The CBA has an illustration - art 50.10 (d):

llustration #4: The Upper Limit in a League Year is $70.0 million. A Player who has an SPC with an Averaged Amount of $2.0 million becomes unfit to play on the last day of Training Camp, and on the same day, his Club exercises the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception on such Player. On Opening Day, the Club has an Averaged Club Salary of $71.5 million (excluding Earnable Performance Bonuses up to the full amount of the Performance Bonus Cushion). The Club is deemed to have already fully replaced the unfit-to-play Player with any Player or Players on the Opening Day Roster. If these replacements are maintained through the conclusion of the season, the Club's Averaged Club Salary is $71.5 million, as the Club is permitted to exceed the Upper Limit by $1.5 million because of the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, theo5789 said:

He has a NTC that was negotiated into his contract. If he wants to be moved which his agent claims would be best for his client, then I'm sure he's opened to be moved, but I'm not going to hold it against him if he some destinations that he's not interested in going to. I would suggest that he gives a list like in his modified no trade years and we go from there. Now of course if we suggest all this and he's going to be a primadonna and suggest only one team he's willing to go to or whatever, then I understand the need to start forcing the situation. I don't think we are anywhere near escalating to that just yet, so I don't see the need to put him on waivers now pre-emptively as a scare tactic.

And what happens if we can't  move him and don't want him around our youth after the comments he made?  Something similar to Gagner last year where he's sent to another AHL team instead of Utica is the likely result.  Doubt he makes the Canucks out of training camp.

 

4 hours ago, ShawnAntoski said:

LE might be looking to go to a team were he is not the highest paid player because on the Canucks he is the highest paid player (even more than Horvat) and with this stunt it is now too obvious in that locker room that he is also overpaid....


Then he'd better be flexible because he will definitely be the highest paid player in Utica or any other AHL team not including the Oilers.

Edited by King Heffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

And what happens if we can't  move him and don't want him around our youth after the comments he made?  Something similar to Gagner last year where he's sent to another AHL team instead of Utica is the likely result.  Doubt he makes the Canucks out of training camp.

Like I said, we aren't at the point yet. Benning will decide on what to do when he gets the full story from LE's side. Gagner was beat out for his spot and seemingly was disappointed with the entire organization. LE sounded like he was asked about his offense drop off and suggested that he had more ice time with other coaches. LE is still contributing to the role given to him whereas Gagner provided nothing else. If he isn't traded by the start of the season, then he will only get sent down if he's beat out for his roster spot just like Gagner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...