Sign in to follow this  
BigTramFan

[Proposal] Loui Eriksson

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

Bench or ECHL

Bench or SHL.  :towel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, erkayloomeh said:

But what if Lou can't make the team in Utica ? Then what are they going to do with him ?

He is only owed $1MM in salary this year.  Put him in the press box and have him in charge of the beer cooler on the bus.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 4:05 AM, coastal.view said:

i'd like to see you pitch that to aquaman

 

hey i have a deal for you sir

we're gonna spend 9.5 plus half of loui's salary 4.5

so we don't have to pay little things the other 4.5 million

 

14 million of your money to avoid paying 4.5

it'll really only cost you an extra 5 million to do this sir

sweet deal don't you think aqua ?

 

Are you his financial advisor? You seem to jump at every opportunity to protect ownerships spending habits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Seannnp said:

Are you his financial advisor? You seem to jump at every opportunity to protect ownerships spending habits.

nope

but it is naive to think

that he simply is willing to throw his money away

so easy to make posts that suggest that

in reality that is not going to happen

think about how you spend your own money

well that is his own money

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coastal.view said:

nope

but it is naive to think

that he simply is willing to throw his money away

so easy to make posts that suggest that

in reality that is not going to happen

think about how you spend your own money

well that is his own money

 

I understand what you're saying but I don't think you realize the dynamics of spending for a billionaire are much different than they are for us. While this proposal wasn't very good, the idea of spending money in the short term for a future positive outcome in your business is a small price to pay. For example, I would take on Lucic for Edmontons first next year and Pujujljarvi. Aquaman is spending 7m for a player that may not be able to play in the NHL but in the grand scheme of things, its a business move that helps the team in the future. If you think Aquaman cares about 7M dollars when it will help his business than I don't think you have the understanding you think you do when it comes to business.

 

7M to Aqua is likely 7K to us. Would you not spend 7K to ensure the growth of your business?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

I understand what you're saying but I don't think you realize the dynamics of spending for a billionaire are much different than they are for us. While this proposal wasn't very good, the idea of spending money in the short term for a future positive outcome in your business is a small price to pay. For example, I would take on Lucic for Edmontons first next year and Pujujljarvi. Aquaman is spending 7m for a player that may not be able to play in the NHL but in the grand scheme of things, its a business move that helps the team in the future. If you think Aquaman cares about 7M dollars when it will help his business than I don't think you have the understanding you think you do when it comes to business.

 

7M to Aqua is likely 7K to us. Would you not spend 7K to ensure the growth of your business?

your assumption about me is incorrect

you have no idea of my life experiences

 

why don't you analyze canuck player transactions

and point out instances where aquaman has willingly thrown good money after bad contracts

he buys them out, he demotes them, does a variety of things

but does not throw more money at them to shed them

 

in your example you are simply projecting your views onto the nuck owner

you have nothing to support your assumption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, coastal.view said:

your assumption about me is incorrect

you have no idea of my life experiences

 

why don't you analyze canuck player transactions

and point out instances where aquaman has willingly thrown good money after bad contracts

he buys them out, he demotes them, does a variety of things

but does not throw more money at them to shed them

 

in your example you are simply projecting your views onto the nuck owner

you have nothing to support your assumption

Wasn't basing my assumptions about you based on your life experiences, just what you posted here.

 

Buying out contracts, demoting them is throwing good money, are you seriously of the opinion that that is not the same as what was proposed in the OP? Throwing money to shed the contract is the same as buying them out. In this particular instance youre not just throwing away money as you would in a buy out but you would be getting assets in return. They may not be high end pieces but serviceable NHL players nonetheless.

 

My assumptions are based on my dealings with my network of affluent clients. I didn't just pull this out of my ass. People with money, especially the type of money Aqualini has operate differently. Spending habits, investment habits, etc are all very different. I have great deal of experiences that support my assumption,. It is not as farfetched as you seem to have convinced yourself that a billionaire would be willing to spend an extra x million dollars to do away with a bad contract.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

Wasn't basing my assumptions about you based on your life experiences, just what you posted here.

 

Buying out contracts, demoting them is throwing good money, are you seriously of the opinion that that is not the same as what was proposed in the OP? Throwing money to shed the contract is the same as buying them out. In this particular instance youre not just throwing away money as you would in a buy out but you would be getting assets in return. They may not be high end pieces but serviceable NHL players nonetheless.

 

My assumptions are based on my dealings with my network of affluent clients. I didn't just pull this out of my ass. People with money, especially the type of money Aqualini has operate differently. Spending habits, investment habits, etc are all very different. I have great deal of experiences that support my assumption,. It is not as farfetched as you seem to have convinced yourself that a billionaire would be willing to spend an extra x million dollars to do away with a bad contract.

i seriously do not care what you do

it does not impress me

 

you wish to continue to flog a theoretical position that wealthy people have more money

and will spend differently then those who don't

wow, some insight

 

my original post was to a post that suggested that aquaman spend a lot of money

to shed a contract

for an incremental gain

that makes no business sense

does not move the needle at all

why don't you attempt to justify that proposal that i responded to

rather then vague things up

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here’s my proposal to move him.

 

Erickson

Goldy

Boucher 

Tanev

 

to Ottawa for 

Boedker and a 2nd 

 

Ottawa gets stronger on the back end, with Tanev who can easily by flipped for that second at the deadline or better.

 

Sens take on a player worth 3 mil in Erickson but helps get them up the cap floor issues at a 6 mil cap hit

 

Goldy is a good project that needs a new start, and he and Boucher were 2 of the three line mates (with Galchenyuk) who tore it up in the OHL and thus have chemistry (and continued to show chemistry in the AHL). I don’t think Goldy will ever get it here, but he’s still got some shine “potential” to him to make him attractive 

 

 

We get out from the cap issue of erickson, bring in a potential top 6 RW for Bo, and can always flip him at the deadline 

 

Hainsey brings depth and size with Tanev out (granted he’s a LD but move Benn to RD as he can play both sides, if needed)

 

Thoughts? 

Edited by 18W-40C-6W
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coastal.view said:

i seriously do not care what you do

it does not impress me

 

you wish to continue to flog a theoretical position that wealthy people have more money

and will spend differently then those who don't

wow, some insight

 

my original post was to a post that suggested that aquaman spend a lot of money

to shed a contract

for an incremental gain

that makes no business sense

does not move the needle at all

why don't you attempt to justify that proposal that i responded to

rather then vague things up

 

 

I really don't care whether or not I impress you or not. Not here to impress you nor did I tell you what I do.

 

A theoretical position is one that has no practical basis or application. I just told you that I've observed the spending habits of a specific demographic and am aware of how they spend, so what are you on about?

 

I don't care about what the original post is about either. You come here to $&!# on peoples proposals and thoughts without ever presenting an idea of your own, likely sitting behind your computer screen with a smug look on your face, impressed that you were able to tell someone that you thought their ideas are stupid/absurd. I simply asked if you were his financial advisor LOL because I thought it was funny. I didn't agree with the OP or disagree with you.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Seannnp said:

I really don't care whether or not I impress you or not. Not here to impress you nor did I tell you what I do.

 

A theoretical position is one that has no practical basis or application. I just told you that I've observed the spending habits of a specific demographic and am aware of how they spend, so what are you on about?

 

I don't care about what the original post is about either. You come here to $&!# on peoples proposals and thoughts without ever presenting an idea of your own, likely sitting behind your computer screen with a smug look on your face, impressed that you were able to tell someone that you thought their ideas are stupid/absurd. I simply asked if you were his financial advisor LOL because I thought it was funny. I didn't agree with the OP or disagree with you.

You two are awesome...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 2:11 PM, 73 Percent said:

I'd do it but doubt it gets  the deal done. I want to be optimistic but lets just look at the marleau deal for a min. 

 

Marleau at 6.25x1yr cost a 1st round pick to move. He put up 37 pts last year and hasn't missed a game since 2009. It also appeared that he was a great role model for matthews and marner.

 

Loui eriksson at 6x3yrs. Amazed all of 29 pts last year. Has missed significant time in 3 of the last 6 seasons. Just finished crying to the media a few weeks ago. 

 

If it took a 1st round pick to rid marleau it might take 3 1st round picks to ship loui out lol. I think we're just stuck to be honest.

Thing is, the Canes acquired Marleau knowing full well that he'd need to be bought out. Eriksson would play for whoever acquires him, so Ottawa gets a serviceable 3rd liner who could play up the lineup in an emergency - he has more value than Marleau. Furthermore, everyone knew the Leafs had cap issues, which drove the price up on Marleau; we have no such cap issues and so the price needn't be as much. If anything it should be less than normal, seeing as the Sens need to take on cap to reach the floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 2:10 AM, BigTramFan said:

Been thinking about how VAN could trade away the Eriksson contract. I have seen previous trade ideas including Zack Smith but didn't think there was enough incentive for OTT to hit the button. Came up with the following:

 

To OTT: Eriksson (50% retained)

 

To VAN: Zack Smith + Mike Condon

 

Why for OTT?

Simple. Saving $5m in salary costs.

This deal allows them to spend a total of $4.5m over the next three years ($0.5m + $2m + $2m), instead of paying $9.5m over two years ($6.25 + $3.25).

Loui’s 50% cap hit of $3m per year will not affect OTT since they are well below the cap limit.

They are giving up Zack Smith, however he would likely play on their 4th line and Loui can provide similar points and is effective in a shutdown role.

Loui also has the ability to fill in if any top 6 forwards are injured. In addition, for less total money OTT get a roster player in Loui for 3 seasons, whereas Smith is only contracted for 2 more seasons.

OTT waived Condon last season. They are paying him $3m salary this year to play in the minors. They would love to get rid of him.

 

Why for VAN?

Giving Eriksson a new start somewhere else.

Reducing Eriksson’s cap hit to only $3m in 2021-22 (when we may need the space for Pettersson + Hughes)

With this deal our cap hit becomes:

2019-20: $7.575m (this is just $1.575 more than LE’s full $6m hit and affordable)

2020-21: $6.25m

2021-22: $3.0m (creates $3m cap space at a critical time)

 

Condon can be assigned to Utica. Smith can play a role on our 4th line and provides center depth for 3C or 4C if required.

I think the only deal Aquaman signs off on would be one where the entire cap hit is taken.

I don't think a deal gets done without something or someone of significance goes with him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I’m curious what about something like 

Eriksson plus Demko and a 2nd?

 

My thought process here is Marky is the guy currently and we have DiPietro in the pipeline , with expansion looming I don’t see us protecting both Markstrom and Demko and to dump LE now I think it’s fair. I’d add Marky to it but don’t see Thatcher ready yet to be a starter hence the proposal. We’ve been fortunate with our goaltending prospects I see it as a way out. Gotta be a taker out there 

Edited by KanNuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok take it easy on me. 

 

We we know that we need to get rid of LE so I’m thinking Loui, goldobin and a 3rd round pick in 2020 for Ottawa’s 4th round pick in 2020 . Reason being is with J.T Miller and now Michael Ferlend in the line up we don’t need Goldobin. 

Now let the games begin. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mrturkish said:

Ok take it easy on me. 

 

We we know that we need to get rid of LE so I’m thinking Loui, goldobin and a 3rd round pick in 2020 for Ottawa’s 4th round pick in 2020 . Reason being is with J.T Miller and now Michael Ferlend in the line up we don’t need Goldobin. 

Now let the games begin. 

I think this would be a GREAT deal for VAN. I don’t think Goldy is enough incentive for OTT to do this deal though.

 

You make a good point about our current LW depth with Ferland and Miller added.

 

If JB felt that he really needed to get rid of LE and he could afford to move out a LW due to our newfound LW depth, then another option would be:

 

Loui + Baer(50% retained)

 

for 

 

(something like) 4th round pick

 

This way VAN is clearing $7.683m of cap and retaining $1.683m of salary for 2 years.

 

OTT get two decent players: Baer at $1.683m pa for 2 years, LE owed $9m total over 3 years.

 

If OTT concerned about Baer and concusssion history then make the 4th round pick conditional on Baer playing more than 50 games in 2019-20 season.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.