Sign in to follow this  
Provost

[Discussion] How is Eriksson Not Waived?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Alflives said:

Which supports the opinion that JB/Aquilini have a gentleman's agreement with LE to keep him on the big club for this season, and then LE will retire after his July 2020 bonus.  

Isn't that circumvent the cap?   It might not be legal and NHL could investigate that and punish the Canucks accordingly if they are found guilty of doing that and LE could change his mind and decide not to retire.  You can't write any gentlemen agreement and it's not legal binding agreement.   I suppose, the Canucks could then try to trade LE for something to a playoff team for a late round picks.   Nobody would take him anyways and who are we to expect that Eriksson keep his word even if gentlemen agreement exists.  If Eriksson is worried about legacy, he might as well retire now and saving Canucks some cap room not for this season only but for next season as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

Isn't that circumvent the cap?   It might not be legal and NHL could investigate that and punish the Canucks accordingly if they are found guilty of doing that and LE could change his mind and decide not to retire.  You can't write any gentlemen agreement and it's not legal binding agreement.   I suppose, the Canucks could then try to trade LE for something to a playoff team for a late round picks.   Nobody would take him anyways and who are we to expect that Eriksson keep his word even if gentlemen agreement exists.  If Eriksson is worried about legacy, he might as well retire now and saving Canucks some cap room not for this season only but for next season as well.  

Gentlemen’s agreement is simply a handshake.  We will never know, but I’d be shocked if Luongo didn’t have a similar handshake agreement with FLA about retiring, and getting a pseudo management job that will pay him the 3 million owed.  And yes it’s absolutely Cap circumvention.  The league has to prove it though, and their is no paper train.  It’s just two men shaking hands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

And if he causes problems in the room, there's your just cause.

He could just float, not try, or give a damn, showing how not to be a professional, not help the young teammates become better.  There's a lot of things he can do that will not let you terminate the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

He could just float, not try, or give a damn, showing how not to be a professional, not help the young teammates become better.  There's a lot of things he can do that will not let you terminate the contract.

And if he pulls that garbage he can be suspended without pay.

 

At this point, he's doing all the above and it's time to get him out of town so he's nowhere near the actual NHL players.

Edited by King Heffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

And if he pulls that garbage he can be suspended without pay.

 

At this point, he's doing all the above and it's time to get him out of town so he's nowhere near the actual NHL players.

Good luck with trying to suspend him for that.  No legal system will allow it.

 

By all accounts, he has been a good teammate and professional about it, so no he's not doing all the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

He could just float, not try, or give a damn, showing how not to be a professional, not help the young teammates become better.  There's a lot of things he can do that will not let you terminate the contract.

... and this would be a great object lesson for the kids about how hard you have to work and keep working to get to and stay in the NHL.

 

“See that old dude over there doing bag skates and filling our water bottles?  He used to be in the NHL and now he can’t even crack the farm team roster.”

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Provost said:

... and this would be a great object lesson for the kids about how hard you have to work and keep working to get to and stay in the NHL.

 

“See that old dude over there doing bag skates and filling our water bottles?  He used to be in the NHL and now he can’t even crack the farm team roster.”

Hahahahaha that would be funny.  Too bad it will never occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Provost said:

I fully expected to see Eriksson on waivers today and sent to the farm.

 

I am not sure honestly what any argument against it could be at this point.

 

He isn’t penalty killing, he isn’t good defensively, he isn’t doing “the little things” right, he isn’t putting in the effort, he isn’t an option to fill in the top six during injuries, he no longer has the trust of his coach (look at his minutes when he is in the lineup).

 

When you are outplayed by a fringe guy like Graovac... you are done.


Maybe he retires rather than reporting to Utica, maybe not... but it should be tried.  It is startling how different the success of the entire team hinges on all four lines pushing the pace.  When we have lost that from our 4th line, suddenly the top two lines start faltering as well... maybe because they are focussed on more.

 

Sorry for a bit of a rant, but to me it is really inconceivable that the team hasn’t played hardball yet with this player.

 

Does anyone have an argument FOR Eriksson remaining now?  Mentoring Petterson doesn’t fly for me to keep a valuable roster spot... especially with the impending return of Roussel 

 

 

thumb_inconceivable-name-that-movie-16094256.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Ferland is skating, Roussel is recovering and practicing. If they send Gaudette down to fit Loui in up here, I will just shake my head in confusion. Baertschi also needs to go back to Utica, he isn't very effective.  

When Rous is back, LE is gone down, you can be sure of that unless LE out plays baer.. that's a possibility but my confusion comes from lack to playing Big Mac.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Playing hard ball with him is just not good for the chemistry of the team. He is still liked by his teammates. He's not a cancer in the locker room.

Well...it's not like teammates are going to say they hate him and throw him under the bus.  Probably they are indifferent towards LE.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


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

I fully expected to see Eriksson on waivers today and sent to the farm.

 

I am not sure honestly what any argument against it could be at this point.

 

He isn’t penalty killing, he isn’t good defensively, he isn’t doing “the little things” right, he isn’t putting in the effort, he isn’t an option to fill in the top six during injuries, he no longer has the trust of his coach (look at his minutes when he is in the lineup).

 

When you are outplayed by a fringe guy like Graovac... you are done.


Maybe he retires rather than reporting to Utica, maybe not... but it should be tried.  It is startling how different the success of the entire team hinges on all four lines pushing the pace.  When we have lost that from our 4th line, suddenly the top two lines start faltering as well... maybe because they are focussed on more.

 

Sorry for a bit of a rant, but to me it is really inconceivable that the team hasn’t played hardball yet with this player.

 

Does anyone have an argument FOR Eriksson remaining now?  Mentoring Petterson doesn’t fly for me to keep a valuable roster spot... especially with the impending return of Roussel 

 

Totally agree. I was hoping someone in the Canucks management would have the balls to waive Loui. It is far past the time it should have happened.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mll said:

Eriksson is represented by JP Barry of CAA.  They are one if not the most powerful agency - Puckpedia has them with the highest overall value of contracts.  Benning might simply not want to get in a dispute with them - not worth it for a 13th F.   Agents also influence their clients in free agency.

 

Didn't hear the segment but some have posted that Dhaliwal says it's Benning that wants to keep Eriksson while Green would prefer him in Utica.  

Give me a break. If a GM is worried about what an agent thinks about what the GM does with a player, that GM should lose their job.

 

You don't let an agent dictate ANYTHING.....EVER.   What a silly thought imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Optics and politics?

 

That’s all I can think of. 

 

Why is Sven still here? 

 

 

Also, here comes the IR parade. I’m shocked they have had good health for this long already. 

Sutter, Tanev, Edler, Beagle and most likely one of Brock or EP, judging by how often they are being checked. 

 

Basically it is optics and politics for sure.

 

Would we hesitate at all waiving any 1.5 million dollar fourth liner who performs like LE? Even with a few years left on his contract?  So that proves there are other reasons.  And its not all hubris.  IMO Benning does not want to ruin his credibility with players he may want to sign in the future. (edit: and yes agents like JP Barry)  JB already has worked hard to establish that he will pay above market price and term for free agents. Sending down a veteran player that has three years left with millions on the table to the AHL will not go down well with the players association. Especially if he also sits in Utica with the hopes he retires.

 

Add Bennings reasons plus Aquilini not wanting to burn more money, and there's not much JB will do.

 

I don't think I can wait until next Summer to hopefully have him honour some theoretical "gentlemans agreement" which we have no way of proving, but I don't want him poisoning the well in Utica either.  Terrible example to younger prospects.

 

I know 36 million is more than 33, if he waited until next Summer, and 33 is more than 27, if he just left now,  but ffs isn't 27 mill enough? Is it really worth living in this fish bowl when you are the half dead one almost turned over, that only scares the other fish but still costs the owner fish feed, just to watch him gorge himself on more than the other fish eat.

Maybe we need a petition going.  Please retire Louie petition.

.

.

.

Edited by kilgore
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Add Bennings reasons plus Aquilini not wanting to burn more money, and there's not much JB will do.

 

Waiving Loui does not end up making Aquilini 'burn more money'. He pays that silly salary to Loui regardless.

 

Not sure what you mean.....

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Waiving Loui does not end up making Aquilini 'burn more money'. He pays that silly salary to Loui regardless.

 

Not sure what you mean.....

Just in the sense of giving up on him completely in getting anything out of him, as someone here said he was chaffed to have to pay Gagner after we sent him down. Burning because he would not even get any value at all, even as a 13th forward.  I doubt he'd ever be called back up over other prospects, and we have a bit of a glut on veteran forwards once everyone is healthy That is assuming if Louie is sent down, and he decides to play out his three years, or at least two, regardless. It would sure feel like he's burning money.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Just in the sense of giving up on him completely in getting anything out of him, as someone here said he was chaffed to have to pay Gagner after we sent him down. Burning because he would not even get any value at all, even as a 13th forward.  I doubt he'd ever be called back up over other prospects, and we have a bit of a glut on veteran forwards once everyone is healthy That is assuming if Louie is sent down, and he decides to play out his three years, or at least two, regardless. It would sure feel like he's burning money.

Is there any actual evidence that Aquilini was Pissed over sending Gagme to the AHL?  

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.