[Discussion] ditching Eriksson plus others

[Provost]

I am now at the point where the situation merits moving a (lottery protected) 1st round pick to get rid of Eriksson.

 

The team is ahead of schedule competitively.  The league economics with a flat cap make having cap space a huge advantage at the same time as making it harder to shed cap.   It opens up a LOT of opportunities for signing our own guys and/or retooling our defence.  It also allows us to sign Hughes/Petterson long term instead of a bridge deal which could pay huge dividends down the road cap wise when we want to be contending.

 

I hope it doesn’t cost that much, but assume that it would.  Almost no teams available with cap space to absorb that kind of hit.  
 

If we could also move out Baertschi for a late pick or middling prospect, and trade one of Sutter of Beagle with less than 50% retained, we could suddenly be in a spot to not only tread water, but actually take advantage of other teams needing to shed cap.  It would take Benning getting the jump on the market and starting now.

 

Eriksson to Ottawa or Detroit and a lottery protected 1st for a later pick/prospect.  Ideally make the pick our choice of either 2021 or 2022, we want an option to get in on one of the great D prospects next draft if possible.  Maybe try to have it a bit bigger and get a guy like Tierney back as a 3C upgrade.
 

Baertschi to (the other) of Ottawa or Detroit and a prospect like Woo/Focht for a late pick.

 

Sutter to a team like NYR (they could use a stable 3rd line centre) with up to 50% retained for a 4th round pick.

 

If the Sutter move doesn’t happen, try to move Beagle (no cap retained) packaged with Virtanen for a mid round pick.

 

We open up almost $11 million and only take one real player off our roster.  That leaves us $25 million in cap to sign 7-8 players and/or be able to take on Erhoff type deals from teams that don’t have the cap space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Provost

[goalie13]

9 minutes ago, Provost said:

I am now at the point where the situation merits moving a (lottery protected) 1st round pick to get rid of Eriksson.

Why now?

 

The real crunch comes after next season when Petey and Hughes will need big raises and we would still have Loui on the books for one more year.  I think he may be easier to deal with only one year ($3M salary, $6M cap hit) left on his deal.

[Bell]

How much does Pettersson get paid?  I hope they sign him for a long term deal.  The kid is the face of the franchise, hope they pay him well and long term.  Same thing with Hughes, sign these kids to long term deals.

[Provost]

6 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

Why now?

 

The real crunch comes after next season when Petey and Hughes will need big raises and we would still have Loui on the books for one more year.  I think he may be easier to deal with only one year ($3M salary, $6M cap hit) left on his deal.

I explained why now right in the post.

 

The crunch is right now.  It allows us to retain players and sign UFAs in an economic reality where teams are trying to shed contracts.  It also can pay dividends in not pushing $4 million in ELC bonuses from next year into the following year when we are paying Eriksson and Hughes.

 

Ditching Eriksson next year gives you no advantage in that sense.  We would pay almost as much to get rid of his contract next year just to pay those pushed ELC bonuses, and it doesn’t get you ahead.  Trading him now saves more cap next year plus giving it to us this year.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Provost

[goalie13]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

I explained why now right in the post.

 

The crunch of right now.  It allows us to retain players and sign UFAs in an economic reality where teams are trying to shed contracts.  It also can pay dividends in not pushing $4 million in ELC bonuses from next year into the following year when we are paying Eriksson and Hughes.

 

Ditching Eriksson next year gives you no advantage in that sense.  We would pay almost as much to get rid of his contract next year just to pay those pushed ELC bonuses, and it doesn’t get you ahead.  Trading him now saves more cap next year plus giving it to us this year.

I'm obviously missing your point.

 

I don't think there's too big of a panic for cap crunch this year.  Sure, a few guys will need to be moved but I think the real crunch comes following next season.  That's when the biggest raises will happen.

[JM_]

I agree, it is time that more futures are burned. It is what it is, Loui's salary is fugly.

 

But I'm wondering if we can't get more value back in packaging Sutter and the 2021 1st for a young asset back. By moving Sutter and papering Loui to Utica we save 5.5 mil, so thats any one of Marky, Tanev or Toffoli retained right there. We gain an asset back and then just buy out Loui in his last contract year to save another 2.5 mil. 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Robert Long

[Provost]

3 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

I'm obviously missing your point.

 

I don't think there's too big of a panic for cap crunch this year.  Sure, a few guys will need to be moved but I think the real crunch comes following next season.  That's when the biggest raises will happen.

Do you get that even moving smaller cap hits this offseason to let us sign 1-2 of our key UFAs means we still won’t have the money to pay the inevitable $4 million in ELC bonuses that Hughes and Petterson will earn next year?  We have pushed $1.7 million in bonuses from this part year to next year, reducing our cap space.

 

If we aren’t $4 million under the cap (Ferland LTIR doesn’t let you bank cap space to pay ELC bonuses)... then that $4 million gets pushed into the 2021-22 season... which is the one that we have to pay Hughes and Petterson.  Moving Eriksson now avoids that awful scenario.

 

So with your idea of waiting to move Eriksson next offseason, it effectively only frees up $2 million in cap space compared with moving him now. (His $6 million in cap space minus the $4 million in pushed ELCs).
 

 

[goalie13]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

Do you get that even moving smaller cap hits this offseason to let us sign 1-2 of our key UFAs means we still won’t have the money to pay the inevitable $4 million in ELC bonuses that Hughes and Petterson will earn next year?  We have pushed $1.7 million in bonuses from this part year to next year, reducing our cap space.

 

If we aren’t $4 million under the cap (Ferland LTIR doesn’t let you bank cap space to pay ELC bonuses)... then that $4 million gets pushed into the 2021-22 season... which is the one that we have to pay Hughes and Petterson.  Moving Eriksson now avoids that awful scenario.

 

So with your idea of waiting to move Eriksson next offseason, it effectively only frees up $2 million in cap space compared with moving him now. (His $6 million in cap space minus the $4 million in pushed ELCs).

Nope.  Was unaware of how the bonuses worked.  I'm good on the LTIR rules though.

 

My concern has been those that want to move everyone this year.  Everyone moved will need to be replaced with someone (except Baertschi).  And that someone will have their own cap hit.  Petey & Hughes together might represent an $16M+ cap hit.  I think they are the future of the Canucks and would hate to lose either of them.

[mll]

38 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

I agree, it is time that more futures are burned. It is what it is, Loui's salary is fugly.

 

But I'm wondering if we can't get more value back in packaging Sutter and the 2021 1st for a young asset back. By moving Sutter and papering Loui to Utica we save 5.5 mil, so thats any one of Marky, Tanev or Toffoli retained right there. We gain an asset back and then just buy out Loui in his last contract year to save another 2.5 mil. 

 

 

Eriksson is unlikely to be sent to Utica.

 

Benning has been asked several times if they will be allowed to spend to the cap and he said they'll be meeting with ownership.  They should have clarity within the next week to 10 days.  Aquilini is hurting financially with his regular business being hit by the pandemic.  They've made several cuts on the hockey side and more are expected to come.  

 

Drance doesn't think they'll be limited to spend to the cap and won't lose any core players.  He thinks they will need to be more efficient though.  He gives the example of Baertschi/Goldobin on 1-way deals to Utica which is where he thinks savings will be made.  Dhaliwal said Tryamkin couldn't get a 1-way deal and that's why they couldn't get a contract done - the Canucks probably wanted to preserve themselves in case it didn't work out under Green and they had to demote him.

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by mll

[JM_]

1 hour ago, mll said:

Eriksson is unlikely to be sent to Utica.

 

Benning has been asked several times if they will be allowed to spend to the cap and he said they'll be meeting with ownership.  They should have clarity within the next week to 10 days.  Aquilini is hurting financially with his regular business being hit by the pandemic.  They've made several cuts on the hockey side and more are expected to come.  

 

Drance doesn't think they'll be limited to spend to the cap and won't lose any core players.  He thinks they will need to be more efficient though.  He gives the example of Baertschi/Goldobin on 1-way deals to Utica which is where he thinks savings will be made.  Dhaliwal said Tryamkin couldn't get a 1-way deal and that's why they couldn't get a contract done - the Canucks probably wanted to preserve themselves in case it didn't work out under Green and they had to demote him.

 

why not send Loui to Utica? I see no reason why he would make next years team, and they'll need the 1.025 mil. It will likely only be a paper transaction but who cares, I don't believe we ever see him in a Canucks uni again.

 

We don't know the Aqulini's finances, they could be doing just fine compared to others. Just because the team made cuts to operations doesn't mean Aqulini is any kind of trouble. 

[mll]

2 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

why not send Loui to Utica? I see no reason why he would make next years team, and they'll need the 1.025 mil. It will likely only be a paper transaction but who cares, I don't believe we ever see him in a Canucks uni again.

 

We don't know the Aqulini's finances, they could be doing just fine compared to others. Just because the team made cuts to operations doesn't mean Aqulini is any kind of trouble. 

 

Drance:  "Sources indicate that the Canucks really aren’t sure about whether they’ll spend to the upper limit of the salary cap just yet."

 

Drance's audio is posted in the Markstrom thread.

[Mackcanuck]

Tell Loui his options are to retire or he will be sent to Utica.

If he retires, Tell him they would hire him on as a scout to work with Gradin in Sweden(sort of what happened with Luongo in Florida)

$6M cap hit disappears

Edited September 8, 2020 by Mackcanuck

[Patel Bure]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

I am now at the point where the situation merits moving a (lottery protected) 1st round pick to get rid of Eriksson.

 

The team is ahead of schedule competitively.  The league economics with a flat cap make having cap space a huge advantage at the same time as making it harder to shed cap.   It opens up a LOT of opportunities for signing our own guys and/or retooling our defence.  It also allows us to sign Hughes/Petterson long term instead of a bridge deal which could pay huge dividends down the road cap wise when we want to be contending.

 

I hope it doesn’t cost that much, but assume that it would.  Almost no teams available with cap space to absorb that kind of hit.  
 

If we could also move out Baertschi for a late pick or middling prospect, and trade one of Sutter of Beagle with less than 50% retained, we could suddenly be in a spot to not only tread water, but actually take advantage of other teams needing to shed cap.  It would take Benning getting the jump on the market and starting now.

 

Eriksson to Ottawa or Detroit and a lottery protected 1st for a later pick/prospect.  Maybe try to have it a bit bigger and get a guy like Tierney back as a 3C upgrade.
 

Baertschi to (the other) of Ottawa or Detroit and a prospect like Woo/Focht for a late pick.

 

Sutter to a team like NYR (they could use a stable 3rd line centre) with up to 50% retained for a 4th round pick.

 

If the Sutter move doesn’t happen, try to move Beagle (no cap retained) packaged with Virtanen for a mid round pick.

 

We open up almost $11 million and only take one real player off our roster.  That leaves us $25 million in cap to sign 7-8 players and/or be able to take on Erhoff type deals from teams that don’t have the cap space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are only three things that are capable of moving Eriksson in my opinion.

 

1) Podkolzin

 

2) Demko

 

3) 2021 1st

 

1) and 2) would be terrible asset management in my opinion and so I wouldn’t do either of those.    I would do number three (2021 1st as the sweetener) IF Benning got in on the 2020 1st round.   I am of the opinion that this is what Benning will do.  I think Benning will try and move Virtanen at the draft for a 2020 1st, using Kasperi Kapanen as a comparable.   If Virtanen doesn’t get you a 2020 1st, I think Benning will start looking at moving Brock to get in here.

 

If Benning is successful at getting a 2020 1st, he will then trade either Sutter or Eriksson with the 2021 1st being the sweetener.  If other teams pass on Eriksson, then Sutter will be used.   Eriksson would then be moved at the end of next season (with one year left and only 2 million in real dollars owed, finding a taker for Eriksson might not be too difficult.  Eriksson being convinced to retire and take 2 million under the table might also be an option).

 

That is how I see things playing out.

[mll]

1 minute ago, Mackcanuck said:

Tell Loui his options are to retire or he will be sent to Utica.

If he retires, Tell him they would hire him on as a scout to work with Gradin in Sweden(sort of what happened with Luongo in Florida)

$6M cap hit disappears

It's cap circumvention and could lead to the loss of draft picks and penalties that will count against the cap. 

 

Luongo is being paid market value for entry level contracts.  It's not possible for Eriksson to make up the 5M he will lose in salary on a scouting job.  

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Drance:  "Sources indicate that the Canucks really aren’t sure about whether they’ll spend to the upper limit of the salary cap just yet."

 

Drance's audio is posted in the Markstrom thread.

I'm sure Aqulini wants to hear the plan first, but being in construction he's probably doing relatively well compared to other businesses. It never really slowed down in BC.

 

I still don't see why Loui isn't done here. 

[Mackcanuck]

It's cap circumvention and could lead to the loss of draft picks and penalties that will count against the cap. 

 

Luongo is being paid market value for entry level contracts.  It's not possible for Eriksson to make up the 5M he will lose in salary on a scouting job. 

 

You don't know how much Luongo is getting paid by Florida

 

So pay him the $5M to scout in Sweden

 

It is not Cap circumvention if Louis retires and takes a job in the organisation

 

Luongo just did it

Edited September 8, 2020 by Mackcanuck

[JM_]

1 minute ago, mll said:

It's cap circumvention and could lead to the loss of draft picks and penalties that will count against the cap. 

 

Luongo is being paid market value for entry level contracts.  It's not possible for Eriksson to make up the 5M he will lose in salary on a scouting job.  

If Loui is bought out he'll only get 1.67 mil over 2 years, isn't it 2/3 of the remaining salary? It doesn't help us much this year but at least it clears a roster spot. 

 

He should agree to mutual termination and try to get a spot somewhere else for 1 mil per year. Its not all on him but you'd hope a guy had some sense of fairness. He didn't live up to his deal, he's received 31/36 mil. Its a lot to hope for but if we lose someone like Tanev over it he'll get booed off the ice once fans can come back. He just has no future here. 

[mll]

1 minute ago, Robert Long said:

I'm sure Aqulini wants to hear the plan first, but being in construction he's probably doing relatively well compared to other businesses. It never really slowed down in BC.

 

I still don't see why Loui isn't done here. 

They will likely have to give up prime assets to move him.  There are also other teams looking to dump bad contracts so might need to beat their offers for that cap space.

 

Edmonton - Russell 1 x 4M but only 1.5M in salary

Nashville - Turris 4x 6M

NYR - Lundqvist

Carolina - Niederreiter 2x 5.25M

NYI - Boychuk and Ladd

 

Maybe they buy him out.  Saves money and blocks cap space that they won't be able to spend on.  

 

They could also see if there's a more manageable buyout contract that they can swap Eriksson's with - not all teams have the money to buyout contracts and could tolerate Eriksson over pressboxing a more expensive player.  Contracts that have flat salaries and don't have bonuses are far easier to buy out than Eriksson's.  

 

[mll]

28 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said:

It's cap circumvention and could lead to the loss of draft picks and penalties that will count against the cap. 

 

Luongo is being paid market value for entry level contracts.  It's not possible for Eriksson to make up the 5M he will lose in salary on a scouting job. 

 

You don't know how much Luongo is getting paid by Florida

 

So pay him the $5M to scout in Sweden

 

It is not Cap circumvention if Louis retires and takes a job in the organisation

 

Luongo just did it

It is cap circumvention.  It's only allowed if they are paid market value for the position.  Benning asked the league to verify for Luongo.

 

There is no entry level scouting position that earns 5M.   From the CBA:

 

(e) A Club and a Player, during the Player's active career, agree that upon the Player's retirement, he will receive a sum of money for services to be provided to the Club after retirement.

(f) A Club or Club Actor pays a Player or Player Actor for a "no-show" job, or for a job in which the payment to the Player or Player Actor clearly exceeds the fair market value of the services rendered.

 

[Mackcanuck]

1 minute ago, mll said:

It is cap circumvention.  It's only allowed if they are paid market value for the position.  Benning asked the league to verify for Luongo.

 

There is no entry level scouting position that earns 5M.   From the CBA:

 

(e) A Club and a Player, during the Player's active career, agree that upon the Player's retirement, he will receive a sum of money for services to be provided to the Club after retirement.

(f) A Club or Club Actor pays a Player or Player Actor for a "no-show" job, or for a job in which the payment to the Player or Player Actor clearly exceeds the fair market value of the services rendered.

 

Fair enough, so ask him to retire or ride the busses in Utica