[Rumour] Canucks will not retain $ or add a sweetener for Loui to be moved

[EP40.]

Rick Dhaliwal on TSN1040: “Here’s an update on Loui Eriksson - no trade. What a shock. JP Barry is not a miracle worker, he’s not Houdini. Jim Benning has been trying to move him for 2+ years. The Canucks won’t pick up any part of the cap hit or add a sweetener.”

...this is why we may lose Tanev or/and Marky both to Free Agency. 
 

 

This is supposed to be competent GMing? Look I’m proud of where JB got this team to but if the league has transitioned to winning with young players on ELC’s, then having kept Eriksson this long and still not finding a suitor only means our window to win is dented and closed that much more. 
 

Playoff experience was great and all for the young guns to rally around and improve on. But how can the team get better if you don’t have available funds to be able to strengthen around them when in fact you’ll be doing the opposite actually by having quality roster casualties as a consequence? Eriksson’s cap is preventing a lot this team can do and it’s ability to improve. He wasn’t even played during the playoffs until necessary to fill-in for others so let’s not talk about him being a good role player for the bottom6...he’s not paid to and call a spade a spade, is a buyout worthy player holding this team back. So illogical that this is the stance management is taking 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by -Vintage Canuck-
Tag changed to [Rumour].

[Tinky-Winky]

with this atttitude, no team will want lou , u have to sweeten the deal or why would any GM want lou, JB come on bro

[NHL97OneTimer]

He doesn't need or want JP Barry to organize deals for the Canucks.  That's his job.  JB is probably tired of listening to LE and JP about their demands and so this is probably an exercise  of saying, "sure, go out and see for yourselves what you can or can't do.  If you find something that could work, call me".  If there are any bites with JP's work, then I'm sure JB will take over and then put the chips on the table with other GMs. 

[warrchief]

1 minute ago, x00x said:

with this atttitude, no team will want lou , u have to sweeten the deal or why would any GM want lou, JB come on bro

Got no draft pick assets this year and I think he'll want to weaponize his 1st next year for help. If it took a first round pick to dump the marleau contract, it will at least take that for Loui. Personally I can't see them giving up picks, we need another top end talent in the cupboards and a first round pick is close to a sure fire way to address that need.

[peaches5]

I'd rather keep assets than give them away to get rid of Eriksson if the cost is high. Not a big deal a lot of teams deal with internal caps. We can survive a few years more of Eriksson. Or just send him to the minors let him ride a bus for a few years.

[Fanuck]

7 minutes ago, EP40. said:

Rick Dhaliwal on TSN1040: “Here’s an update on Loui Eriksson - no trade. What a shock.

 

Dhaliwal  trolling trying to incite Canucks fans......what a shock!

[Rick Blight]

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one.

[EP40.]

1 minute ago, Fanuck said:

Dhaliwal  trolling trying to incite Canucks fans......what a shock!

I don’t understand why people think Rick is not a trustworthy insider anymore when he reports on bad news for the team. He literally has contacts and gets in touch with them that no others in the business do. It’s coming from Eriksson’s agent having spoken with him.

 

Don’t get this at all. Good news = he’s great. Bad news = he’s a troll. Pick one b/c imo, he’s doing the same as he’s always done and he’s respected among all his peers for it.

[NHL97OneTimer]

2 minutes ago, warrchief said:

Got no draft pick assets this year and I think he'll want to weaponize his 1st next year for help. If it took a first round pick to dump the marleau contract, it will at least take that for Loui. Personally I can't see them giving up picks, we need another top end talent in the cupboards and a first round pick is close to a sure fire way to address that need.

Lots of fringe or good players that could be useful to other teams though.  If the Canucks had to lose a mid-level player to get rid of LE, they take it and shore up the D.

 

With the expansion draft coming, I can see Demko being a key piece in getting rid of LE.  They'll have to get Marky under contract first though and then make it through free agency to see which teams are left without one of the big goalies.  

[warrchief]

Just now, NHL97OneTimer said:

Lots of fringe or good players that could be useful to other teams though.  If the Canucks had to lose a mid-level player to get rid of LE, they take it and shore up the D.

 

With the expansion draft coming, I can see Demko being a key piece in getting rid of LE.  They'll have to get Marky under contract first though and then make it through free agency to see which teams are left without one of the big goalies.  

Demko is a no deal for me, I will not give him up if I were Jimbo. Horvat, Miller, Hughes, Pettersson and Demko are and should be untouchables.

 

As for our prospects, teams will likely ask for Podkolzin or Hoglander as a sweetener for taking on the LE contract. Again, I wouldn't do that deal in a million years.

[EP40.]

6 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

I'd rather keep assets than give them away to get rid of Eriksson if the cost is high. Not a big deal a lot of teams deal with internal caps. We can survive a few years more of Eriksson. Or just send him to the minors let him ride a bus for a few years.

At the expense of the Canucks window to win now before major extension will kick in, sure.
 

And not like Sutter is the only bad apple contract. He’s the cherry on top with a lot of other overpaid, compounded deals which have the team struggling to decide what they can/can’t do leading to this current state.

[Bissurnette]

Yeah that's probably cuz they'd be ok with taking back another comparable bad contract. Maybe a change of scenery would do Loui and whomever he could/might get traded for will serve them well. I'd be ok with it as long as it's not longer term or more money on the contract. Ultimately even more money left on the contract would be ok if the other team retains or adds assets to offset the difference. I personally would not be ok with getting back a bad contract with longer term than Loui's.

[oldnews]

I don't necessarily disagree with that approach - if in fact anything Dhaliwal says is credible any more.

 

[Ilya Mikheyev]

Eriksson for Stralman

[NHL97OneTimer]

2 minutes ago, warrchief said:

Demko is a no deal for me, I will not give him up if I were Jimbo. Horvat, Miller, Hughes, Pettersson and Demko are and should be untouchables.

 

As for our prospects, teams will likely ask for Podkolzin or Hoglander as a sweetener for taking on the LE contract. Again, I wouldn't do that deal in a million years.

I would normally agree with you but JB will lose either Marky or Demko in the next year for nothing otherwise.  He can't get anything for Marky now and Marky got them to the dance.  He either pays him or loses the team MVP.  Tough situation.

[Provost]

23 minutes ago, EP40. said:

Rick Dhaliwal on TSN1040: “Here’s an update on Loui Eriksson - no trade. What a shock. JP Barry is not a miracle worker, he’s not Houdini. Jim Benning has been trying to move him for 2+ years. The Canucks won’t pick up any part of the cap hit or add a sweetener.”

...this is why we may lose Tanev or/and Marky both to Free Agency. 
 

 

IF it is true , then it is terrible.  I think it is equally likely that this is the messaging the team has been giving his agent to try to force a retirement.  Loui and his agent keep talking about Eriksson being a good NHLer still... this might be some stark reality for them.

 

I don’t know that there is any world that Eriksson retires early enough for us to take advantage of his cap hit.

[VegasCanuck]

9 minutes ago, x00x said:

with this atttitude, no team will want lou , u have to sweeten the deal or why would any GM want lou, JB come on bro

I completely get this approach. He wants Loui to agree to terminate the current contract and for JP to go find him a new contract with another team.

 

Basically, I think Benning is putting Loui and his agent on the spot. Resolve this or accept that he's going to need to either be away from family for the duration of his contract, or uproot them and take them with him for the 5 million that's still owed. If no other team is willing to offer him a replacement contract, this may force Loui into retirement.

 

Personally, with the players who will be available this off season, Loui's agent would be really hard pressed to find a team willing to give him more than 950k per season.

 

The unfortunate part on the Canucks side is, it may cost us the ability to resign Tanev and Markstrom etc.

 

Really hope Loui chooses retirement, he can't keep up in this league anymore.

[peaches5]

12 minutes ago, EP40. said:

At the expense of the Canucks window to win now before major extension will kick in, sure.
 

And not like Sutter is the only bad apple contract. He’s the cherry on top with a lot of other overpaid, compounded deals which have the team struggling to decide what they can/can’t do leading to this current state.

I'd rather use any picks or prospects to pick up a dman in a trade than use them to lose Eriksson. The cap space isn't really an issue especially if Markstrom walks.

[Phil_314]

9 minutes ago, Teemu Selänne said:

Eriksson for Stralman

If the Panthers would do that, I think we take it and run.  

[oldnews]

 

I would think that Barry would know better than to vet potential details like that with drama-seeking journalists.

So I'm not sure I buy the source - he's had a habit of taking liberties in recent years to apparently gain attention.

 

But let's take this as possibly the  underlying truth...

 

Here's what you're supposed to do, agent Barry:

1) apprise your player of the reality of market demand for him.

2) remind him how much of his existing contract has been paid out.

3) calculate for him the fact that cap floor teams, who could save multiple millions of cash in a tight market, don't want him.

4) calculate the value of what he has remaining on this contract, vs what he might be able to sign for post mutual termination.

5) assess whether that difference is worth two years of riding busses in the AHL.

6) take a look at what's been paid out relative to performance thus far in the contract.

 

And then 'do the right thing' and either terminate, or not one word of complaint about spending the next two years in Utica.

 

It's not Benning's duty to move futures to enable Eriksson to find a role in the NHL within the terms of his existing contract.

It's probably Eriksson's own fault that he finds himself in these circumstances.

Benning can move contracts to create cap that will cost less - or possibly no - asset losses for the franchise.

 

Most previously higher end players hang them up at the point they are a 15th or 16th man in their team's NHL depth chart.