Silver Ghost

Didn't Benning say he didn't see a big deal with the comments by Eriksson? Is he lying? Seems to pretty much straight shoot so why would you not believe him? The severity of Eriksson's comments is so overblown by some that its laughable. I know people need to hate on him but seriously its ridiculous.

1985 called, they want their hockey exec and coach mentality back. I know several current and former professional hockey coaches and management, including from some NHL teams. I can tell you with zero doubt that not one of them that I know would do this to any player to the degree you are suggesting, especially without reason or without having ever ciached the player. It would be coachibg suicide. All athletes are an investment to them. They don't act like disgruntled fans. BTW: you have no idea what management does or doesnt want. I havd never seen them say they dont want him to play nor have i seen them call him lazy or worthless or a piece of garbage.

Why would Cull jeapardize his own coaching future by getting labeled as that kind of coach?

Rich people understand ROI. Paying a player in the minors obviously pissed him off. So he paid a player in the NHL via a trade. I bet he was pissed about the buyout too lol. I am glad that 9 mil is not a boatload of cash in your world. Since you are rich, want to spot me a mil or two? If Benning can move 9 mil of salary that is going to be dead, Aqua will be thrilled. Spending it on another player is irrelevant in how he would look at that analysis imo.

Not vs trading him with a sweetener it doesn't. That saves Aquilini a boatload of cash. Gagner was also half the cap hit. And from my understanding was traded in a lateral move at least partly because Aquilini was pissed off at paying that much to a guy in the minors. Benning basically said A was pissed off.

Almost as bad as relying on anything Hrudey says about the Canucks. Dude's having mullet/headband flashbacks most of the time.

Could easily be traded with a sweetener right now too. Just have to hold your nose and swallow the bad medicine and accept the sweetener will ve a good one, now or in the future.

It will be 3 years without being able to utilize that cap space because once they do that no one will take him.

Easy for you to spend Aquilini's money on a player in Utica. Plus it doesn't save us much cap and obliterates any potential value another team would see in order to take him offour hands even with a sweetener attached.

Would you be ok if Benning had to pay a reasonably significant sweetener though to move him? I would tbh. Just get the cap space and roster spot back to help us down the road.

I agree with all of these points. I think its best for both sides if he is moved before camp. I just have a pet peeve when fans apply an all or nothing lens to a situation. It irritates me

I can agree to disagree with people who live at the extreme where to them Eriksson is simply lazy, uninterested, and physically useless and not an NHL calibre player anymore. There is no arguing with that level of hyperbole tbh.

No one said he needs coddling. Its oversinplifying what i actually said to even suggest thats what I was talking about. The mental aspect of sports is just as big a part of results as the physical aspect. Assuming a player doesnt try is just stupid. Anyone who has ever known a professional hockey player and the mental and physical work it takes them would understand what I am talking about. Confidence especially is a key driver for players. They talk about it all the time.

I think its unfair to say that veteran players dont have struggles as well. In a lot of cases, the transition for an older player from scorer to energy type bottom 6 guy is actually much harder both physically and emotionally. Eriksson is not impacting the young core in terms of their work ethic etc. He may be paid like a core player but he is not one on ice or influentially.

This is a fair criticism of Eriksson's play. Its a fair criticism of a lot of players play though. Consistency in maintaining that high level of effort and engagement is difficult for many players. I am not sure I would agree that it is an all or nothing scenario though as some of the posters i am disagreeing with are implying. Thats really my main point. Some of that may be confidence driven too. He just looks like a player who doesnt want to make any mistake and that very often leaves players hesitant. Not that its an excuse, i just see it as a reality. Getting him to engage more is certainly something that needs to be addressed by the coaching staff.

Yep. Wait for it....

Not at all. I have always said exactly that. My argument is that, despite what the hater crowd says, if Eriksson is still a Canuck heading into next season, none of this other over-dramatized stuff is an excuse not to give him that opportunity. You guys seem hell bent on the Canucks punishing him by not doing so based on comments to the media and your skewed perception of him as being a player with no value or skill. Eriksson has quite simply not been utilized to what his previous strengths were in his time in Vancouver. Part of that is coaching imo. Part of it is him not taking advantage of his opportunities too.

https://www.tsn.ca/james-neal-is-hopeful-to-play-with-connor-mcdavid-with-edmonton-oilers-1.1340486 In other news, water is wet and people need oxygen to live.

I agree. I think there are still a few players that we need healthy though or it could severely impact whether we make the playoffs.

You make it sound like he has had 3 years of exclusive top line usage and done nothing with it. Thats not close to the truth at all. He was not really given a lot of top 6 opportunity overall considering what they signed him to do. The coaches certainly share some of the blame. Neither Desjardins nor Green have really attempted to utilize Eriksson in the way Boston did that got the most out of him. He has been largely miscast in Van, which has actually been an ongoing theme in Vancouver back to the Alain Vigneault days. Some players were just square pegs in round holes. Some of that is on Eriksson for not running with the somewhat sporadic opportunities he got for sure. As i have said many times. But really, if you sign a player to a big money deal like that its probably a good idea to understand how he found the success previously that made you want to sign him in the first place and try to get him back to that place. Sometimes players dont fit in even playing with great players. Chemistry is not guaranteed. That seems to be the case with Eriksson in Van unfortunately. Burrows often gets lumped in as a plugger who the Sedins made into a good player but what people miss is that Burrows also made the Sedins more effective by the way he played the game. He gave them space to make plays. He went to the net. He retrieved pucks, forechecked hard, and added a strong defensive conscience to their line. All of these things helped allow the Sedins to play their game. Thats how chemistry works. I thought at the time that, despite international success as a line, Eriksson would not be a good fit with the Sedins on the Canucks. Unfortunately they were pretty much all we had in his first few years in Van. Last year I thought Eriksson looked pretty good with EP actually. Not lights out, but not worthy of the demotion either. So in a sense I can understand his frustration too. Players get sat and demoted for all kinds of reasons, and its not always that the best players play. Coaches are human and have favorites who despite struggling never lose their spot. Its not a negative, its just reality. O'Neill's comment is seriously simplified presumably so it can become a soundbyte for the unwashed masses desperate to hate on a guy who by all accounts hasnt lived up to his contract. Eriksson is up against it now. He has to win any spot he might get. And thats not a bad thing at all. If he can't, he ends up in Utica etc. But his time in Vancouver has not only been a failure because of him. It was a bad contract to begin with and thats on Benning. It set the expectations sky high. He has struggled to find a steady role and thats on Desjardins and now Green too. Its their job. I want him gone as much as the next guy. But your argument does not seek out any realistic balance at all.

Looking at the holes filled by Benning and the depth and a tougher style of play we can expect have me inclined to say yes. Add in how many teams in the west have actually gotten worse both on paper and relative to the Canucks improvement, I would say if we dont again get decimated by injuries, a playoff spot is there for the Canucks.

I actually think that the Canucks have leapfrogged several teams if things go acvording to plan tbh.

I saw someone (i forget who) post on here that Edler seemed to step more into the role of calm veteran when the Sedins retired. I never really thought about thst but its sort of true really. If Hughes can progress into that top D and Myers can step up with more responsibility and opportunity as he claims he wants to, I really think Edler and Tanev for that matter could settle in even more and be more consistently effective when not stretched too far. Art least I hope so. And i hope it helps limit the injuries too.

Pretty sure the Lucic rumored deal was at the deadline. Once he acquired Miller and Ferland, it seems Lucic was not even a consideration for Benning any longer. According to Lucic, he was not aware of any potential deal to Van anyway. Puljujarvi is an even bigger media whiner abd primadonna than you guys suggest Erikssons comments make him, yet many were happy to accept him as a sweetener to take on lucic and his nmc. Thats why blind player hatred should never be any kind of factor in making a trade.

I dont see any fit where a team gives an asset for his full cap hit. Benning will have to take a bad contract back or add a significant sweetener to move it. I am personally hoping Benning just adds a good prospect and moves him without taking significant garbage contracts back. Thats just the cost of doing business with a bad contract. Eriksson did the Canucks a favor saying no to a Lucic deal imo. Same headache coming back.