theo5789
Members-
Posts
10,599 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by theo5789
-
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I realize there's lot of time left in the summer. That has nothing to do with Smith still having value as an NHL player and could provide a role here. If we were to make a trade for him today or soon, he would currently have a spot on our team IMO based on the current roster. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Only flaw here is that keeping him as the 13th forward only devalues him further for a trade and the media will keep this a talking point every night creating a massive distraction and who knows how he will be should he put in this position. We might as well straight waive him if we are not going to play him. The media will still talk about it, but at least let Eriksson showcase himself to get out of here. Not to say he should be gifted any minutes, but if he's only locked down the 13th forward, then it really makes no difference than to just waive him and see what happens. -
[Signing] Blues re-sign Jordan Binnington
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I almost forgot how big the goalie equipment was before. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
You keep bringing this up and ignoring the context. He was waived in hopes someone would take him as a cap dump. No one claimed him because it was too much risk after having one of his worst seasons and 3 years left in term. He never played a game for their farm team as he is still an NHL player. No one would claim LE for free because they rather gain an asset by making a trade for him rather than giving you a free pass. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
So who do we keep up instead? Schaller and Goldy? They hold more value? He was waived because Ottawa was hoping someone would take his cap off of them. No one took him because he had 3 years left on his deal at the time and had just come off his worst season. He's bounced back in numbers. He had 136 hits last season which would've been 3rd on our team last year, so he certainly would be a good addition to the bottom 6 creating energy when needed. I'll also reiterate that he can play center where he took over 800 draws and just under 50%, so he actually trumps even Miller here as center depth. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
He's like Eriksson (who is deemed as a overpaid, but capable NHL player), but costs around his worth, is far more physical (therefore more suited for the bottom 6), and can play center as insurance (important if Sutter and Beagle suffer any injuries again this season). Didn't you make a post about LE being equivalent to his peers who has similar salary? So you deem he has enough value for a team to potentially take on because his salary dictates that it's reasonable and Smith is like LE as you say, but adds extra elements. We certainly waive Schaller. And Goldy's time may be up. Or we waive Biega and keep 14 forwards. When Roussel returns, it could get complicated, but maybe someone else is injured by then. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Smith had been a target of mine for a while now, but prior it was more of the intention of Ottawa getting to the cap floor and taking on the full hit and before the Canucks added their new muscle, so I thought he would be a decent physical addition that can still play the game. I'm not sure where he fits currently, but he could be a good 4th line enforcer in the games we need it and has the versatility of being a center, so he could be the 13th forward at worst. He could also be waived to save another million in cap. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Just a suggestion of a possibility. Say we retain 2 million (or 33% of the cap/salary). We trade him to Ottawa for Zack Smith (who they wanted to dump last year by waiving him and hoping someone would take him for free). Ottawa does this because LE's salary is essentially 2 million a season after our retention (not sure if the math based on bonuses and such which would complicate this) or 6 million over the duration of the contract. With Zack Smith, they would be paying in 3.25x2 = 6.5. So they save in the short term and slightly over the long term with a player that has a cap of 4 million (remember after retention) which would be greater than Smith. They don't really have a need to reach the floor anymore, but the salary savings will be key here. The Canucks will have a cap hit of 5.25 after this deal, so they save 750k for the first couple of years which is a bit of wiggle room that throughout a season could add up, but the kicker is Smith's contract ends in 2 years and therefore we will save 3.25 million more in year 3 which just so happens to be the EP and Hughes extension year. As a bonus, Smith plays a hard nosed game that goes in line with how we've been changing our team and could be an insurance center with a good number of draws taken and a decent percentage. He had the same offensive production as Eriksson last year, so we are essentially getting a tougher version. In this scenario, we likely will need to add something, but because we are retaining and there is some benefit to Ottawa as well, the extra add probably won't be much more than a late pick or a Palmu or something. -
I like for us to add Zack Smith in a deal to move out LE who is winger that is also very capable of playing center. It would certainly go in line with the way we have been building our team with more size and speed.
-
We could have a circus act as pre-game entertainment.
-
Can you meet Tyson Barrie this summer? Should've looked for Panarin last summer!
-
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
But at least he has a shot to try. Whereas some seem to think that if he isn't traded, it's a foregone conclusion that he's Utica bound. If we retain 2 million and take on Smith at 3.25. We still save 750k and Smith's contract ends a year earlier. I'd be very comfortable with that assuming whatever we would add to make that deal happen is minimal. I guess we will find out soon enough. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I think that's what's lacking in most of the discussion here. He will be given a chance to keep his spot in camp. I disagree with him faltering "again" other than him not playing up to his contract. He clearly can play a role at the NHL level, but just isn't worth the price tag which seems to be reiterated from both sides (maybe that's simply to sell him, but there is some data to back it up). If the idea is for him to live up to his contract, then sure, but I don't think that's why players get cut. It sounds like as of today that Utica is only an option if he uses his NTC to nix a deal. It doesn't sound like a real possibility simply to take him off the roster. It is best that LE is moves out of the organization to rid ourselves of the unnecessary drama to ensue, but that may come at a price. We don't want to give up a substantial asset, but we have to look at a potential decent asset or two acquired. I've proposed many times and much rather prefer that we trade him to Ottawa for say Zack Smith, but they no longer need to reach the cap floor, so the price to unload him there simply got higher. Although if we retained some cap (and thus more of the salary) perhaps that intrigues Ottawa as they would have to pay even less in salary while maintaining the cap and we would get a lower "savings" in cap, but maybe pay less in a sweetener. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Actually you're not getting it. I am not saying anything about how it affects us in the ED. I'm saying that Lucic could simply waive his NMC for Edmonton in the expansion year. By doing so, the ED has no hindrance to them and I've listed out why he would consider doing so for Edmonton. They wouldn't be forced to lose anyone over Lucic. Doing nothing is fine by me, I was only bringing up ideas for discussion sake. Still don't think we will be able to make a deal that will be "beneficial" to us. We are either going to have to pay a sweetener (lesser if we retain cap) or we take on a deal where we can get the sweetener, but have to take the more painful contract. This is if we indeed make a trade which sounds like all sides are trying to achieve. Benning has impressed me this off season with his moves, so if he makes an incredible deal to move out LE that gains us cap space with minimal loss in a sweetener, then he simply has done it again. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Seems like a lot of downward spiral over an overpaid player that can clearly still play a role at the NHL level. I rather just play him than go through all this drama. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
That was my response to those suggesting Utica in a response to your original response. It's starting to spiral out of control now. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
"B. Louie plus a moderate sweetener for futures/picks/prospects plus whoever Benning can sign with that cap space," B does become more realistic with the caveat you've added. If we take back a smaller contract, depending on how much we are taking back, we would still have to pay a price. The bigger the contract to lower the sweetener is just less space for whoever we can sign with that space. Same goes if we retain cap and on what we would have to take back still. If you think we can clear 3-6 million in cap space over 3 years with a moderate sweetener, then that isn't happening. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Like I said, if Lucic waives his NMC for expansion purposes, then it negates that concern for them. Why would Lucic not waive it? Either he isn't taken and he helps out his team knowing that he won't get taken or he does get taken and he's closer to home. If retaining on LE is the difference maker, then what's the hold up? There simply isn't a market there that is going to make moving him favourable to us. Yes I know Utica is an option, but it doesn't seem to have resorted to that yet based on everything I've read so far, so for discussion sake, just trying to think of other creative scenarios. If Edmonton retains on Lucic to 4.5, perhaps he also becomes much more appealing should we retain on him bumping him down to say 3 million a season. I understand leverage. If you remember my posts before, I would want to bend Edmonton over a barrel to make the deal as well. It just seems that IF we make a trade, maybe there's a way to make it beneficial to us beyond simply demanding all of their prime assets. It seems like both sides are trying to think of ways to make a deal work and to keep LE at the NHL level, so just playing along these lines. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Did you read the post I responded to? -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
The recent articles suggest they're looking at trade options and in doing so, we are likely to get a bad contract back in return. Benning has threatened Utica, but only if he isn't giving the freedom to move him by using his NTC. So it looks like whether or not people like it, that we may get a bad contract back. With that said, it comes down to if we take on an extra year, we may gain the sweetener. If we want to lose a year, then we pay the sweetener. We could retain cap or whatever, but however it plays out, it's going to be hard to come out on top of this situation. If we send him to Utica, he could be a bad influence. If we send him to another AHL team like we did with Gagner, we would need to find a taker and pay a guy to play on another team for a million in cap savings. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
That wasn't an option laid out in the post I replied to which gave an unrealistic situation that of course anyone would take because it would never happen. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I'm aware we don't need to move him, just trying to think of more creative ways to make it more feasible. In this scenario, they are actually banking on 7.5 million in cap space to dump Lucic for 3 years. So it doesn't help their cap and roster situation for 3 years. They only benefit on the 4th year where they are still retaining 1.5 million, so they save 4.5 million. The ED issue could be negated if Lucic waives his NMC to be exposed which I don't see why he wouldn't because even if he's unlikely to get picked up anyway, it would be closer to home if he does. So it comes down to the players themselves in this scenario IMO and we are ridding ourselves of a distraction for a guy that wants to be here. This is for mere discussion purposes rather than pushing for it. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
B is not realistic though. Marleau was dealt with a 1st to unload one year of full cap. We want to dump 3 years of full cap, it's going to cost a significant sweetener. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
What if Edmonton retained 1.5 million? That would essentially take away the 6 million from the 4th year. It gives us 1.5 million more room for the next 3 years (a bit more than simply burying him). The issue of the 4th year is still there, but less dire. Not sure how this would affect any sweetener headed our way though. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
theo5789 replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
It was the tweet earlier that mentioned Benning will consider Utica if he isn't flexible with his NTC. Whether this is true or not really makes me wonder if LE will be here. Because that sounds like they may have offers and options, but LE is holding them back and needs to be "threatened". Him being in a bottom 6 role seems like a possibility because of Benning's comments about how he's still a capable NHL player, but that sounded more like fluff to me to show he has value. If he's a pressbox guy, it'll be nothing but a distraction to the team as he won't want to be there and the media will be relentless about pressboxing a guy that's pretty much the highest paid on the team currently. There's been comments about how he would be a decent player in the NHL if not for his contract, so that to me sounds like either we will take a contract back like Lucic (and they better add a sweetener) or we retain cap and take on a lower bad cap hit essentially still not saving cap, but ridding ourselves of the player. I still think there's traction on the LE for Lucic rumours as Edmonton at the very least could use a defensive sound forward with potential offensive upside while the Canucks do not need Lucic's snarl as much as they did with the recent signings, but it would certainly go in line with how we have been boosting our team this offseason.