aGENT Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 1 minute ago, theminister said: Hearing the talking heads on 1040 this morning chuckling over the thought of Eriksson spending time in the second line this year had me shaking my head. Their impression was that's ubthinkabke and would be a disaster, that you can't pay him $6 mil to play part time with the Sedins. When, in reality, it's MOST likely that he and Hansen swap out several times during the season 5v5 and the coach mixes it up based on play. Every team swaps around top 6 players over the course of a season at certain points. Man, the morning show is terrible. I like Tom Mayenknecht but he should be more cautious when talking about things not in his expertise. For the most part,other than the occasional bright spot, 1040 is pretty horrible. It's like listening to the ignorant, ill informed guy at a party talk about sports. Be nice to have some knowledgeable and less tabloid style media in town... Personally, I'd prefer Eriksson on the 2nd line 5v5 for the most part. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 1 minute ago, J.R. said: For the most part,other than the occasional bright spot, 1040 is pretty horrible. It's like listening to the ignorant, ill informed guy at a party talk about sports. Be nice to have some knowledgeable and less tabloid style media in town... Personally, I'd prefer Eriksson on the 2nd line 5v5 for the most part. Good luck with that! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhdlois Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 I had to turn it off.....which isn't unusual. Hard to believe that anything could be worse than listening to Bro Jake & Pratt.....but they topped it with Botch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 Blow Jake and David Pratt are a couple of useless turds with zero objectivity. Add in that parasite BotchedTurd, and it becomes an impromptu and lecherous roast of the Canucks organization that merely mirrors the tripe being spewed back east by those hacks. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 24 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Blow Jake and David Pratt are a couple of useless turds with zero objectivity. Add in that parasite BotchedTurd, and it becomes an impromptu and lecherous roast of the Canucks organization that merely mirrors the tripe being spewed back east by those hacks. C'mon Phil, don't hold back.... ...tell us what you really think. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: C'mon Phil, don't hold back.... ...tell us what you really think. They should be shot out of a cannon into a mountain of pig manure, set on fire, and then blasted into the centre of the sun. Filmed for a 30 in 30. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: C'mon Phil, don't hold back.... ...tell us what you really think. Hahahahaha. I can't help it. I truly don't understand what they hope to propagate from their negative bandying back and forth. They feed off of the negative portion of the fanbase and it becomes a vicious cycle. Nothing wrong with being objective. But the biased negativity these (insert expletive here) promote is a fruitless cause. Hopefully Eriksson doesn't tune in to 1040. I wonder if Lucic did, and that helped to make his decision? Edited July 4, 2016 by PhillipBlunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Hahahahaha. I can't help it. I truly don't understand what they hope to propagate from their negative bandying back and forth. They feed off of the negative portion of the fanbase and it becomes a vicious cycle. Nothing wrong with being objective. But the biased negativity these (insert expletive here) promote is a fruitless cause. Hopefully Eriksson doesn't tune in to 1040. I wonder if Lucic did, and that helped to make his decision? Doubt it. Looch probably hears that sort of stuff wherever he goes. In this case, I believe him when he says he wanted to play with McDavid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said: Doubt it. Looch probably hears that sort of stuff wherever he goes. In this case, I believe him when he says he wanted to play with McDavid. Lucic signing with the Oilers to play with McDavid is one of the most hilarious things I have heard this off season. How on earth does Lucic think he's gonna be able to keep up with Connor McDavid on the ice?! . If I were McDavid, I would be like . Lucic is a slug! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 34 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said: Lucic signing with the Oilers to play with McDavid is one of the most hilarious things I have heard this off season. How on earth does Lucic think he's gonna be able to keep up with Connor McDavid on the ice?! . If I were McDavid, I would be like . Lucic is a slug! I doubt he expects to play on a line with McDavid. (although you never say never) It's probably more a case of wanting to be part of the same team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, CanuckleHorse said: Just wanted the peeps who are complaining about the term realize that he wants to be here playing for them for a long time and they should just be happy he is willing to play for these ungrateful whiners. I haven't, at least on this forum, complained about the term yet. Nevertheless I guess if I am ever going to complain about it in a few years, it would be wrong not to say so now. I'm sorry to be negative when most on here are excited about the improvement he'll bring to the Canucks over the next couple of years. I like Eriksson as a player. He's a good fit for the twins (though we had a good fit for the twins) and should also be able to play effectively thoughout the lineup. He'll help in team scoring this season. From the little about his character that I've read he should be good in the locker room. Further, those that believe the Canucks were within one good piece of having an excellent chance (not just a chance but an excellent chance) to win the Stanley Cup will understandably love this contract. Many on here don't believe in considering the future. I do. I believe a team does best by maximizing total value over the long term. Getting an asset without trading for it or using a draft pick is good. Otoh, giving a long-term contract for sizeable moneyand a no-move clause, while making the contract effectively buyout-proof because much of the money is paid in signing bonuses instead of salary, to a player already past the usual best age for scorers who has had numerous concussions and who just had, in his contract year, his best season by far of the past four carries a big risk. If it doesn't work out and his ability declines seriously a couple of years before the contract expires, it is a contract the Canucks will have a tough time getting rid of and it will be cap space that they could have used on a player to help them at that time. I think the Canucks chances of competing for a championship in the next couple of seasons are poor, but that if they get some good management decisions and some good luck they could be competitive for a championship in a few seasons. For that reason I consider the future more important than the present. IN a few years Eriksson's contract may be anything from a great benefit to a needless use of $6 million per season in cap space that could better be used on a player who at that time will be in his prime. So, I like the player and will look forward to cheering him on this season-but I don't care for his contract from the team's point of view. Edited July 4, 2016 by tyhee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, tyhee said: I haven't, at least on this forum, complained about the term yet. Nevertheless I guess if I am ever going to complain about it in a few years, it would be wrong not to say so now. I'm sorry to be negative when most on here are excited about the improvement he'll bring to the Canucks over the next couple of years. I like Eriksson as a player. He's a good fit for the twins (though we had a good fit for the twins) and should also be able to play effectively thoughout the lineup. He'll help in team scoring this season. From the little about his character that I've read he should be good in the locker room. Further, those that believe the Canucks were within one good piece of having an excellent chance (not just a chance but an excellent chance) to win the Stanley Cup will understandably love this contract. Many on here don't believe in considering the future. I do. I believe a team does best by maximizing total value over the long term. Getting an asset without trading for it or using a draft pick is good. Otoh, giving a long-term contract for sizeable moneyand a no-move clause, while making the contract effectively buyout-proof because much of the money is paid in signing bonuses instead of salary, to a player already past the usual best age for scorers who has had numerous concussions and who just had, in his contract year, his best season by far of the past four carries a big risk. If it doesn't work out and his ability declines seriously a couple of years before the contract expires, it is a contract the Canucks will have a tough time getting rid of and it will be cap space that they could have used on a player to help them at that time. I think the Canucks chances of competing for a championship in the next couple of seasons are poor, but that if they get some good management decisions and some good luck they could be competitive for a championship in a few seasons. For that reason I consider the future more important than the present. IN a few years Eriksson's contract may be anything from a great benefit to a needless use of $6 million per season in cap space that could better be used on a player who at that tie will be in his prime. So, I like the player and will look forward to cheering him on this season-but I don't care for his contract from the team's point of view. Very close to my feelings on the matter, which is why I was on record last month as not wanting to dip into the FA pool. (Unless it was to re-sign Hamhuis) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOHORVAT53 Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 On July 2, 2016 at 0:53 AM, Yotes said: I wonder if Minnesota would trade Granlund now that they have Staal, or would they just slide Coyle to the wing? If not Why not have the Granlund brothers here? Heck if they liked Marcus surely they like the more offense Mikael? Issue would be we have quite a few C. Does anyone know if Mikael has played any wing at the NHL level? No but Markus would slide to the left. Virtanen or Etem Grinding to get those danglers the puck. Its why Vey played suprisingly well with them. Or Granlund Granlund Rodin could be a great line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOHORVAT53 Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 the term is doable. we couldnt have gotten him with 5 Yr offer. so either 6 or nothing. He made the right choice. He will play at his salary for 4 years. 5th year maybe a bit overpriced, and year 6 we can deal him at the deadline. WORST comes to worst, we may have to buy him out last year. Even though 3 yrs older, I bet anyone he lasts longer then Lucic. Ladd and Backes too 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Lasso Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 7 hours ago, theminister said: They should be shot out of a cannon into a mountain of pig manure, set on fire, and then blasted into the centre of the sun. Filmed for a 30 in 30. Hahahahahaha +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckpuckluck1 Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 3 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said: Very close to my feelings on the matter, which is why I was on record last month as not wanting to dip into the FA pool. (Unless it was to re-sign Hamhuis) I cannot very well turn around in a few years time and jump on the bandwagon one way or another without stating my thoughts. I agree with both of you. I would have been content with management saving more cap space and waiting until next year. I just think the term is too long and I hate NMC. I can understand then for someone like the Sedins who are one club players but they really affect the way you do business going forward, look at the mess Benning inherited! At the end of this coming season he will have cleaned house with only the Sedin and Edler contracts which I think are pretty good deals. Now adding this one has muddied the waters again, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_The_Schneid! Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 2 hours ago, canuckpuckluck15 said: I cannot very well turn around in a few years time and jump on the bandwagon one way or another without stating my thoughts. I agree with both of you. I would have been content with management saving more cap space and waiting until next year. I just think the term is too long and I hate NMC. I can understand then for someone like the Sedins who are one club players but they really affect the way you do business going forward, look at the mess Benning inherited! At the end of this coming season he will have cleaned house with only the Sedin and Edler contracts which I think are pretty good deals. Now adding this one has muddied the waters again, so to speak. The NMC is only for the first two seasons I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 On July 4, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Off_The_Schneid! said: The NMC is only for the first two seasons I believe Yes Year 1 and 2 - NMC Year 3 and 4 - Full NTC Year 5 and 6 - Limited NTC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 awesome but way WAY to long,three years at max for me!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<DarkGhost> Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 1 hour ago, cripplereh said: awesome but way WAY to long,three years at max for me!!!!! Well you wouldn't get any top 6 UFA player for 3 years. Sooooooooo... I also want a unicorn and 1 trillion dollars. Unfortunately NHL GMs have to work within reality lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts