StealthNuck

Loui Eriksson | #21 | LW/RW

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Speaking of this, I wonder where @Alflives has been. Hope he's doing alright.

I've heard rumours that he's gone over to the HFBoards instead of CDC, but I'm not certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SilentSam said:

Should have happened at the beginning of 2019/20. 

This is 100%

 

It is one of the biggest mistakes of Benning’s tenure (or of an owner who may not have let him bury that contract).

 

Injuries meant you didn’t HAVE to bury Eriksson, but it also didn’t mean you had to keep him in the lineup.

 

It really puts the player’s resolve to the test if he knows there is three full years of riding the bus without any chance of getting back to the NHL.  He has a young family; $50 million in career earnings; and a profitable chain of restaurants in Sweden.  There had to be at least an even chance he mutually terminates his contract in that situation.

 

He walks away from $13 million (actually about $9-10million after escrow and agent fees... and $6-7million after taxes), but can probably recover a portion of that by signing $2 million dollar per year contracts as PK specialist on an NHL team or going and playing in Sweden as a superstar.

 

We didn’t put him to that test which is entirely incomprehensible.  The team’s leverage decreases every season as it is a lot easier to gut it out a year or two or hope for a buyout.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Provost said:

This is 100%

 

It is one of the biggest mistakes of Benning’s tenure (or of an owner who may not have let him bury that contract).

 

Injuries meant you didn’t HAVE to bury Eriksson, but it also didn’t mean you had to keep him in the lineup.

 

It really puts the player’s resolve to the test if he knows there is three full years of riding the bus without any chance of getting back to the NHL.  He has a young family; $50 million in career earnings; and a profitable chain of restaurants in Sweden.  There had to be at least an even chance he mutually terminates his contract in that situation.

 

He walks away from $13 million (actually about $9-10million after escrow and agent fees... and $6-7million after taxes), but can probably recover a portion of that by signing $2 million dollar per year contracts as PK specialist on an NHL team or going and playing in Sweden as a superstar.

 

We didn’t put him to that test which is entirely incomprehensible.  The team’s leverage decreases every season as it is a lot easier to gut it out a year or two or hope for a buyout.

Agreed Provost,..    At least in real life.

If a worker is not working up to his skills, level of pay, and responsibilities to earn his contract, you can fire him.

Termination.

The only thing an NHL Team can do with a player like LE in this situation, is try to force the attrition for him to terminate the contract himself.

Why have so many thought  it to be unfair to force Eriksson into Utica if his set of skills can not keep him on the Canuck roster?

 

He clearly would have no arbitration or reason to defend the move.

Forcing the attrition is the only thing and only way Teams can try to protect themselves from turning his Contract into the Cash Cow it has been for Loui.

A player clearly not engaged in the physical game of hockey anymore.. should not be in a Canuck uniform.

Stalling the progress of players in development out of the farm systems.

 

an average of 10 goals per season over 4 years of hockey for aprx 30 million dollars,  

                  for a player who is worried more about his chefs filet minion.. out of his Cash Cow (the Canucks),

                  and making it home without an injury to taste it.

 

This situation has NO reflection on the Canuck franchise if they opted to put this player into the position of playing in the minors,.

   

     That was taken on by the player and his lack of attributes to clearly keep a position on the Team.

    It sends no message to any veterans other than play up to your potential to keep a position on the Team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Hydration 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2020 at 2:46 PM, Provost said:

There is an interesting story in the daily hive about possible trades for Eriksson.

The premise of all of them is that there are teams with bad contracts who are not cap spending teams who could be interested in swapping out their player with a lower cap hit but greater real dollars owed for Eriksson to save money.

 

Creative thinking that we haven’t seen much of... assume that small bits go either way in addition to these two players to even things out a little.

 

1. Alzner.  Actually owed the same in real dollars over the next two years as Erikssom but has a $1.37 million lower cap hit.  Montreal could do this because they would actually get a player for their roster (albeit a depth PK guy) in return for a guy that is in the AHL.  Julian also has a relationship with Eriksson.

 

2.  Victor Rask.  $2 million less cap hit but $3 million more expensive in real dollars than Eriksson over the term of their contracts.

 

3.  Colin Miller.  Disappointment in Buffalo, less expensive to cap, but more expensive in real dollars.  
 

4.  Frans Neilson.  $750k in cap savings but Detroit doesn’t care about adding cap.  Detroit saves $500k in real dollars 

 

All interesting ideas, I think cap space will be at such a premium that these teams with cap space can extract more value than those swaps.

Minnesota is a real possibility. They have the cap space and honestly I think they would be interested in Sutter too, they need a centre. I wouldn't mind something like Eriksson, Sutter, Demko for Rask. Minny needs a goalie and they get one for Eriksson and a year of Sutter (who they need anyway). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wanted to continue playing hockey (like he stated), another way we could get rid of him is to agree to terminate his contract (2.5 mil per year for the next 2) and he signs for that amount with another team. We can have a side trade with that team to give them some pick of value (I don't think it would take more than a 2nd) for future considerations which would be for them to sign Eriksson to that contract. The benefits are:

 

Team Taking Eriksson: team taking him doesn't take as big of a cap hit (2.5 vs. 6), gain a draft pick, gain a pretty good defensive forward for PK,

Eriksson: gets a change of scenery, gets to continue to play in the NHL

Canucks: more options for teams that can take him, gets rid of his cap hit, don't lose as much trying to get rid of him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 7:45 PM, SilentSam said:

Agreed Provost,..    At least in real life.

If a worker is not working up to his skills, level of pay, and responsibilities to earn his contract, you can fire him.

Termination.

The only thing an NHL Team can do with a player like LE in this situation, is try to force the attrition for him to terminate the contract himself.

Why have so many thought  it to be unfair to force Eriksson into Utica if his set of skills can not keep him on the Canuck roster?

 

He clearly would have no arbitration or reason to defend the move.

Forcing the attrition is the only thing and only way Teams can try to protect themselves from turning his Contract into the Cash Cow it has been for Loui.

A player clearly not engaged in the physical game of hockey anymore.. should not be in a Canuck uniform.

Stalling the progress of players in development out of the farm systems.

 

an average of 10 goals per season over 4 years of hockey for aprx 30 million dollars,  

                  for a player who is worried more about his chefs filet minion.. out of his Cash Cow (the Canucks),

                  and making it home without an injury to taste it.

 

This situation has NO reflection on the Canuck franchise if they opted to put this player into the position of playing in the minors,.

   

     That was taken on by the player and his lack of attributes to clearly keep a position on the Team.

    It sends no message to any veterans other than play up to your potential to keep a position on the Team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I definetaly wanted him yesterday in PK... A player like him might be a real difference if we get a lot of penalties. 

It seems we get a lot of penalties against in playoff.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

I definetaly wanted him yesterday in PK... A player like him might be a real difference if we get a lot of penalties. 

It seems we get a lot of penalties against in playoff.

That’s the first game close to a playoff in about 5 years Timra.. the Canucks played well,. They’re getting chances, it’s just finishing..  there will be corrections as the rust and steam blows off..  they finished aggressively.  That will help them take the “desire” into the next game.

The speed is far too fast for Eriksson anymore,

even Sutter looked like a sleeping bag beside a campfire yesterday..

Enter MacEwan and Virtannen,

Exit Rousell and Sutter.

let the boys play .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SilentSam said:

That’s the first game close to a playoff in about 5 years Timra.. the Canucks played well,. They’re getting chances, it’s just finishing..  there will be corrections as the rust and steam blows off..  they finished aggressively.  That will help them take the “desire” into the next game.

The speed is far too fast for Eriksson anymore,

even Sutter looked like a sleeping bag beside a campfire yesterday..

Enter MacEwan and Virtannen,

Exit Rousell and Sutter.

let the boys play .

Experiance wise I agree but if you want us to the real play off you want the vets also... 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 2:14 PM, AK_19 said:

If he wanted to continue playing hockey (like he stated), another way we could get rid of him is to agree to terminate his contract (2.5 mil per year for the next 2) and he signs for that amount with another team. We can have a side trade with that team to give them some pick of value (I don't think it would take more than a 2nd) for future considerations which would be for them to sign Eriksson to that contract. The benefits are:

 

Team Taking Eriksson: team taking him doesn't take as big of a cap hit (2.5 vs. 6), gain a draft pick, gain a pretty good defensive forward for PK,

Eriksson: gets a change of scenery, gets to continue to play in the NHL

Canucks: more options for teams that can take him, gets rid of his cap hit, don't lose as much trying to get rid of him. 

Can you say “cap circumvention” ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Can you say “cap circumvention” ? 

why? nothing wrong with two separate trades, or Loui terminating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

why? nothing wrong with two separate trades, or Loui terminating. 

If there is an agreement in place for him to terminate his contract and then sign with a predetermined team that gets compensation from the Canucks to do so, then it’s clear cap circumvention 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

why? nothing wrong with two separate trades, or Loui terminating. 

It is though.  It's paying draft picks to another team to get out of his contract.  The team could face a fine of up to 5M that counts against the cap and the loss of draft picks.

 

Edited by mll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a old fashioned hockey trade too me, Loui should be starting game 2 v/s Minny, he owes this to himself, Bo needs him as he is getting crushed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FinchBird said:

Sounds like a old fashioned hockey trade too me, Loui should be starting game 2 v/s Minny, he owes this to himself, Bo needs him as he is getting crushed

 

I would slot Eriksson in over Pearson or Roussel at this point.

 

Very disappointed in their first games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, qwijibo said:

If there is an agreement in place for him to terminate his contract and then sign with a predetermined team that gets compensation from the Canucks to do so, then it’s clear cap circumvention 

 

21 hours ago, mll said:

It is though.  It's paying draft picks to another team to get out of his contract.  The team could face a fine of up to 5M that counts against the cap and the loss of draft picks.

 

its not that different from Luongo being offered a job to retire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

its not that different from Luongo being offered a job to retire. 

It would have been if the Panthers paid Luongo outside of the normal pay scale for the job he took.  Benning said they asked the league to verify.

 

That's not quite what happened.  It was Luongo's decision to retire.  Once he decided to retire they probably encouraged him to retire rather than go on LTIR, but the initial decision to stop playing was his - or at least that's how it was communicated.

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/roberto-luongo-about-to-tell-florida-panthers-his-plan/c-307917824

"It's totally up to Roberto," Florida general manager Dale Tallon said Thursday. "We've talked a couple of times. The decision is solely up to him. Whatever is best for him and his family. We're going to go along with whatever he decides he wants to do."

 

Edited by mll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mll said:

It would have been if the Panthers paid Luongo outside of the normal pay scale for the job he took.  Benning said they asked the league to verify.  

 

That's not quite what happened.  It was Luongo's decision to retire.  Once he decided to retire they probably encouraged him to retire rather than go on LTIR, but the initial decision to stop playing was his - or at least that's how it was communicated.

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/roberto-luongo-about-to-tell-florida-panthers-his-plan/c-307917824

"It's totally up to Roberto," Florida general manager Dale Tallon said Thursday. "We've talked a couple of times. The decision is solely up to him. Whatever is best for him and his family. We're going to go along with whatever he decides he wants to do."

Of course thats what Tallon is going to say publicly. And even if it was Lu's decision, he's still helping the team he works for circumvent their cap situation by choosing to retire and there's a clear benefit for him taking a front office gig. The self interest is clear.

 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear to God I saw LE throw a hit in tonights game. Might be able to catch it on a highlight reel. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.