Silky mitts Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Almost going to be a year since his last pp goal. What a joke of a signing lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 As frustrating as Loui's play can be, he's still performing better than last year, which is all I ask of him at the start of the year. To make it easier to see, I've pro-rated his last two seasons below to 82 games each: 2016-17: 82 games, 14 goals, 16 assists, 30 points 2017-18: 82 games, 16 goals, 24 assists, 40 points Definitely still not worth $6M per year, but at least it's something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Contracts to big to move so we're stuck with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, -AJ- said: As frustrating as Loui's play can be, he's still performing better than last year, which is all I ask of him at the start of the year. To make it easier to see, I've pro-rated his last two seasons below to 82 games each: 2016-17: 82 games, 14 goals, 16 assists, 30 points 2017-18: 82 games, 16 goals, 24 assists, 40 points Definitely still not worth $6M per year, but at least it's something. are you his agent ? that is terrible horrible distorted use of math to inflate his production you wish to credit him with production in games he has already missed and cannot possibly make up he has 20 points in 41 games and has missed 12 games based on his production so far this year, and assuming he will not miss any more games he is on pace for : 13.5 goals, 20,5 assists, 34 points last season his actual production was 11 goals, 13 assists, 24 points combined, last season and this season, he was/will be paid $16 million dollars top paid player on the team over those 2 years and it is no guarantee that he will produce 34 points this year as a lot of his production occurred over a shorter span of games a long long time ago . well it feels like it anyway so reality is actually considerably worse then what you were suggesting theoretically for 6 million per .. Edited February 8, 2018 by coastal.view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, coastal.view said: are you his agent ? that is terrible horrible distorted use of math to inflate his production you wish to credit him with production in games he has already missed and cannot possibly make up he has 20 points in 41 games and has missed 12 games based on his production so far this year, and assuming he will not miss any more games he is on pace for : 13.5 goals, 20,5 assists, 34 points last season his actual production was 11 goals, 13 assists, 24 points combined, last season and this season, he was/will be paid $16 million dollars top paid player on the team over those 2 years and it is no guarantee that he will produce 34 points this year as a lot of his production occurred over a shorter span of games a long long time ago . well it feels like it anyway so reality is actually considerably worse then what you were suggesting theoretically for 6 million per .. It's not distorted at all, it's just standard pro-rating, done in a large number of disciplines to get a better picture of statistics. I never said he was worth his cap hit (I don't care about actual salary, it means almost nothing to the team in comparison to the significance of cap hit). In fact, I said "Definitely still not worth $6M per year". I don't see how you can argue that he's done worse. He currently has 20 points in 41 games and had 24 in 65 games last year, so unless you expect him to get less than four points in the next 24 games, he's going to get more points. To your question of 6 million per, given Loui's ability to play defense, I'd say about 60-70 points per year would cover it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormriders Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Yes, we can all agree, worst signing by Benning by a mile and I don't see how we get out of it without buying him out which would be expensive. But here is where I am really confused. As I understand it, when you are negotiating with the player/agent the two biggest issues are term and $'s, then maybe NTC or whatever as the final sweetener if warranted. So Eriksson got maximum $'s PLUS he got maximum term, AND he got the sweetener. Doesn't make any sense he got it all based on the facts. So then you have to look at the player to see what you are missing, because there must have been something very special about this guy right. He had been in the league for 10 years and was 31 when we signed him, and had just come off his best year in 4, hitting 30 goals and 63 points, but the previous 3 years had been much lower. So you have to ask, was this just a peak year, only ever exceeded once before and that was in 2010 or is this what you might expect. Well if you figure he had averaged 21 goals and 50 points per season you have to say it was a contract year exception and Benning should have know this. And that average is very distorted because of the peak years 3 - 7, where he had 118 of his goals. And he definitely knew he was signing a 31 year old player, likely past his peak that might start to decline in production overall, which of course he did. So I ask again, how do you justify the huge $'s AND huge term AND sweetener? And as I have said before, a $6M/6 yr term is not a placeholder. He went so far out on the limb with this signing and boxed himself in by making him untradeable. So while I love a lot of things JB has done, this is off the charts bad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amplified0ne Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Crazy to think that next year he could be the highest paid player on the Canucks or at least his cap hit would be the highest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SingleThorn Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 7 hours ago, Stormriders said: Yes, we can all agree, worst signing by Benning by a mile and I don't see how we get out of it without buying him out which would be expensive. But here is where I am really confused. As I understand it, when you are negotiating with the player/agent the two biggest issues are term and $'s, then maybe NTC or whatever as the final sweetener if warranted. So Eriksson got maximum $'s PLUS he got maximum term, AND he got the sweetener. Doesn't make any sense he got it all based on the facts. So then you have to look at the player to see what you are missing, because there must have been something very special about this guy right. He had been in the league for 10 years and was 31 when we signed him, and had just come off his best year in 4, hitting 30 goals and 63 points, but the previous 3 years had been much lower. So you have to ask, was this just a peak year, only ever exceeded once before and that was in 2010 or is this what you might expect. Well if you figure he had averaged 21 goals and 50 points per season you have to say it was a contract year exception and Benning should have know this. And that average is very distorted because of the peak years 3 - 7, where he had 118 of his goals. And he definitely knew he was signing a 31 year old player, likely past his peak that might start to decline in production overall, which of course he did. So I ask again, how do you justify the huge $'s AND huge term AND sweetener? And as I have said before, a $6M/6 yr term is not a placeholder. He went so far out on the limb with this signing and boxed himself in by making him untradeable. So while I love a lot of things JB has done, this is off the charts bad. All CDCers agree. Negative posters, positive posters, Cpt Hindsight posters, it doesn't matter, everybody agrees. Bad signing. You have, however, left out the most relevant question. Was our owner involved in this signing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormriders Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 No, it doesn't matter if Santa Claus was involved in the signing. The question is, regardless of who was involved in the negotiations, is why did he get maximum TERM, $'s and NTC at his age and production? Typically if they give a player max $'s, it's a reduced term, or if it is maximum term, it is a reduced $. Unless your name is like a Stamkos, he gets it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Stormriders said: No, it doesn't matter if Santa Claus was involved in the signing. The question is, regardless of who was involved in the negotiations, is why did he get maximum TERM, $'s and NTC at his age and production? Typically if they give a player max $'s, it's a reduced term, or if it is maximum term, it is a reduced $. Unless your name is like a Stamkos, he gets it all! Not sure what you're basing this 'max' thing on but as bad as LE's contract is (it is), it's neither max term or max $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 DEpending on which vets are penciled for next year the Canucks could pull a NYR stunt and ask players to waive their NTC. They can be waived thru and if not claimed the Canucks could take salary back to move LE. Ericksson can still be a decent PK'er and 3rd line option. I doubt Benning would do something like that so I don't expect anything along those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 If any of the teams we hate made this signing we'd be making fun of them for it. This was a bad signing and will continue to be regardless of the occasional stretch of not sucking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 BREAKING: Eriksson still sucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainhorvat Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Should flip this idiot to Arizona...they like taking other teams trash. We give them a 2nd and retain some salary. Loui would be perfect for that market cause noone would give a F about his performance he could just float for 4 more years and enjoy the sunshine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 i agree his contract is too large, money and term wise. i agree with the poster that questioned his ability to score maybe him playing with the wrong kind of centre. louie is a garbage goal scorer, but our forwards have trouble getting to the net. they say, if a scorer isn't scoring, he better do something well. imo, along with sutter and granlund, that line is a premier checking line. i may be the only one, but i like louie a lot. he is too expensive but he performs a function on this team. hate me, shoot me, but that is my thought on louie. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckler1119 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 So... when can the Canucks buyout this guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 20 hours ago, TimberWolf said: If any of the teams we hate made this signing we'd be making fun of them for it. This was a bad signing and will continue to be regardless of the occasional stretch of not sucking. It wasn't a bad signing. It was a bad result. Benning had every reason to feel Eriksson would help this club, and although we probably couldn't have expected a repeat of his last year in Boston, he was about as sure-thing of a UFA signing as you can get. The only issue people had at the time (and still do) is the length of contract - but nobody really anticipating his inability to get his game together... especially since he was gifted a spot with the Sedins to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 40 minutes ago, kloubek said: It wasn't a bad signing. It was a bad result. Benning had every reason to feel Eriksson would help this club, and although we probably couldn't have expected a repeat of his last year in Boston, he was about as sure-thing of a UFA signing as you can get. The only issue people had at the time (and still do) is the length of contract - but nobody really anticipating his inability to get his game together... especially since he was gifted a spot with the Sedins to start. But you get judged on the result. No GM goes into a contract negotiation expecting it to end up being bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckler1119 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Either way the past is the past, there really needs to be a strong petition to get rid of this anchor. Him, the Sedins need to go ASAP. That’ll help propel us to the bottom for hopefully a better chance at Dalin or even Bovqist . Give Bo the C and the rest is history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 28 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: But you get judged on the result. No GM goes into a contract negotiation expecting it to end up being bad. Well in retrospect, yes - it was an unfortunate result. But the *signing* itself made sense at the time. It isn't like Loui was a prospect and his potential was misjudged; he is a vet NHL player who has put up good numbers in the past so there was no reason to think this would happen. I'm really not sure why it HAS happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now