Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Loui Eriksson | #21 | LW/RW


-SN-

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ForzaTikare said:

https://www.sportbibeln.se/hockey/tre-kronor-stjarnans-stora-oro-kan-lamna-nhl-klubben-i-sommar-vet-inte-vad-som-hander/

 

One of many articles in Sweden lately about the possibility of a buy-out of Louis contract 

I used to think that a buyout wasn't possible with Loui but I'm starting to rethink that. With a lockout year looming it might actually make sense since one of the two remaining 5.6 mil cap hit years would be eliminated, and the team can absorb the first 5.6 mil hit this year. After that its 3.6 for 1 year and ~600k after that for 3 more. And from the owners perspective its a cheap option with only 3.33 mil in real money being paid out. 

 

This might actually be preferable to taking on some other GMs mistake and/or losing good young assets just to dump him. 

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-calculator/loui-eriksson#results

 

I'd prefer we just play the guy tho this year, and maybe get a compliance buyout with a new CBA. 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, -AJ- said:

From what I understand, it's a case of +/- belying his actual play. The goaltending was pretty porous for Sweden and Eriksson was probably put out against a lot of the best players for other teams. Not saying he was great, but I don't think he was as bad as the -8 implies.

I do think despite his past international success, he was exposed due to the amount of speed a lot of the teams brought over to Slovakia for the tourney.  He simply doesn't have the speed and motor to get to places where he should be and that was already apparent in the NHL, and it got further exposed in the tournament.

 

Kind of like a Brendan Gaunce kind of situation where they both have the smarts to know where they should be but physically they just aren't able to.  

 

But I do agree the plus/minus stat doesn't say he is a bad player, but goes to show though he also isn't a defensive impact either.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

I do think despite his past international success, he was exposed due to the amount of speed a lot of the teams brought over to Slovakia for the tourney.  He simply doesn't have the speed and motor to get to places where he should be and that was already apparent in the NHL, and it got further exposed in the tournament.

 

Kind of like a Brendan Gaunce kind of situation where they both have the smarts to know where they should be but physically they just aren't able to.  

 

But I do agree the plus/minus stat doesn't say he is a bad player, but goes to show though he also isn't a defensive impact either.

Loui little things is now even loui lesser things

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so just to add more intrigue. 

 

Canucks management considered an Eriksson for Lucic trade: report

 

Trading Loui Eriksson for Milan Lucic isn’t just a wild trade proposal you hear from callers to sports talk radio stations, it’s something that Vancouver Canucks management may have considered.

This is according to Jason Gregor, a reporter with TSN 1200 in Edmonton, during a Tuesday morning interview on the Halford and Brough Show on TSN 1040.

“I heard from a really good source that Jim Benning and his staff did sit down and discuss a Loui Eriksson for Milan Lucic trade,” Gregor said. “That I’ve been told from a very good source that indeed that conversation happened.”

 

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-considered-lucic-eriksson-trade-oilers

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Buy out sounds good. Rather give Gaudette and MacEwen and whomever that ice time. 

Problem with a buyout is that it saves basically no cap. Not saying it's impossible as it does clear the roster/contract slot (and saves Aquilini a few million actual bucks) but it's certainly not ideal.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Benning doesn't do it. having a guy who is about the slowest guy in the league will set this team back. at least with Ericksson he can skate and play the penalty kill.  and his contract is a year less. 

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

I wish Eriksson would bolt to russia. Maybe his wife doesn't like Vancouver and all the cannabis smoke!!  :ph34r:

Pretty sure if he was going to 'bolt' it would be to the SHL in his home country of Sweden...

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bree2 said:

I hope Benning doesn't do it. having a guy who is about the slowest guy in the league will set this team back. at least with Ericksson he can skate and play the penalty kill.  and his contract is a year less. 

FWIW, the likely compliance buyout that will accompany the next CBA should take care of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, aGENT said:

Pretty sure if he was going to 'bolt' it would be to the SHL in his home country of Sweden...

I guess the tryamkin joke went over your head......

 

Edit: upon re reading your post you are right...I suppose saying he would bolt to Sweden would have been better lol.  :mellow:

Edited by Kanukfanatic
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, aGENT said:

FWIW, the likely compliance buyout that will accompany the next CBA should take care of that.

Would rather not trade for a guy that I hope that a new CBA will give me the option to buy out. Why put yourself into that situation and hope a solution presents itself later. No thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wren223 said:

Would rather not trade for a guy that I hope that a new CBA will give me the option to buy out. Why put yourself into that situation and hope a solution presents itself later. No thanks.

I'm not suggesting you plan on an assumption. You plan based on having him for the full 4 years and/or using a traditional buyout and hence acquiring the added sweeteners for taking on that anchor in this thought experiment.

 

Bit there's a pretty high chance there's a compliance buyout available in the 3rd year to turf it early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2019 at 7:15 PM, Jimmy McGill said:

so just to add more intrigue. 

 

Canucks management considered an Eriksson for Lucic trade: report

 

Trading Loui Eriksson for Milan Lucic isn’t just a wild trade proposal you hear from callers to sports talk radio stations, it’s something that Vancouver Canucks management may have considered.

This is according to Jason Gregor, a reporter with TSN 1200 in Edmonton, during a Tuesday morning interview on the Halford and Brough Show on TSN 1040.

“I heard from a really good source that Jim Benning and his staff did sit down and discuss a Loui Eriksson for Milan Lucic trade,” Gregor said. “That I’ve been told from a very good source that indeed that conversation happened.”

 

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-considered-lucic-eriksson-trade-oilers

Read this too and was just shaking my head. Why would anyone in the Canucks organization think this was a good idea?

Lucic is big, slow (and only getting slower) and expensive. He takes a roster spot from a possible young player. His contract is a year longer. He doesn't score. He has a ntc that means come the expansion draft we have to protect him. He hits....sometimes but why pay a lot for that service. The team could easily sign someone in the off season to do that.

Edmonton would have to sweeten that pot a whole lot for the trade to come off.

There is also the chance that you could trade Eriksson to a team like Ottawa. I'd explore that long before I'd take Lucic's contract on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm not suggesting you plan on an assumption. You plan based on having him for the full 4 years and/or using a traditional buyout and hence acquiring the added sweeteners for taking on that anchor in this thought experiment.

 

Bit there's a pretty high chance there's a compliance buyout available in the 3rd year to turf it early.

That's all I was cautioning against. What do you think Edmonton is willing to throw in to make it a sweetener? What would it take to make this deal sweet enough to palate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wren223 said:

That's all I was cautioning against. What do you think Edmonton is willing to throw in to make it a sweetener? What would it take to make this deal sweet enough to palate?

Their first rounder this year.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...