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

Loui Eriksson | #21 | LW/RW


-SN-

Recommended Posts

That'd be sweet enough for me but somehow I don't think they'd go for it. I've seen suggestions of Lucic + 8 for Eriksson + 10. I think that is one hell of a price to pay to move up two spots in a draft were 4-15 can have a lot of play.

I guess it's how bad does Edmonton want out from Lucic but would getting out from him and taking Eriksson back really be a big enough win to get that first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

 

I know you said start but I dont think they bite on that. Maybe we add hutton to get value closer?

Maybe.... I dunno, the Lucic contract is considerably worse and I am not aligned with those who believe he is the better player at this point of their respective careers.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Maybe.... I dunno, the Lucic contract is considerably worse and I am not aligned with those who believe he is the better player at this point of their respective careers.

I think they both suck lol. Their cap hist is the same and salary is similar. That extra year of lucic does suck though.

Edited by 73 Percent
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

I think they both suck lol. Their cap hist is the same and salary is similar. That extra year of lucic does suck though.

Lucic’s NMC means he has to be protected in the Seattle expansion draft.  Loui doesn’t need to be protected.  That’s a huge negative with Lucic.  If we take Lucic, that 8 OA has to come with him.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Lucic’s NMC means he has to be protected in the Seattle expansion draft.  Loui doesn’t need to be protected.  That’s a huge negative with Lucic.  If we take Lucic, that 8 OA has to come with him.  

Ah shoot. I forgot about that. 

 

Well in that case we could lose a forward like gaudette virtanen baerstchi or pearson by taking on lucic. 

 

I'd be asking for thw 8th overall lile what was previously mentioned by others. 

 

I guess its up for JB to decide if its worth it or not.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

Ah shoot. I forgot about that. 

 

Well in that case we could lose a forward like gaudette virtanen baerstchi or pearson by taking on lucic. 

 

I'd be asking for thw 8th overall lile what was previously mentioned by others. 

 

I guess its up for JB to decide if its worth it or not.

With the NMC Milan can refuse any trade.  Maybe another team is willing to take Milan and Puliarvi, but Milan has to agree.  He might only agree to come here.  So is it worth taking Milan to get the 8 OA?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucic's NMC is unlikely to be a problem.  Per the CBA:

 

Quote

11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.

(a)The SPC of any Player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article 10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause.  SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not become effective until the time that the Player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency.  If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club.  An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

Per CapFriendly:

Quote
  • The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
  • This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
  • If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified

It's up to the Canucks whether to honour or void Lucic's NMC.  Lucic can refuse to waive if Canucks doesn't honour it, but if he wants out of Edmonton (and it sure sounds like he does), then he'll have to waive.  No team is going to trade for him otherwise.  And what does he really have to lose?  At worst he'll be in Seattle in a couple years, still beats being in Edmonton.

 

Not that Eriksson for Lucic is a good deal.  After July 1st, 2020, Eriksson is only owed $5m on his contract over two years.  Good fourth liners get $2.5m/ year now, the contract is good value for a cap floor team who wants the cap hit but doesn't want to pay.  They'll get a player who's worth more than $2.5m/ year, while getting a $6m cap hit. 

 

Lucic, however, has a longer contract and even after getting the signing bonus on July 1st, 2021, he's still owed $6.5m over the last two years.  He'll be harder to trade and the Canucks have to wait longer.

Edited by GoldenAlien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2019 at 5:48 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Lucic and theirs for Loui.....that is where I would start.

I think you're correct on the value but I just don't see Ken Holland making this his first big move. I do think he'll try to trade that pick for immediate F help tho. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think you're correct on the value but I just don't see Ken Holland making this his first big move. I do think he'll try to trade that pick for immediate F help tho. 

 

And see, we win either way. Either we gain their 8th OA (+?) by taking on Milanchor Lucic or their forced to stay saddled with him and the +/- $5m of cap space and ED protection spot he's wasting ::D

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoldenAlien said:

Lucic's NMC is unlikely to be a problem.  Per the CBA:

 

Per CapFriendly:

It's up to the Canucks whether to honour or void Lucic's NMC.  Lucic can refuse to waive if Canucks doesn't honour it, but if he wants out of Edmonton (and it sure sounds like he does), then he'll have to waive.  No team is going to trade for him otherwise.  And what does he really have to lose?  At worst he'll be in Seattle in a couple years, still beats being in Edmonton.

 

Not that Eriksson for Lucic is a good deal.  After July 1st, 2020, Eriksson is only owed $5m  $4M on his contract over two years.  Good fourth liners get $2.5m/ year now, the contract is good value for a cap floor team who wants the cap hit but doesn't want to pay.  They'll get a player who's worth more than $2.5m/ year, while getting a $6m cap hit. 

 

Lucic, however, has a longer contract and even after getting the signing bonus on July 1st, 2021, he's still owed $6.5m over the last two years.  He'll be harder to trade and the Canucks have to wait longer.

I figure 1 more year of Loui and then he can be traded to a team needing to be camp compliant.  Even if Canucks need to retain 1M and/or add a player (don't know who will be around by then, but I'm thinking a guy like Granlund).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And see, we win either way. Either we gain their 8th OA (+?) by taking on Milanchor Lucic or their forced to stay saddled with him and the +/- $5m of cap space and ED protection spot he's wasting ::D

I know this is hockey forum and I know what you are meaning but "hard" not to see the term "ED protection" and not have your inner immaturity giggle and think of:

 

pfizer-lead-02-1534887858.jpg?crop=0.748

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

I figure 1 more year of Loui and then he can be traded to a team needing to be camp compliant.  Even if Canucks need to retain 1M and/or add a player (don't know who will be around by then, but I'm thinking a guy like Granlund).

Eriksson is owed $5m:

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/loui-eriksson

 

In 2020-2021, he gets $4m - $3m signing bonus plus $1m salary.  Once his bonus is paid on July 1st, he's owed $1m the rest of the year.

In 2021-2022, he also gets $4m - $1m signing bonus and $3m salary.  His team will need to pay for all of the $4m.

 

So if he's traded after July 1st, 2020, his new team will pay $1m that season and $4m the season after.

 

22 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And see, we win either way. Either we gain their 8th OA (+?) by taking on Milanchor Lucic or their forced to stay saddled with him and the +/- $5m of cap space and ED protection spot he's wasting ::D

The sad thing is, look at this roster:

https://www.nhl.com/oilers/roster

 

Unless things turn around in a jiffy, I don't even see six forwards besides Lucic that's worth protecting. 

Edited by GoldenAlien
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And see, we win either way. Either we gain their 8th OA (+?) by taking on Milanchor Lucic or their forced to stay saddled with him and the +/- $5m of cap space and ED protection spot he's wasting ::D

yup. We don't have to take on Looch. We don't have to take on Zaitsav. We can, but its gotta cost otherwise pound sand.

 

As far as Loui goes he's still worth 1/2 his contract, so its also a bit in the whatever category. It doesn't have to be moved either really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yup. We don't have to take on Looch. We don't have to take on Zaitsav. We can, but its gotta cost otherwise pound sand.

 

As far as Loui goes he's still worth 1/2 his contract, so its also a bit in the whatever category. It doesn't have to be moved either really. 

Yup, we don't particularly have any pressure points. (Though I think Loui gets moved for other reasons). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yup, we don't particularly have any pressure points. (Though I think Loui gets moved for other reasons). 

I'm disappointed in how its gone for sure, and that interview is going to make the media coverage of Loui unbearable if he's still here for next season. I doubt Green gives a rats behind what Loui's opinion is on deployment but the media will go crazy with it. 

 

But other GMs are going to look at it exactly how we're looking at guys like Zaitsav, as in what else comes with him. I don't really want Jim to give anything. 

 

The best thing is for Loui to accept a mutual termination on July 2nd if Jim can't find a trade partner looking for a cap floor player, and then I'm sure someone will be happy to have him a 2 mil per on a year to year basis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm disappointed in how its gone for sure, and that interview is going to make the media coverage of Loui unbearable if he's still here for next season. I doubt Green gives a rats behind what Loui's opinion is on deployment but the media will go crazy with it. 

 

But other GMs are going to look at it exactly how we're looking at guys like Zaitsav, as in what else comes with him. I don't really want Jim to give anything. 

 

The best thing is for Loui to accept a mutual termination on July 2nd if Jim can't find a trade partner looking for a cap floor player, and then I'm sure someone will be happy to have him a 2 mil per on a year to year basis. 

I think a deal once his bonus is paid is pretty do-able to an OTT/ARZ etc without giving up much/anything (still holding out hope for Ceci).

 

But failing that, I think the threat of riding buses in Utica as a pressure point to mutual termination becomes a very real possibility.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

I think a deal once his bonus is paid is pretty do-able to an OTT/ARZ etc without giving up much/anything (still holding out hope for Ceci).

 

But failing that, I think the threat of riding buses in Utica as a pressure point to mutual termination becomes a very real possibility.

its harsh that is might come to that, but I guess Gagner was useful for something as an example. 

 

A buyout has the exact same cap impact as sending Loui to Uitca, except the Uitca option ends 3 years earlier than a buyout!

 

hence "leverage" 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm disappointed in how its gone for sure, and that interview is going to make the media coverage of Loui unbearable if he's still here for next season. I doubt Green gives a rats behind what Loui's opinion is on deployment but the media will go crazy with it. 

 

But other GMs are going to look at it exactly how we're looking at guys like Zaitsav, as in what else comes with him. I don't really want Jim to give anything. 

 

The best thing is for Loui to accept a mutual termination on July 2nd if Jim can't find a trade partner looking for a cap floor player, and then I'm sure someone will be happy to have him a 2 mil per on a year to year basis. 

Right on the money with the bolded part, even if it's a trade with OTT. I'd be ok with giving up a B level forward prospect like a Gadjovich/Lind/Jasek/Palmu/Gaunce or even 2 of them to get rid of his contract.

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...