Loui Eriksson | #21 | LW/RW

[canuck73_3]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

No. Loui's play and pending inability to hold down a roster slot in the NHL is his problem.

 

I'm perfectly fine with the organization sending the 'signals' that if you don't perform, you don't play. That's the exact message they should be sending and I don't worry at all about it affecting their position with UFA'S etc.

 

I don't want guys that would be worried about that here anyway.

While I agree Loui has been disappointing, there is currently no one in Utica better than him to earn a roster spot over him either. 

 

Loui stays in Vancouver until traded. Only realistic option. 

[-AJ-]

5 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

While I agree Loui has been disappointing, there is currently no one in Utica better than him to earn a roster spot over him either. 

 

Loui stays in Vancouver until traded. Only realistic option. 

Agreed. While Loui has been a disappointment, there's no way he's at AHL level yet. Heck, he still out-produces guys like Granlund, Motte, Gaudette, and Schaller.

[Wolfgang Durst]

16 hours ago, aGENT said:

They're honouring the contract just fine,in that scenario. He'll have been paid $27 of $36m and will be able to collect his final $9m over 3 years, while riding buses in Utica, as contractually agreed to.

 

Something tells me, he might prefer to go home and play in the SHL recouping some of his 'lost' $ instead

 

And like I said, clearly this is a last resort. The team will attempt to trade him first (and likely will be able to as he's decent value to a cap basement team). But he wouldn't be the first large contract to get demoted to the AHL and he won't be the last, should that occur.

agree.

key question is: will Eriksson waive his NMC to get traded to a cap basement team?

[73 Percent]

2 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

agree.

key question is: will Eriksson waive his NMC to get traded to a cap basement team?

He doesnt have a nmc. This year he has a ntc. In 20/21 it turns into a modified ntc where he submits a list of 15 teams.

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, Timråfan said:

? 

A contract is a contract. To think it's just fine to force an unfair change isn't about "hold down a roster slot". 

The contract is written with the value the parts agree on in a certain time. If that change you can't blame the player. 

Par example, Green doesn't like Loui so he plays him in a position Green knows Loui will look useless in. 

Neither you or I know what is happening wich means that the organisation should hold their end of the deal. 

It's not 'unfair'. Without a NMC, any NHL player can be sent to the minors if their play dictates such, as part of their contract.

 

7 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

While I agree Loui has been disappointing, there is currently no one in Utica better than him to earn a roster spot over him either. 

 

Loui stays in Vancouver until traded. Only realistic option. 

There doesn't have to be someone better in Utica, there needs to be 23 better options in Vancouver. I don't think that's remotely a stretch now, let alone what may be here after free agency etc.

Edited June 10, 2019 by aGENT

[PhillipBlunt]

17 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Well, since the contract isn't Louis fault the club send all the wrong signals to other players if they should be so stupid to even talk about Utica.

The only thing the club can do if they find him useless is to pay enough for him to become available on the free market. If the club want to be a serious contender in the league. 

The contract isn't Eriksson's fault? You can't really be that daft. Did Eriksson just happen to get signed to the deal without his knowledge? I mean, I get that you're desperately trying to find ways to let underperforming Swedish players off the hook in most of your posts, but at least try to stay in the realm of reality.

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

It's not 'unfair'. Without a NMC, any NHL player can be sent to the minors if their play dictates such, as part of their contract.

 

There doesn't have to be someone better in Utica, there needs to be 23 better options in Vancouver. I don't think that's remotely a stretch now, let alone what may be here after free agency etc.

Well there isn't one, and Loui stays. He is still useful as a defensive player. 

 

He is NOT getting buried in the minors so just get over it. He will either stay in the lineup or be traded, period. Only two valid options with him at this point. 

[aGENT]

23 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Well there isn't one, and Loui stays. He is still useful as a defensive player. 

 

He is NOT getting buried in the minors so just get over it. He will either stay in the lineup or be traded, period. Only two valid options with him at this point. 

Isn't one what? There's a pretty easy argument to be made that there's 23 better players on the Canucks ahead of him. 'Useful defensive player' or otherwise.

 

I don't think he's back in a Canucks uni after his past few seasons and his comments in Swedish media at the Worlds. He's either traded (most likely), in Utica or he's mutually terminating (long shot).

[Rob_Zepp]

The whining about this guy is intense - but reality check.   Canucks have oodles of CAP space and don't really need it until his contract is up.   He is an effective NHL player and apparently extremely good with the young guys so far from any harm having around the likes of EP40, OJ, Hughes etc etc.    After this July bonus, his actual salary is "peanuts" by today's NHL and so he would be attractive any team without CAP concerns wanting a positive veteran presence for quite low dollars - at least six teams if not eight fit that description.   He is a valuable roster guy for the expansion draft as he fits the perfect description of someone to expose.    

 

Oh, and well it was pointed out, will say it again.   He remains a good NHL hockey player.   He isn't what most want from him in terms of point totals but he does belong in the NHL.

[higgyfan]

35 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Isn't one what? There's a pretty easy argument to be made that there's 23 better players on the Canucks ahead of him. 'Useful defensive player' or otherwise.

 

I don't think he's back in a Canucks uni after his past few seasons and his comments in Swedish media at the Worlds. He's either traded (most likely), in Utica or he's mutually terminating (long shot).

So Loui get's sent down to Utica, but they keep Spooner, Schaller (and arguably) Motte, Granlund & Goldy?

 

I think Loui will be in Van for one more season, when the adjustment make his contract easier to move.

 

How is it that the Canuck players never develop odd rashes or vague injuries like so many of the other team (bad contracts) do? 

[Timråfan]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

It's not 'unfair'. Without a NMC, any NHL player can be sent to the minors if their play dictates such, as part of their contract.

 

There doesn't have to be someone better in Utica, there needs to be 23 better options in Vancouver. I don't think that's remotely a stretch now, let alone what may be here after free agency etc.

If the Club use Utica as a threat it's something other free agents take notice of and either demand ridiculus money or refuse to come here. The club need to take care of the players they take responsibility of if they want loyalty back.

You can't have it all. Be a moron and you get what you deserve... Some people seems to not know what they miss when they are morons. 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, higgyfan said:

So Loui get's sent down to Utica, but they keep Spooner, Schaller (and arguably) Motte, Granlund & Goldy?

 

I think Loui will be in Van for one more season, when the adjustment make his contract easier to move.

 

How is it that the Canuck players never develop odd rashes or vague injuries like so many of the other team (bad contracts) do? 

No, I'd imagine Spooner, Schaller and Eriksson are all in the, sit as 13th/send to Utica 'club'. Their saving grace may be that Roussel will start the season on IR.

 

I'd have both Motte and Granlund ahead of Eriksson on my roster. YMMV. Goldobin may not even be back and if he is, isn't particularly competing with Eriksson for a bottom 6 spot (and does still have - albeit rapidly dwindling - youth/upside working for him).

 

And again, this isn't particularly about whether he's a 'capable NHL player'. He is, but like with Gudbranson last year, when something is CLEARLY not working, sometimes you just have to move on. It's time to do that. His comments to the Swedish media were the nail in that particular coffin.

[Timråfan]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

The contract isn't Eriksson's fault? You can't really be that daft. Did Eriksson just happen to get signed to the deal without his knowledge? I mean, I get that you're desperately trying to find ways to let underperforming Swedish players off the hook in most of your posts, but at least try to stay in the realm of reality.

I rather defend players than inept management... Green has a lot to answer for. 

 

Loui is doing his part of the contract. He listens to Green and follow order. He can't do much more than that. And as a few poster has said, there is a few players that are worse than Loui. Send them down to Utica first if Utica is ever a valid place to put them. 

[Bissurnette]

18 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

So Loui get's sent down to Utica, but they keep Spooner, Schaller (and arguably) Motte, Granlund & Goldy?

 

I think Loui will be in Van for one more season, when the adjustment make his contract easier to move.

 

How is it that the Canuck players never develop odd rashes or vague injuries like so many of the other team (bad contracts) do? 

Motte and Eriksson should not be mentioned in the same sentence. If Eriksson had the compete and tenacity  Motte has in his toe, nobody would be talking about sending him to Utica. The threat of Utica is not just because he's underperformed, people are mentioning Utica in case management goes to Eriksson with a trade and he blocks it. That's when they can use Utica as a motivator.

 

11 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

If the Club use Utica as a threat it's something other free agents take notice of and either demand ridiculus money or refuse to come here. The club need to take care of the players they take responsibility of if they want loyalty back.

You can't have it all. Be a moron and you get what you deserve... Some people seems to not know what they miss when they are morons. 

What are you on about? He stayed on the NHL club for 3 years while severely underperforming. UFAs would become weary if he signed and never got any chance to make an impact, and trust me he got plenty chances to do so, but failed miserably over the span of 3 years. This argument you're using right now is not remotely plausible. Nobody is going to look at Eriksson as an example to not sign with Vancouver, if anything they'll see that vets get a comfortable spot on the roster for a while without having to perform.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Vanuckles

[Timråfan]

1 minute ago, Vanuckles said:

Motte and Eriksson should not be mentioned in the same sentence. If Eriksson had the compete and tenacity  Motte has in his toe, nobody would be talking about sending him to Utica. The threat of Utica is not just because he's underperformed, people are mentioning Utica in case management goes to Eriksson with a trade and he blocks it. That's when they can use Utica as a motivator.

 

What are you on about? He stayed on the NHL club for 3 years while severely underperforming. UFAs would become weary if he signed and never got any chance to make an impact, and trust he got plenty chances to do so, but failed miserably over the span of 3 years. This argument you're using right now is not remotely plausible. Nobody is going to look at Eriksson as an example to not sign with Vancouver, if anything they'll see that vets get a comfortable spot on the roster for a while without having to perform.

I think I would have fun to watch every single game Green coached in Vancouver. I'm not impressed how he dealt with other coaches strategies. 

Without Petey and Markström the Canucks would have been inposition to draft Hughes this year... 

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

If the Club use Utica as a threat it's something other free agents take notice of and either demand ridiculus money or refuse to come here. The club need to take care of the players they take responsibility of if they want loyalty back.

You can't have it all. Be a moron and you get what you deserve... Some people seems to not know what they miss when they are morons. 

The problem here is that LE hasn't lived up to his side of the contract. Not the other way around. 

 

Vancouver has a perfectly fine reputation with being fair to players and would continue to, even if they send, or threaten to send, Loui to Utica.

 

Players don't want to sign on teams that allow players to float around for three years, not play up to their contract and still get handed a roster spot either.

[Bissurnette]

Just now, Timråfan said:

I think I would have fun to watch every single game Green coached in Vancouver. I'm not impressed how he dealt with other coaches strategies. 

Without Petey and Markström the Canucks would have been inposition to draft Hughes this year... 

Don't think I quite understand what you mean with the 2 bolded statements. As for Green's strategies, he's doing fine. Green isn't the issue. This is a rebuilding team, when the roster gets better we'll see how Green does. Also FYI, Eriksson failed miserably under a different coach before Green, a coach who goes by the name of Willie Desjardins. Not sure if you were watching the Canucks before Green took over.

[Timråfan]

Just now, Vanuckles said:

Don't think I quite understand what you mean with the 2 bolded statements. As for Green's strategies, he's doing fine. Green isn't the issue. This is a rebuilding team, when the roster gets better we'll see how Green does. Also FYI, Eriksson failed miserably under a different coach before Green, a coach who goes by the name of Willie Desjardins. Not sure if you were watching the Canucks before Green took over.

Ok, can you tell me something good about how Green Coach and use/change strategies during games? 

[PhillipBlunt]

39 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Isn't one what? There's a pretty easy argument to be made that there's 23 better players on the Canucks ahead of him. 'Useful defensive player' or otherwise.

 

I don't think he's back in a Canucks uni after his past few seasons and his comments in Swedish media at the Worlds. He's either traded (most likely), in Utica or he's mutually terminating (long shot).

Same. It would have been one thing if he had just had another ho hum season, but going public with being disgruntled is never a good thing for job security, especially when he's been the issue.

 

[higgyfan]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

No, I'd imagine Spooner, Schaller and Eriksson are all in the, sit as 13th/send to Utica 'club'. Their saving grace may be that Roussel will start the season on IR.

 

I'd have both Motte and Granlund ahead of Eriksson on my roster. YMMV. Goldobin may not even be back and if he is, isn't particularly competing with Eriksson for a bottom 6 spot (and does still have - albeit rapidly dwindling - youth/upside working for him).

 

And again, this isn't particularly about whether he's a 'capable NHL player'. He is, but like with Gudbranson last year, when something is CLEARLY not working, sometimes you just have to move on. It's time to do that. His comments to the Swedish media were the nail in that particular coffin.

 

Guddy was traded to another NHL team resulting in a decent player; that is moving on.  Eriksson going to Utica is not 'moving on' as the Canucks still have to deal with his cap hit and he is ultimately humiliated. 

 

I like that JB is waiting to hear from Loui about his comments, as it's hard to get a proper understanding of the questionable translation we all read.