Rocksterh8 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Loui Eriksson – Vancouver Canucks Contract: Six years, $36 million, $6 million cap hit It was a bit baffling when the Vancouver Canucks inked Loui Eriksson to a six-year deal back in July. He’s a very good player, but the Canucks aren’t contenders. So why give a long-term deal to a guy who might have two or three good years left in him? It’s hard to call Eriksson anything but a huge disappointment so far. He has six points through his first 18 games. This is a bit unexpected, as Eriksson had 30 goals last season and 22 goals during the 2014-15 NHL season. Sure, he’s 31-years old so a bit of regression isn’t weird. But this much of a decline already? Not good at all for the Canucks. There is a bit of hope for Eriksson, as it’s hard to imagine him being this bad if he keeps getting playing time with the Sedin twins. The trio has dominated in international competition, so maybe they get their act together and start scoring. However, what makes this contract inexplicably terrible regardless of how Eriksson does is the structure of it. Of the $36 million he will get over the next six years, $28 million of it is allocated to a signing bonus. This makes it very hard to buy him out, since he is guaranteed this money no matter what happens unless he retires. And sorry Canucks fans, he’s not going to retire anytime soon. Link: http://fansided.com/2016/11/18/5-free-agent-signings-nhl-teams-already-regretting/4/ This will be one of Jim's worst mistakes, and will haunt the Canucks for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Let's see how low it can go. -50 possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeBee51 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Terrible signing? Article you posted says he is a very good player. The rest is pure crap and speculation based on 17 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Can't be worst than Ladd, though. It's not looking great so far, but I figure he will pick up the pace a little bit and go on a streak eventually. Doubt he'll score 30 again, but if he end up with 25, that will be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocksterh8 Posted November 18, 2016 Author Share Posted November 18, 2016 1 minute ago, CeeBee51 said: Terrible signing? Article you posted says he is a very good player. The rest is pure crap and speculation based on 17 games. 6 Million for 5 more years, he's 31 and declining! Give your head a shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Rocksterh8 said: Loui Eriksson – Vancouver Canucks Contract: Six years, $36 million, $6 million cap hit It was a bit baffling when the Vancouver Canucks inked Loui Eriksson to a six-year deal back in July. He’s a very good player, but the Canucks aren’t contenders. So why give a long-term deal to a guy who might have two or three good years left in him? It’s hard to call Eriksson anything but a huge disappointment so far. He has six points through his first 18 games. This is a bit unexpected, as Eriksson had 30 goals last season and 22 goals during the 2014-15 NHL season. Sure, he’s 31-years old so a bit of regression isn’t weird. But this much of a decline already? Not good at all for the Canucks. There is a bit of hope for Eriksson, as it’s hard to imagine him being this bad if he keeps getting playing time with the Sedin twins. The trio has dominated in international competition, so maybe they get their act together and start scoring. However, what makes this contract inexplicably terrible regardless of how Eriksson does is the structure of it. Of the $36 million he will get over the next six years, $28 million of it is allocated to a signing bonus. This makes it very hard to buy him out, since he is guaranteed this money no matter what happens unless he retires. And sorry Canucks fans, he’s not going to retire anytime soon. Link: http://fansided.com/2016/11/18/5-free-agent-signings-nhl-teams-already-regretting/4/ This will be one of Jim's worst mistakes, and will haunt the Canucks for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeBee51 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Just now, Rocksterh8 said: 6 Million for 5 more years, he's 31 and declining! Give your head a shake. You're the one who needs to give your head a shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Less than 20 games in. Are we giving up on him already? Doesn't he typically have slow starts? Let's see what he does over the next 60+ games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 If the decision by ownership and management was to be competitive right now, then it was a logical signing in my opinion. He had previous chemistry with the twins, has been a consistent point producer (which we needed badly after having our worst scoring year ever), and he came in as a UFA so he was free, save for the actual contract itself. I would have made the same signing if I was GM. It is easy to say after the fact that he isn't living up to expectations. The same could be said of most of our team. Let's not lose sight of the fact that our team has had difficulty scoring overall this season again. He's not the only one, and he can't be expected to shoulder the load when nobody else does. At any given time on the ice, he's playing with 4 other guys who also need to be up to the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Too early to call signing him a mistake. On a team devoid of many true top 6 quality players and little to trade, I can understand the logic in getting a solid two way top 6 guy for nothing but cash and term. Part of the problem is that Desjardins has not had the patience to leave Eriksson with the Sedins to work things out. They eventually would. Even the Sedins are publicly wondering why he is not being used on the PP with them iirc. Desjardins is not putting Eriksson in the position to take advantage of his strengths as a player. I think if he is not going to put him with the Sedins he should be with Horvat and Baertschi. He needs to be in an offensive role to ever live up to his contract and that falls on Willie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 The only thing terrible about Loui E is Williy's use of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 If you hate the Burrows deal and think it's hurting our team now what is a six million dollar cap hit going to look like in a few years. If we could of had him for a few years that wouldn't be so bad but a six year retirement deal that's untradable is awful even he does pot the occasional goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yes we can nucks Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 13 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: The only thing terrible about Loui E is Williy's use of him. Gotta think that. Makes you wonder when Vrbata goes to Buffalo and suddenly produces again. He'd be the top scorer (tied with Daniel) on the Nucks right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CroSen Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, yes we can nucks said: Gotta think that. Makes you wonder when Vrbata goes to Buffalo and suddenly produces again. He'd be the top scorer (tied with Daniel) on the Nucks right now. You mean Arizona? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocksterh8 Posted November 18, 2016 Author Share Posted November 18, 2016 Look, years 1 to 3 the Canucks are not playoff contenders no matter what Jim thinks, so why do they need a 31 year old goal scorer??? Years 3 to 6 when the Canucks may be playoff contenders a 34 year old Ericksson will not be driving any play or scoring and definitely won't be in the top 6, but will be taking up 6 mil in cap space, again why do they need him? This was a desperate signing by a desperate GM, trying to make his prediction viable. It will not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 41 minutes ago, timberz21 said: Can't be worst than Ladd, though. It's not looking great so far, but I figure he will pick up the pace a little bit and go on a streak eventually. Doubt he'll score 30 again, but if he end up with 25, that will be ok. Ladd hits, fights and plays an intense game. Also a former captain. LE?.........none of those things. when not scoring he is doing nothing aside from soft dzone play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yes we can nucks Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, WiseOne said: You mean Arizona? Yep, you got me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I thought he looked pretty good on the 4th line last night. Good value at $6M? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Eriksson's effect on forwards with 50+ minutes playing together this season: Henrik: 57.0 CF% with Loui, 53.6 CF% without Daniel: 57.2 CF% with Loui, 48.9 CF% without Granlund: 59.7 CF% with Loui, 47.1 CF% without Sutter: 53.1 CF% with Loui, 45.4 CF% without Plus Eriksson owns the best adjusted CF% on the team after Chaput (who has been great) and has the highest CF/60 on the team. He's played well. Just having a slow start converting chances (both with his individual shooting percentage and his teammates' shooting percentage while on-ice). But in terms of possession/territorial play, he's probably been our best forward. And he's helping to create a much higher rate of (team) shot attempts and scoring chances while on the ice (regardless of who he's playing with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I can't wait until he's 35, our team is on the cusp of becoming relevant again, and we're paying him $6M a year to put up ~40 points a year. Eriksson isn't a bad player by any means, he has been under performing so far but he'll rebound I'm sure. But the signing was very shortsided. This deal is really going to hurt us in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.