ForsbergTheGreat Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 What signing last summer was worse? Loui at 6 @6years or Ladd 5.5 @7years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 40 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: I think we still need to give Eriksson a little more time than just 3 games into the season but if we are going to look at moving him there are some things to bear in mind. 1. As mentioned earlier he has a NMC for this season followed by two years with a full NTC. The last two years he has a modified NTC and could likely be moved as his actual contract for those two years will be $4M per season. If we are going to attempt to move him this year we will have to find out where he would accept a move to and then see if there is any kind of opportunity with that team to get a deal done. 2. Assuming Eriksson would accept a move, we need to really consider the consequences of retaining salary as the Luongo recapture penalty could really come back to haunt us. For example, if we were to trade Erikkson right now and retain the maximum 50% hit ($3M) for 5 years and Luongo retires at the end of the 2019/20 season we would have a $7.3M cap hit for retained salaries for the following two seasons. It would even be worse if Luongo retired one year later as the cap hit for that one season would be $11.5M. This would be at a time where most of CDC think the Canucks would be a potential cup contending team again.....can we realistically take potential cap hits like this without gutting the team? Unless there is an opportunity to move him without retained salary then I would favor keeping him for another 3 years and move him at that time. ^This. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Tre Mac said: LE is a @#$%ing ghost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said: To say that he has been a disappointment in Vancouver so far, would be a major understatement, but I keep hoping that his talent level will turn it around and he'll show what he's capable of. We can retain 3. I was hoping the same thing but it appears like two coaches in a row want to put him in the bottom 6, where he will be fine defensively but won't produce. He's simply being mis-cast imo and so if thats where we're going to put him, lets move him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 20 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: What signing last summer was worse? Loui at 6 @6years or Ladd 5.5 @7years. I'd say Ladd, but both are buy-out proof and Loui is probably the stronger 2-way player? but i haven't crunched the numbers to justify that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 25 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: What signing last summer was worse? Loui at 6 @6years or Ladd 5.5 @7years. You could probably add Lucic to that list as well. At this moment, I would probably have to say Loui but I suspect that will change over the next couple of seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 57 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: I think we still need to give Eriksson a little more time than just 3 games into the season but if we are going to look at moving him there are some things to bear in mind. 1. As mentioned earlier he has a NMC for this season followed by two years with a full NTC. The last two years he has a modified NTC and could likely be moved as his actual contract for those two years will be $4M per season. If we are going to attempt to move him this year we will have to find out where he would accept a move to and then see if there is any kind of opportunity with that team to get a deal done. 2. Assuming Eriksson would accept a move, we need to really consider the consequences of retaining salary as the Luongo recapture penalty could really come back to haunt us. For example, if we were to trade Erikkson right now and retain the maximum 50% hit ($3M) for 5 years and Luongo retires at the end of the 2019/20 season we would have a $7.3M cap hit for retained salaries for the following two seasons. It would even be worse if Luongo retired one year later as the cap hit for that one season would be $11.5M. This would be at a time where most of CDC think the Canucks would be a potential cup contending team again.....can we realistically take potential cap hits like this without gutting the team? Unless there is an opportunity to move him without retained salary then I would favor keeping him for another 3 years and move him at that time. this is a good look at it and the compound problem it could make... so salary retention is out too! So we're down to exchanging Loui for a problem player? Seems like thats a no-go too. Somehow Loui has to get himself back into the top 6 for anything good to happen for us or for him moving to a new situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmead Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Could we do a Nathan Horton type trade? Where we trade for a player who is on LTIR for a poor team and trade them for a player that they can actually pay to play vs pay to sit on a bench. I know we don't get anything out of this and management would have to open their coffers but then we get him off the books opening cap space and a roster spot. Maybe not this year but have this as an option to escape his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: this is a good look at it and the compound problem it could make... so salary retention is out too! So we're down to exchanging Loui for a problem player? Seems like thats a no-go too. Somehow Loui has to get himself back into the top 6 for anything good to happen for us or for him moving to a new situation. If you want to look at some positives for Erikkson.............. 1. He is tied for 2nd on the team for +/- 2. He is tied for 2nd on the team in points. To your point on playing in the top 6, he is actually 5th in TOI for forwards on the team for forwards with only Horvat, Granlund, Sutter and Baertschi ahead of him. I did not count Boeser as he has only played the one game. So he is actually getting top 6 ice-time and the points may still be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 Just now, Rick Blight said: If you want to look at some positives for Erikkson.............. 1. He is tied for 2nd on the team for +/- 2. He is tied for 2nd on the team in points. To your point on playing in the top 6, he is actually 5th in TOI for forwards on the team for forwards with only Horvat, Granlund, Sutter and Baertschi ahead of him. I did not count Boeser as he has only played the one game. So he is actually getting top 6 ice-time and the points may still be there. Statistically he was arguably our best defensive F last year too. Really I think he should be on the LW with Bo and Boeser to get the most out of him, but everyone seems to love Baer there, not really sure why tbh. He isn't ripping it up either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: What signing last summer was worse? Loui at 6 @6years or Ladd 5.5 @7years. The agents that screwed over GM's that summer deserve bonuses... all buy out proof contracts. If I had to chose, I'd probably take Ladd here though. Then again, it's in hindsight... I likely would have chose Loui at the time of signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Next GM will have to deal with this. I think JB will be done at end of this season. Canucks need an executive to be GM, not a scout. JB would be a very good Asst. GM. Let him handle draft and development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, 6string said: We're stuck with Erikkson, Sutter a great depth guy and who can play through a lineup and in many situations has better market value for cup contending teams imo. My question with the club is why did we add both Vanek and Gagner, when one would have been enough. I would much rather watch a short list of top prospects taking turns in and out of the lineup from Utica. Management wasn't sure if both Virtanen and Boeser would be ready for full time NHL action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, VanGnome said: Management wasn't sure if both Virtanen and Boeser would be ready for full time NHL action Not only that but CDC complained vehemently last year that the Canucks had no depth last year when injuries struck and they were subjected to watching AHLers' like Megna and Chaput. Benning tries to remedy that situation with signing of vets like Gagner, Vanek and Burmistrov and CDC asks why we signed these vets.....can't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 53 minutes ago, VanGnome said: Management wasn't sure if both Virtanen and Boeser would be ready for full time NHL action Though Benning was on record to have two rookies in the lineup for this year. Moreover we are in a rebuild, two of those three veterans ( Erikkson, Vanek or Gagner ) would be plenty fine along with the other veterans we have in the Sedins, Sutter, Dorsett, Edler, Tanev, Del Zotto and Markstrom for leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 52 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: Not only that but CDC complained vehemently last year that the Canucks had no depth last year when injuries struck and they were subjected to watching AHLers' like Megna and Chaput. Benning tries to remedy that situation with signing of vets like Gagner, Vanek and Burmistrov and CDC asks why we signed these vets.....can't win. I agree and Benning's fine job in bringing in many fine prospects should be brought up to the big club throughout the season, by removing one of the veterans playing forward is all I'm suggesting. I would rather have a look at Burmistrov, Goldobin, Guance, Rodin, Labate and others over longer periods of time than to hope for 25 - 30 goals total from Vanek and Gagner even if that's possible from them. As for this fan I see the future of this team and will live through the hardships and the good times as the new core develops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 To make matter worse, he has an NTC. He isn't going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 He looked good with Horvat last season. I still think he can produce for us and am not ok with retaining ANY salary on a long-term basis. We already are wasting cap space due to Gillis' stupidity with the Luongo debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooby Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 I don't see him going anywhere anytime soon. Really who would want him? Even if we retained salary? He'd have to be packaged with something amazing that we would not want to give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocksterh8 Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 I hear he has a really bad skin disease, he needs to be put on LTIR forEVER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.