alfstonker Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 3 hours ago, smithers joe said: edler and ericksson were certainly to blame for our loss to anaheim but they played no worse than anyone else against SJ. Loui will be pissed to hear that Joe, given that he didn't play against the Ducks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 minute ago, bloodycanuckleheads said: Are you joking? The Sedins stopped trying and started dialing-it-in at the beginning of last season. I think it’s very sad when great players get old. It looks like they aren’t trying any more, because they appear so bad now. That’s the sad part. They are trying. They trained super hard too. It’s just they are old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Nothing going to happen until at least the trade deadline and even then, not likely anything that affects those two. While they have certainly underperformed, there are simply too many passengers on this team that, who, regardless of them playing "okay" are not pulling their weight. Sedins are brutal and producing nothing despite easier matchups. Eriksson is a black hole for offence Edler is a third pairing quality D-man being forced to play top minutes Gagner has done nothing - supposedly brought in to boost the PP Vanek disappears for entire games at a time and looks like he is just treading water until he can be traded to a contender at TDL Hutton is still young but his development seems to have digressed. Far too careless and inconsistent. Perhaps when Stecher returns his minutes can be cut and his assignments easier For next year... we are stuck with Eriksson because of his horrible contract I would like to see Edler traded at the Deadline, Sedins retired honourably but in no way re-signed at any price Gagner traded for anything Vanek gone at TDL Use the money to sign some younger impact players as mentioned above. No more ridiculous contracts to aging, declining FAs who have been dumped from other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I'm usually the first to complain about Edler, or Eriksson. I put those two on a microscope because I believe they play a huge role in developing our youngins. The reality is, they were two of the better Canucks last night. Solid effort from both of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said: Nothing going to happen until at least the trade deadline and even then, not likely anything that affects those two. While they have certainly underperformed, there are simply too many passengers on this team that, who, regardless of them playing "okay" are not pulling their weight. Sedins are brutal and producing nothing despite easier matchups. Eriksson is a black hole for offence Edler is a third pairing quality D-man being forced to play top minutes Gagner has done nothing - supposedly brought in to boost the PP Vanek disappears for entire games at a time and looks like he is just treading water until he can be traded to a contender at TDL Hutton is still young but his development seems to have digressed. Far too careless and inconsistent. Perhaps when Stecher returns his minutes can be cut and his assignments easier For next year... we are stuck with Eriksson because of his horrible contract I would like to see Edler traded at the Deadline, Sedins retired honourably but in no way re-signed at any price Gagner traded for anything Vanek gone at TDL Use the money to sign some younger impact players as mentioned above. No more ridiculous contracts to aging, declining FAs who have been dumped from other teams. You are one smart pooch. Want a cookie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Alflives said: You are one smart pooch. Want a cookie? Prefer a milk bone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said: Prefer a milk bone Here you go; go on a binge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 horrible use of this Burrows thread reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cramarossa Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, luckylager said: The reality is, they were two of the better Canucks last night. Solid effort from both of them. Really though. Combing through this thread has me wondering what game everybody else was watching. I thought they both looked great, especially Eriksson. The D was atrocious, but I don't pin that just in Edler. The offensive finish was nonexistent, but that wasn't completely Loui's role to play. If the Triple B line couldn't make it work idk why anyone would've expected Loui to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, luckylager said: I'm usually the first to complain about Edler, or Eriksson. I put those two on a microscope because I believe they play a huge role in developing our youngins. The reality is, they were two of the better Canucks last night. Solid effort from both of them. People should actually be encouraged by Loui's performance, it means if we can get him decent line mates we can get some production there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperReverb2 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Could care less if I ever see Eriksson or Edler on the ice again. IMHO the team was MUCH better off with them out of the lineup. Easy to see (now that Tanev is out) who is the better player in that pairing by far. Edler isn't "terrible" per say. Just isn't part of the new NHL. Seems like time, space, and energy are sucked right out of the team every time he touches the puck. His decision making is horridly slow, and his passes are anything but crisp and on the mark. He telegraphs his "drop pass" on the power play like he has sent a memo to the other team. His decline has been well documented over the past years, and I have no doubt the only reason he is still here is because he has refused every request for a trade or movement. Sad, as he really is a waste of space on a now progressive thinking roster. Everybody can see it except him I guess. Eriksson is simply not that good. Have thought that for a while. While I can see the thinking that went into the decision to acquire him in the first place, (chemistry with Sedins) I can't see for the life of me where the decision came from to give him the money and the term he received. Two years MAX with an option for 4 more if he clicked with the Sedins, but NOT 6 years at the money he received right from the get go. Geez! WTF?? Now were are stuck with a player (like Edler) that thrived in a much slower, less aggressive NHL, and can't for the life of him grasp the concept of transition and a fast break the other way. I also can't figure out where he got the reputation as a goal scorer either. Doesn't seem to want to go to the so called "dirty" areas. Doesn't seem to possess a shot that has accuracy or zip on it, and from what I can see, he seems to feel that he is a so called finisher yet doesn't seem to be anywhere he can finish. The team is fragile enough right now, and all it takes are two players that are not progressive, new NHL thinkers, to disrupt and throw the whole team chemistry off. I would also add Gaunce to this equation as well. NOT an NHL player IMHO, but that is food for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 4 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said: I'm no fan of Eriksson, but he played pretty well vs. the Sharks. I'm no fan of Edler, but he's a solid NHL d-man and he does stuff like winning puck battles, boxing opposing players out and laying the body better than any other Canucks d-man. So to the question being asked, I'd say maybe we don't need Eriksson (would rather see Virtanen in the line up) and yes to Edler. I think the question Canucks fans should be asking is: "Ben Hutton. Do we really need him?". I'd like to see Patrick Wiercioch (or Evan McEneny) play in place of Hutton, and make toothy wonder watch a few games from the press box. I'm no fan of Edler's ... and I think most of us would admit that we'd rather have Bieksa here than Edler -- we assume this MAY have something to do with Edler's contract -- but of the two... definitely Edler is better than Eriksson. I just don't understand what's happened to him since coming here from Boston. Did his mates carry him in Boston? In any case, we saw some pretty good D in the pre-season, including Chatfield (that was his name, wasn't it?) so I'm wondering if Hutton needs to build his offensive game in Utica for a while. He is not our best defender, so he must be here for offense. Can't shoot either... maybe he can work on this in Utica. It looks more and more like Juolevi replaces Hutton very easily next Fall. And clearly, we have to get UBC to help us clone Tanev. Because one is not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Baer. said: Because you don't seem to know how buy outs work, we would still be paying Loui 5.5M for the first two years of buying him out. Then we would have to pay him $500,000 for the remaining 6 years. He also has a NMC this season and a NTC next. And also have to factor in signing bonuses. It's almost cheaper just to keep him around another year. That's how bad that contract is. 2 hours ago, 10pavelbure96 said: Eriksson and Edler combined for 10 shots on net, 5 a piece. The most on the team. The problems run deeper than just 2 players. Too many people here have tunnel vision. Yes, the loss to Anaheim was not due to Eriksson and Edler. In fact the Canucks were not that bad and deserved a better fate, and Eriksson and Edler were not bad as individuals. That game really was an example of bad puck luck. Not saying the Canucks were great but they deserved a goal or two and were unlucky to have five goals against. That said, the Eriksson contract is amazingly bad. As @Baer points out, it is pretty much buyout proof. All the Benning defenders should keep this contract in mind. Benning has, in my view, a good (but not perfect) record in the draft and has picked up some other good young players. That is his strength. His performance in other aspects of the job is much more questionable. But next summer the Eriksson contract reverts from NMC to NTC. The big difference is that a guy on an NTC can be waived. Eriksson would obviously clear waivers and could be sent to Utica. He would still get his full salary and most the cap hit would still count against the Canucks cap. They would get about 1 million in cap relief and still have the other 5 million count against the cap. But it would at least release a roster spot and lots of younger guys will be contending for spots.. For next year, the Sedins will probably retire, releasing a lot of cap space. But the Canucks will need cap space to lock up Boeser long term at the earliest possible date (which I think is January 2019), and will need to re-sign RFAs Baertschi, Granlund, Virtanen, Stecher, and Pouliot next summer. The raises those guys will need (not counting Boeser) probably eats up at least half of the 14 million that will be saved when the Sedins retire. And there is Guddy to consider as he becomes a UFA next summer. And the Sedins will need to be replaced if they do retire or maybe they get re-signed at a lower salaries (2 or 3 million each?), which reduces the cap saving. It is not like the Canucks have a lot of cap space to play with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckGAME Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 4 hours ago, PunjabiCanucks said: Sedins retire, buy out Ericksson, trade Edler - 25 million in space . Canucks win 1st OA 2018 and draft Dahlin Sign Tavares at 11.5, Bailey at 5, Kane at 6. Canucks win the cup 2019 (insert sarcasm) . Benning becomes a god This isn't EA sports brah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Simple answer NO we don't need them, but are stuck with them for now. Edler has been on the decline for the last 5 years, some people don't want to see it but if you saw how he used to play to now it's light and day. Edler used to be a back bone type D player with offensive power, he used to lay the body on people he used to have a hard slap shot and he used to be able to get back into position. These are all things he USED to be good at now he doesn't lay the body like he used too, he doesn't have a slap shot like he used too, and he's freaking slow and can't get back into position anymore. The sad part is because our D isn't that great he stands out to some as a solid D still, but people are being tricked because if you put Edler on a team with a solid D already he will be their weakest link. There's no way he would be in their top lines he would be a 5/6 player, but because our D is so weak he's still in our top pairing and people are being tricked to believe he's still good with the sample size of our own D. It's time for him wake up and stop milking his contract and waive his NTC and move on, stop being selfish Edler. Eriksson is another one 5 years ago would of been a guy to aquire but that was 5 years ago not now, he's on the decline and just isn't the same player. Yeah he had some jump last night but come on people don't get tricked, he hadn't played in what 4 weeks? So he's fresh and normally players who are gone for that long come back with some jump in there stride, but give him a couple games to get comfortable again and he'll be floating and useless again. Mason Raymond is a prime example of this, when he returned after his back injury I was amazed by the jump in his stride never seen the guy play so hard in all his time in Vancouver, then 1 or 2 games later he went right back to his old self being to comfortable again with the team and just didn't stand out again after that. I expect to see the same with Eriksson very soon again, but bottom line him and Edler do need to be gone for the better of this team no question about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RU SERIOUS Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 hour ago, luckylager said: I'm usually the first to complain about Edler, or Eriksson. I put those two on a microscope because I believe they play a huge role in developing our youngins. The reality is, they were two of the better Canucks last night. Solid effort from both of them. Maybe so, but they bring bad luck ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 3 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: No Tanev hurts us more than Edler and/or Erikkson in the lineup... Glad there is no comma between "No" and "Tanev". 3 hours ago, Ronaldoescobar said: The question should be: why do Tanev trade threads keep popping up? We obviously need him in the lineup. The Tanev trade proposal is really just the tanking argument by another name. I think it is pretty obvious that Tanev is most valuable D on the team. (Given his style of play he does pick up a lot of injuries, though.) If Tanev gets traded I think we can forget about playoff aspirations for this year and will probably finish in the bottom five or six in the league again. But he would likely attract a first round pick and a good prospect in return, helping the rebuild. I don't want to debate the merits of that approach again. I just think that is what the Tanev question amounts to, and that is why it keeps coming up. Right now the Canucks are trying to win but, as the deadline approaches, the "tank or win now" strategy question will re-emerge as a key strategy issue. I think most people on CDC are pretty happy that the Canucks decided to make deals at the deadline last year and would have preferred that strategy the previous two years (at least I would have). When the question comes up this year, the trade Tanev idea will be back on the table. Personally I like Tanev and don't want to see him traded for anything less than a huge return. But it is (or will be) a legitimate question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwags Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I can't be the only one who thinks Edler and Eriksson had a decent game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Just now, RU SERIOUS said: Maybe so, but they bring bad luck ! Entirely possible. They totally changed the teams chemistry and "power structure" by returning to the line up. Hopefully order will be restored soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Qwags said: I can't be the only one who thinks Edler and Eriksson had a decent game. You're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.