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

[Discussion] Swapping Bad Contracts


Recommended Posts

Louis Eriksson is obviously the worst contract on the team. right now, it doesn't really hurt the Canucks since they have no other major contracts on the horizon. however, in 2 years Pettersson and Hughes will both need to be re-signed and LE will still have one year left on the books. I think the best option for the Canucks is to try and trade LE for a different bad contract that only has two years left. Canucks would have to add a sweetner (draft pick or prostpect) and retain on LE to make the cap hits a wash (eg if trading for a 5.5 million dollar contract, retain 500 k on LE), but I think I've identified a couple players that could be good swaps:

 

Brenden Smith, D, NYR, 4.35 m x 2 yr remaining

Marc Staal, D, NYR, 5.7 m x 2 yr remaining

Dion Phaneuf, D, LAK, 5.25 m x 2 yr remaining

Gologoski, D, ARZ, 5.475 m x 2 yr remaining

Ian Cole, D, COL, 4.25 m x 2 yr remaining

Jake Allen, G, STL, 4.35 m x 2 yr remaining (this one seems a bit far fetched, JA is still a good goalie after all)

Andre Sekera, D, EDM, 5.5 m x 2 yr remaining

Gaborik, F, OTT, 4.875 m x 2 yr remaining

Corey Perry, F, ANA, 8.625 m x 2 yr remaining (yuck, I know. but canucks would not retain or add sweetner in this trade I think)

James Neal, F, CGY, 5.75 m x 4 yr remaining (This one is a gamble because it adds another year of bad contract, but Neal may rebound w/ Canucks)

 

I don't which option is best but I'm leaning towards Phaneuf or Gologoski as I think both could be serviceable for the Canucks and wouldn't require much retention nor much added sweetener on the Canucks side. 

 

Is it worth exploring these options for the Canucks to try and get rid of the LE contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's just bad-for-bad then I suggest simply keeping Eriksson.  At least we know he's not a cancer, he's liked by his teammates, and the coaches don't hate him.  He can play up/down the line-up and he can PK. 

 

If it's bad-for-bad contract but we're swapping for a position we need then that's a slightly different scenario imo that would need to be examined on a case-by-case/contract-for-contract basis. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fanuck said:

If it's just bad-for-bad then I suggest simply keeping Eriksson.  At least we know he's not a cancer, he's liked by his teammates, and the coaches don't hate him.  He can play up/down the line-up and he can PK. 

 

If it's bad-for-bad contract but we're swapping for a position we need then that's a slightly different scenario imo that would need to be examined on a case-by-case/contract-for-contract basis. 

I agree.  He is not bad, just unproductive.  He does little things well.  Some of the guys on that list are really bad NHL players.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Rocket said:

Louis Eriksson is obviously the worst contract on the team. right now, it doesn't really hurt the Canucks since they have no other major contracts on the horizon. however, in 2 years Pettersson and Hughes will both need to be re-signed and LE will still have one year left on the books. I think the best option for the Canucks is to try and trade LE for a different bad contract that only has two years left. Canucks would have to add a sweetner (draft pick or prostpect) and retain on LE to make the cap hits a wash (eg if trading for a 5.5 million dollar contract, retain 500 k on LE), but I think I've identified a couple players that could be good swaps:

 

Brenden Smith, D, NYR, 4.35 m x 2 yr remaining

Marc Staal, D, NYR, 5.7 m x 2 yr remaining

Dion Phaneuf, D, LAK, 5.25 m x 2 yr remaining

Gologoski, D, ARZ, 5.475 m x 2 yr remaining

Ian Cole, D, COL, 4.25 m x 2 yr remaining

Jake Allen, G, STL, 4.35 m x 2 yr remaining (this one seems a bit far fetched, JA is still a good goalie after all)

Andre Sekera, D, EDM, 5.5 m x 2 yr remaining

Gaborik, F, OTT, 4.875 m x 2 yr remaining

Corey Perry, F, ANA, 8.625 m x 2 yr remaining (yuck, I know. but canucks would not retain or add sweetner in this trade I think)

James Neal, F, CGY, 5.75 m x 4 yr remaining (This one is a gamble because it adds another year of bad contract, but Neal may rebound w/ Canucks)

 

I don't which option is best but I'm leaning towards Phaneuf or Gologoski as I think both could be serviceable for the Canucks and wouldn't require much retention nor much added sweetener on the Canucks side. 

 

Is it worth exploring these options for the Canucks to try and get rid of the LE contract?

That’s actually a pretty good idea. If we can trade Eriksson for someone with two years left it’ll save us a lot of trouble trying to make salaries work when Hughes and Pettersson’s new deals come up. We don’t need a Toronto situation on our hands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

I would do Corey Perry for Loui straight up but I dont think ANA does.

Yeah, Perry has a NMC too. But I'd do it, just to be clear of any cap hit for beyond 2020-21.

 

Anaheim in theory could be interested, even just for financial reasons. Perry is still owed $15M over the next 2 seasons, whereas after Eriksson's July 1st bonus, he's only owed $9M over 3 seasons (and only $1M up till July 1st, 2020). But they still have to convince Perry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

After two more seasons we could just buy out Eriksson's contract and take a cap hit of $3.55 M for the 2021/22 season and then $500 K for the next three seasons after that. I don't see that as being an issue at all for re-signing Pettersson, Hughes, etc.

https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-calculator/loui-eriksson/2019-06-15

Do you really want to deal with loui for 2 more years though. At that point why not just not buy him out and suffer for 1 more season and not have a buy out penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

Do you really want to deal with loui for 2 more years though. At that point why not just not buy him out and suffer for 1 more season and not have a buy out penalty.

No, I would prefer to move on from Loui but I was just pointing out that keeping him for 2 years and buying him out at that point would not significantly hurt our cap. That was the original premise from the OP that his cap hit could hurt us for re-signing Pettersson and Hughes. If we don't have a cap issue at that time, I would certainly agree that just keeping him for his final season would be a viable option.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

No, I would prefer to move on from Loui but I was just pointing out that keeping him for 2 years and buying him out at that point would not significantly hurt our cap. That was the original premise from the OP that his cap hit could hurt us for re-signing Pettersson and Hughes. If we don't have a cap issue at that time, I would certainly agree that just keeping him for his final season would be a viable option.

I also prefer 2 yrs of Loui over the players on the OP's list.  Loui still contributes to the team, while the bulk of the guys on the list would hurt the team; especially those dmen. By the time Pete and Quinn need a raise, there will be quite a number of players that have left the team; including Eriksson.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The_Rocket said:

Louis Eriksson is obviously the worst contract on the team. right now, it doesn't really hurt the Canucks since they have no other major contracts on the horizon. however, in 2 years Pettersson and Hughes will both need to be re-signed and LE will still have one year left on the books. I think the best option for the Canucks is to try and trade LE for a different bad contract that only has two years left. Canucks would have to add a sweetner (draft pick or prostpect) and retain on LE to make the cap hits a wash (eg if trading for a 5.5 million dollar contract, retain 500 k on LE), but I think I've identified a couple players that could be good swaps:

 

Brenden Smith, D, NYR, 4.35 m x 2 yr remaining

Marc Staal, D, NYR, 5.7 m x 2 yr remaining

Dion Phaneuf, D, LAK, 5.25 m x 2 yr remaining

Gologoski, D, ARZ, 5.475 m x 2 yr remaining

Ian Cole, D, COL, 4.25 m x 2 yr remaining

Jake Allen, G, STL, 4.35 m x 2 yr remaining (this one seems a bit far fetched, JA is still a good goalie after all)

Andre Sekera, D, EDM, 5.5 m x 2 yr remaining

Gaborik, F, OTT, 4.875 m x 2 yr remaining

Corey Perry, F, ANA, 8.625 m x 2 yr remaining (yuck, I know. but canucks would not retain or add sweetner in this trade I think)

James Neal, F, CGY, 5.75 m x 4 yr remaining (This one is a gamble because it adds another year of bad contract, but Neal may rebound w/ Canucks)

 

I don't which option is best but I'm leaning towards Phaneuf or Gologoski as I think both could be serviceable for the Canucks and wouldn't require much retention nor much added sweetener on the Canucks side. 

 

Is it worth exploring these options for the Canucks to try and get rid of the LE contract?

that'd be kool, Nov. 15th starting line up against the Leafs, Phaneuf and Schenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only player I would be interested in swapping bad contracts for on that list is Neal, and maybe Perry, just because I’m a Corey Perry mark.

 

Neal, I think can still be productive under a different system. He’s 2 years younger than Eriksson, with a lower cap hit. Could expose him in the ED, if things don’t work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The_Rocket said:

Louis Eriksson is obviously the worst contract on the team. right now, it doesn't really hurt the Canucks since they have no other major contracts on the horizon. however, in 2 years Pettersson and Hughes will both need to be re-signed and LE will still have one year left on the books. I think the best option for the Canucks is to try and trade LE for a different bad contract that only has two years left. Canucks would have to add a sweetner (draft pick or prostpect) and retain on LE to make the cap hits a wash (eg if trading for a 5.5 million dollar contract, retain 500 k on LE), but I think I've identified a couple players that could be good swaps:

 

Brenden Smith, D, NYR, 4.35 m x 2 yr remaining

Marc Staal, D, NYR, 5.7 m x 2 yr remaining

Dion Phaneuf, D, LAK, 5.25 m x 2 yr remaining

Gologoski, D, ARZ, 5.475 m x 2 yr remaining

Ian Cole, D, COL, 4.25 m x 2 yr remaining

Jake Allen, G, STL, 4.35 m x 2 yr remaining (this one seems a bit far fetched, JA is still a good goalie after all)

Andre Sekera, D, EDM, 5.5 m x 2 yr remaining

Gaborik, F, OTT, 4.875 m x 2 yr remaining

Corey Perry, F, ANA, 8.625 m x 2 yr remaining (yuck, I know. but canucks would not retain or add sweetner in this trade I think)

James Neal, F, CGY, 5.75 m x 4 yr remaining (This one is a gamble because it adds another year of bad contract, but Neal may rebound w/ Canucks)

 

I don't which option is best but I'm leaning towards Phaneuf or Gologoski as I think both could be serviceable for the Canucks and wouldn't require much retention nor much added sweetener on the Canucks side. 

 

Is it worth exploring these options for the Canucks to try and get rid of the LE contract?

I would honestly try for Phaneuf.

 

Eriksson’s contract might be bad, but he’s still a decent defensive oriented player that *might* be able to score with the right center.  

 

Phaneuf is borderline 3rd pairing at this point, but maybe he had a bounce back year......and more importantly, gives us depth in a position where we need the most help. 

 

I would easily do Eriksson for Phaneuf.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get where the OP is going with this, however unless Benning does something foolish this offseason and next offseason there’s enough coming of the books in the bottom six to pay both Hughes and EP.   Hughes has three years and EP two (unless I read this wrong), Sutter, Spooner, Tanev, Rousell and more will be off the books well in advance ... and there’s enough this year to sign Boeser, re-sign Edler and possibly add a mid range UFA.   As it sits right now with how the contracts are staggered both Hughes and EP can get massive contracts if they play well enough.   Don’t know if it was on purpose or if things just worked out this way, but we are in good cap shape going forward...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I get where the OP is going with this, however unless Benning does something foolish this offseason and next offseason there’s enough coming of the books in the bottom six to pay both Hughes and EP.   Hughes has three years and EP two (unless I read this wrong), Sutter, Spooner, Tanev, Rousell and more will be off the books well in advance ... and there’s enough this year to sign Boeser, re-sign Edler and possibly add a mid range UFA.   As it sits right now with how the contracts are staggered both Hughes and EP can get massive contracts if they play well enough.   Don’t know if it was on purpose or if things just worked out this way, but we are in good cap shape going forward...

Hughes and Pettersson both need to be re-signed in 2 seasons. Eriksson, Roussel, Beagel, and most likely Edler if he re-signs will all still have one year left on their contracts at that time. That’s probably around 18 million on contracts for guys who will be secondary players on the team at that point. I think it’s definitely in their best interest to get rid of LE if they can. That also gives them some flexibility to sign other contracts for higher end players if needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...