[Speculation] Lucic says he would like to play here

[KanNuck]

4 minutes ago, brownky said:

You're shouting at the wind.

 

People here seem to think it's still 2010/2011 and he's still "a force" on the ice.

Maybe we should sign Brett Hull and Paul Coffee while we’re at it lol. Guys old and washed up

Edited July 14, 2019 by KanNuck

[Silver Ghost]

If Lucic was bought out and we could sign him for 1 year at 1 mil, then sure why not?

 

But to swap Eriksson for him and a small sweetener? F that.

 

I would rather Benning just give an asset to get rid of that contract forever. 

Edited July 14, 2019 by Silver Ghost

[brownky]

5 minutes ago, KanNuck said:

Maybe we should sign Brett Hull and Paul Coffee while we’re at it lol. Guys old and washed up

If we're signing Hull, we gotta go get Oates as well.

[KanNuck]

3 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

If Lucic was bought out and we could sign him for 1 year at 1 mil, then sure why not?

 

But to swap Eriksson for him and a small sweetener? F that.

 

I would rather Benning just give an asset to get rid of that contract forever. 

Why not just bury him? We don’t need his cap really. I’m willing to bet he retires by Dec, at worst next summer after his bonus.

 

We can trade Sutter after he plays abit to free up cap and dump Tanev at the deadline that’s 9M right there. Replace Tanev with Tryamkin assuming he returns.

 

No need to waste assets on tris guy. He already took his money and ran let’s not loose anything we don’t have to. 

 

He will likely retire and if not he will by next season after another bonus. We hold all the cards. We don’t gotta do ****

[Silver Ghost]

1 minute ago, KanNuck said:

Why not just bury him? We don’t need his cap really. I’m willing to bet he retires by Dec, at worst next summer after his bonus.

 

We can trade Sutter after he plays abit to free up cap and dump Tanev at the deadline that’s 9M right there. Replace Tanev with Tryamkin assuming he returns.

 

No need to waste assets on tris guy. He already took his money and ran let’s not loose anything we don’t have to. 

 

He will likely retire and if not he will by next season after another bonus. We hold all the cards. We don’t gotta do ****

They can bury him. But it would be better just to get rid of him. The Canucks have built up good organizational depth. Using one piece to get out from that contract is not a bad idea just to be done with it.

[KanNuck]

Just now, Silver Ghost said:

They can bury him. But it would be better just to get rid of him. The Canucks have built up good organizational depth. Using one piece to get out from that contract is not a bad idea just to be done with it.

What piece tho? Who do we throw away for this clown?If we have to retain 3M plus sweeten I’d rather bury him. I don’t think people realize how bad this guys deal is and it comes with term. No one is taking that without being compensated heavily.

 

Everyone saying he’s still a reliable 2 way NHL’r as well as a good PK guy, it doesn’t matter!!! NO TEAM WILL WANT HIM at even 3M when you can find those guys in the bargain bin for 1-2M. 

[Silver Ghost]

12 minutes ago, KanNuck said:

What piece tho? Who do we throw away for this clown?If we have to retain 3M plus sweeten I’d rather bury him. I don’t think people realize how bad this guys deal is and it comes with term. No one is taking that without being compensated heavily.

 

Everyone saying he’s still a reliable 2 way NHL’r as well as a good PK guy, it doesn’t matter!!! NO TEAM WILL WANT HIM at even 3M when you can find those guys in the bargain bin for 1-2M. 

The Canucks wont need to retain 3 mil and give up a premium asset. It would be one or the other most likely.

 

If what Benning can use that cap space is an improvement on Eriksson, then the sweetener is simply acost of doing business imo.

[KanNuck]

1 minute ago, Silver Ghost said:

The Canucks wont need to retain 3 mil and give up a premium asset. It would be one or the other most likely.

 

If what Benning can use that cap space is an improvement on Eriksson, then the sweetener is simply acost of doing business imo.

But what sweetener? I wouldn’t give 

Juolevi 

Virtanen

Guadette

Demko

Hoglander

 

what else of value do we have that you could suggest? I disagree and don’t think we have the assets to make that play. Only way to dump him is to take garbage back hence I’d just bury him

[Silver Ghost]

4 minutes ago, KanNuck said:

But what sweetener? I wouldn’t give 

Juolevi 

Virtanen

Guadette

Demko

Hoglander

 

what else of value do we have that you could suggest? I disagree and don’t think we have the assets to make that play. Only way to dump him is to take garbage back hence I’d just bury him

I highly doubt it would take any of those players to move Eriksson tbh. But giving up a pick would not be a bad idea imo. Then trade another excess forward to recoup a pick or two back. 

[Silver Ghost]

The Canucks have plenty of assets that they could afford to lose to get 6 mil in cap space. CDC just gets too attached to every prospect. Reality is most will amount to only ever being valuable for their trade value before they bust out or do not reach their expected potential.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Silver Ghost

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, brownky said:

You're shouting at the wind.

 

People here seem to think it's still 2010/2011 and he's still "a force" on the ice.

Who is suggesting he's still a force? I don't think anyone is wanting to acquire Lucic because of Lucic. It's about the sweetener that we could get back. Any performance boost from Lucic is simply a bonus.

[KanNuck]

7 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

I highly doubt it would take any of those players to move Eriksson tbh. But giving up a pick would not be a bad idea imo. Then trade another excess forward to recoup a pick or two back. 

Agree to disagree. A Baertschi or a Leivo ,Sutter whatever won’t get this done . It will take a serious sweetener or cap retained. Our plethora of assets as you say are more or less 3rd and 4th liners. Not enough to take 6M@3yrs. Just the reality of it. People over value our assets

 

Pettersson

Boeser

Horvat

Hughes

Ferland

Miler

Virtanen

Gaudette

Podkolzin

Woo

Juolevi

Demko

Hoglander

 

i wouldn’t give any of these and it took 5 years to gain them we have literally nothing else show me a proposal if it’s so easy as you think. Not tryin to be a dick just realistic

 

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

But that is the thing. IT IS NOT a big win for Jim getting another anchor contract that is even longer than Loui's.

 

And why would the coilers retain on Lucic?  None of that makes any sense.

 

That deal is dead imo and has been since JT Miller / Ferland were picked up. There simply is no room for lucic and his bloated contract here when petey / hughes will be signing very big contracts two years from now. The Canucks simply cannot afford to have the lucic boat anchor contract on the books when that happens.

If they did retain say 1.5 million, then that essentially covers the cost of the extra year. We would save 1.5 million for the next 3 years and have added 4.5 on the last year in which we could choose to buy out or whatever. On top of this, we would get something additional. No one really knows what it could be, but this would be the key aspect of the trade whether the sweetener has enough positive influence for the team.

 

Oilers retain because they can afford a minor retention to unload a player that does have the extra year of term and free themselves of a player with a NMC that could potentially use that NMC to protect himself from expansion and cost them a more valuable player. There is every reason for them to look at options at moving him which includes retention, just like how we may consider retention to potentially move out LE.

 

The deal may be dead because of the reasons presented, but getting bigger (albeit with speed) has seem to be the mantra this offseason and converting LE to Lucic accomplishes the size and intimidation part. Not saying I would make the trade, but it will really depend on the sweetener for me if it does happen.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, MikeBossy said:

I really don't get why some people think the solution is swapping Loui's crappy contract for Lucic's even worse one. Benning has options available - he could park him in the minors and save about a million bucks or he could move Loui and retain 3 million and it would still be better than having Lucic. Living in Alberta I get stuck watching a ton of Oilers game and yes Lucic can hit ..... thats about it. What people forget is he is not going to get faster each year - he's on a steady decline and needs to be avoided like the plague.

So can Virtanen, Ferland, Roussel, Miller, Motte, Pearson, Beagle, Leivo, etc.  Difference being, they all do much more than that as well, and for nowhere near the same cost.

[KanNuck]

1 minute ago, Hutton Wink said:

So can Virtanen, Ferland, Roussel, Miller, Motte, Pearson, Beagle, Leivo, etc.  Difference being, they all do much more than that as well, and for nowhere near the same cost.

Thankyou! Someone gets it!!

[Silver Ghost]

13 minutes ago, KanNuck said:

Agree to disagree. A Baertschi or a Leivo ,Sutter whatever won’t get this done . It will take a serious sweetener or cap retained. Our plethora of assets as you say are more or less 3rd and 4th liners. Not enough to take 6M@3yrs. Just the reality of it. People over value our assets

 

Pettersson

Boeser

Horvat

Hughes

Ferland

Miler

Virtanen

Gaudette

Podkolzin

Woo

Juolevi

Demko

Hoglander

 

i wouldn’t give any of these and it took 5 years to gain them we have literally nothing else show me a proposal if it’s so easy as you think. Not tryin to be a dick just realistic

 

You are right that we can agree to disagree. We have several other prospects that other teams would definitely be interested in. Plus we have picks that could be used to move him out. 

 

Even if the Canucks take back a 1 year contract dump to reduce the sweetener needed, the sooner they get rid of Eriksson the better.

 

They dont HAVE to move him. But they definitely should even if it costs something. Just a cost of doing business.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Silver Ghost

[KanNuck]

1 minute ago, Hutton Wink said:

So can Virtanen, Ferland, Roussel, Miller, Motte, Pearson, Beagle, Leivo, etc.  Difference being, they all do much more than that as well, and for nowhere near the same cost.

Thankyou! Someone gets it!!

[Attila Umbrus]

53 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

So can Virtanen, Ferland, Roussel, Miller, Motte, Pearson, Beagle, Leivo, etc.  Difference being, they all do much more than that as well, and for nowhere near the same cost.

I'd even add in Bailey, I honestly think he's going to beat out someone to get a 4th line spot on the team. Dude can skate and hit well. Perfect for a 4th line. Is it weird to be excited about what our 4th line will look like this year? Motte, Beagle, Bailey may turn out to be a game changing 4th line. Beagle with his FO prowess and Motte with his puck hound skills, plus add Bailey with a big body that can skate and keep up with todays game. It is gonna be a great crash and bang line. 

[theo5789]

2 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said:

I'd even add in Bailey, I honestly think he's going to beat out someone to get a 4th line spot on the team. Dude can skate and hit well. Perfect for a 4th line. Is it weird to be excited about what our 4th line will look like this year? Motte, Beagle, Bailey may turn out to be a game changing 4th line. Beagle with his FO prowess and Motte with his puck hound skills, plus add Bailey with a big body that can skate and keep up with todays game. It is gonna be a great crash and bang line. 

Having Bailey here does make it seem like a Virtanen or Motte may be expendable (for what purpose, I'm not sure yet). Based on Bailey's interview, it sounded like he believed there was a real opportunity here to stick and that's why he chose to sign here as opposed to simply staying in Philly where they basically told him that he might crack the roster so they gave him the chance to shop himself by not qualifying him.

[Attila Umbrus]

2 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Having Bailey here does make it seem like a Virtanen or Motte may be expendable (for what purpose, I'm not sure yet). Based on Bailey's interview, it sounded like he believed there was a real opportunity here to stick and that's why he chose to sign here as opposed to simply staying in Philly where they basically told him that he might crack the roster so they gave him the chance to shop himself by not qualifying him.

Yeah that story got me pretty pumped about him. It's remenicent of the way Leivo was in TO last year. They knew he was ready for a bigger role and did a solid by trading him. Plus watching the few games I have of Baileys he never looked bad via the "eye test". I don't see him becoming a scoring forward but a good energy forward, with 3rd line potential. Not a bad pick up.