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

[Proposal] Loui Eriksson for Dion Phaneuf


Recommended Posts

[proposal] Loui Eriksson for Dion Phaneuf

 

yay, nay, or gay?

 

Both are terrible contracts, but would help each team in positions that they need help in.  We need help of right side D, and perhaps Kopitar or Carter can get Eriksson going.

 

Eriksson is a defensive minded forward with size and so he’d fit in well with LA’s system.

 

Phaneuf is tough and plays right side D, and provide us with some depth on that side.  He can also help protect Hughes.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't do it. He's slightly cheaper (because Ottawa is retaining some of his salary) but he had 6 points in 67 games last year. He's a no. 4 defenseman at best and his numbers are trending way down as he ages, so I see him as a 6/7 in the next few years. His contract ends one year sooner, though his limited trade clause is a bit more limiting (12 available teams instead of 16 on Loui's). They're basically the same age, but at this rate I feel that Phaneuf is closer to being an AHL player than Eriksson is.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I wouldn't do it. He's slightly cheaper (because Ottawa is retaining some of his salary) but he had 6 points in 67 games last year. He's a no. 4 defenseman at best and his numbers are trending way down as he ages, so I see him as a 6/7 in the next few years. His contract ends one year sooner, though his limited trade clause is a bit more limiting (12 available teams instead of 16 on Loui's). They're basically the same age, but at this rate I feel that Phaneuf is closer to being an AHL player than Eriksson is.

Good post and good arguments.

 

My only main counter to that, is that Phaneuf fills a much bigger team need than Eriksson.  Phaneuf might be closer to the AHL on most other teams, but not the Canucks.   Our RD is THAT bad.

Edited by Hindustan Smyl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't work for LA. They need to lose salary, not take it on.

 

But it also doesn't really work for Vancouver, because Phaneuf is done. He's not really an NHL-level D-man anymore. 

 

The most likely outcome is LA buys him out. Makes more sense for the team and the player.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

[proposal] Loui Eriksson for Dion Phaneuf

 

yay, nay, or gay?

 

Both are terrible contracts, but would help each team in positions that they need help in.  We need help of right side D, and perhaps Kopitar or Carter can get Eriksson going.

 

Eriksson is a defensive minded forward with size and so he’d fit in well with LA’s system.

 

Phaneuf is tough and plays right side D, and provide us with some depth on that side.  He can also help protect Hughes.

yay or nay? how about "why"? 

 

Loui is 6'1 179 pounds... is that "size" now? 

 

If the premise for these ideas is Loui is garbage so lets go looking for other teams garbage to swap, there will never be a good trade idea produced. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loui is certainly underachieving, but he doesn't hurt the team with his play.  Can't say that for Phaneuf, so I pass. 

 

Keep Loui for one more season.  His modified contract kicks in and his total salary drops to $4m.  That would be the best time to package a trade.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eww.

If you had told me five years ago that we might be looking at a D with Schenn and Phaneuf on it I would have tossed my Jerseys in the fire and checked out on the Canucks for good.

Schenn was fantastic for what we gave up for him and for the price.  So call me pleasantly surprised but wary of door number 2.

Phaneuf would only look good because of loosing LE and shorter contract.  Still feels like moving backward in how we should be trying to build the D for the future.

If we are comparing terrible contributions/$ though I still think LE is the better player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are getting rid of Eriksson I'd like for it to not involve us getting a worse player back that is equally as expensive. Having one fewer years on that contract is nice and all but we aren't gonna be desperate for cap in 3 years. Move Eriksson, expend a 2nd or 3rd rounder for someone to take him. But don't take a bad player back just for the sake of making a move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Rather re-sign Schenn. 

^ This.  Schenn will give us, at this stage of their respective careers, 8/10th of what Pan-Hoof brings to the rink each night for 1/5th the cost and without any restrictive NMC-NTC clauses which Pan-Hoof has. 

 

Plus, you know with Schenn, he'll be giving you 100% effort every night because he's playing to stay in the league whereas Pan-Hoof mailed it in on many nights last season from what I watched. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fanuck said:

^ This.  Schenn will give us, at this stage of their respective careers, 8/10th of what Pan-Hoof brings to the rink each night for 1/5th the cost and without any restrictive NMC-NTC clauses which Pan-Hoof has. 

 

Plus, you know with Schenn, he'll be giving you 100% effort every night because he's playing to stay in the league whereas Pan-Hoof mailed it in on many nights last season from what I watched. 

Signing Schenn doesnt solve the louie problem. I like Dion as a canuck he should have a chip on his shoulders and actually want to make a statement. 

 

Erikson is sad the contract isnt a

backloaded and wants to grow his hair like a teenager and avoid defense

 

And no....if you know schenn it will be that he rests on his laurels if we give more than 1.25x1year. He needs that fire and depth on our team so he knows hes gotta work hard too

 

 

St louis best example of what they can play like if their career is on the line

Edited by HughMungus
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yay or nay? how about "why"? 

 

Loui is 6'1 179 pounds... is that "size" now? 

 

If the premise for these ideas is Loui is garbage so lets go looking for other teams garbage to swap, there will never be a good trade idea produced. 

 

Is Loui really only 179?  That can’t be right.   I thought he was much bigger (like 6’2 210-220ish).  I’m not sure why I thought that.

 

You are correct that both Phaneuf and Eriksson are terrible value contracts, but the Canucks can manage without Loui up front.  Their right side D however........not so much.  The Canucks need all the help they can get down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Is Loui really only 179?  That can’t be right.   I thought he was much bigger (like 6’2 210-220ish).  I’m not sure why I thought that.

 

You are correct that both Phaneuf and Eriksson are terrible value contracts, but the Canucks can manage without Loui up front.  Their right side D however........not so much.  The Canucks need all the help they can get down there.

Dion hasn't qualified as help in some time.  

Plus guy has had a terrible reputation as D-bag his entire career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Is Loui really only 179?  That can’t be right.   I thought he was much bigger (like 6’2 210-220ish).  I’m not sure why I thought that.

 

You are correct that both Phaneuf and Eriksson are terrible value contracts, but the Canucks can manage without Loui up front.  Their right side D however........not so much.  The Canucks need all the help they can get down there.

yup Loui is on the smallish side. 

 

I just don't think DP is the answer, Schenn brings just as much at this point imo. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- changed the title to [Proposal] Loui Eriksson for Dion Phaneuf

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...