[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on

[Provost]

4 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Question regarding the bonus part of his contract. Now, some of this info comes from Hockeybuzz, so grain of salt. 

 

Was noticing over there, that its believed that Lucic will be moved after his bonus is paid on July 17th. I thought bonuses were due on July 1st, the anniversary of the contract being signed. Does anyone know if its accurate that they get bonus on a different date?

 

If the bonus to Eriksson isn't due until later month, that could definitely be why he's still here and hasn't been moved yet. Can't imagine any team that will take him, would be willing to do so before that bonus is paid by the Canucks.

 

I have seen several sources clarify that Lucic’s bonus was July 1st and not the 17th... and that someone was spreading bad info.

[theo5789]

6 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

My take on this is he's choosing his words wisely. You're right that it's rare that everyone gets along 100% of the time. But to actually go to the media and say that, now it's a problem that you've given life to. Before it was something small that could be handled behind closed doors like most things get handled. So I think he's mincing his words in that interview. Plus, like I said, he could have released his own statement if he thoughts his words were taken out of context - he didn't. That would suggest that it's true then. Eriksson isn't stupid. He knows the market that he plays in and he knows this is a talking point.

He was asked why his offense has depleted and he felt like he's had the trust from previous coaches that he doesn't feel he has the same of today. It's not like LE came out with a press release ripping into the coach and team. Tryamkin was speculated to suggest he didn't like how he was being coached and no one is ripping into Tryamkin the same as they are for LE. In fact many seem to be in full support of Tryamkin returning and surprise surprise rag on the coach that they didn't like. The comments haven't changed anything really as they seem rather mild to me, but it's simply comes down to the people that have been wanting him out looking for any excuse to shun him. Just doesn't seem fair the extremes he's enduring from some over a bunch of media speculation. The media knows what triggers the fanbase and releases what they want to set them off. It's up to the fans to not get so engulfed by this. It's the whole Linden situation again where people have come up with a bunch of speculation and because Linden hasn't said no to anything, then it must be true. So while I'm not denying that he hasn't said what he said (although I haven't read the Swedish article, nor do I understand Swedish), it's a very mild comment IMO.

 

6 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

For sure, everyone deserves time to themselves and shouldn't have to be in constant contact with their employer over their holidays. But I don't think Benning is the type to do that. He left 2 messages amd didn't hear back. Now, clearly he knows that Benning is going to want to clear the air after those comments were made. Not returning his calls sends a message. We can debate on what that message is but it's not a positive one. 

LE likely told his agent to deal with it. He doesn't need to answer those calls. Benning has been in contact with his agent, so there's nothing really here IMO. LE can clear the air when he needs to report to the team if he chooses to do so.

 

6 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Sounds to me like a guy that meant what he said in that interview...

The article where that interview was brought up mentions basically everything I've said as well. I'm just reiterating the article itself, so take it for what it's worth.

 

6 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

I used to think this as well. But I just didn't see a consistent effort from him at either end of the rink last year. His compete level just wasn't there for me and I think his defensive game is not what it used to be. Plus there's the fact that he only managed 3 hits all year. That has to be an NHL record. I want to see much more drive/compete out of my players than that.

Well the microscope is on him now, so I'm not surprised anything bad that can be brought up will be put into the spotlight. Kyle Connor had 9 hits all season, Gaudreau had 12 hits. Do they not have drive and compete? Hitting was never in his game, so not sure why it's a metric for his compete level. He PKed regularly and the PK was decent and made the smart defensive plays that go under the radar hence the "little things". I felt his defensive game was fine. Still not worth his paycheque for sure, but not a concern for me.

 

6 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

I just think he's had it pretty damn good in Vancouver. He cashed in huge, with a buy out proof contract and no trade protection. He plays in one of the nicest cities in the world and with a top notch organization that spares no expenses. He was given chance after chance to nail down a top 6 role with quality linemates from the Sedins to EP40, Bo and Brock. What more could he ask for? So it doesn't sit well with me hearing him complain publicly. When was the last time a Canuck did that? Kesler? Eww.

 

Hopefully I didn't sound too snarky. Loui's got me going!

He was offered the contract and took it. Should he have turned it down in fear that he wouldn't live up to it? I doubt he's happy with himself and would love to boost his offense if not for the team then be good enough to be able to be traded out with ease. He played with declining Sedins who's game would've been more effective with the Sedins in their prime. He played briefly with EP and actually produced decently until he was pulled from the line to try and spark BB who was off to a cold start (and this may be where the comments stem from). I don't think LE has played with BB, at least not a regular stint but maybe I need my memory refreshed here.

 

At the end of the day, we all can agree that LE hasn't played up to what his contract suggests he should. I'll wait until more factual information to come out before deciding on LE's character, but based on what we do know, I just don't think he's as deserving of some of the response he's getting.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

He was asked why his offense has depleted and he felt like he's had the trust from previous coaches that he doesn't feel he has the same of today. It's not like LE came out with a press release ripping into the coach and team. Tryamkin was speculated to suggest he didn't like how he was being coached and no one is ripping into Tryamkin the same as they are for LE. In fact many seem to be in full support of Tryamkin returning and surprise surprise rag on the coach that they didn't like. The comments haven't changed anything really as they seem rather mild to me, but it's simply comes down to the people that have been wanting him out looking for any excuse to shun him. Just doesn't seem fair the extremes he's enduring from some over a bunch of media speculation. The media knows what triggers the fanbase and releases what they want to set them off. It's up to the fans to not get so engulfed by this. It's the whole Linden situation again where people have come up with a bunch of speculation and because Linden hasn't said no to anything, then it must be true. So while I'm not denying that he hasn't said what he said (although I haven't read the Swedish article, nor do I understand Swedish), it's a very mild comment IMO.

 

LE likely told his agent to deal with it. He doesn't need to answer those calls. Benning has been in contact with his agent, so there's nothing really here IMO. LE can clear the air when he needs to report to the team if he chooses to do so.

 

The article where that interview was brought up mentions basically everything I've said as well. I'm just reiterating the article itself, so take it for what it's worth.

 

Well the microscope is on him now, so I'm not surprised anything bad that can be brought up will be put into the spotlight. Kyle Connor had 9 hits all season, Gaudreau had 12 hits. Do they not have drive and compete? Hitting was never in his game, so not sure why it's a metric for his compete level. He PKed regularly and the PK was decent and made the smart defensive plays that go under the radar hence the "little things". I felt his defensive game was fine. Still not worth his paycheque for sure, but not a concern for me.

 

He was offered the contract and took it. Should he have turned it down in fear that he wouldn't live up to it? I doubt he's happy with himself and would love to boost his offense if not for the team then be good enough to be able to be traded out with ease. He played with declining Sedins who's game would've been more effective with the Sedins in their prime. He played briefly with EP and actually produced decently until he was pulled from the line to try and spark BB who was off to a cold start (and this may be where the comments stem from). I don't think LE has played with BB, at least not a regular stint but maybe I need my memory refreshed here.

 

At the end of the day, we all can agree that LE hasn't played up to what his contract suggests he should. I'll wait until more factual information to come out before deciding on LE's character, but based on what we do know, I just don't think he's as deserving of some of the response he's getting.

Lots of simply wrong info here.

 

People did, in fact, rip into Tryamkin when he said he didn’t feel like the coach wanted him.  It is also different in that Tryamkin played out his contract and then chose to sign somewhere else after his contract was up.  Eriksson has been making waves and having his agent suggest publicly that he should get moved.  It isn’t done accidentally, agents just don’t randomly go onto radio shows and say that stuff without a purpose.  The intent was to put pressure on the Canucks to move him, LE and his agent don’t care what it would cost the Canucks to do it.

 

If LE is an offensive juggernau scoring 30-35 goals like Conner or Gaudreau that you use as comparables, he would be forgiven for not having many hits.  They have the puck on their sticks and it is other players who are trying to hit them.  He doesn't have the puck on his stick and it is his job to hit them.  If LE's only skill being a defensive player AND he can only garner a fraction of the hits they do, then that is a very damning stat.   He also had amongst the worst +/- on the team for forwards.  

 

He doesn’t automatically get some benefit of the doubt.  He is a veteran who knows exactly what he is saying and what reaction it will get.  He had his agent further those comments rather than downplay them or walk them back. He doesn’t want to be here and doesn’t think he had gotten a fair shake.

 

We absolutely get to judge him for that.  He has gotten plenty of fair shakes and has been objectively terrible.  His only champion has been the coach who defended him repeatedly to the media.  He burned that bridge pretty badly.

 

He isn’t owed playing time or a spot on the roster.  By all metrics of merit, he should have been benched or demoted last season.

 

Waiting him to Utica would simply be the team putting the same pressure on him as he and his agent have tried to put on the team.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Provost

[theo5789]

7 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

I think it'll come down to training camp. The pressure will definitely be on Goldobin. If he has a poor showing, he could definitely find himself on waivers by the end of camp. But Eriksson is probably in the coaches dog house right now and is a candidate for demotion as well. I'd say if all things were equal, they'd probably keep Goldobin given his upside and risk of being claimed.

Well of course it comes down to training camp as it should. If Goldobin gets waived, it means he hasn't stepped up for another season, so I cannot see him suddenly being claim worthy being another year older and still cannot crack the roster. But he's certainly more at risk to be claimed than LE. I'm not so sure he's in Green's doghouse just yet, but I'm sure we will find out soon enough.

 

7 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Ya, I like Jake and with a more consistent effort game to game, he's a keeper for sure. When he's on, he's one of the best players on the ice. But he needs to figure out how to bring that effort on a more consistent basis. Hopefully he takes another step forward and hopefully he was watching a lot of playoff hockey this year!

Consistency is key for sure. He's only shown forward progression so far in his short career, so hopefully the trajectory continues. A part of me wants him to break out after he's signed to his next contract though 

[theo5789]

43 minutes ago, Provost said:

Lots of simply wrong info here.

 

People did, in fact, rip into Tryamkin when he said he didn’t feel like the coach wanted him.  It is also different in that Tryamkin played out his contract and then chose to sign somewhere else after his contract was up.  Eriksson has been making waves and having his agent suggest publicly that he should get moved.  It isn’t done accidentally, agents just don’t randomly go onto radio shows and say that stuff without a purpose.  The intent was to put pressure on the Canucks to move him, LE and his agent don’t care what it would cost the Canucks to do it.

 

He doesn’t automatically get some benefit of the doubt.  He is a veteran who knows exactly what he is saying and what reaction it will get.  He had his agent further those comments rather than downplay them or walk them back. He doesn’t want to be here and doesn’t think he had gotten a fair shake.

 

We absolutely get to judge him for that.  He has gotten plenty of fair shakes and has been objectively terrible.  His only champion has been the coach who defended him repeatedly to the media.  He burned that bridge pretty badly.

 

He isn’t owed playing time or a spot on the roster.  By all metrics of merit, he should have been benched or demoted last season.

 

Waiting him to Utica would simply be the team putting the same pressure on him as he and his agent have tried to put on the team.

Well if people can forgive and forget for Tryamkin, then why not for LE? At least for as long as he remains a Canuck. From what I remembered, the vocal crowd did not get on Tryamkin's case as much LE is getting and really the only noise now is that he simply bolted to the KHL and any other conflict had more to do with Willie than Tryamkin himself. The point is LE said he doesn't see everything eye to eye 100% of the time and Tryamkin is a clear case of basically saying the same thing without the same scrutiny.

 

LE's agent has said for hockey reasons that it may be best if he's moved elsewhere, but the article notes that he isn't demanding a trade. He has a full NTC, so he's letting teams know that if there is any interest at all that the NTC is not restricting potentially. It is favourable for the agent to do this just in case it brings in more calls to Benning. Nothing has been said that he blatantly wants out and the man himself has said he's still having fun here despite the struggles and he will continue fighting on. Let's keep in mind that Goldobin's agent (Larionov) mentioned that his client's treatment has been "very disappointing" and yet despite Goldobin's struggles, he isn't faced with the same hostility. So just as much as LE is a vet and supposedly has full intent on what he's saying, management know how to handle these situations. They continue to work on Goldobin and dump guys like Dahlen in a pinch before any troubles arise until after the fact. Players/agents disagree with coaches and management all the time, so this isn't anything new.

 

I disagree that he's been given "plenty" of fair shakes. He played with the Sedins who were really a shell of their former selves as they longer could keep up with the speed of the game. He played a brief stint with EP and was producing until he was bumped off the line to try and spark a struggling Boeser. And instead of simply swapping him and Boeser, LE got dropped back into the checking role again. He had a brief stint at the end of the season with Bo and Pearson.

 

I do agree that he shouldn't be gifted any spot or minutes, but he may be used to a different system that allows him the opportunity to gel with the top 6. Hence why he doesn't see things eye to eye 100% of the time. It's not about giving him the benefit of the doubt, but rather the comments were mild in nature in response to the question posed to him and the reaction in response is simply overblown with the already pent up "anger". The comments have added fuel to the fire, but in isolation, it's really nothing.

[aGENT]

15 hours ago, grandmaster said:

Had no idea about Milan’s pay day. I guess we will see if this happens on the 17th or the following day. I’m good with just a straight up exchange. No “sweetener” required. Just a nasty Lucic who will hit, fight and intimidate the losers who keep taking liberties on EP. I can also guarantee that he will regain some of his past scoring touch upon his arrival. 

Go home Ken Holland, your drunk.

[mll]

18 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Question regarding the bonus part of his contract. Now, some of this info comes from Hockeybuzz, so grain of salt. 

 

Was noticing over there, that its believed that Lucic will be moved after his bonus is paid on July 17th. I thought bonuses were due on July 1st, the anniversary of the contract being signed. Does anyone know if its accurate that they get bonus on a different date?

 

If the bonus to Eriksson isn't due until later month, that could definitely be why he's still here and hasn't been moved yet. Can't imagine any team that will take him, would be willing to do so before that bonus is paid by the Canucks.

 

It depends on the contract.  It's typically 1 July but it doesn't have to be.

 

Marleau for example had his bonus paid in two instalments - one in July and the other one in December.

[babalu]

 

[HKSR]

I honestly think when and if LE is moved, the sweetener that it will cost to move him will shock a lot of Canucks fans. 

 

I see Sutter being moved before LE simply due to the cost to move LE.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I honestly think when and if LE is moved, the sweetener that it will cost to move him will shock a lot of Canucks fans. 

I agree, it's going to cost less than all the fear mongers are predicting  

[The Lock]

Just a random thought on trading Eriksson to entice another team. I don't normally do this kind of thing but here goes....

 

Tanev happens to only have 1 year left on his contract and is injury prone anyway, so what about a package that involves both Eriksson and Tanev and we retain some of Tanev's contract? We're then only on the hook for 1 year retained. We'd probably have something come back the other way, perhaps something of reasonable value even, but it might be enough to actually get rid of Eriksson.

Edited July 10, 2019 by The Lock

[steviewonder20]

Evidently, the Canucks have been getting lots of calls about Virtanen, but there is little (or no) interest in LE or Sutter. I don’t want to see Virts moved as part of a sweetener as he still has lots of potential.

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, steviewonder20 said:

Evidently, the Canucks have been getting lots of calls about Virtanen, but there is little (or no) interest in LE or Sutter. I don’t want to see Virts moved as part of a sweetener as he still has lots of potential.

That's why I suggest Tanev somewhat retained. We complete get rid of the 6mil cap hit of Eriksson while keeping only 1 year of Tanev (or better yet, only part of Tanev's contract). We could get back a player who has a smaller hit (but maybe not a fit on that player's current team) or even a player who will just help us out on the back end or bottom 6.

 

It's a thought anyway. To get something you have to give up something and we might need to get creative like that to actually get Eriksson off the books.

[Kanukfanatic]

3 hours ago, steviewonder20 said:

Evidently, the Canucks have been getting lots of calls about Virtanen, but there is little (or no) interest in LE or Sutter. I don’t want to see Virts moved as part of a sweetener as he still has lots of potential.

If we do move Virtanen it can't be just as a sweetener imo. Something like Sutter and Virtanen for Risto would work for me.

 

Not sure it would for Buffalo. Depends on other offers but they have too many RHD. 

[wai_lai416]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

That's why I suggest Tanev somewhat retained. We complete get rid of the 6mil cap hit of Eriksson while keeping only 1 year of Tanev (or better yet, only part of Tanev's contract). We could get back a player who has a smaller hit (but maybe not a fit on that player's current team) or even a player who will just help us out on the back end or bottom 6.

 

It's a thought anyway. To get something you have to give up something and we might need to get creative like that to actually get Eriksson off the books.

so what team is willing to take on 8mil worth of salary for a 1 year rental that's not at the cap floor? lol anyone taking on tanev and eriksson is not a rebuilding team.. and are already at or near the cap lol

[thundernuts]

35 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

so what team is willing to take on 8mil worth of salary for a 1 year rental that's not at the cap floor? lol anyone taking on tanev and eriksson is not a rebuilding team.. and are already at or near the cap lol

I wonder if Ottawa would trade either Gaborik or MacArthur for Eriksson.  Both are injured.  I’m sure that Melnyk would rather pay a player to play rather than sit on the sidelines, and, he could save money on the salary as Eriksson is set to average 3 million per year, they both make over 4.5.

 

I agree, there likely are no GM’s looking to do the Canucks a favor, but this could lay the groundwork for such a trade, if Aquaman is interested in spending the money for an injured player.

[Gaudette Celly]

12 hours ago, aGENT said:

Go home Ken Holland, your drunk.

But, he "guaranteed" it...

[wai_lai416]

3 minutes ago, thundernuts said:

I wonder if Ottawa would trade either Gaborik or MacArthur for Eriksson.  Both are injured.  I’m sure that Melnyk would rather pay a player to play rather than sit on the sidelines, and, he could save money on the salary as Eriksson is set to average 3 million per year, they both make over 4.5.

 

I agree, there likely are no GM’s looking to do the Canucks a favor, but this could lay the groundwork for such a trade, if Aquaman is interested in spending the money for an injured player.

i dunno i have a feeling that teams don't pay the full amount for players on LTIR.. i would think there's some sort of insurance that would be paid for players on LTIR. if that's the case there's no way in hell Ottawa would trade them

[thundernuts]

7 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

i dunno i have a feeling that teams don't pay the full amount for players on LTIR.. i would think there's some sort of insurance that would be paid for players on LTIR. if that's the case there's no way in hell Ottawa would trade them

I always thought that was the case, but I also remember a trade that took place a year or 2 ago that was similar to what I was pondering.  

 

I can’t remember who was involved, but I remember the reported reasoning behind it was that the team that traded the injured player did so because the owner did not want to pay a player on LTIR.

 

Likely just some wishful thinking on my part.

[sampy]

11 minutes ago, thundernuts said:

I always thought that was the case, but I also remember a trade that took place a year or 2 ago that was similar to what I was pondering.  

 

I can’t remember who was involved, but I remember the reported reasoning behind it was that the team that traded the injured player did so because the owner did not want to pay a player on LTIR.

 

Likely just some wishful thinking on my part.

Was it the Clarkson/Horton trade? Horton was done and Clarkson was still playing. Columbus wanted the player that was still playing not on LTIR and the Leafs wanted the LTIR, so they flipped bad contracts.