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

[Kanukfanatic]

7 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

He's like Eriksson (who is deemed as a overpaid, but capable NHL player), but costs around his worth, is far more physical (therefore more suited for the bottom 6), and can play center as insurance (important if Sutter and Beagle suffer any injuries again this season).

 

Didn't you make a post about LE being equivalent to his peers who has similar salary? So you deem he has enough value for a team to potentially take on because his salary dictates that it's reasonable and Smith is like LE as you say, but adds extra elements.

 

We certainly waive Schaller. And Goldy's time may be up. Or we waive Biega and keep 14 forwards. When Roussel returns, it could get complicated, but maybe someone else is injured by then.

I guess you did not read and comprehend my whole post.

 

Bottom feeder teams need warm bodies to actually play games. We did 4 years ago all the way up until this year. Hence why we had plugs like Megna in the lineup. I said a team like Ottawa would need bodies to play and Loui could do that for them at a mediocre pay level.

 

We on the other hand don't need more bottom line forwards. We have those covered.

 

If we did take on Smith for Loui that would be great just to get rid of Loui. But we bury smith in Utica as he is no longer a good player. Even ottawa waived him last year and no one claimed him. I would be ok picking him up and sending him to utica.

[N4ZZY]

2 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

I guess you did not read and comprehend my whole post.

 

Bottom feeder teams need warm bodies to actually play games. We did 4 years ago all the way up until this year. Hence why we had plugs like Megna in the lineup. I said a team like Ottawa would need bodies to play and Loui could do that for them at a mediocre pay level.

 

We on the other hand don't need more bottom line forwards. We have those covered.

 

If we did take on Smith for Loui that would be great just to get rid of Loui. But we bury smith in Utica as he is no longer a good player. Even ottawa waived him last year and no one claimed him. I would be ok picking him up and sending him to utica.

Do you think if we sent Eriksson done, and he was waived, that any other team would claim him? 

 

[theo5789]

1 minute ago, Kanukfanatic said:

We don't need Smith. His only spot could be on the 4th but we have Motte Beagle and Leivo probably. 

 

I am not against us getting smith but if we do he gets waived as he should. Just as he was in Sept 2018 without getting claimed.

So who do we keep up instead? Schaller and Goldy? They hold more value? He was waived because Ottawa was hoping someone would take his cap off of them. No one took him because he had 3 years left on his deal at the time and had just come off his worst season. He's bounced back in numbers. He had 136 hits last season which would've been 3rd on our team last year, so he certainly would be a good addition to the bottom 6 creating energy when needed. I'll also reiterate that he can play center where he took over 800 draws and just under 50%, so he actually trumps even Miller here as center depth.

[theo5789]

4 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

I guess you did not read and comprehend my whole post.

 

Bottom feeder teams need warm bodies to actually play games. We did 4 years ago all the way up until this year. Hence why we had plugs like Megna in the lineup. I said a team like Ottawa would need bodies to play and Loui could do that for them at a mediocre pay level.

 

We on the other hand don't need more bottom line forwards. We have those covered.

 

If we did take on Smith for Loui that would be great just to get rid of Loui. But we bury smith in Utica as he is no longer a good player. Even ottawa waived him last year and no one claimed him. I would be ok picking him up and sending him to utica.

You keep bringing this up and ignoring the context. He was waived in hopes someone would take him as a cap dump. No one claimed him because it was too much risk after having one of his worst seasons and 3 years left in term. He never played a game for their farm team as he is still an NHL player. No one would claim LE for free because they rather gain an asset by making a trade for him rather than giving you a free pass.

[KanNuck]

1 hour ago, Me_ said:

FERLAND - PETTERSSON - BOESER

MILLER - HORVAT - PEARSON

SMITH - SUTTER - VIRTANEN

LEIVO - BEAGLE - MOTTE

Roussel (ir)

I’d do nothing and keep him as 13th

 

Ferland-Pettersson-Boeser

Baertschi-Horvat-Miller

Pearson-Sutter-Virtanen 

Motte-Beagle-Leivo

 

Eriksson

McEwan

 

LTIR 

Roussel 

 

When Roussel is healthy he lines up in Motte’s spot. 

At this time waive Loui

 

Making LE number 13 in a press box until then gives us better depth, until the time is right or a deal presents itself that’s beneficial to us. We are in no rush to move him. We need to remember that. 

 

To each their own, just how I’d do it but I’m not Green or JB for that matter

Edited July 14, 2019 by KanNuck

[BigTramFan]

1 hour ago, KanNuck said:

I’d do nothing and keep him as 13th

 

Ferland-Pettersson-Boeser

Baertschi-Horvat-Miller

Pearson-Sutter-Virtanen 

Motte-Beagle-Leivo

 

Eriksson

McEwan

 

LTIR 

Roussel 

 

When Roussel is healthy he lines up in Motte’s spot. 

At this time waive Loui

 

Making LE number 13 in a press box until then gives us better depth, until the time is right or a deal presents itself that’s beneficial to us. We are in no rush to move him. We need to remember that. 

 

To each their own, just how I’d do it but I’m not Green or JB for that matter

I guess this all begs the question...

 

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE CAP SPACE IF WE DO MOVE LOUI THIS SEASON?

[KanNuck]

32 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

I guess this all begs the question...

 

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE CAP SPACE IF WE DO MOVE LOUI THIS SEASON?

Save it to sign Tryamkin later this season. I really wanna see the twin towers. Teams solid just maybe another defenseman.

 

Tryamkin-Myers 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2019 by KanNuck

[KanNuck]

5 minutes ago, KanNuck said:

Doubt we move him tho and don’t retain large amounts of his cap 2M+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2019 by KanNuck

[teepain]

I think they will waive loui Eriksson worst case scenerio if no one wants to trade for him, see if there is any takers. If not then 1 million , it is what it is 

[Arrow 1983]

Based on the Canucks current line up situation, I believe that Benning and Green are really going to have to consider sending Eriksson to Utica. Here is the rational.

 

If the Canucks are unable to trade him, they will have to many forwards after we sign Goldy and Boeser and send Schaller to Utica and place Roussel on LTIR. The Canucks will still have 14 forwards 8 defenceman and 2 goalies 24 players (max roster is 23) and this doesn't include Gaudette who I assume will have to start in Utica as he is waiver exempt if there are no further moves.

If the Canucks are unable to trade Eriksson then it could be assumed that he will clear waivers and if he didn't clear then I would assume that would be just fine with Benning.

This here is the reason why it would have to be Eriksson. Everyone else on the team would have a greater chance of being claimed.

 

There is a goup of players most would agree that would not be sent down so here is the list of players Benning and Green could possible consider other then Eriksson;

 

Forwards; Leivo, Motte Goldy. Once Goldy is signed assuming it is below 2 mill, all 3 of these players will be under very reasonable contracts and could easily be claimed by another team. For Leivo and Goldy their offensive potential, for Motte his defensive and PK potential. I would argue these are assets the Canucks would not want to lose through waivers or cause they felt the need to respect Eriksson feelings.

 

Defense;  Beiga, Fantenberg. I don't see Fantenberg being placed on waivers due to the fact he was just signed by Benning however I do place him on the list cause he is the Canucks 7th or 8th D-man. Beiga has cleared waivers before but he has also been more useful to the Canucks in the past 2 years and other teams could have notice this. More over, Green knows what he can get from Beiga, and Fantenberg I would argue is much more a question mark. Furthermore, by sending one of these players to Utica the Canucks would only be carrying 7 d-man and no Canucks coach including Green has done that since Torts as it has been un advice able with the injuries that have occur to this teams defence.

 

This is my rational as to why Eriksson should be Utica bound and an argument Benning should use with Eriksson to consider retirement. I believe because Benning has gone all in this coming season he can no longer give privileges to players who can not play up to their contracts. If Eriksson does not choose to retire then he will have to come to terms with the fact he will spend the rest of his contract term with Utica or maybe be loaned to some other AHL team.  I would also argue that if Eriksson can earn a place on the Canucks over a guy like Goldy, Green and Benning should reconsider this thought process due to the fact that losing Goldy through waivers would be; 1st bad asset management, as he should move Goldy now rather then later if Benning is not willing to place Eriksson on waivers and 2nd it would be bad asset management on account that Goldy still could reach a higher potential as he is the younger player.

[Arrow 1983]

To every argument there are 2 sides.

 

The Sedins use to say and I only paraphrase here, that they hoped that the younger players could fill bigger roles and that they could be demoted to the 2nd line. Why did they say this. I call it, The Sedin theory aka the aging theory aka staying competitive theory. I believe The Sedins understood they where in decline and they could no longer play head to head with the best players in the League or play every game against the top d-pairings of the opposition. I believe they believed that if the younger players could step up and play bigger roles that maybe they would have gotten easier matchups and would have produced higher numbers and stayed completive longer.

 

So you ask how does this pertain to Eriksson?

 

1st the younger players have the biggest role

2nd Eriksson isn't even required to play a 2nd line mins. He could easily be on a 3rd or 4th line dependent on how one sees each of these lines.

 

But I also think Eriksson could be right. I mean about his comments of Green not trusting and Utilizing him proper. My argument is both Eriksson and Green are right and wrong but it isn't Greens fault. I will explain.

 

Eriksson has been paired with Sutter or Beagle as his centreman, both these players are where offence goes to die. Don't get me wrong I believe that a team needs guys like this to win and I believe Sutter and Beagle are worth every penny. However it isn't the best pairing for a guy like Eriksson. Eriksson is already a pretty decent defensive player and needs a centre who can dish the puck not check it. However, also due to Eriksson age he can no longer be matched up against other teams best players and/or best d-pairings. I believe this is why the Eriksson Sedins line failed. 

 

Green wasn't wrong in pairing Eriksson with Sutter or Beagle he just had no other choice and Sutter was suppose to be the 3rd line centre that could play the shut down centre well creating offence through good defence we will never really know if this was true or not due to his injuries but we can only now assume he is now better suited for a defensive role. Furthermore, As a bottom 6 player they must fill certain roles, therefore, Green placed Eriksson on the PK. I remind those who have already forgotten that Erikson, Sutter and Beagle are a good part the reason this team had the 11th best PK in the league.

 

What if Eriksson could be a 20-25 goal scorer again and all he needs is the right situation. Lets actually think about this for a second.

 

 Eriksson gets 20-25 goals

 

1) He produces when we need him the most

2) He costs the team no assets and only cap space, however what would it cost to get another 20-25 goal scorer

3) Remember this he wanted to play for the Canucks when the team wasn't at its best. We should never forget this as fans about any player that plays for a team when its not at its most competitiveness

 

So what is the best situation.

 

I argue that Eriksson is already a good defensive player so he should play with someone that requires that in a player. Eriksson meet Gaudette. This pairing reminds me of another one a few years back Horvat and Hansen. Hansen was a good defensive player and had one of his best seasons paired with Horvat who was still young and learning the game. 

I believe a line of Eriksson Gaudette and Virtanen would do very well. They could be matched up with other teams bottom 6 forwards and Gaud and Jake good move the puck to the offensive zone as Eriksson trails behind to get set up. Moreover, Eriksson could play the defensive buffer role for the 2 younger players.

 

What would this line up look like, Sutter and Beagle would play on the same line.

 

Ferland EP BB

 

Pearson BH JT Millerr

 

Eriksson Gaud Virtanen

 

Baer Sutter Beagle 

 

one of Leivo Goldy or Motte

 

Baer would play with Sutter and Beagle till Roussel got back then but I don't believe anyone other then 2 of Leivo, Goldy or Motte would have to be moved cause as Roussel got back Baer would just cover any other injuries that would occur and we all know other injuries will occur.

 

My last point This topic is about Eriksson but I started with the Sedins for a reason. What if you changed the name in this topic from Eriksson to the Sedins. Would the Sedin be worth a try. Image if the Sedins could have finished their Careers like this instead of being first liners had the opportunity to become 3rd liners with the younger players filling the larger roles and getting the hardest matchups. How much more would the Sedins produced then.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[wai_lai416]

8 hours ago, Silver Ghost said:

Look how the Maple Leafs and Rangers have treated players for decades. Players still sign there because they like the city, the team, etc.

 

The Canucks just signed 2 top end UFA and to good deals. Seems like how the Canucks have treated Loui meant SFA to them.

what top end UFA are we talking about here?? i don't recall canucks signing any top end UFA ever in the last 25 years since i follow the team?? Messier?? Sundin?? the 2 where we overpaid to the moon for? Loui Eriksson is prolly the biggest name we have signed in recent years lol.. everything else we have signed including this year is hardly a top end UFA.. unless you are talking about best available.. myer ferland benn hardly considered a top end player lol

[Arrow 1983]

9 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

what top end UFA are we talking about here?? i don't recall canucks signing any top end UFA ever in the last 25 years since i follow the team?? Messier?? Sundin?? the 2 where we overpaid to the moon for? Loui Eriksson is prolly the biggest name we have signed in recent years lol.. everything else we have signed including this year is hardly a top end UFA.. unless you are talking about best available.. myer ferland benn hardly considered a top end player lol

So if he had said best available would that have made you less of a jerk. Clearly you understood what he meant but felt you had to be a jerk anyways what does that say about yourself.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

10 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

what top end UFA are we talking about here?? i don't recall canucks signing any top end UFA ever in the last 25 years since i follow the team?? Messier?? Sundin?? the 2 where we overpaid to the moon for? Loui Eriksson is prolly the biggest name we have signed in recent years lol.. everything else we have signed including this year is hardly a top end UFA.. unless you are talking about best available.. myer ferland benn hardly considered a top end player lol

You must be the expert on top end UFA. Are you a GM of an NHL team to be such an expert

[Arrow 1983]

12 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

what top end UFA are we talking about here?? i don't recall canucks signing any top end UFA ever in the last 25 years since i follow the team?? Messier?? Sundin?? the 2 where we overpaid to the moon for? Loui Eriksson is prolly the biggest name we have signed in recent years lol.. everything else we have signed including this year is hardly a top end UFA.. unless you are talking about best available.. myer ferland benn hardly considered a top end player lol

You think top UFAs are in their late 30s like Sundin and Messier. I'm just pointing out your flaws how do you like it.

[wai_lai416]

8 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

So if he had said best available would that have made you less of a jerk. Clearly you understood what he meant but felt you had to be a jerk anyways what does that say about yourself.

 

6 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

You must be the expert on top end UFA. Are you a GM of an NHL team to be such an expert

 

3 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

You think top UFAs are in their late 30s like Sundin and Messier. I'm just pointing out your flaws how do you like it.

man someone clearly doesn't know how to multi quote XD or maybe just butt hurt lol.

 

i like your flaw pointing very much lol at least i don't get butthurt over a forum where i feel the need to go after someone that have absolutely nothing to do with anything you have said XD. 

[Arrow 1983]

4 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

 

 

man someone clearly doesn't know how to multi quote XD or maybe just butt hurt lol.

 

i like your flaw pointing very much lol at least i don't get butthurt over a forum where i feel the need to go after someone that have absolutely nothing to do with anything you have said XD. 

I don't get butthurt as you put it I just don't see the reason why people have to be so negative and out right rude to others. Furthermore, to your point of going after someone, the person you quote is not the only one that reads it this forum is read by many and I would suggest to you and others like yourself that being respectful and writing things that actually mean something about the post is better use of the forum.

[Arrow 1983]

23 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

 

 

man someone clearly doesn't know how to multi quote XD or maybe just butt hurt lol.

 

i like your flaw pointing very much lol at least i don't get butthurt over a forum where i feel the need to go after someone that have absolutely nothing to do with anything you have said XD. 

1 final point how can you possibly believe that your in the right. Ask yourself this can you ask me the same thing or are you the jerk and I just confronted the troll

Edited July 14, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[J-P]

Thought it'd be fun to add some perspective to FA signings. Here's the Rangers top 10 failings (taken from https://bluelinestation.com/2018/09/04/new-york-rangers-10-worst-free-agent-signings-team-history/2/)

 

10. Donald Brashear, 2009, 2 year for $2.8 mil, waived after 36 games

9. Brad Richards, 2011, 9 years for $60 mil at age 31 (!), bought out after 3 seasons which still affects the team since it prevented them from buying out Girardi with a compliance buyout

8. Tanner Glass, 2014, $4.35 mil for 3 years

6-7. Brian Skrudland, 1997, $5 mil for 3 years, Mike Keane, 1997, $8 mil for 4 years

5. Aaron Ward, 2006, $5.5 mil for 2 years, clashed with captain Jagr after half a season and was traded

4. Scott Gomez, 2007, $51.5 mil for 7 years at age 28, good player that hang around for a coupe of seasons but grossly overpriced

3. Bobby Holik, 2002, $45 mil for 5 years

2. Wade Redden, 2008, $39 mil for 6 years

1. The Fleury, 1999, $28 mil for 4 years (played ok but constant drama and personal trouble before being traded away)

 

Of course this pretty much happens every year. In 2016 alone, other notable long-term signings besides LE were Okposo, Ladd, Lucic, Nielsen, Backes, Boedker and Brouwer.

 

 

 

[theo5789]

7 hours ago, KanNuck said:

I’d do nothing and keep him as 13th

 

Ferland-Pettersson-Boeser

Baertschi-Horvat-Miller

Pearson-Sutter-Virtanen 

Motte-Beagle-Leivo

 

Eriksson

McEwan

 

LTIR 

Roussel 

 

When Roussel is healthy he lines up in Motte’s spot. 

At this time waive Loui

 

Making LE number 13 in a press box until then gives us better depth, until the time is right or a deal presents itself that’s beneficial to us. We are in no rush to move him. We need to remember that. 

 

To each their own, just how I’d do it but I’m not Green or JB for that matter

Only flaw here is that keeping him as the 13th forward only devalues him further for a trade and the media will keep this a talking point every night creating a massive distraction and who knows how he will be should he put in this position. We might as well straight waive him if we are not going to play him. The media will still talk about it, but at least let Eriksson showcase himself to get out of here. Not to say he should be gifted any minutes, but if he's only locked down the 13th forward, then it really makes no difference than to just waive him and see what happens.