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

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


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Sure you can; just assign him to the ECHL so he's not around the young prospects in Utica.

Just leave him in the AHL, but not getting any playing time.  How long do you think he would last being made to travel and practice without even getting into games.  Just wait for him to lose his $&!# and get himself suspended or terminated.

Here kids, this is the object lesson of what happens if you don't want to work hard.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Pickly said:

Can’t just ride it out. Not now after Loui’s comments to the media about his displeasure with Green. The guy clearly wants a change of scenery and it’s in the Canucks best interest to get rid of him before his poor attitude affects the younger players.

Utica would be fine, green doesn’t coach there if we can trade him and a 3 for a 7 great but I don’t want to take on Lucic or another horrible contract 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Shouldnt you be able to put up points if your strength is o-zone? 

 

I dont even wanna bother looking up his canuck stats. I know they were....not good 

I'm trying to be generous 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Lol you and me both buddy. Ill likely never see three million people in my life  let alone 3 million dollars in a year. 

 

:lol: I could gross that over 20 years at my current pace but the government takes about 40% in income tax off the top, so realistically I’ll never take that home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

:lol: I could gross that over 20 years at my current pace but the government takes about 40% in income tax off the top, so realistically I’ll never take that home.

What are you doing that pays $150,000/yr?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canucks aren’t in a position to deal negative contracts and give teams futures to take them. I’m perfectly content with keeping Eriksson whether it be in the minors or the fourth line. Rebuilding teams don’t pay these prices. They take these contracts to speed the rebuild up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

actually it puts us in a better position if he clears. Teams would already have him buried if we have to add in a "sweetener". Someone might take him for free. And finally it puts more pressure on Loui to decide what he wants his future to be. I don't see how it makes it worse at all. 

No one is going to want to take that salary in the minors. The reason why we got rid of Gagner is because we took on a player with the same cap hit that was in a similar position. It would be no different than trading for Lucic (with the theory that they are both under the same contract and if he cleared waivers as well). This isn't a one year remaining deal, teams aren't going to add him as potential playoff call up depth and they are gone.

 

I understand putting pressure on LE, but it sets a bad example and it's really unnecessary to do so for cap reasons. His comments weren't welcome, but also weren't bad enough to warrant this treatment IMO. This is a stiff arm move that could backfire long term for little short term gain.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Sure you can; just assign him to the ECHL so he's not around the young prospects in Utica.

Players on an NHL deal have to agree to go to the ECHL. St. Louis wanted to send Binnington to the ECHL last season but he refused which is how he ended up playing for the Providence Bruins l. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was just thinking... If the Canucks retain 50% on Loui, he no longer has negative value in my opinion. He's still an above average player, defensively. 3M a year for a dependable PKer/3rd liner that can get you 20-30 points. With that, there's also the chance he flourishes, and becomes a 3M guy putting up 50 points.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

No one is going to want to take that salary in the minors. The reason why we got rid of Gagner is because we took on a player with the same cap hit that was in a similar position. It would be no different than trading for Lucic (with the theory that they are both under the same contract and if he cleared waivers as well). This isn't a one year remaining deal, teams aren't going to add him as potential playoff call up depth and they are gone.

 

I understand putting pressure on LE, but it sets a bad example and it's really unnecessary to do so for cap reasons. His comments weren't welcome, but also weren't bad enough to warrant this treatment IMO. This is a stiff arm move that could backfire long term for little short term gain.

I think the comments were bad enough to warrant a suspension without pay.  Not holding him accountable sets a worse example and the team is better off without him wasting a roster spot.  Similar situation to Gagner last year mouthing off after playing like garbage.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

I think the comments were bad enough to warrant a suspension without pay.  Not holding him accountable sets a worse example and the team is better off without him wasting a roster spot.  Similar situation to Gagner last year mouthing off after playing like garbage.

Not even remotely.  Vancouver fans are justified in not liking his comments, but there’s nothing in what he said that will allow Vancouver to not pay him.  

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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