riffraff Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, PhillipBlunt said: That seemed to be the same excuse with Vrbata. No excuse in my opinion. Edler's performance wasn't affected by the first season he played without them. Agree it is no excuse. I’m just braining on what’s in his head regarding the team in its current state with lots of much younger players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Why would we trade Loui, retain salary, and take back a bad contract,? Loui will collect his bonus on July 1st. Next September he will not report. Then his contract will be terminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, riffraff said: Agree it is no excuse. I’m just braining on what’s in his head regarding the team in its current state with lots of much younger players. NO EXCUSE! Wait...sorry.....Yeah. I had a look inside of Eriksson's head recently..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said: NO EXCUSE! Wait...sorry.....Yeah. I had a look inside of Eriksson's head recently..... Guy seems waaaaaaay to slow for that. im thinking a monkey playing the pan flute. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfgang Durst Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, Cpt.Clutch said: Eriksson was jinxed here the moment he scored on his own net in his first game. It was a bad omen right from game 1. It was a beauty of a goal , I remember Gudbranson skating back reaching the puck before it crossed the goal line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, riffraff said: Guy seems waaaaaaay to slow for that. im thinking a monkey playing the pan flute. It's the DayQuil. I blame the Dayquil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Alflives said: Why would we trade Loui, retain salary, and take back a bad contract,? Loui will collect his bonus on July 1st. Next September he will not report. Then his contract will be terminated. I don't think he would walk away from 9 million dollars. He might be able to make back three of that if he becomes a free agent and signs elsewhere, or he goes and plays in Sweden. Eriksson's contract is buyout proof. That said after his bonus he is owed 9 million dollars in cash. If we retain 1 million per year, that is 6 million owed. We take back Hanzal and pay his 4 million, from Vancouver's perspective they get hit now with a cap hit (when it doesn't matter) and rid themselves of Loui when they need space in three years. Plus get rid of a disgruntled player. From Dallas' perspective they would pay only two more million more in cash to have Eriksson for three years vs Hanzal for one. If he bounces back to say a 40 point /2nd line level it is a home run. If he is nothing more than a 4th liner and penalty killer they still didn't take on much risk other than the 5 million dollar cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 If this was any other player we might be talking “cancer in the room”. no body should feel sorry for Eriksson, he has been given opportunities with this club that others would die for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, canucklehead44 said: I don't think he would walk away from 9 million dollars. He might be able to make back three of that if he becomes a free agent and signs elsewhere, or he goes and plays in Sweden. Eriksson's contract is buyout proof. That said after his bonus he is owed 9 million dollars in cash. If we retain 1 million per year, that is 6 million owed. We take back Hanzal and pay his 4 million, from Vancouver's perspective they get hit now with a cap hit (when it doesn't matter) and rid themselves of Loui when they need space in three years. Plus get rid of a disgruntled player. From Dallas' perspective they would pay only two more million more in cash to have Eriksson for three years vs Hanzal for one. If he bounces back to say a 40 point /2nd line level it is a home run. If he is nothing more than a 4th liner and penalty killer they still didn't take on much risk other than the 5 million dollar cap hit. I understand all you suggest. From the Canuck's POV why do this, when Loui is not going to play on our team, will not report, and we can just terminate his contract? Loui is not going to be traded because we will be way better off just terminating his contract when he doesn't report, when the season starts next October? This costs us nothing, and is what is best for our team. Loui has been complaining all last year, and it's only come into the public recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, SilentSam said: If this was any other player we might be talking “cancer in the room”. no body should feel sorry for Eriksson, he has been given opportunities with this club that others would die for. Exactly. Luckily we have excellent leadership, and core players who are self motivated to be winners and their best. Give Loui his July 1st bonus. In October, he won't be here. His contract will be terminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS4quality Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 I'm gonna be the only one who says this and gets flamed, but anytime Loui was put in a position to succeed he was immediately removed for defensive duties. I've never seen such a polarizing coaching staff. Everyone is saying that loui sucks and goodbye, well I haven't seen the coaches do anything great for this team either. Frankly Loui was right playing on the 4th line won't get you many points playing with Beagle. Sure he's overpaid but I don't think him saying that he and Travis Green seeing eye to eye is a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Alflives said: I understand all you suggest. From the Canuck's POV why do this, when Loui is not going to play on our team, will not report, and we can just terminate his contract? Loui is not going to be traded because we will be way better off just terminating his contract when he doesn't report, when the season starts next October? This costs us nothing, and is what is best for our team. Loui has been complaining all last year, and it's only come into the public recently. This is ideal. I am not sure how that works - is there a case where a player under contract didn't show up and had their contract terminated? I guess now showing up is just cause for terminating the contract, or does it still need to be a mutual termination? Edited June 21, 2019 by canucklehead44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: I understand all you suggest. From the Canuck's POV why do this, when Loui is not going to play on our team, will not report, and we can just terminate his contract? Loui is not going to be traded because we will be way better off just terminating his contract when he doesn't report, when the season starts next October? This costs us nothing, and is what is best for our team. Loui has been complaining all last year, and it's only come into the public recently. Can they terminate in that situation or do they suspend for failure to report. Either way they don't pay other than the fact that they already paid him $3M to play this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said: Thanks riff. Good to know. I figured that Benning and Green would have addressed the fact that Eriksson was a floater. This news is music to my ears as a Canucks fan. As soon as Green benched Eriksson, I was impressed. Holding vets accountable for underwhelming performances is the right way to go, and sends the right message to the team. it also makes more sense if it was the culmination of some frustration between the two of them. I'm just disappointed, I was very stoked with the signing and though it would result in a &^@# ton more fun. Now its just meh to good riddance type stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said: This is ideal. I am not sure how that works - is there a case where a player under contract didn't show up and had their contract terminated? I guess now showing up is just cause for terminating the contract, or does it still need to be a mutual termination? 2 minutes ago, DrJockitch said: Can they terminate in that situation or do they suspend for failure to report. Either way they don't pay other than the fact that they already paid him $3M to play this year. Listening on the radio this morning, and the guys were saying that if a player fails to report, that is grounds for unilateral contract termination. No money, no contract, no cap cost. Plus, that player cannot play in the NHL for the rest of the term. Even on a mutually agreed termination, Loui would not be allowed to play in the NHL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, Jimmy McGill said: it also makes more sense if it was the culmination of some frustration between the two of them. I'm just disappointed, I was very stoked with the signing and though it would result in a &^@# ton more fun. Now its just meh to good riddance type stuff. I'm thinking the business Benning is going to get down to in the next couple of weeks will get you stoked all over again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, DrJockitch said: Can they terminate in that situation or do they suspend for failure to report. Either way they don't pay other than the fact that they already paid him $3M to play this year. I guess the worry now with mutual termination is does that result in a cap recapture penalty for us? Mil makes a good case that it will. It would seem epically unfair for a guy to not show up, we terminate for cause, and still get hit with the cap recapture but this is Gary's NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: I'm thinking the business Benning is going to get down to in the next couple of weeks will get you stoked all over again. I'm easily stoked Phil. Way to easy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, Jimmy McGill said: I'm easily stoked Phil. Way to easy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: oh yah, thats it. Thats me tomorrow when i'm certain that one of our 3 6th rounders is the answer to our d core. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts