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

[Maketherightmove]

Just now, Hutton Wink said:

Hard pass.  Wait and watch.

Are you dense? Did you read my post at all? I'm saying the Leafs a in deep and had no choice but to pay that price to shed Marleau's salary in order to keep Marner. If JB somehow got us in the same position in a few years and we had to give up a first to shed dead cap in order to keep Petey, Nucks fans would accept it. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

I just meant dead in the middle of their "window" to compete and in an absolutely atrocious cap position with significant players still required to sign. 

 

The Leafs are screwed and I love it, but they absolutely had to give up the pick to shed Marleau and I don't think that Nucks fans would be outraged if they were in a similar position and absolutely had to give up a 1st to shed Loui. Luckily, we're much better off than that. 

The first JB used to get Miller will be in the start of our window, and keep our window open longer.  Guys like Miller cost way more than 5 million in cap.  The Leafs are paying Nylander 7 million! 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

18 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

For all the despair over capspace, I have yet to hear a peep from the #assetmanagement critics on Dubas giving up a 1st round pick to move one year of Marleau. 

 

But dollars to donuts if Benning had done that for Eriksson?  EPIC MELTDOWN!

Signing marleau to three years was stupid in the first place. But that’s on lou not dubas. 

 

If if your looking at asset mgmt then you have to consider what trading that first saved them. In order to move PM leafs were going to have to add value (as canucks are about to find out with LE). That meant they were either giving up a pick or a player from there roster such as kapanen. You are lucky to get a kapanen type after spending 4 years of developing a late 1st round pick, which is why they chose to trade the pick route. 

 

So in-terms of managing there assets considering the cap crunch/ current window they are in. Moving the pick was the best route they could go down.  

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Signing marleau to three years was stupid in the first place. But that’s on lou not dubas. 

 

If if your looking at asset mgmt then you have to consider what trading that first saved them. In order to move PM leafs were going to have to add value (as canucks are about to find out with LE). That meant they were either giving up a pick or a player from there roster such as kapanen. You are lucky to get a kapanen type after spending 4 years of developing a late 1st round pick, which is why they chose to trade the pick route. 

 

So in-terms of managing there assets considering the cap crunch/ current window they are in. Moving the pick was the best route they could go down.  

 

Not if they can't fix that atrocious defence and that pick ends up being a lottery pick.

[Maketherightmove]

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

Marleau 82GP 16G 21A 37pts

Eriksson 81GP 11G 18A 29pts 

 

Loui is still very good on the PK and is very sound defensively, so to praise Marleau as “somewhat effective” and sandbagging Loui as useless makes zero sense when only 8pts separates them. Also the guy with 8 more points played on an offensively stacked team that finished 3rd in their division. Loui played on an injury plagued team in mostly a shutdown role. 

If you zoom out and take a closer look at the last few years, Marleau is much more effective and he's a leader in the room. 

 

Marleau: 

 

82 27 19 46

82 27 20 47

82 16 21 37

 

Loui: 

 

65 11 13 24

50 10 13 23

81 11 18 29

 

It's not inconceivable that Marleau has a bit of a bounce back year and still puts up respectable numbers, although at his age it's probably unlikely. He can still bring good leadership to a team in need. Loui has been done for the entirety of his contract here and I don't think after 3 seasons of being dead in the water that he's got anything left. 

[KKnight]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And zero benifet for us too.  There is no other option than Loui getting put on waivers, and sent to Utica.  If he reports we save 1 million.  He won't report though, so we save all 6 million.  

so if he fails to report, then it would be exactly like the berglund situation. We could terminate the contract, correct?

[canuck73_3]

4 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

If you zoom out and take a closer look at the last few years, Marleau is much more effective and he's a leader in the room. 

 

Marleau: 

 

82 27 19 46

82 27 20 47

82 16 21 37

 

Loui: 

 

65 11 13 24

50 10 13 23

81 11 18 29

 

It's not inconceivable that Marleau has a bit of a bounce back year and still puts up respectable numbers, although at his age it's probably unlikely. He can still bring good leadership to a team in need. Loui has been done for the entirety of his contract here and I don't think after 3 seasons of being dead in the water that he's got anything left. 

Marleau 3 years ago is irrelevant to Marleau at 40 wadr... 

[Maketherightmove]

7 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Marleau 3 years ago is irrelevant to Marleau at 40 wadr... 

More like Marleau two seasons ago, but nice spin. 

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

More like Marleau two seasons ago, but nice spin. 

I'm going by when that contract was signed, which was nearly 3 years ago and everyone myself included called it risky because of the final year and he has made a noticeable decline. So yes, nearly 3 years ago. And with the list of really effective 40+ year old NHLers currently being

1. Chara

 

I don't see Marleau “bouncing back”

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

If they are so desperate to save money then why not buy him out. They’d save 2.16 million over 4 years by only haven’t to pay him out 2/3 of his salary. 

 

and if melnyk is a cheapo that is gone in 2 year then he’d only be out 2.04 million rather than the 5 LE will cost him for the next two years. And that ignores what happens in year 3 if melnyk is still there. That’s another 4 million on the books.  

 

And on top of that lE signing bonus next year means cheapo melnyk has to fork out 3 million upfront to LE rather than spreading 3.25 out over 12 months like he’d be able to do with smith. 

 

Sorry but there’s some major flaws in your logic.

 

 

[Maketherightmove]

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

I'm going by when that contract was signed, which was nearly 3 years ago and everyone myself included called it risky because of the final year and he has made a noticeable decline. So yes, nearly 3 years ago. And with the list of really effective 40+ year old NHLers currently being

1. Chara

 

I don't see Marleau “bouncing back”

What are  you talking about? 

 

Your first point was this:

19 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

Marleau 82GP 16G 21A 37pts

Eriksson 81GP 11G 18A 29pts 

 

Loui is still very good on the PK and is very sound defensively, so to praise Marleau as “somewhat effective” and sandbagging Loui as useless makes zero sense when only 8pts separates them. Also the guy with 8 more points played on an offensively stacked team that finished 3rd in their division. Loui played on an injury plagued team in mostly a shutdown role. 

I refuted that you were taking a rather rosy outlook in comparing the two, which you absolutely were. The player with the chance of contributing more this upcoming season is without a doubt Marleau. They're both bad contracts and likely will both suck, but you were trying to say that Loui>Marleau which is ridiculous. 

[Gaudette Celly]

21 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

Are you dense? Did you read my post at all? I'm saying the Leafs a in deep and had no choice but to pay that price to shed Marleau's salary in order to keep Marner. If JB somehow got us in the same position in a few years and we had to give up a first to shed dead cap in order to keep Petey, Nucks fans would accept it. 

Insults aside, you said:

32 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

If the Canucks were in the position that the Leafs are in currently, I don't think anyone would be freaking out about giving up a 1st. 

Point being, you do not know this fanbase.  Reasoning and rationale do not matter when there are pre-conceived beliefs, such as first round picks holding more value than nearly anything.  The benefit from it is immaterial -- the Miller trade being a prime example.  As I think one person pointed out already, if we traded a first for McDavid we'd have some complaining about the cap hit.  And point again, where is all the consternation?  Because the Leafs screwed themselves with bad management, management somehow gets a pass for using a "prime asset" to try to fix it?

[Maketherightmove]

1 minute ago, Hutton Wink said:

Insults aside, you said:

 

Point being, you do not know this fanbase.  Reasoning and rationale do not matter when there are pre-conceived beliefs, such as first round picks holding more value than nearly anything.  The benefit from it is immaterial -- the Miller trade being a prime example.  As I think one person pointed out already, if we traded a first for McDavid we'd have some complaining about the cap hit.  And point again, where is all the consternation?  Because the Leafs screwed themselves with bad management, management somehow gets a pass for using a "prime asset" to try to fix it?

Yes, I absolutely said: 

2 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

If the Canucks were in the position that the Leafs are in currently, I don't think anyone would be freaking out about giving up a 1st. 

And then I clarified with: 

I just meant dead in the middle of their "window" to compete and in an absolutely atrocious cap position with significant players still required to sign. 

 

The Leafs are screwed and I love it, but they absolutely had to give up the pick to shed Marleau and I don't think that Nucks fans would be outraged if they were in a similar position and absolutely had to give up a 1st to shed Loui. Luckily, we're much better off than that. 

 

 

[aGENT]

15 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

If they are so desperate to save money then why not buy him out. They’d save 2.16 million over 4 years by only haven’t to pay him out 2/3 of his salary. 

 

and if melnyk is a cheapo that is gone in 2 year then he’d only be out 2.04 million rather than the 5 LE will cost him for the next two years. And that ignores what happens in year 3 if melnyk is still there. That’s another 4 million on the books.  

 

And on top of that lE signing bonus next year means cheapo melnyk has to fork out 3 million upfront to LE rather than spreading 3.25 out over 12 months like he’d be able to do with smith. 

 

Sorry but there’s some major flaws in your logic.

 

 

Because they need actual players, to you know...play.

 

aGENT out!

[aliboy]

If we could send Spooner and Schaller to Ottawa for a reasonable price it would help, they each have only 1 year left. Also, how much salary, if any, can we retain in an LE trade, isn't he at half salary already once the bonus is paid on the 1st?

[canuck73_3]

17 minutes ago, Maketherightmove said:

What are  you talking about? 

 

Your first point was this:

I refuted that you were taking a rather rosy outlook in comparing the two, which you absolutely were. The player with the chance of contributing more this upcoming season is without a doubt Marleau. They're both bad contracts and likely will both suck, but you were trying to say that Loui>Marleau which is ridiculous. 

I wasn't and never said Loui>Marleau. I simply said they're not THAT far off. Only an 8 point difference and Marleau being 40, I fail to see how he is guaranteed to contribute more... 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Because they need actual players, to you know...play.

 

aGENT out!

So spending more overall salary on a player who’s worse than what they currently have makes sense to you. 

 

It’s ok you put out your opinion without thinking it through completely. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat

[Junkyard Dog]

With the recapture penalty we should be trying to dump Loui somewhere especially if we want to sign Myers. 

[rekker]

27 minutes ago, aliboy said:

If we could send Spooner and Schaller to Ottawa for a reasonable price it would help, they each have only 1 year left. Also, how much salary, if any, can we retain in an LE trade, isn't he at half salary already once the bonus is paid on the 1st?

They will be sent......to Utica. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

And zero benifet for us too.  There is no other option than Loui getting put on waivers, and sent to Utica.  If he reports we save 1 million.  He won't report though, so we save all 6 million.  

There’s one other option. It’s called the he “developed an skin condition” and its forcing him to retire.