aGENT Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: only worse 4 seasons from now. Yes we do help them on expansion, although maybe not. Lucic may have been/may be just fine to waive for Seattle so we don't know yet. There's every reason to think Puljujarvi has been thoroughly mismanaged by Edmonton and we can poach another top 10 pick quality player. You're hyper-focused on what it does for Edmonton, which isn't all that much, but you're only looking at it if it works out perfectly for them too. No, I'm actually realistically assessing the risk. You're pie in the sky'ING it up. Worst case for them is they get an equally useless player on a far better contract, keep a better player at the ED and Puljujarvi turns it around, who they're already going to be forced to move for pennies on the dollar because he wants out anyway. Lucic or otherwise. Stooooooooopid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: only worse 4 seasons from now. Yes we do help them on expansion, although maybe not. Lucic may have been/may be just fine to waive for Seattle so we don't know yet. There's every reason to think Puljujarvi has been thoroughly mismanaged by Edmonton and we can poach another top 10 pick quality player. You're hyper-focused on what it does for Edmonton, which isn't all that much, but you're only looking at it if it works out perfectly for them too. Okay, I'm just not getting it here. We want to trade what most are calling a "useless cap-eating garbage player" for another one arguably less useful and with the same salary... plus an extra year? In the hopes we might get a pick or failed prospect as a "project" when nobody else seems to want him either? This rage against Eriksson and desperate panic to be rid of him is causing a serious loss of rationality. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 1 hour ago, wai_lai416 said: lol.. you can only protect 1 goalie and 8 players.. and you want to waste a protect on lucic hughes, boeser, pettersson, horvat, JT Miller, Myer, Ferland, (lucic) demko so we going to expose Gaudette, Virtanen, markstrom assuming he's re-signed and whoever else on the roster for lucic? You can make normal arguments, but please stop bringing up Expansion Draft protection because that wouldn't be a part of the deal. We've covered this about 37 times already in the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, aGENT said: No, I'm actually realistically assessing the risk. You're pie in the sky'ING it up. Worst case for them is they get an equally useless player on a far better contract, keep a better player at the ED and Puljujarvi turns it around, who they're already going to be forced to move for pennies on the dollar because he wants out anyway. Lucic or otherwise. Stooooooooopid. No, worst case for them is that Lucic regains his form from two years ago and terrorizes them like he already does with Calgary, multiple times a year in their own conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Davathor said: Stop talking about Lucic for christ sake. We dont need him, hes the slowest skater in hockey, and he takes up a protection slot for expansion. Also L supposedly nixed Edmonton. After our free agent frenzy, Lucic for Louiser makes less than no sense. He addresses no needs, and gives us an extra year of a $&!# contract. I agree with most of what you typed. But again, it has been typed 100 times, if Lucic waives his NMC to go to Vancouver it is no longer valid and he would not have to be protected in the Seattle ED. He would have to renegotiate it....and why in the hell would anyone give it back after he waived it. This one point (Lucic and his current NMC) has been mentioned so many times just like the cap friendly number showing Canucks only have so much cap space (without taking into account they are including numerous players that won't be included to get the real cap number). It is shocking how so many posters can keep regurgitating the same old wrong nonsense. It is even more shocking when actual sports reporters do....and they continue to. Good god..... Edited July 13, 2019 by Kanukfanatic 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toyotasfan Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Goldolbin for Puljujarvi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, aGENT said: You're pie in the sky'ING it up. Lucic will do better here cuz it's his home. Lucic will do better because of years-past troubles being over. We might get a pick back. We might get a failed prospect back. We might be able to do something with the failed prospect, the one no-one else wants, you know, like we've done with Goldobin. It's only one extra year. It's only another $7 million. Yeah he's ineffective, but he's so big 'n tuff. The excuses and rationale are literally tissue-paper thin and fanciful wishful thinking. 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 12 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said: You can make normal arguments, but please stop bringing up Expansion Draft protection because that wouldn't be a part of the deal. We've covered this about 37 times already in the thread Might not be part of it for us, assuming all is waived, but it does HELP OUR DIRECT DIVISION RIVAL WITH THEIR ED PROTECTION. I have no idea why so many of you are in such a hurry to help out Edmonton? Was there a groupon discount on lobotomies? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Ghost Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 16 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: Okay, I'm just not getting it here. We want to trade what most are calling a "useless cap-eating garbage player" for another one arguably less useful and with the same salary... plus an extra year? In the hopes we might get a pick or failed prospect as a "project" when nobody else seems to want him either? This rage against Eriksson and desperate panic to be rid of him is causing a serious loss of rationality. This. The only viable benefit to moving Eriksson is what can that cap space be used for? If the options are: A. Louie for Lucic and Puljujarvu, or B. Louie plus a moderate sweetener for futures/picks/prospects plus whoever Benning can sign with that cap space, Then my vote at this point is with B 100 times out of 100. Adding Miller and Ferland really does give Benning the ability to package a good sweetener with Loui to get the cap relief without really hurting our team. Thats what good depth and prospect pools give you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 46 minutes ago, Provost said: No... 7 forwards, 3 D, and one goalie. OR 8 skaters and one goalie. So far we have Boeser, Horvat, Petterson, and any 5 of Miller, Ferland, Roussel, Beagle, Virtanen, Gaudette, Eriksson. And Hughes, Myers, and Stecher We aren’t going to lose a valuable forward by having Lucic. Almost certainly we are going to lose one of Markstrom or Demko if things don’t change drastically in the next two years. Also, A’s has been said and quoted dozens of times... his NMC doesn’t necessarily travel if we don’t agree to it. There may be other reasons not to want Lucic... but the NMC and expansion is t one of them. We can protect 7 forwards, so Boeser, Horvat, Pettersson and another 4 on top of that. Eriksson and Roussel are not getting protected. Beagle as well as he would be pushing 36 years old. I would say the other 4 would be Miller, Ferland, Virtanen and Gaudette. Outside chance we may have to protect MacEwen depending on what he does over the next 2 years, so there may be a tough decision there for Benning. Also, Hughes doesn't need protection either, so it would be Myers, Stecher and Juolevi for sure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Elias Pettersson Posted July 13, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2019 Why are we still talking about getting Lucic? Didn't we just sign a power forward who is only 27, can skate, pass, shoot the puck, hit like a truck and is a legit fighter? Getting Lucic right now would be the dumbest move Benning could make... 1 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 15 minutes ago, aGENT said: No, I'm actually realistically assessing the risk. You're pie in the sky'ING it up. Worst case for them is they get an equally useless player on a far better contract, keep a better player at the ED and Puljujarvi turns it around, who they're already going to be forced to move for pennies on the dollar because he wants out anyway. Lucic or otherwise. Stooooooooopid. What if Edmonton retained 1.5 million? That would essentially take away the 6 million from the 4th year. It gives us 1.5 million more room for the next 3 years (a bit more than simply burying him). The issue of the 4th year is still there, but less dire. Not sure how this would affect any sweetener headed our way though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davathor Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 16 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said: I agree with most of what you typed. But again, it has been typed 100 times, if Lucic waives his NMC to go to Vancouver it is no longer valid and he would not have to be protected in the Seattle ED. He would have to renegotiate it....and why in the hell would anyone give it back after he waived it. This one point (Lucic and his current NMC) has been mentioned so many times just like the cap friendly number showing Canucks only have so much cap space (without taking into account they are including numerous players that won't be included to get the real cap number). It is shocking how so many posters can keep regurgitating the same old wrong nonsense. It is even more shocking when actual sports reporters do....and they continue to. Good god..... I was under the impression that the NMC travels with him UNLESS an addendum is added to the existing contract by the new team... Its nitpicking, sure, but why would Lucic agree to move his family to Van to have no security to stay? Interested in a source, my brief Google search turned up a lot of people asking the same. Doesn't change the fact I think Lucic isn't the answer for our big L problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, aGENT said: Might not be part of it for us, assuming all is waived, but it does HELP OUR DIRECT DIVISION RIVAL WITH THEIR ED PROTECTION. I have no idea why so many of you are in such a hurry to help out Edmonton? Was there a groupon discount on lobotomies? Eriksson helps Edmonton's terrible PK. Eriksson can still play throughout the lineup in different roles. Eriksson helps Edmonton's cap trouble, ending a year earlier. Eriksson helps Edmonton's financials, costing less per year in real salary. Lucic... is from Vancouver and can punch faces. Yes, those 2 fights per year he has. At home. P.S. Yanni Gourde had 4. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Just now, theo5789 said: What if Edmonton retained 1.5 million? That would essentially take away the 6 million from the 4th year. It gives us 1.5 million more room for the next 3 years (a bit more than simply burying him). The issue of the 4th year is still there, but less dire. Not sure how this would affect any sweetener headed our way though. Why are we trying so hard to acquire a worse, player, a worse contact, all while helping out a direct division rival out of cap/roster/ED issues they got themselves in to? It's worth more to us to let EDM suffer with all that than anything they're actually going to give up to make that swap. We don't NEED to move Eriksson to EDM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 10 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said: This. The only viable benefit to moving Eriksson is what can that cap space be used for? If the options are: A. Louie for Lucic and Puljujarvu, or B. Louie plus a moderate sweetener for futures/picks/prospects plus whoever Benning can sign with that cap space, Then my vote at this point is with B 100 times out of 100. Adding Miller and Ferland really does give Benning the ability to package a good sweetener with Loui to get the cap relief without really hurting our team. Thats what good depth and prospect pools give you. B is not realistic though. Marleau was dealt with a 1st to unload one year of full cap. We want to dump 3 years of full cap, it's going to cost a significant sweetener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: Eriksson helps Edmonton's terrible PK. Eriksson can still play throughout the lineup in different roles. Eriksson helps Edmonton's cap trouble, ending a year earlier. Eriksson helps Edmonton's financials, costing less per year in real salary. Lucic... is from Vancouver and can punch faces. Yes, those 2 fights per year he has. At home. P.S. Yanni Gourde had 4. Me, you and the garnacha are all on the same wave length HW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Davathor said: I was under the impression that the NMC travels with him UNLESS an addendum is added to the existing contract by the new team... Its nitpicking, sure, but why would Lucic agree to move his family to Van to have no security to stay? Interested in a source, my brief Google search turned up a lot of people asking the same. Doesn't change the fact I think Lucic isn't the answer for our big L problem. All depends on what they negotiate. Reportedly JT Miller's pending protection did not come along with his contract in the trade. As we saw with the Edler negotiation, Lucic retaining any protection for expansion is NOT happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, theo5789 said: B is not realistic though. Marleau was dealt with a 1st to unload one year of full cap. We want to dump 3 years of full cap, it's going to cost a significant sweetener. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 1 minute ago, aGENT said: Me, you and the garnacha are all on the same wave length HW. But... we might get Shea Weber (i.e. 2nd round pick). IF we get anything extra at all, that is. Seriously, the same ones advocating getting him are going to be the first ones shouting from the rooftops "Get rid of this fat overpaid slug! #benningyouIDIOT" Oh wait, there's James Neal. I'm sure he could turn it around here, too. Like Lucic, it's only another extra year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts