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

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Boudrias said:

There is no panic scenario here. For once in a long time Benning is in the strong position. He can wait into fall for a hockey deal that realizes some of LE’s value. With his signings to date the need for Lucic is no longer pressing. If Ericksson is moved I prefer picks or a prospect. 

There is zero way we are getting anything of positive value for just Eriksson. ZERO.

 

No team is in the right mind to even give up a conditional 7th for him. We are in the position giving up picks/prospects for him. So for that reason Benning isn't really in the strong position here

Edited by Grape
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Grape said:

There is zero way we are getting anything of positive value for just Eriksson. ZERO.

 

No team is in the right mind to even give up a conditional 7th for him. We are in the position giving up picks/prospects for him. So for that reason Benning isn't really in the strong position here

There's no "need" to move him, so I expect that JB isn't willing to add a sweetener of any significance to dump him.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours 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.

I totally agree with your final statement.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really want Lucic here especially since Ferland and Miller are much better players than he is currently. Eriksson is at least a good penalty killer and defensive player but I still think he gets moved. Team toughness is not an issue anymore and if they can get into the playoffs anything can happen. Benning and co are building a playoff team instead of a great regular season only team. Just need to somehow ship out Tanev if they can somehow get another top 4 defenceman. Maybe some of the surplus forwards can help out with that.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Sorry for being blunt Jimmy. You're a bright guy, I like you...but that plan is stupid.

 

Neither player is completely 'useless'. Either can play a depth role on a poor team at the NHL level. Problem for Loui being, we're no longer looking like a poor team after this summer. Swapping one for the other, on a worse contract, while helping out a direct division rival is not a good idea any way you slice it.

 

Why do we need something coming back? Moving Eriksson and getting out from even part of his contract is the return. Taking an even worse one back more than cancels out any of the benefit of the 'pieces' coming back. Unless you're going to start adding a lot more/better pieces, it's a non-starter. We're better off retaining/taking salary back or simply waiving him and crossing our fingers he has little interest riding buses in the AHL. If not immediately, at least after his bonus next July is paid (another $3m). I'm just fine with that outcome as well.

This is the point many do not see. A cap dump trade needs to be looked at a bit differently than a "hockey trade".

 

If Benning can move Eriksson for a shorter term bad contract (say 1 or 2 years left) while not having to add more than an excess forward, a later pick, or a B prospect, thats a win. He can then use that cap space effectively which needs to be considered part of the trade return.

 

If Benning can move Eriksson with a bit higher sweetener without taking dead money back, thats even better.

 

As an example (not saying it would happen or that we would even need Gardiner but just to illustrate), would you trade Eriksson, Goldobin, and a 2nd for someone like Jake Gardiner? I sure would and that is what cap space could do. 

 

 

 

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

This is the point many do not see. A cap dump trade needs to be looked at a bit differently than a "hockey trade".

 

If Benning can move Eriksson for a shorter term bad contract (say 1 or 2 years left) while not having to add more than an excess forward, a later pick, or a B prospect, thats a win. He can then use that cap space effectively which needs to be considered part of the trade return.

 

If Benning can move Eriksson with a bit higher sweetener without taking dead money back, thats even better.

 

As an example (not saying it would happen or that we would even need Gardiner but just to illustrate), would you trade Eriksson, Goldobin, and a 2nd for someone like Jake Gardiner? I sure would and that is what cap space could do. 

 

 

 

I don't know about Gardiner specifically (wouldn't be my first choice)... but the general premise is dead on.

 

Swapping one albatross for another even worse one, is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

 

That it also helps out a direct rival is even worse. A floundering Puljujarvi is nowhere close to countering that negative value.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

I don't know about Gardiner specifically (wouldn't be my first choice)... but the general premise is dead on.

 

Swapping one albatross for another even worse one, is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

 

That it also helps out a direct rival is even worse. A floundering Puljujarvi is nowhere close to countering that negative value.

The Canucks - imho - have turned the corner on "weaponizing cap space" (i HATE that term lol) by taking on dead money in any form. They are becoming a contender now and need as much of their cap producing and improving their team.

 

The take on bad contracts ship has sailed in part due to a great bunch of moves this summer.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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

What normal arguments would you like? We have gone over the fact hes slow, he cant score, and his contract is even worse than Eriksson, but you guys think he can still play and will be revitalized in Vancouver. If he cant even play with McDavid arguable the best player in the world and one of the best playmaker not sure why you guys think all of a sudden he will be reborn in Vancouver. You guys are saying well even if he cant score he can hit and stuff.. so you are paying 6 mil for a guy just to be a defensive liability but can hit? Hes too slow to be a threat offensively and hes too slow to get back defensively. I'd rather bury Eriksson and take the 1mil cap saving if we cant trade him then take on someone that have the potential of being even worse with a worse contact for an extra year. Bringing in lucic you pretty much forced to put him in a top 6 role else he have no where to play hes not shutdown guy and you ain't paying him 6 mil to be a 4th line checker. At least LE can play up and down the line.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, aGENT said:

At this point, Utica might be the most likely option. And if he even bothered reporting (not a forgone conclusion) we may very well not play him. Train, practice, ride buses. Or we could lend him out a la Gagner.

 

We're under no pressure to do him favours to add major assets etc.

 

If we can manufacture some sort of reasonable, moderate cost trade... Great. If not, F him and his $27m paid out. He can mutually terminate if he doesn't like it.

 

 

Cull can bag skate him all he wants. Make him lose 15 pounds. Work his a$$ like a low rental mule.

Either he begs to be released and terminate his contract or he responds like a pro and lights up the AHL. 

Or does meh. Then we just wait it out.

Absolutely NO to Lucic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading LE for Lucic would be so stupid. If Benning had ever put that on the table it would already be a done deal. 

 

At this point neither player makes the team in training camp and is going to be burried in the minors or traded anyways. Why woukd you ever willingly take the guy with the worse contract and even less attractive as a trade piece. Makes no sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LarsEller said:

Trading LE for Lucic would be so stupid. If Benning had ever put that on the table it would already be a done deal. 

 

At this point neither player makes the team in training camp and is going to be burried in the minors or traded anyways. Why woukd you ever willingly take the guy with the worse contract and even less attractive as a trade piece. Makes no sense. 

not sure what you are saying?

 

lucic has a nmc so cannot be sent to the minors

and if lucic is acquired i doubt he'd modify his trade restrictions for any season except the expansion draft

it makes no sense that he would agree to a trade to vancouver if that in fact meant he would not be guaranteed a spot on the canuck team

he is guaranteed to stay in the nhl if he remains with the coilers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, coastal.view said:

not sure what you are saying?

 

lucic has a nmc so cannot be sent to the minors

and if lucic is acquired i doubt he'd modify his trade restrictions for any season except the expansion draft

it makes no sense that he would agree to a trade to vancouver if that in fact meant he would not be guaranteed a spot on the canuck team

he is guaranteed to stay in the nhl if he remains with the coilers

He would have to waive the nmc if we were taking him back. The expansion isses and everything else otherwise make him even less desirable. I juat can't comprehend how people are dumb enough to think it would be a good move to get him. Let that waste of space rot in edmonton, they deserve it. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the hf trade thread, posted 9 minutes ago, I saw the following:

 

Vancouver media suggested on the radio that Vancouver and Ottawa may be close on a deal, however Ottawa’s one of the teams on Eriksson’s no trade list and that the Canucks may try forcing the issue by burying him in Utica if he’s not willing to adjust his M-NTC.

 

I did not hear the media hit myself though. Anyone else hear it?

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, canucklehead80 said:

At this point, if LE is not somehow traded I fully expect that he will be sent down to Utica. It is hard to believe that Aqualini would really be ok with this, but after all this it might be more of a distraction to keep him on the big club. At this point, I'd be worried about the boos and jeers that would be going on at home every time he would step on the ice. The cap savings would be minimal, but it would open up another roster spot and would allow the team to move on and focus on hockey.

Aqualini signed off on the contract, and who knows how much he pushed or advocated it to begin with.  Alternatively he could blame coaching or the rest of the team, but we've had 2 head coaches and Green is doing very well so that's not going to be a very valid take.

 

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well, because maybe Lucic isn't as "useless" as the mob makes it seem. 

I think we need to ask the Edmonton fans.  I'd expect feelings to be about the same for him there as LE here, but for differing reasons.  In the end it could just be a saw-off, exchanging two duds.  But if that's the case, then why are we taking the losing end of the deal with an extra year and extra $7mil, who arguably contributes less on the ice as well?  A project player or middling pick as compensation just isn't enough to warrant that, especially considering where we are in the rebuild.  The Oilers will flounder for a few more years yet but our ascendancy starts now, and we are going to need that cap space starting 2 years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Sorry for being blunt Jimmy. You're a bright guy, I like you...but that plan is stupid.

 

Neither player is completely 'useless'. Either can play a depth role on a poor team at the NHL level. Problem for Loui being, we're no longer looking like a poor team after this summer. Swapping one for the other, on a worse contract, while helping out a direct division rival is not a good idea any way you slice it.

 

Why do we need something coming back? Moving Eriksson and getting out from even part of his contract is the return. Taking an even worse one back more than cancels out any of the benefit of the 'pieces' coming back. Unless you're going to start adding a lot more/better pieces, it's a non-starter. We're better off retaining/taking salary back or simply waiving him and crossing our fingers he has little interest riding buses in the AHL. If not immediately, at least after his bonus next July is paid (another $3m). I'm just fine with that outcome as well.

Hey if a team like Ott will take his full hit by all means that's ideal even if it means losing some b prospects in the deal.

 

I just view it as either having our current problem vs a new problem + assets 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

I don't know about Gardiner specifically (wouldn't be my first choice)... but the general premise is dead on.

 

Swapping one albatross for another even worse one, is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

 

That it also helps out a direct rival is even worse. A floundering Puljujarvi is nowhere close to countering that negative value.

 

1 hour ago, Silver Ghost said:

The Canucks - imho - have turned the corner on "weaponizing cap space" (i HATE that term lol) by taking on dead money in any form. They are becoming a contender now and need as much of their cap producing and improving their team.

 

The take on bad contracts ship has sailed in part due to a great bunch of moves this summer.

Exactly what I just posted in another thread.  We are now out of the "core rebuild" and floundering stage and looking forward as a playoff team.  Next gear engaged, the other rebuilders are in the rear view mirror.

 

We do not need placeholders to fill spots on the roster any longer, nor should we be inclined to take on "projects" to hopefully squeeze something out of them.  Look at our roster -- it is now composed of 100% NHL-quality players.  No more Megnas, Chaputs, Webers, Skilles, or Shores.  Those guys can go to teams like the Oilers and Leafs who've screwed up their caps to where they cannot even ice a full roster.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

 

Exactly what I just posted in another thread.  We are now out of the "core rebuild" and floundering stage and looking forward as a playoff team.  Next gear engaged, the other rebuilders are in the rear view mirror.

 

We do not need placeholders to fill spots on the roster any longer, nor should we be inclined to take on "projects" to hopefully squeeze something out of them.  Look at our roster -- it is now composed of 100% NHL-quality players.  No more Megnas, Chaputs, Webers, Skilles, or Shores.  Those guys can go to teams like the Oilers and Leafs who've screwed up their caps to where they cannot even ice a full roster.

Exactly. The moves this summer are a clear indication of this fundamental change in where the Canucks are on the competitive spectrum.

 

And dont believe the TSN type slant. An objective look at the Canucks cap situation now and in the next few seasons (as key core guys need raises) shows - far more than with teams like the Leafs, Oilers, etc. - that there is one congruent cap plan in place where all the pieces when fit together show it is deliberate cap management and clear identification by the Canucks of who the core group is.

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 2
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...