Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 25 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said: 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? It's been the most logical fit all along, but would just have to see what the return is. At this point, even taking back Ryan wouldn't be atrocious, as he's more easily bought out than Eriksson if we have to go that way. In fact, maybe that IS an option -- look at the comparison: Eriksson could still play for Ottawa but also costs less to buy out in real $ since more has been paid already. Not really saving much, and they could use him so they probably would. He also carries $2mil higher cap hit the first 3 years but Ottawa can more easily absorb it than we can. If we buy out Ryan, we gain $2.5mil cap space per year for the next three. It's not a total win, and means we have $5.5mil of dead cap on the books for 3 years, but hopefully the cap will take a springed jump in that time as well. If we don't buy Ryan out, we are taking on an even bigger cap hit, so maybe another player goes along in the deal -- Schaller? BR - $7.25mil LE - $6mil TS - $1.9mil That would effectively even the deal up, then we could revisit a buyout next year, which will only be for 4 years instead of 6. Including Baertschi would reduce even more, plus we could/should get something else back in return, then we can still dump Schaller in Utica and save another mil. What say you? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glug Datt Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 11 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: It's been the most logical fit all along, but would just have to see what the return is. At this point, even taking back Ryan wouldn't be atrocious, as he's more easily bought out than Eriksson if we have to go that way. In fact, maybe that IS an option -- look at the comparison: Eriksson could still play for Ottawa but also costs less to buy out in real $ since more has been paid already. Not really saving much, and they could use him so they probably would. He also carries $2mil higher cap hit the first 3 years but Ottawa can more easily absorb it than we can. If we buy out Ryan, we gain $2.5mil cap space per year for the next three. It's not a total win, and means we have $5.5mil of dead cap on the books for 3 years, but hopefully the cap will take a springed jump in that time as well. If we don't buy Ryan out, we are taking on an even bigger cap hit, so maybe another player goes along in the deal -- Schaller? BR - $7.25mil LE - $6mil TS - $1.9mil That would effectively even the deal up, then we could revisit a buyout next year, which will only be for 4 years instead of 6. Including Baertschi would reduce even more, plus we could/should get something else back in return, then we can still dump Schaller in Utica and save another mil. What say you? make it so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, SilentSam said: So Eriksson is faced with both: 1: Waiving his NTC so that Benning can give him the opportunity to play on a club elsewhere, and possibly into that Clubs minor system. (Something we would have to dramatically sweeten for it to happen). 2: Being sent down to Utica by the Canucks. personally, if I’m Benning,. I don’t give Eriksson the opportunity to decide . I won’t throw away a high pick or prospect on a player that is redundant to me so quickly into this issue. Time is on my side.. I take control because I have control and send him to Utica. If he fails to report: his contract is invalid, and he does not get paid. If he reports: he won’t last,.. 3 years ? He will find a way to get on LTI.. it’s “Father Time” for Eriksson. In the meantime, a club might approach me for his contract because they need to meet the Cap, and the puck is now on my stick. Just want to add to this,. Always the possibility that IF someone wants him for the purpose of Cap issues, that they are waiting are will take him when he is waived to Utica.. Columbus with 16m in Capspace comes to mind. regardless, Personally, i could care less if we get anything in return. The Cap relief is paramount on a player unable to produce. Any body have any idea what he might get in the SEL. ? Edited July 13, 2019 by SilentSam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 2 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said: 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? Well, for one he does not have an M-NTC but a full NTC. It's not modified until next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: Well, for one he does not have an M-NTC but a full NTC. It's not modified until next year. Is he protected when Waived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) On the Ottawa board one poster mentioned the following: Boedker 4m Condon 2.4m for Ericksson 6m Both Boedker and Condon only have this last year in the contract. After Loui gets paid his bonus in the next few days Ottawa fans think Melnyk would like this trade. I would do it. Then waive both Boedker and Condon at camp if you can't trade them separately. Instead of saving 1m cap by waiving Ericksson you save 2m cap (1 for each). You may even be able to trade teach of them separately by giving them away at 50% cap retention. At end of year cap issue with Loui littlethings is done. Edit: if this is a possibility it is WAY better than taking on Lucic or Ryan imo. Edited July 13, 2019 by Kanukfanatic 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, SilentSam said: Is he protected when Waived? NTC is part of the contract, it doesn't change unless he waives it. Just now, Kanukfanatic said: On the Ottawa board one poster mentioned the following: Boedker 4m Condon 2.4m for Ericksson 6m Just a random proposal? Benning would jump all over that as they both have only one year left, but doubt Dorion would even consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 3 hours 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. A cap dump happens when a GM has no choice but to make a move to create cap space for a variety of reasons. While moving LE would be very beneficial, it isn't an absolute "need". They can sign Boes, make a cpl of small moves and create some cap space. They should definitely do everything they can to move LE.......... everything short of adding assets to make it palatable for other teams to take him. They're not at that level of desperation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: NTC is part of the contract, it doesn't change unless he waives it. Just a random proposal? Benning would jump all over that as they both have only one year left, but doubt Dorion would even consider it. Yea random. A couple posters thought Ericksson may be headed there because after Loui gets his bonus he only is owed 9m for the next 3 years including only 1m salary this coming year. Essentially a 3m/year player with that 6m cap hit. They think that is totally a Melnyk type of player lmao. But a few posters said they would do it - even said maybe loui gets his game back a bit (hahaha). Edit: many of them want to see boedker gone so maybe it works for both teams. They do need a warm body to play and loui would help their pk probably. Edited July 13, 2019 by Kanukfanatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Ghost Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 1 minute ago, stawns said: A cap dump happens when a GM has no choice but to make a move to create cap space for a variety of reasons. While moving LE would be very beneficial, it isn't an absolute "need". They can sign Boes, make a cpl of small moves and create some cap space. They should definitely do everything they can to move LE.......... everything short of adding assets to make it palatable for other teams to take him. They're not at that level of desperation Moving Eriksson for any reason amounts to a cap dump at this point. And i didnt say it was desperation, which is why it makes sense to do it before it is. Its proper asset and cap management. Its reached a need to move Eriksson in order to use that cap on a better option that improves the team more going forward. Its going to take a sweetener to get rid of Eriksson. And thats ok by me at this point. The Canucks have a lot of assets now and giving one up for that cap flexibility is not a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 17 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said: Moving Eriksson for any reason amounts to a cap dump at this point. And i didnt say it was desperation, which is why it makes sense to do it before it is. Its proper asset and cap management. Its reached a need to move Eriksson in order to use that cap on a better option that improves the team more going forward. Its going to take a sweetener to get rid of Eriksson. And thats ok by me at this point. The Canucks have a lot of assets now and giving one up for that cap flexibility is not a bad thing. Agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 2 hours ago, Hutton Wink said: It's been the most logical fit all along, but would just have to see what the return is. At this point, even taking back Ryan wouldn't be atrocious, as he's more easily bought out than Eriksson if we have to go that way. In fact, maybe that IS an option -- look at the comparison: Eriksson could still play for Ottawa but also costs less to buy out in real $ since more has been paid already. Not really saving much, and they could use him so they probably would. He also carries $2mil higher cap hit the first 3 years but Ottawa can more easily absorb it than we can. If we buy out Ryan, we gain $2.5mil cap space per year for the next three. It's not a total win, and means we have $5.5mil of dead cap on the books for 3 years, but hopefully the cap will take a springed jump in that time as well. If we don't buy Ryan out, we are taking on an even bigger cap hit, so maybe another player goes along in the deal -- Schaller? BR - $7.25mil LE - $6mil TS - $1.9mil That would effectively even the deal up, then we could revisit a buyout next year, which will only be for 4 years instead of 6. Including Baertschi would reduce even more, plus we could/should get something else back in return, then we can still dump Schaller in Utica and save another mil. What say you? Interesting proposal, although I believe the buy-out window is now closed for this season. Still, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to carry Ryan's contract for a year and buy him out next summer. Although, if we're going to be eating cap in a buy-out, would it be more beneficial to us to just retain on a LE trade? Given there's only $9M owing on his contract, what if we retained $2M in a trade. I'm thinking we can probably work something out with a deal like that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Ghost Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Just now, stawns said: Agree to disagree Thats cool. The transition from rebuilding club to contender includes limiting the dead weight cap space being wasted and using it to full advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said: Thats cool. The transition from rebuilding club to contender includes limiting the dead weight cap space being wasted and using it to full advantage. is LE's contract preventing them from doing anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: 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 Doesn't even have to be his full hit. I'd happily retain $1-$2m and still clear $4-$5m off and/or take some salary back without giving up any major assets 30 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Given there's only $9M owing on his contract, what if we retained $2M in a trade. I'm thinking we can probably work something out with a deal like that. Fingers crossed. 3 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said: 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? If he blocks ANYTHING that would land him another NHL gig, he's a bigger idiot than I thought and he can enjoy riding buses in the AHL. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Nuxfanabroad Posted July 13, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2019 Personal views: - No, I don't think we're desperate here either - That said, you play hard-ball with Loui. If he declines deals, & shows his mug at camp, you waive his whiningA$$ - Throwing 2 hits all yr, then moaning in Europe?.. No, make an example of this schmoe. Publicly, appreciate that JB was diplomatic. The Brian Burke style here would be tedious, unnecessary & damaging(in future) - If he doesn't retire/waive NTC, rinse & repeat next summer That guy on PITB(Wagner?) was writing how this sets a bad FA-precedent. Screw that. You sign a 30+ mill deal, you'd best show up with either silky hands or a serious hard hat-mentality. Loui's a lump For 2 yrs we're GOOD on contracts. Might have to use a coupla' young guys, more than is perfect. But don't let the tail wag the dog. 1 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Ghost Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 44 minutes ago, stawns said: is LE's contract preventing them from doing anything? Yes. Its preventing them from having the flexibility and roster spot to improve the team over the next few years. Waiting until it is totally preventing them is when a gm gets even more bent over in a trade. Better to deal with it before it gets to that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post aGENT Posted July 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 14, 2019 12 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said: That guy on PITB(Wagner?) was writing how this sets a bad FA-precedent. Screw that. You sign a 30+ mill deal, you'd best show up with either silky hands or a serious hard hat-mentality. Loui's a lump I find this whole 'careful how you treat Loui' narrative hilarious. The guy's had three years, 2 coaches and numerous chances with good players to show he deserves more. He's been paid handsomely for not doing a whole hell of a lot. Anyway, didn't seem to stop us from doing quite well in the FA market this summer. 1 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 10 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think Lucic's season can be attributed a lot to Hitchcock and we'd see something more like his 2nd year with Edmonton. I don't know that I agree there's no fit in Green's system - I really doubt Jim would have had a deal in place without talking to Green about fit. Yes Lucic's deal is worse but we're not going to get picks or prospects for free. And we're in trouble in Year 3 with either player. Its really year 4 we're talking about. There's as much reason to expect Loui to keep declining and still be untraceable in the last year of his deal as he would be tradable in 3 years- we're talking about a year which we currently only have 4 guys signed for. There's a lot that can happen between now and then. The offseason moves ensures that there is no spot at all for Loui in the top 6. I don't see it as being that major of a move for either team and I prefer what Lucic brings vs what Loui does at this point. But if it doesn't happen and Loui ends up in Utica thats fine by me too. I agree that Loui has no spot in our top six the rest I don’t agree with. Lucic i is a worse player and a worse contract. It would take a hell of a sweetener to take that the on IMO. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Ghost Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 hour ago, aGENT said: I find this whole 'careful how you treat Loui' narrative hilarious. The guy's had three years, 2 coaches and numerous chances with good players to show he deserves more. He's been paid handsomely for not doing a whole hell of a lot. Anyway, didn't seem to stop us from doing quite well in the FA market this summer. Look how the Maple Leafs and Rangers have treated players for decades. Players still sign there because they like the city, the team, etc. The Canucks just signed 2 top end UFA and to good deals. Seems like how the Canucks have treated Loui meant SFA to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts