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

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


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, KanNuck said:

Eriksson is never going to waive to go to Edmonton and Murph is a fairly reliable source. 

 

No need to help a division rival. Let them protect him in the ED. 

493AD592-7680-49BA-BA89-4591A647F5B2.jpeg

Aight Louis. Your choice: Edmonton or Utica?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Ericksson is basically making the same as the list of players below once his bonus is paid in a few days:

schaller.PNG.f6175d619e00a07c02fd52a50b64bafe.PNG

 

He is basically now a 3rd line forward that can chip in about 30 points while making a team's PK better.

 

Those players making the same actual money as him had the following points last year:

Ericksson 29

Sheary 34

Athanasiou 54

Komarov 26

Beagle 13

Filppula 31

Roussel 31

 

So ignoring his cap hit (assuming a team well below the cap would take him) Ericksson is basically getting about the same points as most guys getting paid the same amount of actual money. Plus Ericksson can penalty kill.

 

No reason JB can't trade this contract / player without having to give up a 1st like some are panicking about imo.  Maybe a small add or take back a bad 1 year contract.

 

Edit: believe it or not some teams need some actual NHL players to play games for them and they may not be that picky just as the Canucks were not that picky over the past 4 years. Luckily for us the Canucks are no longer in that position where they just need warm bodies and mediocre players are not needed as fillers anymore.

 

 

This is awfully optimistic. Yes teams need players, there are plenty bottom 6 players available in FA that will bring more to a team & cost you alot less than Eriksson. 

 

Eriksson has never hit 30 points in Vancouver. The only thing comparable about Athanasiou & Eriksson is that they both play ice hockey. Athanasiou is in the last year of his deal, he's 9 years younger, and he's a much much much better player. Conor Sheary aswell is alot younger, is in the last year of his deal & can bring more than just killing penalties.

 

You can't 'put the contract aside', that's the whole issue. If he's a free agent would a team take him on a 1 year deal at 1.5 mill? Sure I'd believe that. Not 3 years @ 6 mill. He's going to be 34 in 4 days, he's slowing down skating wise, he can't produce offense even with prime opportunities, & the only thing he brings is killing penalties.

 

I wouldn't touch that contract with a 10 foot pole if I was a GM, unless there's another contract with term going out, or a good asset coming back. Patty Marleau, who's a better player than Eriksson & only had 1 year remaining, cost a 1st to move. I don't see why a team wouldn't be bringing that to the forefront in an Eriksson trade negotiation. The Canucks wanted Gus Nyquist & Nyquist was interested in coming here, if it was easy to move Loui I'm sure they would've already done it.

 

If JB can pull off trading Eriksson & losing nothing, or only taking back a 1 year contract, then I'm on board for his statue to go right besides Roger Neilson's. I just don't see it being that easy unless there's some kind of retention/sweetner/return contract involved.

 

 

 

Edit: Maybe they'll be able to move him after that bonus is paid. But like I said, if it ends up as easy as your saying, then lets draw up blueprints for Benning's statue.

 

Edited by Smashian Kassian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Me_ said:

Aight Louis. Your choice: Edmonton or Utica?

 

Honestly bro I don’t see it. What’s the sweetener if and that’s a big if he agrees?

 

Puljujarvi? Unproven and hasn’t lived up to his draft position. Guys demanded a trade and has gone on recorded saying he’ll return to Europe to play if he isn’t moved. Not exactly the kind of character that inspires. Making demands and a self entitled guy we already got one of those. We got a whole thread on our own problemed child no desire for some IMO bust, and if Puljujarvi is so great why are teams not lining up? 

 

Loui likely doesn’t take that trade regardless and is either or 13th forward or off to Utica , maybe Ottawa takes him? 

 

Edmonton isn’t happening bro. We bulked up huge he missed the gate on that one. I’ll eat crow if I’m wrong but callin it now it ain’t happening.

Edited by KanNuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Utica is closer to an NHL quality team and a much nicer place to live.

True

Actually, Eriksson would probably do well in the New York area.

Edited by Me_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KanNuck said:

Honestly bro I don’t see it. What’s the sweetener if and that’s a big if he agrees?

 

Puljujarvi? Unproven and hasn’t lived up to his draft position. Guys demanded a trade and has gone on recorded saying he’ll return to Europe to play if he isn’t moved. Not exactly the kind of character that inspires. Making demands and a self entitled guy we already got one of those. We got a whole thread on our own problemed child no desire for some IMO bust, and if Puljujarvi is so great why are teams not lining up? 

 

Loui likely doesn’t take that trade regardless and is either or 13th forward or off to Utica , maybe Ottawa takes him? 

 

Edmonton isn’t happening bro. We bulked up huge he missed the gate on that one. I’ll eat crow if I’m wrong but callin it now it ain’t happening.

Highway likely now happen I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

I can't imagine why a GM in their right mind would take on Eriksson without a good asset(s) coming back or swapping another bad contract.

 

Unless they can figure out some way with Loui to get out of his contract, or they retain salary (maybe??), I think he'll be back on the team at the start of next season. 

Just a suggestion of a possibility. Say we retain 2 million (or 33% of the cap/salary). We trade him to Ottawa for Zack Smith (who they wanted to dump last year by waiving him and hoping someone would take him for free). Ottawa does this because LE's salary is essentially 2 million a season after our retention (not sure if the math based on bonuses and such which would complicate this) or 6 million over the duration of the contract. With Zack Smith, they would be paying in 3.25x2 = 6.5. So they save in the short term and slightly over the long term with a player that has a cap of 4 million (remember after retention) which would be greater than Smith. They don't really have a need to reach the floor anymore, but the salary savings will be key here.

 

The Canucks will have a cap hit of 5.25 after this deal, so they save 750k for the first couple of years which is a bit of wiggle room that throughout a season could add up, but the kicker is Smith's contract ends in 2 years and therefore we will save 3.25 million more in year 3 which just so happens to be the EP and Hughes extension year. As a bonus, Smith plays a hard nosed game that goes in line with how we've been changing our team and could be an insurance center with a good number of draws taken and a decent percentage. He had the same offensive production as Eriksson last year, so we are essentially getting a tougher version.

 

In this scenario, we likely will need to add something, but because we are retaining and there is some benefit to Ottawa as well, the extra add probably won't be much more than a late pick or a Palmu or something.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Just a suggestion of a possibility. Say we retain 2 million (or 33% of the cap/salary). We trade him to Ottawa for Zack Smith (who they wanted to dump last year by waiving him and hoping someone would take him for free). Ottawa does this because LE's salary is essentially 2 million a season after our retention (not sure if the math based on bonuses and such which would complicate this) or 6 million over the duration of the contract. With Zack Smith, they would be paying in 3.25x2 = 6.5. So they save in the short term and slightly over the long term with a player that has a cap of 4 million (remember after retention) which would be greater than Smith. They don't really have a need to reach the floor anymore, but the salary savings will be key here.

 

The Canucks will have a cap hit of 5.25 after this deal, so they save 750k for the first couple of years which is a bit of wiggle room that throughout a season could add up, but the kicker is Smith's contract ends in 2 years and therefore we will save 3.25 million more in year 3 which just so happens to be the EP and Hughes extension year. As a bonus, Smith plays a hard nosed game that goes in line with how we've been changing our team and could be an insurance center with a good number of draws taken and a decent percentage. He had the same offensive production as Eriksson last year, so we are essentially getting a tougher version.

 

In this scenario, we likely will need to add something, but because we are retaining and there is some benefit to Ottawa as well, the extra add probably won't be much more than a late pick or a Palmu or something.

 

I like this idea.

 

Not sure where Zack Smith fits in with us, I guess on the 4th line. But more importantly its savings & a shorter contract for us even with the retention. That's the kind of creativity we'll need to make this happen. I assume with some retention as you say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a Lucic / Eriksson swap is all that likely anymore, so this is probably moot, but I kinda think I'd prefer Benson over Puljujarvi.

 

I do think Pulju should carve out atleast a bottom 6 role w/ his size + skating, but I do worry the Edmonton stink might've ruined him. Benson is trending the opposite way of Pulju. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Just a suggestion of a possibility. Say we retain 2 million (or 33% of the cap/salary). We trade him to Ottawa for Zack Smith (who they wanted to dump last year by waiving him and hoping someone would take him for free). Ottawa does this because LE's salary is essentially 2 million a season after our retention (not sure if the math based on bonuses and such which would complicate this) or 6 million over the duration of the contract. With Zack Smith, they would be paying in 3.25x2 = 6.5. So they save in the short term and slightly over the long term with a player that has a cap of 4 million (remember after retention) which would be greater than Smith. They don't really have a need to reach the floor anymore, but the salary savings will be key here.

 

The Canucks will have a cap hit of 5.25 after this deal, so they save 750k for the first couple of years which is a bit of wiggle room that throughout a season could add up, but the kicker is Smith's contract ends in 2 years and therefore we will save 3.25 million more in year 3 which just so happens to be the EP and Hughes extension year. As a bonus, Smith plays a hard nosed game that goes in line with how we've been changing our team and could be an insurance center with a good number of draws taken and a decent percentage. He had the same offensive production as Eriksson last year, so we are essentially getting a tougher version.

 

In this scenario, we likely will need to add something, but because we are retaining and there is some benefit to Ottawa as well, the extra add probably won't be much more than a late pick or a Palmu or something.

I wonder if we could buy him out at he end of next season even? I believe the buyout period is over for this year but with a cap hit of 3.25 and 2 retained on Loui we’d save as follows

 

2019-2020 $750k

2020-2021 $4M

2021-2022 $4M

 

potential is there I’d definitely do it if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I like this idea.

 

Not sure where Zack Smith fits in with us, I guess on the 4th line. But more importantly its savings & a shorter contract for us even with the retention. That's the kind of creativity we'll need to make this happen. I assume with some retention as you say. 

FERLAND - PETTERSSON - BOESER

MILLER - HORVAT - PEARSON

SMITH - SUTTER - VIRTANEN

LEIVO - BEAGLE - MOTTE

Roussel (ir)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KanNuck said:

I wonder if we could buy him out at he end of next season even? I believe the buyout period is over for this year but with a cap hit of 3.25 and 2 retained on Loui we’d save as follows

 

2019-2020 $750k

2020-2021 $4M

2021-2022 $4M

 

potential is there I’d definitely do it if possible.

Luongo says no.

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I like this idea.

 

Not sure where Zack Smith fits in with us, I guess on the 4th line. But more importantly its savings & a shorter contract for us even with the retention. That's the kind of creativity we'll need to make this happen. I assume with some retention as you say. 

Smith had been a target of mine for a while now, but prior it was more of the intention of Ottawa getting to the cap floor and taking on the full hit and before the Canucks added their new muscle, so I thought he would be a decent physical addition that can still play the game.

 

I'm not sure where he fits currently, but he could be a good 4th line enforcer in the games we need it and has the versatility of being a center, so he could be the 13th forward at worst. He could also be waived to save another million in cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Just a suggestion of a possibility. Say we retain 2 million (or 33% of the cap/salary). We trade him to Ottawa for Zack Smith (who they wanted to dump last year by waiving him and hoping someone would take him for free). Ottawa does this because LE's salary is essentially 2 million a season after our retention (not sure if the math based on bonuses and such which would complicate this) or 6 million over the duration of the contract. With Zack Smith, they would be paying in 3.25x2 = 6.5. So they save in the short term and slightly over the long term with a player that has a cap of 4 million (remember after retention) which would be greater than Smith. They don't really have a need to reach the floor anymore, but the salary savings will be key here.

 

The Canucks will have a cap hit of 5.25 after this deal, so they save 750k for the first couple of years which is a bit of wiggle room that throughout a season could add up, but the kicker is Smith's contract ends in 2 years and therefore we will save 3.25 million more in year 3 which just so happens to be the EP and Hughes extension year. As a bonus, Smith plays a hard nosed game that goes in line with how we've been changing our team and could be an insurance center with a good number of draws taken and a decent percentage. He had the same offensive production as Eriksson last year, so we are essentially getting a tougher version.

 

In this scenario, we likely will need to add something, but because we are retaining and there is some benefit to Ottawa as well, the extra add probably won't be much more than a late pick or a Palmu or something.

Zack Smith is as bad as Ericksson. If they did do this deal then the Canucks simply bury him in Utica like they would Loui.

 

He won't play on the team...that is certain. We already have too many players.

 

Edit: too many bottom players.

Edited by Kanukfanatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Zack Smith is as bad as Ericksson. If they did do this deal then the Canucks simply bury him in Utica like they would Loui.

 

He won't play on the team...that is certain. We already have too many players.

 

Edit: too many bottom players.

He's like Eriksson (who is deemed as a overpaid, but capable NHL player), but costs around his worth, is far more physical (therefore more suited for the bottom 6), and can play center as insurance (important if Sutter and Beagle suffer any injuries again this season).

 

Didn't you make a post about LE being equivalent to his peers who has similar salary? So you deem he has enough value for a team to potentially take on because his salary dictates that it's reasonable and Smith is like LE as you say, but adds extra elements.

 

We certainly waive Schaller. And Goldy's time may be up. Or we waive Biega and keep 14 forwards. When Roussel returns, it could get complicated, but maybe someone else is injured by then.

Edited by theo5789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

He's like Eriksson (who is deemed as a overpaid, but capable NHL player), but costs around his worth, is far more physical (therefore more suited for the bottom 6), and can play center as insurance (important if Sutter and Beagle suffer any injuries again this season).

 

Didn't you make a post about LE being equivalent to his peers who has similar salary? So you deem he has enough value for a team to potentially take on because his salary dictates that it's reasonable and Smith is like LE as you say, but adds extra elements.

 

We certainly waive Schaller. And Goldy's time may be up. Or we waive Biega and keep 14 forwards. When Roussel returns, it could get complicated, but maybe someone else is injured by then.

We don't need Smith. His only spot could be on the 4th but we have Motte Beagle and Leivo probably. 

 

I am not against us getting smith but if we do he gets waived as he should. Just as he was in Sept 2018 without getting claimed.

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...