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

[Kanukfanatic]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

Keep him out of Ubers.

Someone put a sign in their car that says "Uper".  At the end of training camp day 1 pick up Loui...

 

...AND DRIVE HIM TO SWEDEN!!!

 

[coastal.view]

48 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Not sure how that makes sense.  If Loui wants out, why does he veto, unless he wants a narrow choice of teams?  Most contenders won't have the cap to take him.  Would seem he's not wanting out that badly, but it can only be causing friction when the team is trying to accommodate both sides.  Now that his agent is going public trying to shine things over, hopefully all parties are working together to get it resolved.

maybe it is close to the time when aquaman should wade in

loui signed for 6 x 6 and has played 3 seasons

he has been now paid 27 million dollars . or 9 million per season he has been with the team

hard to see how he provided value

 

aquaman could ask loui perhaps just 1 question

do you want to play again in the nhl or not ?  if so, let jb make a trade that is reasonable for the team

if loui is not prepared to do that then he can wave his nhl career good bye

aqauman can tell jb to waste no more time trying to move him

aquaman can ensure he remains his property and he can move him down to another league somewhere

a little time in in utica and then maybe the echl

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by coastal.view

[Devron]

I don’t say this about the players on my favourite team. In fact I always cheer for whoever is on the team and hope for them to do well. I did this with Loui for the first 2 years. He’d get on roll I’d say or he’s a good defensive player, cap hit don’t really matter right now.

 

But if he could please leave now that would be great.

[Lionized27]

12 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

maybe it is close to the time when aquaman should wade in

loui signed for 6 x 6 and has played 3 seasons

he has been now paid 27 million dollars . or 9 million per season he has been with the team

hard to see how he provided value

 

aquaman could ask loui perhaps just 1 question

do you want to play again in the nhl or not ?  if so, let jb make a trade that is reasonable for the team

if loui is not prepared to do that then he can wave his nhl career good bye

aqauman can tell jb to waste no more time trying to move him

aquaman can ensure he remains his property and he can move him down to another league somewhere

a little time in in utica and then maybe the echl

 

 

For $5mil. I'd play in the ECHL for next season. (plus $4mil for the next two)

I'll guarantee you I'd be a whole lot more competitive than "little things" too.

Then I'd retire.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Lionized27
spelling

[King Heffy]

4 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

I don’t say this about the players on my favourite team. In fact I always cheer for whoever is on the team and hope for them to do well. I did this with Loui for the first 2 years. He’d get on roll I’d say or he’s a good defensive player, cap hit don’t really matter right now.

 

But if he could please leave now that would be great.

I've defended him too much to.  At this point, my only hope is he keeps his trap shut on the ride to the airport.

[Devron]

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I've defended him too much to.  At this point, my only hope is he keeps his trap shut on the ride to the airport.

Hate to say it but if at this rate if he steps on to the ice this year as a Canuck I almost bet he’s going to be booed 

[Provost]

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Costs Aquilini exactly the same whether he's in the NHL, AHL, or sent home to sulk away from the kids;  It won't make a difference to him.  Gagner already got buried last year under similar circumstances, to play for another team's farm club.

Ya, so not true at all. 

 

There have been several interviews DIRECTLY with Aquilini and Benning regarding burying Gagner.  It was made clear that it wasn't a fun conversation at all and he really didn't like spending millions of dollars on a player that wasn't contributing to the big club.

It is a big difference when you say you are giving up on a player and it will cost the owner millions for zero return, compared with "it is your job to get him to perform at a level closer to his cost and he is still on the club".  Even at his current level of play, Eriksson is contributing for the money, he won't be in the AHL and that is a long term to be eating that money.

This is an article that references it.  Benning "It was the hardest call I have ever had to make to him (Aquilini)" and Aquilini literally saying "I wasn't happy about it. I mean it is $3.5 million a season.  It is crazy..." sounds nothing like your assertion of "It won't make a difference to him".

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-gm-benning-talks-team-owner-aquilini-demoting-gagner/

So with Eriksson you are talking about WAY more money and Benning has already pulled the burying a vet in the minors card once, costing Aquilini money... doing it again would be a much harder conversation.
 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Provost

[SilentSam]

21 minutes ago, Provost said:

Ya, so not true at all. 

 

There have been several interviews DIRECTLY with Aquilini and Benning regarding burying Gagner.  It was made clear that it wasn't a fun conversation at all and he really didn't like spending millions of dollars on a player that wasn't contributing to the big club.

It is a big difference when you say you are giving up on a player and it will cost the owner millions for zero return, compared with "it is your job to get him to perform at a level closer to his cost and he is still on the club".  Even at his current level of play, Eriksson is contributing for the money, he won't be in the AHL and that is a long term to be eating that money.

This is an article that references it.  Benning "It was the hardest call I have ever had to make to him (Aquilini)" and Aquilini literally saying "I wasn't happy about it. I mean it is $3.5 million a season.  It is crazy..." sounds nothing like your assertion of "It won't make a difference to him".

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-gm-benning-talks-team-owner-aquilini-demoting-gagner/

So with Eriksson you are talking about WAY more money and Benning has already pulled the burying a vet in the minors card once, costing Aquilini money... doing it again would be a much harder conversation.
 

Once we start winning,  without Eriksson,  Aquilini will forget a lot of things.  

 

[18W-40C-6W]

30 minutes ago, Provost said:

Ya, so not true at all. 

 

There have been several interviews DIRECTLY with Aquilini and Benning regarding burying Gagner.  It was made clear that it wasn't a fun conversation at all and he really didn't like spending millions of dollars on a player that wasn't contributing to the big club.

It is a big difference when you say you are giving up on a player and it will cost the owner millions for zero return, compared with "it is your job to get him to perform at a level closer to his cost and he is still on the club".  Even at his current level of play, Eriksson is contributing for the money, he won't be in the AHL and that is a long term to be eating that money.

This is an article that references it.  Benning "It was the hardest call I have ever had to make to him (Aquilini)" and Aquilini literally saying "I wasn't happy about it. I mean it is $3.5 million a season.  It is crazy..." sounds nothing like your assertion of "It won't make a difference to him".

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-gm-benning-talks-team-owner-aquilini-demoting-gagner/

So with Eriksson you are talking about WAY more money and Benning has already pulled the burying a vet in the minors card once, costing Aquilini money... doing it again would be a much harder conversation.
 

Billionaires don’t become billionaires by wasting money 

[King Heffy]

54 minutes ago, Provost said:

Ya, so not true at all. 

 

There have been several interviews DIRECTLY with Aquilini and Benning regarding burying Gagner.  It was made clear that it wasn't a fun conversation at all and he really didn't like spending millions of dollars on a player that wasn't contributing to the big club.

It is a big difference when you say you are giving up on a player and it will cost the owner millions for zero return, compared with "it is your job to get him to perform at a level closer to his cost and he is still on the club".  Even at his current level of play, Eriksson is contributing for the money, he won't be in the AHL and that is a long term to be eating that money.

This is an article that references it.  Benning "It was the hardest call I have ever had to make to him (Aquilini)" and Aquilini literally saying "I wasn't happy about it. I mean it is $3.5 million a season.  It is crazy..." sounds nothing like your assertion of "It won't make a difference to him".

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-gm-benning-talks-team-owner-aquilini-demoting-gagner/

So with Eriksson you are talking about WAY more money and Benning has already pulled the burying a vet in the minors card once, costing Aquilini money... doing it again would be a much harder conversation.
 

It's a lot better in context when you add "But at the end of the conversation he understood. That was the hardest call I’ve had to make to him," and "but that’s what was necessary".  Is it a conversation Benning wants to have again?  Of course not.  However, my interpretation from that article is the 2 men ended up on the same page.  A tense conversation, but a productive one.  If Benning asks again, he'll have a good reason and I'd be surprised to see a different outcome.

 

Happy we have a GM with the balls to convince our owner to do the right thing for the good of the team.

[CanuckGAME]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Ya, so not true at all. 

 

There have been several interviews DIRECTLY with Aquilini and Benning regarding burying Gagner.  It was made clear that it wasn't a fun conversation at all and he really didn't like spending millions of dollars on a player that wasn't contributing to the big club.

It is a big difference when you say you are giving up on a player and it will cost the owner millions for zero return, compared with "it is your job to get him to perform at a level closer to his cost and he is still on the club".  Even at his current level of play, Eriksson is contributing for the money, he won't be in the AHL and that is a long term to be eating that money.

This is an article that references it.  Benning "It was the hardest call I have ever had to make to him (Aquilini)" and Aquilini literally saying "I wasn't happy about it. I mean it is $3.5 million a season.  It is crazy..." sounds nothing like your assertion of "It won't make a difference to him".

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-gm-benning-talks-team-owner-aquilini-demoting-gagner/

So with Eriksson you are talking about WAY more money and Benning has already pulled the burying a vet in the minors card once, costing Aquilini money... doing it again would be a much harder conversation.
 

 

The one thing no one can say about Francesco is that he hasnt spared a single penny to give this team what it needs to be successful.  He is not cheap when it comes to the Canucks.  Not even a little.  We should all be grateful for that.

 

Francesco is a huge Canucks fan himself,  remember that.  He grew up watching this team,  I truly believe he would be 100% on board with demoting Louie and absorbing the cost.  He is a business man and sometimes you have to take a loss,  it's the cost of doing business the right way.

 

I'm sure hes sickened watching louie float around carelessly for 6 million a season just as much as the rest of us.  Louie has been a true competitor on every team hes been on,  cant blame Benning for taking a shot on him in free agency.

[SilentSam]

1 hour ago, SilentSam said:

Once we start winning,  without Eriksson,  Aquilini will forget a lot of things.  

 

Read somewhere that gate revenues for Playoff Games is aprx. 2.2 million per game..   

If avg attendance comes up,  Aqua will be a happier man all around.

 

Found it: 

 

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/analysis-jets-home-game-revenues-playoff.2467381/












 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by SilentSam

[aGENT]

8 hours ago, Provost said:

So with Eriksson you are talking about WAY more money

Actually it's less money. Average of only $3m or year in actual cash and in fact, only $1m for the remainder of this season.

[Hairy Kneel]

For AQ he's seen his share of bad investments go sour.This is just one more.

If we truly want to make the playoffs we need everyone pulling their weight, we'll need that roster spot for someone with a high motor/high compete guy.

Thinking back to '82 and '94 we didn't have any floaters then and we can't afford one now.

[theo5789]

28 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Actually it's less money. Average of only $3m or year in actual cash and in fact, only $1m for the remainder of this season.

In this case, you cannot ignore the 4 million bonus. The bonus is meant for this season, so it's not just burying his 1 million dollar salary this season, but also burying the 4 million bonus. That included in the equation means more than Gagner annually and for the remaining duration of the contract.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Actually it's less money. Average of only $3m or year in actual cash and in fact, only $1m for the remainder of this season.

Ya, you don’t get to ignore the bonuses in this context because the owner still has to pay them.

 

That is only an argument for a new team if you are moving him on.

[Provost]

8 hours ago, King Heffy said:

It's a lot better in context when you add "But at the end of the conversation he understood. That was the hardest call I’ve had to make to him," and "but that’s what was necessary".  Is it a conversation Benning wants to have again?  Of course not.  However, my interpretation from that article is the 2 men ended up on the same page.  A tense conversation, but a productive one.  If Benning asks again, he'll have a good reason and I'd be surprised to see a different outcome.

 

Happy we have a GM with the balls to convince our owner to do the right thing for the good of the team.

You are changing your argument now.

 

You said the owner didn’t care less where Eriksson player because he was paying the salary anyways. The article and interviews made it clear that wasn’t even remotely true.

 

He eventually agreed to do it in the Gagner case.  It doesn’t mean the same will hold true for Eriksson.  Each one of those phone calls is it being made abundantly clear to the owner that the GM screwed up badly with the signing.  We don’t even know if Benning is going to go down this route yet as he is on pretty thin ice as it stands.

 

[Jayinblack]

9 hours ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

Billionaires don’t become billionaires by wasting money 

But they spend millions to make even more millions

[Boudrias]

21 hours ago, aGENT said:

All I want to recover is even part of his cap space and his roster spot.

 

If he isn't able to be moved for anything reasonable ($1=2m retention and/or a 'Goldobin' and/or a slightly less onerous cap hit/term coming back etc), he's AHL bound IMO.

IMHO even Goldobin is to much of a sweetener. If he has a decent start to the season I think there will be a market. Retention is almost a certainty. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

In this case, you cannot ignore the 4 million bonus. The bonus is meant for this season, so it's not just burying his 1 million dollar salary this season, but also burying the 4 million bonus. That included in the equation means more than Gagner annually and for the remaining duration of the contract.

 

52 minutes ago, Provost said:

Ya, you don’t get to ignore the bonuses in this context because the owner still has to pay them.

 

That is only an argument for a new team if you are moving him on.

It's already paid. It was always getting paid whether he plays for us, another NHL team or in the AHL. It was already sunk money. He's being paid $1m to play for the Canucks or anyone else this season.

 

And even if you were to include the bonus, it's basically $1m more than Gagner. Not capital 'WAY more money' as was asserted.