BigTramFan Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 Been thinking about how VAN could trade away the Eriksson contract. I have seen previous trade ideas including Zack Smith but didn't think there was enough incentive for OTT to hit the button. Came up with the following: To OTT: Eriksson (50% retained) To VAN: Zack Smith + Mike Condon Why for OTT? Simple. Saving $5m in salary costs. This deal allows them to spend a total of $4.5m over the next three years ($0.5m + $2m + $2m), instead of paying $9.5m over two years ($6.25 + $3.25). Loui’s 50% cap hit of $3m per year will not affect OTT since they are well below the cap limit. They are giving up Zack Smith, however he would likely play on their 4th line and Loui can provide similar points and is effective in a shutdown role. Loui also has the ability to fill in if any top 6 forwards are injured. In addition, for less total money OTT get a roster player in Loui for 3 seasons, whereas Smith is only contracted for 2 more seasons. OTT waived Condon last season. They are paying him $3m salary this year to play in the minors. They would love to get rid of him. Why for VAN? Giving Eriksson a new start somewhere else. Reducing Eriksson’s cap hit to only $3m in 2021-22 (when we may need the space for Pettersson + Hughes) With this deal our cap hit becomes: 2019-20: $7.575m (this is just $1.575 more than LE’s full $6m hit and affordable) 2020-21: $6.25m 2021-22: $3.0m (creates $3m cap space at a critical time) Condon can be assigned to Utica. Smith can play a role on our 4th line and provides center depth for 3C or 4C if required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post coastal.view Posted July 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) i'd like to see you pitch that to aquaman hey i have a deal for you sir we're gonna spend 9.5 plus half of loui's salary 4.5 so we don't have to pay little things the other 4.5 million 14 million of your money to avoid paying 4.5 it'll really only cost you an extra 5 million to do this sir sweet deal don't you think aqua ? Edited July 8, 2019 by coastal.view 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 I rather not take any money back 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTramFan Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 15 minutes ago, coastal.view said: i'd like to see you pitch that to aquaman hey i have a deal for you sir we're gonna spend 9.5 plus half of loui's salary 4.5 so we don't have to pay little things the other 4.5 million 14 million of your money to avoid paying 4.5 it'll really only cost you an extra 5 million to do this sir sweet deal don't you think aqua ? Well I certainly wouldn’t send you in to pitch it! Yes it costs us more money to get out of the contract. That’s the whole reason why OTT would say yes. The point is we don’t give up assets to move on from Loui. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 ok ok, let me try. Erickson and Goldi to Ottawa for their 7th round or something 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Monteeun said: ok ok, let me try. Erickson and Goldi to Ottawa for their 7th round or something I'd do it but doubt it gets the deal done. I want to be optimistic but lets just look at the marleau deal for a min. Marleau at 6.25x1yr cost a 1st round pick to move. He put up 37 pts last year and hasn't missed a game since 2009. It also appeared that he was a great role model for matthews and marner. Loui eriksson at 6x3yrs. Amazed all of 29 pts last year. Has missed significant time in 3 of the last 6 seasons. Just finished crying to the media a few weeks ago. If it took a 1st round pick to rid marleau it might take 3 1st round picks to ship loui out lol. I think we're just stuck to be honest. Edited July 8, 2019 by 73 Percent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 We aren’t saving any cap. Just trading Eriksson. On top of having more salary. Sure, ownership would love this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 Send LE to Utica Let his ego want to make him retire. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, vannuck59 said: Send LE to Utica Let his ego want to make him retire. That was the idea with Matt Moulson and the Sabres. He happily played his 2 years in the AHL while pulling 5 million in salary per year. Lots of money to play a game trumps ego. Edited July 8, 2019 by SabreFan1 took off the .5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 One or two has to be moved. Eriksson, Tanev, Sutter. Sadly, Eriksson's lousy stats would drive any sane GM's away. Eriksson's point totals improved last season. But 29 points and $6 Million isn't going to cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, vannuck59 said: Send LE to Utica Let his ego want to make him retire. Then there's one less spot for our prospects to develop. It also doesn't save much money does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 True enough , but everyone is different , give him the dog and pony send him down them bring him up bag skate him . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Then there's one less spot for our prospects to develop. It also doesn't save much money does it? To be fair, he could be loaned to another team's AHL club. The Sabres loaned Moulson to the LA King's AHL club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Then there's one less spot for our prospects to develop. It also doesn't save much money does it? and one more spot on the roster up here for a prospect so whats your solution ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, vannuck59 said: and one more spot on the roster up here for a prospect so whats your solution ? Sabrefan1's solution to loan him to another AHL club does sound better. It gets Eriksson off our team, maybe it's about sending a message to a guy who just doesn't seem that movtivated. I wish I had a better solution. Maybe he will develop an allergy to hockey equipment? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 34 minutes ago, vannuck59 said: True enough , but everyone is different , give him the dog and pony send him down them bring him up bag skate him . Not sure if you're joking, but I figured I'd mention that the NHLPA negotiated punishment out of the NHL. Bag skating is no longer allowed. It's apparently too rough on the delicate sensibilities of the modern day hockey player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 51 minutes ago, 73 Percent said: I'd do it but doubt it gets the deal done. I want to be optimistic but lets just look at the marleau deal for a min. Marleau at 6.25x1yr cost a 1st round pick to move. He put up 37 pts last year and hasn't missed a game since 2009. It also appeared that he was a great role model for matthews and marner. Loui eriksson at 6x3yrs. Amazed all of 29 pts last year. Has missed significant time in 3 of the last 6 seasons. Just finished crying to the media a few weeks ago. If it took a 1st round pick to rid marleau it might take 3 1st round picks to ship loui out lol. I think we're just stuck to be honest. And then Carolina bought out Marleau! So basically they bought a 1st round pick for the cost of the buy out. This was a special case because they were dealing with a desperate GM. No deal, no Marner. Dubas had a gun to his head. Benning does not. When you do the math and trim the roster to 23, we see about $13M in cap space so they'll be fine Why it may benefit Ottawa is that actual cash paid out is less than the healthy cap hit. It works for them if it gets them to the cap floor. The floor is at $58.5M this year and the Sens are at $59M with 3 players to add so there's no pressure to add a player like Eriksson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 43 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said: One or two has to be moved. Eriksson, Tanev, Sutter. Sadly, Eriksson's lousy stats would drive any sane GM's away. Eriksson's point totals improved last season. But 29 points and $6 Million isn't going to cut it. The Canucks are fine cap wise. Cap Friendly is showing 31 active players. Roussel is going on IR and 7 others will be coming off (only 2 unsigned coming off) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 5 hours ago, BigTramFan said: With this deal our cap hit becomes: 2019-20: $7.575m (this is just $1.575 more than LE’s full $6m hit and affordable) 2020-21: $6.25m 2021-22: $3.0m (creates $3m cap space at a critical time) thats actually more expensive than just buying him out Cap Hit Calculations SEASON INITIAL BASE SALARY INITIAL CAP HIT SIGNING BONUS BUYOUT COST POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS SAVINGS CAP HIT ( VAN) 2019-20 $1,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $555,556 $4,555,556 $444,444 $5,555,556 2020-21 $1,000,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $555,556 $3,555,556 $444,444 $5,555,556 2021-22 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $1,000,000 $555,556 $1,555,556 $2,444,444 $3,555,556 2022-23 $0 $0 $0 $555,556 $555,556 -$555,556 $555,556 2023-24 $0 $0 $0 $555,556 $555,556 -$555,556 $555,556 2024-25 $0 $0 $0 $555,556 $555,556 -$555,556 $555,556 TOTAL $5,000,000 $18,000,000 $8,000,000 $3,333,333 $11,333,333 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Then there's one less spot for our prospects to develop. It also doesn't save much money does it? Not to mention having an unhappy uninspired player isn’t exactly the type of mentor you’d want around our prospects there. Send him to our ECHL affiliate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now