[Waivers] David Backes, Luke Schenn

[SilentSam]

5 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

to save 6m in cap space 1 year sooner

and we could have made a hard play for E Kane . 

[SilentSam]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Forget about the 1st 3 years of under performance, they mean nothing to tonights game. 

 

IF Loui was able to continue playing at the same pace and effort as he is now with Bo and Pearson, whats the issue? seems like we're lucky to have finally found a fit. 

 

If he falls off again then sure, give him the Backes treatment but why do it now when he's final useful? I don't get it. 

Your wearing the rose coloured glasses ?

..and that ..   Loui such a “nice” guy gut check feeling?

Cmon Jimmy, it a buissness ..

this team is not a retirement for players where they get to hang there sweaters in the rafters cause they finished here.

Thats grandma love ..  not at this level please.

Boston has balls.

Vancouver. ??  
I think we need to question the inaction , and NOT roll with mediocrity and inactions.

[Provost]

23 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

That’s why we should have grabbed Schenn and put Eriksson on waivers Alf.

Once put in Backes position of reporting to the minors or not..  I’d say the probability of Eriksson not reporting and terminating his contract would jump to 80-90%.

and if he did,. Then  his remaining cap space would benefit us again as a buffer

Agreed.... it really makes no sense that they didn't at least try this route.  Nothing would have hurt by having Eriksson sent to the minors with the belief he would be stuck there for the next three years.... and there was a good chance (maybe not 80-90%) that he would have not reported or eventually decided to retire.

The league is so capped out, if we had that $6 million in space, we could use it pretty darn efficiently.  On top of that, we really don't have $6 million in space as we are currently going to push all of Petterson and Hughes ELC bonuses into next season and effectively dropping our cap for that year by over $3.5 million... which not only costs us the opportunity of improving our lineup, it costs us even keeping the existing players we want to keep.

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Loui is helping us now, but I’m still expecting he retires after his July 2020 bonus.  His current play has people forgetting about just how much he’s fallen off as a player, so it would be good timing for him to retire.  He could save his reputation 

 

I was in favour of waiving both Eriksson and Schaller to start the season - but that opinion was in the context of not knowing/anticipating how many forward injuries would follow - to Sutter, Beagle, Motte, Roussel, Ferland, Leivo - litereally a completely gutted bottom six.

 

Loui is frustrating - but let's give him a bit of credit, the amount he is due - in the present - I don't really care about past years.

 

In the last 11 games he has 6 pts - all even strength - while playing a fairly strictly matchup role.

He's playing 11:44 / game this year, slightly higher lately as a placeholder on Horvat's line.

He's getting 37.7% ozone starts - in other words his production has not been bad of late, taken in context - and his ice time reflects the fact that he's playing on Horvat's wing principally in matchup situations, whereas when that line gets some offensive opportunities, Green has tended to give the carrot to other players (ie Virtanen has 3 pts in spot duty on that line).

 

So he's marginally 'helping' the team in the present, not really 'hurting' it.   The team is performing well overall - climbing back into playoff contention - good enough overall to survive with Eriksson in the lineup, in that role.   Obviously the intention would have been to have a healthy Ferland, or a healthy Leivo stepping up and bringing more speed, physicality and likely more production, but it is what it is - he's capably placeholding, and in the end having guys like Eriksson and Schaller around may have cost an undue amount of cap (if we're continuing to hindsight Eriksson's contract and beat that dead horse).    Maybe the 'respect' he's been shown this year might be reciprocated in the end - if he were to walk away next summer after his bonus....?  He gets a 3 million bonus in the summer, and then a 1 million base salary...he'd be walking away from only one year +1 million remaining on that deal.

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by oldnews

[JM_]

36 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

to save 6m in cap space 1 year sooner

What? sending him to Utica only saves 1.025 off the cap.

 

30 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

So very true.

 

32 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

MONEY  3.5 x  6m

 

but no one is going to walk away from 60% of their contract. Thats just not a reasonable expectation.

 

32 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

 

He has stymied the progression of prospects being rotated and developed ..  Green at least had the balls to sit Eriksson so that Guadette could grow this year.. 

it’s now , and to some degree last season effected Macewans TIO. . 
and personally I’d rather have seen more of Bartschi or Boucher , but for 3.5 years privilege has presided.
 

I dunno, Sam that seems like a stretch. Big Mac's skating sucked last year. He's been OK this year but he's not ready for a full time job. I could see him replacing Schaller next year tho.

 

Boucher is an AHL star, but he can't skate either.

 

-

 

But none of that matters to today, or moving forward. Forget the name Eriksson for a moment. If Jim made a trade 12 games ago that brought in a guy that helped Bo and Pearson produce over a ppg, and the guy himself was at a 0.5ppg clip you'd be overjoyed. 

 

Honestly if this keeps up its as good as a trade and we've finally got good value out of it. 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[JM_]

30 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

and we could have made a hard play for E Kane . 

nope, Kane never had an interest in us. Lets at least stick to things we know for sure. 

[86Viking]

Jimmy McG.....

 

LE signed with a 6m cap hit till the end of the 2021-2022 season

DB signed with a 6m cap hit till the end of 2020-2021 season

 

= Canucks would save 6m in cap space during the 2021-2022 season if we were able to move LE for DB

[JM_]

12 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

I was in favour of waiving both Eriksson and Schaller to start the season - but that opinion was in the context of not knowing/anticipating how many forward injuries would follow - to Sutter, Beagle, Motte, Roussel, Ferland, Leivo - litereally a completely gutted bottom six.

 

Loui is frustrating - but let's give him a bit of credit, the amount he is due - in the present - I don't really care about past years.

 

In the last 11 games he has 6 pts - all even strength - while playing a fairly strictly matchup role.

He's playing 11:44 / game this year, slightly higher lately as a placeholder on Horvat's line.

He's getting 37.7% ozone starts - in other words his production has not been bad of late, taken in context - and his ice time reflects the fact that he's playing on Horvat's wing principally in matchup situations, whereas when that line gets some offensive opportunities, Green has tended to give the carrot to other players (ie Virtanen has 3 pts in spot duty on that line).

 

So he's marginally 'helping' the team in the present, not really 'hurting' it.   The team is performing well overall - climbing back into playoff contention - good enough overall to survive with Eriksson in the lineup, in that role.   Obviously the intention would have been to have a healthy Ferland, or a healthy Leivo stepping up and bringing more speed, physicality and likely more production, but it is what it is - he's capably placeholding, and in the end having guys like Eriksson and Schaller around may have cost an undue amount of cap (if we're continuing to hindsight Eriksson's contract and beat that dead horse).    Maybe the 'respect' he's been shown this year might be reciprocated in the end - if he were to walk away next summer after his bonus....?  He gets a 3 million bonus in the summer, and then a 1 million base salary...he'd be walking away from only one year +1 million remaining on that deal.

 

I think its better than that actually - if you look at the impact of goals for e.g., with or without Loui on Bo's line its a pretty stark difference: https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/loui-eriksson-could-be-the-winger-bo-horvat-has-been-waiting-for-all-this-time-1.24049245

 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Jimmy McG.....

 

LE signed with a 6m cap hit till the end of the 2021-2022 season

DB signed with a 6m cap hit till the end of 2020-2021 season

 

= Canucks would save 6m in cap space during the 2021-2022 season if we were able to move LE for DB

AHL plug, totally useless to us vs. someone producing in a top 6 role. Boston would love us to take Backes off their hands. 

[86Viking]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

AHL plug, totally useless to us vs. someone producing in a top 6 role. Boston would love us to take Backes off their hands. 

Haha okay then, good day to you sir

[oldnews]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think its better than that actually - if you look at the impact of goals for e.g., with or without Loui on Bo's line its a pretty stark difference: https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/loui-eriksson-could-be-the-winger-bo-horvat-has-been-waiting-for-all-this-time-1.24049245

 

Thanks - that's interesting and a pretty strong indicator - I hadn't realized that LE is +3 at 37.7% ozone starts.

That's not simply his impact - obviously Horvat/Pearson have formed a real solid core to that line, but clearly LE is complementing them well - certainly well enough as a placeholder there. 

 

One thing I would note however, is that LE's spike (he's also +6 over that past 11 games) also coincides with players like Beagle and Motte returning....the 4th line is highly effective imo with them - without guys like that, Horvat's line shoulders that much more weight, with them, the Horvat/Pearson/LE line doesn't have to face a constant barrage of top lines to matchup with - Beagle's line takes that principal shutdown task.. 

 

I think the return of Sutter should only enhance things for the EP, Horvat (and Gaudette) lines.   As I noted elsewhere, with Sutter and Beagle healthy, Green has the options of 3 full shutdown lines - Sutter, Beagle and Horvat - at the same time as having three scoring line options - EP, Horvat, Gaudette = simultaneously - and that is precisely the kind of flexibility and depth of options that enables them to generate a lot of pressure on both sides of the game.   They can turn up the scoring edge when they need, and they can tighten down the shutdown side when they need (Ie defending leads or facing particularly deeply skilled teams).  I' m really looking forward to seeing what they can do with a relatively deep complement down the stretch.  Having a wealth of two-way, versatile wingers only enhances that strength (hopefully their centers can stay healthy and they can bring another Leivo or Ferland into the mix) - but LE in the mix has been quite useful with such a depleted bottom six thus far, and the need to shift Horvat's line back into matchup so often.

Edited January 18, 2020 by oldnews

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Forget about the 1st 3 years of under performance, they mean nothing to tonights game. 

 

IF Loui was able to continue playing at the same pace and effort as he is now with Bo and Pearson, whats the issue? seems like we're lucky to have finally found a fit. 

 

If he falls off again then sure, give him the Backes treatment but why do it now when he's final useful? I don't get it. 

He's contributing to the team, and ultimately his cap hit isn't really a factor until the last year when we're faced with re-signing Petey and Hughes.  But that's still two years off and we'll be past the expansion draft and who knows how many other moves that may have happened in the meantime.  There's certainly no panic, and him being on the active roster and playing decently is nothing but beneficial both to us and him.  Becoming arguable that he's playing worth his actual paid salary now, which could well finally make him attractive elsewhere.

[SilentSam]

47 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

I was in favour of waiving both Eriksson and Schaller to start the season - but that opinion was in the context of not knowing/anticipating how many forward injuries would follow - to Sutter, Beagle, Motte, Roussel, Ferland, Leivo - litereally a completely gutted bottom six.

 

Loui is frustrating - but let's give him a bit of credit, the amount he is due - in the present - I don't really care about past years.

 

In the last 11 games he has 6 pts - all even strength - while playing a fairly strictly matchup role.

He's playing 11:44 / game this year, slightly higher lately as a placeholder on Horvat's line.

He's getting 37.7% ozone starts - in other words his production has not been bad of late, taken in context - and his ice time reflects the fact that he's playing on Horvat's wing principally in matchup situations, whereas when that line gets some offensive opportunities, Green has tended to give the carrot to other players (ie Virtanen has 3 pts in spot duty on that line).

 

So he's marginally 'helping' the team in the present, not really 'hurting' it.   The team is performing well overall - climbing back into playoff contention - good enough overall to survive with Eriksson in the lineup, in that role.   Obviously the intention would have been to have a healthy Ferland, or a healthy Leivo stepping up and bringing more speed, physicality and likely more production, but it is what it is - he's capably placeholding, and in the end having guys like Eriksson and Schaller around may have cost an undue amount of cap (if we're continuing to hindsight Eriksson's contract and beat that dead horse).    Maybe the 'respect' he's been shown this year might be reciprocated in the end - if he were to walk away next summer after his bonus....?  He gets a 3 million bonus in the summer, and then a 1 million base salary...he'd be walking away from only one year +1 million remaining on that deal.

 

I’m not tearing into your quote old news, but I I’ve underlined the thinking and “hopes” that keep this team in mediocrity,

it’s the remaining players who care and put out every night that deserve a better player than the one they are playing with.

Waiving Eriksson pushes that point, and makes the same statement that Boston and others have that run a true winning franchise like the Buisness and industry THEY are in..  this is not a flower shop, with a window set on impressions.

 

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, SilentSam said:

I’m not tearing into your quote old news, but I I’ve underlined the thinking and “hopes” that keep this team in mediocrity,

it’s the remaining players who care and put out every night that deserve a better player than the one they are playing with.

Waiving Eriksson pushes that point, and makes the same statement that Boston and others have that run a true winning franchise like the Buisness and industry THEY are in..  this is not a flower shop, with a window set on impressions.

 

You're not talking realistic context though - nor do references to mediocrity have any real meaning.

The team isn't in a position to waive Eriksson, nor does his performance of late warrant being waived.

That may have been the case had they been healthy to start the seasons - or it could change in the future, even near future  - but I'm otherwise talking in the present.  Yeah it may be wishful thinking that he walks next summer - but realistically, there is nothing "mediocre" about the team in the present, and moreover, the alternatives - ie eating 5 million of cap to have him in the AHL, isn't the best option right now.   He'd be right where he is now - with absences of guys like Leivo, Ferland - even if he'd been previously waived - he's their best option to move up in the lineup right now - and certainly was the best option when Horvat's line was drawn into constant matchup in the absence of Sutter and Beagle. 

The Boston comparison is irrelevent - Backes is a center who was and is decidedly being outplayed by Bergeron, Krejci, Coyle, Kuraly, and even Lindholm - and you can probably add Wagner to that list.  Likewise with their winger group.  Boston doesn't need Backes.   Do the Canucks "really need" Eriksson?   He is a better and more serviceable option than anyyone else that is healthy in the present.  I'm not sure what your option is - are you suggesting Schaller or MacEwen should be playing on Horvat's line?  Or move someone else up?  The problem has been multiple center injuries, and middlle and bottom six winger injuries - that's the reality of the near past and present.

[SilentSam]

47 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

What? sending him to Utica only saves 1.025 off the cap.

 

 

but no one is going to walk away from 60% of their contract. Thats just not a reasonable expectation.

So you force him to decide. Waive, minors or retire.  If he’s not going to walk away from the money, he is NOT going to walk away any way..   it’s a moot point.  Same same... but a prospect gets in.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

I dunno, Sam that seems like a stretch. Big Mac's skating sucked last year. He's been OK this year but he's not ready for a full time job. I could see him replacing Schaller next year tho.

There was NO opportunity to develop that more because of the position and games taken by Eriksson.

LE waived should have happened at the beginning of 18-19. Schaller has resurrected himself , unlike Eriksson, I value Schaller over Eriksson ... and the MONEY difference is incredible.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Boucher is an AHL star, but he can't skate either.

He has a fantastic shot and is a fantastic PKr... that’s a plus above Eriksson s game.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

-

 

But none of that matters to today, or moving forward. Forget the name Eriksson for a moment. If Jim made a trade 12 games ago that brought in a guy that helped Bo and Pearson produce over a ppg, and the guy himself was at a 0.5ppg clip you'd be overjoyed. 

No, it’s tarnished with Millions (24m? to date) wasted for    n o t h I n g .  stopped player   p r o g g r e s s I o n .

If we had made a point to force the waive/ retirement issue last season. there’s no way he would play 2 full seasons down there.

He would be gone. We would have freedom.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Honestly if this keeps up its as good as a trade and we've finally got good value out of it. 

 

 

Your drinking to early before game time Jimmy,. Your not gonna see the 3rd period.

But before you pass out     have a good look at what could have been when you watch E Kane play .

[Coconuts]

There is reason to trade Loui for Backes though, their contracts are structured differently. Backes has one year remaining while Loui has two.

 

If we were to trade for Backes and buy him out he'd cost us 4m in cap space next season and 1m the year after. 

 

If we were to buy out Eriksson he'd cost us 5.6M next season, 3.6m the year after and just over 650k a year for the two following years. 

 

Or we could just use Backes next season and be free of his cap hit altogether the following season.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Coconuts

[SilentSam]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

nope, Kane never had an interest in us. Lets at least stick to things we know for sure. 

Could have got him for Tanev , Botterhil wanted Tanev in a deal a year before Loui came.. Benning said it was 2 much lol.

Eriksson s name was never on our lips then and should never ever have been.. it was a desperate play to acquire a UFA that year,. Where paitience and pragmatism would have prevailed.  

[JM_]

58 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Thanks - that's interesting and a pretty strong indicator - I hadn't realized that LE is +3 at 37.7% ozone starts.

That's not simply his impact - obviously Horvat/Pearson have formed a real solid core to that line, but clearly LE is complementing them well - certainly well enough as a placeholder there. 

 

One thing I would note however, is that LE's spike (he's also +6 over that past 11 games) also coincides with players like Beagle and Motte returning....the 4th line is highly effective imo with them - without guys like that, Horvat's line shoulders that much more weight, with them, the Horvat/Pearson/LE line doesn't have to face a constant barrage of top lines to matchup with - Beagle's line takes that principal shutdown task.. 

 

I think the return of Sutter should only enhance things for the EP, Horvat (and Gaudette) lines.   As I noted elsewhere, with Sutter and Beagle healthy, Green has the options of 3 full shutdown lines - Sutter, Beagle and Horvat - at the same time as having three scoring line options - EP, Horvat, Gaudette = simultaneously - and that is precisely the kind of flexibility and depth of options that enables them to generate a lot of pressure on both sides of the game.   They can turn up the scoring edge when they need, and they can tighten down the shutdown side when they need (Ie defending leads or facing particularly deeply skilled teams).  I' m really looking forward to seeing what they can do with a relatively deep complement down the stretch.  Having a wealth of two-way, versatile wingers only enhances that strength (hopefully their centers can stay healthy and they can bring another Leivo or Ferland into the mix) - but LE in the mix has been quite useful with such a depleted bottom six thus far, and the need to shift Horvat's line back into matchup so often.

all good points - its nice to actually have NHL quality players for key roles. I love Beagle and Motte together and Sutter is just going to enhance that line and Gaudette in key moments as well. 

 

Loui has always been a complimentary player, for now he compliments Bo and Pearson. Lets hope it continues. 

[SilentSam]

10 minutes ago, oldnews said:

You're not talking realistic context though - nor do references to mediocrity have any real meaning.

The team isn't in a position to waive Eriksson, nor does his performance of late warrant being waived.

That may have been the case had they been healthy to start the seasons - or it could change in the future, even near future  - but I'm otherwise talking in the present.  Yeah it may be wishful thinking that he walks next summer - but realistically, there is nothing "mediocre" about the team in the present, and moreover, the alternatives - ie eating 5 million of cap to have him in the AHL, isn't the best option right now.   He'd be right where he is now - with absences of guys like Leivo, Ferland - even if he'd been previously waived - he's their best option to move up in the lineup right now - and certainly was the best option when Horvat's line was drawn into constant matchup in the absence of Sutter and Beagle. 

The Boston comparison is irrelevent - Backes is a center who was and is decidedly being outplayed by Bergeron, Krejci, Coyle, Kuraly, and even Lindholm - and you can probably add Wagner to that list.  Likewise with their winger group.  Boston doesn't need Backes.   Do the Canucks "really need" Eriksson?   He is a better and more serviceable option than anyyone else that is healthy in the present.  I'm not sure what your option is - are you suggesting Schaller or MacEwen should be playing on Horvat's line?  Or move someone else up?  The problem has been multiple center injuries, and middlle and bottom six winger injuries - that's the reality of the near past and present.

So let’s both stop with the nonsense.

how would you feel if we waived Eriksson?

 

 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

all good points - its nice to actually have NHL quality players for key roles. I love Beagle and Motte together and Sutter is just going to enhance that line and Gaudette in key moments as well. 

 

Loui has always been a complimentary player, for now he compliments Bo and Pearson. Lets hope it continues. 

So how would you feel if they waived Eriksson ?

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

So let’s both stop with the nonsense.

how would you feel if we waived Eriksson?

Nonsense is attempting to have a conversation or make assessments in a void / where there is no context.

 

I don't have feelings about waiving Eriksson. 

I have calculations, and now is not the right time to waive Eriksson.

 

I'm fine with waiving Eriksson - when in fact he represents the 14th best forward option.  I would have waived him to start the season - if guys like Roussel, Ferland, etc were available/healthy.  However, there has yet to be a point this season where the Canuck forward group is healthy or deep enough to waive Eriksson.

He's not only not the 14th man - he has in fact represented their best option to play wing  with Horvat during the necessity to weight that line towards matchups.

Ask me this question when the idea of waiving him in not nonsense and my 'feelings' will change.

And further, the pipe dream of LE waking up or being moveable is worth keeping alive whenever he's producing outcomes like 6 pts in 11 games, with 37% ozone starts and a very good on ice goal differential = nothing about that indicates an AHL asset in the present.   Not the time to waive Eriksson, period.