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

[Proposal] Eriksson to ANA


Recommended Posts

An option to finally rid ourselves?

 

Eriksson at 50% to ANA for Nicolas Deslauriers @ $1m for two more years.

 

Only costs them *$250k/year in actual cash to take on Eriksson during their rebuild and we bury his entire $1m in Utica (or as a physical 12/13F here), saving us $3m (or $2 if here) in cap space. Throw them a depth prospect for their rebuild and troubles.

 

*$5m of actual salary (post bonus) divided by 2 years times 50% retention = $1.25m actual salary/year.

 

Of course this assumes they move out some cap given they're rebuilding. Getz with one year remaining is likely IMO (if he waives), among others.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

An option to finally rid ourselves?

 

Eriksson at 50% to ANA for Nicolas Deslauriers @ $1m for two more years.

 

Only costs them *$250k/year in actual cash to take on Eriksson during their rebuild and we bury his entire $1m in Utica (or as a physical 12/13F here), saving us $3m (or $2 if here) in cap space. Throw them a depth prospect for their rebuild and troubles.

 

*$5m of actual salary (post bonus) divided by 2 years times 50% retention = $1.25m actual salary/year.

 

Of course this assumes they move out some cap given they're rebuilding. Getz with one year remaining is likely IMO (if he waives), among others.

They literally JUST re-signed Deslauriers on Feb 15. . I’m pretty sure they like what he brings and want to keep him over Eriksson 

Edited by qwijibo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

An option to finally rid ourselves?

 

Eriksson at 50% to ANA for Nicolas Deslauriers @ $1m for two more years.

 

Only costs them *$250k/year in actual cash to take on Eriksson during their rebuild and we bury his entire $1m in Utica (or as a physical 12/13F here), saving us $3m (or $2 if here) in cap space. Throw them a depth prospect for their rebuild and troubles.

 

*$5m of actual salary (post bonus) divided by 2 years times 50% retention = $1.25m actual salary/year.

 

Of course this assumes they move out some cap given they're rebuilding. Getz with one year remaining is likely IMO (if he waives), among others.

Although in theory this is a good idea, I'm not sure Anaheim wants 2 bloated ineffective contracts without us giving up something real good. They just got Backes who has another year. Maybe we work the trade around Backes, take 1 year of Backes for 2 of Eriksson retain 25% and give a middling prospect?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deslauriers was a UFA but they just extended him for 2 year less than 3 weeks ago.  Seems a bit quick to get rid of him.  He's the one that drops the gloves for them.  I am guessing they want some protection for their young players.  Eriksson can't fill that role.  

 

Friedman on one his recent podcast says he was told that none of their top guys are going anywhere.  

 

Fwiw their long time beat writer Eric Stephens was suggesting a 2nd round pick or a prospect like Jett Woo to take on either Benn (who is now D7) or Baertschi as cap dump.

 

Edited by mll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given Anaheim already took back Backes at the deadline, I don't know if they would be the best target. It's possible, but it would probably be more likely to make this kind of move with Ottawa or Detroit. I doubt they would move Deslauriers anyway, but I was surprised they moved Kase as well.

 

I understand that we aren't giving up a lot here, but if we are looking to dump Eriksson we might as well pay to do it without retention. 3 million in dead cap for 2 more years is a lot, especially added to the Luongo cap recapture. If we are going to bite the bullet, don't do it halfway. 

 

With the reports of the cap moving between 84M - 88M, I think we should be in a decent position cap wise if we can move at least one of Sutter/Baertschi. Put Eriksson in Utica for next year and then maybe look at moving him with only one year left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

They literally JUST re-signed Deslauriers. I’m pretty sure they like what he brings and want to keep him over Eriksson 

 

13 minutes ago, mll said:

Deslauriers was a UFA but they just extended him for 2 year less than 3 weeks ago.  Seems a bit quick to get rid of him.  He's the one that drops the gloves for them.  I am guessing they want some protection for their young players.  Eriksson can't fill that role.  

 

Friedman on one his recent podcast says he was told that none of their top guys are going anywhere.  

 

Fwiw their long time beat writer Eric Stephens was suggesting a 2nd round pick or Jett Woo to take on either Benn (who is now D7) or Baertschi as cap dumps.  

I'm aware, but let's not pretend that near 30 face punchers are some hot, immovable commodity. They can find another guy to 'protect their young players'.

 

@mll beat writers are idiots. A couple weeks ago, we were moving OJ or similar for Simmonds.

 

Edit:

And sorry, yes @qwijibo, we could look at something with Backes coming back and less/no retention as well.

Edited by aGENT
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mll said:

Deslauriers was a UFA but they just extended him for 2 year less than 3 weeks ago.  Seems a bit quick to get rid of him.  He's the one that drops the gloves for them.  I am guessing they want some protection for their young players.  Eriksson can't fill that role.  

 

Friedman on one his recent podcast says he was told that none of their top guys are going anywhere.  

 

Fwiw their long time beat writer Eric Stephens was suggesting a 2nd round pick or a prospect like Jett Woo to take on either Benn (who is now D7) or Baertschi as cap dump.

 

 

That seems absurdly expensive given the Backes deal that just took place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aGENT said:

 

I'm aware, but let's not pretend that near 30 face punchers are some hot, immovable commodity. They can find another guy to 'protect their young players'.

 

@mll beat writers are idiots. A couple weeks ago, we were moving OJ or similar for Simmonds.

Sure. For the right deal they’d likely move him.  I guarantee that taking on Eriksson is not the thing that moves the needle for them 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

Given Anaheim already took back Backes at the deadline, I don't know if they would be the best target. It's possible, but it would probably be more likely to make this kind of move with Ottawa or Detroit. I doubt they would move Deslauriers anyway, but I was surprised they moved Kase as well.

 

I understand that we aren't giving up a lot here, but if we are looking to dump Eriksson we might as well pay to do it without retention. 3 million in dead cap for 2 more years is a lot, especially added to the Luongo cap recapture. If we are going to bite the bullet, don't do it halfway. 

 

With the reports of the cap moving between 84M - 88M, I think we should be in a decent position cap wise if we can move at least one of Sutter/Baertschi. Put Eriksson in Utica for next year and then maybe look at moving him with only one year left. 

Yeah, just looking at it from the perspective of them being able to add rebuild assets.

 

I doubt they care if they have Backes and Eriksson (assuming they also move some of Getz, Manson etc for cap space and further rebuild assets).

 

And OTT/DET work as well but I don't think either has any 2 year, expiring fringe NHL/AHL contracts for +/- $1m.

 

And I'm happy to ditch the full $6m but it becomes a lot harder/more expensive. I'm still happy to add $3m though and on top of Baer (retained or bought out), moving Roussel and the rising cap, that would clear $10m+.

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aGENT said:

 

I'm aware, but let's not pretend that near 30 face punchers are some hot, immovable commodity. They can find another guy to 'protect their young players'.

 

@mll beat writers are idiots. A couple weeks ago, we were moving OJ or similar for Simmonds.

Why would they want to burden themselves with Eriksson who costs more and be forced to find another face puncher.  Aren't they just better off keeping Deslauriers.  They aren't tearing their team down.  Murray told media he expects a quick turnaround because they have so many prospects developing already.  Probably why Friedman says they made it known to him that guys like Silfverberg, Rakell, Lindholm, Manson aren't going anywhere.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mll said:

Why would they want to burden themselves with Eriksson who costs more and be forced to find another face puncher.  Aren't they just better off keeping Deslauriers.  They aren't tearing their team down.  Murray told media he expects a quick turnaround because they have so many prospects developing already.  Probably why Friedman says they made it known to him that guys like Silfverberg, Rakell, Lindholm, Manson aren't going anywhere.    

 

Why did they take on Backes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mll said:

To get a 1st round pick.  It's apparently a very deep draft with many saying it will be possible to find 1st round calibre players in the 2nd round.

So rebuild assets. Even though you claim they don't need or want anymore. Funny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mll said:

Deslauriers was a UFA but they just extended him for 2 year less than 3 weeks ago.  Seems a bit quick to get rid of him.  He's the one that drops the gloves for them.  I am guessing they want some protection for their young players.  Eriksson can't fill that role.  

LE should be good for at least *TAKING* punches.:ph34r:

 

(ok, before I get flamed, I'm kidding of course).

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aGENT said:

So rebuild assets. Even though you claim they don't need or want anymore. Funny that.

That's not what I wrote.  I said they are not tearing their team down.  It doesn't mean that they are going to decline getting a 1st round pick.  Every team needs to continuously draft if they want to be able to renew their roster.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mll said:

That's not what I wrote.  I said they are not tearing their team down.  It doesn't mean that they are going to decline getting a 1st round pick.  Every team needs to continuously draft if they want to be able to renew their roster.

 

 

They need to draft and/or acquire prospects. Hey, guess what I suggest we send them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

They need to draft and/or acquire prospects. Hey, guess what I suggest we send them...

Eriksson?  Does a depth prospect really hold any kind of value?  Teams have depth prospects of their own.  Who do you have in mind?

 

Edited by mll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...