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

[proposal] Demko + Juolevi as sweeteners to move Eriksson (zero retention)


Recommended Posts

[proposal] Demko + Juolevi as sweeteners to move Eriksson (zero retention)

1) Do you do it?

2) Does another team bite on it?

 

My line of thinking is that with Dipietro in our system, and with the expansion draft looming, Demko might be expendable.   Louis Domingue as a back up for year should suffice........right?
 

The presence of Rathbone might also make Juolevi expendable as well.    

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

It seems like you missed the other half of the proposal.

 

Demko, Juolevi & Eriksson for who?

For me, it wouldn’t really matter, just as long as those two sweeteners got us rid of the Eriksson contract in its entirety.    I have no idea what we’d receive in return.   5th, 6th, and 7th rounder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposal] Demko + Juolevi as sweeteners to move Eriksson (zero retention)

1) Do you do it?

2) Does another team bite on it?

 

My line of thinking is that with Dipietro in our system, and with the expansion draft looming, Demko might be expendable.   Louis Domingue as a back up for year should suffice........right?
 

The presence of Rathbone might also make Juolevi expendable as well.    

Your posts are absolutely ridiculous. Why the hell would you give up Demko, and Juolevi to get rid of Eriksson. That is pure stupidity. There is no reason to trade Eriksson first off, second you don't give up 2 great prospects to do so. 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

Your posts are absolutely ridiculous. Why the hell would you give up Demko, and Juolevi to get rid of Eriksson. That is pure stupidity. There is no reason to trade Eriksson first off, second you don't give up 2 great prospects to do so. 

There is no reason to trade Eriksson?    #CapCrunch

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarkIndianRises said:

There is no reason to trade Eriksson?    #CapCrunch

The cap problems aren't this year. They are next year buddy. Even still any GM that gives up Demko and Juolevi to move Eriksson should be immediately fired it's awful. Absolutely terrible.

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

The cap problems aren't this year. They are next year buddy. Even still any GM that gives up Demko and Juolevi to move Eriksson should be immediately fired it's awful. Absolutely terrible.

Do you think the Canucks will have enough money right now as is, without having to clear cap space, to re-sign the following?

 

-Toffoli

-Virtanen

-Gaudette

-Motte

-Markstrom

-Tanev
-Stecher

 

???

 

If so, may I please hear your ideas as to how you would go about things?    I was under the impression that signing all of these players was impractical, and that some things would have to give, but I could be wrong.

 

Edited by DarkIndianRises
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Do you think the Canucks will have enough money right now as is, without having to clear cap space, to re-sign the following?

 

-Toffoli

-Virtanen

-Gaudette

-Motte

-Markstrom

-Tanev
-Stecher

 

If so, may I please hear your ideas as to how you would go about things?    I was under the impression that signing all of these players was impractical, and that some things would have to give, but I could be wrong.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if only 5 of 7 of those guys gets re-signed (no to Toffoli and Stecher).  As such, we're going to need budget guys, and Juolevi would probably be one of those guys that we'd need to fill in, in case we move on from Jordie.  He's also finally showing that he's becoming ready and healthy to play in the big leagues, and now you want to trade him?  That sounds like terrible asset management, not to mention that with the other goalies available in expansion, the Kraken might not even take Demko.  All this is starting to sound a bit like a panic move, when (as has been discussed in other proposals ad nauseaum), Loui may find a taker in a team like Ottawa which would value the low salary but high cap hit.    

Edited by Phil_314
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Do you think the Canucks will have enough money right now as is, without having to clear cap space, to re-sign the following?

 

-Toffoli

-Virtanen

-Gaudette

-Motte

-Markstrom

-Tanev
-Stecher

 

???

 

If so, may I please hear your ideas as to how you would go about things?    I was under the impression that signing all of these players was impractical, and that some things would have to give, but I could be wrong.

 

If you wanted to re-sign all those players, which I would not but let's say you did, why would you give up Juolevi and Demko while getting nothing in return? You're acting as if this team is a Stanley Cup favourite. So you're going to give up the future to keep it together? No. You can trade Demko to get a prospect or draft picks in return. I don't see any reason to trade Juolevi unless a Dman is coming back in the trade. You can dump salary by trading guys like Sutter, Beagle or Roussel. Sutter is 4.2m off the books and he can net you a draft pick or Motte like prospect. You are basically replacing Sutter with Toffoli and getting something in return for it.. 

 

What you are saying is just dumb. It makes absolutely no sense at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toffoli - lost to UFA

Ferland - retires

Tanev - lost to UFA

 

12.5 million saved

 

Next year

 

Sutter  - lost to UFA

Pearson lost to UFA

Edler lost to UFA

Benn lost to UFA

 

16   mil. saved. 

 

Year 3

 

Beagle

Ruossel

Errickson

 

12 million

 

40 million clearing off over the next 3 years...

Edited by kingofsurrey
  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to make a decision on Demko considering the expansion draft, so that hurts our leverage with him. But is he enough to get rid of Erikssonz alone? If so do it! But I doubt it.

 

Now do you add Juolevi to that? I'm not sure, the fact he's played now & looked pretty good... I think he could be a top 4D. I'd look at packaging Jake with Eriksson. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposal] Demko + Juolevi as sweeteners to move Eriksson (zero retention)

1) Do you do it?

2) Does another team bite on it?

 

My line of thinking is that with Dipietro in our system, and with the expansion draft looming, Demko might be expendable.   Louis Domingue as a back up for year should suffice........right?
 

The presence of Rathbone might also make Juolevi expendable as well.    

In answering my own question, I don’t think I’d do the above.

 

I *might* be willing to do Demko + Rathbone + Eriksson, but I doubt that another team bites on that.    
 

Im very interested to see what becomes of Juolevi and so I want him to stick around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think Benning would still be interested in PK Subban? What about something like...

Demko, Eriksson and a 2021 2nd round pick for PK Subban 50% retained. PK had a rough year in NJ putting up 18 points in 68 games. I do think he has a good chance to recover some of his game. Would make PK Subban 4.5 million on the cap for the next two seasons and at that cap would be pretty good value.

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...