[Discussion] ditching Eriksson plus others

[VegasCanuck]

12 hours ago, BigTramFan said:

Hmmm, yeah you're right. However, putting him on LTIR is not really of any use to us, because we will likely have to stay about $4-5m under the cap limit (including Ferland's cap hit) if we want to avoid carrying over performance bonuses from 2020/21 into the next season. Very disappointing!

 

Do you reckon #1 - 3 trades are do-able?

I don't really think any of them are doable...

 

Why do you think we will likely have to stay 4 - 5 million under cap limit? This team has always been willing to spend to the cap.

[VegasCanuck]

5 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Ottawa will hit the cap floor easily.   They know the position that many other teams are in and will have lots of suitors as far as cap dumps go.   They wouldn’t have bought out Bobby Ryan had they not been worried about reaching the cap floor.

 

I can’t see Eriksson getting us a 2nd rounder, especially with Virtanen as the sweetener.   Only way Eriksson gets moved is if the 2021 1st is in play (Marleau to Carolina as a comparable).

 

I suspect that the Canucks will try and move Virtanen for a 2020 1st (Kasperi Kapanen to Pits as a comparable), so that they can “afford” to use the 2021 1st as a sweetener.   Contingent on Tyler Toffoli re-signing with us however. 

Virtanen won't get a first rounder right now, too many uncertainties around him in work ethic.

 

The proposal was to include a 3rd rounder back and move up one round to a 2nd.

 

Overall, my approach to Eriksson at this point would be to tell him that we want him to report directly to Utica for their training camp and have him skip the big one with the Canucks, based on his performance the last 2 seasons.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by VegasCanuck

[Provost]

21 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

I don't really think any of them are doable...

 

Why do you think we will likely have to stay 4 - 5 million under cap limit? This team has always been willing to spend to the cap.

The post actually explained it.  $4 million or more under the cap to leave room for the ELC bonuses our two stars will earn next season.  Not leaving the space means those bonuses get pushed into the next season... when we have to pay full retail for Petterson and Hughes.  It will be another $4+ million in dead cap space the next year when we really can't afford to have it.

The team would be spending to the cap but paying the bonuses in the year they were earned rather than mortgaging cap space against future years.

[VegasCanuck]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

The post actually explained it.  $4 million or more under the cap to leave room for the ELC bonuses our two stars will earn next season.  Not leaving the space means those bonuses get pushed into the next season... when we have to pay full retail for Petterson and Hughes.  It will be another $4+ million in dead cap space the next year when we really can't afford to have it.

The team would be spending to the cap but paying the bonuses in the year they were earned rather than mortgaging cap space against future years.

Fun times

 

[Patel Bure]

2 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Virtanen won't get a first rounder right now, too many uncertainties around him in work ethic.

 

The proposal was to include a 3rd rounder back and move up one round to a 2nd.

 

Overall, my approach to Eriksson at this point would be to tell him that we want him to report directly to Utica for their training camp and have him skip the big one with the Canucks, based on his performance the last 2 seasons.

 

 

I see.

 

Yeah, Virtanen and a 3rd to get back a 2nd would be a $&!#ty deal for Vancouver.     

 

Teams are interested in Virtanen right now because they are looking to buy low.         

 

Unless we can get a Kasperi Kapanen type return, The Canucks are better off holding onto Virtanen and taking a calculated risk on him.    

 

In my opinion?  Virtanen is well worth the calculated risk.   He was on pace to scoring 20 goals with limited minutes last season.          

 

The other problem with moving Virtanen, is that not only would the return likely be underwhelming, but you wouldn't save much cap space either.   

 

That's why, as much as people might be upset to hear this, I would advocate moving Boeser over Virtanen.

 

Even without Boeser, a RW consisting of Toffoli-Virtanen-MacEwen-Eriksson (whom would be replaced by Podkolzin) would still be considered to be an organizational strength.

 

Not only would it remain an organizational strength, but a Boeser for *young top pairing RD* would allow us to move on from both Tanev and Edler when they become UFA's (Tanev this year obviously), which would then serve our ultimate aim of having enough money to sign Pettersson, Hughes, and Demko (or Markstrom).    Speaking of Markstrom/Demko, the impression that I'm getting from Benning is that he might be willing to use Demko as a massive sweetener to get rid of some bad contracts (Eriksson, Ferland, etc.).

[VegasCanuck]

17 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

I see.

 

Yeah, Virtanen and a 3rd to get back a 2nd would be a $&!#ty deal for Vancouver.     

 

Teams are interested in Virtanen right now because they are looking to buy low.         

 

Unless we can get a Kasperi Kapanen type return, The Canucks are better off holding onto Virtanen and taking a calculated risk on him.    

 

In my opinion?  Virtanen is well worth the calculated risk.   He was on pace to scoring 20 goals with limited minutes last season.          

 

The other problem with moving Virtanen, is that not only would the return likely be underwhelming, but you wouldn't save much cap space either.   

 

That's why, as much as people might be upset to hear this, I would advocate moving Boeser over Virtanen.

 

Even without Boeser, a RW consisting of Toffoli-Virtanen-MacEwen-Eriksson (whom would be replaced by Podkolzin) would still be considered to be an organizational strength.

 

Not only would it remain an organizational strength, but a Boeser for *young top pairing RD* would allow us to move on from both Tanev and Edler when they become UFA's (Tanev this year obviously), which would then serve our ultimate aim of having enough money to sign Pettersson, Hughes, and Demko (or Markstrom).    Speaking of Markstrom/Demko, the impression that I'm getting from Benning is that he might be willing to use Demko as a massive sweetener to get rid of some bad contracts (Eriksson, Ferland, etc.).

Any deal involving trading Eriksson out of Vancouver is going to be a S%$t*#Y deal, it would be the cost of moving him. Personally, I don't think we should do it.

 

I think we get better bang for the buck by sending Eriksson to Utica for the season to earn his million there, and next summer, we buy out the last season of his contract, so he winds up only getting a total of 3 of the 5 remaining.

 

Play hardball with him

[qwijibo]

9 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Any deal involving trading Eriksson out of Vancouver is going to be a S%$t*#Y deal, it would be the cost of moving him. Personally, I don't think we should do it.

 

I think we get better bang for the buck by sending Eriksson to Utica for the season to earn his million there, and next summer, we buy out the last season of his contract, so he winds up only getting a total of 3 of the 5 remaining.

 

Play hardball with him

If you send him to Utica then none of his $4m this season is subject to escrow.  So he’d earn $800k more than if he’s in Vancouver.  Then he gets $2.6m on buyout.  So your plan ends up costing him a total of about $400k. Not that big a hit and he’s free to sign elsewhere a year early. 

[VegasCanuck]

24 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

If you send him to Utica then none of his $4m this season is subject to escrow.  So he’d earn $800k more than if he’s in Vancouver.  Then he gets $2.6m on buyout.  So your plan ends up costing him a total of about $400k. Not that big a hit and he’s free to sign elsewhere a year early. 

Yeah, but he'd be out of Vancouver,one way or another.

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said:

Any deal involving trading Eriksson out of Vancouver is going to be a S%$t*#Y deal, it would be the cost of moving him. Personally, I don't think we should do it.

 

I think we get better bang for the buck by sending Eriksson to Utica for the season to earn his million there, and next summer, we buy out the last season of his contract, so he winds up only getting a total of 3 of the 5 remaining.

 

Play hardball with him

Given the impracticality of moving Eriksson (barring a ridiculous and inappropriate sweetener on our part), I would actually keep Eriksson on board for one more year while focusing on moving Sutter instead.  Sutter, at 4.3ish million, only has one more year left on his deal and so there'd be a much better chance of moving Sutter.  

 

There's only three sweeteners that could move Eriksson in my opinion and they're all terrible options:

 

A) 2021 1st

B-) Podkolzin

C) Demko

 

Up until those three games where Demko started, "C" wouldn't have been an option, but Demko has increased his value ten-fold since that time.    

 

I probably wouldn't use Demko to move Eriksson anymore, as I believe Demko to be the next Carey Price (no joke), but I think that's what it would take to move him.

 

I'd do the following two deals to clear cap for next season:

 

1) Sutter for Dubnyk:   Similar cap hit and term, fills the needs of both teams, plus allows us to walk from Markstrom.

2) Boeser for Carlo, or Boeser++ for Ekblad depending on what that plus is.   Allows us to walk from Tanev, and also Edler in the year after.

3) Sign Toffoli, Virtanen, Motte, and Gaudette.  

4) Unqualify and walk away from Stecher.

5) Walk from Leivo and Fantenberg

6) LTIR Ferland

7) Baertschi trade at 50% retention or BUYOUT

 

Miller-Pettersson-Toffoli

Pearson-Horvat-Eriksson

Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen

Motte-Beagle-MacEwen

 

Lind

 

Edler-Myers

Hughes-[Ekblad or Carlo]

Juolevi-Benn

 

Rafferty

 

Demko

Dubnyk

 

Move Eriksson in the next off-season.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by DarkIndianRises