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

[Rumour] Pierre Lebrun: GM Benning & JP Barry chatted about a Loui Eriksson trade this week


Ilya Mikheyev

Recommended Posts

On 9/18/2020 at 1:53 PM, IBatch said:

To me this is nothing more then JB a doing his job and kicking some tires.   The bright side of LE and Luongo is money in the bank for after our core is set....next season is when the real magic is required and hope whatever is done this off-season is with that in mind. 

There is a real incentive to get rid of Loui this off season. Doing so (or even trading him with 33% retained) would allow us to pay for about $4m in performance bonuses this coming season. This will go a long way to helping us resign Pettersson and Hughes in 2021 (if we don't have $4m in performance overages to pay in 2021-22) and so it is a key move to secure our core.

 

If I was a team like Ottawa with tons of cap space I would definitely accept a trade for Eriksson along with a valuable asset such as a pick or prospect. I would insist on 33% retention by VAN. And I would probably buyout Loui in 2021 after one season so he isn't taking up a roster spot for my emerging talent.

 

The cap hit is irrelevant to a team like OTT, but if LE was bought out in 2021 here is the actual amount that would be paid to Loui by OTT :

2020-21 = $670k (his signing bonus has been paid, so only 67% of his $1m in salary left to pay)

2021-22 = $1.33m

2022-23 = $670k

Total = $2.67m

 

The impact for VAN retaining 33% is the following cap hit (VAN likely don't care about the salary cost):

2020-21 = $2m cap hit

2021-22 = $1.32m cap hit

2022-23 = $0.33m cap hit

 

These are not painful for either party, so what does OTT (or a similar non-cap team) deserve for taking on a cost of $2.67m over 3 years?

Edited by BigTramFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigTramFan said:

There is a real incentive to get rid of Loui this off season. Doing so (or even trading him with 33% retained) would allow us to pay for about $4m in performance bonuses this coming season. This will go a long way to helping us resign Pettersson and Hughes in 2021 (if we don't have $4m in performance overages to pay in 2021-22) and so it is a key move to secure our core.

 

If I was a team like Ottawa with tons of cap space I would definitely accept a trade for Eriksson along with a valuable asset such as a pick or prospect. I would insist on 33% retention by VAN. And I would probably buyout Loui in 2021 after one season so he isn't taking up a roster spot for my emerging talent.

 

The cap hit is irrelevant to a team like OTT, but if LE was bought out in 2021 here is the actual amount that would be paid to Loui by OTT :

2020-21 = $670k (his signing bonus has been paid, so only 67% of his $1m in salary left to pay)

2021-22 = $1.33m

2022-23 = $670k

Total = $2.67m

 

The impact for VAN retaining 33% is the following cap hit (VAN likely don't care about the salary cost):

2020-21 = $2m cap hit

2021-22 = $1.32m cap hit

2022-23 = $0.33m cap hit

 

These are not painful for either party, so what does OTT (or a similar non-cap team) deserve for taking on a cost of $2.67m over 3 years?

1/3 of the league has issues as or more serious then Vancouver does, and only a couple teams are in a good position to weoponize their cap.   I’m sure if they decide to use that the ask will be pretty nice.   Is it impossible to move LE?  No but what do you think that cost will be?  And that cost needs to be added to signing TT in my opinion or letting either Tanev or Markstrom walk too (opportunity costs).   We only have cap issues if we sign all three.   Marleau in a better market cost a first for one year.   LE?  Two years of 4 million in a flat cap world is still a heftier price. 

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, IBatch said:

1/3 of the league has issues as or more serious then Vancouver does, and only a couple teams are in a good position to weoponize their cap.   I’m sure if they decide to use that the ask will be pretty nice.   Is it impossible to move LE?  No but what do you think that cost will be?  And that cost needs to be added to signing TT in my opinion or letting either Tanev or Markstrom walk too (opportunity costs).   We only have cap issues if we sign all three.   Marleau in a better market cost a first for one year.   LE?  Two years of 4 million in a flat cap world is still a heftier price. 


a couple of things.

 

We have cap issues even if we sign more than one of our key pending UFAs.  Do the math and consider the ELC bonuses he mentioned.  Take $4 million off what Capfriendly says we have left and try to make a roster without shedding significant cap and/or going with a bunch of rookies.

 

Other teams may have as bad or worse cap issues, but the trade prices to get rid of those issues have nothing to do with cap hits to the receiving teams.  It only has to do with dollars.

 

So, trading a player that has a $6 million cap hit and $6 million per year owing, isn’t the same calculation as trading a player that has a $6 million cap hit and $2.5 million per year owing.

 

If there are, as reported, a bunch of teams trying to work with an internal cap... then that actually opens up more trade possibilities for Eriksson as his cap hit only comes into play with teams spending to the ceiling.  A $2.5 million, 2 year contract isn’t a huge dump.  It wouldn’t cost a huge amount to dump Benn... and he is only $500k Per year less than Eriksson. They are both legit NHLers, but just at the bottom of a roster.  

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mll said:

His restaurants lost a lot of money after he bought them.  Authorities refused to give them an alcohol licence.  Not sure if he has been able to climb out of that financial hit where it was reported by Swedish press that he had lost millions.

 

 

That was a story from 2017-18, it has since been reported that it has rebounded.  It was a temporary issue with his liquor licences, not a structural 

 

It was 8 million in Krona, not dollars, that his 5 restaurants lost that first year.  That is less than a $1 million USD, of which only a portion was Eriksson as he is just the lead investor.
 

There haven’t been any reports from this past year that I have seen, but restaurants in Sweden didn’t close down like here so there is no reason to believe he is suddenly losing money again.

 

He wouldn’t have lost any real money overall as that short term capital loss would have just been offset in reduced taxes on his NHL salary that year.

Edited by Provost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Provost said:


a couple of things.

 

We have cap issues even if we sign more than one of our key pending UFAs.  Do the math and consider the ELC bonuses he mentioned.  Take $4 million off what Capfriendly says we have left and try to make a roster without shedding significant cap and/or going with a bunch of rookies.

 

Other teams may have as bad or worse cap issues, but the trade prices to get rid of those issues have nothing to do with cap hits to the receiving teams.  It only has to do with dollars.

 

So, trading a player that has a $6 million cap hit and $6 million per year owing, isn’t the same calculation as trading a player that has a $6 million cap hit and $2.5 million per year owing.

 

If there are, as reported, a bunch of teams trying to work with an internal cap... then that actually opens up more trade possibilities for Eriksson as his cap hit only comes into play with teams spending to the ceiling.  A $2.5 million, 2 year contract isn’t a huge dump.  It wouldn’t cost a huge amount to dump Benn... and he is only $500k Per year less than Eriksson. They are both legit NHLers, but just at the bottom of a roster.  

 

 

 

The cap issues we have are insignificant if we sign two even with Ferland on the roster, Spooner, 1.7 bonus overages etc.   We have enough.  We’d be looking at a few minor tweaks instead of a handful of then.   OJ looks ready so Fanta doesn’t need a contract (although I’d prefer to trade Benn easy enough to do with one year left, and re-sign Fanta.    Let Leivo walk and then either let Stecher go or trade one of Pearson (who to me isn’t a cap dump and should get something back at least) or Roussel.   That’s it.  Instead of buying our Bear play him, promote Motte too.   

Not nearly as much moving parts as trying to add all three.   
 

Ive been vocal about not signing TT.   RW has depth with Podz coming in, at this point one of or the best RW prospect in the world (10th best overall - every position), JV is worth a one year bridge value per dollar for sure.   
 

That said we could sign TT if we go with Demko and a 1a as well.    Both ideas have merit. 

 

Im 100% against buy-outs.   Even Spooners cap hit is a pain - and why extend the pain double the duration.   That includes Bear or anyone.   I’m also 100% against giving away any tradable assets/prospects/first and second rounders just to save a little now.    The team will be much better of long term if we just take our medicine- even if that means we are a lottery team next year.   It was pretty clear we aren’t ready to go against the best yet.   Close maybe but not without a much different look on defense.

 

We played the majority of the playoffs without Ferland and TT.  Pearson disappears when it gets really tough on the boards.  Playing the kids next year would help us find out what we have ... Rafferty isn’t a kid and neither is OJ really.   Lind is going into his third year pro...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

The cap issues we have are insignificant if we sign two even with Ferland on the roster, Spooner, 1.7 bonus overages etc.   We have enough.  We’d be looking at a few minor tweaks instead of a handful of then.   OJ looks ready so Fanta doesn’t need a contract (although I’d prefer to trade Benn easy enough to do with one year left, and re-sign Fanta.    Let Leivo walk and then either let Stecher go or trade one of Pearson (who to me isn’t a cap dump and should get something back at least) or Roussel.   That’s it.  Instead of buying our Bear play him, promote Motte too.   

Not nearly as much moving parts as trying to add all three.   
 

Ive been vocal about not signing TT.   RW has depth with Podz coming in, at this point one of or the best RW prospect in the world (10th best overall - every position), JV is worth a one year bridge value per dollar for sure.   
 

That said we could sign TT if we go with Demko and a 1a as well.    Both ideas have merit. 

 

Im 100% against buy-outs.   Even Spooners cap hit is a pain - and why extend the pain double the duration.   That includes Bear or anyone.   I’m also 100% against giving away any tradable assets/prospects/first and second rounders just to save a little now.    The team will be much better of long term if we just take our medicine- even if that means we are a lottery team next year.   It was pretty clear we aren’t ready to go against the best yet.   Close maybe but not without a much different look on defense.

 

We played the majority of the playoffs without Ferland and TT.  Pearson disappears when it gets really tough on the boards.  Playing the kids next year would help us find out what we have ... Rafferty isn’t a kid and neither is OJ really.   Lind is going into his third year pro...


I am not sure whether you don’t understand the ELC bonus issue that a few of us have brought up or are just ignoring it.

 

We have $4.5 million in potential ELC bonuses, of which you can reliably assume we will hit $4 million of.  We have the capability to push those into the following season, but that can have a catastrophic impact on our ability to sign Petterson and Hughes that same year.  it means we would certainly only sign them to short term bridge deals and that could reverberate with negative cap implications for years as we have to quickly re-sign them again to higher dollars right when we will want to be adding pieces and contending.  Think of having to re-sign Boeser in a couple of years to at least $7.5 million as an object lesson in the impact.  If you are betting that Petterson and Hughes won’t be worth a lot more after 3 more years of NHL under their belts... I bet against you every time.

 

Taking into account the ELCs that will be owed, we have about $10 million in cap space next year to sign 5-6 players.

 

Even an optimistic view is that Tanev or Toffoli and Markstrom take up 100% of that, and you still have to sign 3-4 more players that you don’t have money for.  If you could move other (non Eriksson) money out you still couldn’t afford to sign guys for more than close to league minimum and lose depth compared with last year.  You certainly couldn’t consider improving the club.

 

You somehow made a proposal with half a dozen moves and suggested it is just tweaks with less moving parts than a single Eriksson move.  You also eliminated one of our top 6 forwards in the bargain.

 

Your idea of becoming a lottery team next year is also objectively bad.  Not only is it bad to try to lose, but it will also have long term cap Implications.  You want to take a year of competitiveness form a team that is feeling great about itself right now?  That kind of nonsense ends up costing us a premium when trying to re-sign Petterson and Hughes.  Why would they agree to a reasonable contract to a team going backward and trading away useful players rather than trying to sign any?  You have just added a million per year AAV for each of our superstars with that decision.

 

Not moving Eriksson has a lot of negative impacts in both the short and long term, almost certainly more far reaching that the cost of dumping his $2.5 million salary.

Edited by Provost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sad end for a good person. i hope he finds a situation to end his career. always played well without the puck. some goal scorers, when their not scoring, they don’t help the team.  louie always helped the team with his defensive play. i don’t know why he didn’t work out with the sedins? good luck louie.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smithers joe said:

sad end for a good person. i hope he finds a situation to end his career. always played well without the puck. some goal scorers, when their not scoring, they don’t help the team.  louie always helped the team with his defensive play. i don’t know why he didn’t work out with the sedins? good luck louie.

because Loui didn't play like Burr. The style fit was a mismatch outside of international play.

 

It doesn't have to end badly for Loui either, he could end up being a useful guy on a team like Detroit or Ottawa and finish off well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

The cap issues we have are insignificant if we sign two even with Ferland on the roster, Spooner, 1.7 bonus overages etc.   We have enough.  We’d be looking at a few minor tweaks instead of a handful of then.   OJ looks ready so Fanta doesn’t need a contract (although I’d prefer to trade Benn easy enough to do with one year left, and re-sign Fanta.    Let Leivo walk and then either let Stecher go or trade one of Pearson (who to me isn’t a cap dump and should get something back at least) or Roussel.   That’s it.  Instead of buying our Bear play him, promote Motte too.   

Not nearly as much moving parts as trying to add all three.   
 

Ive been vocal about not signing TT.   RW has depth with Podz coming in, at this point one of or the best RW prospect in the world (10th best overall - every position), JV is worth a one year bridge value per dollar for sure.   
 

That said we could sign TT if we go with Demko and a 1a as well.    Both ideas have merit. 

 

Im 100% against buy-outs.   Even Spooners cap hit is a pain - and why extend the pain double the duration.   That includes Bear or anyone.   I’m also 100% against giving away any tradable assets/prospects/first and second rounders just to save a little now.    The team will be much better of long term if we just take our medicine- even if that means we are a lottery team next year.   It was pretty clear we aren’t ready to go against the best yet.   Close maybe but not without a much different look on defense.

 

We played the majority of the playoffs without Ferland and TT.  Pearson disappears when it gets really tough on the boards.  Playing the kids next year would help us find out what we have ... Rafferty isn’t a kid and neither is OJ really.   Lind is going into his third year pro...

Don't think you need to worry about Marky returning if you really think about it.

 

Even if we're were to re-sign him, we're not protecting him for the ED. So is he gone then to Seattle? The year following as Demko takes over? 

 

At BEST (not taken by Seattle or traded soon after) he has 3 years transitioning from 50/30 game starter to 40/40 tandem to 30/50 backup.

 

Does he want to stay here THAT badly?...I doubt it. So after signing a $2-$2.5m backup for Demko, that's a few million in cap saved.

 

I also think management is done with Virtanen. Tools or not, he's not 'Canuck material'. Move him and sign Leivo for $1-$1.2m and wait for Podkolzin to show up a couple months in. Another $1-$1.5m of cap saved.

 

From there were need to move some guys who may not return much but should be moveable, even if it's with retention. Roussel is movable, Benn and/or Stecher possibly, Sutter and Baer will likely require retention but them too.

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

19 hours ago, shayster007 said:

Really..?

 

Lots of you understand what it's like to have 36 million dollars? Good to know, guess going into healthcare was the wrong call on my part.

Same.  

If I'd known that CDC armchairing leads to  multi-millions, I'd have put a lot more effort into my posts.

 

 

18 hours ago, Slegr said:

I have to say, it’s just nice having an Eriksson thread in the trades section, giving us hope that it’s an actual possibility.

Let's hope this one doesn't reach the epic proportions of the Luongo one.

 

Let's get this one done by the 20 page mark.

Edited by oldnews
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm generally quite conservative when it comes to the idea of spending futures to secure cap space - I think the compounding circumstances of the stalled cap, the Luongo recrap, and the team emerging as fairly competitive at this stage - while also having a fairly healthy reserve of futures - might incline me to making a rare expenditure here.  I think the team can 'afford' to spend another future or two - to clear out the like of LE - and hopefully in the process package relatively moveable veterans to a team that could clearly use/needs a handful of additions this offseason regardless - ie as has been pointed out in this thread - a team like Ottawa is looking at relatively wholesale changes before opening night.

 

I am also not terribly concerned that dealing another prospect or pick is going to tilt the team towards bare cupboards in the future.

It's true they've lost a few good people in the 'front office' - Manny and Brackett in particular were well loved around here.

But the Brackett loss in particular - imo isn't/won't be as critical to the team's continued drafting as I think some people perceive.

 

For example - and I welcome posters to correct me on this if my increasingly hazy memory serves me poorly - but I'm pretty sure that the Toffoli acquisition, on a certain level, can be attributed to Benning over-ruling Brackett on the Madden pick.   People around here - particularly the smarmy types that have always itched to behead Benning and replace him with (probably one of their own, ala Florida) like to attribute all-things-good about the drafting to Brackett - but iirc, the draft floor footage of the lead up to the Madden pick fairly clearly indicates Brackett suggesting a goaltender, while Benning was pretty fixed on the center.  That center translated into the principal in the Toffoli deal.  Let's be clear here - I'm not suggesting that Brackett moving on will have no impact - what I'm suggesting is that the scouting group for the most part, otherwise remains intact, and 'we' should probably not expect the results to fall through the floor.  I also think the imperatives of the scouting group will shift a bit - towards sustaining a viable, steady/metered income of prospects - but both the spaces available - and needed - to be filled will probably tighten, and the need to produce multiples of roster players in every draft - will probably decrease.  I think it's safe to say they've reached a 'transition' stage where if they enter a few consecutive drafts ie with 6 as opposed to 7 picks, they'll probably survive out the other side.  It's a price that was probably worth it - if it translates into retaining assets like Tanev, Marky, Toffoli, etc.

 

Of course, the price that a team would expect to secure in eating an Eriksson contract will play an obvious part in whether something gets done, but aside from him, I think the team has enough relatively moveable cap in other veteran wingers in particular (and Benn) that they 'should'/could get enough done to retain their priorities, and possibly even add a modest depth/foundation player (Richardson/Thompson) if they part with multiple veterans. 

 

If it means moving a young player like Gaudette, I'd probably entertain it - particularly if it's to a rethinging, Canadian, eastern conference franchise.  If I woke up, opened this forum - and any/all of LE, Roussel, Benn - or even Ferland/Pearson types were moved - at the price of / as well as a Gaudette and/or pick were included, so be it.  I think the team has enough depth at this point to come out on the other side in easily as good shape (on ice) as they enter this offseason.  Personally, I'd value retaining players like Leivo over the entire lot - and the possibility of signing one of the already mentioned depth centers = likewise.  If they could return a good gamble like Paul in the process, even better. 

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

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

Sounds like something I warned of prior to the signing...<_<

yup you were one of the few that saw it coming. I was dazzled by the international play and thought it would translate. 

 

I do think had Willie left them together they would have done "OK" as a line, maybe Loui would be a 0.5 ppg guy or so. Certainly not worth 6x6 tho. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, oldnews said:

While I'm generally quite conservative when it comes to the idea of spending futures to secure cap space - I think the compounding circumstances of the stalled cap, the Luongo recrap, and the team emerging as fairly competitive at this stage - while also having a fairly healthy reserve of futures - might incline me to making a rare expenditure here.  I think the team can 'afford' to spend another future or two - to clear out the like of LE - and hopefully in the process package relatively moveable veterans to a team that could clearly use/needs a handful of additions this offseason regardless - ie as has been pointed out in this thread - a team like Ottawa is looking at relatively wholesale changes before opening night.

 

I am also not terribly concerned that dealing another prospect or pick is going to tilt the team towards bare cupboards in the future.

It's true they've lost a few good people in the 'front office' - Manny and Brackett in particular were well loved around here.

But the Brackett loss in particular - imo isn't/won't be as critical to the team's continued drafting as I think some people perceive.

 

For example - and I welcome posters to correct me on this if my increasingly hazy memory serves me poorly - but I'm pretty sure that the Toffoli acquisition, on a certain level, can be attributed to Benning over-ruling Brackett on the Madden pick.   People around here - particularly the smarmy types that have always itched to behead Benning and replace him with (probably one of their own, ala Florida) like to attribute all-things-good about the drafting to Brackett - but iirc, the draft floor footage of the lead up to the Madden pick fairly clearly indicates Brackett suggesting a goaltender, while Benning was pretty fixed on the center.  That center translated into the principal in the Toffoli deal.  Let's be clear here - I'm not suggesting that Brackett moving on will have no impact - what I'm suggesting is that the scouting group for the most part, otherwise remains intact, and 'we' should probably not expect the results to fall through the floor.  I also think the imperatives of the scouting group will shift a bit - towards sustaining a viable, steady/metered income of prospects - but both the spaces available - and needed - to be filled will probably tighten, and the need to produce multiples of roster players in every draft - will probably decrease.  I think it's safe to say they've reached a 'transition' stage where if they enter a few consecutive drafts ie with 6 as opposed to 7 picks, they'll probably survive out the other side.  It's a price that was probably worth it - if it translates into retaining assets like Tanev, Marky, Toffoli, etc.

 

Of course, the price that a team would expect to secure in eating an Eriksson contract will play an obvious part in whether something gets done, but aside from him, I think the team has enough relatively moveable cap in other veteran wingers in particular (and Benn) that they 'should'/could get enough done to retain their priorities, and possibly even add a modest depth/foundation player (Richardson/Thompson) if they part with multiple veterans. 

 

If it means moving a young player like Gaudette, I'd probably entertain it - particularly if it's to a rethinging, Canadian, eastern conference franchise.  If I woke up, opened this forum - and any/all of LE, Roussel, Benn - or even Ferland/Pearson types were moved - at the price of / as well as a Gaudette and/or pick were included, so be it.  I think the team has enough depth at this point to come out on the other side in easily as good shape (on ice) as they enter this offseason.  Personally, I'd value retaining players like Leivo over the entire lot - and the possibility of signing one of the already mentioned depth centers = likewise.  If they could return a good gamble like Paul in the process, even better. 

thats pretty much where I'm at as well. I'd prefer it be Jake instead of Gaudette but it will be whatever the market says it will be. There's no magic way out of Loui's deal, its going to hurt. Lets rip the bandage off sooner than later.

 

As far as scouting goes, despite the frantic calculations and assumptions of the more analytically (for lack of a better word) inclined scouting is still more art than science. We won't know for years whether or not Brackett leaving was good or bad. Even if luck falls our way and Jim finds a Jamie Benn in this years 5th round, that might just be luck. Or it might be excellent scouting. There's no way for us to really know. 

 

I do think Jim deserves credit for revamping the scoring group, even if Linden is credited with the overall hirings. Its a team effort, and there's a lot of people in the scooting group we can look to for good picks, e.g., Gradin. 

 

 

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

8 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

When is the buyout deadline? I would imagine it is before the bonus payment is due. If it isn't does the buyout change if you buy it out after the bonus is paid?

Most bonuses have already been paid - the majority of contracts have a 1 July payout date for the bonuses.  They were not able to negotiate a different payment date as part of the return to play.  Bonuses are always due so it doesn't change the buyout numbers or cap hit whether they have already been paid or not. 

 

The buyout window opens up on the 25th of September and closes on the 8th - the day before the start of free agency.

 

They are unlikely to buy out Eriksson as the buyout cap hit is prohibitive.  

 

Edited by mll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, oldnews said:

While I'm generally quite conservative when it comes to the idea of spending futures to secure cap space - I think the compounding circumstances of the stalled cap, the Luongo recrap, and the team emerging as fairly competitive at this stage - while also having a fairly healthy reserve of futures - might incline me to making a rare expenditure here.  I think the team can 'afford' to spend another future or two - to clear out the like of LE - and hopefully in the process package relatively moveable veterans to a team that could clearly use/needs a handful of additions this offseason regardless - ie as has been pointed out in this thread - a team like Ottawa is looking at relatively wholesale changes before opening night.

 

I am also not terribly concerned that dealing another prospect or pick is going to tilt the team towards bare cupboards in the future.

It's true they've lost a few good people in the 'front office' - Manny and Brackett in particular were well loved around here.

But the Brackett loss in particular - imo isn't/won't be as critical to the team's continued drafting as I think some people perceive.

 

For example - and I welcome posters to correct me on this if my increasingly hazy memory serves me poorly - but I'm pretty sure that the Toffoli acquisition, on a certain level, can be attributed to Benning over-ruling Brackett on the Madden pick.   People around here - particularly the smarmy types that have always itched to behead Benning and replace him with (probably one of their own, ala Florida) like to attribute all-things-good about the drafting to Brackett - but iirc, the draft floor footage of the lead up to the Madden pick fairly clearly indicates Brackett suggesting a goaltender, while Benning was pretty fixed on the center.  That center translated into the principal in the Toffoli deal.  Let's be clear here - I'm not suggesting that Brackett moving on will have no impact - what I'm suggesting is that the scouting group for the most part, otherwise remains intact, and 'we' should probably not expect the results to fall through the floor.  I also think the imperatives of the scouting group will shift a bit - towards sustaining a viable, steady/metered income of prospects - but both the spaces available - and needed - to be filled will probably tighten, and the need to produce multiples of roster players in every draft - will probably decrease.  I think it's safe to say they've reached a 'transition' stage where if they enter a few consecutive drafts ie with 6 as opposed to 7 picks, they'll probably survive out the other side.  It's a price that was probably worth it - if it translates into retaining assets like Tanev, Marky, Toffoli, etc.

 

Of course, the price that a team would expect to secure in eating an Eriksson contract will play an obvious part in whether something gets done, but aside from him, I think the team has enough relatively moveable cap in other veteran wingers in particular (and Benn) that they 'should'/could get enough done to retain their priorities, and possibly even add a modest depth/foundation player (Richardson/Thompson) if they part with multiple veterans. 

 

If it means moving a young player like Gaudette, I'd probably entertain it - particularly if it's to a rethinging, Canadian, eastern conference franchise.  If I woke up, opened this forum - and any/all of LE, Roussel, Benn - or even Ferland/Pearson types were moved - at the price of / as well as a Gaudette and/or pick were included, so be it.  I think the team has enough depth at this point to come out on the other side in easily as good shape (on ice) as they enter this offseason.  Personally, I'd value retaining players like Leivo over the entire lot - and the possibility of signing one of the already mentioned depth centers = likewise.  If they could return a good gamble like Paul in the process, even better. 

 

7 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

thats pretty much where I'm at as well. I'd prefer it be Jake instead of Gaudette but it will be whatever the market says it will be. There's no magic way out of Loui's deal, its going to hurt. Lets rip the bandage off sooner than later.

 

As far as scouting goes, despite the frantic calculations and assumptions of the more analytically (for lack of a better word) inclined scouting is still more art than science. We won't know for years whether or not Brackett leaving was good or bad. Even if luck falls our way and Jim finds a Jamie Benn in this years 5th round, that might just be luck. Or it might be excellent scouting. There's no way for us to really know. 

 

I do think Jim deserves credit for revamping the scoring group, even if Linden is credited with the overall hirings. Its a team effort, and there's a lot of people in the scooting group we can look to for good picks, e.g., Gradin. 

 

 

Agree with both. We're clearly at the 'cut fat' stage and whatever it takes to get/retain the 'guys you win with', you pay the price to move the ones you don't, and keep pushing forward.

 

We can afford a couple futures, short term retention or whatever it takes to keep Toffoli and Tanev. Unfortunately, I think Marky is going to explore other options.

 

Happy to plug some of those holes with cheap deals on guys like Leivo, Richardson etc. The D will be interesting... Pietrangelo is certainly intriguing if unlikely option and if not, a quality vet like a Braun, Hamonic etc might be a nice partner for Juolevi.

 

Going to be a fun summer for us armchair GM's whatever happens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mll said:

Most bonuses have already been paid - the majority of contracts have a 1 July payout date for the bonuses.  They were not able to negotiate a different payment date as part of the return to play.

 

The buyout window opens up on the 25th of September and closes on the 8th - the day before the start of free agency.

 

They are unlikely to buy out Eriksson as the buyout cap hit is prohibitive.  

It's 5.6m then 3.6 then 600k for 2 years.. it can work depending on what team you want to ice this year. For a team to acquire him and then buy him out.. the owner only has to pay 2.6m so it then come down to how much does 2.6m get you?

 

Edited by peaches5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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