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

8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

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!

and that could be for the best. We just don't know. Demko clearly has the mental toughness to begin his career as a starter, but will it take him a year or two to be comparable to Marky? probably. Would a good 1B partner really help. Certainly. Would a d upgrade make a big difference. Oh yeah.

 

Too many moving parts to know for sure. I'm just glad we actually have good options, its been a while. 

 

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

45 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. 

 

 

I am assuming that Gaudette might be more "attractive" an asset.

And my reasoning might be wrong - but quite often "perception is reality" for people.  The extent to which that proves true, we will find out.

I think Virtanen is a 'better' asset in a range of ways.  First, he's further along his development path, period - and he is so while being a mere 6 weeks older than Gaudette.

Second I think he is a 'rarer' player - his combination of speed, heaviness and ability to put the puck in the net - there aren't a whole lot of those players out there that become available before they've even reached their prime.

At the same time I think the impression might remain that Gaudette has a lot of growth and improvement ahead of him - in other words, there are few things that sell better than the promise of 'potential'.   Conversely, I think the impression (again, that's all it is to me) regarding Virtanen is that he's reached his limit, that it's time to end our patience with him, etc.

What asset would I be looking to maximize the trade value of?   I think that's probably already answered.  And when it comes to the 'fear' of the uptick that either of these players would represent if they were moved, I'm not sure that 'fear' is any greater in the case of Gaudette than it is with Virtanen. 

The shine has yet to wear off of Gaudette.  He may prove to have more upside in the future - who knows - but I'm not sure that Gaudette represents a vital need for the franchise.  First, they have EP, Horvat, and Miller all as top 6 center options - and I'm not seeing a lot in Gaudette's game at this stage to suggest that he translates into the 3C some people had projected him as.   If that changes, moving him could prove a 'mistake' - however if he is better utilized as an upside winger - which would be the way that I lean with him - then he is both blocked by both Boeser and Toffoli (if he in fact re-signs) - and he faces the added complication of players like Podkolzin on the horizon.  At the same time, the team is exceptionally deep in my opinion right down the RW depth chart - with Virtanen an excellent 3RW option imo - as well as an excellent, versatile, good cap value in Leivo (re-signing him would be a priority) - while also having young players like MacEwen (and Bailey) to round out competition for those spots.  For me - dealing Gaudette - as much as most of us here really like him - might make the most sense in terms of both value - and fit.  If they did so, it would be in the context of clearing cap space, so I imagine they'd then be able to pursue a veteran depth center like Richardson to enhance their short term competitiveness/foundation - and they could continue to focus on landing the right kind of centers for their future needs.

One player I would add to that 'wishlist' would be Nick Paul - a young, physical, C/W with good size - whose work ethic and versatility could fit well in this group - and whose 'production' and role to date would probably not preclude him as an acquisition (I think he'd be both a better fit, and lower cost acquisition than the more obvious, less reasitic, more often and possibly less advisably wishlisted Tierney - who would cost more cap, more asset value, and bring less bottom six heaviness).  If we could be dealing with Ottawa, sending a Gaudette - and addding something to return Paul, might make solid sense for us - and he could be developed as an additional C option, while playing wing in the bottom six - a player who is a good young faceoff guy that would just add that much more versatility/options to Green's bottom six.

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

1 minute ago, Robert Long said:

and that could be for the best. We just don't know. Demko clearly has the mental toughness to begin his career as a starter, but will it take him a year or two to be comparable to Marky? probably. Would a good 1B partner really help. Certainly. Would a d upgrade make a big difference. Oh yeah.

 

Too many moving parts to know for sure. I'm just glad we actually have good options, its been a while. 

 

I just don't see why he'd take a discount to stay to not be protected in the ED and possibly taken or if not, eventually pushed down to 'tandem' and eventually 'backup', to be traded likely in the 2nd or 3rd year of the deal anyway.

 

As much as the team and fans would surely love him coming back...I just don't see why he'd agree to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I just don't see why he'd take a discount to stay to not be protected in the ED and possibly taken or if not, eventually pushed down to 'tandem' and eventually 'backup', to be traded likely in the 2nd or 3rd year of the deal anyway.

 

As much as the team and fans would surely love him coming back...I just don't see why he'd agree to that.

thats certainly a good possibility. I suppose if they agree to a deal that has expansion I would think Jim had a good trade for Demko liked up. 

 

I'm fine whichever way this breaks honestly. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

I am assuming that Gaudette might be more "attractive" an asset.

And my reasoning might be wrong - but quite often "perception is reality" for people.  The extent to which that proves true, we will find out.

I think Virtanen is a 'better' asset in a range of ways.  First, he's further along his development path, period - and he is so while being a mere 6 weeks older than Gaudette.

Second I think he is a 'rarer' player - his combination of speed, heaviness and ability to put the puck in the net - there aren't a whole lot of those players out there that become available before they've even reached their prime.

At the same time I think the impression might remain that Gaudette has a lot of growth and improvement ahead of him - in other words, there are few things that sell better than the promise of 'potential'.   Conversely, I think the impression (again, that's all it is to me) regarding Virtanen is that he's reached his limit, that it's time to end our patience with him, etc.

What asset would I be looking to maximize the trade value of?   I think that's probably already answered.  And when it comes to the 'fear' of the uptick that either of these players would represent if they were moved, I'm not sure that 'fear' is any greater in the case of Gaudette than it is with Virtanen. 

The shine has yet to wear off of Gaudette.  He may prove to have more upside in the future - who knows - but I'm not sure that Gaudette represents a vital need for the franchise.  First, they have EP, Horvat, and Miller all as top 6 center options - and I'm not seeing a lot in Gaudette's game at this stage to suggest that he translates into the 3C some people had projected him as.   If that changes, moving him could prove a 'mistake' - however if he is better utilized as an upside winger - which would be the way that I lean with him - then he is both blocked by both Boeser and Toffoli (if he in fact re-signs) - and he faces the added complication of players like Podkolzin on the horizon.  At the same time, the team is exceptionally deep in my opinion right down the RW depth chart - with Virtanen an excellent 3RW option imo - as well as an excellent, versatile, good cap value in Leivo (re-signing him would be a priority) - while also having young players like MacEwen (and Bailey) to round out competition for those spots.  For me - dealing Gaudette - as much as most of us here really like him - might make the most sense in terms of both value - and fit.  If they did so, it would be in the context of clearing cap space, so I imagine they'd then be able to pursue a veteran depth center like Richardson to enhance their short term competitiveness/foundation - and they could continue to focus on landing the right kind of centers for their future needs.

One player I would add to that 'wishlist' would be Nick Paul - a young, physical, C/W with good size - whose work ethic and versatility could fit well in this group - and whose 'production' and role to date would probably not preclude him as an acquisition (I think he'd be both a better fit, and lower cost acquisition than the more obvious, less reasitic, more often and possibly less advisably wishlisted Tierney - who would cost more cap, more asset value, and bring less bottom six heaviness).  If we could be dealing with Ottawa, sending a Gaudette - and addding something to return Paul, might make solid sense for us - and he could be developed as an additional C option, while playing wing in the bottom six - a player who is a good young faceoff guy that would just add that much more versatility/options to Green's bottom six.

So much depends on the team taking Loui, some need AG, some need Jake's skill set. 

 

Something does seem to be in the works though if JP Barry is running around trying to find Loui a new home. I don;t know how much success he's going to have over Benning, its not like Jim has been shy to make deals in the past. 

 

Interesting days for sure. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

So much depends on the team taking Loui, some need AG, some need Jake's skill set. 

 

Something does seem to be in the works though if JP Barry is running around trying to find Loui a new home. I don;t know how much success he's going to have over Benning, its not like Jim has been shy to make deals in the past. 

 

Interesting days for sure. 

 

 

I don't think JP will be negotiating the trade. I think it is more that JB needs to get Loui and JP on board with a trade, due to Loui's 15 team "no trade" list.

 

If he wanted to LE could effectively block a trade by selecting all the non-cap teams on his no trade list.

 

I assume that JB is making it clear that Loui does not have a place on our NHL team for the next 2 seasons, so it would be better for all parties to agree to a trade and for Loui to play on an NHL roster somewhere...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

I don't think JP will be negotiating the trade. I think it is more that JB needs to get Loui and JP on board with a trade, due to Loui's 15 team "no trade" list.

 

If he wanted to LE could effectively block a trade by selecting all the non-cap teams on his no trade list.

 

I assume that JB is making it clear that Loui does not have a place on our NHL team for the next 2 seasons, so it would be better for all parties to agree to a trade and for Loui to play on an NHL roster somewhere...

 

I think it might also have to do with finding out if there's a market for Loui if he agrees to mutual termination. If there's a team like likes him at say 1 mil + performance bonuses, then he can pre-arrange that deal and walk from us.

 

I think a lot of teams would love Loui at that price. Heck I'd like him here at that deal. 

 

Loui isn't guaranteed 5 mil from us, he's guaranteed 1 mil, plus 2/3 of 4 mil next year if we buy him out. So a 2 year deal, at 1 mil per year with bonuses is basically what he'd be guaranteed here if he plays well at all. 

Edited by Robert Long
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we look at the quality of players Benning draft picks garner, I have not one doubt that the Canucks can afford to pay to get Eriksson's contract off the books between now and yesterday.

 

It is imperative. Re-signing Tanev, Markstrom and Toffoli is far more valuable to the Canucks than anything they would have to attach to the trade.

 

I thought for a while that letting go of another 1st to shed Eriksson's contract could be a strategy, but a Benning 1st is highly likely to be a franchise turning player for the Canucks. For another GM, it may be that an already playing player may be more valuable than a late 1st.

 

Not only are Benning's 1st rounder selections exceptional, here are all of the other picks he and his team chose during his ongoing tenure:

 

2/ 33 Lind

2/37 Woo

2/40 Höglander

2/55 Gadjovich

2/36 Demko (May just have had one of the top five playoff performances by a goaltender in the history of the game)

 

3/64 DiPietro

3/64 Lockwood

3/66 Brisebois

3/66 Tryamkin

3/68 Madden (Traded with Schaller, 50OA20, for Toffoli)

 

4/95 Rathbone

4/114 Zhukenov

4/122 Keppen

 

5/130 Utunen

5/133 Focht

5/135 Gunnarsson

5/140 Candella

5/144 Neil

5/149 Gaudette (becoming integral part of the Canucks)

 

6/154 Stukel

6/156 Silovs

6/174 Jasek

6.175 Plasek

6/180 Malone

6/181 Palmu

6/186 Manukyan

 

7/184 Abols

7/186 Stewart

7/188 Brassard

7/192 Thiessen

7/194 McKenzie

7/195 Mcdonough

7/210 Olson

7/215 Costmar

 

At this point, Gaudette and Demko have made the team. One brings relentless energy, and the other is going to haunt the Golden Knights and maybe the entire league, for a long, long time.

 

To a much lesser extent, 2/ 33 Lind, 2/37 Woo, 2/40 Höglander, and 2/55 Gadjovich, have a chance of cracking the lineup relatively soon. Tryamkin would be fantastic to have again, but his girlfriend prefers Russia.

 

Looking at draft selections per round and not per year reveals an angle the Canucks are facing. 

 

1/5 Pettersson (franchise 1C no contest/ dominated the playoffs in points in his first year)

1/5 Juolevi (hasn't done anything with the Canucks)

1/6 Virtanen (struggles to see his own potential but when he's on, he's on)

1/7 Hughes (franchise 1D no contest/ dominated the playoffs in points in his first year)

1/10 Podkolzin (growing fast in the KHL and time is coming to come to North America)

1/23 Boeser (excellent player but has a history of both freak, and freaky injuries)

1/24 McCann (has ended up as Pearson)

 

A Benning draft pick is a priceless franchise-turning possession for the Canucks. However, it cannot be expected that all of the first rounders will fit within the franchise's program, and may be best fit somewhere else. 

 

With Hughes coming in, many players fell down the depth chart and perhaps no one more than Juolevi, as he hasn't done much so far with the Canucks. He may be turning the corner on his career, but having a top four of Hughes, Myers, Tanev and Edler basically cancels any chance of him becoming the player he could be with another team. The same could be said for Brisebois.

 

VAN

Eriksson

Juolevi (most ready prospect on the Canucks chart)

Any prospect (except Demko, Gaudette or Podkolzin)

 

To a team under the minimum $60.2 million dollar Cap Floor:

Avalanches (-1,064,405)

Devils (-4,945,001)

Sabres (-13,158,333)

Red Wings (-13,375,000)

Senators (-18,295,833)

 

Personally I see the Senators taking on this contract as Eriksson's actual money left to pay is less than the cap hit.

 

If none of the above teams are on Eriksson's  modified movement clause, then these teams with the cap space to accommodate Eriksson's cap hit as and currently have $10+ million dollars in cap space (not including each teams' needs);

 

Canadiens

Oilers

Wild

Sharks

Rangers

Bruins

Stars

Jets

Flames

Kings

Panthers

 

If the Canucks really feel that Virtanen may need a change of scenery, perhaps the Senators or Rangers who hold multiple picks and have the space to accommodate Eriksson's contract would like to offer a 1st in this year's draft?

 

VAN

Virtanen

Eriksson

Juolevi (most ready prospect on the Canucks chart)

Any two prospects (except Demko, Gaudette or Podkolzin)

 

To a team under the Cap:

Senators' 28OA20

or

Rangers' 22OA20

 

Because we know that whoever Benning and his team picks, will have a great chance at being a superstar.

 

Edited by Me_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

I think it might also have to do with finding out if there's a market for Loui if he agrees to mutual termination. If there's a team like likes him at say 1 mil + performance bonuses, then he can pre-arrange that deal and walk from us.

 

I think a lot of teams would love Loui at that price. Heck I'd like him here at that deal. 

I can't see why Loui would agree to mutual termination. From all reports he apparently wants to keep playing. So the worst case for him is that a trade cannot be found and he gets paid another $5m for sitting on his couch or playing with his kids for the next 2 years. Not that bad.

 

However, if he wants to play in the NHL then he better agree to a deal.

 

If VAN retains 33% on Loui then I think a potential deal is quite good for VAN and Loui's new club.

 

If he plays out the last 2 years of his contract then VAN only receive a cap hit of $2m, and his new club only pays $670k next season + $2.67m the following season.

 

If his new club buys him out in July 2021 then the new club only pays $670k, $1.33k, $670k across 3 seasons.

 

I really don't see why a team like OTT wouldn't do this for a decent asset. They are clearly set up to lose next year and will be miles under the cap limit, so having a roster player for $670k salary and $4m cap hit doesn't worry them in the least.

 

OTT has $40m in cap space with 10 roster players contracted. They could conceivably take on about 10 Loui Eriksson type deals, ice a roster of has-beens for a couple of years and scoop a serious amount of young talent to build a competitive roster with a strong core in 4 years time.

Edited by BigTramFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigTramFan said:

I can't see why Loui would agree to mutual termination. Worst case for him is that a trade cannot be found and he gets paid another $5m for sitting on his couch or playing with his kids for the next 2 years.

 

However, if VAN retains 33% on Loui then I think a potential deal is quite good for VAN and Loui's new club.

 

If he plays out the last 2 years of his contract then VAN only receive a cap hit of $2m, and his new club only pays $670k next season + $2.67m the following season.

 

If his new club buys him out in July 2021 then the new club only pays $670k, $1.33k, $670k across 3 seasons.

 

I really don't see why a team like OTT wouldn't do this for a decent asset. They are clearly set up to lose next year and will be miles under the cap limit, so having a roster player for $670k salary and $4m cap hit doesn't worry them in the least.

 

OTT has $40m in cap space with 10 roster players contracted. They could conceivably take on about 10 Loui Eriksson type deals, ice a roster of has-beens for a couple of years and scoop a serious amount of young talent to build a competitive roster with a strong core in 4 years time.

but there's no guarantee he's on the couch. He may be stuck on a practice roster in upstate NY. Not a place you want to spend your late 30s away from your family or move them there for that matter. He's played his last game in a Canucks jersey, thats very clear. 

 

Best scenario money-wise for us is to put him in Utica, save 1.075 mil in cap, then buy him out of his final year. It looks like next season will start in January, so then he's looking at somewhere in 2022 before he's bought out and trying to find a new team at 37. Thats grim.

 

I do think mutual termination is a good option for him if Barry can get him a new deal elsewhere.

 

But a team like Ottawa can also take advantage of his salary structure. My guess is so far the ask has just been too high in picks or prospects and Jim won't budge. 

 

We can also clear a lot of cap this year by buying out Sutter and Baer, so Jim's not at the nuclear option yet in terms of burning 1sts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Provost said:


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.

I didn’t say that at all - but good luck with your idea of moving LE.

 

Edit: My brother and I have looked at this ever angle we can imagine - made spreadsheets with every different angle - signing all three or just two.   Funny how the issues become very modest once you take TT out of it.   Take TO and try and fix that.   I don’t buy into the cap hysteria that I sometimes see on here - or into fantasy.   Dumping LE will absolutely cost the club - and we will lose out on opportunity costs that far outweigh the benefits.   I’m not fooled by 17 playoff games - our defense needs an overhaul.   That won’t happen by buying middle six UFAs - Lind could probably score .75 PGP on EPs wing. 

Edited by IBatch
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robert Long said:

but there's no guarantee he's on the couch. He may be stuck on a practice roster in upstate NY. Not a place you want to spend your late 30s away from your family or move them there for that matter. He's played his last game in a Canucks jersey, thats very clear. 

 

Best scenario money-wise for us is to put him in Utica, save 1.075 mil in cap, then buy him out of his final year. It looks like next season will start in January, so then he's looking at somewhere in 2022 before he's bought out and trying to find a new team at 37. Thats grim.

 

I do think mutual termination is a good option for him if Barry can get him a new deal elsewhere.

 

But a team like Ottawa can also take advantage of his salary structure. My guess is so far the ask has just been too high in picks or prospects and Jim won't budge. 

 

We can also clear a lot of cap this year by buying out Sutter and Baer, so Jim's not at the nuclear option yet in terms of burning 1sts. 

 

Buyouts just prolong the pain.   All of it will disappear over the next year or two naturally.   I bet the team still makes the playoffs even if we sign two of our UFAs and avoid a couple re-signings.   The teams future mostly lies in what else we have coming up in the pool plus two or maybe three thoughtful upgrades on defense when the opportunity comes along.   AP is a huge one that several teams will go after.   Given the state of our RHD and the fact he’s 25plus proper number one I hope JB is making a contingency plan for him right now - as in making an offer as soon as he’s allowed to talk to his agent.    Who’d you rather have - an aging vet who’s a coin toss whether or not will be able to play come post season in Tanev, and a career middle six forward who like Miller saw his production go to career highs playing with EP - or AP?   Not a hard decision at all IMO.   In fact I’d try and keep Tanev too, and let  JM plus TT find new jobs.  
 

Only because when those opportunities come along you play ball.  
 

Personally I was hoping Hamilton would be available next year and we go with the least amount of cap we can run with.  That said he might never make it to market ... 

 

Ladys and gents we all watched Vegas literally spank us.  Yes we beat St. Louis (thanks to great coaching plus no Steen or Tarasenko), but didn’t carry the play - MIN was pretty even, maybe we had the edge but both series our goaltending was the difference maker.    Against Vegas Demko almost pulled off a miracle.  I’ve seen it happen before - NYI beating PIT in the early 90’s comes to mind - but those are one and dones.   Never seen a team follow it up with a cup or cup final appearance after luckily beating a better team.  
 

For sure these are exciting times - and I will definitely get behind JB and the Canucks if they decide to thin the roster up some and go for it one more time with EP and QHs on their ELCs.   Come playoff time you never do know.  Is this team like CAR was with Staal and Ward when they were on their ELCs and won a cup - or like EDM was when they lost to ANA in the second round game 7 too?  
 

A lot more like EDM unfortunately.   CAR won their second crack at it - they were already very good.    Get we won’t have the same depth once EP and QHs get paid - but we simply don’t have the cash given LE and Luongo.   And the cost to free up the cash or buyout players will either hobble our pool (which is still our best hope) or just prolong the pain.  
 

Id much rather we were a lottery team again next year then double down on a lesser roster but same roster then we had this year for the next 3-5 years.    Makes zero sense especially given the costs to our pool and our cap.   

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert Long said:

So much depends on the team taking Loui, some need AG, some need Jake's skill set. 

 

Something does seem to be in the works though if JP Barry is running around trying to find Loui a new home. I don;t know how much success he's going to have over Benning, its not like Jim has been shy to make deals in the past. 

 

Interesting days for sure. 

 

 

I think the likelihood here is that Barry - has no real choice but to work hard for his client.

LE can sit in denial if he thinks it serves him, but his comments 'I'm a good two way player, and the pk has been good for me' is a bit delusional.

Benning has probably given Barry full licence to test the market- that, in this situation, imo is as much Barry's job as it is Benning's

 

Your client has two options - 1) help find him a place to play, a deal that makes sense to the team, or 2) we move other players, and yours rides a bus in Utica.

 

That or LE might want to rethink whether he 'quits' or not.

I'd give that another name, btw.

Retirement.

 

There is no shame in it.  Most higher end players do - once they're realistically the 15th man in a forward group. 

That was the reality for LE.

The real, misleading thing for him - was being in the lineup in the playoffs.

Wadr to LE.  He wasn't in the top 12, not of a healthy lineup - and doesn't really belong in it.

He wouldn't have even have come close to dressing if Ferland and Leivo (and Toffoli) weren't injured.

He's already the 15th man and it's not likely to get any prettier for him.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I think the likelihood here is that Barry - has no real choice but to work hard for his client.

LE can sit in denial if he thinks it serves him, but his comments 'I'm a good two way player, and the pk has been good for me' is a bit delusional.

Benning has probably given Barry full licence to test the market- that, in this situation, imo is as much Barry's job as it is Benning's

 

Your client has two options - 1) help find him a place to play, a deal that makes sense to the team, or 2) we move other players, and yours rides a bus in Utica.

 

That or LE might want to rethink whether he 'quits' or not.

I'd give that another name, btw.

Retirement.

 

There is no shame in it.  Most higher end players do - once they're realistically the 15th man in a forward group. 

That was the reality for LE.

The real, misleading thing for him - was being in the lineup in the playoffs.

Wadr to LE.  He wasn't in the top 12, not of a healthy lineup - and doesn't really belong in it.

He wouldn't have even have come close to dressing if Ferland and Leivo (and Toffoli) weren't injured.

He's already the 15th man and it's not likely to get any prettier for him.

Loui Loui, oh no, take me where ya gotta go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

I think the likelihood here is that Barry - has no real choice but to work hard for his client.

LE can sit in denial if he thinks it serves him, but his comments 'I'm a good two way player, and the pk has been good for me' is a bit delusional.

Benning has probably given Barry full licence to test the market- that, in this situation, imo is as much Barry's job as it is Benning's

 

Your client has two options - 1) help find him a place to play, a deal that makes sense to the team, or 2) we move other players, and yours rides a bus in Utica.

 

That or LE might want to rethink whether he 'quits' or not.

I'd give that another name, btw.

Retirement.

 

There is no shame in it.  Most higher end players do - once they're realistically the 15th man in a forward group. 

That was the reality for LE.

The real, misleading thing for him - was being in the lineup in the playoffs.

Wadr to LE.  He wasn't in the top 12, not of a healthy lineup - and doesn't really belong in it.

He wouldn't have even have come close to dressing if Ferland and Leivo (and Toffoli) weren't injured.

He's already the 15th man and it's not likely to get any prettier for him.

yeah pretty much. I do think he could serve a useful purpose on a young rebuilding team like an Ottawa or Detroit, where the score doesn't matter as much as having a competitive game for kids to learn in. 

 

What this exercise of Barry's might do is show Loui there's no market for him at any price. If that happens then it really does come down to sitting in Utica, starting next December, and then waiting 10-12 months to be bought out, at best. Like i said above, thats just grim.

 

People keep saying its 5 mil on the table but its actually 3.67 if he's bought out in his last year. Is that really worth it? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

yeah pretty much. I do think he could serve a useful purpose on a young rebuilding team like an Ottawa or Detroit, where the score doesn't matter as much as having a competitive game for kids to learn in. 

 

What this exercise of Barry's might do is show Loui there's no market for him at any price. If that happens then it really does come down to sitting in Utica, starting next December, and then waiting 10-12 months to be bought out, at best. Like i said above, thats just grim.

 

People keep saying its 5 mil on the table but its actually 3.67 if he's bought out in his last year. Is that really worth it? 

 

 

 

No.

There must be other avenues than a buy out. That is an absolutely unnecessary expense on the books and the Canucks got dinged with a pretty good fine for circumventing the paradigms established by the League.

 

The Canucks will need every cent they can save to keep this team together. The drafting and trading is too good to keep it all together. However, the value of each asset is increasing and so the returns will then be immense and recycled.

 

We're building a dynasty here. Ottawa is a safe, well defended place. Call Alfredsson.

 

Edited by Me_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

If Eriksson wants to play hockey he should consider terminating. He was paid his bonus and now if I was JB I would be like you are not going to be part of the team unless a ton of injuries occur. 

I might be inclined to tell him we are not trading him if his agent doesn't find a very acceptable option/deal.

 

You're not getting bought out.  We're not spending big assets to dump your contract.

 

You will be riding a bus in Utica.  Period.  If you don't report, your contract will be terminated. 

 

Ball is in your court.

 

He's been literally that consistently underperforming relative to his cap that he really needs to consider retirement.  That's the honorable thing to do.  He's a 15th man ffs.  Has that sunken in yet.  No one is asking him to do us a 'favour' - realistically, he is not a 'two way' player anymore - he produces next to nothing (13 pts this year).  He's a good defensive forward - but he's not a shutdown forward of the ilk of a Beagle, Sutter or Motte - so he's essentially a second tier defensive forward, making 6 million. 

 

His best chance to actually play might be to agree to mutual termination and then sign a reasonable placeholder deal elsewhere - if he's so determined not to "quit".  The alternative is probably the AHL - and might be in any event.  I'm not sure what kind of deal Barry is hoping to find, but it ought to give him a realistic assessment of the extent to which his contract represents negative value.  Perhaps after a dose of that reality, he might reconsider.    He doesn't even have to quit or retire - he has to make it a realistic possibility that a team would take him on to keep him in the NHL - he can't expect the Canucks to part with excessive assets to make that happen. 

  • Cheers 2
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...