[Rumour] Canucks will not retain $ or add a sweetener for Loui to be moved

[Moose Nuckle]

2 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Linden wanted to start a 4 year 'slow' rebuild in 2018 (ownership turned him down..obviously).He also guided the team down the wrong path with the 'rebuild on the fly' in 2014 (his vision)..If you want to know why Linden wasn't retained, look no further.

Look out, these takes make oldnews angry.  

[Provost]

5 minutes ago, Moose Nuckle said:

 

You're talking about 11 out of 30 players that none of whom could stay in the lineup on the worst team in the league.

... and how exactly does your tortured logic make Eriksson a valuable asset?  They made trades for 13 players going in and out last season... it wasn’t bad players going up and down to the AHL.  Half the players went to other teams who gave assets to acquire them.  They called up other players to backfill empty roster spots... that is why they had so many players over the course of the season.

 

They could only qualify the RFAs they want (like every other team in the league)... but they still have to sign players for those empty roster spots.  They can find better and cheaper players than Eriksson on the open market.  As above, they reach the cap floor easily without paying those acquired players any significant salary.

[Moose Nuckle]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

... and how exactly does your tortured logic make Eriksson a valuable asset?  They made trades for 13 players going in and out last season... it wasn’t bad players going up and down to the AHL.  Half the players went to other teams who gave assets to acquire them.  They called up other players to backfill empty roster spots... that is why they had so many players over the course of the season.

 

They could only qualify the RFAs they want (like every other team in the league)... but they still have to sign players for those empty roster spots.  They can find better and cheaper players than Eriksson on the open market.  As above, they reach the cap floor easily without paying those acquired players any significant salary.

Exhibit a:

 

Exhibit b:

 

Exhibit c:

 

Exhibit d:

Your attitude. 

[rekker]

If LE had any character he would mutually tear up his contract. Bogosian, Buff did so. He is holding back the team with a contact he's collected the majority of monies from, 31 of 36 million. He has never come close to earning it. Just go away LE.

Edited September 23, 2020 by rekker

[oldnews]

On 9/23/2020 at 3:22 PM, Moose Nuckle said:

Look out, these takes make oldnews angry.  

nah - they make me laugh.  I love good 'libertarian' drama in my 'journalism'.

 

these wannabees can't even determine whether it was a "firing, a walking away/"retired", an 'agreement to part ways' etc.

scarcely a source to be found in the lot.

 

if I were forced to bet on it (and since I love tabloid hockey journalism) - my money/guess (since I have no more sources than anyone else and am reading between the lines, like everyone else - but unlike some, I'm not pretending to have "the" narrative).....my guess would be on Aquilini wanting the sped up rething, both Linden and Benning resisting, Linden running interference - being the front line of 'reason' and the senior hockey exec - and Benning remaining in the background, surviving the event.  No 'backstab' - no uncharacteristic political maneuouvring from Benning...... If there were a 'rift' I'd read it as Benning perhaps not presenting a unified front against what looks, from a betting man's perspective, as repeating intervention of ownership into hockey operations/management.

 

I've been around long enough to see Mike Gillis hire John Tortorella (if you believe that was a Gillis decision - I sure as hell don't) - to 'sense' that that hiring made no 'sense' whatsoever from a Gillis type of hockey viewpoint - looks like it had ownership fingerprints on it far more than Gillis ones.  Certainly the subterfuge that ensued would suggest that Gillis and Tortorella never really shared much vision.

 

My take would be that the Linden  rift didn't necessarily originate between Linden and Benning - that it originated between ownership and management - that Linden was the "captain" that stood up - and asserted his agreed-to-upon-hiring - and very interestingly, publicly stated by Aquilini - an admission of sorts, of his prior disposition towards management, or at the very least a reassurance to the fanbase that he will not attempt to direct the hockey decisions of the franchise - Linden having publicly given jurisdiction over hockey related decisions, while Benning survived the rift, perhaps did not provide the 'backup' or united front that Linden may have expected/hoped, as the guy that hired him - and the result that followed, was a somewhat compromised approach - a GM that may have went a step further here or there than he otherwise may have, to 'speed' it up.   I think that read actually looks fairly 'realistic' in the landscape.

 

However, with all due respect to the whinge-crews that hate Jay Beagle types - he is a signing that made perfect "foundational" sense - the idea that Trevor Linden would be both noob - and petty - enough to walk away due to a veteran depth signing or two - strikes me as one of the most absurd underlying narratives that popped up in the creative aftermath of the Van-media drama-hounds.  Linden quitzzz because Bennig wantzda sign Rouzzel.....sorry, no way in hell my money would be on that.   I think their noses, wadr, lost the scent, and wound up propping up verzzions of their own wishlist takes - far more far-fetched than looking at a history of gossip around these relationships lul.

 

Anyhow - carry on my friend.  That is where I'd place my money on the 'roulette table - no pretenses to have an 'inside' story that no one has really provided.

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by oldnews

[NHL97OneTimer]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

I didn't "forget" anything.

In 2016/17 there were 10 mutual terminations in a single season.

Half the league has done this.

I'm well aware of the selectively applied "Luongo rule" that retroactively penalized some, but not all, teams that engaged in backdiving contracts under the previous CBA.

 

But mutual termination is allowed and does happen with some regularity - the Canucks have every right to do so - it depends on Eriksson's consent/agreement.

The idea that it 'would' be penalized if Vancouver did it - may not be irrational given the league's track record - and Bettman et al could attempt to selectively disallow it once again, but the Canucks have every right to proceed as if they have every right to do what half the other teams in the league have exercised.

sorry if I ruffled your feathers!

 

Was that the same year none of the 10 players terminated were hired on to another team?  

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

sorry if I ruffled your feathers!

on the contrary

sorry that I did not quite buy this as a 'deterrent'.

 

Quote

Bettman decides that this loophole has gone on long enough and penalizes the Canucks.

as a forecast/warning that the team should not do what half the league already has....

 

whether most of those players weren't good enough to command another NHL contract - is both irrelevent, and/or might actually underline LE's own situation.

 

On the other hand = Zach Bogosian....still playing - in Tampa - would serve as a pretty good comparable imo. If you prefer to pre-victimize the team though, assuming that what goes for the goose does not for the Canucks, as I said, that mightnot  be that irrational given the track record of things like the selectively enforced Luongo recrap.

 

Your point, however, is not worth heeding - the team should, nevertheless, pursue terminating Eriksson.

 

[NHL97OneTimer]

11 minutes ago, oldnews said:

on the contrary

sorry that I did not quite buy this as a 'deterrent'.

 

as a forecast/warning that the team should not do what half the league already has....

 

whether most of those players weren't good enough to command another NHL contract - is both irrelevent, and/or might actually underline LE's own situation.

 

On the other hand = Zach Bogosian....still playing - in Tampa - would serve as a pretty good comparable imo. If you prefer to pre-victimize the team though, assuming that what goes for the goose does not for the Canucks, as I said, that mightnot  be that irrational given the track record of things like the selectively enforced Luongo recrap.

 

Your point, however, is not worth heeding - the team should, nevertheless, pursue terminating Eriksson.

 

I agree with you and would love that to happen without NHL interference......I just think it's unlikely that a contract termination will happen unfortunately.  

 

Also a bit odd that a retirement creates a cap penalty but a torn up contract doesn't.  I'm not sure what previous contract values were but a $6M/yr cap hit suddenly disappearing will likely draw the attention from other GMs and Bettman.  Regardless, fingers crossed.

[oldnews]

Just now, NHL97OneTimer said:

I agree with you and would love that to happen without NHL interference......I just think it's unlikely that a contract termination will happen unfortunately.  

 

Also a bit odd that a retirement creates a cap penalty but a torn up contract doesn't.  I'm not sure what previous contract values were but a $6M/yr cap hit suddenly disappearing will likely draw the attention from other GMs and Bettman.  Regardless, fingers crossed.

A retirement doesn't, unless it's a 35+ contract (at the time it was signed).

 

the Luongo retirement isn't really about the retirement - it's about the previous cap savings by virtue of the back diving contract - that was allowed, and approved - under the previous CBA.

that is what is so mickey mouse about it - the NHL approved those contracts at the time.  and then the retroactive pretense to penalize them, after numerous teams engaged in it - and further, allowed some to loophole their way out of that recrap with pseudo-"injury" medical premises - as absurd as 'equipment allergy'.   which is why I don't criticize your sense of being policed - however, that would not stop me from asserting the team's right to do precisely that - terminate LE - as many other teams have done.

[Ballisticsports.]

7 minutes ago, oldnews said:

A retirement doesn't, unless it's a 35+ contract (at the time it was signed).

 

the Luongo retirement isn't really about the retirement - it's about the previous cap savings by virtue of the back diving contract - that was allowed, and approved - under the previous CBA.

that is what is so mickey mouse about it - the NHL approved those contracts at the time.  and then the retroactive pretense to penalize them, after numerous teams engaged in it - and further, allowed some to loophole their way out of that recrap with pseudo-"injury" medical premises - as absurd as 'equipment allergy'.   which is why I don't criticize your sense of being policed - however, that would not stop me from asserting the team's right to do precisely that - terminate LE - as many other teams have done.

Different situation, but aren't the Islanders  on the hook for many years still in Diepetro and the reason they traded Luongo in the 1st place ?

[oldnews]

44 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Different situation, but aren't the Islanders  on the hook for many years still in Diepetro and the reason they traded Luongo in the 1st place ?

Dipietro was compliance bought-out in 2013 - no cap penalty - his 1.5 million payouts just ended.

[Jester13]

4 hours ago, rekker said:

If LE had any character he would mutually tear up his contract. Bogosian, Buff did so. He is holding back the team with a contact he's collected the majority of monies from, 31 of 36 million. He has never come close to earning it. Just go away LE.

This. He and the entire team know he could cost us some very important assets and team players, and all because he can't see the light that he's done in the league.

 

I think he'll do the right thing and retire or terminate and move on.

 

I also think this will be a year where we're all pleasantly surprised at how well things work out for us.

[Ballisticsports.]

10 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Dipietro was compliance bought-out in 2013 - no cap penalty - his 1.5 million payouts just ended.

Not that it matters, but payments end in 2029

That is a long time for someone who hasn't played much since and was drafted in 2000

[qwijibo]

So I have a couple questions regarding how the cap works re:signing bonus’s 

 

So lets say Eriksson actually does go ahead and either retires or agrees to mutually terminate ( I don’t think either us likely, but for the sake of argument let’s say he does).  
 

He’s already received  his bonus payout for next season. So how does that impact the cap?   Does he have to return the bonus? Or does the bonus still count against the cap?   Strictly speaking  it is still part of the Canucks payroll. So if he doesn’t have to return it you’d think it would still count against next seasons cap. Can anyone confirm or dispel this? 

[Nicklas Bo Hunter]

the reason we don't buy out Louis Eriksson:

 

 

[Ghostsof1915]

Does anyone know if you can bury a player in the minors, when there is no minor league hockey to be played? I guess the same question is how is juniors going to work if there's no junior hockey to be played? How's next year's draft going to work? Isn't this going to muck up our prospects, because not everyone can play in Europe?

I know the KHL is continuing, but what about the other European leagues?

 

There's a lot of stuff in the air right now.

 

Does LE's modified no trade mean the Canucks have to protect him, or can the team leave him unprotected? (Not that the Kraken are crazy enough to pick him up)

 

 

 

[Nicklas Bo Hunter]

Just now, Ghostsof1915 said:

Does anyone know if you can bury a player in the minors, when there is no minor league hockey to be played? I guess the same question is how is juniors going to work if there's no junior hockey to be played? How's next year's draft going to work? Isn't this going to muck up our prospects, because not everyone can play in Europe?

I know the KHL is continuing, but what about the other European leagues?

 

There's a lot of stuff in the air right now.

 

Does LE's modified no trade mean the Canucks have to protect him, or can the team leave him unprotected? (Not that the Kraken are crazy enough to pick him up)

 

 

 

Canucks do not have to protect Eriksson

[oldnews]

12 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Not that it matters, but payments end in 2029

That is a long time for someone who hasn't played much since and was drafted in 2000

yeah - sorry - it was his contract that would have ended this offseason - paid to 2029 = greatest player contract ever!  I hope he bought his agent a house.

[billabong]

Thoughts on trading eriksson for a LTIR player?

 

to Van: kesler

 

to ana: eriksson

 

8m in cash savings for Anaheim over the next 2 years

 

kesler goes on LTIR and so does the cap hit

 

kesler playing days are 100% done, he’s in serious pain these days 

 

 

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, billabong said:

Thoughts on trading eriksson for a LTIR player?

 

to Van: kesler

 

to ana: eriksson

 

8m in cash savings for Anaheim over the next 2 years

 

kesler goes on LTIR and so does the cap hit

 

kesler playing days are 100% done, he’s in serious pain these days 

 

 

actually Loui probably costs them more since Kesler's money is covered by insurance. ANA might prefer to have the LTIR depending on their plans too.

 

No, since Jim's drawn a clear line in the sand its termination or Utica.