Sign in to follow this  
EP40.

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

Recommended Posts

On 9/22/2020 at 4:43 PM, EP40. said:

Rick Dhaliwal on TSN1040: “Here’s an update on Loui Eriksson - no trade. What a shock. JP Barry is not a miracle worker, he’s not Houdini. Jim Benning has been trying to move him for 2+ years. The Canucks won’t pick up any part of the cap hit or add a sweetener.”

...this is why we may lose Tanev or/and Marky both to Free Agency. 
 

 

This is supposed to be competent GMing? Look I’m proud of where JB got this team to but if the league has transitioned to winning with young players on ELC’s, then having kept Eriksson this long and still not finding a suitor only means our window to win is dented and closed that much more. 
 

Playoff experience was great and all for the young guns to rally around and improve on. But how can the team get better if you don’t have available funds to be able to strengthen around them when in fact you’ll be doing the opposite actually by having quality roster casualties as a consequence? Eriksson’s cap is preventing a lot this team can do and it’s ability to improve. He wasn’t even played during the playoffs until necessary to fill-in for others so let’s not talk about him being a good role player for the bottom6...he’s not paid to and call a spade a spade, is a buyout worthy player holding this team back. So illogical that this is the stance management is taking :wacko:

 

 

This is very smart on JB's part.  It will cost a ton to move 2 years of LE.  Hang on to him and deal with him next offseason when dealing him will cost far less, or a buyout becomes more reasonable.   Moving Sutter, Baertschi, Benn, Rousell would cost far less and open up enough space for JB to re work our D and bottom 6. 

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Long said:

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. 

I wasnt sure if insurance covers 100% of the salary or not 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billabong said:

I wasnt sure if insurance covers 100% of the salary or not 

80%. So the cost of Kesler in cash is $2.75 million and Eriksson is owed $5M. If we did Eriksson for Kesler & Backes the dollar amounts would even out, and Anaheim would save money on a replacement level player in year 2. Vancouver saves 1.5 million in cap this year and clears out 6 million next year when we need to sign EP and Hughes. 

I don't see Anaheim doing this to save 1-2 million dollars.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BCNate said:

This is very smart on JB's part.  It will cost a ton to move 2 years of LE.  Hang on to him and deal with him next offseason when dealing him will cost far less, or a buyout becomes more reasonable.   Moving Sutter, Baertschi, Benn, Rousell would cost far less and open up enough space for JB to re work our D and bottom 6. 

How do they expect any team to pick up Eriksson with the Canucks retaining salary? Or add a sweetener? What’s the logic and rationale behind this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players we can maybe trade Eriksson for:
- Justin Faulk: $6.5 million dollars with 7 years remaining. Earning 9 million in hard cash next year, St. Louis is not a financially rich team. We save cap space by having Faulk replace Tanev's salary. Faulk was on St. Louis' bottom pairing and didn't fit well. If Faulk is 80% of the player he was in Carolina this is a huge win for the Canucks. 

- Brandon Dubinsky + Wennberg: This saves Columbus over $12 million in hard cash. Vancouver saves 1.1 in cap space but gets a guy who can play centre, making it easier to move Sutter elsewhere as well. Dubinsky is not coming back. 

- Anton Stralman: Florida needs to cut costs and Stralman is rumoured as a buyout candidate. A buyout would cost 6 million vs paying Loui 5 million with likely an additional 2 million in savings from the cost of a replacement level player. Alternatively, if they were to have kept Stralman this saves 5 million. Stralman replaces Tanev/Stecher on the right side. 
 

- Justin Abdelkader: This trade straight across would save the Canucks 1.75 in cap space and overall $4 million in cash for Detroit. Abdelkader has a more buyout friendly contract. From a buyout perspective, his cap would be 1.8M this yer then 2.3M for the subsequent 2 years. If we buyout Eriksson his cap hit is 5.6M (which means we actually have to spend more for a replacement player) and then 3.6 the following year.

- Bobby Ryan: Ryan is worth 13 million dollars in cash for the remainder of his contract. The issue is his cap hit is higher than Erikssons. If we got Ryan and bought him out his cap hit would be $3.5 million this year, essentially shedding 2 million off of our cap. A buyout would cost the Sens $7.33M so that isn't really a good option for them. 

 

- PK Subban: Straight across it doesn't help our cap situation at all, but this saves New Jersey $5M. If they take Baertschi in the deal as well it still saves them $2.6M in Cash and evens out the cap hits (while adding a RHD for Vancouver). After this season Subban is owed 2 million salary after his signing bonus so we would have to find a way to trade him then. 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

How do they expect any team to pick up Eriksson with the Canucks retaining salary? Or add a sweetener? What’s the logic and rationale behind this? 

They aren't.  Simple as that.  

 

2 reasons why:

-We have much more cost effective players to move, which make way more sense.  Next year would be the time to dump LE.

-If he can't find a team, and their is no AHL season, where does he play?  JB is hoping that he will terminate the deal and sign elsewhere, as opposed to not playing at all.  He is playing hardball to try to force this option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be nice if there was even a comparable, overpriced contract for a 3rd pair right D (or even a 1B goalie if Markstrom in fact walks) for a team who either lacks forwards or would simply prefer to save some real cash over the cap hit. 

 

Something like Boychuk or Fluery (if either of those teams weren't trying to be competitive and didn't need cap space as bad/worse than us and zero need/place for Eriksson).

 

It would effectively save us the cost of whichever player it replaced (keeping Eriksson PLUS having to sign a +/-$2.5m backup vs just Fluery @ $7m actually nets us a $1.5m cap saving for example). It saves Vegas $1m of cap (and about $7.5m actual dollars!) but that probably wouldn't be enough (as his replacement easily eats that cap space up anyway). And they'd probably have even less use for Eriksson than we do. Maybe that cash savings is incentive enough though...? I mean surely we'd need to add... But maybe it's not THAT much.

 

Boychuk would be even tougher as their cap and salary are almost a wash. So probably a non starter.

 

Even better would be to target cash poor GM's though. But it's hard to say who that is for sure and if they have their own 'Fluery' they'd happily swap similar cap hit contracts with to save millions in cash...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, canucklehead44 said:

Players we can maybe trade Eriksson for:
- Justin Faulk: $6.5 million dollars with 7 years remaining. Earning 9 million in hard cash next year, St. Louis is not a financially rich team. We save cap space by having Faulk replace Tanev's salary. Faulk was on St. Louis' bottom pairing and didn't fit well. If Faulk is 80% of the player he was in Carolina this is a huge win for the Canucks. 

- Brandon Dubinsky + Wennberg: This saves Columbus over $12 million in hard cash. Vancouver saves 1.1 in cap space but gets a guy who can play centre, making it easier to move Sutter elsewhere as well. Dubinsky is not coming back. 

- Anton Stralman: Florida needs to cut costs and Stralman is rumoured as a buyout candidate. A buyout would cost 6 million vs paying Loui 5 million with likely an additional 2 million in savings from the cost of a replacement level player. Alternatively, if they were to have kept Stralman this saves 5 million. Stralman replaces Tanev/Stecher on the right side. 
 

- Justin Abdelkader: This trade straight across would save the Canucks 1.75 in cap space and overall $4 million in cash for Detroit. Abdelkader has a more buyout friendly contract. From a buyout perspective, his cap would be 1.8M this yer then 2.3M for the subsequent 2 years. If we buyout Eriksson his cap hit is 5.6M (which means we actually have to spend more for a replacement player) and then 3.6 the following year.

- Bobby Ryan: Ryan is worth 13 million dollars in cash for the remainder of his contract. The issue is his cap hit is higher than Erikssons. If we got Ryan and bought him out his cap hit would be $3.5 million this year, essentially shedding 2 million off of our cap. A buyout would cost the Sens $7.33M so that isn't really a good option for them. 

 

- PK Subban: Straight across it doesn't help our cap situation at all, but this saves New Jersey $5M. If they take Baertschi in the deal as well it still saves them $2.6M in Cash and evens out the cap hits (while adding a RHD for Vancouver). After this season Subban is owed 2 million salary after his signing bonus so we would have to find a way to trade him then. 

Yeah, the Fleury, Stralman, Subban etc contracts have me intrigued.

 

If we can somehow take on some real cash burden to move Eriksson for a position of need, it effectively saves us cap (even if still poor relative contract value).

 

I mean we'd need to still likely add (Jim willing :lol:) as those guys are all more useful, actual players. But maybe it doesn't need to be AS painful as we're all fearing.

 

I'll quietly hope for Stralman (I was hoping we'd target him as UFA last year anyway!).

Edited by aGENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this were true, JB would be an absolute moron. I’m sure he will explore ALL options. We can’t buy him out, there are no options but to trade him with a “sweetener”. If he gets buried, I could see him play next season. That’s still 4 mill in his pocket. Not many folks that are not named Naslund would just throw away money like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, canucklehead44 said:

Players we can maybe trade Eriksson for:
- Justin Faulk: $6.5 million dollars with 7 years remaining. Earning 9 million in hard cash next year, St. Louis is not a financially rich team. We save cap space by having Faulk replace Tanev's salary. Faulk was on St. Louis' bottom pairing and didn't fit well. If Faulk is 80% of the player he was in Carolina this is a huge win for the Canucks. 

- Brandon Dubinsky + Wennberg: This saves Columbus over $12 million in hard cash. Vancouver saves 1.1 in cap space but gets a guy who can play centre, making it easier to move Sutter elsewhere as well. Dubinsky is not coming back. 

- Anton Stralman: Florida needs to cut costs and Stralman is rumoured as a buyout candidate. A buyout would cost 6 million vs paying Loui 5 million with likely an additional 2 million in savings from the cost of a replacement level player. Alternatively, if they were to have kept Stralman this saves 5 million. Stralman replaces Tanev/Stecher on the right side. 
 

- Justin Abdelkader: This trade straight across would save the Canucks 1.75 in cap space and overall $4 million in cash for Detroit. Abdelkader has a more buyout friendly contract. From a buyout perspective, his cap would be 1.8M this yer then 2.3M for the subsequent 2 years. If we buyout Eriksson his cap hit is 5.6M (which means we actually have to spend more for a replacement player) and then 3.6 the following year.

- Bobby Ryan: Ryan is worth 13 million dollars in cash for the remainder of his contract. The issue is his cap hit is higher than Erikssons. If we got Ryan and bought him out his cap hit would be $3.5 million this year, essentially shedding 2 million off of our cap. A buyout would cost the Sens $7.33M so that isn't really a good option for them. 

 

- PK Subban: Straight across it doesn't help our cap situation at all, but this saves New Jersey $5M. If they take Baertschi in the deal as well it still saves them $2.6M in Cash and evens out the cap hits (while adding a RHD for Vancouver). After this season Subban is owed 2 million salary after his signing bonus so we would have to find a way to trade him then. 

 

Dubinsky's contract is insured so they only have to pay the retention.  Wennberg is under 26 - a buyout costs them about as much as Eriksson.  CBJ wants to improve.  

 

Detroit could alternatively also buyout Abdelkader themselves - taking Eriksson only saves them 1.33M over a buyout.  

 

A Bobby Ryan buyout is 9.33M as he still has 2M in bonuses (assuming this year's was already paid).  Not sure the Canucks will want to pay that much for a buyout as they are laying off staff and cutting costs.

 

NJD seems to be looking to take advantage of cap strapped teams to add good players.  Subban is a big and positive voice in the room and on the bench.  Nashville media had been reporting that they've missed that last season.  So not so sure that NJD is looking to move him to save money when their team is getting younger.  

 

Edited by mll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

All this sweetener talk has giving me a toothache 

GIF by Kim's Convenience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, grandmaster said:

If this were true, JB would be an absolute moron. I’m sure he will explore ALL options. We can’t buy him out, there are no options but to trade him with a “sweetener”. If he gets buried, I could see him play next season. That’s still 4 mill in his pocket. Not many folks that are not named Naslund would just throw away money like that.

Why? This is sending a message to LE and his agent. We signed Loui to be a goal scorer and he hasn't delivered. We paid him handsomely and his agent reaped those rewards and we have little to show for it. Why should we further damage ourselves by retaining or adding a sweetener to help get him in a more favourable situation. If he wants out, then perhaps he shouldn't have blocked a potential trade last year. We haven't gone the burying route just yet, but he's playing his way there. Green found a useful role for him and did the best we could to boost whatever value he had left. He played far more games in the regular season and in the playoffs than many even expected. We are done doing favours for him and are not going to take away from our team further for his benefit.

 

If he wants out at this point, he has three options. Find a trade where we don't retain or use a sweetener, mutually terminate, or retire. Alternatively he could bust his ass and rejuvenate his career and we have shown we will continue to play him as needed and he just has to suck it up and take on whatever role we give him.

 

Our cap situation isn't as dire as some think and if we need an extra million to play a young player, then down to Utica he goes.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, EP40. said:


lol

Literally nobody wants him.  Period

 

Eriksson should be taking SOME of that on himself.  the Sedins did, when they slowed down they admitted it and said they couldn't see themselves playing past their contracts because they'd be too slow.  

 

If Eriksson is unhappy at the prospect of riding the pine...frigging produce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Literally nobody wants him.  Period

 

Barry literally told Rick that there’s a suitor for Eriksson if Canucks retain half his salary which management is unwilling to do.


So no, there is a team out there that clearly would take him if his agent is saying that.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, EP40. said:

 

Barry literally told Rick that there’s a suitor for Eriksson if Canucks retain half his salary which management is unwilling to do.


So no, there is a team out there that clearly would take him if his agent is saying that.

Whoever created that tweet is a goof. I've got half of a footlong cold cut combo I'm willing to sell you for $3. It's slightly old but it will fill your stomach. I'll give you my email address if you want to send the transfer. You're dumb if you don't. I mean, it's no good to me but you'll be happy with a cheap sub and it will save us each some money in the long run. :lol:

 

Does that tweet actually say someone would take Loui for zero elements and no assets for half retention or is this just for use as Benning hate fodder?

 

I think what the sad people have to realize is they're just latching on to another tidbit to hate on. If Tampa Bay offers Foote for Loui with half retention Jimbo is jumping all over it. They just can't take the blinders off to discern fiction from reality. What he is really saying is that we're not overpaying with assets in way shape or form at all just to get ride of his contract. So don't think you're getting Boeser, Demko, Virtanen, or basically anyone on our current roster to take Loui. We'll just suck it up and pay the price of money instead of weakening our team for some short term gain, like a child would do.

Edited by Gawdzukes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Dhaliwal said Barry told him he could move Eriksson at 3M(50% retention) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EP40. said:


lol

Yeah, other teams will take him half retained if we also kick in Boeser or a first. That tweet is completely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Yeah, other teams will take him half retained if we also kick in Boeser or a first. That tweet is completely irrelevant.

Ya, I heard the interview and the agent didn’t mention what kind of sweetener it would take.
 

Also, $3 million retained cap is a $1.25 million dollar cost to the receiving team.

 

If a team is willing to take him at half salary, why doesn’t he terminate his contract and go somewhere they want him?  He would still make $2.5 million more and be able to actually play... that seems worth losing just $2.5 million in real dollars.

 

Honestly, I have to blame Benning for not playing hardball last season and throwing Eriksson in the minors.  That was the time to do it, three full years riding the busses is a lot more daunting to a veteran player.

 

I guess Alfives was wrong with his belief that there was a gentleman’s agreement for Eriksson to retire after this season.

Edited by Provost
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.