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

[Dazzle]

2 hours 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.

There is no "literal" talk here. You're referencing what you thought someone said because some dude on Twitter said it.

[Dazzle]

20 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

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

How do people take this $&!# seriously?

 

This is the equivalent. I heard your girlfriend likes me because the dude who slept with her told me. If you think you're getting ANY sense of truth here, you are probably as delusional as me for coming up with this crappy example to make fun of you.

[Junkyard Dog]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

How do people take this $&!# seriously?

 

This is the equivalent. I heard your girlfriend likes me because the dude who slept with her told me. If you think you're getting ANY sense of truth here, you are probably as delusional as me for coming up with this crappy example to make fun of you.

Are you alright dude? I simply state what a saw in a tweet, something every reasonable mind would take with a grain of salt and that is the response you feel was warranted?

[Dazzle]

Just now, Junkyard Dog said:

Are you alright dude? I simply state what a saw in a tweet, something every reasonable mind would take with a grain of salt and that is the response you feel was warranted?

There are posters here that are taking that tool Tej on twitter as some kind of insider. Dhaliwal, while once a respected journalist, has seemingly lost the trust/room with the Canucks, so he's been crafting speculation as some kind of fact. He's trying to do his job, which is to get people talking, but I don't think he's showing a lot of journalist integrity.

My post wasn't meant to be personal. Heck, I made fun of myself too.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Dazzle

[Gawdzukes]

22 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

Yeah, that's guys like EP40. Doesn't do any research or have his own thoughts, he just regurgitates crap to fuel his hate felt thoughts he was taught to feel on the internet. 

 

I would have liked to play hardball last season as well technically, but technically it didn't matter cap wise. Also, we weren't that good yet so these hard decisions did not have to be made then. We look a lot better now killing Loui's contract then we did as a fledging team of malcontents, which we were the year before. But I concur.

 

Oh yeah, and Alf is wrong 98 times out of 100. That's because old people don't give a f$$$ and they just like to get a rise out of people. They basically just come up with outlandish stuff because they can't be bothered to follow the new wave of thinking and hate not being able to keep up. That guy has said so many things he's right, wrong, in-between, out on a limb, in the embers, and just plain ornery. But a good guy. I kind of miss him. 

[Provost]

39 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

There are posters here that are taking that tool Tej on twitter as some kind of insider. Dhaliwal, while once a respected journalist, has seemingly lost the trust/room with the Canucks, so he's been crafting speculation as some kind of fact. He's trying to do his job, which is to get people talking, but I don't think he's showing a lot of journalist integrity.

My post wasn't meant to be personal. Heck, I made fun of myself too.

 

It was literally on 1040 in a live interview with JP Barry.  It isn’t a 3rd person rumour.

 

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040/barry-on-what-the-offseason-market-could-look-like-updates-on-eriksson-toffoli-1.1529838

 

He said he could find a taker for Eriksson at $3 million.  He just didn’t say what,if anything, it would also cost us to do that as a sweetener.

 

Benning should tell Barry to put his clients money where his mouth is and mutually terminate the contract before free agency so he can go play for that “suitor”.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Provost

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

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

a sound bite for people that don't think any further about it..

but again, probably not the wisest public comments.  if he's hoping to pressure Benning I think he's misreading the appetite in this market to listen to LE's needs any further.

if he's hoping to work with Benning at the same time as dropping this shade to drama-feeders, how's that likely to turn out?  probably with Benning doubling down - and I hope he does.

 

realistically, what junk is coming back in that kind of deal?  and/or what is the asset cost? 

why should the Canucks shoulder either for LE/Barry? 

he's spent all the grace Benning and Green have afforded him, imo.

 

I agree with Benning drawing the line here -  LE is coming off as an annoying combination of deluded and/or entitled.

 

Obviously - if what Barry is implying were true - simply,  as it is - than he could terminate, re-sign in the somewhat receptive market,  lose little to nothing, and actually play somewhere.

But it isn't that simple, is it.  Ie who would re-sign LE at 3 million?  I suspect that answer is no one.  At 2.5?  If that market were there, there's no disincentive to terminate. 

 

For some teams that will not spend near the cap ceiling, the retention thing doesn't really add much, if any, value - and teams that are capped out would tend to have little to no need or use for an LE.   In a deflated market, there will  quite simply be better value available.

 

The reality is - if the market were that receptive of Loui - then Barry probably wouldn't need to spend the energy attempting to pre-empt the termination option. 

 

Regardless - it's time to stop expecting accomodation/posturing.....move on / terminate and be done with it. 

 

If the Canucks have to waive him unconditionally, assign him to Utica and he reports - I personally would never recall him again - and I'd let him know that up front.  Sorry, you've played your last game as a Canuck.  Period.

Edited September 26, 2020 by oldnews

[Ballisticsports.]

If that is the case, that is the agent saying i did such a good job screwing the Canucks over, that i got him twice as much money than any other team will pay for years and Damn you greedy Canucks, pay 1/2 that wage so he can continue to play

 

Hmmm how about , if you know you are not the $6 million dollar man, that you buck up the $3 million after being over paid for so long?

It should be embarrassing for a player to even let his agent state that,

 

[oldnews]

12 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

If that is the case, that is the agent saying i did such a good job screwing the Canucks over, that i got him twice as much money than any other team will pay for years and Damn you greedy Canucks, pay 1/2 that wage so he can continue to play

 

Hmmm how about , if you know you are not the $6 million dollar man, that you buck up the $3 million after being over paid for so long?

It should be embarrassing for a player to even let his agent state that,

 

after the Canucks have effectively already paid him $5 of the 6 million cap hit this coming season, and 2 of the 6 the following season...

 

the story that LE would be walking away from money is only a half truth - the other half of the truth is the line above - that LE has already been compensated for more than one of the seasons ahead of him....

 

He's the highest cap hit in a forward group that he sits (imo) around 15th/16th in the depth chart....in fairness, I think the Canucks were deeper than most teams last season - guys like Ferland. Leivo, and usually another couple forwards injured - while still icing pretty solid depth - however, regardless of qualifiers, he was once again given 49 games and 10 more in the playoffs to restore some of his value - and he simply did not - 13 regular season pts and not one secondary scoring pt in the playoffs - being a reliable placeholder/replacement defensive forward is simply not good enough.   I appreciate that Benning, Green, and Barry are probably respectful, nice people and are hesitant to rip into LE with the harsher reality, but thankfully, Benning has defined the boundary, at the right time imo. 

 

To this point, the team could carry LE during the transition period - but moving forward, that time has expired - and actually conditions have recoiled.

LE hasn't even lived up to the reasonably sound dumpability parameters of the closing years of that deal.  That's a calculation they need to get real about imo.

 

 

[canucklehead44]

On 9/24/2020 at 10:16 PM, mll said:

 

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.  

 

1. I know Dubinsky's contract is insured - it is still $1M + in cash. I guess if CBJ is spending up to the cap. One idea could be a 2nd round pick to Columbus + future considerations. Columbus agrees to sign Eriksson for 2 years x 2.5 million then we terminate his contract. This again saves Columbus cash off the buyout with a minimal cap hit and Vancouver fills a spot they actually need. Wennberg could turn his game around, if not we buy him out after next season to open up space for Hughes & Pettersson's contracts. 
2. Again Detroit saves money on the actual buyout and fills a roster spot for two years. Eriksson is worth about $1-1.5M, so I look at it more as $3M-$4M in savings for Detroit. 
3. Bobby Ryan got bought out by Ottawa by their cheap owner
4. There was a rumoured deal of Subban coming to Vancouver but NJD didn't want to retain salary. 

[mll]

2 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

1. I know Dubinsky's contract is insured - it is still $1M + in cash. I guess if CBJ is spending up to the cap. One idea could be a 2nd round pick to Columbus + future considerations. Columbus agrees to sign Eriksson for 2 years x 2.5 million then we terminate his contract. This again saves Columbus cash off the buyout with a minimal cap hit and Vancouver fills a spot they actually need. Wennberg could turn his game around, if not we buy him out after next season to open up space for Hughes & Pettersson's contracts. 
2. Again Detroit saves money on the actual buyout and fills a roster spot for two years. Eriksson is worth about $1-1.5M, so I look at it more as $3M-$4M in savings for Detroit. 
3. Bobby Ryan got bought out by Ottawa by their cheap owner
4. There was a rumoured deal of Subban coming to Vancouver but NJD didn't want to retain salary. 

 

1.  CBJ are looking to be competitive.  CBJ had so may injuries last year and they had to recall their fair share of players - would think they'd earn a spot.  I don't see CBJ taking on an anchor contract.  It's a step back and they want to take a step forward and finally make it past the 2nd round.  CBJ wants to add high end players and they need the cap space to do that.  

 

2.  Given Yzerman's comments after the Staal trade it feels even less likely now.  Detroit wants to take on bad contracts for futures.  Abdelkader has a lower cap hit and gives them more room to take on those bad contracts for draft picks.  

 

3.  To create roster spots for younger players per LeBrun.  Will be interesting to see how they fill the rest of their roster.  LeBrun says that reaching the floor is not a concern at all.

 

4.  When was that?  Didn't hear that rumour - do you have any more details.  Thanks.  

 

[rekker]

Given the flat cap, uncertainty moving forward with the abilty to play games with fans in the seats, I'm shocked the NHL hasn't given each team a one player buyout going into next season. LE would be our buy out for sure. 

[Provost]

21 minutes ago, rekker said:

Given the flat cap, uncertainty moving forward with the abilty to play games with fans in the seats, I'm shocked the NHL hasn't given each team a one player buyout going into next season. LE would be our buy out for sure. 

Owners didn’t want it, Bettman didn’t want it, and players didn’t want it.

 

Compliance buyouts counted towards the players share of HRR so would just increase escrow for all players to benefit a few players.
 

Owners are also looking to spend less in terms of real dollars while they don’t have revenue, not more.  The league didn’t want to reward and forgive bad signings by GMs, giving repeated get out of jail free cards just promotes bad behaviour in the future.

 

What actually surprised me was that they didn’t do a small rollback of existing contracts by something like 10%.  It wouldn’t have made a real difference to players take home as it reduces escrow, but it kind of evens the playing field a little and would have left some room for UFAs this summer... right now there will be a ton of mid left guys scrambling for jobs.

 

I am glad they didn’t do a rollback because it advantages the Canucks not to.  Our big star contracts are going to take place when there is no money in the system and a flat cap for several years.  They “should” be discounted compared with now bloated contracts like on Toronto where they factored in cap inflation on those deals to make them affordable in the future.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Provost

[rekker]

Fair enough but where does it go from here. At best, maybe the NHL starts up in Dec Jan with 50 percent capacity. That won't pay the bills. Revenues are going to be crap for possibly years. A lot of folks, especially in the States are hurting. This will get real interesting yet.

[mll]

1 minute ago, rekker said:

Fair enough but where does it go from here. At best, maybe the NHL starts up in Dec Jan with 50 percent capacity. That won't pay the bills. Revenues are going to be crap for possibly years. A lot of folks, especially in the States are hurting. This will get real interesting yet.

Season unlikely to start before January if not later.  It could be a very short season too.  There's normally the Olympics next summer and hockey season will have to be finished by then including the playoffs.  NBC has the Olympic rights and will make sure of it.

[24K PureCool]

2 minutes ago, mll said:

Season unlikely to start before January if not later.  It could be a very short season too.  There's normally the Olympics next summer and hockey season will have to be finished by then including the playoffs.  NBC has the Olympic rights and will make sure of it.

Uhh you do realize Olympic hockey is in 2022 and in the winter right?

[mll]

5 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Uhh you do realize Olympic hockey is in 2022 and in the winter right?

2021 Summer Olympics.  The NHL season will have to be completed before the start of the 2021 Olympics.  

[rekker]

13 minutes ago, mll said:

Season unlikely to start before January if not later.  It could be a very short season too.  There's normally the Olympics next summer and hockey season will have to be finished by then including the playoffs.  NBC has the Olympic rights and will make sure of it.

That's best case. If there are no bums in the seats, keep in mind the States are a mess, there will be no games. 

[24K PureCool]

4 minutes ago, mll said:

2021 Summer Olympics.  The NHL season will have to be completed before the start of the 2021 Olympics.  

Lol sorry I get you now. 

[Provost]

30 minutes ago, rekker said:

Fair enough but where does it go from here. At best, maybe the NHL starts up in Dec Jan with 50 percent capacity. That won't pay the bills. Revenues are going to be crap for possibly years. A lot of folks, especially in the States are hurting. This will get real interesting yet.

... and the new cap calculation averages out the two previous years rather than just a single year to keep it more stable. That means it has to be two years AFTER revenue catches up before the cap increases much of at all.

 

The players will also owe money after that due to the artificial cap on escrow right now.  There is basically no way revenue next season (and even the season after) will have recovered enough to only be around 20% escrow.

 

That means it is almost certainly a 4-5 year flat cap with only small increases for a couple years after that.  Tough sledding for players wanting to cash in.