Does LE retire if buried in minors?

[grandmaster]

This contract has become a cancer to the team for too long. From the moment he arrived and scored on his own team, it’s been nothing but down hill. It annoys me that TT would have remained if we didn’t have LE.

 

It’s obvious no one wants this guy and JB is not willing to throw away futures to get rid of him. A buyout doesn’t help much so we are stuck with this disaster.

 

Do you think he will retire if he rode the bus Utica? Does LE have any pride? No more posh amenities? It is time to play hardball on this guy. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by grandmaster

[RonMexico]

I don't think you can just outright him to the minors.

[73 Percent]

4 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

I don't think you can just outright him to the minors.

Why not?

[Fanuck]

The real question - will there even be AHL this year? 

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

I believe burying him in the minors brings the league minimum in cap relief, and then that spot must be filled on the roster.

 

And, burying NHL-capable players in the minors, just when you feel like you are done with them, is hardly a way to attract other talent to come play on your team as well.

[apollo]

2 minutes ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said:

I believe burying him in the minors brings the league minimum in cap relief, and then that spot must be filled on the roster.

 

And, burying NHL-capable players in the minors, just when you feel like you are done with them, is hardly a way to attract other talent to come play on your team as well.

I agree with what you're saying and I've been a supporter of Loui hoping he'd turn a new leaf... but it's been 4 years of chances that he's had. I don't think it would negatively impact future UFA's coming here if we waive and AHL Loui year 5 of 6...

 

Had we done it earlier then yes definitely wouldn't look good ( but i believe he had full NMC then anyways)

[kanucks25]

13 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

I don't think you can just outright him to the minors.

Sure can, he only had an NMC for the first two years of his contract.

 

I imagine the reason Benning doesn't do this is because it doesn't save much on the cap and it's not good for management/player relations.

 

e/ They'd probably give him the option to just sit at home and collect the money instead and hope he retires out of guilt or something lol (which is doubtful).

Edited October 14, 2020 by kanucks25

[24K PureCool]

Yes time to make his life miserable. 

I would not even bother inviting him to camp. 

Waive him day one of training camp.

[Hogs & Podz]

10 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Yes time to make his life miserable. 

I would not even bother inviting him to camp. 

Waive him day one of training camp.

The NHL community is small.  That sends the wrong message out there.  Let him earn a spot... If he gets beat out, so be it.  That sends the right message all around.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Hogs & Podz

[Fanuck]

9 minutes ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said:

I believe burying him in the minors brings the league minimum in cap relief, and then that spot must be filled on the roster.

 

And, burying NHL-capable players in the minors, just when you feel like you are done with them, is hardly a way to attract other talent to come play on your team as well.

I hear you - the flip side being what is the message to the young core of guys when a veteran player is given years worth of chances to produce and squanders every chance he's had thus far?  Guys like, Mac, Sautner, Bailey all work their you know what's off every night just to get a sniff and this guy is riding the gravy train indefinitely if someone doesn't do something about it. 

[Nuck1991]

he should have been sent to minors at the start of this season, riding the bus might have changed his mind.

We save 1 million in cap space

[Maniwaki Canuck]

There's no right message in a situation like this.  Send him down and you're being punitive, keep him up and it's only to justify the sunk cost.  In the end, it has to be about who gives you the best overall lineup.  On those grounds, he could easily fail to make the 23 man roster.  As for sending him down to force his retirement, I understand and support the sentiment.  Question is whether it will work.  Hard to know the answer.  But if there's no AHL and he's just being paid to stay at home, my guess is he'll accept that and keep collecting his paycheck.

[erkayloomeh]

If his play just deteriorated with age I would inclined to handle him with appropriate respect . 

But since he's fathered many puppies since he signed here he gets treated as such 

Bury this guy and get him away from this team whether he retires or not.

His effort level is about 80 percent most nights.

I don't even understand why he got ice time last year and in the playoffs 

Whats up with this dude and what's up with a coach that's playing him?

I'm no hockey genius but I can recognise lack of effort. 

And if he's this great defensive player then why did he get benched when TT came back as opposed to being put on one of the bottom two lines? 

Get rid of this selfish player. 

Never liked ragging on players much.  Always liked guys like Raymond, Ballard and company because I believed the effort was there even though they took heat from some fans.

If LE cared about the fans, teammates and organization he'd retire.  

No class lazy bum .  

[grandmaster]

30 minutes ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said:

I believe burying him in the minors brings the league minimum in cap relief, and then that spot must be filled on the roster.

 

And, burying NHL-capable players in the minors, just when you feel like you are done with them, is hardly a way to attract other talent to come play on your team as well.

I’m quite sure other players looking to land here are not going to look at it that way. It’s no secret that LE is not a good player anymore and that he has been given more than his fair share of opportunities. 

[grandmaster]

15 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

There's no right message in a situation like this.  Send him down and you're being punitive, keep him up and it's only to justify the sunk cost.  In the end, it has to be about who gives you the best overall lineup.  On those grounds, he could easily fail to make the 23 man roster.  As for sending him down to force his retirement, I understand and support the sentiment.  Question is whether it will work.  Hard to know the answer.  But if there's no AHL and he's just being paid to stay at home, my guess is he'll accept that and keep collecting his paycheck.

I suppose your right about there being an AHL. He would be foolish to retire when he could be sitting at home and do nothing. However, is there a mechanism that we could force him to play like in the KHL? Lol. Send him to Siberia!

[canuktravella]

43 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

I don't think you can just outright him to the minors.

of course you can

[EternalCanuckFan]

I expect Eriksson to show up at camp.  If Eriksson earns a spot, then great, but at this stage I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.  I think it would be along the lines of what the Canucks did with Sam Gagner, e.g. management loaning him to the Texas Stars or something else that would be friendly for his family.  Something has to give if Eriksson cannot earn a spot and really, outside of being a safe player to deploy, Eriksson has been a shadow of what he was even the year before signing with the Canucks.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by EternalCanuckFan

[Phil_314]

33 minutes ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said:

I believe burying him in the minors brings the league minimum in cap relief, and then that spot must be filled on the roster.

 

And, burying NHL-capable players in the minors, just when you feel like you are done with them, is hardly a way to attract other talent to come play on your team as well.

I think you're probably overstating the impact that comes from burying NHL guys in the minors.  Many have done it (Schneider, Ladd, Beleskey to name a few that I can think of) and it's reasonable when the player's play simply isn't up to par given his contract.  

[Fanuck]

17 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

There's no right message in a situation like this.  Send him down and you're being punitive, keep him up and it's only to justify the sunk cost.  In the end, it has to be about who gives you the best overall lineup.  On those grounds, he could easily fail to make the 23 man roster.  As for sending him down to force his retirement, I understand and support the sentiment.  Question is whether it will work.  Hard to know the answer.  But if there's no AHL and he's just being paid to stay at home, my guess is he'll accept that and keep collecting his paycheck.

Good perspective MC, I suppose at the beginning of his tenure here he was given a long leash since he did have a good body of work in the league up to that point.  Also, we as an organization did not have the depth to simply sit him out and replace him with another player without being a slightly worse team on the ice.  Now, I would hope that JB has built some depth in the organization that LE needs to bring 100% every night and every shift or there are other players ready, willing, and able to take his roster spot.  Two unpredictable external factors have exacerbated the LE situation imo and those are the Lu recapture BS penalty and the COVID flat cap - they both make the LE situation worse in the short-term. 

[Maniwaki Canuck]

1 minute ago, grandmaster said:

I suppose your right about there being an AHL. He would be foolish to retire when he could be sitting at home and do nothing. However, is there a mechanism that we could force him to play like in the KHL? Lol. Send him to Siberia!

I suggested that myself in another discussion somewhere on this board!  The comeback was that even an ECHL assignment isn't allowed under the collective agreement.  Too bad because he deserves to suffer for that money.