Loui Eriksson - Benning's 4 choices (Discussion/Poll)

[Alienhuggyflow]

On 12/1/2020 at 9:29 PM, King Heffy said:

Canucks are still on the hook for his cap if he goes to Sweden.  Let him rot in Utica and tell Cull not to waste any icetime on that floater that could be given to a player who actually wants to be an NHLer.  A better option might be to keep calling him back up to force him to quarantine, then send him back down once the time's up.  Time to take the kid gloves off and make this lazy piece of garbage as miserable as possible.

Here's the thing tho. Unless the AHL somehow is even able to have a season the shock factor of riding a bus and everything else that people are hoping convinces him to retire will be no factor at all. If he's papered down and the AHL is delayed or worse, he sits at home and makes more then he would on the active roster with Vancouver. If Ferland is LTIR and no further moves are made, I think LE can still play in the bottom six and PK. He is vastly overpaid but is still useful in a certain role with the club as a 4th line pker or as an injury fill in. He could also be a good mentor for a Hogs to learn the defensive side of the game. 

[Alienhuggyflow]

On 12/2/2020 at 12:35 PM, King Heffy said:

Don't you have to break a sweat to get jock itch?  PEDs aren't likely either considering how badly he's been playing.  The idea of LE going on LTIR relies on him being a team player and working with the team, neither of which he's shown a history of doing.

Since I don't have the ear of the team like many here who claim to know of LE and his his work ethic and being a team player, maybe someone can explain the fact LE not only showed up in the bubble knowing he was like the 14-15 forward and wouldn't see his wife and young kids but by all accounts, came into the bubble in great shape.

Sorry doesn't sound like someone who's lazy and not a team player.

The fact that many of you want him to willingly give up the 6 million still owed to him so that we have him off the books honestly is one of the stupidest things I've read on these forums and that's saying something. 

Linden, the Twins and the owner pushed Benning to sign him and it didn't work out. If they want him off the books that bad then pay the cost it will take to move him. Fans somehow getting angry because LE signed a legal contract and still has the desire to play but because he's no longer wanted or needed here should do a solid and retire and lose millions makes me question the maturity of a lot of our fanbase.

[King Heffy]

16 minutes ago, Alienhuggyflow said:

Since I don't have the ear of the team like many here who claim to know of LE and his his work ethic and being a team player, maybe someone can explain the fact LE not only showed up in the bubble knowing he was like the 14-15 forward and wouldn't see his wife and young kids but by all accounts, came into the bubble in great shape.

Sorry doesn't sound like someone who's lazy and not a team player.

The fact that many of you want him to willingly give up the 6 million still owed to him so that we have him off the books honestly is one of the stupidest things I've read on these forums and that's saying something. 

Linden, the Twins and the owner pushed Benning to sign him and it didn't work out. If they want him off the books that bad then pay the cost it will take to move him. Fans somehow getting angry because LE signed a legal contract and still has the desire to play but because he's no longer wanted or needed here should do a solid and retire and lose millions makes me question the maturity of a lot of our fanbase.

Well if he still has the desire to play he should stop floating and at least try to stop disgracing the team every time he steps into the ice.

 

 

[Lazurus]

On 12/2/2020 at 5:26 AM, janisahockeynut said:

OK, let's help Jim decide what to do with Loui Eriksson

 

1. Trade him for a boat load of players, prospects and picks

2. Play him as the 13th forward on the Canucks

3. Assign him to Utica

4. Buy him out

 

Personally, he does not last the season in Utica  and retires. There is way too much family pressure, and with Covid...no way Loui stays? Do you think?

 

So, if the AHL actually plays this coming winter, is this Benning's best option?

 

There might be a 5th option, and that is to loan him to the SHL.......I am not sure that actually lets the Canucks off the hook for his salary? Maybe someone like IMM can let us know if that is a possibility.

Can't add to the salaries so even if he is demoted the top number will not go up, no more money.

He is just another anchor holding the team back an over paid bottom six guy.

 

Four of the Bottom six payroll Sutter, Eriksson, Rousell, Beagle = $16,375,000.00, that is almost more than four of the top six Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Pettersson = $17,550,000.00

 

The loan idea might work but this is Vancouver so not likely.

[King Heffy]

6 hours ago, Lazurus said:

Can't add to the salaries so even if he is demoted the top number will not go up, no more money.

He is just another anchor holding the team back an over paid bottom six guy.

 

Four of the Bottom six payroll Sutter, Eriksson, Rousell, Beagle = $16,375,000.00, that is almost more than four of the top six Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Pettersson = $17,550,000.00

 

The loan idea might work but this is Vancouver so not likely.

The demotion isn't so much to save the cap; it's because Eriksson simply isn't willing or able to play at the NHL level, and we have an entire team full of guys who deserve a shot over our $6 million floating turd.  Sending that useless piece of garbage to the AHL where he belongs allows us to ice a better lineup.

[IBatch]

15 hours ago, King Heffy said:

The demotion isn't so much to save the cap; it's because Eriksson simply isn't willing or able to play at the NHL level, and we have an entire team full of guys who deserve a shot over our $6 million floating turd.  Sending that useless piece of garbage to the AHL where he belongs allows us to ice a better lineup.

Look at the bright side.   We will have 9 million opening up when Luongo’s and LEs penalties are done.    If we had that now who would we be committing too, and would that really push us over the top into contention?   Doubt it.   But don’t doubt for one minute it wouldn’t be tied up.   And in two years those players would be two years older when our actual window appears.   Sure Hoffman and TT for example would be great.   But the last two years of their contracts how great and how old would they be?  
 

LE is like banked money at least.   Sure it’s not ideal - but when the money is truly needed it for sure will open doors and a lot of opportunities will be available.     I doubt he’s going to give up on the 4 million he’s owed his final year.   He knows nobody wants him.   No deals presented themselves.   And I pray that none do next year too.   Because I don’t want any lingering stink associated with LE over the groups head after.   Like a first and retention for one year next offseason.   Or almost  as bad cutting his cap in half and extending it one more year with a buy-out.  
 

Your hate for him is fine - over the top - yes - but I get it.   And also believe he’s soon going to be passed on the depth chart.   McEwen and possibly Lind ... that said he’s still useful on the PK and as an injury replacement.   Trust the coaching staff to make the right calls on if and when he’s demoted.   Two will be for sure - but given the taxi squad this year I highly doubt he won’t stick around with the team - even if technically he’s demoted. 

[JM_]

15 hours ago, King Heffy said:

The demotion isn't so much to save the cap; it's because Eriksson simply isn't willing or able to play at the NHL level, and we have an entire team full of guys who deserve a shot over our $6 million floating turd.  Sending that useless piece of garbage to the AHL where he belongs allows us to ice a better lineup.

if the idea Frank Serevelli was tweeting about turns out to be true, an expanded roster of 26 + 4 more AHL. taxi guys, I can see Loui in one of the 4 taxi spots. So while he'll technically be in the AHL he'll basically be along for the ride and not physically  in Siberia (Utica). I think for 2 reasons - 1, cap management needs are met, and 2. Utica is going to be for the kids that need to be in the AHL all year, whereas Loui might be needed for injury duty and doesn't have development needs. 

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, IBatch said:

LE is like banked money at least.   Sure it’s not ideal - but when the money is truly needed it for sure will open doors and a lot of opportunities will be available.     I doubt he’s going to give up on the 4 million he’s owed his final year.   He knows nobody wants him.   No deals presented themselves.   And I pray that none do next year too.   Because I don’t want any lingering stink associated with LE over the groups head after.   Like a first and retention for one year next offseason.   Or almost  as bad cutting his cap in half and extending it one more year with a buy-out.  

If Benning needs 2 mil it'll be a buyout. If not, it will be Utica for real since there will be a vaccine and life like back to relatively normal, Benning isn't going to trade any key futures to move him, we know that for sure now. 

[qwijibo]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

if the idea Frank Serevelli was tweeting about turns out to be true, an expanded roster of 26 + 4 more AHL. taxi guys, I can see Loui in one of the 4 taxi spots. So while he'll technically be in the AHL he'll basically be along for the ride and not physically  in Siberia (Utica). I think for 2 reasons - 1, cap management needs are met, and 2. Utica is going to be for the kids that need to be in the AHL all year, whereas Loui might be needed for injury duty and doesn't have development needs. 

I need to see more info on the expanded rosters and taxi squads. It’s all fine and good in theory. But currently several teams that are at or near the cap are planning on running rosters of 20-21 to stay compliant.  Adding 3 more roster spots won’t do them a lick of good 

[Lazurus]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

If Benning needs 2 mil it'll be a buyout. If not, it will be Utica for real since there will be a vaccine and life like back to relatively normal, Benning isn't going to trade any key futures to move him, we know that for sure now. 

I think any deals done in the way of trades will be close to the TDL. No fans, or not enough fans, no money.

 

I am worried about the upcoming money that will be available, Benning hasn't shown any restraint in paying players, at least the old ones and with a flat cap coming for years to come, I worry he could pay Pettersson and Hughes like the cap was going up 5% or more every year and he still has an unlimited supply of funds in case he needs to buyout players or he figures the team is competitive enough to draw fans so he uses draft picks and prospects to fix his mistakes.

 

The problem with selling a cup contender is they have to be good, really good almost all the time whereas selling hope is much easier and can take lots of time and any improvement can be magnified as special.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, qwijibo said:

I need to see more info on the expanded rosters and taxi squads. It’s all fine and good in theory. But currently several teams that are at or near the cap are planning on running rosters of 20-21 to stay compliant.  Adding 3 more roster spots won’t do them a lick of good 

its going to have to be some sort of outside-the-cap fix. Yes thats unfair to some teams but not sure what the alternatives really are? 

[qwijibo]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its going to have to be some sort of outside-the-cap fix. Yes thats unfair to some teams but not sure what the alternatives really are? 

I don’t know.  The taxi squad’s salaries will likely be treated like they’re in the minors. But I can’t see the league setting a static salary cap for a minimum of 3 seasons then immediately bypassing it by allowing it to be higher this year 

[JM_]

Just now, qwijibo said:

I don’t know.  The taxi squad’s salaries will likely be treated like they’re in the minors. But I can’t see the league setting a static salary cap for a minimum of 3 seasons then immediately bypassing it by allowing it to be higher this year 

in a normal year of course, these are desperate times tho for league finances.

 

I could see something like an extra 3 roster spots from players already on your 50 man roster, and allowing teams a 10% overage so you can rotate players in and out without too much juggling, something like that. 

[qwijibo]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

in a normal year of course, these are desperate times tho for league finances.

 

I could see something like an extra 3 roster spots from players already on your 50 man roster, and allowing teams a 10% overage so you can rotate players in and out without too much juggling, something like that. 

Thing is. The static salary cap is because it’s not a regular year.  Teams are already taking huge losses and ever dollar over the cap is a dollar the players will eventually have to pay back to the owners under the 50/50 split.  It’ll be interesting to see how they handle it.  I suspect teams near the cap will just have to run with whatever roster they can fit under the cap plus the taxi squad. If that’s 21 of 26 spots that’s their problem 

[mll]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

in a normal year of course, these are desperate times tho for league finances.

 

I could see something like an extra 3 roster spots from players already on your 50 man roster, and allowing teams a 10% overage so you can rotate players in and out without too much juggling, something like that. 

Owners aren't looking to increase their spending though.  Players proposed to defer additional money (which owners were asking for) in exchange for increasing the cap and the owners turned that down.   

[JM_]

19 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Thing is. The static salary cap is because it’s not a regular year.  Teams are already taking huge losses and ever dollar over the cap is a dollar the players will eventually have to pay back to the owners under the 50/50 split.  It’ll be interesting to see how they handle it.  I suspect teams near the cap will just have to run with whatever roster they can fit under the cap plus the taxi squad. If that’s 21 of 26 spots that’s their problem 

 

8 minutes ago, mll said:

Owners aren't looking to increase their spending though.  Players proposed to defer additional money (which owners were asking for) in exchange for increasing the cap and the owners turned that down.   

so just let teams go to 26 with no extra cap allowance? 

[qwijibo]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

so just let teams go to 26 with no extra cap allowance? 

Yup. If they have the cap flexibility to take advantage. If they don’t. They work within the system. Right now the roster max is 23 and there’s several teams that will be operating below that because of cap issues.  There hasn’t been any suggestion of giving them relief. I don’t see how this is different. Every team has the same upper and lower limits on the cap. If a team has spent to the cap it’s their responsibility to remain  compliant. 

[mll]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

so just let teams go to 26 with no extra cap allowance? 

I don't see how they can agree to give extra cap allowance when some teams have already taken steps to become cap compliant.   It wouldn't be fair when some teams have already given up assets to create cap space while others like Tampa have yet to make their moves and could benefit from extra room.  

[J.I.A.H.N]

@Jimmy McGill

 

Well, Jimmy, you are a better man than I

 

If Eriksson was a hard working, pain in the arse, son of a gun, who played every shift like it was his last, I would be fine with keeping him up on the big club.

 

But that has not been the case, and I think it sends a really bad message to the young guys...especially guys like Virtanen, who still has not developed that drive yet, 

 

That it is ok, once you have signed your big contract to just mail it in, and coast...........there needs to be deterrents and messages that that is not acceptable.

 

IMO, you send him down, with the understanding he is not coming back.......now he can do the same thing down there, but it will have a less effect down there.

 

If he mails it in down there..........well maybe you try and void his contract for breach.

 

If he retires....well then great, in the mean time, you bring up a young guy who deserves the promotion, which sends another message, which is if you work hard, we will

 

do what is necessary to bring you up. I would do it even if Eriksson was not being demoted.

 

Breach of performance is a real thing, and should be used...............this is the greatest league in the world, you have to play like you deserve it!.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, mll said:

I don't see how they can agree to give extra cap allowance when some teams have already taken steps to become cap compliant.   It wouldn't be fair when some teams have already given up assets to create cap space while others like Tampa have yet to make their moves and could benefit from extra room.  

well, Bettman does do things that aren't fair all the time. If you allow a 26 man roster with no additional space that gives other teams an unfair advantage too. Not sure there's an ideal compromise here. Maybe leave the roster as is, and make it a 7 man taxi squad then?