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

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

@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!.

I was thinking its better to leave a kid like Lind e.g. in Utica where he gets the minutes, vs Loui who doesn't need them. But I'm just fine with Sibera for Loui too. 

[Lazurus]

16 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

 

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!.

With the evidence of Eriksson's past performances, he always did great in contract years, maybe the performance issue should be the one who gave him that money essentially for free?

As much as a lot of people want to get on Eriksson, he didn't need a gun to rob this bank, all he had to do was say "sure I take 6 million a year with guarantee's I won't be traded"

But then most people would love to win the lottery too and not many would ever say no.

 

There is no "down" this season. He will play because they can't move him but he is being paid double for the same thing Beagle does with just as much impact.

 

Fans love to follow the lead offered by the team, take Jake for instance, a young player moved all over the lineup and pretty low ice times so he should be traded but Pearson hardly ever comes up. Jake's number in every category are close to the same and he is never talked about at all and he is paid 3.75 mil a season.

 

Why not trade Pearson? More cap space, and older player on the downside, good rep. Probably a lot easier to trade with that cup ring on his finger.

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 hours ago, Lazurus said:

With the evidence of Eriksson's past performances, he always did great in contract years, maybe the performance issue should be the one who gave him that money essentially for free?

As much as a lot of people want to get on Eriksson, he didn't need a gun to rob this bank, all he had to do was say "sure I take 6 million a year with guarantee's I won't be traded"

But then most people would love to win the lottery too and not many would ever say no.

 

There is no "down" this season. He will play because they can't move him but he is being paid double for the same thing Beagle does with just as much impact.

 

Fans love to follow the lead offered by the team, take Jake for instance, a young player moved all over the lineup and pretty low ice times so he should be traded but Pearson hardly ever comes up. Jake's number in every category are close to the same and he is never talked about at all and he is paid 3.75 mil a season.

 

Why not trade Pearson? More cap space, and older player on the downside, good rep. Probably a lot easier to trade with that cup ring on his finger.

I dont disagree if a team is looking for a Pearson......but he is playing close to his veiling IMO....Jake is not, as when he applies himself, he is quite a bit better than Pearson is at his max........Jake IMI, just has not matured yet........but when he sees Eriksson and what he gives, it is convincing Jake that he can float

 

Pearson does not float, and would be a fantastic 3rd liner..........but my point is not about Pearson.........It is about Eriksson

[qwijibo]

5 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

@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!.

Show me where in the SPC  there’s a “hustle clause”. Lol. There are things that can cause a player to be in breach of contract. I’m pretty sure not giving 100% every shift isn’t one of them 

[qwijibo]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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? 

Just because every club isn’t in a position to take advantage doesn’t mean it’s unfair.  Every team has the same cap floor and ceiling.  Is it unfair to the teams that don’t have the budget to spend to the cap to allow teams that  fo have the money to spend it? 
 

They’re trying to give teams roster flexibility in case there are injuries or positive covid cases.  But they have to work within the owners need to keep salaries where they are.  Teams that are against the cap can’t take advantage. It’s unfortunate but they signed the contracts.  At end end of the day every team works within the same framework agreed to by the players union and the board of governors 

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, qwijibo said:

Show me where in the SPC  there’s a “hustle clause”. Lol. There are things that can cause a player to be in breach of contract. I’m pretty sure not giving 100% every shift isn’t one of them 

Just because it has never been done, does not mean, it isn't there, but I get what you are saying

Edited December 11, 2020 by janisahockeynut

[King Heffy]

9 hours ago, 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 

Seattle having to reach the floor will help a lot next year.

[King Heffy]

2 hours ago, qwijibo said:

Show me where in the SPC  there’s a “hustle clause”. Lol. There are things that can cause a player to be in breach of contract. I’m pretty sure not giving 100% every shift isn’t one of them 

It would be considered a reasonable expectation that, in exchange for paying LE to play hockey, that he would at least attempt to do so.  If a surgeon was consistently using Krazy Glue instead of stitching up patients so he could go back to Tindering on his phone, and continued to do so despite being told this wasn't acceptable, he'd absolutely be fired.  LE has proven himself unwilling to put in even the bare minimum effort level necessary.  His continued floating is simply unacceptable and should be viewed as a breach of contract; Eriksson is lucky he doesn't get sued for defrauding Aquilini considering how lazy he has been.

[JM_]

11 hours ago, qwijibo said:

Just because every club isn’t in a position to take advantage doesn’t mean it’s unfair.  Every team has the same cap floor and ceiling.  Is it unfair to the teams that don’t have the budget to spend to the cap to allow teams that  fo have the money to spend it? 
 

They’re trying to give teams roster flexibility in case there are injuries or positive covid cases.  But they have to work within the owners need to keep salaries where they are.  Teams that are against the cap can’t take advantage. It’s unfortunate but they signed the contracts.  At end end of the day every team works within the same framework agreed to by the players union and the board of governors 

I get that, I just wouldn't be surprised if there is some kind of small cap cushion built into the regular season expanded roster idea. 

[Me_]

That contract was perfect for an Eriksson-type player. Unfortunately the player never showed up.

 

This happened instead:

 

Just play him out of this atrocious contract and live with the consequences.

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Me_

[King Heffy]

5 hours ago, Me_ said:

That contract was perfect for an Eriksson-type player. Unfortunately the player never showed up.

 

This happened instead:

 

Just play him out of this atrocious contract and live with the consequences.

 

Why would you reward his piss-poor play and misconduct off the ice with yet more undeserved playing time?  The lineup is better without this useless floater in it; play actual professionals instead of this locker room cancer.  Allowing this floater to continue to waste ice time sends the wrong message to our young players who are actually trying, and makes them think his pitiful excuse for an effort is acceptable.  His last chance to prove he still cares about winning was last year, and he rewarded Green by continuing to disgrace the team, his family, and himself every time he set foot on the ice.  One single shift is one $&!# too many; it is our responsibility as fans to ensure that this piece of garbage is aware he is not welcome here.  Maybe we can get a doctor to declare him allergic to his own sweat, because that is the only excuse for him never breaking one on the ice.

 

The consequence for playing like complete trash and then throwing a tantrum when the coach benches you for being useless is the press box in the AHL.  LE can either accept them or stop stealing Aquilini's money and retire like anyone with an iota of pride would do.

Edited December 12, 2020 by King Heffy

[Me_]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

Why would you reward his piss-poor play and misconduct off the ice with yet more undeserved playing time?  The lineup is better without this useless floater in it; play actual professionals instead of this locker room cancer.  Allowing this floater to continue to waste ice time sends the wrong message to our young players who are actually trying, and makes them think his pitiful excuse for an effort is acceptable.  His last chance to prove he still cares about winning was last year, and he rewarded Green by continuing to disgrace the team, his family, and himself every time he set foot on the ice.  One single shift is one $&!# too many; it is our responsibility as fans to ensure that this piece of garbage is aware he is not welcome here.  Maybe we can get a doctor to declare him allergic to his own sweat, because that is the only excuse for him never breaking one on the ice.

 

The consequence for playing like complete trash and then throwing a tantrum when the coach benches you for being useless is the press box in the AHL.  LE can either accept them or stop stealing Aquilini's money and retire like anyone with an iota of pride would do.

The option “Play with the Canucks” does not mean he is in the lineup.

[Elias Pettersson]

5 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Why would you reward his piss-poor play and misconduct off the ice with yet more undeserved playing time?  The lineup is better without this useless floater in it; play actual professionals instead of this locker room cancer.  Allowing this floater to continue to waste ice time sends the wrong message to our young players who are actually trying, and makes them think his pitiful excuse for an effort is acceptable.  His last chance to prove he still cares about winning was last year, and he rewarded Green by continuing to disgrace the team, his family, and himself every time he set foot on the ice.  One single shift is one $&!# too many; it is our responsibility as fans to ensure that this piece of garbage is aware he is not welcome here.  Maybe we can get a doctor to declare him allergic to his own sweat, because that is the only excuse for him never breaking one on the ice.

 

The consequence for playing like complete trash and then throwing a tantrum when the coach benches you for being useless is the press box in the AHL.  LE can either accept them or stop stealing Aquilini's money and retire like anyone with an iota of pride would do.

 

[flat land fish]

Erickson+_______? For Duncan Keith?

[JM_]

1 hour ago, flat land fish said:

Erickson+_______? For Duncan Keith?

if it's for the purpose of someone holding him so Daniel can run his elbow into his face over and over, sure. Otherwise no deal. 

[flat land fish]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

if it's for the purpose of someone holding him so Daniel can run his elbow into his face over and over, sure. Otherwise no deal. 

Sometimes you need to let the past go to move forward.  Could be a natural fit and the salaries work.

 

 

 

 

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

Sometimes you need to let the past go to move forward.  Could be a natural fit and the salaries work.

 

that old douchebag can go rot somewhere. No Canuck fan would want him. 

[DownUndaCanuck]

Sadly I think management and the coaching staff don't have the balls to demote him and he'll be our 13th forward. Green will probably give him top-6 minutes as well with Bo. I understand, he plays a nice safe defensive game but brings zero offence to our lineup. I'd rather have a risky kid learn how to defend and play in our top-6 than Eriksson who drags down his linemates. If he has a spot on this team, its 8-10 minutes on the 3rd and 4th line, mainly killing penalties (if he's still good at that or not).

 

Of course everyone wants a trade but no other team is clearly stupid enough to do so, even with cap retained. Looks like the best option would be to bury him in Utica and pocket the tiny cap saving we make. Got to cut our losses.