Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign RW Loui Eriksson to 6-year, $36m deal ($6m AAV w/ NMC)

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you're going to give term to a 30+ year old, this is the type of player you want to give it to. Aside from his first year in Boston, he has been incredibly consistent in terms of goal production. Actually wouldn't mind seeing him play along side Horvat and Baertschi. Move Virtanen or Rodin to play with the Sedins.
 
Last edited:
Uhmkay said:
TSN just announced that the deal is VERY heavily front loaded with a signing bonus and suggested that it's in the area of HALF the contracts worth. This means that he'll be earning significantly less in years 2-6. He'll be very easy to trade to a non-cap team.

If he's making 3m/year in years 2-6. EASY to move that.

Love this deal even more.
Click to expand...

That is pretty good actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dim jim
go comets said:
Canucks just got taken down on the NHL network here in the us.... Bill Lindsay and Brian Lawton said the team is lost, need to tear it down and rebuild. Also said the team is in no way a cup contender (obviously) and need to move on from the sendins......
Click to expand...

It's the truth, Canucks needed a rebuild after the 2012 season
 
Lucbourdon said:
Its not cheerleading. My opinion is just as valid as yours. And in my opinion this is a good deal.

Good fancy stats, chemistry with sedins, can play in all situations.

Its a good retooling move
Click to expand...
Never said your opinion wasn't valid actually. If you feel yours isn't valued, then that's on you.

This move is a good move for a team not contending for the Lottery
 
iceburg said:
If you're going to give term to a 30+ year old, this is the type of player you want to give it to. Aside from his first year in Boston, he has been incredibly consistent in terms of goal production. Actually would mind seeing him play along side Horvat and Baertschi. Move Virtanen or Rodin to play with the Sedins.
Click to expand...

To me our top two Rw in 2017-18 will be Eriksson and Boeser.
 
Burke's Evil Spirit said:
This will be a good contract for years 1 and 2, an okay one for year 3, and bought out after year 4.
Click to expand...

This isn't the Higgins thread.:sarcasm:

xtr3m said:
Apparently similar NMC/NTC set up to Lucic's...
Click to expand...
Gee whiz, I thought that was only Gillis' problem...

(and no, I'm knocking Benning on this as you often have to give these out if you're going to sign higher profile free agents - just a knock against posters who felt Gillis handed these out like candy).
 
go comets said:
Canucks just got taken down on the NHL network here in the us.... Bill Lindsay and Brian Lawton said the team is lost, need to tear it down and rebuild. Also said the team is in no way a cup contender (obviously) and need to move on from the sendins......
Click to expand...

id much rather do it this way then going the way Edmonton went and just hoped the kids learned to swim on their own.

its a bit slower, we likely wont get the #1 pick. but we also avoid potentially long term basement dwelling.

this gives us some insulation on the right side so in 2-3 years when Boeser comes up, he doesn thave to be our #1 RW right away
 
Some of you really need to calm down. Too many spammy posts that aren't adding to the discussion or posts that are just about your fellow posters. Stick to hockey and bring something to the discussion.
 
ahmon said:
To me our top two Rw in 2017-18 will be Eriksson and Boeser.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Possibly. Boeser will need at least some transition time. Rodin could surprise and be a good transition to those top two RWs.
 
Shareefruck said:
A deal should not be judged based on expectations from the stated and pre-determined goal of the organization. If the goal is realistically unattainable and chasing that goal will hurt the team, and a move successfully moves the team closer to that goal, then it's still overall a bad deal, plain and simple, IMO.
Click to expand...

Nope sorry. You assess a persons job based on the goals they have. The problem with Benning has been no matter what goals he has his moves are rarely justifiable and certainly not based on what his goals actually are. That is the reason Benning is a terrible GM. Not just because he agrees with the direction ownership set out but because his execution to achieve those goals has been woeful. So woeful people had to make up stuff like stealth tank to explain his terrible decisions. This isn't the case here.

It is indeed two different discussions. One is a discussion on direction of the team...which i agree this is a bad direction. The other is a discussion of what this does for the team based on what they are trying to accomplish which is they needed a scoring winger and they got one. It's a given that based on what they've chose to do they will get further away from what you and I think the plan and goal should be. However, this does the least damage out of several options (other contracts, trades, etc) and does actually directly serve the goals they set out for once. They get somewhat better and they didn't touch youth or picks. One of the rare times he gets to check both boxes on his "Did I achieve the following goals checklist".

But let me be clear...I don't think it amounts to any tangible increased success on the ice. It adds a few goals to the top 6 compared to last season. You lose Vrbata who while not a loss still scored what 15 goals last year. You likely also drop Hansen's goals and points so in the end I'm not convinced the team gains that much. They are still a very bad team. It's like people getting super excited over Gudbranson but you've lost Hamhuis who is likely the better D-man so while a decent player does Gudbranson actually make them better? But it isn't a horrendously bad deal (beyond term) and the fit is good. I think he has a better chance of meeting the money of this contract than Lucic does.

My preference would have been to do nothing or look for true possible steals of course but my goals are different than what the organization is trying to do.
 
Last edited:
Uhmkay said:
TSN just announced that the deal is VERY heavily front loaded with a signing bonus and suggested that it's in the area of HALF the contracts worth. This means that he'll be earning significantly less in years 2-6. He'll be very easy to trade to a non-cap team.

If he's making 3m/year in years 2-6. EASY to move that.

Love this deal even more.
Click to expand...

If this is true it changes the entire dynamic of the contract, making it a much better deal. This is such a better signing than the Lucic contract; we dodged a bullet.
 
Uhmkay said:
TSN just announced that the deal is VERY heavily front loaded with a signing bonus and suggested that it's in the area of HALF the contracts worth. This means that he'll be earning significantly less in years 2-6. He'll be very easy to trade to a non-cap team.

If he's making 3m/year in years 2-6. EASY to move that.

Love this deal even more.
Click to expand...

True, but if he really falls off a cliff that makes his contract essentially buyout proof.
 
3/4 years would have been fine, 6 years is way too much. This team continues to build or retool(w/e) around the Sedins'. In 3 yrs we might be in a deep hole.
 
Shareefruck said:
A deal should not be judged based on expectations from the stated and pre-determined goal of the organization. If the goal is realistically unattainable and chasing that goal will hurt the team, and a move successfully moves the team closer to that goal (and has repurcussions that will hurt the team further after the goal collapses, which it will), then it's still overall a bad deal, plain and simple, IMO.

It could have been far worse based on the precedents set by the thing that we shouldn't be taking part in in the first place, and there's a part of me that likes it in terms of watching hockey short term, but I cannot agree that it is a good deal, because it isn't.

The fact that it is unavoidable because of the owner does not excuse it and make it a less bad deal than it is.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't understand the complaint.

That the team was not and will not embrace a "full tear down/rebuild" is not new information. It's been well documented for some time now. As was the team's decision to pursue high profile free agents in the off season.

I appreciate fans saying "This is not the direction I want, a full rebuild is smarter long term thinking". I'm one of the people saying that. I get confused when there is fresh outrage every time the team fails to commit to this hypothetical plan they've been explicit about not wanting to commit to.
 
Zanon said:
Hmm, can we still finish bottom 5 again next year?
Click to expand...

I'd say that's unlikely. We were actually competing for a playoff spot for a while last year and if Sutter avoids injury and Eriksson fits well then we're likely to be there again.
 
opendoor said:
True, but if he really falls off a cliff that makes his contract essentially buyout proof.
Click to expand...

I think people are understimating Eriksson's durability. He's only had one injury plagued season and still managed to bounce back from it. It's also important to note he's never suffered a game changing injury to his body, his knees, groin, shoulders have never had issues.

He's a cerebral player who knows how to take a hit and stay down low without taking a beating, he has a lot less mileage on him then Lucic, Ladd or Backes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom