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.
The domino of the Eriksson deal is that Hansen gets to play in a more suited role. Sutter and Hansen anchoring a third line is very solid.
 
English said:
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.
Click to expand...

We'll likely be in bubble-team territory again. Our days of winning the Pacific are long behind us, but we should finish somewhere between 7-12 depending on how injuries shake out and what kind of forward steps the young guys take (specifically the guys with H names).

Hit the post said:
Our blueline is STILL very much a 'work in progress'. I mean, who the **** is a decent puck mover back there?
Click to expand...

Hutton. Edler and Tanev make a decent first pass, too. Larsen if you're feeling super optimistic.
 
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...

If you can say good fancy stats now, don't expect us to throw you under the bus if we say someone had bad fancy stats.
 
BloatedGuppy said:
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.
Click to expand...

This isn't a retool move though. Retooling would be filling out the roster with decent players on shorter term deals so the team doesn't totally bottom out. Vrbata was a good example of that. Signing a near max length contract that takes a guy until he's almost 37 generally means taking a hit 4-5 years from now in order to boost the current team's fortunes. This is a "win now" move.
 
Can people stop saying we've signed him until he's 37. I know he's almost 31 but that still means he'll be 36 for the entirety of his final year. Sorry, bad math just bugs me.
 
BKVCMU said:
Good
But seriously, fans here don't care how much money the Aqualinis are paying outside of the cap hit:naughty:
Click to expand...

Signing bonus doesn't mean that 50% of the bonus is paid out today.

It means, that the signing bonus portion of their compensation is paid on July 1.

Shea Weber, for example, has a signing bonus for the first 6 years of his 14 year deal.

So, see how this works out. A signing bonus is fine for the first 4 years of the deal.

Like all of these 6 year plus deals for $6 million, it matters for buyout purposes how the last 2 years are structured.

Who cares if he gets $4 million or whatever as a signing bonus each season for the first 4 years of his contract. It's the final 2 years that matter for buyout for money purposes.

But, this is what I don't get. Aquaman is concerned about playoff revenue, but he'll spend money like this on players and miss the playoffs and be mad? Why? This team isn't that good. Can't be better than #4 in the division and doubtful they can pass the #5 team in the Central.

But, it's his money. See how the fans respond.
 
When he's done this deal, he'll be about as old as the Sedin brothers currently are. Not unreasonable. They needed to add offense and they added a guy who can pot 30 for them. Now they just have to squeeze another 50 goals out of this line-up somehow.
 
Street Hawk said:
But, it's his money. See how the fans respond.
Click to expand...
Raise ticket prices (to fund it) and see how the fans respond.

Hammer79 said:
When he's done this deal, he'll be about as old as the Sedin brothers currently are. Not unreasonable. They needed to add offense and they added a guy who can pot 30 for them. Now they just have to squeeze another 50 goals out of this line-up somehow.
Click to expand...
Sedin's were not that far removed from winning the Art Ross when they were Eriksson's current age.;)
 
opendoor said:
This isn't a retool move though. Retooling would be filling out the roster with decent players on shorter term deals so the team doesn't totally bottom out. Vrbata was a good example of that. Signing a near max length contract that takes a guy until he's almost 37 generally means taking a hit 4-5 years from now in order to boost the current team's fortunes. This is a "win now" move.
Click to expand...

I never characterized it as a "retool" move. It's been obvious for some time now the organization is interested in...

1. Shuffling in 1-2 young players per year
2. Staying 'competitive' and keeping a 'win-now' attitude while doing so.

There's been no evidence they want to burn anything down and build around a new core, which is usually when you start seeing placeholder veterans on short term contracts. There's also the question of fan disengagement after a terrible year, so the owner will be looking to make marketing splash. You need someone glitzy for that. Hence the interest in Lucic (Mr. Home Town).

I don't AGREE with the plan. I'll probably be 50 before this team is truly competitive again and I'm as impatient as anyone else. I'd scorch the earth and load up on draft picks if it were me. I'm just not going to sit in here malingering every time the organization does what it was obviously going to do. I watch hockey for fun, not to raise my blood pressure. If a new owner and new GM stepped in and started loading up on aging players, I'd experience some fresh outrage, but this? Everyone knew this was coming. I don't know if it's a slow learner problem or what's going on, but anyone losing their minds over entirely predictable outcomes needs a new hobby.
 
Haagen Dazs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but all it takes is a cursory look at the leading 30 year old scorers from past seasons compared to where they are now to see what the Canucks might be in for in 4 years or so. Some guys keep up their effectiveness into their mid 30s, but a lot of guys don't. 4 years ago Boyes and Pominville were the #1 and #2 30 year old scorers. 3 years ago Vanek was #1.
 
rune74 said:
The sad thing is, that should be the goal of every team. I wish there was a way to get away from the tank.

There are so many teams that have been bad for so long and still don't look up....I'm not sure there is a sure fire winning formula.
Click to expand...

It is the goal of all or most teams. The only people who talk about tanking in the summertime are those who are not accountable to the fans, season ticket holders and owners. Every team should enter every season with the goal to make the playoffs and complete for the Stanley Cup (however likely that might be). Tanking in Feb or March is a different thing. When you know you can't make the show, and you have an aging team with expiring contacts, you sell these players for picks and prospects. But no GM should enter a season with a team he knows will not complete.

A full on rebuild is not "the" formula for Stanley Cup glory. It's a high risk strategy that can work but it's as likely to fail. Where are Columbus Arizona or Edmontons cups?

It's hilarious the people who say they won't watch games or y merchandise because the team is trying to get better.

To be clear, I'm no fan of Benning, he's made numerous blunders and seems to bleed assets in every deal. He also failed to use the TDL last year to improve the team. But given the roster we have the team had to go after a top 6 forward this summer. The contract is the price and it it what the market is demanding.
 
iceburg said:
The domino of the Eriksson deal is that Hansen gets to play in a more suited role. Sutter and Hansen anchoring a third line is very solid.
Click to expand...

I've always had the opposite thinking. In my opinion the coach should take advantage of the Sedins ability to make their RW'er better so I would play my best winger on the 2nd line(Eriksson) and keep Hansen on the top line.

Load up on the PP, but at even strength I think you'd see more goals from your top 6 this way.
 
tantalum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about Benning? When you're a fan evaluating a deal, you evaluate the deal and the effects of that deal, not how good of a job the GM is doing-- Unless your purpose of commenting on the deal is to figure out a way to feed your agenda/narrative, who cares about that? The deal is bad. Benning's decision to make it based on the conditions laid out for him is reasonable. But the result of the deal is negative.

As a fan, you don't just accept the premises laid out by the organization, you call a spade a spade.
 
Last edited:
Good add. Solidifies the top 9 and a fair cap hit. Term is term...if he ages like the Sedins, Sundin, Lidstrom, Alfredson, it'll be a great contract. If he ages like Naslund or Forsberg, then it all depends how far down the road the wall is.

Over all, I like it. Viva la re-tool!
 
Why does everyone think he's going to fall off?

He plays a game that should have good longevity.
 
Moore Money said:
At least he doesn't need to make a trade for scoring now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if the structure of the deal is what they're saying, then it's certainly one of the better ones.

There's literally nothing to dislike about this player. Can score, pass and defends very well. He'll be a great example for our young wingers to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom