Sutter should provide 15 healthy, Ericsson is 17 more than vrbata, and I suspect the pp will be better so I can see them getting 40-50 more goals honestly.
Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign RW Loui Eriksson to 6-year, $36m deal ($6m AAV w/ NMC)
- Thread starter Nuckles
- Start date
-
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
Sutter should provide 15 healthy, Ericsson is 17 more than vrbata, and I suspect the pp will be better so I can see them getting 40-50 more goals honestly.
I hear you. But I like Hansen in a more energy role...with Sutter he would match-up very well with other teams top unit. Sutter/Hansen would be solid against McDavid/Eberle. Anyway, when you have multiple options with players that have proven they can play a top 6 role...that's a good thing.
BloatedGuppy
Registered User
dwarf
Registered User
Difference in the Swedes you mentioned was injuries.
Forsberg had that foot issue and Nazzy had the elbow.
Loui had a couple of concussions in 1 season, that derailed him after the big Sequin trade.
That's the main worry about injury. He has no leg, arm, back, or shoulder injuries in the past that concern me.
BloatedGuppy
Registered User
Full NMC for the first few years, limited NTC for the last couple. If the news that it was "the same as the Lucic deal" is correct.
Meh. Basically a better version of Hansen. Much preferable to Lucic. Expecting he'll age/play similar to Radim Vrbata, in that once the Sedins are no longer his linemates (due to retiring) his play will fall off a cliff. Should still be able to kill penalties though, so probably looking at a worse version of what the Burrows contract is now.
Not surprised that Benning couldn't negotiate on term nor average, but that's for a different thread.
Not surprised that Benning couldn't negotiate on term nor average, but that's for a different thread.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Calling a bad deal a bad deal does not suggest fresh outrage ot whining. Nobody ever seems to make that distinction for some reason.
I don't hold this one against Benning at all (and I think he's a horrible GM), but it's a bad deal and it should be acknowledged as that.
When you evaluate a movie or hockey player, you don't go "it isn't a very good result, but the conditions which led to it make it understandable and better than it was expected to be, therefore it's good."
dwarf
Registered User
Yeah I didn't see any link to prove that or not. Looking for some certainty. I have used Capfriendly, curious if anyone knows another good cap site that might have an answer?
rune74
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2008
- 9,228
- 552
Don't agree, I think if you want a player like this you pay for it...especailly in ufa....not even close to the worst deal handed out today.
Tim McCracken
Good loser = LOSER!
BloatedGuppy
Registered User
I'm not necessarily inferring you. I'm responding to you because I suspect there's room for a collegial conversation. Assuming you don't have half the forum on ignore, you probably know which posts I'm referring to.
I think it's...
1. A good fit for the team in terms of immediate production
2. A reasonable cost for the player in UFA
3. One of the better signings of the day in terms of long term outlook
4. A bad fit for the team in terms of the direction the team SHOULD take
Given we could easily have gone 0/4 there, I'm experiencing more relief than anything.
Sbisa makes 3.6.
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
His salary for the next 2 years is $3.6M and $4M though, so he takes home $7.6M vs. Hamhuis' $7.5M.
Shareefruck
Registered User
I guess what I'm contending is this attitude of "I accept that this ownership/management group is bad, therefore, I'm going to excuse deals that are not as bad as they could have been and call bad deals good."
No. If that expectation lessens your outrage over it, that's reasonable, but there's no reason to excuse it and treat it like it isn't present, either.
thefeebster
Registered User
Probably the best target in the wasteland out there and in this situation forced upon us, but i still have reservations about his health, we shall see how this plays out. I really loved Eriksson in Dallas, would have really loved him here during those 2010-2012 years given our situation at that time, but given our situation now, I don't think its a very good move.
AAV is okay, term is poor. I agree with others that it will be an okay contract until Year 3, then it becomes a likely albatross for the next GM, unfortunately.
AAV is okay, term is poor. I agree with others that it will be an okay contract until Year 3, then it becomes a likely albatross for the next GM, unfortunately.
Somebody was in the lineup for Sutter when he was hurt so it won't be just more goals for him. It's his goals minus the goals scored by those who were in the lineup for him. You may also lose goals and points from Hansen.
Short term gain, long term pain is likely with this.
But this is the reality of almost all UFA signings. Look at some of the deals being thrown around for not high end players though....
But this is the reality of almost all UFA signings. Look at some of the deals being thrown around for not high end players though....
Not a good deal but when you are fearing the worst, this is a relief. Actually probably the best case scenario given everything that's going on. I just hope this is it.
Virtanen2Horvat
BoHorvat53
The Canucks ****ed up big with Hammer. They could have moved him for something at the deadline but no they lost him and potential picks or a top 6 player.
Anyways for the Eriksson deal I would have like 5 years 6M better. Either way its better than most deals out there. I mean wow 7M for Lucic thats gonna haunt the Oilers. I think Eriksson will get traded half way through his deal.
Anyways for the Eriksson deal I would have like 5 years 6M better. Either way its better than most deals out there. I mean wow 7M for Lucic thats gonna haunt the Oilers. I think Eriksson will get traded half way through his deal.
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
Not really. He'll be a couple of weeks shy of his 37th birthday; the Sedins are still 35 until September. When he's their age he'll still have another year on his deal.
Intangibos
High-End Intangibos
Eriksson was my choice, but 6 years is too long with those numbers and his history. Especially when we're rebuilding now and just hoping to be competitive in 6 years when that contract may look like an anchor.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Sweden vs USA - TD Garden, BostonWagers: 7Staked: $4,326.00Event closes - 2 days from now
- Updated: