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

[CherryToke]

Hopefully this means Hansen will play with Horvat.

 

[Canuckle1970]

We have clarity - the owners want playoff revenue. Benning has been given his direction and he follows it or he's out the door.

Getting Loui Eriksson will definitely help. So thankful we got him and not Lucic. I appreciate what Lucic can bring to the table for the short term, but he'd be hard to stomach as a Canuck. I'm also relieved we didn't get Andrew Ladd - solid but overrated in my opinion.

Welcome Loui! And good luck and good scouting to Jim Benning. I'm pulling for him. He's in a tough situation.

 

[SillyRabbit]

So we added an aging vet who will slightly improve the team just enough so that we don't get a top 5 pick but still miss the playoffs? And we signed this aging vet for 6 years, causing cap issues long term, even once Benning has been fired?

Sounds about right.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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 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.

Alright, let me try a different way of explaining this.

The situation is what it is. The owner wants playoffs. Whatever I think of the GM, he's ultimately beholden to the owner, so the GM wants playoffs too. Ideologically, I'm of the belief that every team should start the NHL season "wanting the playoffs". I've been pretty outspoken about "tanking" as a pernicious mentality that damages a league's integrity, so while I fully support aggressive transition to youth once a season has fumbled its way into the ditch, I think starting a season with the attitude of "LOL we're gonna suck our way to 1st overall" is a slippery slope.

I don't like our owners, but I rationally understand they could be worse. I also understand that sneering on message boards isn't going to do anything to change the ownership situation. I can either find a way to enjoy the team and find something to get interested in for an upcoming season, or I can tune out of hockey. Hanging around like a bad smell and antagonizing everyone trying to enjoy themselves wouldn't look very good on me.

A reasonable assessment of the contract is "Fair cost, excessive term as is standard for UFA, probably not the best fit for a team in this situation, good player". I think "BLEARGH BAD CONTRACT TEAM SUX NO FUTURE" is excessive. Criticism does tend towards the latter, and not the former, because objective moderation is boring, and violent hyperbole is fun for everyone except the poor ******** who have to read it. Every. Single. Frickin. Day.

 

[Gaunce4gm]

So we still have 4.1M to sign people with...
Vanek
Connolly
Schultz
Colborne

In that order are people I'd want to sign that I think we could do for under 4M

Sedin-Sedin-Eriksson
Baertschi-Horvat-Vanek
Burrows-Sutter-Hansen
Etem-Granlund-Virtanen

Is actually not that bad...

 

[Phrasing]

So we still have 4.1M to sign people with...
Vanek
Connolly
Schultz
Colborne

In that order are people I'd want to sign that I think we could do for under 4M

Sedin-Sedin-Eriksson
Baertschi-Horvat-Vanek
Burrows-Sutter-Hansen
Etem-Granlund-Virtanen

Is actually not that bad...

Pretty sure golden boy Dorsett can do no wrong to be left off the roster. Rodin is also signed for a middle 6 role.

 

[GetFocht]

so glad we got Eriksson, he's the most dangerous offensive forward on the market (considering Stamkos was off the market). Also a testament that marquee free agents still desire to play here.

 

[tantalum]

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.

And I get that. I don't think it's being used to excuse the deal. I think the term is bad but the yearly is fine. I think he does fill a hole. It didn't result in assets going the other way. They have cap space to work with and use to continue to rebuild (if they don't mess it up with Russel or someone else which I suspect they will). So it checks the boxes Jimbo needs it to check. On what he is (foolishly) attempting to do, he did goodish with this deal. You couldn't say that with many previous deals because in the end they hurt team immediately and moving forward. He wasn't checking any of the two boxes (get better immediately, build the future) let alone both.

It doesn't check the boxes I want it to check but again that's a different discussion.

 

[CherryToke]

So we still have 4.1M to sign people with...
Vanek
Connolly
Schultz
Colborne

In that order are people I'd want to sign that I think we could do for under 4M

Sedin-Sedin-Eriksson
Baertschi-Horvat-Vanek
Burrows-Sutter-Hansen
Etem-Granlund-Virtanen

Is actually not that bad...

Gross, Vanek is like last years Vrbata floating everywhere.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Gross, Vanek is like last years Vrbata floating everywhere.

Yeah I think Vanek was a backup plan if we didn't get Eriksson.

 

[jeromemorrow]

Is he wearing #21 then?

 

[sutlaf]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/archive/index.php/t-1697087.html

 

[Hit the post]

Yeah I think Vanek was a backup plan if we didn't get Eriksson.

Yikes; we dodged one there....

So we still have 4.1M to sign people with...
Vanek
Connolly
Schultz
Colborne

In that order are people I'd want to sign that I think we could do for under 4M

Sedin-Sedin-Eriksson
Baertschi-Horvat-Vanek
Burrows-Sutter-Hansen
Etem-Granlund-Virtanen

Is actually not that bad...

heh, I'd have Schultz FIFTH on my top four guys I'd like the Canucks to sign....

so glad we got Eriksson, he's the most dangerous offensive forward on the market (considering Stamkos was off the market). Also a testament that marquee free agents still desire to play here.

You offer that kind of contract (with alot of money up front) - you'll likely get STRONG interest from all marquee free agents. That & the chance to play with the Sedins (who STILL have some gas left in the tank).

 

[rapacious ronalds]

He's going to be ****in 37 years old when the contract is over!

Why be so negative? You don't know, for sure, whether or not he will be worth his contract. He has had success with the Sedins before, and is, himself, an excellent scoring winger. Why not be optimistic about the signing?

If you can in no way muster the ability to do so, I hope you have a great Canada Day brooding on your computer.

Happy Canada Day, all. And welcome to Vancouver, Loui.

Post-script: I wonder if the "Luuuuu" chant will be reborn.

 

[tyhee]

Name a team not bidding on FAs?

On long-term high salary 31 year old free agents?

Don't confuse bidding on free agents generally with bidding to give guys in their 30's long term contracts with high or fairly high values. It misses the point of my earlier post completely.

So far today we've seen one contract to a 30+ year old longer than Eriksson's. That was Ladd, 7 yrs @ $5.5 million to the Islanders. That by the way is the only contract so far this free agent season to a 30+ year old with more total money and longer term than the Canucks gave Eriksson.

We have precisely two contracts to 30+ year olds that are six years. One is Eriksson to the Canucks, the other is Frans Nielsen to Detroit for 6 years at $5.25 million per. There is precisely one contract at 5 years, to David Backes by the Bruins.

So, since you asked the question your way (when I was clearly posting about the total and term and age) tell me what teams
are bidding on signing guys in their 30's to 6 year deals at medium-high salaries?

So far we've seen only the Canucks, Wings and Isles. There are no doubt a few others-as well as a number that realize that Free Agent Frenzy results in bad contracts.

 

[vancityluongo]

Apparently similar NMC/NTC set up to Lucic's...

****in' Gillis handing out NTCs like candy!!!!!!!!

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Alright, let me try a different way of explaining this.

The situation is what it is. The owner wants playoffs. Whatever I think of the GM, he's ultimately beholden to the owner, so the GM wants playoffs too. Ideologically, I'm of the belief that every team should start the NHL season "wanting the playoffs". I've been pretty outspoken about "tanking" as a pernicious mentality that damages a league's integrity, so while I fully support aggressive transition to youth once a season has fumbled its way into the ditch, I think starting a season with the attitude of "LOL we're gonna suck our way to 1st overall" is a slippery slope.

I don't like our owners, but I rationally understand they could be worse. I also understand that sneering on message boards isn't going to do anything to change the ownership situation. I can either find a way to enjoy the team and find something to get interested in for an upcoming season, or I can tune out of hockey. Hanging around like a bad smell and antagonizing everyone trying to enjoy themselves wouldn't look very good on me.

A reasonable assessment of the contract is "Fair cost, excessive term as is standard for UFA, probably not the best fit for a team in this situation, good player". I think "BLEARGH BAD CONTRACT TEAM SUX NO FUTURE" is excessive. Criticism does tend towards the latter, and not the former, because objective moderation is boring, and violent hyperbole is fun for everyone except the poor ******** who have to read it. Every. Single. Frickin. Day.

This is a very nice assessment. And I echo the sentiment. We knew one of Lucic or Eriksson was bound for Vancouver. We got the better of the two-- who has proven chemistry with the Sedins. At the very least, he'll be entertaining to watch. Frankly, that is my primary concern as a hockey fan: to be entertained. So, I'm happy with it for now. Should we tank? Probably. But we can work that out during the season if we do end up sucking, not three months before it even starts.

 

[Red]

This deal will be perfectly fine for the next 4 years, but yeah, it'll probably hurt in the last 2 years of his deal.

So glad we didn't get Lucic, and this contract could have been far worse than it is. Not bad.

 

[SillyRabbit]

This is a very nice assessment. And I echo the sentiment. We knew one of Lucic or Eriksson was bound for Vancouver. We got the better of the two-- who has proven chemistry with the Sedins. At the very least, he'll be entertaining to watch. Frankly, that is my primary concern as a hockey fan: to be entertained. So, I'm happy with it for now. Should we tank? Probably. But we can work that out during the season if we do end up sucking, not three months before it even starts.

So you're a casual fan then right?

Because casual fans only care about watching a fun team, not about actually building a cup contender.

Spinning our wheels and not accomplishing anything other than putting a slightly better short term product on the ice to pander to casual fans is exactly what this ownership and management is all about.

Hey, who cares about the people who are thinking long term though right? As long as you casual fans are happy with the dozen or so odd games you watch or are lucky enough to get free tickets to.

 

[VanJack]

A $6m cap hit over the next six years....hopefully he can stay healthy through his 30's, but if he morphs into the second-coming of Radim Vrbata they're in trouble.....but unfortunately six years seems to be the going term for the high-profile UFA's this time around...you either pay up, or fold your tents...still a better deal than Lucic over seven years....kind of disappointing Hammer went to the Stars for $3.75m over two years...that's Sbisa money...couldn't they just have dealt the pizza-man and retained Hamhuis instead?

 

[thepuckmonster]

So you're a casual fan then right?

Because casual fans only care about watching a fun team, not about actually building a cup contender.

Spinning our wheels and not accomplishing anything other than putting a slightly better short term product on the ice to pander to casual fans is exactly what this ownership and management is all about.

Hey, who cares about the people who are thinking long term though right? As long as you casual fans are happy with the dozen or so odd games you watch or are lucky enough to get free tickets to.

You know its kind of a conceited to classify fans on their dedication based on what they like. There's no tiered systems to fans, it's not a hierarchy about what level of diehard you are.

 

[Canuckle1970]

Alright, let me try a different way of explaining this.

The situation is what it is. The owner wants playoffs. Whatever I think of the GM, he's ultimately beholden to the owner, so the GM wants playoffs too. Ideologically, I'm of the belief that every team should start the NHL season "wanting the playoffs". I've been pretty outspoken about "tanking" as a pernicious mentality that damages a league's integrity, so while I fully support aggressive transition to youth once a season has fumbled its way into the ditch, I think starting a season with the attitude of "LOL we're gonna suck our way to 1st overall" is a slippery slope.

I don't like our owners, but I rationally understand they could be worse. I also understand that sneering on message boards isn't going to do anything to change the ownership situation. I can either find a way to enjoy the team and find something to get interested in for an upcoming season, or I can tune out of hockey. Hanging around like a bad smell and antagonizing everyone trying to enjoy themselves wouldn't look very good on me.

A reasonable assessment of the contract is "Fair cost, excessive term as is standard for UFA, probably not the best fit for a team in this situation, good player". I think "BLEARGH BAD CONTRACT TEAM SUX NO FUTURE" is excessive. Criticism does tend towards the latter, and not the former, because objective moderation is boring, and violent hyperbole is fun for everyone except the poor ******** who have to read it. Every. Single. Frickin. Day.

BRAVO! Thank you, merci, gracias.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So you're a casual fan then right?

Because casual fans only care about watching a fun team, not about actually building a cup contender.

Spinning our wheels and not accomplishing anything other than putting a slightly better short term product on the ice to pander to casual fans is exactly what this ownership and management is all about.

Hey, who cares about the people who are thinking long term though right? As long as you casual fans are happy with the dozen or so odd games you watch or are luck enough to get free tickets to.

I've been a fan of the team since the 80's, others even longer. Spare us your no true Scotsman moralizing. You whinging and grinding your teeth in public does absolutely nothing to influence the direction this team takes one way or the other. You can learn to accept the crap you can't change, or you can lose your gourd on message boards because arguing gives you a dopamine hit.

 

[absolute garbage]

I seriously do not understand this "ownership wants playoffs" argument.

Why is that used as this some sort of excuse for Benning? Shouldn't it be crystal clear to everyone already that Benning is in for the exact same thing as the ownership? That is literally the reason why he HAS the job, to want the same thing. That was his pitch, to get the ****ing job.

 

[KeninsFan]

This deal will be perfectly fine for the next 4 years, but yeah, it'll probably hurt in the last 2 years of his deal.

So glad we didn't get Lucic, and this contract could have been far worse than it is. Not bad.

On the absolute bright side that's what I'm looking at.

1-2 years of Eriksson under Benning's reigme.
New GM comes in and will deal Eriksson
Let some other team worry about paying 6M to a 34/35/36 year old Loui