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
who was the last player to fit like a glove for the twins before? alex burrows. before his age/injuries caught up to him in 2009/2010 season.
Shareefruck
Registered User
I only have that content which was helpfully supplied for me in quote windows, and well...I still disagree.
Here, I can criticize the signing in a non-hyperbolic fashion. It's not hard.
"While Eriksson is a good player and a good fit for the top line, trying to squeeze extra production out of the Sedins is just going to prolong the twilight of this core's competitive lifespan. We don't have the defensive or center depth to make meaningful post-season progression, so a best case scenario is probably an unlikely journey to the 2nd round, and the likeliest scenario is a narrow miss of the post season and a slightly degraded draft position."
As opposed to..
"LOLOLOLOLOL HE IS GONNA BE 37 AND PEOPLE LIKE THIS DEAL"
I see that as a delivery issue, not a content or hyperbole issue. The message is essentially this-- How can a deal that pays Eriksson 6 million until he's 37 possibly be good?
It's blunt and unsupported by additional information, but it's not wrong.
For Benning its either he pays him that or he doesnt get him at all. These contracts on free agent day arent about the contract on the last few years. Its about the near future and now. If the entirety of the contract is a thing then no one would get a long term deal over the age of 30. How do you think Kesler got 6.8x6 or any player who got a contract today.
BloatedGuppy
Registered User
Well, our delivery often defines the quality of our content. We were just discussing how an unfortunate turn of phrase on my part left you thinking I was being condescending and treating you like "you didn't get it". If one's modus operandi is to lace every post with as much withering, explosive disdain as possible then one should not be regarded as having functionally sound content. It's not just ideas that matter. It's the thought process (or lack thereof) by which one arrives at them.
Personally I don't give a crap if people agree with me on issues or not. I'll listen to dissenting opinions all day. I just want to hear them intelligently argued, by people behaving like adults.
SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
- Jan 3, 2006
- 9,792
- 10,513
This contract guarantees the Canucks continue to spin their wheels and accomplish nothing of importance (and likely actually slightly get worse) over the next six years.
We will not become a contender, Eriksson is good enough to push us away from a top 5 pick, and we will have valuable salary allocated to an injury prone, over 35 winger for the next six years, preventing it from being used in a more efficient manner.
We will not become a contender, Eriksson is good enough to push us away from a top 5 pick, and we will have valuable salary allocated to an injury prone, over 35 winger for the next six years, preventing it from being used in a more efficient manner.
Shareefruck
Registered User
None of this (the fact that it's the norm/the focus/the only way it gets done) suggests that it isn't a bad contract, though.
Quinning
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2008
- 27,786
- 16,238
A lot of our future depends on how guys like Horvat and Virtanen develop. They need to outperform their draft position.
Yes, i get it. But thats how things work in the NHL. It happens every year. We need to stop questioning on why it happens. You can name 5-10 players every single july 1 and say why they got that term + money. The fact is that you need to try to improve your team and if you wont pay up , someone else will.
Shareefruck
Registered User
The truth in the content is the only thing I defended, though. I would criticize the delivery as well.
I would say.... it's melodramatic, but that's not the same thing as it being hyperbolic.
Because the signing makes us competitive... You know, the goal of July 1st isn't to come away with a team that you think will finish last overall. If it is, you aren't doing your job as a GM.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Nobody's questioning why it happens. Just acknowledging that the result is a negative one.
Bobby Digital
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2006
- 1,435
- 794
Pip
Registered User
y2kcanucks
Better than you
I can actually see Virtanen or Boeser being dealt. Both are RW and we're stuck with Eriksson for the next 6 years.
We're not talking about the Sedins. They've declined considerably but have aged well, like Thornton.
We're talking about Loui Eriksson. Name some similar-level players who flat-lined from age 31-36. So far we have Knuble and Brind'Amour in a 10-year period. It doesn't happen often.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
a Fool
Emperor has no picks
- Mar 14, 2014
- 2,601
- 44
I don't think he is. He should contribute to a decent first line, but that's not enough to help this team. One or two injuries again and we're in trouble.
Eye of Ra
Grandmaster General of the International boards
lol 6 years. why is nhl gms always giving so long contracts.
loui will end being a good player in 3 years....even a child know this.
anyways, he had great chemistry with the sedins when playing on team sweden.
loui will end being a good player in 3 years....even a child know this.
anyways, he had great chemistry with the sedins when playing on team sweden.
I dont think so.
I think Virtanen will play 3rd line and Boeser 2nd line in long term .
Besides i think Virtanen can play lw easily.
Pip
Registered User
Agreed. He's not going to turn into the top 4 defenseman we need, especially when injuries hit.
Shareefruck
Registered User
The whole "the purpose of sport is to be competitive at every turn" principle only applies to the athlete. To the general manager, it shouldn't be treated as a sport, it should be a game of strategy.
"You know, the goal of July 1st isn't to come away with a team that you think will finish last overall. If it is, you aren't doing your job as a GM."
I disagree with that sentiment. The purpose of doing your job as a GM should be long term continued success above all else.
"You know, the goal of July 1st isn't to come away with a team that you think will finish last overall. If it is, you aren't doing your job as a GM."
I disagree with that sentiment. The purpose of doing your job as a GM should be long term continued success above all else.
MaseOfBase
Registered User
Yeah because one player is going to handcuff the team from success for the next 6 years. Give your head a shake its not like we signed the worst player in free agency to a ridiculous contract, we signed arguably the best ufa this year to a decent deal for someone who can put up 20+ goals every year and mentor our younger players. If you look at most contending teams they have a veteran presence on their teams, its ridiculous to think we need to have an all youth movement and zero players over 30...not to mention he hasnt even had injury problems, he had a concussion a couple years back, thats all...watch some hockey and stop *****ing about things you can't wrap your brain around
- Status
