Player Discussion Loui Eriksson, Pt. II

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Turning it back again to the Friedman report - if it’s correct (and Friedman is very credible) then that has to mean that we had a trade worked out but Eriksson blocked it. There is no other reason that we would need to threaten Utica to get him to loosen trade protection.

That is massive and fascinating news on several levels and will continue to be the biggest news story for this team for the rest of the summer.

Personally I strongly feel this means he blocked a trade to Edmonton. Others may feel differently.

Not sure I buy this. There is no way a team was going to take Loui on before his $4M bonus on July 15, especially if salary is coming back the other way.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I like it. Gotta think we retain salary. At 3 mill maybe someone takes a chance that the guy will start trying? He’s not even that bad of a defensive forward currently, despite his lack of effort.

Do not support giving a sweetener, at least not anything of value.

To get rid of a $6M cap hit, it would be more than a sweetener..it would be substantial.

I think that the quote is just out there to get the wheels/process moving along..We would probably have to retain half (maybe more) of his salary in a trade, if it came down to that.

I do agree that he can at least be effective in a defensive role, unlike Lucic who is just a rusty boat anchor.

 

[MS]

No, it doesn't. It could mean the Eriksson privately expressed an unwillingness to move, or that his agent did, or that during a general conversation about the possibility of a trade he said he wasn't willing to move to any team other than one of his choice, such as Dallas.

That seems incredibly unlikely.

Eriksson has publicly commented on not adjusting to the city and has moved his family out of the city. He doesn’t like the coach, and the coach and the organization don’t like him. Fans hate him.

It’s pretty obvious he wants the hell out of here. And his agent will have told him that Dallas has zero cap space.

They’ve clearly been trying to move him for months and if it has reached the point of ‘waive your NTC it it’s Utica instead’ then that is overwhelmingly likely to mean he’s blocking something.

I’m sure you will argue semantics on this as usual.

 

[MS]

Not sure I buy this. There is no way a team was going to take Loui on before his $4M bonus on July 15, especially if salary is coming back the other way.

Doesn’t mean a deal couldn’t be completed before then. They’ve clearly been trying to put something together to get him out of here for some time, and now apparently his NTC and unwillingness to waive it for their desired trade partner is an issue.

 

[bandwagonesque]

That seems incredibly unlikely.

Eriksson has publicly commented on not adjusting to the city and has moved his family out of the city. He doesn’t like the coach, and the coach and the organization don’t like him. Fans hate him.

It’s pretty obvious he wants the hell out of here. And his agent will have told him that Dallas has zero cap space.

They’ve clearly been trying to move him for months and if it has reached the point of ‘waive your NTC it it’s Utica instead’ then that is overwhelmingly likely to mean he’s blocking something.

I’m sure you will argue semantics on this as usual.

All the things you're saying are "obvious" and "clear" aren't the thing you said, which is that the fact the Canucks are pressuring him to waive his NTC must by definition mean he's already refused a trade, which isn't indicated by precedent anywhere else or by any information we have about this situation, or by anything that's been reported, and this has nothing to do with semantics. Friedman didn't even suggest he thought a trade was in place or had been refused. You're an intelligent poster, but you want so badly to believe certain things that you're drifting to the point where you have to make a choice between a) being a troll and b) being reasonable even when the conclusions you reach aren't as definite as you'd like.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Doesn’t mean a deal couldn’t be completed before then. They’ve clearly been trying to put something together to get him out of here for some time, and now apparently his NTC and unwillingness to waive it for their desired trade partner is an issue.

So it looks like Eriksson vetoed a trade to Edmonton at the deadline. To which I say: THANK YOU LOUI.

 

[Hit the post]

So it looks like Eriksson vetoed a trade to Edmonton at the deadline. To which I say: THANK YOU LOUI.

Thank Jeebus for the NTC.

 

[MS]

All the things you're saying are "obvious" and "clear" aren't the thing you said, which is that the fact the Canucks are pressuring him to waive his NTC must by definition mean he's already refused a trade, which isn't indicated by precedent anywhere else or by any information we have about this situation, or by anything that's been reported, and this has nothing to do with semantics. Friedman didn't even suggest he thought a trade was in place or had been refused. You're an intelligent poster, but you want so badly to believe certain things that you're drifting to the point where you have to make a choice between a) being a troll and b) being reasonable even when the conclusions you reach aren't as definite as you'd like.

Oh, look at the report just above!

Dan Murphy (who is basically a Canucks employee) has just reported that Eriksson vetoed Edmonton at the deadline, which is basically exactly what I was just saying. Care to update your take?

And also do you care to update your criticism of my surprise that Lucic isn’t a Canuck? Seems like it wasn’t because they didn’t want him to be.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I have sneaking suspicion that he could be traded (with salary retained?)...along with one of Leivo,Baertschi,Goldoblin,Sutter (maybe Tanev).

 

[krutovsdonut]

So it looks like Eriksson vetoed a trade to Edmonton at the deadline. To which I say: THANK YOU LOUI.

at the tdl? why would two teams out of contention make that deal then? that is fascinating. maybe that explains why they released the hounds on loui near the end of the season.

i think there is no roster room for lucic anymore. thanks ferland!

 

[bandwagonesque]

Oh, look at the report just above!

Dan Murphy (who is basically a Canucks employee) has just reported that Eriksson vetoed Edmonton at the deadline, which is basically exactly what I was just saying. Care to update your take?

That trade was vetoed 4 months ago. It's reasonable to suspect the Canucks may presently have a trade in place. It's beyond reasonable to suspect they are shopping him. It is not reasonable to infer that the team trying to get an assurance that he will waive categorically means there's a trade in place. That fact that they're clearly preparing to trade him and have met to discuss this contingency is also a sufficient and completely reasonable explanation.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Dan Murphy (who is basically a Canucks employee) has just reported that Eriksson vetoed Edmonton at the deadline, which is basically exactly what I was just saying. Care to update your take?

i have never heard anything about a nixed tdl eriksson trade for lucic. that's a bombshell to me. got a link to prior discussion?

 

[krutovsdonut]

That trade was vetoed 4 months ago. It's reasonable to suspect the Canucks may presently have a trade in place. It's beyond reasonable to suspect they are shopping him. It is not reasonable to infer that the team trying to get an assurance that he will waive categorically means there's a trade in place. That fact that they're clearly preparing to trade him and have met to discuss this contingency is also a sufficient and completely reasonable explanation.

i agree that is all reasonable. when you consider the most likely trade destinations are oilers and sens, you can see how eriksson might have decided this week to call benning, play nice and report to camp in good shape.

 

[bandwagonesque]

And also do you care to update your criticism of my surprise that Lucic isn’t a Canuck? Seems like it wasn’t because they didn’t want him to be.

The Canucks' general interest in Lucic was reported before you said that. We all had the same information. So no. You thought it still would come to pass and ended up being wrong. It's not a huge deal if you just own it and let it go.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

lol at this exchange

 

[Phenomenon13]

I always thought that lucic must be protected at the expansion draft would be a deal killer. Unfortunately I was mistaken and damn the fact that it was Eriksson being the one to stop this disaster is insane to me.

 

[bandwagonesque]

i have never heard anything about a nixed tdl eriksson trade for lucic. that's a bombshell to me. got a link to prior discussion?

It's been reported for months that the Canucks seriously discussed the merits of acquiring Lucic at the deadline, which would have been at least the third time Benning tried to acquire him. This is the first reporting of a nixed trade, as far as I know.

 

[MS]

The Canucks' general interest in Lucic was reported before you said that. We all had the same information. So no. You thought it still would come to pass and ended up being wrong. It's not a huge deal if you just own it and let it go.

LOL.

You called me out for my comments about being surprised that Lucic wasn’t here and made a bunch of snide, sniveling remarks about it.

Then it turns out my comments were completely correct and I was right to expect Lucic to come here and the team had actually completed a deal for him only to have it unexpectedly rejected by Eriksson.

You get proven completely wrong and then rather than admit it you make more snide, sniveling comments. You probably need to take your own advice and own it and let it go.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Blocking the Lucic trade was the first useful thing Loui has done for us in 3 years!

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

What a f***ing sideshow this is turning out to be.

Thank god he blocked a deal to Edm.

Now just retire. Go to Europe for a year and then proceed to sign with Dallas.

 

[TruGr1t]

So it looks like Eriksson vetoed a trade to Edmonton at the deadline. To which I say: THANK YOU LOUI.

Someone else mentioned it, but something could make some sense if a guy like Sutter or Baertschi is going along for the ride to a team like Ottawa. Though I doubt Eriksson would waive for Ottawa if he wouldn't waive for Edmonton.

You'd have to find a team with a boatload of cap space that wanted to get rid of a guy for the same reason (i.e. the relationship sucks) and also saw some value in guys like Baertschi or Sutter. Ottawa might work for Ryan or something.

In that scenario you'd be taking on another contract, but you'd be creating $3-$4M in cap space.

 

[Krnuckfan]

So it looks like Eriksson vetoed a trade to Edmonton at the deadline. To which I say: THANK YOU LOUI.

This is hilarious. Benning really is an open book. Myers, Ferlund, Lucic, these were all targets that people predicted benning would go after months and months ago and it turns out it's actually 100% correct.

 

[StreetHawk]

There are better ways to hit the floor than to pick up Loui. Ottawa just spent $3.5 mill real cash on Hainsey for 1 year.

Only makes sense to take on Loui if you are sending more real cash out the door but st a lower cap hit.

With the teams that used to pick up dead weight contracts now in the market to get better there hasn’t been a new influx of teams willing or able to take on these contracts.

 

[StreetHawk]

This is hilarious. Benning really is an open book. Myers, Ferlund, Lucic, these were all targets that people predicted benning would go after months and months ago and it turns out it's actually 100% correct.

Probably why he’s not great at contract negotiations or trades. No ability to bluff or move off his hand if it’s not at a good price.

 

[Phenomenon13]

All the things you're saying are "obvious" and "clear" aren't the thing you said, which is that the fact the Canucks are pressuring him to waive his NTC must by definition mean he's already refused a trade, which isn't indicated by precedent anywhere else or by any information we have about this situation, or by anything that's been reported, and this has nothing to do with semantics. Friedman didn't even suggest he thought a trade was in place or had been refused. You're an intelligent poster, but you want so badly to believe certain things that you're drifting to the point where you have to make a choice between a) being a troll and b) being reasonable even when the conclusions you reach aren't as definite as you'd like.

Looks like MS was right in his inferring of the information. Lucic was going to be traded here and Eriksson refused the trade.