Player Discussion Loui Eriksson

[moog35]

Eriksson is brutal.

When he returned from injury he finally started to play like a top 6 forward after another terrible start to the season. Then Horvat and Bae got hurt and the team has been in a funk. When you loose offensive players to injury other players need to step up, i.e. your $6 million forward. Instead he has disappeared this year when his team needed him most

This team barely missed a beat when he was hurt. Other players easily stepped in and filled his role and production. Now that its his turn to step up and fill other players production he's nowhere to be found

Eriksson is terrible. He's barely noticeable in most games. Yes he's good defensively but for $6 million he should be scoring or at least look like he's trying.

The only time you notice Eriksson is when the camera pans by the bench and you see that stupid goofy look on his face and that ugly curly mop poking out from under his lid

 

[M2Beezy]

He looked good for a few game and then just disappeared. Now he's gone pointless in last 6.

Only four more years of him after this one tho.

We are 23% of the way thru his contract. Allmost a quarter of the way there

 

[Jyrki21]

Yep. His best days are clearly behind him. If the Canucks were a contender and every penny mattered this contract would look even worse.
Just an absolutely brutal signing.

Process-wise, I’d have to think the Eriksson deal is the single least-jutifiable thing Benning has done. But as you say, given the state of the team, it ends up being less impactful than draft flubs or poor trades and such.

 

[Pavel96]

Process-wise, I’d have to think the Eriksson deal is the single least-jutifiable thing Benning has done. But as you say, given the state of the team, it ends up being less impactful than draft flubs or poor trades and such.

Everyone owes everything to the Sedins. And Loui was a player who played well with them at a tournament once. We owed it to the Sedins to take on this big contract as Loui could possibly, maybe, have helped them acquire a few more points in the first 2/6 seasons of his contract.

If there is anything you learn as you get older - life has to be fair. Especially for professional athletes that have been among the highest paid in the league ever.

Canucks president Linden says rebuild wouldn’t be ‘fair’ to Sedins | The Hockey News

"They are icons in this city.... I don’t know how I walk into the room and tell these guys, ‘Strip it down.’ I’m not sure it’s fair to these guys. There’s different circumstances, be it in Toronto or Carolina or Vancouver, that require different routes." - Club 16

 

[0din]

Everyone owes everything to the Sedins. And Loui was a player who played well with them at a tournament once. We owed it to the Sedins to take on this big contract as Loui could possibly, maybe, have helped them acquire a few more points in the first 2/6 seasons of his contract.

If there is anything you learn as you get older - life has to be fair. Especially for professional athletes that have been among the highest paid in the league ever.

Canucks president Linden says rebuild wouldn’t be ‘fair’ to Sedins | The Hockey News

"They are icons in this city.... I don’t know how I walk into the room and tell these guys, ‘Strip it down.’ I’m not sure it’s fair to these guys. There’s different circumstances, be it in Toronto or Carolina or Vancouver, that require different routes." - Club 16

He certainly doesn't have a problem not being fair to customers. Tells you his thoughts on what customers are, suckers!!! Not worth consideration.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Process-wise, I’d have to think the Eriksson deal is the single least-jutifiable thing Benning has done. But as you say, given the state of the team, it ends up being less impactful than draft flubs or poor trades and such.

He did help us get to the cap ceiling though and who else was left on the market that could eat up 6x6 at that point. Benning was under time pressure to get to the ceiling and he took one of, if not the only expensive option left in the field. It's really the only way you can look at this where it starts making sense.

 

[Cupless44]

Eriksson is brutal.

When he returned from injury he finally started to play like a top 6 forward after another terrible start to the season. Then Horvat and Bae got hurt and the team has been in a funk. When you loose offensive players to injury other players need to step up, i.e. your $6 million forward. Instead he has disappeared this year when his team needed him most

This team barely missed a beat when he was hurt. Other players easily stepped in and filled his role and production. Now that its his turn to step up and fill other players production he's nowhere to be found

Eriksson is terrible. He's barely noticeable in most games. Yes he's good defensively but for $6 million he should be scoring or at least look like he's trying.

The only time you notice Eriksson is when the camera pans by the bench and you see that stupid goofy look on his face and that ugly curly mop poking out from under his lid

LOL. Absolutely could not agree more. You nailed it.

Can't stand being stuck with this lifeless player now and for the next 4 1/2 years. In regards to your final comments about how goofy he looks....my wife and I have nicknamed him Clown.

Easy whipping boy. Gagner rapidly joining him, but the Clown retains the crown!

 

[F A N]

Process-wise, I’d have to think the Eriksson deal is the single least-jutifiable thing Benning has done. But as you say, given the state of the team, it ends up being less impactful than draft flubs or poor trades and such.

Well he was a 31 year old UFA who has mostly stayed healthy enough to play 80+ games, was offensively productive, has historically strong possession totals, and has a game that looks to age well. Some productive seasons were expected for at least half of his contract before his play fell off.

 

[Ninebreaker]

The only time you notice Eriksson is when the camera pans by the bench and you see that stupid goofy look on his face and that ugly curly mop poking out from under his lid

Savage but true.

 

[Horse McHindu]

We are 23% of the way thru his contract. Allmost a quarter of the way there

We're actually further along then that.

Again - do the math.

At the end of Year 4 of his contract, 31 of the 36 million owed to him will have been paid.

His contract will easily be movable at that time. Again - do the math. His contract will be ideal for team looking to make the cap floor. Cap wise, Canucks might have to retain some salary at that time, but Eriksson can easily be moved at the end of Year 4 if the Canucks so desire it.

You heard it here first.

 

[Jyrki21]

Well he was a 31 year old UFA who has mostly stayed healthy enough to play 80+ games, was offensively productive, has historically strong possession totals, and has a game that looks to age well. Some productive seasons were expected for at least half of his contract before his play fell off.

Sounds like a reasonable complementary piece for a contender, but maybe this team shouldn't have been the one signing him, particularly long-term.

 

[Melvin]

I hate his hair so much.

 

[MS]

We're actually further along then that.

Again - do the math.

At the end of Year 4 of his contract, 31 of the 36 million owed to him will have been paid.

His contract will easily be movable at that time. Again - do the math. His contract will be ideal for team looking to make the cap floor. Cap wise, Canucks might have to retain some salary at that time, but Eriksson can easily be moved at the end of Year 4 if the Canucks so desire it.

You heard it here first.

WHY DO YOU KEEP REPEATING THIS LIKE IT'S A THING?

There are no NHL teams that 'need to get to the cap floor' and there haven't been for years. Players on bad contracts like this are not 'easily movable'.

Like, Chicago had to give away Teravainen to get out of Bickell's contract which isn't 1/10 as bad as Eriksson's.

 

[Josepho]

I have no idea how you can think that Eriksson is anywhere close to as bad as Gagner.

 

[Askel]

We're actually further along then that.

Again - do the math.

At the end of Year 4 of his contract, 31 of the 36 million owed to him will have been paid.

His contract will easily be movable at that time. Again - do the math. His contract will be ideal for team looking to make the cap floor. Cap wise, Canucks might have to retain some salary at that time, but Eriksson can easily be moved at the end of Year 4 if the Canucks so desire it.

You heard it here first.

No Eriksson is paid 4 million in each of last to years, thats 28/36. But yeah he has a 3 million signing bonus at the start of the fifth year.

 

[opendoor]

This notion of him being attractive to a team trying to reach the floor is complete nonsense. 29 of the 31 teams are currently $10M+ above the floor and the other 2 are still well above it. And this isn't like the Datsyuk trade where Arizona didn't have to spend a dollar and didn't have to have a spot in the lineup for him. This would be a 35-36 year old who still needs to be paid and would need a roster spot devoted to him. If the Canucks have a 20-25 point Eriksson on their hands in 2020 they're going to be giving up a good asset to get rid of him.

And it's not even front loaded enough for it to make sense for him to retire early. He's still earning $4M a year for 5th and 6th years so the Canucks are probably stuck with him until 2022.

 

[RobertKron]

Why ar

We're actually further along then that.

Again - do the math.

At the end of Year 4 of his contract, 31 of the 36 million owed to him will have been paid.

His contract will easily be movable at that time. Again - do the math. His contract will be ideal for team looking to make the cap floor. Cap wise, Canucks might have to retain some salary at that time, but Eriksson can easily be moved at the end of Year 4 if the Canucks so desire it.

You heard it here first.

Lol

 

[Melvin]

Nobody has ever traded something useful for junk in order to reach the cap floor. It has never happened once and it will never happen.

If a team is really desperate to reach the cap floor they will just sign their own free agents, not trade something yummy for someone else's garbage. It makes no sense and is the weakest possible way to rationalize a bad contract.

We can trade Eriksson only if we can package him with Dahlen or something like this.

 

[Jyrki21]

And it's not even front loaded enough for it to make sense for him to retire early. He's still earning $4M a year for 5th and 6th years so the Canucks are probably stuck with him until 2022.

If only 98% of the fanbase realized this... oh wait, that’s right, we did! On July 1, 2016.

 

[Dissonance Jr]

WHY DO YOU KEEP REPEATING THIS LIKE IT'S A THING?

There are no NHL teams that 'need to get to the cap floor' and there haven't been for years. Players on bad contracts like this are not 'easily movable'.

Like, Chicago had to give away Teravainen to get out of Bickell's contract which isn't 1/10 as bad as Eriksson's.

Yeah, in the rare cases when teams *do* need to get to the cap floor, they either trade for still-very-good players with hefty contracts from teams facing cap crunches (as Florida did with Brian Campbell back in 2011) or convince teams to give them quality assets in order to take bad contracts off their hands (as Arizona did with Datsyuk's contract or Carolina did with Bickell's).

There is no case where a team decided to take a way-past-his-prime bad player on a bad contract purely out of the goodness of their heart, and there's no reason to think this will ever happen. If we want to get rid of Eriksson in 2-3 years it's going to cost us.

 

[Melvin]

Yeah, in the rare cases when teams *do* need to get to the cap floor, they either trade for still-very-good players with hefty contracts from teams facing cap crunches (as Florida did with Brian Campbell back in 2011) or convince teams to give them quality assets in order to take bad contracts off their hands (as Arizona did with Datsyuk's contract or Carolina did with Bickell's).

There is no case where a team decided to take a way-past-his-prime bad player on a bad contract purely out of the goodness of their heart, and there's no reason to think this will ever happen. If we want to get rid of Eriksson in 2-3 years it's going to cost us.

He knows this. It's been pointed out to him a hundred times and yet he ignores these posts and continues to push this dumb argument.

 

[Havre]

I hate the contract and I think it will cost us dearly, but it doesn’t have to be a team trying to reach the cap floor. It could be Ottawa, Anaheim or one of the teams that have an internal budget. This assuming Loui is playing decent hockey by that time of course (close enough for him to be worth his actual salary, but not his cap hit).

Not that I think we will turn the corner in 4-5 years anyway with Linden and co.

 

[timw33]

I hate the contract and I think it will cost us dearly, but it doesn’t have to be a team trying to reach the cap floor. It could be Ottawa, Anaheim or one of the teams that have an internal budget. This assuming Loui is playing decent hockey by that time of course (close enough for him to be worth his actual salary, but not his cap hit).

Not that I think we will turn the corner in 4-5 years anyway with Linden and co.

When he's getting $5MM salary for a $6MM cap hit that's not really a great deal still.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Still looking like one of if not the best major FA forward signings of last off-season. Outperforming Ladd, Nielsen, and Okposo, while playing on an inferior team.

 

[M2Beezy]

This notion of him being attractive to a team trying to reach the floor is complete nonsense. 29 of the 31 teams are currently $10M+ above the floor and the other 2 are still well above it. And this isn't like the Datsyuk trade where Arizona didn't have to spend a dollar and didn't have to have a spot in the lineup for him. This would be a 35-36 year old who still needs to be paid and would need a roster spot devoted to him. If the Canucks have a 20-25 point Eriksson on their hands in 2020 they're going to be giving up a good asset to get rid of him.

And it's not even front loaded enough for it to make sense for him to retire early. He's still earning $4M a year for 5th and 6th years so the Canucks are probably stuck with him until 2022.

It really could be top 5 worst contracts of all time. The details that make it so much worse are amazingly horrifying for Canucks players and fans