Player Discussion Loui Eriksson Part IV: EriksSonata - A CambieKev Presentation [VIDEO]

Dr Black

Registered User
Oct 31, 2015
482
368
Loui should write a 'thank you note' to his agent every night. Might throw a few in for Benning as well.

Believe it is the worst contract in Canuck history (although Sundin's rivals it)

I don't necessarily agree with that line of thinking.

If you are viewing this situation strictly in dollars and cents, then yes, this is a great contract for Eriksson.

However, because of this very lopsided contract that has hurt the team so much, Loui Eriksson may go down as the least popular Canuck of all time. When he is finally off the team, Canuck fans will celebrate and rejoice. Not exactly the legacy a player would want. If it was me, I'd rather make 1/3th the money Eriksson is making, but have a legacy that is not viewed with such disdain.
 

Didalee Hed

I’m trying to understand
Sep 14, 2019
1,963
2,005
I don't necessarily agree with that line of thinking.

If you are viewing this situation strictly in dollars and cents, then yes, this is a great contract for Eriksson.

However, because of this very lopsided contract that has hurt the team so much, Loui Eriksson may go down as the least popular Canuck of all time. When he is finally off the team, Canuck fans will celebrate and rejoice. Not exactly the legacy a player would want. If it was me, I'd rather make 1/3th the money Eriksson is making, but have a legacy that is not viewed with such disdain.
Ok, can I have the other 2/3?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lupuls Grit

orcatown

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 13, 2003
10,269
7,507
Visit site
Mark Messier says "ha!"

Messier actually scored 60 points in his first season (drop from his previous scoring however) but then got injured and was virtually useless for the next couple of seasons. Biggest problem, outside of the collateral damage done in the Linden situation (although that lead to one of the best trades in Canuck history) , was that Messier was so banged up. I mean he was done physically.

Messier's deal is up there in the bad contract category but thankfully only here for 3 years. The Eriksson nightmare seems to go on forever. Best hope is they ditch Loui in the minors (preferably on some other team than Utica so he doesn't rob anyone of ice time or contaminate that situation). Maybe out of sight out of mind.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Loui should write a 'thank you note' to his agent every night. Might throw a few in for Benning as well.

Believe it is the worst contract in Canuck history (although Sundin's rivals it)
Sundin's contract literally had ZERO bad implications for the Canucks. How in the sweet hell can an intelligent person as I expect you to be, come up with an idea so stupid.

Sign Sundin for 1 year, get to the 2nd round. Then he's gone.

The leadership core felt it springboarded the group. They were in game 7 of the cup finals two years later.

The worst contract in team history is Benning's.

Loui? Who cares, they were rebuilding anyways, cap space doesn't matter if you're rebuliding? Oh, he has two more seasons? Well, they're planning for 3 years out now, 5 years from when Linden said 4. Praise Jimbo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LiveeviL

orcatown

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 13, 2003
10,269
7,507
Visit site
Sundin's contract literally had ZERO bad implications for the Canucks. How in the sweet hell can an intelligent person as I expect you to be, come up with an idea so stupid.

Sign Sundin for 1 year, get to the 2nd round. Then he's gone.

The leadership core felt it springboarded the group. They were in game 7 of the cup finals two years later.

The worst contract in team history is Benning's.

Loui? Who cares, they were rebuilding anyways, cap space doesn't matter if you're rebuliding? Oh, he has two more seasons? Well, they're planning for 3 years out now, 5 years from when Linden said 4. Praise Jimbo.

Did you watch Sundin play??? Many compared him to a beer leaguer - it was laughable at times. Great player but he was every bit as washed up as Messier (probably more) when he got here. And he got offered a contract that would have made him the highest player the League at the time.:( That deal was monsterously out of line.

Far as him spring boarding them to the Cup Final that's a big stretch. Kind of thing GMs say to sugar coat things. Like Sutter will make the team a better team down the road "cus like his leadership you know". Like somehow just the memory of the guy turns you into a star. You make the finals b/c of the players you have good players that come together at the right time not because someone played on your team a couple of years ago. Can always make this shlock up - like Messier was big reason Bertuzzi or Naslund became stars.

Moreover, deal Gillis wanted to sign was a two year deal and the decline in Sundin's play would have made the second year as horrible as anything we can predict our out Loui for the next couple of years. And when you think of what the Canucks could have got with the 10 million Gillis was tossing around - maybe someone (or even a couple of players) who would have put the team over top in 2011 you wonder if the deal did more to screw up the Cup run than it helped. Heck with that kind of money could have put in a huge offer sheet on the likes of Shane Weber, Bouwmeester or Byfuglien or taken a free agent like Rob Blake. To me, that's a big negative to this deal - that Gillis used up so much money on Sundin when better players who could have bought much more long term success were there. And, in the end, the only thing that helped the deal not be crushingly bad was the fact that Sundin had the common sense to water it down on his own.

Am I saying that the deal was as bad as the Eriksson deal? NO. Eriksson deal has and will have far more profound bad effects on the team. Deal stinks and Benning needs to be carved up for making it. Six years was always way too long.

Am I saying Gillis is worse GM than Benning. NO. Gillis is damn site smarter and did a far better job. But he was far from mistake free and the whole circus around Sundin was one of them.

Was the Sundin deal kinda harmless. NO that money could have been much better spent. If we have Weber in 2011 I think we win the cup. Or for that matter, had he waived Ballard and his 4 mill cap hit at the 2011 dead line to pick up playoff help we might have got the Cup.

Eriksson contract is proving IMO to be the worst contract in the history of the team. But the Sundin contract wasn't any good either. So much more was possible.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
The offer got his attention. The intention wasn’t for 2 years. It didn’t limit a thing.

I saw a PPG playoff performer. If we would’ve started the season who knows what happens.

The Sundin money didn’t have anything to do with Shea Weber. Seems we needs real hockey people are going crazy.

Do a KHL postgame or something.

Sundin deal impacted one season. The one he played.
 

orcatown

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 13, 2003
10,269
7,507
Visit site
Absolutely the offer got his attention. Got everyone attention for being so ludicrous. As the following states "people were overwhelmed with the offer.

Sundin gets $20 million offer from Canucks as big dollars fly


Maybe you should take the time in all your questioning others intelligence and telling people what to do with their time and consider the following:

1. We are talking about the contract offered to Sundin. And the contract offered was 2 years at 20 million and Gillis was willing he states to sign this.

2. The cap at the time was 56 mill. So you are tying up approximately 18% of your cap space for one player for two years.

3. Sundin was coming of a major hip injury. There was talk he would he needed major hip surgery (there was talk throughout that season that Sundin's career was over). His poor skating was a result and Sundin quit during the next off-season season after the Canucks b/c the hip was done. Moreover, Sundin labored very badly in last 20 games with the Leafs and scored one goal in those games. Also, Sundin had not played a full season in the 6 years prior to his signing in Vancouver. He was definitely damaged goods having been off hockey for 10 months at the time of the deal.

4. Canucks would have liable for both years of Sundin's contract. If he retired, the Canucks would still be liable for the 10 million the next year. That would have meant they would have near a fifth of their salary in dead cap space. That would have doubtless made it impossible to add the Erhoff contract as well as others during the 2009 offseason. Canucks would have had zero cap space or flexibility.

5. Sundin had not been the playoffs for 5 years prior to the signing and never won a Stanley Cup (so much for bringing in all the playoff experience). Note Jagr was also available at the time.

6. Repeat - Sundin's contract would have made him the highest paid player in the NHL at the time.

Some comments on Sundin's contract

“You mean Moses Sundin,” Sutter cracked. D. Sutter of the Flames

"And yet we're suddenly hearing about teams offering Sundin multiple years. That's madness. It's one thing to take a very reasonable gamble on Sundin for one year. It's another to risk your salary cap for the future to make it happen." Chicago Tribune reporter Samuel Rosenbloom


sundin-tombstone.jpg



From column by Mike Halford

sleepydwarf.jpg


“I’m just happy [Sundin] performed above ‘epic failure’ level because there’s nothing as entertaining as listening
to Canucks fans bitterly recall the Messier Era. I was worried the hilarious memories of that $18-million first farewell
tour would be erased by a couple years of Sundin taking the money and running. But even Dopey Gillis isn’t crazy
enough to bring Sundin back, is he?”

From the same article. (don't really agree with the Dopey Gillis aspect but talk was he wanted Sundin back)

Sundin skated – during one of his unimpressive 20 second shifts – like he’d just completed a thorough colorectal examination.
Without any lubricant. The Sundin Era <coff> in Vancouver should be entitled The Sundin Epic Faliure.
When Gillis is finally canned in Vancouver Sundin will be cited as an example of poor personnel decisions made during his tenure.”

– John in Marpole

John, whoever he was, probably said it best.

 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,321
14,091
Hiding under WTG's bed...
Did you watch Sundin play??? Many compared him to a beer leaguer - it was laughable at times. Great player but he was every bit as washed up as Messier (probably more) when he got here. And he got offered a contract that would have made him the highest player the League at the time.:( That deal was monsterously out of line.
Messier never provided a moment like this for us:



But yeah, he was beyond bad at the start. I remember him looking for the oxygen tank at the end of every SHORT shift.:laugh: However he did seem to FINALLY got into shape come post-season time & he (imho) was one of our better forwards.
 

Disappointed EP40

Registered User
Jan 13, 2015
3,222
1,720
Absolutely the offer got his attention. Got everyone attention for being so ludicrous. As the following states "people were overwhelmed with the offer.

Sundin gets $20 million offer from Canucks as big dollars fly


Maybe you should take the time in all your questioning others intelligence and telling people what to do with their time and consider the following:

1. We are talking about the contract offered to Sundin. And the contract offered was 2 years at 20 million and Gillis was willing he states to sign this.

2. The cap at the time was 56 mill. So you are tying up approximately 18% of your cap space for one player for two years.

3. Sundin was coming of a major hip injury. There was talk he would he needed major hip surgery (there was talk throughout that season that Sundin's career was over). His poor skating was a result and Sundin quit during the next off-season season after the Canucks b/c the hip was done. Moreover, Sundin labored very badly in last 20 games with the Leafs and scored one goal in those games. Also, Sundin had not played a full season in the 6 years prior to his signing in Vancouver. He was definitely damaged goods having been off hockey for 10 months at the time of the deal.

4. Canucks would have liable for both years of Sundin's contract. If he retired, the Canucks would still be liable for the 10 million the next year. That would have meant they would have near a fifth of their salary in dead cap space. That would have doubtless made it impossible to add the Erhoff contract as well as others during the 2009 offseason. Canucks would have had zero cap space or flexibility.

5. Sundin had not been the playoffs for 5 years prior to the signing and never won a Stanley Cup (so much for bringing in all the playoff experience). Note Jagr was also available at the time.

6. Repeat - Sundin's contract would have made him the highest paid player in the NHL at the time.

Some comments on Sundin's contract

“You mean Moses Sundin,” Sutter cracked. D. Sutter of the Flames

"And yet we're suddenly hearing about teams offering Sundin multiple years. That's madness. It's one thing to take a very reasonable gamble on Sundin for one year. It's another to risk your salary cap for the future to make it happen." Chicago Tribune reporter Samuel Rosenbloom


sundin-tombstone.jpg



From column by Mike Halford

sleepydwarf.jpg


“I’m just happy [Sundin] performed above ‘epic failure’ level because there’s nothing as entertaining as listening
to Canucks fans bitterly recall the Messier Era. I was worried the hilarious memories of that $18-million first farewell
tour would be erased by a couple years of Sundin taking the money and running. But even Dopey Gillis isn’t crazy
enough to bring Sundin back, is he?”

From the same article. (don't really agree with the Dopey Gillis aspect but talk was he wanted Sundin back)

Sundin skated – during one of his unimpressive 20 second shifts – like he’d just completed a thorough colorectal examination.
Without any lubricant. The Sundin Era <coff> in Vancouver should be entitled The Sundin Epic Faliure.
When Gillis is finally canned in Vancouver Sundin will be cited as an example of poor personnel decisions made during his tenure.”

– John in Marpole

John, whoever he was, probably said it best.

But he didn't sign for two years.

There's a ton of mighta, coulda in here that never happened.

Sundin's contract is not even top 5, maybe not 10 worst in 'Nucks history.
 

M2Beezy

Objective and Neutral Hockey Commentator
Sponsor
May 25, 2014
45,606
30,747
Messier never provided a moment like this for us:



But yeah, he was beyond bad at the start. I remember him looking for the oxygen tank at the end of every SHORT shift.:laugh: However he did seem to FINALLY got into shape come post-season time & he (imho) was one of our better forwards.

OMG that is frickin awesome :yo:

And against the Leafs of all teams lol
 

mathonwy

Positively #toxic
Jan 21, 2008
19,080
10,006
Messier never provided a moment like this for us:



But yeah, he was beyond bad at the start. I remember him looking for the oxygen tank at the end of every SHORT shift.:laugh: However he did seem to FINALLY got into shape come post-season time & he (imho) was one of our better forwards.

Demo (RIP) also played that season too. 53 points in 69 games ain't too shabby.
 

Lupuls Grit

Registered User
Oct 12, 2018
694
531
Orillia
Messier never provided a moment like this for us:



But yeah, he was beyond bad at the start. I remember him looking for the oxygen tank at the end of every SHORT shift.:laugh: However he did seem to FINALLY got into shape come post-season time & he (imho) was one of our better forwards.

I was at that game. Lots of Canuck fans just giving it to the home team. Such a great memory!
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Sundin’s contract had no impact. Talking about it and ranking what could’ve happened as a reason making it bad is silly. Sorry orcatown.

None of it came to pass.

How you can rank a 1 yr deal that impacted only one season as the worst in franchise history I’ll never understand. Looks to me like you’re comparing actual contracts not offers.

I don’t care about Gillis or whoever. The deal didn’t hurt the Canucks and from then they turned into a successful team that came one win shy.

Sundin is a giant in the game. Hall of Famer. Olympic gold. He clearly rubbed off on the core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkMM

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
But he didn't sign for two years.

There's a ton of mighta, coulda in here that never happened.

Sundin's contract is not even top 5, maybe not 10 worst in 'Nucks history.
10th? It’s probably not in the top 100.

The problem was not convincing him to start the season.
 

orcatown

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 13, 2003
10,269
7,507
Visit site
Leave it at this. If you don't think offering a near fifth of your cap space to a washed up and chronically injured Sundin for two years wasn't awful then there is nothing left to say.

It would be the equivalent, today, of offering Joe Thornton a two year contract for 16 million per. In fact, Thornton seems in better shape now than Sundin was then.

Fact that players like Weber, Jagr, Blake. Byfuglien (many of these for less than Gillis was willing to shell out on Sundin) could probably could have been had for the kind of money Gillis was throwing around shows the opportunities lost by ridiculously chasing after Sundin.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,714
5,952
Leave it at this. If you don't think offering a near fifth of your cap space to a washed up and chronically injured Sundin for two years wasn't awful then there is nothing left to say.

? Mats Sundin was coming off a 32 goal 78 point in 74 game season when the Canucks made him an offer. How was he washed up and chronically injured?
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Sundin didn’t block any acquisitions of 23 year old Shea Weber. Good grief.

Glad somebody else decided to call you out on the errors of the narrative.
 

orcatown

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 13, 2003
10,269
7,507
Visit site
? Mats Sundin was coming off a 32 goal 78 point in 74 game season when the Canucks made him an offer. How was he washed up and chronically injured?

"But Sundin has had significant hip problems over the past couple of seasons. It was discovered he had a torn labrum in his hip after the 2006-07 season and while it did not require surgery and has not kept Sundin out of the lineup, he is concerned about the well-being of his hip with all the travel that is required by a west coast team and is apparently being advised that signing with Vancouver might not be his best option."

From an article by Ken Campbell in 2008. Also confirmed by Steve Simmons in a different article. Also here:

Sundin hip ailment confirmed

Sundin chose to play with it rather than having the surgery. But obvious that it effected his skating once signed here.

Barry, his agent, tried to play it down so he could get Sundin another contract and Leafs did as well b/c they wanted to trade Sundin at the deadline. But his hip issues were well known.

When Sundin retired at the end of the season he stated, "My body isn’t up to the every day wear-and-tear of the NHL anymore" and he think he knew more about his body than you seemingly think you do.

Are you trying to maintain there was no issue with the hip?
 
Last edited:

orcatown

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 13, 2003
10,269
7,507
Visit site
Sundin didn’t block any acquisitions of 23 year old Shea Weber. Good grief.

Glad somebody else decided to call you out on the errors of the narrative.

Shea Weber was a restricted free agent in 2008 2008 NHL Free Agents list - Sportsnet.ca

You put in a 10 million dollar offer sheet om Weber and I think there is good chance Nashville doesn't match. (Remember later Weber did sign an offer sheet with Philadelphia) Much better way to spend $10 mill than going after Sundin.

Jagr signed for 7 million in Russia. Might have got him for 10 mill.

Either of these players in the lineup and the team has a much greater chance in 2008 playoffs and especially in 2011.

These options and others were available. And most any of these would have been better than signing someone on the verge of retirement, and who was to declare a few months later his body was done, for a contract that made him the highest paid player in the League. And given the 2 year offer made by Gillis if Sundin had retired the Canucks were on the hook for 10 mill in dead cap space the next year.

Why are you glad someone else is calling out errors in the narrative (and how cliched and pedantic is that)? You shouldn't need to feel you have support or backup in making your points. Stand up on your own and and be secure enough to make arguments without looking for others to buttress you.

Ask again would you now sign Thornton for 16 mill (equivalent of the Sundin's contract given the cap situation)? Doubt you even try to answer that. But maybe someone else can do that for you.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
I disagree with your entire spiel. I disagree about your Jagr mentions and Shea Weber was not an RFA in 2008 he was signed before he ever had that title

I disagree with your Thornton equivalent and I just disagree that the Sundin deal was bad. It was great.

Didn’t hurt the team at all. Jagr never won a thing after 92, not sure why he’s being mentioned.

It was a big offer and a lot of money and too bad they didn’t go further but what actually happened had no effect.

Anywho enough about Sundin in 2020.
 

orcatown

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 13, 2003
10,269
7,507
Visit site
Why do you disagree with the Thornton comparison?

Why do disagree with the entire spiel?

Do you disagree that Sundin had hip issues?

Do you disagree that Sundin ended his shortened year declaring he physically couldn't play anymore?

Do you disagree that given the contract offered by Gillis that the Canucks would have been liable for 10 mill to Sundin the following season and that would have counted against cap even if Sundin retired?

Do you disagree that if Sundin had signed the two year offer proposed by Gillis that they wouldn't have been able to pick up Erhoff and others during the 2010 off season or at the trade deadline?

Do you disagree that it was apparent during his play in Vancouver that Sundin's skating had deteriorated and he lacked much mobility?

Do you disagree that Sundin was used almost exclusively in offensive situations when he played in Vancouver?

Did you disagree that Sundin got real short shifts (that at times led to some of the most bizarre line changes ever seen) and changed off even when the puck was in his zone.

Do disagree that if Sundin and Jagr were free agents at the same time it would have been better to go after Jagr? (and here if you wanted to make a splash why not pursue Jagr in the summer rather than waiting around for Sundin to make up his mind)

Do ou disagree that there were better way to use 10 mill to improve the team in the short run and especially in the long run?

In the end, it was fun having the likeable Sundin around. And in a couple of games, fans got a real kick out of watching him do things like score the winner against Toronto. And it was nice for the fans to believe that they had really done a number on Leafs by scooping him from them. Always great to one up Toronto. But to call this a great deal is absurd. The contract Gillis offered Sundin had disaster written all over it. It was a terrible contract offer. Fact it was made less harmful by the common sense of Sundin does not negate the foolishness of Gillis's contract offer.
 

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
Leave it at this. If you don't think offering a near fifth of your cap space to a washed up and chronically injured Sundin for two years wasn't awful then there is nothing left to say.

It would be the equivalent, today, of offering Joe Thornton a two year contract for 16 million per. In fact, Thornton seems in better shape now than Sundin was then.

Fact that players like Weber, Jagr, Blake. Byfuglien (many of these for less than Gillis was willing to shell out on Sundin) could probably could have been had for the kind of money Gillis was throwing around shows the opportunities lost by ridiculously chasing after Sundin.


Shea Weber was under contract for 3 years when free agency opened at that time so he was never an option. You need to reevaluate your entire post cause you have made up some crazy fantasy in there about how the sundin deal prevented us from signing Shea Weber
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad