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

[RebuildinVan]

Thirty six frickin million dollars! Still cant get thru my head what he's delivered

 

[shottasasa]

To put something I posted in another thread in the proper place:

I think most can agree that Benning has overpaid for veterans, and Loui is perhaps the most egregious of them all, though I think the Beagle and Gudranson deals were arguably more baffling. Loui was a very good two-way player with 6 20+ goal seasons who was widely considered a great fit with the Sedins. Benning overpaid by maybe a $1m and gave him one or two too many years, but the real failure was the structure of the contract for a 30+-year-old player. Almost no one was expecting Loui to fall off as badly or as quickly he did but Benning really buried himself thereby hamstringing possible trades or a buyout.

At the time I would have thought it was a reasonable deal if they had signed Loui to a $6m x 4-year contract, or had done $5m x 6 years but with a more frontloaded structure that could have allowed the Canucks to trade or buy him out. With hindsight, I wish they hadn't gone near him.

 

[shottasasa]

I'm hoping against hope that after they pay Eriksson his signing bonus in the summer the Canucks can find a trading partner to take him for an asset if fans are back in the building and revenues normalize a bit. If they can do that for anything less than a 1st rounder I'd take to be rid of him and not have to carry dead capspace afterward. Maybe it could be done by retaining salary, using a third team to retain more, and giving up a 2nd or 3rd and a B prospect. I think a creative and aggressive GM could pull it off

 

[rypper]

Loui is approaching some milestones.

He's 23 games away from 1000 in his NHL career. Unfortunately he won't get to hit that this year but at least next season when he does, fans should be in the building to help celebrate.

He's also sitting at 90 points in his 5 seasons so far as a Canuck. How serendipitous would it be for him to crest 100 points the same night he gets to 1000 games played?

 

[M2Beezy]

Loui is approaching some milestones.

He's 23 games away from 1000 in his NHL career. Unfortunately he won't get to hit that this year but at least next season when he does, fans should be in the building to help celebrate.

He's also sitting at 90 points in his 5 seasons so far as a Canuck. How serendipitous would it be for him to crest 100 points the same night he gets to 1000 games played?

At this point I dont think he will hit EITHER milestone next season Rypper

 

[Hit the post]

At this point I dont think he will hit EITHER milestone next season Rypper

 

[F A N]

Loui is approaching some milestones.

He's 23 games away from 1000 in his NHL career. Unfortunately he won't get to hit that this year but at least next season when he does, fans should be in the building to help celebrate.

He's also sitting at 90 points in his 5 seasons so far as a Canuck. How serendipitous would it be for him to crest 100 points the same night he gets to 1000 games played?

Would be even more serendipitous if that 1000 game was being played in Dallas or against Dallas.

 

[bossram]

To put something I posted in another thread in the proper place:

I think most can agree that Benning has overpaid for veterans, and Loui is perhaps the most egregious of them all, though I think the Beagle and Gudranson deals were arguably more baffling. Loui was a very good two-way player with 6 20+ goal seasons who was widely considered a great fit with the Sedins. Benning overpaid by maybe a $1m and gave him one or two too many years, but the real failure was the structure of the contract for a 30+-year-old player. Almost no one was expecting Loui to fall off as badly or as quickly he did but Benning really buried himself thereby hamstringing possible trades or a buyout.

At the time I would have thought it was a reasonable deal if they had signed Loui to a $6m x 4-year contract, or had done $5m x 6 years but with a more frontloaded structure that could have allowed the Canucks to trade or buy him out. With hindsight, I wish they hadn't gone near him.

This is some rose-coloured analysis.

There were many of us here (including me) who knew any Eriksson deal with term would end terribly, and repeatedly stated he should've never been a target.

His last seasons with Boston his scoring ability had significantly declined. His UFA year where he got back to 30 goals was a shooting % driven mirage. And being over 30 already, there wasn't really going to be much hope of him rebounding to his prime years' performance.

He wasn't what he was in Dallas anymore, and there was no chance of him getting back to that. Paying $6 million x 6 years on that basis is simply inexcusable and a very basic failure of player evaluation. If guys on a message board can get it right, why can't a "hockey man" general manager?

In response to your post about paying to get rid of Loui...they should definitely not. He's only got one year left on his contract. The Canucks won't be competitive next season. Paying assets for one season of cap room in an uncompetitive season is not prudent. The only contract they should be paying to get rid of is Tyler Myers.

 

[rypper]

Signing Loui almost felt like a panic move. They wanted Lucic and when he went to Edmonton they felt like they needed to make a splash in free agency (because Jim loves his big name players-- when's the last time the Canucks haven't been on a big name free agent/trade target?)

Loui was plan b.

 

[MS]

Signing Loui almost felt like a panic move. They wanted Lucic and when he went to Edmonton they felt like they needed to make a splash in free agency (because Jim loves his big name players-- when's the last time the Canucks haven't been on a big name free agent/trade target?)

Loui was plan b.

The whole thing was a panic.

The team had just finished 28th in the NHL with the worst goal differential in the league. What in the absolute living f*** were we doing chasing Lucics and Erikssons?

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Signing Loui almost felt like a panic move. They wanted Lucic and when he went to Edmonton they felt like they needed to make a splash in free agency (because Jim loves his big name players-- when's the last time the Canucks haven't been on a big name free agent/trade target?)

Loui was plan b.

Canucks admit they'll try to sign Milan Lucic | Vancouver Sun

Plan A was actually signing both Loui and Lucic.

 

[Cupless44]

Loui is approaching some milestones.

He's 23 games away from 1000 in his NHL career. Unfortunately he won't get to hit that this year but at least next season when he does, fans should be in the building to help celebrate.

He's also sitting at 90 points in his 5 seasons so far as a Canuck. How serendipitous would it be for him to crest 100 points the same night he gets to 1000 games played?

Yeah no.

Next season he should be in Utica saving the team a million dollars. If he doesnt like it he can retire a year early.

 

[F A N]

This is some rose-coloured analysis.

There were many of us here (including me) who knew any Eriksson deal with term would end terribly, and repeatedly stated he should've never been a target.

His last seasons with Boston his scoring ability had significantly declined. His UFA year where he got back to 30 goals was a shooting % driven mirage. And being over 30 already, there wasn't really going to be much hope of him rebounding to his prime years' performance.

He wasn't what he was in Dallas anymore, and there was no chance of him getting back to that. Paying $6 million x 6 years on that basis is simply inexcusable and a very basic failure of player evaluation. If guys on a message board can get it right, why can't a "hockey man" general manager?

In response to your post about paying to get rid of Loui...they should definitely not. He's only got one year left on his contract. The Canucks won't be competitive next season. Paying assets for one season of cap room in an uncompetitive season is not prudent. The only contract they should be paying to get rid of is Tyler Myers.

He has always had a highish shooting percentage as a "garbage man." Realistically though, I think almost all of us were expecting his first season or two to mirror more of Lucic's first season with Edmonton production wise than what he gave us.

Looking back, that group of UFA forwards remain one of the best forward groups to hit unrestricted free agency while simultaneously being the worst group of UFA signings ever.

 

[shottasasa]

This is some rose-coloured analysis.

There were many of us here (including me) who knew any Eriksson deal with term would end terribly, and repeatedly stated he should've never been a target.

His last seasons with Boston his scoring ability had significantly declined. His UFA year where he got back to 30 goals was a shooting % driven mirage. And being over 30 already, there wasn't really going to be much hope of him rebounding to his prime years' performance.

He wasn't what he was in Dallas anymore, and there was no chance of him getting back to that. Paying $6 million x 6 years on that basis is simply inexcusable and a very basic failure of player evaluation. If guys on a message board can get it right, why can't a "hockey man" general manager?

In response to your post about paying to get rid of Loui...they should definitely not. He's only got one year left on his contract. The Canucks won't be competitive next season. Paying assets for one season of cap room in an uncompetitive season is not prudent. The only contract they should be paying to get rid of is Tyler Myers.

You're welcome to pat yourself on the back if your stance was that Eriksson should never have been targeted, and I'm sure there were a few here that didn't want the Canucks to target any top-6 players to tank the next few seasons.

However Eriksson was coming off a 30 goal, 60 point season and I mentioned had a track record as a credible top line forward with excellent two way numbers. At this point I also want to preempt the stupid argument that he only did that because he played with Bergeron and The Rat; every player who puts up first line numbers tends to do that because they play with other good players (unless they are generational). He was always going to get $5m+ per. Hindsight is 20/20, but it is not really up for debate that Eriksson was a premium free agent that year.

I agree it was inexcusable that Benning gave him that contract, it was a bad combination of long term and horrific structure. As to whether the Canucks should have targeted him at all, that depends on your philosophy on tanking. As I said, I didn't like the contract at the time but if they had signed him to something more reasonable that was a shorter term and/or structured differently I would have been fine with it. I didn't think it was going to move the club far enough up the standings to matter much if I'm being honest. I thought that they were destined to finish between 5th and 10th for a few years as they weren't going to/couldn't trade the Sedins and I thought it was worth giving up a few percentage points in the draft lottery odds to allow the best players in the franchises history to go out strong while they chased milestones.

As for getting rid of Loui this off season, I think they should at the right price because I think they can turn this around a lot more quickly than you do if they hired a competent GM. That $6m would go a long way if the market for mid-level players is still a bit depressed. If Podz is decent next year, they play with a better system, and they can pick up some good cheap middle 6 talent and another top 4 D-man I think they'll be on track to be a lot better. This would almost certainly require a new coach and GM but I think it's possible, the core talent is there in Demko, Hughes, Schmidt, Horvat, Boeser, Miller, Pettersson and Hoglander. They might not be full on Stanley cup contenders but they'd be on the right path, and I would try very hard to become competitive ASAP if they are going to sign Pettersson and Hughes to bridge deals where they could be providing lots of surplus value and Horvat, Miller and Boeser are still on good deals.

I agree though that it would be awfully helpful to get rid of Myer's stupid contract somehow.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

This is some rose-coloured analysis.

There were many of us here (including me) who knew any Eriksson deal with term would end terribly, and repeatedly stated he should've never been a target.

His last seasons with Boston his scoring ability had significantly declined. His UFA year where he got back to 30 goals was a shooting % driven mirage. And being over 30 already, there wasn't really going to be much hope of him rebounding to his prime years' performance.

He wasn't what he was in Dallas anymore, and there was no chance of him getting back to that. Paying $6 million x 6 years on that basis is simply inexcusable and a very basic failure of player evaluation. If guys on a message board can get it right, why can't a "hockey man" general manager?

In response to your post about paying to get rid of Loui...they should definitely not. He's only got one year left on his contract. The Canucks won't be competitive next season. Paying assets for one season of cap room in an uncompetitive season is not prudent. The only contract they should be paying to get rid of is Tyler Myers.

What always irks me with Benning is how horrendous he negotiates. If Loui wanted term, you don't give him six goddamn years. Conversely, if he wants a payday, he takes less in years. Loui at 7M but only three years is better than what we signed him to despite the higher cap. And yet, this happens in every negotiation Benning attempts. Myers at 4M/6yrs isn't that bad. Slight overpayment but workable. We gave him a little more in terms, he gave us a cheaper deal.

I suspect Benning doesn't want to risk losing his targeted player ala Lucic, which makes his overpayments in term and salary even worse. I'd rather have a GM strike out on big fish one year but have the cap space to try again the following season then "settle" on someone like Eriksson.

 

[MikeK]

Thirty six frickin million dollars! Still cant get thru my head what he's delivered

Nothing. That's what. We've seen some terrible contracts on this team and around the league through the years and this is right up there as one of the worst I've ever seen. I can't think of a single thing he did to earn that money. On a pure ROI stand point this is the worst contract I've ever seen the Canucks handout. Eriksson stole that money.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Serious question as I forget how far in we are in ... is Loui Erikksson under contract next year as well?
Part 2. Is this the worst contract the Canucks have ever signed?

 

[bossram]

You're welcome to pat yourself on the back if your stance was that Eriksson should never have been targeted, and I'm sure there were a few here that didn't want the Canucks to target any top-6 players to tank the next few seasons.

However Eriksson was coming off a 30 goal, 60 point season and I mentioned had a track record as a credible top line forward with excellent two way numbers. At this point I also want to preempt the stupid argument that he only did that because he played with Bergeron and The Rat; every player who puts up first line numbers tends to do that because they play with other good players (unless they are generational). He was always going to get $5m+ per. Hindsight is 20/20, but it is not really up for debate that Eriksson was a premium free agent that year.

I agree it was inexcusable that Benning gave him that contract, it was a bad combination of long term and horrific structure. As to whether the Canucks should have targeted him at all, that depends on your philosophy on tanking. As I said, I didn't like the contract at the time but if they had signed him to something more reasonable that was a shorter term and/or structured differently I would have been fine with it. I didn't think it was going to move the club far enough up the standings to matter much if I'm being honest. I thought that they were destined to finish between 5th and 10th for a few years as they weren't going to/couldn't trade the Sedins and I thought it was worth giving up a few percentage points in the draft lottery odds to allow the best players in the franchises history to go out strong while they chased milestones.

As for getting rid of Loui this off season, I think they should at the right price because I think they can turn this around a lot more quickly than you do if they hired a competent GM. That $6m would go a long way if the market for mid-level players is still a bit depressed. If Podz is decent next year, they play with a better system, and they can pick up some good cheap middle 6 talent and another top 4 D-man I think they'll be on track to be a lot better. This would almost certainly require a new coach and GM but I think it's possible, the core talent is there in Demko, Hughes, Schmidt, Horvat, Boeser, Miller, Pettersson and Hoglander. They might not be full on Stanley cup contenders but they'd be on the right path, and I would try very hard to become competitive ASAP if they are going to sign Pettersson and Hughes to bridge deals where they could be providing lots of surplus value and Horvat, Miller and Boeser are still on good deals.

I agree though that it would be awfully helpful to get rid of Myer's stupid contract somehow.

The days of Loui being a top-line forward were already long gone. The Dallas days were already behind him. He was on the wrong side of 30. There was very, very, little chance he was going to return to that. It was a terrible target, full stop. His UFA season was driven by unsustainable shooting. A smart GM should've been able to put this all together. It's clearly not hindsight analysis because it's exactly what many of us were saying at the time. Whether we wanted to or should've been tanking or not (should've), Eriksson was a bad target regardless of the circumstances.

Despite my outwardly pro-rebuild stance, I do agree with you that the team can be turned into a contender pretty quickly. And in such a situation, moving the Eriksson cap hit would be important. But with the current management in place, there's just 0% chance of that happening. They're not competent and incapable of making the requisite moves and player evaluation to turn the team around. So I'm not getting my hopes up and my final conclusion there is just eat the cap hit and save some picks.

 

[MS]

You're welcome to pat yourself on the back if your stance was that Eriksson should never have been targeted, and I'm sure there were a few here that didn't want the Canucks to target any top-6 players to tank the next few seasons.

However Eriksson was coming off a 30 goal, 60 point season and I mentioned had a track record as a credible top line forward with excellent two way numbers. At this point I also want to preempt the stupid argument that he only did that because he played with Bergeron and The Rat; every player who puts up first line numbers tends to do that because they play with other good players (unless they are generational). He was always going to get $5m+ per. Hindsight is 20/20, but it is not really up for debate that Eriksson was a premium free agent that year.

I agree it was inexcusable that Benning gave him that contract, it was a bad combination of long term and horrific structure. As to whether the Canucks should have targeted him at all, that depends on your philosophy on tanking. As I said, I didn't like the contract at the time but if they had signed him to something more reasonable that was a shorter term and/or structured differently I would have been fine with it. I didn't think it was going to move the club far enough up the standings to matter much if I'm being honest. I thought that they were destined to finish between 5th and 10th for a few years as they weren't going to/couldn't trade the Sedins and I thought it was worth giving up a few percentage points in the draft lottery odds to allow the best players in the franchises history to go out strong while they chased milestones.

As for getting rid of Loui this off season, I think they should at the right price because I think they can turn this around a lot more quickly than you do if they hired a competent GM. That $6m would go a long way if the market for mid-level players is still a bit depressed. If Podz is decent next year, they play with a better system, and they can pick up some good cheap middle 6 talent and another top 4 D-man I think they'll be on track to be a lot better. This would almost certainly require a new coach and GM but I think it's possible, the core talent is there in Demko, Hughes, Schmidt, Horvat, Boeser, Miller, Pettersson and Hoglander. They might not be full on Stanley cup contenders but they'd be on the right path, and I would try very hard to become competitive ASAP if they are going to sign Pettersson and Hughes to bridge deals where they could be providing lots of surplus value and Horvat, Miller and Boeser are still on good deals.

I agree though that it would be awfully helpful to get rid of Myer's stupid contract somehow.

Eriksson had spent the 3 seasons prior to 15-16 as an underachieving 40-point type who Boston was trying to unload as a cap dump.

Then he had a fluke 30-goal season propped up by elite linemates and an unsustainable shooting %, and Benning fell for his hockey card stats hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Hit the post]

I agree though that it would be awfully helpful to get rid of Myer's stupid contract somehow.

Myers at least is "ok" in a non-insignificant role for the club. Right side D (on a club that is barren for defenseman, let alone a right side guy).

I mean, how hard is it to obtain a non-defensive liability winger to play on the 4th line? You can often (note, I didn't say always) get those guys off of waivers.

That is how good LE is.

 

[RebuildinVan]

Serious question as I forget how far in we are in ... is Loui Erikksson under contract next year as well?
Part 2. Is this the worst contract the Canucks have ever signed?

1. yup $6 mil cap hit and i believe $4 mil in cash.
2. yup and not even close

 

[sting101]

Just retire already.....have some pride

36 million for 38 goals probably 10 into empty nets and one into ours.

You've made over 55 million. Do a solid for the team that has gotten nothing but pathetic results for 5 yrs

I honestly wouldn't say this if he tried. It's not his fault they were dumb enough to let him sign a buyout proof deal but you got guys like Motte and Beagle blocking shots and hitting everything that moves and then you have this clown trying as bad as he can to not break a finger nail. Just go away it's embarrassing

 

[Zippgunn]

The contract was insane, I'll agree. Funny how nobody here mentions the Sedins...

 

[RebuildinVan]

Messier is very maligned too, but

Messiers worst season as a Canuck 48points in 59 games

Louis BEST season is 29 points in 81 games

Let that sink in

Now double the term

 

[rypper]

Just retire already.....have some pride

36 million for 38 goals probably 10 into empty nets and one into ours.

You've made over 55 million. Do a solid for the team that has gotten nothing but pathetic results for 5 yrs

I honestly wouldn't say this if he tried. It's not his fault they were dumb enough to let him sign a buyout proof deal but you got guys like Motte and Beagle blocking shots and hitting everything that moves and then you have this clown trying as bad as he can to not break a finger nail. Just go away it's embarrassing

He'll get a 1 million dollar signing bonus on July 15th and then is due 3m after that... maybe then he'd be ok with walking away.