Proposal: Lucic + Bouchard to Vancouver for Eriksson + 10th + ????

[Superlative Soup]

Loui Eriksson was credited with 3 hits in 81 games.... how

Seems generous tbh

 

[McBooya42]

Lucic + Bouchard to Vancouver for Eriksson + 10th + ????

The Canucks

1) Are in dire need of a good young RD prospect that has a strong likelihood of being a top pairing guy one day

2) Need the Kevin Costner (Lucic) to their Whitney Houstons (Pettersson and Hughes) so to speak. Absolutely no one will take liberties with the Canucks’ star players with a motivated Lucic at the helm.

The Oilers

1) Need to rid themselves of an absolutely terrible contract so that they can have a shot of making an immediate playoff push while they still have a young McDavid. Eriksson gives them that opportunity since LE’s contract is moveable (especially after next season when 31 of his 36 million will have been paid out to him and he’d only be owed 5 million in real dollars)

I think it’s a fair deal for both sides.

Oilers fans and management obviously won’t like giving up Bouchard, but they really do need to get rid of Lucic. Not only does Lucic not want to be there and is a cap drain, but his NMC will prevent him from being exposed in the Expansion draft.

No.

 

[deckercky]

Eriksson hasn’t hit 30 points for 3 years. Lucic has done it 2 of the last 3. Lucic has 104 points in that time to Eriksson’s 76. Saying Eriksson has had steady production while Lucic has declined isn’t exactly a fair summary. Lucic has declined to Eriksson level, not well below like you’re implying

Lucic had one decent season with Edmonton then his play fell off a cliff (and has gotten worse each season). Eriksson's play got worse immediately when he joined the Canucks, but he's produced at roughly a 30 pt per 82 games clip each season in Vancouver. Lucic has shown a 3 year ongoing decline. It's laughable to consider Lucic a better, or even comparable, asset going forward. Both are trash, but Lucic is a lower tier level of trash who happens to be on a longer contract, is owed more money and will take up a protection slot in the expansion draft.

 

[EP to Kuzmenko]

So is Eriksson. Everyone already knows that Lucic sucks and is overpaid. That's why you're getting a blue-chip prospect coming back.

I wouldn't do it from an Oilers perspective. There isn't a RHD in the entire draft that is better than Bouchard.

Eriksson has more value though. 1 year less on his contract and doesn't need to be protected. He is also better defensively and contributes a little more offensively. Lucic + Bouchard is not worth Eriksson + 10oa, let alone adding to that on Vancouvers end.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I think the Canucks should just pass on any trade for Lucic...Its a division rival..The boat anchor, and boat anchor contract can drag them down for the next couple of years.

The Oilers are not the team with the leverage in this situation.

 

[bucks_oil]

Lucic + Bouchard to Vancouver for Eriksson + 10th + ????

The Canucks

1) Are in dire need of a good young RD prospect that has a strong likelihood of being a top pairing guy one day

2) Need the Kevin Costner (Lucic) to their Whitney Houstons (Pettersson and Hughes) so to speak. Absolutely no one will take liberties with the Canucks’ star players with a motivated Lucic at the helm.

The Oilers

1) Need to rid themselves of an absolutely terrible contract so that they can have a shot of making an immediate playoff push while they still have a young McDavid. Eriksson gives them that opportunity since LE’s contract is moveable (especially after next season when 31 of his 36 million will have been paid out to him and he’d only be owed 5 million in real dollars)

I think it’s a fair deal for both sides.

Oilers fans and management obviously won’t like giving up Bouchard, but they really do need to get rid of Lucic. Not only does Lucic not want to be there and is a cap drain, but his NMC will prevent him from being exposed in the Expansion draft.

1) Your rationale for the Canucks in #1 and #2 above also applies to the Oilers. Nobody has been coming after McD or Nuge.

2) Bouchard is >>> IMO than a 10th in this draft. Especially given how soon he may be ready and the fact he hits our #1 deficit in our lineup (yes, a RD PMD is still more important to our success and more difficult to acquire than some complementary wingers)

3) I honestly think Lucic is = or > than Eriksson. If you believe #1 (and you clearly do, so do I) at least he brings something... yes, unfortunately its for a year longer, so you could argue that makes them equal... but then the rest of the deal falls apart on principle.

There isn't a "+" that you'd reasonably give up to have us swap Bouchard for #10 given our immediate needs for him. (It's honestly going to be difficult to keep him in the AHL this year, even though we probably should if we were thinking long term)

 

[bucks_oil]

There is no chance Edmonton does this. Would the Canucks trade their top prospect to get rid of Eriksson in a different trade? Think about it.

No kidding. I'm sure most rationale Nucks fans wouldn't trade their top prospect with Eriksson EVEN IF there was no salary coming back. We are going to do it for negligible near term savings plus one year less on contract? Pfft.

 

[The Nuge]

Lucic had one decent season with Edmonton then his play fell off a cliff (and has gotten worse each season). Eriksson's play got worse immediately when he joined the Canucks, but he's produced at roughly a 30 pt per 82 games clip each season in Vancouver. Lucic has shown a 3 year ongoing decline. It's laughable to consider Lucic a better, or even comparable, asset going forward. Both are trash, but Lucic is a lower tier level of trash who happens to be on a longer contract, is owed more money and will take up a protection slot in the expansion draft.

If he only had one decent season, Eriksson sure must be terrible. Because Lucic had 34 points 2 years ago in what you’re saying it a trash season, and Eriksson hasn’t hit 30 yet as a Canuck

 

[Cogburn]

The Canucks are able to buy Eriksson out, next season let's say, and save a ridiculous amount of cap space if we can't find a buyer. After his bonus he is owed 10 million across 3 years.

We wouldn't be in a position where we "have to" trade Eriksson. I'm not even convinced that Eriksson would be a piece going back, especially if the Oilers organization fails to see any significant difference in his contract structure versus Lucics. Eriksson is on a brutal contract, but there are other options to bribing someone to bury a mistake.

That's what these threads are about, burying Chiarellis and Katz's mistake. That isn't easy or cheap. If you're willing to part with an asset easily, then why would Vancouver want such a meaningless piece to do your organization a solid?

 

[CycloneSweep]

Oilers aren't moving Bouchard for anything at this point.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Even more valuable than Drai @ 8.5M per year?
Bouchard has to do quite a bit to have me value him over Drai.
He's going to at least have to consistently put up 70+ points considering he's feeding Drai and McDavid. I'm hoping for 60+.

This is assuming Bouchard reaches his highest level, which he hasn't proved otherwise against that.

If Drai hits 50 again, I'll reconsider for sure.

 

[Saltcreek]

Any trade proposal including Brouchard will be a hard no from the Oilers unless it is some block buster deal. People need to stop trying steal him for nothing.

 

[nturn06]

And why would Seattle pick him?

Irelevant....

The point is that if he waives hin NTC clause for Seattle, the Oilers would not need to protect him.

The Vancouver fans keep telling us that we need to sell the farm to trade Lucic just to get an extra protected slot...Like the Oilers would have 7 Forwards they must protect...

 

[Cogburn]

Any trade proposal including Brouchard will be a hard no from the Oilers unless it is some block buster deal. People need to stop trying steal him for nothing.

Lucics abyssmal contract is not "nothing".

 

[ChaoticOrange]

1) Your rationale for the Canucks in #1 and #2 above also applies to the Oilers. Nobody has been coming after McD or Nuge.

2) Bouchard is >>> IMO than a 10th in this draft. Especially given how soon he may be ready and the fact he hits our #1 deficit in our lineup (yes, a RD PMD is still more important to our success and more difficult to acquire than some complementary wingers)

3) I honestly think Lucic is = or > than Eriksson. If you believe #1 (and you clearly do, so do I) at least he brings something... yes, unfortunately its for a year longer, so you could argue that makes them equal... but then the rest of the deal falls apart on principle.

There isn't a "+" that you'd reasonably give up to have us swap Bouchard for #10 given our immediate needs for him. (It's honestly going to be difficult to keep him in the AHL this year, even though we probably should if we were thinking long term)

I wouldn't trade Bouchard for a pick lower than 4th overall in this draft. The only guys I feel comfortable saying are for-sure better are Hughes, Kakko, Turcotte and Byram. Factoring in how badly we need a RHD just makes him even more unmoveable.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Lucics abyssmal contract is not "nothing".

Eriksson's is not much better. He's older, disgruntled, and if the "credited with three hits" stat is true, avoids contact like the plague.

6 mil in cap space and an expansion slot most teams used to protect absolute junk isn't worth NOTHING, but it's damned sure not worth a top prospect.

 

[bucks_oil]

Lucics abyssmal contract is not "nothing".

Oilers would never, ever, attach Bouchard to Lucic just to rid themselves of the contract... let alone take on Eriksson's nearly as bad contract. It's pointless.

 

[Lion Hound]

Creative, however...I don't see the Nucks trading their first the year they are hosting the draft. Someone is going to get called to the podium for them.

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Rather use Lucic on the 4th line than move Bouchard for a pick and Eriksson who’s a 3rd liner

 

[Cogburn]

Oilers would never, ever, attach Bouchard to Lucic just to rid themselves of the contract... let alone take on Eriksson's nearly as bad contract. It's pointless.

It's not close to "nearly as bad". Eriksson was your fanbases inclusion too, not ours. As of yesterday our idiot manager hadn't even reached out to Eriksson.

As for Lucics worst contract in the league, it doesn't have to be Bouchard, but Puuljujarvi(who unlike Eriksson has requested a trade) or Bear aren't going to do it either. A second won't do it. A third and fifth won't do it. Moving up two spots in the first round of the draft won't do it. Is the whole north half of Alberta blind to had badly Chia screwed up on that contract?

 

[Cogburn]

Rather use Lucic on the 4th line than move Bouchard for a pick and Eriksson who’s a 3rd liner

Do it. When can you take over for Holland and make that official?

Eriksson is a 4th line calibre guy too btw...

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Do it. When can you take over for Holland and make that official?

Eriksson is a 4th line calibre guy too btw...

I was just trying to give Eriksson the nod in roster position as he played under Tippett in Dallas. Maybe it inspires him. As for moving Lucic I’d rather dump Sekera, Manning, Gagner and Russell as each one is easier to move and won’t cost us even debating attaching 8th ov or Bouchard

 

[thefutures]

This is a very bad deal for Edmonton. If a deal with lucic is made including an asset like 8OA or Bouchard (highly unlikely) theres no chance salary like Loui is coming back

 

[Cogburn]

I was just trying to give Eriksson the nod in roster position as he played under Tippett in Dallas. Maybe it inspires him. As for moving Lucic I’d rather dump Sekera, Manning, Gagner and Russell as each one is easier to move and won’t cost us even debating attaching 8th ov or Bouchard

As someone that has had to hear that Lucics contract is not so bad, and he would protect the kids, and he loves Vancouver over and over and over...

...I think that is the more prudent move as well.

 

[bucks_oil]

It's not close to "nearly as bad". Eriksson was your fanbases inclusion too, not ours. As of yesterday our idiot manager hadn't even reached out to Eriksson.

As for Lucics worst contract in the league, it doesn't have to be Bouchard, but Puuljujarvi(who unlike Eriksson has requested a trade) or Bear aren't going to do it either. A second won't do it. A third and fifth won't do it. Moving up two spots in the first round of the draft won't do it. Is the whole north half of Alberta blind to had badly Chia screwed up on that contract?

Of course we aren't blind to it. But we're resigned to live with it. We certainly aren't going to mortgage the future to get out from under it. Chia did a lot of other bad things too remember... we aren't a "free Lucic and be done with it" away from truly competing. It will take time and patience and Lucic's cap space being available is likely the final piece of the puzzle, not the first piece.

There is no urgency to set ourselves further back when getting rid of Lucic alone doesn't solve the broader issue... a lack of depth at wing and D and limited cap space. How does trading Bouchard help with that? How does taking on Eriksson help? Right, they don't.

The OP is a Canuck fan who can still see some value in Lucic to protect young stars. I'm inclined to agree (only) enough to be willing to "grin and bear it" for another year or two. The common view around here is that Lucic wants to get back to Seattle/Van enough that he'll waive his NTC.