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

[DingDongCharlie]

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.

Lucic isn’t an NHL caliber player nor a deterrent as he’s no longer capable of the speed game needed to play a top 9 role.

 

[Cogburn]

Lucic isn’t an NHL caliber player nor a deterrent as he’s no longer capable of the speed game needed to play a top 9 role.

See! Dialogue!

Erikssons no prize pig either, but he puts the effort in and can still almost keep up with plays. Instincts are still there, but the reaction time and skating ability are fading. But his defensive play at least makes him an NHL calibre player....albeit one with a massive cap hit he has in no way earned while being here.

 

[Cogburn]

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.

Mortgaging the future is exactly what the ask will be for the Canucks to take on that contract. I'm by no means saying "there's no other option so give us Bouchard/8th overall", but his contract is toxic to our team. Everyone on our team will be due for a new contract, hopefully raises, by the time Lucic's contract expires. We would be losing one of Gaudette, Virtanen, Pearson (might not be a huge loss, but he's looked good so far), Roussel, any free agent we sign, and any prospect that might miraculously start achieving their potential.

That's in addition to anyone we miss out on or are unable to sign due to having 6 million extra on the books.

We wouldn't be able to waive, expose or trade Lucic either. Boo hoo, get him to waive, I know, but if he really does want to play here, why wouldn't he stick to the NMC in any of those situations? I don't think he does, but people are putting a lot of stock into the interviews he's given.

I'm 100 percent on board with the Oilers toughing his contract out instead of buying the farm to be rid of him. But if he's coming here, there is no small piece that would be worth the risk we are taking on.

 

[Darkwinter]

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.

um how is that .we don't like the trade we don't trade him .it's not we have to do this trade with these joke of trades being talked about

 

[Saltcreek]

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?

The only person who is blind here is you. Eriksson is not much better than Lucic and the Oilers are not going sell the future to save a little cap (in this case 1 year). So I stand by my statement in that people are trying to steal prospects for nothing. Maybe Chia would have been dumb enough to do it but Holland is smarter than that.

 

[Cogburn]

The only person who is blind here is you. Eriksson is not much better than Lucic and the Oilers are not going sell the future to save a little cap (in this case 1 year). So I stand by my statement in that people are trying to steal prospects for nothing. Maybe Chia would have been dumb enough to do it but Holland is smarter than that.

Eriksson is not much better, you're right. His contract is miles ahead. They might very well be the worst two in the league, but waivers, the AHL, limited trade options or a buy out are all options for Eriksson. Lucic can nix anything but the buy out, and his is much more expensive.

No one's trying to steal anything. If anyone thinks that 24 million in cap space for a player his own fanbase calls terrible isn't worth something to take on, send him there. Your asking a team to swallow a massive, painful mistake that will also screw up the future of that team in ways you are simply disregarding. It's not just a single year of a bad contract. It's a no movement clause with an expansion draft coming. It's rapidly declining play at a steady rate over 4 years. Is missing out on a free agent signing, or worse resigning one of our budding stars, because Milan Lucic all the sudden wants to take back some of the awful crap he's said about his home town. There are so many other factors you are willfully ignoring.

 

[Saltcreek]

Please explain to me how Eriksson's cap hit magically disappears once he is trade to the Oilers. The Oilers are not saving 24 million in cap, they are saving 1 year at 6.

Buyouts do not help, sending to the AHL does not help, waivers (lul) etc. Oilers would rather hold onto Lucic then accept one of these terrible deals.

 

[Thorvat]

Terrible proposal.
Lucic is going to the vancouver area along with a 4th round pick. Book it.

Dream on. Eriksson is much more tradable then looch. We are not that desperate.

 

[McSuper]

And why would Seattle pick him?

Does matter if they take him . The point is you don’t have to protect him

 

[Cogburn]

Please explain to me how Eriksson's cap hit magically disappears once he is trade to the Oilers. The Oilers are not saving 24 million in cap, they are saving 1 year at 6.

Buyouts do not help, sending to the AHL does not help, waivers (lul) etc. Oilers would rather hold onto Lucic then accept one of these terrible deals.

It doesn't. Edmonton fans have been holding on to this idea that Eriksson and Lucic have the same cap hit so they have to be traded for one another.

All of those things mentioned, AHL or waivers for instance, get a bad player our of the way of players with a future and saves a whopping 925K. In Erikssons case a buy would help out tremendously. Being owed 10 million over three years after the first of July? That's an absolute win for Vancouver. Doing the same with Lucic is more expensive and would add two years to the payment structure.

This isn't about being good for Edmonton, it's about closing these options out for Vancouver. That's what Bouchard or your first or what ever were after is for: losing other assets (signings and resignings and potential UFAs) and other options to end these two contracts.

 

[Yorkshire Leaf]

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.

Are you really suggesting that Draisaitl, who over the last 3 season has had 2 very good and 1 elite season, has to do it again to be proven to be more valuable than Bouchard who has proved nothing at NHL level.

 

[dahrougem2]

Lol man if the Oilers are giving up Bouchard in a Lucic deal, they sure as **** aren't taking back Loui Eriksson

 

[Horse McHindu]

Lol man if the Oilers are giving up Bouchard in a Lucic deal, they sure as **** aren't taking back Loui Eriksson

Fair enough.

Keep in mind that it doesn’t have to be Eriksson. That was just an idea.

Having said that, I *do* think that the Canucks taking on a terrible contract like Lucic is worth Eric Bouchard.

Yes - the oilers lose out on a great prospect, but they would clear 6 million right away and can try and re-invest that 6 million into something more wisely.

The Oilers and Canucks are in different boats. The Oilers could very easily be a 2nd round caliber team if that Lucic money was re-invested differently. The Canucks aren’t there yet (which is my response to the rhetorical question, “Would YOU trade Eriksson + Hughes to clear cap space? If not, why would Edmonton?).

The Canucks are still a few years away from truly being competitive while the Oilers could just as easily be a dark horse team today if they had a re-do on that Lucic deal. THAT’s the diffference, and THAT is why I believe that they should consider a Lucic/Bouchard deal.

That Lucic deal truly is brutal and it should take a lot for other organizations wanting to help them out.

 

[settinguptheplay]

Eriksson is not much better, you're right. His contract is miles ahead. They might very well be the worst two in the league, but waivers, the AHL, limited trade options or a buy out are all options for Eriksson. Lucic can nix anything but the buy out, and his is much more expensive.

It is amazing how this has been repeated over and over in this and other threads but Oiler fans can't seem to grasp it. It is not a matter of one player being better than the other. Or the cap hit. It has to do with the extra year and more importantly the NMC. Eriksson can be dealt with if push comes to shove. Lucic not so much. Eriksson is an inconvenience. Lucic is an anchor. Not to mention we don't have an increasingly frustrated McDavid and the incentive to improve immediately. Despite having the worlds best player and another elite player in Drai the Canucks somehow managed to finish ahead of the Oiler's this year. Go ahead and sit on your hands Oiler fans. Just repeat the same nonsense that has been going on in Oil country for the last decade. Top prospect after top prospect being ruined by mediocrity and complacency.

Lol man if the Oilers are giving up Bouchard in a Lucic deal, they sure as **** aren't taking back Loui Eriksson

Again, somehow comprehension seems to be an issue. The OP trade was not Lucic and Bouchard for Eriksson. It was Lucic and Bouchard for Eriksson and the 10th oa. Which would have given Edmonton both the 8th and 10th oa picks. Probably enough to upgrade to Byram. Or getting both Caulfield and Boldy or maybe Krebs and Newhook. Edmonton should take that deal and run to the bank. Vancouver on the other hand should laugh at this deal and hang up before speaking a word.

Who would you rather have?

Lucic and Bouchard

or

Eriksson and Byram or Eriksson, Caulfield and Boldy.

Shocking that any Oil fan would not take this trade without a moments thought.

 

[Seanaconda]

And why would Seattle pick him?

They wouldn't but he would waive his nmc anyways

 

[Cogburn]

Lol man if the Oilers are giving up Bouchard in a Lucic deal, they sure as **** aren't taking back Loui Eriksson

I can live with that.

 

[settinguptheplay]

They wouldn't but he would waive his nmc anyways

I had no idea Milan Lucic is spelled Seanaconda. How can you say for certain that Looch would waive his NMC? He would risk riding the buses in the AHL if he did that. I seriously doubt Lucic would expose himself to that possibility. Perhaps he would. But neither you nor I have any inside information into Lucic's head and that would be a huge unneeded gamble for the Canucks to take on.

 

[dahrougem2]

Again, somehow comprehension seems to be an issue. The OP trade was not Lucic and Bouchard for Eriksson. It was Lucic and Bouchard for Eriksson and the 10th oa. Which would have given Edmonton both the 8th and 10th oa picks. Probably enough to upgrade to Byram. Or getting both Caulfield and Boldy or maybe Krebs and Newhook. Edmonton should take that deal and run to the bank. Vancouver on the other hand should laugh at this deal and hang up before speaking a word.

Who would you rather have?

Lucic and Bouchard

or

Eriksson and Byram or Eriksson, Caulfield and Boldy.

Shocking that any Oil fan would not take this trade without a moments thought.

Was I responding to the OP proposal? Or did I clearly say "in a Lucic deal".

And comprehension is supposedly my problem.

 

[settinguptheplay]

Lol man if the Oilers are giving up Bouchard in a Lucic deal, they sure as **** aren't taking back Loui Eriksson

Was I responding to the OP proposal? Or did I clearly say "in a Lucic deal".

And comprehension is supposedly my problem.

The OP listed the trade to include 10oa. So should you not respond to that? Otherwise what you said made no sense. Let me explain.

Lucic
Bouchard

for

Eriksson
Pettersson

Would you do that deal? Of course you would. So you would do a deal that includes Bouchard and that also includes Eriksson. You can't come in and change the deal then make some smart azz comment about a deal no one made. So yes, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. In fact skipping or missing the 10th oa is the definition of lack of reading comprehension. Because it was never just Eriksson.

 

[Bretzkey]

Worst trade ever, we’re keeping lucic, Erickson is a bum! Doesn’t fit what we’re doin in Edmonton.

 

[Darkwinter]

Fair enough.

Keep in mind that it doesn’t have to be Eriksson. That was just an idea.

Having said that, I *do* think that the Canucks taking on a terrible contract like Lucic is worth Eric Bouchard.by time Bouchard is up to full speed in the nhl Lucic contract will be in its final year so why even trade him .I know it's Erkisson the great savor from the west and all but i just don't think it's worth it for edmonton

Yes - the oilers lose out on a great prospect, but they would clear 6 million right away and can try and re-invest that 6 million into something more wisely.

The Oilers and Canucks are in different boats. The Oilers could very easily be a 2nd round caliber team if that Lucic money was re-invested differently. The Canucks aren’t there yet (which is my response to the rhetorical question, “Would YOU trade Eriksson + Hughes to clear cap space? If not, why would Edmonton?).

The Canucks are still a few years away from truly being competitive while the Oilers could just as easily be a dark horse team today if they had a re-do on that Lucic deal. THAT’s the diffference, and THAT is why I believe that they should consider a Lucic/Bouchard deal.

That Lucic deal truly is brutal and it should take a lot for other organizations wanting to help them out.

 

[bucks_oil]

Mortgaging the future is exactly what the ask will be for the Canucks to take on that contract. I'm by no means saying "there's no other option so give us Bouchard/8th overall", but his contract is toxic to our team. Everyone on our team will be due for a new contract, hopefully raises, by the time Lucic's contract expires. We would be losing one of Gaudette, Virtanen, Pearson (might not be a huge loss, but he's looked good so far), Roussel, any free agent we sign, and any prospect that might miraculously start achieving their potential.

That's in addition to anyone we miss out on or are unable to sign due to having 6 million extra on the books.

We wouldn't be able to waive, expose or trade Lucic either. Boo hoo, get him to waive, I know, but if he really does want to play here, why wouldn't he stick to the NMC in any of those situations? I don't think he does, but people are putting a lot of stock into the interviews he's given.

I'm 100 percent on board with the Oilers toughing his contract out instead of buying the farm to be rid of him. But if he's coming here, there is no small piece that would be worth the risk we are taking on.

Great, we agree... despite it being suggested by a Canuck fan, it's not a thoughtful deal that works for either side.

I would only add that you neglected to comment on the fact that you are losing Eriksson in the deal, so you are moving from one "toxic" contract to another "toxic contract". The difference between these two toxic contracts is not Bouchard or the difference between Bouchard and 10th OA. That's what makes it a non-starter from Edmonton's perspective... and I would expect... what makes it so attractive to the OP.

Your status quo doesn't really solve your longer term concern about contracts either... unless you think the extra year makes all the difference. I can tell you from Edmonton's perspective, one year sooner expiry is still 1-2 years too late, so the damage on our side will already be done.

 

[Darkwinter]

Worst trade ever, we’re keeping lucic, Erickson is a bum! Doesn’t fit what we’re doin in Edmonton.

You liar damn you Eriksson is as good as McDavid and this year i could see him hitting about 70 goal mark playing on Mcdavid wing..the trade i wold make in a second would be dri ,8oa ,rnh and a 2 in 2020 for eriksson and a cap dump .God edmonton fans just don't get it wake up edmonton b4 vancouver trade the great eriksson to someone like Calgary

 

[Homesick]

Lucic might not be a very good hockey player right now but he can still beat the shit out of every last Oiler so no thanks.
Zero interest in Lucic for Eriksson even straight up

 

[Luck 6]

Lol man if the Oilers are giving up Bouchard in a Lucic deal, they sure as **** aren't taking back Loui Eriksson

Well that's fine, but then they wouldn't be getting the 10th OA back either. I think the overall deal is relatively close. What would you say the value difference is between 10th OA this year and Bouchard? Maybe a 3rd? That is fairly close to the value difference between Lucic and Eriksson. This analysis, of course, comes down to opinion on three players who's value seems to range substantially from person to person.