Speculation: There is a trade in place for Loui Eriksson (No there isn't - just Halford and Brough hypothesizing)

[RebuildinVan]

I listened to that segment and it definitely sounded to me like they were speculating.

Exactly. I was listening as well. They were just spitballing ideas

 

[m9]

There are much better ways to add salary to hit a cap floor by a team than to take on a zombie veteran for 3 more years.

If anything, I think Eriksson could garner some interest from a deep playoff type team with no issues scoring, but in need of reliable utility down the lineup... would require max salary retention ($3mil).

If Eriksson were a free agent today... he would get pretty close to $3mil/yr from someone.. not 3 yrs tho..

He would be closer to the league minimum or a tryout than $3 million. When you can't skate, you're done.

This was the exact same thing that happened when Chris Higgins was too slow. People here thought he would stick around the NHL and he washed right out. Once these grinders can't skate in today's league they're finished.

 

[4Twenty]

There are much better ways to add salary to hit a cap floor by a team than to take on a zombie veteran for 3 more years.

If anything, I think Eriksson could garner some interest from a deep playoff type team with no issues scoring, but in need of reliable utility down the lineup... would require max salary retention ($3mil).

If Eriksson were a free agent today... he would get pretty close to $3mil/yr from someone.. not 3 yrs tho..

I highly doubt any team is signing 34 year old Loui Eriksson to a $3m deal. There is literally no precedent for a player that bad with no standout bottom 6 qualities.

34...signed for 3 more seasons.

A deep playoff team would have absolutely no use for this player. The Canucks are a shallow lottery team and have no use for him.

 

[iceburg]

Might be speculation but the timing does make sense though.

Once they have paid his $4M bonus on July 1st, the remaining owed on his contract will be $9M over 3 years ($4M Bonus and $5M salary). If they retain 50% of salary ($2.5M), a team would be getting Eriksson for 3 years at about $2.2M per year with a $6M cap hit. If he signed a contract for $2.2M for 3 years in 2016, none of us would be complaining. It's probably about what he's been worth over the last 3 years.

 

[timw33]

Might be speculation but the timing does make sense though.

Once they have paid his $4M bonus on July 1st, the remaining owed on his contract will be $9M over 3 years ($4M Bonus and $5M salary). If they retain 50% of salary ($2.5M), a team would be getting Eriksson for 3 years at about $2.2M per year with a $6M cap hit. If he signed a contract for $2.2M for 3 years in 2016, none of us would be complaining. It's probably about what he's been worth over the last 3 years.

At his current effort level and commitment to the team...he's worth being waived to the AHL for any NHL club. I feel there are better ways to get to the capfloor, especially ways in which you get paid to take on a contract for a year or two.

 

[StreetHawk]

It's speculation, but well-reasoned considering Benning tends to telegraph his moves.

They assumed that salary would be retained (duh) but that after the bonus he'd be owed $9 MM in cash over 3 years (half the cap hit).

Best you can say is that perhaps Benning is learning? It would be for naught if we just threw more cap space away on another bad UFA contract.

Worst case they send him to the ahl. Either he goes and the Canucks save $5 million against the cap and use the $950k to replace him so net zero on the cap. Best case they send him down and he balks and they have to eat $3 million per due to what they have paid him up to that point in the fall, though I’m not sure how the current cba deals with these front loaded deals on the current cba.

What is the point of paying to undo this deal if they don’t need to use th cap space?

 

[bandwagonesque]

There are much better ways to add salary to hit a cap floor by a team than to take on a zombie veteran for 3 more years.

If anything, I think Eriksson could garner some interest from a deep playoff type team with no issues scoring, but in need of reliable utility down the lineup... would require max salary retention ($3mil).

If Eriksson were a free agent today... he would get pretty close to $3mil/yr from someone.. not 3 yrs tho..

You can't retain bonus money, I don't think. As another poster mentioned, the maximum the team can retain for the final three years of Eriksson's contract is 2.5 million over three years, leaving 2.2 million a year to be paid. I don't think Loui is worth that for three years to anyone. People keep mentioning Melnyk -- I don't think he's willing to throw away several million dollars for a 3rd round pick or marginal prospect.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

It’s what happens when you gamble on a free agent. You NEVER know 100% if a guy will stop caring after his big payday or you will get the player as advertised. Whether you’re signing a $10 million free agent or a $700k free agent it carries that risk.

Guys like y2k who hate every signing will feel vindicated when the worst case scenario happens but that doesn’t mean it was a bad decision and it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t chase free agents because the next time you could sign a major steal. Like Antoine Roussell.

If you think this is a gamble, you don't give him 6 freaking years. You gamble on short term contracts and hope they pan out. The inability to understand this simple rule tells me people don't understand how a team should be managed.

 

[I in the Eye]

Hmm, Frank's audit must have been completed and sent to Jim.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If you think this is a gamble, you don't give him 6 freaking years. You gamble on short term contracts and hope they pan out. The inability to understand this simple rule tells me people don't understand how a team should be managed.

That was the cost of signing the best free agents that year. It was a gamble and I agree it was a poor one from the beginning, but their was never a realistic choice to offer fewer years.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Ottawa has 14 players under contract next year, but the salary will $45 M on those players. So for 23 man roster, allowing only $1M per player, they would be below the cap floor. However I am sure there are some RFA that they need to re-sign, namely Colin White, Duclair Codi Ceci and Wolanin. Not sure if any of them are getting significant raises.

So its possible there could be a deal there.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

That was the cost of signing the best free agents that year. It was a gamble and I agree it was a poor one from the beginning, but their was never a realistic choice to offer fewer years.

If there was never a choice to offer few years, you don't sign him. Period.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Hmm, Frank's audit must have been completed and sent to Jim. Dealing with the largest failures first...

I would call it a valid, sound, and virtuous miscalculation rather than a failure. The real miscalculation was how long the Sedins could remain top line producers. In any case, whatever you want to call it, what matters most is how you react to your mistakes and fix them and we will see how Benning and Weisbrod perform in that department with Eriksson.

 

[m9]

That was the cost of signing the best free agents that year. It was a gamble and I agree it was a poor one from the beginning, but their was never a realistic choice to offer fewer years.

This is part of the problem though and it was repeated with the Beagle signing. Instead of moving onto other targets, they offered more money and/or term than other teams.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If there was never a choice to offer few years, you don't sign him. Period.

Well yeah, I agree.

 

[valkynax]

That was the cost of signing the best free agents that year. It was a gamble and I agree it was a poor one from the beginning, but their was never a realistic choice to offer fewer years.

Part of the gamble is the scrutiny and ridicule that will come with it should the gamble fail.

Benning f***ed this one up spectacularly - in the long line of fails that goes from this city to Nova Scotia and back, this is quite a feat.

This signing is very consistent with Benning's delusional overvaluing of players.

 

[bandwagonesque]

This is part of the problem though and it was repeated with the Beagle signing. Instead of moving onto other targets, they offered more money and/or term than other teams.

Of course, I'm not disputing this. I'm disputing the claim that roughly the same roster composition could have been achieved by offering fewer years or less money. I'm not saying it was a good idea to sign these players.

 

[Phenomenon13]

I laughed. In what world is roussel contract a steal?

I'd be impressed if Eriksson got moved considering how awful he has been.

 

[Blue and Green]

You can't retain bonus money, I don't think.

Signing bonuses are part of annual salary. As long as the bonus hasn't already been paid, I don't see why it can't be retained.

Having said that, I can't imagine any team trading for Loui Eriksson even with max salary retention unless it was a cap-dump trade where the Canucks included assets, which would be a foolish thing to do. Stashing him in the minors is the best route.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Part of the gamble is the scrutiny and ridicule that will come with it should the gamble fail.

Benning ****ed this one up spectacularly - in the long line of fails that goes from this city to Nova Scotia and back, this is quite a feat.

This signing is very consistent with Benning's delusional overvaluing of players.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. I'm not making any claims about whether the signings were a good idea.

 

[valkynax]

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. I'm not making any claims about whether the signings were a good idea.

And I'm reinforcing the notion that this signing was terrible, like you said, and Benning should be held 100% accountable for once again f***ing the organization in the ass.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Signing bonuses are part of annual salary. As long as the bonus hasn't already been paid, I don't see why it can't be retained.

Having said that, I can't imagine any team trading for Loui Eriksson even with max salary retention unless it was a cap-dump trade where the Canucks included assets, which would be a foolish thing to do. Stashing him in the minors is the best route.

I'll be damned, you're right:

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-retained-salary-trades/

However, since he'd likely be traded after receiving his July 1 roster bonus, the Canucks would retain at maximum 4.5 million on the remainder of the contract, leaving a true salary of 1.5m a year. I could actually see a team going for Loui at that price.

 

[I in the Eye]

I would call it a valid, sound, and virtuous miscalculation rather than a failure. The real miscalculation was how long the Sedins could remain top line producers. In any case, whatever you want to call it, what matters most is how you react to your mistakes and fix them and we will see how Benning and Weisbrod perform in that department with Eriksson.

It was never valid, sound or calculated to be in the market for Eriksson in the first place. The team should have been rebuilding. The only positive about this deal is that at least Eriksson is not as hated as Lucic would have been, who was Benning's first target. As large of an error Eriksson was, Lucic prevented Benning from making an even worse error. Both were errors before the signings would take place. To sign either would not be valid, sound, or calculated. Regardless, Lucic or Eriksson, Benning was destined to be in this place of trying to fix a mistake. Benning was bound to realize one day (or year) that Eriksson was an error. As a GM, Benning is best at making mistakes.

 

[DL44]

I'll be damned, you're right:

How Do Retained Salary Trades Work?

However, since he'd likely be traded after receiving his July 1 roster bonus, the Canucks would retain at maximum 4.5 million on the remainder of the contract, leaving a true salary of 1.5m a year. I could actually see a team going for Loui at that price.

When put that way... I all of sudden have become much more optimistic.
We'll have $3mil of dead money for 3 yrs... but no more Eriksson.

 

[bandwagonesque]

When put that way... I all of sudden have become much more optimistic.
We'll have $3mil of dead money for 3 yrs... but no more Eriksson.

1.5 million of dead money. The roster bonus is a freebee and doesn't count as retention.