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

[DL44]

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

Sorry... dead cap. $3mil of dead cap.. $1.5mil of dead money..

 

[megatron]

IMO they were just spitballing, however, if Eriksson is benched for all the remaining games then i would say the idea definitely has merit.

 

[krutovsdonut]

this would potentially be amazing if true. there was definitely something unsaid by the on air crew about the erikkson scratch last night and i was trying to figure it out, but i would not have guessed a trade in a million years. the fact they did not say it was due to recent play or really attempt any explanation other than "change in plans" said something was up, and i thought maybe they had the greenlight from the owner to bury his contract.

if i had to guess this is dorion trying to inexpensively add some veteran presence. i'll guess gaunce for the prospect. or which of our prospects is from the ottawa area?

 

[bandwagonesque]

Sorry... dead cap. $3mil of dead cap.. $1.5mil of dead money..

It's not 3m of dead cap -- the team receiving Eriksson's contract takes on the cap hit, minus retention. The timing of the bonus and who pays it doesn't come into play here at all except to create a lower real-money salary.

 

[sting101]

Trade in place heh ??

Bettman at the podium in Van....."You might wanta hear this.......Van trades the 2019 6th overall and Loui Eriksson for future considerations "

 

[Motte and Bailey]

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.

If:

1. The Sedins found chemistry with Eriksson (which was likely because they already had chemistry from international tournaments)

and

2. The Sedins looked even close to the level of the previous year when they carried the offense of the team into the playoffs (which was also significantly probable - if anyone says they knew with certainty that the Sedins would fall off exactly when they did and by how much, they’re lying)

then

3. Loui Eriksson would’ve scored 30-40+ goals (for $6 million these days is a bloody steal)

and

4. Loui’s contract would’ve been at worst justified and, at best, a steal.

The logic is plain for everyone to see but NOBODY here can refute the PROCESS or the LOGIC of Benning’s decisions because they’re always logically virtuous. The ONLY thing critics ever do is criticize the result. Which is the worst way of finding out someone’s ability at anything. Ask ANY scout. They look at the method and almost never put more weight in the results.

 

[krutovsdonut]

IMO they were just spitballing, however, if Eriksson is benched for all the remaining games then i would say the idea definitely has merit.

even if that was the plan yesterday the roussel injury might override it.

 

[Breakers]

With the amount of money Ottawa traded away they have to take on salary.

 

[bandwagonesque]

if i had to guess this is dorion trying to inexpensively add some veteran presence. i'll guess gaunce for the prospect. or which of our prospects is from the ottawa area?

This is explicitly a couple of guys on a podcast imagining a hypothetical scenario.

It's honestly kind of interesting to actually be present at the start of what later will become a "rumour," and eventually a "fact" certain posters take for granted. I've seen the result, but I've never actually see this happen from the beginning.

 

[megatron]

even if that was the plan yesterday the roussel injury might override it.

Sounds reasonable, but they have a glut of wingers, no real need to put Eriksson in the lineup if it means it could jeopardize a potential deal. The risk / reward is just not there. It would make sense if they were competing for the playoffs but not when they are out of it.

 

[DL44]

It's not 3m of dead cap -- the team receiving Eriksson's contract takes on the cap hit, minus retention. The timing of the bonus and who pays it doesn't come into play here at all except to create a lower real-money salary.

From the article you linked:
"The same percentage must be retained for both salary and cap hit. "

If we are retaining 50% of the real salary, it has to translate to the the same % of the cap hit..

So a $1.5 mil retention of real salary = $3mil cap hit...

 

[bossram]

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.

RMB my man...take off the homer goggles for once.

Eriksson was a bad signing. It was a bad decision. This isn't some hindsight thing here. Pretty much every reasonable poster here was saying this at the time of the signing. Eriksson was riding a sh% spike to 30 goals and was already on the wrong side of age 30. A harsh, steep decline was very predictable and should have been factored into the decision (clearly it was not).

And I like Antoine Roussell and think he's a very useful player. But he's still a guy who ideally is in your bottom-six, on a 3x4 contract. It's not a massive steal. It's a fair-value contract for player and team. If you're pointing to not grossly overpaying someone as a shining example of Benning's UFA acquisitions well...that's saying a lot.

 

[MS]

Long-term contracts to 30+ 50-point 2nd line types are always a bad idea. They simply never turn out and it’s like clockwork that they explode on the teams that sign them. And you can predict every summer with pretty close to 100% accuracy which players teams should stay the hell away from.

There is no excuse for signing players that age to contacts like this. If you do, you’re a poor GM who doesn’t understand the trends in the game or how to manage the salary cap and are deluding yourself that a low-probability outcome is going to happen.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Sorry, his cap hit is $6 M / yr. He has been paid $ 23 M so far. HIs payments for the next 3 years are 1, 1, 3. His bonus money is 4, 3, 1.

So of the $13 M he has left, I could see retaining his bonus money to get rid of him. Which is $8 M. They shouldn't have to give up anything valuable if they do that for another team, and any prospect should be a depth player likely to never play for the Canucks.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

Jim Benning does not have the basic competency to work out a trade like this. It won't happen.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

So we'll be retaining part of that $6M cap hit for the next 3 years, as well as giving away a prospect just to undo Benning's biggest free agency blunder. Wow, thanks Jim. And to anyone who thinks Benning is a good GM who's rebuilding...giving away prospects because you ****ed up a major UFA signing is not something a good rebuilding GM has to do.

No one thought Eriksson would be this bad. It’s better that they fix their mistakes rather than sit on their a*s. Rumours had the Oilers offering Lucic + Puljujarvi to get rid of Lucic’s contract. If Benning can move Eriksson’s contract, it’s a huge win.

 

[bandwagonesque]

From the article you linked:
"The same percentage must be retained for both salary and cap hit. "

If we are retaining 50% of the real salary, it has to translate to the the same % of the cap hit..

So a $1.5 mil retention of real salary = $3mil cap hit...

If the salary and real cap hit are different, how would it be possible to retain the same percentage of both? I think that line refers to percentages from year to year:

"The same percentage must be retained for both salary and cap hit. This cannot be altered from year to year."

 

[bossram]

If:

1. The Sedins found chemistry with Eriksson (which was likely because they already had chemistry from international tournaments)

and

2. The Sedins looked even close to the level of the previous year when they carried the offense of the team into the playoffs (which was also significantly probable - if anyone says they knew with certainty that the Sedins would fall off exactly when they did and by how much, they’re lying)

then

3. Loui Eriksson would’ve scored 30-40+ goals (for $6 million these days is a bloody steal)

and

4. Loui’s contract would’ve been at worst justified and, at best, a steal.

The logic is plain for everyone to see but NOBODY here can refute the PROCESS or the LOGIC of Benning’s decisions because they’re always logically virtuous. The ONLY thing critics ever do is criticize the result. Which is the worst way of finding out someone’s ability at anything. Ask ANY scout. They look at the method and almost never put more weight in the results.

This is your argument: "If everything goes exactly perfectly and ends up the best case scenario, then the signing will be good".

Tell me how that is sound logic? It's hoping for a result without considering the range of possibilities. Your logic is just assuming the Sedins will be amazing and Loui will line up with them and have amazing chemistry. And that his sh% spike in his contract year wasn't a mirage. And that he won't suffer from extremely predictable age-related decline. But what if those things...don't happen? Do you still give Loui that deal? You actually have to logically consider what is most likely to happen, and whether the downside risk is worth it at this stage in the organization's rebuild.

It wasn't.

 

[Blue and Green]

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.

After max salary retention, the erstwhile other team still would be taking on a $4M cap hit for 2020-21 and again in 2021-22. Not happening. Maybe to Ottawa as a cap dump, and there's a market for cap space so the Sens would be looking for some asset value in return.

 

[krutovsdonut]

If:

1. The Sedins found chemistry with Eriksson (which was likely because they already had chemistry from international tournaments)

and

2. The Sedins looked even close to the level of the previous year when they carried the offense of the team into the playoffs (which was also significantly probable - if anyone says they knew with certainty that the Sedins would fall off exactly when they did and by how much, they’re lying)

then

3. Loui Eriksson would’ve scored 30-40+ goals (for $6 million these days is a bloody steal)

and

4. Loui’s contract would’ve been at worst justified and, at best, a steal.

The logic is plain for everyone to see but NOBODY here can refute the PROCESS or the LOGIC of Benning’s decisions because they’re always logically virtuous. The ONLY thing critics ever do is criticize the result. Which is the worst way of finding out someone’s ability at anything. Ask ANY scout. They look at the method and almost never put more weight in the results.

6 years of term at that salary was always insane, even if it got you a couple of 30 goal seasons.

that summer was a highwater mark of stupid for gms around the league chasing wingers. lucic, brouwer, ladd, and backes are also terrible deals. even the okposo deal is now looking as bad as erikkson going forward and it runs a year longer than eriksson.

 

[Tryamkin]

you’re gonna wanna hear this vancouver !!!!!

 

[bandwagonesque]

After max salary retention, the erstwhile other team still would be taking on a $4M cap hit for 2020-21 and again in 2021-22. Not happening. Maybe to Ottawa as a cap dump, and there's a market for cap space so the Sens would be looking for some asset value in return.

Not sure what you're getting at here. There are tons of teams that could absorb that cap hit easily and for whom the only important consideration is real salary.

 

[MS]

This is your argument: "If everything goes exactly perfectly and ends up the best case scenario, then the signing will be good".

Tell me how that is sound logic? It's hoping for a result without considering the range of possibilities.

It’s how Benning works so it’s not surprising his drones think the same way.

Create a scenario that sounds great :

- Wayne Simmonds is a 30 goal scorer! Could protect Pettersson! 30+ goals from his wing! Great potential signing!

Ignore evidence that this scenario is an unlikely outcome and a really bad idea :

- virtually no 2nd line types perform well past age 31-32.
- Simmonds has already seen his production fall off dramatically.
- his current team had no interest in bringing him back.
- he’s been a defensive liability for the past few years and his motor is broken.

Make a bad decision!

Be shocked when the signing falls on his face and the result that the evidence predicted actually happens!

 

[Ori]

I hope so Canucks need cap space for this retool/rebuild whatever it is since Sedins retired.

 

[krutovsdonut]

This is explicitly a couple of guys on a podcast imagining a hypothetical scenario.

It's honestly kind of interesting to actually be present at the start of what later will become a "rumour," and eventually a "fact" certain posters take for granted. I've seen the result, but I've never actually see this happen from the beginning.

fair enough. i will admit i am running with it a little because i found the scratch so surprising last night and also was noticing the vague way the tv guys handled it. erikkson has not played that badly lately and they dressed granlund who i think looks exhausted and has been really poor recently. i also cannot see them burying him in the ahl with that much money for three years when he is still a passable nhl 3rd liner.

as unlikely as it seems that they could trade him, it is the best explanation.