Post-Game Talk: Trade Deadline Day/Week

[Hoghandler]

1. They sure aren't setting him up to feel disenchanted here by playing him 14-15 minutes/game in the top-6 since January 1.

2. It would be quite magical if the league decided that a huge signing bonus for the 20-21 season included in the player's cap hit for the 20-21 season wouldn't count against the cap for the 20-21 season after it was paid out.

3. Your numbers are wrong. He would be walking away from $2.5 million/year over the last 2 years of the deal if it was terminated after the bonus payout.

4. How many contracts in NHL history have been mutually terminated years ahead of time with $millions still owing? Surely this must happen all the time if it was so easy to get out of bad contracts and players were so willing to do it.

1. As I made abundantly clear already numerous times, the bigger question is whether or not Benning is willing to ice Loui Eriksson to the minors.

2. So worst case scenario, you're out from under $9mil in cap over 2 years?

3. I'm talking about the money Loui gets, not what his contract is on paper. He's walking away from around $1.3mil in cash, per season. What would you guess Loui's net worth to be? Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50-70mil?

4. We saw Bogosian walk away from over $1mil a few days ago, because he didn't want to go to the AHL.

Do you really think Loui Eriksson would ride busses in Utica for 2 years, to earn $1.3mil in after tax money per year? Does it really sound 'magical' that he wouldn't be willing to do that?

 

[mriswith]

You know what sounds ludicrous? Suggesting that the guy who has spent nearly half the season on the 2nd line in the NHL will be strong armed to the AHL with 2 years left.

I don't want to interrupt the ongoing debate, only thing I'll mention is Green is the one giving Eriksson second line ice time and Benning is the one who decides whether Eriksson goes up or down so technically it isn't connected. Reading between the lines this deadline Benning is miffed that Eriksson is playing over MacEwan but can't call out Green directly.

Your 'solution' to the problem was basically letting Markstrom walk and going with Demko. That is a huge downgrade for the team. To be arguing that the cap crunch is no big deal because we'll only be losing the guy who is the most important player on the team this year and replacing him with a backup with 25 career starts is ... bizarre.

To be fair, literally the first thing he posted that started this whole chain was Demko replacing Markstrom:

Well there are lots of moving parts. Things differ considerably if Demko shows the next month he's more than capable of taking the reigns - that would probably save us 3 mill-ish there (by the time we sign a capable back-up). Offloading Baertschi and that's a 6 mill plus cap opening and all of a sudden we have plenty of money to re-sign Toffoli and Tanev (or Barrie who they seem to have a hard on for) as well as the rest of our free agents (while possibly even adding to the mix).

I agree that it's definitely time to let Macewan step in as well as take a longgggg look at Rafferty. I would bet that Stecher is gone and that they plan on bringing in Tyamkin at somewhere near what Stecher is now making.

Things can change in a hurry and I don't think there's nearly the cause for panic that many people are stating. I really hope management does put an emphasis on clearing some of our expensive bottom 6 options out and replacing them with guys like you mentioned

 

[VanillaCoke]

I find it fascinating that people could watch us not be able to move Eriksson, Baertschi, or Spooner (ending in a buyout) for the past year and then think that the team will magically make all their bad contracts disappear this summer.

We couldn't even move players who had value out at any trade deadline over the last number of years let alone all the garbage that this management spent assets on or signed.

A little late to the party I know

 

[Motte and Bailey]

I find it fascinating that people could watch us not be able to move Eriksson, Baertschi, or Spooner (ending in a buyout) for the past year and then think that the team will magically make all their bad contracts disappear this summer.

You don't move picks/prospects until you're confident that you have a playoff team. Jim did the right thing at the time by not moving assets to move those guys at the time but it looks like he hit a couple homeruns and the rebuild is ahead of schedule so now this summer it would be pretty sensible to dump Eriksson who will be less expensive to dump due to having one less year, significantly lower salary than cap hit, and having proved himself as a serviceable NHLer who doesn't get scored on much even when matched against top lines for $2.5m real dollars isn't bad for a team that isn't planning to spend to the cap anyway and there are several.

 

[m9]

The whole "mutual termination" thing with Eriksson is a fantasy, and here's why..

The FAR most likely scenario for Eriksson is staying on the team or in Utica for 2020-21 and then being bought out after that season. That would turn his 6 million hit in 2021-22 to a 4 million hit while adding 1 million in 21-22 so it makes sense for the team.

That buyout scenario is also exactly why he won't mutually terminate his contract. He probably just needs to stick it out for one more season and then he will receive:

3 million bonus (July 2020)
1 million salary (2020-21)

*gets bought out in June 2021*

1 million bonus (2021-22)
2 million buyout (2021-22)

PLUS whatever contract he gets from a new team for 2021-22 if he wants to continue his career.

So yeah, that would be 7 million in his pocket for the year of July 2020 to June 2021. You thinking he's terminating his contract and losing that extra 4 million for one year? Not a chance.

 

[4Twenty]

The whole "mutual termination" thing with Eriksson is a fantasy, and here's why..

The FAR most likely scenario for Eriksson is staying on the team or in Utica for 2020-21 and then being bought out after that season. That would turn his 6 million hit in 2021-22 to a 4 million hit while adding 1 million in 21-22 so it makes sense for the team.

That buyout scenario is also exactly why he won't mutually terminate his contract. He probably just needs to stick it out for one more season and then he will receive:

3 million bonus (July 2020)
1 million salary (2020-21)

*gets bought out in June 2021*

1 million bonus (2021-22)
2 million buyout (2021-22)

PLUS whatever contract he gets from a new team for 2021-22 if he wants to continue his career.

So yeah, that would be 7 million in his pocket for the year of July 2020 to June 2021. You thinking he's terminating his contract and losing that extra 4 million for one year? Not a chance.

See I don’t think he gets bought out. The gains aren’t enough from $6m to $4m to make it worth it for the team.

I think the most realistic is that he’s on the team next year. Collects his final year of salary bonus in the summer of 2021 and forgoes the final season of his contract. Which actually works prettty well timing wise because that $6m caphit will be half a Pettersson.

 

[m9]

See I don’t think he gets bought out. The gains aren’t enough from $6m to $4m to make it worth it for the team.

I think the most realistic is that he’s on the team next year. Collects his final year of salary bonus in the summer of 2021 and forgoes the final season of his contract. Which actually works prettty well timing wise because that $6m caphit will be half a Pettersson.

There's not really any benefit to the team for keeping for that final year though. They would save cap space, real money, and probably be able to fill his spot with a better player.

But yes, agreed that it's likely he's on the team for next year as a 13th/14th forward.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

The whole "mutual termination" thing with Eriksson is a fantasy, and here's why..

The FAR most likely scenario for Eriksson is staying on the team or in Utica for 2020-21 and then being bought out after that season. That would turn his 6 million hit in 2021-22 to a 4 million hit while adding 1 million in 21-22 so it makes sense for the team.

That buyout scenario is also exactly why he won't mutually terminate his contract. He probably just needs to stick it out for one more season and then he will receive:

3 million bonus (July 2020)
1 million salary (2020-21)

*gets bought out in June 2021*

1 million bonus (2021-22)
2 million buyout (2021-22)

PLUS whatever contract he gets from a new team for 2021-22 if he wants to continue his career.

So yeah, that would be 7 million in his pocket for the year of July 2020 to June 2021. You thinking he's terminating his contract and losing that extra 4 million for one year? Not a chance.

Agreed. A mutual termination without a buyout could work in the summer of 2021 though after he gets his bonus especially if he was demoted to the AHL.
Markus Naslund did that with the NYR. And he was way more productive when he went back to Sweden. If Eriksson was demoted to the AHL I wonder if he might go back to Sweden too.

But yeah we’re stuck with him for next year for sure.

 

[4Twenty]

There's not really any benefit to the team for keeping for that final year though. They would save cap space, real money, and probably be able to fill his spot with a better player.

But yes, agreed that it's likely he's on the team for next year as a 13th/14th forward.

The benefit to the team is he hangs up his skates in the final year. Clearing the $6m caphit for the first season of the Pettersson/Hughes extensions is a massive benefit.

Next years cap isn’t all that concerning to me.

 

[bandwagonesque]

At this exact moment it sounds like Tanev Markstrom and Stetcher according to Dhaliwal. Now yes things could change but that was what was being reported on Monday.

It wasn't "reported." Apart from the fact he'd heard the team and Markstrom weren't close, it was simply Dhaliwal speculating and offering an opinion.

 

[m9]

The benefit to the team is he hangs up his skates in the final year. Clearing the $6m caphit for the first season of the Pettersson/Hughes extensions is a massive benefit.

Next years cap isn’t all that concerning to me.

Everything I've discussed/posted above is referencing Eriksson being on the team next year and getting bought out after the 2020-21 season, nothing to do with next year's cap. In that scenario that lowers his cap hit from 6 million to 4 million for the first year of their new contracts. Of course they still need to pay a player to replace him & will take a 1 million cap hit the following year so it's not ideal, but to me it seems like the most likely scenario for everyone.

 

[4Twenty]

Everything I've discussed/posted above is referencing Eriksson being on the team next year and getting bought out after the 2020-21 season, nothing to do with next year's cap. In that scenario that lowers his cap hit from 6 million to 4 million for the first year of their new contracts. Of course they still need to pay a player to replace him & will take a 1 million cap hit the following year so it's not ideal, but to me it seems like the most likely scenario for everyone.

You’re just not understanding me. You still think they’ll buy him out. I think/hope he’ll retire after the bonus is paid in summer 2021 and his cap hit goes away.

The buyout doesn’t help much of anything is my other key point.

 

[4Twenty]

It wasn't "reported." Apart from the fact he'd heard the team and Markstrom weren't close, it was simply Dhaliwal speculating and offering an opinion.

An informed opinion based on what he’s hearing from sources. This is very much exactly what you argued against @Jyrki21 this morning. You’re saying since we weren’t in the room it’s not a report but is just speculation. I’ll take dhaliwal’s informed speculation over many others.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

If the plan is to eventually buy out Eriksson, the team should get proactive about it.

Eg, something like Eriksson to New Jersey for Schneider (saving the Devils $7M cash) and buying out Schneider ($2M against the cap the next four years).

 

[MarkMM]

Perfect scenario mutual termination this coming season, only leverage would be how much he doesn't want to ride the bus in the AHL and some thought that he could recoup some of the lost income by signing on with a new team.

Failing that, probably better to mutually terminate ahead of 2021-2022, he'll have earned most of his money so the threat of riding the bus really would stink and he could probably make up most of the lost revenue with another team, and for the Canucks, $6M in cap savings is a lot better than a net $1M in cap savings with a buy-out ($4M remaining cap hit with $1M or so added on for a replacement).

 

[MS]

1. As I made abundantly clear already numerous times, the bigger question is whether or not Benning is willing to ice Loui Eriksson to the minors.

2. So worst case scenario, you're out from under $9mil in cap over 2 years?

3. I'm talking about the money Loui gets, not what his contract is on paper. He's walking away from around $1.3mil in cash, per season. What would you guess Loui's net worth to be? Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50-70mil?

4. We saw Bogosian walk away from over $1mil a few days ago, because he didn't want to go to the AHL.

Do you really think Loui Eriksson would ride busses in Utica for 2 years, to earn $1.3mil in after tax money per year? Does it really sound 'magical' that he wouldn't be willing to do that?

There probably isn't much point in continuing an argument with someone so disingenuous as to use Eriksson's net income to make the amount he gets from continuing on really small while using his gross income to make his personal wealth seem really large.

Again :

1) The notion they're trying to force Eriksson out is kinda negated by the fact they've been giving him tons of icetime and responsibility for the last couple months. If he'd been a healthy scratch 30 games in a row, maybe this holds more water. His last 29 games, he has 12 points - 30+ point ES pace/82 games, which is pretty good - and is playing 14-15 minutes/game. He's back to being a fixture in the lineup.

2) Cap savings in 21-22 have nothing to do with getting out of next year's cap crunch.

3) Bogosian clearly knew there was demand for his services at a lower salary, and has ended up on the best team in the NHL. And wait a minute ... didn't he actually walk away from $450k? Or do you only use net earnings when it suits you?

__________

They clearly wanted to get rid of Eriksson last summer. After last summer's buyout was paid out, Eriksson was owed $9 million more over 3 years ... which by your calculations works out to $1.5 million net for 3 years. They could have threatened to send him to Utica at that point and he would have had to ride buses for 3 years for $1.5 million/year. By your logic, he would have mutually terminated his contract at that point. Why didn't that happen? Is $3 million peanuts to a person worth '50-70 million' but $4.5 million is absolutely massive?

 

[Diamonddog01]

If the plan is to eventually buy out Eriksson, the team should get proactive about it.

Eg, something like Eriksson to New Jersey for Schneider (saving the Devils $7M cash) and buying out Schneider ($2M against the cap the next four years).

That's not a bad idea. That 4M in cap space would be very helpful.

 

[Diamonddog01]

1) The notion they're trying to force Eriksson out is kinda negated by the fact they've been giving him tons of icetime and responsibility for the last couple months. If he'd been a healthy scratch 30 games in a row, maybe this holds more water. His last 29 games, he has 12 points - 30+ point ES pace/82 games, which is pretty good - and is playing 14-15 minutes/game. He's back to being a fixture in the lineup.

Well, and this is just total speculation on my part, but you could alternatively look at it as some sort of handshake deal where the guy gets to go out on a high note. Obviously incredibly unlikely but I literally can't come up with any other reason Green continues to staple him to the 2nd line. I mean at one point we had Virtanen on the top line and Boeser playing on the third line, didn't that seem odd to you?

The other factor is, if there was another player you were describing (30+ point ES pace/82 games, plus solid advanced statistics as evidenced by the recent Canucks Army article) - would no teams sign that player for 2 years at 2.5 million per season? I'm not sure he'll be as hard to move as some think, but we will see.

 

[MS]

Well, and this is just total speculation on my part, but you could alternatively look at it as some sort of handshake deal where the guy gets to go out on a high note. Obviously incredibly unlikely but I literally can't come up with any other reason Green continues to staple him to the 2nd line. I mean at one point we had Virtanen on the top line and Boeser playing on the third line, didn't that seem odd to you?

The other factor is, if there was another player you were describing (30+ point ES pace/82 games, plus solid advanced statistics as evidenced by the recent Canucks Army article) - would no teams sign that player for 2 years at 2.5 million per season? I'm not sure he'll be as hard to move as some think, but we will see.

There guys are *DESPERATE* to make the playoffs. They're playing what they think is their best roster, and Loui is on it. Right or wrong.

It's his cap hit that's the problem. He's overpaid by almost $5 million. Nobody wants anything to do with that unless you pay a huge price. To get rid of 1 year of Patrick Marleau (a better player) at the same cap hit cost a #1 pick.

 

[Diamonddog01]

There guys are *DESPERATE* to make the playoffs. They're playing what they think is their best roster, and Loui is on it. Right or wrong.

It's his cap hit that's the problem. He's overpaid by almost $5 million. Nobody wants anything to do with that unless you pay a huge price. To get rid of 1 year of Patrick Marleau (a better player) at the same cap hit cost a #1 pick.

You honestly think that Eriksson on the 2nd line is a better roster than Boeser on the 2nd line? That seems...odd.

You are thinking in terms of cap hit only, real dollars do matter (not as much) but that side of the equation is still ignored by many. Marleau had 6M in real money owing for that one season. Eriksson will have 2.5M in real money owing per season for 2 years. Not really the same imo, and many teams will easily be able to fit in his cap hit.

Just a matter of whether they feel paying him 2.5M is worth it for what he brings.

 

[MS]

You honestly think that Eriksson on the 2nd line is a better roster than Boeser on the 2nd line? That seems...odd.

You are thinking in terms of cap hit only, real dollars do matter (not as much) but that side of the equation is still ignored by many. Marleau had 6M in real money owing for that one season. Eriksson will have 2.5M in real money owing per season for 2 years. Not really the same imo, and many teams will easily be able to fit in his cap hit.

Just a matter of whether they feel paying him 2.5M is worth it for what he brings.

Cap hit matters more than anything.

You think, in the middle of a playoff run that their jobs depend on, they were intentionally weakening the team by playing Eriksson ahead of Boeser as part of a pre-ordained agreement to clear cap space for next season? Has anything these guys have ever done indicate that's how they operate?

 

[I am toxic]

"Cap space doesn't matter."

"Well, actually, you literally cannot sign players beyond a certain limi . . ."

"It doesn't matter. Our players on bad contracts will voluntarily retire, or go on permanent LTIR. None of our good players will be injured. There is no cap crunch. It's overblown."

"Well, actually, we are going to lose at least Marky and Steche . . ."

"We don't need Marky, we have Demko - see how he has stepped in as Marky goes out for an extended period of time?"

"Well, actually, that's exactly why you need two excellent goalies - virtually every team has stretches where their #1G is out for significa . . ."

"We can't know the future, just enjoy the games and wait and see. Oh, and your're toxic."

"Well, actually, . . . well . . . . well, at least we can agree on something."

 

[Hodgy]

You honestly think that Eriksson on the 2nd line is a better roster than Boeser on the 2nd line? That seems...odd.

You are thinking in terms of cap hit only, real dollars do matter (not as much) but that side of the equation is still ignored by many. Marleau had 6M in real money owing for that one season. Eriksson will have 2.5M in real money owing per season for 2 years. Not really the same imo, and many teams will easily be able to fit in his cap hit.

Just a matter of whether they feel paying him 2.5M is worth it for what he brings.

They weren’t playing Boeser on the second line because he is bad defensively and Green uses the second line as a matchup line against the other team’s top line. It really isn’t surprising or confusing why Boeser was on a defensively sheltered third line. With that being said, I have my concerns regarding Green’s overall deployment of our forwards.

 

[vancityluongo]

If the plan is to eventually buy out Eriksson, the team should get proactive about it.

Eg, something like Eriksson to New Jersey for Schneider (saving the Devils $7M cash) and buying out Schneider ($2M against the cap the next four years).

How about PK Subban (50% retained) for Loui?

Would need to do some cap maneuvering (trade for PK for a conditional 7th on June 30th, pay his bonus on July 1st, then move Loui for a conditional 7th on July 1st after his bonus has been paid) to really incentivize the Devils, but PK at a $4.5M cap hit on the third pair at least gives us some potential for a bounceback. If not, well, we'd be buying $1.5M in cap space for two seasons for $9M in cash...

In any case, New Jersey is definitely a potential trade partner we should be looking at.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Why does New Jersey do that? Retaining 50% on Subban means they don't actually save any money.

If they retain less, it's not worth doing for Vancouver.

Also, Subban is done. Eriksson is an okay-ish 4th liner, at least.