https://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/
It sounds like we may have seen the last of him in the lineup. They need his cap space and if the rumours are true, he'll either be in utica or mutually terminatedDoyle Hargraves wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:31 pm In hindsight the main problem with Eriksson’s contract is it was five years too long and about 29 million too much.
Air Thief needs to move on.
Rumours? You mean comments, er wishful thinking on this board?The Brown Wizard wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:43 pmIt sounds like we may have seen the last of him in the lineup. They need his cap space and if the rumours are true, he'll either be in utica or mutually terminatedDoyle Hargraves wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:31 pm In hindsight the main problem with Eriksson’s contract is it was five years too long and about 29 million too much.
Air Thief needs to move on.
I could find it for you if i wasnt this wrecked but i assure you it comes from beyond this board5thhorseman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:14 pmRumours? You mean comments, er wishful thinking on this board?The Brown Wizard wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:43 pmIt sounds like we may have seen the last of him in the lineup. They need his cap space and if the rumours are true, he'll either be in utica or mutually terminatedDoyle Hargraves wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:31 pm In hindsight the main problem with Eriksson’s contract is it was five years too long and about 29 million too much.
Air Thief needs to move on.
Ever notice that Hindsight always gives you a great view of your own ass, while looking yourself in the eye of the rear view mirror?!?Doyle Hargraves wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:31 pm In hindsight the main problem with Eriksson’s contract is it was five years too long and about 29 million too much.
Air Thief needs to move on.
Holy shit! That is bad, yikes..SKYO wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:39 pm 2016 was one of the worst UFA offseasons.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... /86599840/
No, all you had to do was look at Eriksson's production trending downward the years prior to his contract year spike, along with the fact he was turning 31 that summer, and it was pretty clear it was a mistake. Justifiably blame Benning and Linden but really it's equally or more an ownership blunder since they would have had to agree to pay it.Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:04 amWell, Luongo isn't Bennings deal, and the main problem with Ericcssoonns contract is that its a year too long. NOBODY expected Loui to fall off a cliff as bad as he did.. Actually the real problem is how it was structured with the no move clause...Curmudgeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:04 pmThose moves weren't necessarily crippling, it's the Eriksson contract and Luongo hit that are really causing the grief. Take those two out and the dollars for the others are at least manageable.Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:08 pm The key point about the dark days of this rebuild, is that Benning brought in guys with character and pride.
EVERYONE knew we didn’t have the skill, but JB paid (usually 500k-1m too much and 1 year too long in term) To bring guys in where losing was not acceptable- knowing we were losing because of a lack of skill. And I don’t mean the place holders while we sucked (Etem, Gaunce, etc) But, the Sutter, Beagle, Dorset, kind of warriors that helped keep a ‘try hard -always’ work ethic instead of an ‘Edmonton’ style “we are awesome and deserve it” attitude. We did not develop a ‘losing culture’ like other teams (Buffalo) did.
This is an understated - and misunderstood- part of the last 4 years that happened here ( and everywhere) while there is a rebuild.
... not stroking off Benning for this, or saying he did it 100% right, just stating a fact as to what appears to be his method.
meh. Loui is on the bus to the ECHL. that should help him with his 'termination contract decision process'
All the talk about the tremendous, glorious history making time in tournaments, (well at least one notable one) spent playing with the SedinsCurmudgeon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:57 amNo, all you had to do was look at Eriksson's production trending downward the years prior to his contract year spike, along with the fact he was turning 31 that summer, and it was pretty clear it was a mistake. Justifiably blame Benning and Linden but really it's equally or more an ownership blunder since they would have had to agree to pay it.Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:04 amWell, Luongo isn't Bennings deal, and the main problem with Ericcssoonns contract is that its a year too long. NOBODY expected Loui to fall off a cliff as bad as he did.. Actually the real problem is how it was structured with the no move clause...Curmudgeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:04 pmThose moves weren't necessarily crippling, it's the Eriksson contract and Luongo hit that are really causing the grief. Take those two out and the dollars for the others are at least manageable.Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:08 pm The key point about the dark days of this rebuild, is that Benning brought in guys with character and pride.
EVERYONE knew we didn’t have the skill, but JB paid (usually 500k-1m too much and 1 year too long in term) To bring guys in where losing was not acceptable- knowing we were losing because of a lack of skill. And I don’t mean the place holders while we sucked (Etem, Gaunce, etc) But, the Sutter, Beagle, Dorset, kind of warriors that helped keep a ‘try hard -always’ work ethic instead of an ‘Edmonton’ style “we are awesome and deserve it” attitude. We did not develop a ‘losing culture’ like other teams (Buffalo) did.
This is an understated - and misunderstood- part of the last 4 years that happened here ( and everywhere) while there is a rebuild.
... not stroking off Benning for this, or saying he did it 100% right, just stating a fact as to what appears to be his method.
meh. Loui is on the bus to the ECHL. that should help him with his 'termination contract decision process'
At the very least, the owners must sign off on a $36M commitment, but yeah, in hindsight, management made a mistake on this one.Micky wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:47 pmAll the talk about the tremendous, glorious history making time in tournaments, (well at least one notable one) spent playing with the SedinsCurmudgeon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:57 am No, all you had to do was look at Eriksson's production trending downward the years prior to his contract year spike, along with the fact he was turning 31 that summer, and it was pretty clear it was a mistake. Justifiably blame Benning and Linden but really it's equally or more an ownership blunder since they would have had to agree to pay it.
had almost every hockey writer in N America predicting Eriksson would sign with the Canucks.
To this very day I don't know for 100% how much, if any, relevant input they had on the idea beforehand.
I have said many times, it wasn’t just Benning who made a boo boo in the summer of 2016. Blobbees Boi’s - Ladd, Backes, Brouwer, Lucic, Okposo all bamboozled teams that summerSKYO wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:39 pm 2016 was one of the worst UFA offseasons.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... /86599840/
I agree 1000%Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:06 pm To me, it's still the NMC.. those handcuff GM's, and should,only be handed out To franchise players.
How is that a benefit? yes, he is a bit cheaper to trade, as his salary is less. But, his contract is almost buyout proof as well. At this moment, I would prefer the buyout if his salary was flat with no signing bonuses.Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:41 pm
It's great that it was front-loaded, which is the way wealthier teams should structure long-term contracts to older players.
On the very day Loui was signed I pointed that out.
Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie
One issue NHL/NHLPA need to deal with quickly, as in probably today, is Signing Bonusdue to players on July 1 (Wednesday). There’s $300+ million scheduled to be paid out that day. There have been discussions to defer the date, but no agreement. Not yet anyway.
8:26 AM · Jun 29, 2020·
due to players on July 1 (Wednesday). There’s $300+ million scheduled to be paid out that day. There have been discussions to defer the date, but no agreement. Not yet anyway.