[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on

[RowdyCanuck]

4 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

This makes the most sense.

 

I've compared Loui to Chris Higgins in another post. Two former 30 goal, 2 way forwards. The game passes by guys a lot earlier than it used to. Chris Higgins scored 40+ points as a solid 2 way forward and then he was out of the league 1.5 years later. None of us would think twice about Loui's decline if it wasn't for that contract. I think Chris Higgins could have played a solid 4th line role instead of being demoted but it's counter productive when you've got younger, cheaper options and then same goes for Eriksson. Especially when he clearly doesn't want to be a Canuck.

Higgins is a class act and after this pasted season Loui isn't even fit to hold Higgins jock strap in my books . Higgins went to the ahl didn't say a word and Higgins  still worked his rear off and tried, I wish I could say the same about Loui. 

[JeremyCuddles]

7 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

This makes the most sense.

 

I've compared Loui to Chris Higgins in another post. Two former 30 goal, 2 way forwards. The game passes by guys a lot earlier than it used to. Chris Higgins scored 40+ points as a solid 2 way forward and then he was out of the league 1.5 years later. None of us would think twice about Loui's decline if it wasn't for that contract. I think Chris Higgins could have played a solid 4th line role instead of being demoted but it's counter productive when you've got younger, cheaper options and then same goes for Eriksson. Especially when he clearly doesn't want to be a Canuck.

Correct me if I am wrong but Higgins had some injuries derail his career. Eriksson’s production just fell off a cliff.

[VIC_CITY]

2 hours ago, SilentSam said:

He isn’t , and does not want to waive his NTC’S.. So he is not helping himself, or letting us help him.

 No one will trade for him.  Especially if he is being this difficult to deal with.. and his role is a supposed 4th line position on this team.

 

Utica.   Utica.   Utica.    It’s his destiny,. His only road,. He bought it.

 

As much as we think this is the most logical route, are we 100% sold that JB has the balls to do it? I mean, his job IS on the line. You know Greener would do it. Hell, maybe we should give Brian Burke a 1 day contract to break the news and drive Loui to the airport!

[RowdyCanuck]

1 minute ago, VIC_CITY said:

As much as we think this is the most logical route, are we 100% sold that JB has the balls to do it? I mean, his job IS on the line. You know Greener would do it. Hell, maybe we should give Brian Burke a 1 day contract to break the news and drive Loui to the airport!

Give Burke a year contract as prez and watch Jim and him bring a cup to Van. 

[captainhorvat]

Soo sick of Eriksson...someone wake me up when hes gone.

Im gonna thru a huge party!

[VIC_CITY]

29 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Correct me if I am wrong but Higgins had some injuries derail his career. Eriksson’s production just fell off a cliff.

You know what, I was a little off there. He had 36 points in his last full season, not 40+.

 

You're probably right about injuries but I don't recall them being of the career threatening variety. I could be wrong though. Either way, he was a very useful top 9 2-way forward and not exactly old, but then he was gone, just like that. Manny Malholtra lasted longer in the decline and he had 1 eye. Naslund is another example of a guy that was elite but then fell off at an early age. He carved out a couple more years but then it was back to Sweden.

[VIC_CITY]

38 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Give Burke a year contract as prez and watch Jim and him bring a cup to Van. 

At least let Burke handle the media lol

[RowdyCanuck]

1 minute ago, VIC_CITY said:

At least let Burke handle the media lol

His honest and blunt....timra wouldn't like him much either though ha I miss burkie he knew how to find a holes to play against ha

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

Much as we need to move Eriksson at some point this year, if a deal can’t be found without having to give up significant sweeteners, I’m inclined to start with him on the roster, and try to use him in a way to shore up his value.

 

I don’t want to come off as an apologist for Loui, but there are some factors beyond just poor individual performance, that fed into his struggles with the Canucks.

 

Mostly, this comes down to the team being a poor fit. It’s no coincidence that’s Eriksson, a goal scorer who has generally made his living within about five feet of the net, struggled to catch on with a Canucks team that has pretty much been the worst rebound generating team in the NHL for the past five years, and ranked at the very bottom of the league for every year running while Loui has worn blue and green. Vancouver has also struggled just generating shot volume. Same goes for through shots. And our point men have been really poor at getting shots through traffic for close-in deflections, or to create rebounds and goal mouth scrambles. Even our power play strategies have been an issue, with a lot of the focus generally toward creating “one-shot” goals, versus attacking with overwhelming shot volume, traffic, tips, scrambles, and crashing on rebounds. And even where we have had players capable to playing the sort of game that’s more geared toward Eriksson’s strengths, he’s rarely been given significant minutes with those specific players, or deployed in a role where he might really be able to take advantage.

 

It’s really no coincidence that Eriksson was a 30 goal man when he received boatloads of icetime, especially on the PP, with some of the league’s better rebound generating players on the Bruins, and was used as a “garbage goal” guy in front of the opposition net. It’s also true that his usage in Boston likely inflated his numbers, creating the impression that he really was “an elite scorer and playmaker” (to quote Benning), when perhaps he was more accurately described as a pretty good two-way second line forward, and one with a bit of a specific skillset, at least on the offensive side of the puck.

 

In any case, if we’re stuck with Loui, for the time being anyway, I wonder if the best choice for right now is to just make the best of a bad situation?

 

It would be interesting to see Eriksson used (offensively anyway—defensively he still has shown value as a Canuck) as a net front presence on one of the power play units. Especially if we can have a unit with the personnel and formation/strategy to play to his strengths, and possibly pad Eriksson’s totals during the early part of the season. We’ve added some players (and continue to develop young stars) that should improve our shot volume, rebound creation, through shots, point shots, and also passing from behind the net and goalmouth puck placement. Hopefully this results in better team performance overall, and possibly the added benefit of providing a significant boost for Eriksson, if he’s given (and maybe “gifted” is the more appropriate word here, much as I hate the way that word gets used) the opportunity to play a role that’s more tailor made for him.

 

If nothing else, it’s worth consideration. It’s looking more and more like Eriksson isn’t getting shipped out of town anytime soon. I still believe he needs to be moved as soon as possible, but maybe by waiting (which we kinda appear to be doing anyway), he could be moved more painlessly. If Eriksson (seemingly) miraculously breaks out of his multi-year funk, and starts showing signs of being a player that another team might actually envision as an asset, rather than just a negative asset/cap dump that requires sweeteners in a trade, we might be able to pull off a “pump and dump” play for the ages: clearing the full Eriksson contract without sacrificing any future assets.

 

Hey, a guy can dream, right?  

Edited August 2, 2019 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
Typos

[kenhodgejr]

I agree that more point shots and garbage goals are needed

[N4ZZY]

Loui still isn't gone?

 

Not surprised. This is one of the most difficult contracts to have to deal with. Trading it away would be ideal, but how does management fit Boeser's contract with Loui still on the books? 

 

[J-P]

Like Sid I like the idea of seeing LE with more PP minutes. We should have the players to have a decent PP2. Something like:

 

PP1

 

Baertschi - Ferland - EP

Boeser - QH

 

PP2

 

Horvat - LE - Miller

Edler - Myers

Edited August 2, 2019 by J-P

[EdgarM]

6 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Much as we need to move Eriksson at some point this year, if a deal can’t be found without having to give up significant sweeteners, I’m inclined to start with him on the roster, and try to use him in a way to shore up his value.

 

I don’t want to come off as an apologist for Loui, but there are some factors beyond just poor individual performance, that fed into his struggles with the Canucks.

 

Mostly, this comes down to the team being a poor fit. It’s no coincidence that’s Eriksson, a goal scorer who has generally made his living within about five feet of the net, struggled to catch on with a Canucks team that has pretty much been the worst rebound generating team in the NHL for the past five years, and ranked at the very bottom of the league for every year running while Loui has worn blue and green. Vancouver has also struggled just generating shot volume. Same goes for through shots. And our point men have been really poor at getting shots through traffic for close-in deflections, or to create rebounds and goal mouth scrambles. Even our power play strategies have been an issue, with a lot of the focus generally toward creating “one-shot” goals, versus attacking with overwhelming shot volume, traffic, tips, scrambles, and crashing on rebounds. And even where we have had players capable to playing the sort of game that’s more geared toward Eriksson’s strengths, he’s rarely been given significant minutes with those specific players, or deployed in a role where he might really be able to take advantage.

 

It’s really no coincidence that Eriksson was a 30 goal man when he received boatloads of icetime, especially on the PP, with some of the league’s better rebound generating players on the Bruins, and was used as a “garbage goal” guy in front of the opposition net. It’s also true that his usage in Boston likely inflated his numbers, creating the impression that he really was “an elite scorer and playmaker” (to quote Benning), when perhaps he was more accurately described as a pretty good two-way second line forward, and one with a bit of a specific skillset, at least on the offensive side of the puck.

 

In any case, if we’re stuck with Loui, for the time being anyway, I wonder if the best choice for right now is to just make the best of a bad situation?

 

It would be interesting to see Eriksson used (offensively anyway—defensively he still has shown value as a Canuck) as a net front presence on one of the power play units. Especially if we can have a unit with the personnel and formation/strategy to play to his strengths, and possibly pad Eriksson’s totals during the early part of the season. We’ve added some players (and continue to develop young stars) that should improve our shot volume, rebound creation, through shots, point shots, and also passing from behind the net and goalmouth puck placement. Hopefully this results in better team performance overall, and possibly the added benefit of providing a significant boost for Eriksson, if he’s given (and maybe “gifted” is the more appropriate word here, much as I hate the way that word gets used) the opportunity to play a role that’s more tailor made for him.

 

If nothing else, it’s worth consideration. It’s looking more and more like Eriksson isn’t getting shipped out of town anytime soon. I still believe he needs to be moved as soon as possible, but maybe by waiting (which we kinda appear to be doing anyway), he could be moved more painlessly. If Eriksson (seemingly) miraculously breaks out of his multi-year funk, and starts showing signs of being a player that another team might actually envision as an asset, rather than just a negative asset/cap dump that requires sweeteners in a trade, we might be able to pull off a “pump and dump” play for the ages: clearing the full Eriksson contract without sacrificing any future assets.

 

Hey, a guy can dream, right?  

This really is the only option at this point. The opportunity to give him away has come and gone and we really need to "pump" him up to have any chance of getting out of this situation.

I agree with you in that although he has been put in numerous situations it seems like he was always "trying out" with certain line mates and was never really left to work things out and this has seemed to have affected his psyche and he seems to be getting tired of where his role on the team is going.

He would be much more suited to play on a team with established line mates and I really think that's what he thought he was getting when he signed on to play with the Sedins. Unfortunately that didn't pan out and we are left with the situation we are in today.

[Kanukfanatic]

11 hours ago, Odjick_fan said:

LE haters be like...

 

I hate him, I hate him, I hate him lmfao

Posters thinking Loui provides 6 million per year worth of NHL hockey as a player:

 

[Kanukfanatic]

7 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

Loui still isn't gone?

 

Not surprised. This is one of the most difficult contracts to have to deal with. Trading it away would be ideal, but how does management fit Boeser's contract with Loui still on the books? 

 

Easily as has been said about 40 times in the last 20 pages.

[stawns]

Well, obviously TG isn't overly concerned about this "rift" between himself and LE.  It also sounds like he is expecting him at camp and that if he comes in and outplays teammates, he will be in the lineup.  

[stawns]

11 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

You may be right. But Goldobin has high end skill/potential (even if he's on his last chance), he has the Tryamkin connection, he's shown chemistry with EP40 and here's the kicker: He atually wants to be a Canuck. I just can't see Benning waiving him over Loui.

 

Edit: This is all assuming Benning fits Boeser AND Goldobin under the cap. For all we know, Goldobin could fall victim to a numbers ($) game.

I think Goldy is out.........he's top 6 or bust and I don't see a spot in the top 6 for him.  Benning isn't going to keep a player just to get Tryamkin over here.

[5nothincanucksohno]

37 minutes ago, stawns said:

I think Goldy is out.........he's top 6 or bust and I don't see a spot in the top 6 for him.  Benning isn't going to keep a player just to get Tryamkin over here.

Sounds like they are trying to get Goldy on a two way contract so that they can send him down to the AHL during preseason (I believe he can start at the AHL level without having to clear waivers if sent down prior to the season starting). This would also improve his trade value - as he is already in the AHL.

 

https://thecanuckway.com/2019/07/25/vancouver-canucks-contract-nikolay-goldobin/

[apollo]

1 hour ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Posters thinking Loui provides 6 million per year worth of NHL hockey as a player:

 

I don't think anyone thinks he's worth his 6 cap hit. 

 

At 3 mill AAV I'd be ok with him for sure 

 

He needs a change of scenery. That is all. I hope to see his wish come true and be moved by October. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

 

11 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Naslund is another example of a guy that was elite but then fell off at an early age. He carved out a couple more years but then it was back to Sweden.

Naslund, when he was still elite, was about to fall off the cliff but lucky for him, Moore caught him....with an elbow to the head.