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

[Alflives]

Just now, BPA said:

 

I don't like trading Jake especially since we have players (Miller / Ferland) that Jake can model his game after.

But sometimes you need to give to get out of a bad contract.

 

Not entirely sure Utica will be the way forward (and thus forcing LE to retire or play in Europe).

 

Utica or retire sure seems where the whole Loui scenario is heading IMO.  

[Silver Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Provost said:

Except if you also look at point totals it tells the whole story.

 

Jagr, Gretzky, and most of the other guys weren't delivering hits because they were the ones with the puck on their sticks.  It is against the rules to check someone who doesn't have the puck.

The only guy in the last 16 years in that low of a range was Jagr who was 41 years old and scored 67 points at the time.

Or, some players just arent hitters as part of their game. Anyone who expected Eriksson to turn into a hitter does not really have any understanding of how he has always played.

 

Hits are also wildly overrated since there is really no quantifiable standard in place to track them from team to team and no tracking exists that accounts for a good hit or a hit just for the sake of it. Lots of players hit but do not help their team much with those hits. 

 

Good defensive positioning and effective stick checking are also very much a big part of an effective defensive forward. Eriksson has a lot of flaws but both of these areas of his game have always been strong. 

 

More than one way to skin a cat.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Silver Ghost

[Hairy Kneel]

"Positional stick checker" that only applies to ringette.

[Toews]

3 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Is this supposed to be you being self aware? Now that I mention it you post about the nothingness of the thread with a nothing post. Lol.

 

In all seriousness it's no surprise a thread about Eriksson being traded has garnered this much attention. He whined, he plays below his contract, and both sides seemingly want nothing to do with each other. Of course conversation is gonna be quite frequent here. 

The vitriol has gone a bit over the top IMO. This guy was one of the top free agents at the time and he chose Vancouver out of other offers. Unfortunately he has declined and isn't living up to that contract. He believes it is because the way he is deployed, maybe some denial there but he knows that Green is going nowhere and thinks he could do better in a fresh start. People have chosen to hone in on the "he wants out" part, that combined with the frustration of his poor performance and drain on the cap is bringing out something ugly. Eriksson is hardly the worst player on the roster, he is still a NHL player at this point in his career. Regurgitating crap like, 'he wasn't trying very hard' only serves only to worsen his perception making it more difficult to trade him. Why are people making Eriksson out to be the worst player in the NHL right when we are trying to facilitate a move for him elsewhere??? It does make me wonder.

[Silver Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

"Positional stick checker" that only applies to ringette.

This is not true at all actually. Sometimes going for a hit is not the right choice defensively. 

 

The problem with many fans is they dont really understand the nuances of the game. 

[Hairy Kneel]

2 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

This is not true at all actually. Sometimes going for a hit is not the right choice defensively. 

 

The problem with many fans is they dont really understand the nuances of the game. 

Well Erickson biggest nuance is staying out of everyone's way. He is just milking the most out of his icetime he gets.

[Gnarcore]

3 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

This is not true at all actually. Sometimes going for a hit is not the right choice defensively. 

 

The problem with many fans is they dont really understand the nuances of the game. 

It's totally not true....look at the 2 best defensemen of last 30 years in Lidstrom and Niedermeyer....  position and stick work was a huge part of their games. And that is on freakin defense...

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Silver Ghost said:

This is not true at all actually. Sometimes going for a hit is not the right choice defensively. 

 

The problem with many fans is they dont really understand the nuances of the game. 

Loui is one of the softest players I’ve ever seen.  He’s softer than Inge “unbroken eggs in my hockey pants” Hammerstrom.  Loui is too slow and weak now to even run interference, and slow down opponents.  He’s way too easy to play against.  Saying that, he did earn his contract.  The Canucks, however, are fully sighing their right to have Loui earn those dollars in Utica.  

[Silver Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Loui is one of the softest players I’ve ever seen.  He’s softer than Inge “unbroken eggs in my hockey pants” Hammerstrom.  Loui is too slow and weak now to even run interference, and slow down opponents.  He’s way too easy to play against.  Saying that, he did earn his contract.  The Canucks, however, are fully sighing their right to have Loui earn those dollars in Utica.  

Some of the best players in the NHL were "soft" and easy to play against defensively. Ideally you want them scoring enough to offset that. To me, thats the issue around here with Eriksson. If he scored 30 goals and 60 points not one of you guys would care if he hits. But on the flip side, scoring at that level in the nhl now requires top 6 opportunity, pp time, and a certain amount of patience from coaches to give that opportunity. 

 

I dont think Eriksson has really ever had that to the degree he would need in order to be that offensive player. He has also not given much reason to be given that opportunity though in fairness.

 

Its not all on Eriksson. His usage in Boston played to his strengths and limited his weaknesses. The Canucks tried to do their typical "we know better and will change his role" thing that all coaches since Vigneault have done. Some players respond and adjust, but a good number flame out in Vancouver as a result. 

 

Plenty of blame to go around imo.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Silver Ghost

[VIC_CITY]

3 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

I guess none of them put in effort or competed. LOL

 

And what were their point totals in those seasons? Do you really think we'd be complaining about how many hits Loui had if he contributed offensively like those guys? Most of those guys were either franchise players or HOFers. Even the forgettable Tyler Arnason produced significantly more than Eriksson. So ya, 3 hits is pathetic when he brought arguably nothing else to the table. 

 

[Silver Ghost]

Just now, VIC_CITY said:

And what were their point totals in those seasons? Do you really think we'd be complaining about how many hits Loui had if he contributed offensively like those guys? Most of those guys were either franchise players or HOFers. Even the forgettable Tyler Arnason produced significantly more than Eriksson. So ya, 3 hits is pathetic when he brought arguably nothing else to the table. 

 

Lol look right above your post.

 

He hasnt brought nothing though. He just hasnt brought what you want and expect.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Silver Ghost

[SilentSam]

27 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

That has nothing to do with what I responded to. You were trying to say they put him in a defensive role to try to turn him into a defensive player that he should already be. That is just demonstrably false since he already is and has been a very good defensive player.

 

History is never irrelevant with any player. You were just talking out of your ass blinded by hate. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Eriksson, there is no need to make them up like you just did.

That’s not what I said .

I said.. 

“Perhaps Eriksson needed to reinvent himself or vanish in “today’s “ game..   his Defensive efforts might have looked good on this team, but probably not another one..

Him even used in a “defensive role” is probably a last ditch effort to help resurrect the game he should have in him.”

 

Im saying the Canucks have given him every opportunity to be the best player he can be, and he is and has been playing lower than a standard, in effort and production, with the Canucks, with what the expectations are for a 6million dollar man.

Im not “hating” or “making” anything up.

You brought up his history of play and “Selke” nominations..

That is history, and is reflective of a time not with the Canucks.. and quite frankly I don’t care about his badges from another time.

Ive made nothing up.

The only stat I’ve thrown out there is that a EP40 is more engaged in his play with 42 hits last season, 

Compared to a Eriksson with 4 hits. 

Eriksson has, if not, IS playing himself into redundancy here.

Its easy to see that if you get past the glitter and badges of honour you shine for this player from a time long ago..

if you get past that, you’ll see why the majority of fans here had enough of his lack lustre play before he questioned his Coach’s relationship.. as an excuse for his own efforts..

That was very professional indeed,. “Selke”-like.

Make sure you get you subscription for the Comet games 

 

[SilentSam]

45 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

This is not true at all actually. Sometimes going for a hit is not the right choice defensively. 

 

The problem with many fans is they dont really understand the nuances of the game. 

Regardless, hitting is like scoring..

its all timing and execution..   Eriksson has neither.  Obviously.

[Silver Ghost]

11 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

That’s not what I said .

I said.. 

“Perhaps Eriksson needed to reinvent himself or vanish in “today’s “ game..   his Defensive efforts might have looked good on this team, but probably not another one..

Him even used in a “defensive role” is probably a last ditch effort to help resurrect the game he should have in him.”

 

Im saying the Canucks have given him every opportunity to be the best player he can be, and he is and has been playing lower than a standard, in effort and production, with the Canucks, with what the expectations are for a 6million dollar man.

Im not “hating” or “making” anything up.

You brought up his history of play and “Selke” nominations..

That is history, and is reflective of a time not with the Canucks.. and quite frankly I don’t care about his badges from another time.

Ive made nothing up.

The only stat I’ve thrown out there is that a EP40 is more engaged in his play with 42 hits last season, 

Compared to a Eriksson with 4 hits. 

Eriksson has, if not, IS playing himself into redundancy here.

Its easy to see that if you get past the glitter and badges of honour you shine for this player from a time long ago..

if you get past that, you’ll see why the majority of fans here had enough of his lack lustre play before he questioned his Coach’s relationship.. as an excuse for his own efforts..

That was very professional indeed,. “Selke”-like.

Make sure you get you subscription for the Comet games 

 

So much hyperbole here.

 

For you guys who think I am defending Eriksson because I am sone super fan of his, I can assure you I am not. I didnt like the signing at the time and want him to be traded as much or more than most. 

 

We can agree to disagree that hehas received boundless opportunity to be a top 6 player in Van. He simply hasnt for any number of reasons.

 

My comments here are simply to give people some perspective on how NHL coaches and managers actually evaluate players. They do not subscribe to the all or nothing approach. Ie, they would not see Eriksson as useless, brings nothing of value, etc. And they have all said as much actually. 

 

There is so much more to defensive play than hits. And Eriksson is probably a better defensive forward than half of the roster forwards at this point. Doesnt mean he is guaranteed a spot, isnt redundant on this roster, shoukdnt be traded, etc. It just means he is better defensively and it hasnothing to do with hitting. 

 

His comments were not about Green but his own perception of the situation. Green would not lose a second of sleep over that overhyped interview.

 

My use of history in respect to Eriksson was to illustrate that he plays exactly the same way defensively as he always has and has not really lost a step there at all. That doesnt fit the revisionist history here.

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Silver Ghost

[Silver Ghost]

4 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Regardless, hitting is like scoring..

its all timing and execution..   Eriksson has neither.  Obviously.

So is defensive positioning and stick checking effectively. Again, more than one way to skin a cat.

[Provost]

57 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

This is not true at all actually. Sometimes going for a hit is not the right choice defensively. 

 

The problem with many fans is they dont really understand the nuances of the game. 

You sound like you don’t have a grasp of the nuances of the game at all.

 

You also sound like Eriksson’s agent trying to do damage control.

 

It has nothing to do with “sometimes going for the hit is not the right choice defensively.”  That is a false argument you invented to try to dismiss acid criticism.

 

The issue is that it is sometimes, even often the right choice.  Certainly far more than 3 times a season.  If you don’t understand THAT, then you not only don’t have a grasp of the nuances of the game, you don’t understand the basics either.

 

I was the one who originally brought up the 3 hits stat.  It is just a piece in combination with several anecdotal interviews with ex player media types and actually watching him glide around during games ourselves.  He is regularly mocked for how disengaged and how little effort he is putting out... by people who know a lot more about hockey than us.

 

He is also way down the list on the team in blocked shots, which he should be topping as a primarily defensive forward.  Adding up all the pieces of evidence available gives a very solid picture of the type of player he has been for us.

 

You have zero credibility to presume more hockey knowledge than guys who spent decades in the league.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Provost

[Borvat]

44 minutes ago, Gnarcore said:

It's totally not true....look at the 2 best defensemen of last 30 years in Lidstrom and Niedermeyer....  position and stick work was a huge part of their games. And that is on freakin defense...

Lidstrom and Neidermayer both hit and blocked shots.  Eriksson does play well with his stick as the Takeaway vs Giveaway stat indicates.  But for a forward who needs to separate people from the puck his lack of contact is pretty apathetic.  To me it either points to lack of effort or engagement.  I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.  I just don't admire his style of game I guess.  

 

Lidstrom:

This is at an age when almost all players have retired.  Earlier stats are not available that I can find.

 

Niedermayer:

Only had stats applicable for last 3 years of play.  Niedermayer was tireless look at the ATOI.

 

Eriksson:

Most recent 3 years for comparison.  Related in the sense of how some are lauding his "defensive" style/prowess of play.

[Me_]

Trade to Dallas for Hanzal and Cogliano?

Could make sense...

 

Dallas gets a space for a young player

Eriksson gets a fresh start after a disastrous time in a Vancouver.

 

Hanzal UFA 2020 - $4.750MIL/yr

Cogliano UFA 2021 - $3.250MIL/yr

 

Canucks would have to trade Sutter to get this done as they would take on an extra $2.000MIL this year.

 

But this way the Canucks shed one year on vets (Eriksson’s contract being three years), gain $4.750MIL cap space in 2020 and another $3.250MIL in 2021.

 

ARTICLE

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Me_

[Silver Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

You sound like you don’t have a grasp of the nuances of the game at all.

 

You also sound like Eriksson’s agent trying to do damage control.

 

It has nothing to do with “sometimes going for the hit is not the right choice defensively.”  That is a false argument.

 

The issue is that it is sometimes, even often the right choice.  Certainly far more than 3 times a season.

 

I was the one who originally brought up the 3 hits stat.  It is just a piece in combination with several anecdotal interviews with ex player media types and actually watching him glide around during games ourselves.  He is regularly mocked for how disengaged and how little effort he is putting out... by people who know a lot more about hockey than us.

 

You have zero credibility to presume more hockey knowledge than guys who spent decades in the league.

Some players hit to separate players from the puck. Others use body position and their stick to accomplish that. An argument can be made regarding Eriksson's effectiveness but this false argument that if he doesnt hit he is useless defensively is laughable.

 

The guys I am discussing this with on here havebeen in the NHL for decades? Sonehowi doubt it since none of them have even abasic understanding of the nuances of hockey.

 

So O'Neill and McLennan should be believed over Travis Green who also played a lot in the league and also actually coached and saw Eriksson on a daily basis? Green seems to think Eriksson is a good defensive player.

[Borvat]

Here is a comparison from a teammate who is also a forward, considered more of a defensive or 3rd line player. He also had less playing time than Mr Eriksson.  His style of play I am a fan of.  Eye of the beholder.  Wonder which player would inspire his teammates more and drive them to be better?

 

Roussel: