[Discussion] would you/won’t you: Louis Eriksson for Milan Lucic

[The_Rocket]

The two big-fish, free agents of 2016. Identical 6 yr 36 million dollar contracts for “top 6” left wingers. Would you swap, 1 for 1, Eriksson for Lucic?

 

Lucic: probably good for 40-50 points, big hits, will drop the gloves, weak defensively, slow

 

Eriksson: probably 30-40 points, sound defensively, top pk winger in Canucks, “soft”, not very big, a couple years older

 

who would you rather have? Personally, I think I’d rather stick with Eriksson. 

 

Edit: correction - as others have pointed out, Lucic sign for 7 years, Eriksson for 6. 

[Hectic]

Lucic is 7 years, not 6. But yes, would stick with Eriksson. 

[Green Building]

Not even close.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

Stick with Eriksson. Stay away from the Lucics and the Tkachuks.

[WHL rocks]

Wow. Great thread. 

 

Eriksson looks pretty good right now. I think he just didn't fit well with WD's coaching system. Green has him going pretty darn good right now. 

The game is getting faster by the month. I don't think Lucic will be able to keep up in a year or two. Lucic is 2 years younger but his contract runs 1 year longer. I don't know how he's going to finish that contract. 

 

I keep Loui Eriksson. 

[combover]

With all due respect to both players I would still rather have niether.

but if I had to choose 1 I’d stick with louie  

[Cerridwen]

Quote

 

[Discussion] would you/won’t you: Louis Eriksson for Milan Lucic

 

Hell To The &^@#, NO I Won't.

 

 

[Coconuts]

Eriksson all the way. He's looked better playing for Green and I imagine he'll probably age better as a player than Lucic. Even when he's not contributing offensively you can generally count on solid defense and a good effort.

 

If we need someone to throw hits and fight someone occasionally we can pay someone else a lot less than we'd pay Lucic.

[Green Goblin]

I would if they retained 50% of ML's contract. LE with CM would be fire though. He'd be back up in the 30 goal range. 

[RRypien37]

I'd take Lucic 100 times out of 100. Even without putting up points, Lucic brings the size and intimidation that Loui cannot and will not ever be able to. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

 

[Dral]

If life was a video game - yes, a million times over...

 

but it isn't... so, probably not

[iinatcc]

Lucic for me

 

Lucic 

2016 to 2017 - 50 

Current Season - 19 

 

vs. 

 

Eriksson

2016 to 2017 - 24 

Current Season - 11 

 

Though I would pick neither with those contracts. Remove 2 or 3 years then that's a different story. 

 

[Qwags]

Louie. /thread

 

But for real, his play style will never die. Sure, he may slow down with age, but his defensive IQ will last until he retires. Lucic is slower than molasses on a summer Sunday. Imagine 5 years from now. His physical style of play will be his undoing.

[Brobidus]

8 hours ago, Canadian Clay said:

The two big-fish, free agents of 2016. Identical 6 yr 36 million dollar contracts for “top 6” left wingers. Would you swap, 1 for 1, Eriksson for Lucic?

 

Lucic: probably good for 40-50 points, big hits, will drop the gloves, weak defensively, slow

 

Eriksson: probably 30-40 points, sound defensively, top pk winger in Canucks, “soft”, not very big, a couple years older

 

who would you rather have? Personally, I think I’d rather stick with Eriksson. 

This is very misleading. By this description I'd have gone for Lucic 10 times out of 10. More points, hits, tough? Sweet. 
I don't think I can do it justice, and I'll be cherry-picking my own stats, but here's how I see it.

 

Lucic has had three 60 point seasons. But he put up 55 points with completely new line mates in LA, and 50 points last year playing with one of the best centers in the world. 
Eriksson has had two 60 point seasons, three 70 point seasons, allbeit not very recent. But has shown difficulty adapting to new line mates in Boston where he got about 40 points and now in Vancouver with 24 points last season. 
Lucic is more consistent with his scoring, but he is falling off. Eriksson is very volatile in his scoring but has the potential to score 60-70 points still. Especially now where he is used to his line mates. It seems there's something to it as well, since he is on a 56 point pace this year. 

 

We clearly stick with Eriksson here. 

 

4 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Lucic for me

 

Lucic 

2016 to 2017 - 50 

Current Season - 19 

 

vs. 

 

Eriksson

2016 to 2017 - 24 

Current Season - 11 

 

Though I would pick neither with those contracts. Remove 2 or 3 years then that's a different story. 

 

I've always wondered why players were evaluated on points rather than points per game. I mean under circumstances the guy got injured because he was targeted or because of bad luck, not everyone has the luck of having thick bones or a perfect immune system, that doesn't make him the inferior player right?

Lucic has 5 goals, 19 points in 28 games giving him 0.678 ppg. 
Eriksson has 5 goals, 11 points in 16 games him 0.685 ppg. 

 

This with Lucic playing with McDavid, Puljujarvi, Draisaitl and I assume Hopkins and Cammalieri on the PP occasionally.
And Eriksson playing with the Sedins, who are no longer on par with McDavid and Draisaitl in terms of production, and Baertschi, Vanek on the PP, (I'm sure I got this wrong, I forget our PP units). 

Does  anyone know why people use points over PPG? I remember Don Cherry being big on the distinction. I've really never understood it and I've never asked :D Is it just preference or is there something historical to it?

[coastal.view]

42 minutes ago, Brobidus said:

This is very misleading. By this description I'd have gone for Lucic 10 times out of 10. More points, hits, tough? Sweet. 
I don't think I can do it justice, and I'll be cherry-picking my own stats, but here's how I see it.

 

Lucic has had three 60 point seasons. But he put up 55 points with completely new line mates in LA, and 50 points last year playing with one of the best centers in the world. 
Eriksson has had two 60 point seasons, three 70 point seasons, allbeit not very recent. But has shown difficulty adapting to new line mates in Boston where he got about 40 points and now in Vancouver with 24 points last season. 
Lucic is more consistent with his scoring, but he is falling off. Eriksson is very volatile in his scoring but has the potential to score 60-70 points still. Especially now where he is used to his line mates. It seems there's something to it as well, since he is on a 56 point pace this year. 

 

We clearly stick with Eriksson here. 

 

I've always wondered why players were evaluated on points rather than points per game. I mean under circumstances the guy got injured because he was targeted or because of bad luck, not everyone has the luck of having thick bones or a perfect immune system, that doesn't make him the inferior player right?

Lucic has 5 goals, 19 points in 28 games giving him 0.678 ppg. 
Eriksson has 5 goals, 11 points in 16 games him 0.685 ppg. 

 

This with Lucic playing with McDavid, Puljujarvi, Draisaitl and I assume Hopkins and Cammalieri on the PP occasionally.
And Eriksson playing with the Sedins, who are no longer on par with McDavid and Draisaitl in terms of production, and Baertschi, Vanek on the PP, (I'm sure I got this wrong, I forget our PP units). 

Does  anyone know why people use points over PPG? I remember Don Cherry being big on the distinction. I've really never understood it and I've never asked :D Is it just preference or is there something historical to it?

points are used because it is what the person actually produced or contributed

who cares about ppg if the player is able to only play part of a season

[Rocksterh8]

Neither, they are both terrible contracts.

[Stelar]

10 hours ago, combover said:

With all due respect to both players I would still rather have niether.

but if I had to choose 1 I’d stick with louie  

this 

[luckylager]

I didn't want Lucic in the first place. Yes, his game is much more "in your face" than Loui's, but if Lucic was to wear a Canucks jersey, he'd be suspended every second game.

 

Take a look at the hits Canucks players get suspended for compared to the rest of the league. We're hardly allowed to play with an edge, let alone dress a full on bully.

 

 

[NUCKER67]

Interesting how time and perspective change things. A year ago I would've easily said Lucic, no question. But now, I'm happy with Loui. Last year was just a bad year for him and he's been very good this year. He's also got some chemistry with the Sedins. Lucic's contract is a year longer and I have a feeling if he played here he'd just float around and do the minimum. Besides, he had his chance to come to VAN and he rejected us. F him.