Again, your argument is 100% statistic based. I respect it. I respect you as a knowledgeable hockey fan. But the fact is, as both being experienced fans, we see the game differently. Hockey is a game in which you MUST establish an identity to be a successful team (IMO). The Bruins have said over and over again, not that they want to be a team who outskills or outguns the other team, but that they want to be a team that is "tough to play against". I.e. a team that plays a solid system in all three zones and physically pounds their opponent. If that is the identity they are going for, having a guy like Backes is a much better option to me than Hayes.
If a team is going for a more Montreal/Pittsburgh/Chicago feel, then yes, Eriksson might be your better option. But different players fit better with teams that play different systems and different styles. I think we've both acknowledged it in different ways. To me, Loui was always a little bit of a "low energy" player. He did his job and played his game, but he seemed to struggle to take it to the next level. He stuck out to me like a sore thumb in the Winter Classic game last season (in which almost the entire team sucked). You get a fairly consistent effort, but it's far from gamebreaker type stuff. Even though David Backes is going to get you less points, he has shown time and time again he has another gear and shows up on the scoreboard and physically at the most important times. Loui definitely wasn't going to provide the latter and has yet to prove to me at any point he has that playoff gear. You need players like that if you're going to win anything post-April.
Committing to Loui long term well into his 30's would have been the wrong move IMO and I am glad it didn't happen. I think we've exhausted the conversation at this point and we're not getting anywhere so much respect, agree to disagree.
edit: Just as an add-on...to further point out our differences in how we view the game: I was a vocal supporter (have been a vocal critic for much of this season) for Matt Beleskey. Why? I thought the guy worked his ass off and provided a lot of energy and assets that we're recognized statistically. Some people get hung up on points and the money he's making. To me, Beleskey was A-OK last year. Little bit of a different story this year, but I am guessing you would not have been nearly as big of a fan of his game last season based on how you view the game. Now...I draw a line. As did most other people, I was 99.9% sure the David Clarkson contract in Toronto would be an unmitigated disaster and it was. You can't pay a guy solely for "intangibles" and one good season. But, there are portions of this game outside goals and assits that are underappreciated in this game. Hockey is one of the few sports where you can win the ultimate prize without superstar players, and a big part of it is because of the contributions and cohesiveness of a team's players from the first to fourth line. The Bruins won in 2011 (in my view) because of players who TOOK IT TO ANOTHER GEAR and because of the identity of their team. Even if the players taking it to another gear are not first line players (like Backes), the difference they make come late in the season/playoffs cannot be undersold.