Slapshot_11
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2006
- 6,981
- 1,631
when the new gm comes in, hopefully he can trade him to a team just trying to reach the cap floor
Player Discussion Loui Eriksson
- Thread starter The Stig
- Start date
- Status
By the look of things, he'll be out for quite awhile with a knee injury...perfect end to a disastrous first season of a six-year contract.
Looked to be the same kind of injury as Hansen.....not sure why players try to dodge checks along the wall and expose their knees....better to just brace yourself and take the hit....but Hansen missed close to five weeks when he was hit in the Jets game, and Eriksson will likely miss the same....so that's probably it for the season.
Looked to be the same kind of injury as Hansen.....not sure why players try to dodge checks along the wall and expose their knees....better to just brace yourself and take the hit....but Hansen missed close to five weeks when he was hit in the Jets game, and Eriksson will likely miss the same....so that's probably it for the season.
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
Interesting article on Loui
https://canucksarmy.com/2017/03/16/...-a-far-better-season-than-you-probably-think/
https://canucksarmy.com/2017/03/16/...-a-far-better-season-than-you-probably-think/
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
When Granlund is outproducing you at a fraction of the cost (with no long-term obligation), you know you're having a crap season. Just think as he gets worse the longer we get into his long-term deal...
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
That article brings up some good points, but I do think it overstates things a little. At 5-on-5 he has the 4th highest on-ice shooting percentge on the team and is just below average leaguewide so I don't know that he's been unlucky to not have been on for more GF. The only real quirk I see is that his IPP (percent of goals he's on for that he gets points on) is quite low. That can be a sign of a player getting some bad luck, but on the other hand it can also be the sign of an ineffective player not doing enough to generate offense.
I think he'll bounce back somewhat, but I doubt he'll be worth his contract, particularly in the last 2-3 years. Just more dead weight that Benning has saddled the team with.
I think he'll bounce back somewhat, but I doubt he'll be worth his contract, particularly in the last 2-3 years. Just more dead weight that Benning has saddled the team with.
Eriksson has had a tough year, no doubt....but he's another guy who'll benefit from a coaching change.....been bounced around the lineup all year, and was signed supposedly because the could help drive the Sedin line....except the Sedins can't drive any line these days.
Eriksson is a guy who scores most of his goals from six feet in front of the crease....he needs a true centreman who can get him the puck.....unfortunately no such animal exists on this Canuck roster....still, he appeared to be coming on with Horvat, who's virtually the only guy we've got in the middle....unfortunately Bo's no Patrice Bergeron or David Krejci, at least not yet.
But still predicting Eriksson will be better for the Canucks in the middle years of his contract....it's not like they have any choice.....he's basically unmovable at any price.
Eriksson is a guy who scores most of his goals from six feet in front of the crease....he needs a true centreman who can get him the puck.....unfortunately no such animal exists on this Canuck roster....still, he appeared to be coming on with Horvat, who's virtually the only guy we've got in the middle....unfortunately Bo's no Patrice Bergeron or David Krejci, at least not yet.
But still predicting Eriksson will be better for the Canucks in the middle years of his contract....it's not like they have any choice.....he's basically unmovable at any price.
There's no doubt the contract was too long.
I mean like a lot of contracts given out during free agency, the contracts are usually either too much money, too much term or both.
The last 2-3 years of the deal will likely be very painful.
But I agree that Eriksson seems to be the type of player who needs time to adjust to his environment - happened in Boston.
I'm pretty comfortable with a line of Baertschi-Horvat-Eriksson going into next season. I think Eriksson can still bounce back to be a 50 point guy (with decent 2-way game) for the next couple of years.
I mean like a lot of contracts given out during free agency, the contracts are usually either too much money, too much term or both.
The last 2-3 years of the deal will likely be very painful.
But I agree that Eriksson seems to be the type of player who needs time to adjust to his environment - happened in Boston.
I'm pretty comfortable with a line of Baertschi-Horvat-Eriksson going into next season. I think Eriksson can still bounce back to be a 50 point guy (with decent 2-way game) for the next couple of years.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Problem is, he ain't exactly young anymore. Only way to get value out of the contract is if he was able to get out of the gate running; not taking a few seasons to get up to speed. By then, father time will have worked on him some more (playing out on the West Coast with all the travel doesn't help - though not having to play in the post-season mitigates that).
Well I believe the contract was not a good one to begin with. So we are unlikely to get full value of the contract either way imo.
I was simply pointing at the fact, this is a player who has a history of taking time to adjust and then playing better.
So I expect him to be better in year 2/3 of the deal. Pass that and chances are he's on heavy decline.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
I'm not going to claim special insight into thinking it was a bad signing at the time. Heck, I'm not afraid to say I thought he would've worked well with the Twins (wished Willie though gave it much longer look....). At the time he was signed, I thought contract would only look bad near the end (by then, we would've had enough solid seasons to offset that - much like Burrows).
They certainly looked good in international competition.
It certainly didn't help that the twins are declining fast right in front of our eyes.
They are on pace for what 40 points?
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
mathonwy
Positively #toxic
- Jan 21, 2008
- 19,127
- 10,081
Less about Megna and more about Hansen and Tanev being injured for major parts of this season.
Let's be clear here.
Tanev is the best driver of play from our blue line and Hansen is the best driver of play amongst our forwards.
The Sedins right now need two things to allow them to be successful. A fast mobile d-man that is able to swing the puck quickly to generate speed through the neutral zone and a honey badger that can chase down pucks when they play chip and chase.
Last season, they had both (sorta). They had Tanev for 69 out of 82 games and they had Hansen for 67 out of 82 games. Not ideal but Dank still got 61 points of it and Hank got 55.
This season obviously is a much different story with both Tanev and Hansen being injured for large parts of the season. I don't think the twins themselves have significantly slowed down compared to last season; just that their supporting cast just wasn't there. No speed through the neutral zone and no puck retrieval in the ozone.
And I can't help wondering if Jimbo knew these facts when he signed Eriksson (the completely wrong type of player) to a 6x6 contract to play with the twins.
Eriksson is a good player. If there is a trade available Benning should certainly explore it. But he's the perfect fit alongside Nolan Patrick.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
Just buy him out get rid of that HORRID contract and player
Yeah good idea. Let's buy him out so we can carry $5.55M of dead cap space for the next 5 years, and can end up paying MORE for that roster spot even if all we do is replace him with a minimum wage player.
This exemplifies just how awful that contract is.
BenningHurtsMySoul
Unfair Huggy Bear
Nothing you can do but carry his ass until he retires or leaves. Nobody will trade for him and he probably won't want to leave.
This will hamper us for years to come, five to be exact. A nice big thorn in the side of our rebuild.
This will hamper us for years to come, five to be exact. A nice big thorn in the side of our rebuild.
Cupless44
Registered User
- Jun 25, 2014
- 7,154
- 3,298
I think we all knew the last 3 years of this brutal contract would be painful. Depressing how painful the first year has been. What a complete waste of money and contract space.
Frankly I don't care if Canucks Army pointed out his possession numbers are pretty good. For 6 million we got 11 goals and pretty lacklustre play. I agree with Botchford completely when he says Eriksson has showed little intensity and has not been engaged this year. Pretty soft, non event player for serious dough.
Actually a pretty good example of why advanced stats don't mean everything.
I think the Canucks Army take is fair -- but even if he's been better than he appears, the problem was that there was no way that contract could ever have been worth it. There was just no way it would make sense to sign a big-ticket UFA for the dollars and term that it would take to get one... unless he was the first UFA in history to sign for well below market value. Like Sutter's contract, it was an easy call for the fanbase literally before the deal was even signed.
Tobi Wan Kenobi
Registered User
Well a 30 goal scorer while also being the best defensive forward on the team is worth 6 million
Of course they don't mean everything. The choice you have is do you put hope in getting a player engaged that can quite honestly more than hold his own possession wise in his sleep or do you put your hope in lacklustre possession players improving as you move forward. And that's how I look at this...wow underlying stats suggest Eriksson hasn't been all bad yet he looks disinterested and production is poor so what kind of a player do you have if he gets engaged? What do you need to do to get him engaged?
That isn't to say I like the Eriksson contract. It was the wrong target and wrong contract for where the team was at. He's a guy you add to help push you over the top not a guy you add to keep you from 30th. If this team is signing long term deals for big money it needs to be on core players not complimentary ones (it goes without saying that you also need to know what a core player is and Benning doesn't).
There is room for hardwork, passion and gut feel evaluation though I'd wager given enough sample size the hardwork and passion is going to be reflected in advanced stats if it is benficial hardwork and passion.
I'm not sure if Eriksson is suffering from "I just signed a big contract" syndrome or just the kick in the teeth from the "holy crap I didn't think it was this bad when i signed" realization.
Cupless44
Registered User
- Jun 25, 2014
- 7,154
- 3,298
Good points. Bad signing by team no question about it.
But he better show up next year with a bit of jam and some engagement. 36 million dollars brings the expectation for some sort of professionalism and effort.
The thought of having to watch 5 more season of what Eriksson gave us this year is nauseating. if he doesn't show up next year with a better effort for 6 million dollars, then forget about Sbisa or Granlund, he should be whipping boy #1 and its not close.
What worries me isn't the absurd $6m, six year contract for a guy on the north side of 30....it's what the signing says about the mindset of the Canucks braintrust. They seemed to really believe at the end of last season, they were only a few players away from competing for the playoffs.
It finally appears that reality has set in, at least if this year's trade deadline is any indication.....particularly with Linden saying they were basically done in the UFA market...sometimes I guess you have to step on the rake and have it smack you in the face, before you figure it out.
It finally appears that reality has set in, at least if this year's trade deadline is any indication.....particularly with Linden saying they were basically done in the UFA market...sometimes I guess you have to step on the rake and have it smack you in the face, before you figure it out.
- Status
