Player Discussion Loui Eriksson, Pt. II

[Breakers]

I quite enjoyed this article about Loui Eriksson
Just points out the subtleties of his game, and how his little plays directly resulted in a few of Pettersson's goals.

Loui “Little Things” Eriksson and the importance of details

 

[Pavel96]

I quite enjoyed this article about Loui Eriksson
Just points out the subtleties of his game, and how his little plays directly resulted in a few of Pettersson's goals.

Loui “Little Things” Eriksson and the importance of details

What a joke. How could the highest paid player on your team, for another 3 years possibly, that can't score - be the least of the coach's concerns? The guy was brought in to score, and can't score at all - and that is literally the "least of his concerns" on one of the lowest scoring teams int he NHL over the last 3 years? It's insulting to even suggest that.

And no, when they have to pay him 6 million dollars a year, to be on the ice, the canucks are not a better team with him on the ice. How anyone could skip past the fact that there is a salary cap, and that successfully managing the cap affects the teams on ice performance, is absurd. The argument the Canucks are better when he's on the ice is just laughable - aren't they better with anyone on the ice than no one - if that's simply the criteria?

No goals, no assists, no shots, no hits, no stats most games, no mistakes= highest paid player ont he team with the longest term. What a great guy we are all (most of us) so stupid for not appreciating!

 

[Breakers]

What a joke. How could the highest paid player on your team, for another 3 years possibly, that can't score - be the least of the coach's concerns? The guy was brought in to score, and can't score at all - and that is literally the "least of his concerns" on one of the lowest scoring teams int he NHL over the last 3 years? It's insulting to even suggest that.

And no, when they have to pay him 6 million dollars a year, to be on the ice, the canucks are not a better team with him on the ice. How anyone could skip past the fact that there is a salary cap, and that successfully managing the cap affects the teams on ice performance, is absurd. The argument the Canucks are better when he's on the ice is just laughable - aren't they better with anyone on the ice than no one - if that's simply the criteria?

No goals, no assists, no shots, no hits, no stats most games, no mistakes= highest paid player ont he team with the longest term. What a great guy we are all (most of us) so stupid for not appreciating!

Thats not what the article is saying
It says if you forget his salary, he is a somewhat effective player & it shows with his possession 5v5 and the little things he is doing.
The Vancouver media suddenly was saying Eriksson is the worst player on this team which isnt close.

 

[Pavel96]

Thats not what the article is saying
It says if you forget his salary, he is a somewhat effective player & it shows with his possession 5v5 and the little things he is doing.
The Vancouver media suddenly was saying Eriksson is the worst player on this team which isnt close.

I'm saying, that in the salary cap era, it is ridiculous/impossible to ignore his salary. To do so seems pointless (as competing, with the elite teams in the nhl, absolutely requires you to spend efficiently and responsibly and manage the cap considerably well) unless you are living/writing about a fantasy.

Do you really think credible members of the actual media think he is literally the worst canuck at playing hockey- on the entire roster? Or are they not taking his salary and the space it potentially takes up with respect to the cap (if the team could actually compete) into account and generalizing this all as what represents him as a player?

He was never going to come here for below 3 million. I'm sure he wouldn't even play for less than that after this contract - so why is it worth talking about him as if money doesn't matter? Without that huge, inflated, salary he would never be here in the first place. Why, now that he clearly sucks relative to the player he once was, should we just ignore that?

He obviously is a better than an AHL level player - but at 6 million would anyone in the league pick him, up off of waivers? I think that's what the media were referring to? But I will agree with you - he is not literally the worst player on the team. Erik Gudbranson takes that by a mile lol.

 

[pgj98m3]

Thats not what the article is saying
It says if you forget his salary, he is a somewhat effective player & it shows with his possession 5v5 and the little things he is doing.
The Vancouver media suddenly was saying Eriksson is the worst player on this team which isnt close.

I have to agree ... if he was playing for free then he would be a useful player.

 

[Breakers]

I'm saying, that in the salary cap era, it is ridiculous/impossible to ignore his salary. To do so seems pointless (as competing, with the elite teams in the nhl, absolutely requires you to spend efficiently and responsibly and manage the cap considerably well) unless you are living/writing about a fantasy.

Do you really think credible members of the actual media think he is literally the worst canuck at playing hockey- on the entire roster? Or are they not taking his salary and the space it potentially takes up with respect to the cap (if the team could actually compete) into account and generalizing this all as what represents him as a player?

He was never going to come here for below 3 million. I'm sure he wouldn't even play for less than that after this contract - so why is it worth talking about him as if money doesn't matter? Without that huge, inflated, salary he would never be here in the first place. Why, now that he clearly sucks relative to the player he once was, should we just ignore that?

He obviously is a better than an AHL level player - but at 6 million would anyone in the league pick him, up off of waivers? I think that's what the media were referring to? But I will agree with you - he is not literally the worst player on the team. Erik Gudbranson takes that by a mile lol.

Im just saying he is an effective player in the NHL

The book you just wrote is you arguing with no one.

 

[Pavel96]

Im just saying he is an effective player in the NHL

The book you just wrote is you arguing with no one.

Effective eh? So you'd really describe him as - "successful in producing a desired or intended result". A 6 million dollar player (brought in to score) that can't score, is effective if ' he is successful in producing..." no stats but being sound defensively. Not sure that fits the definition? Benning called him an "elite scorer" after signing him yet now he is deemed effective, not even halfway into his contract, by producing next to nothing? He is achieving no where close to the 'desried or intended result'. Not even in the ball park. Yet he is effective?

Lol and 12 sentences is a book to you? Good luck with that.

 

[DL44]

Eriksson was pretty effective last game.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Honestly, I haven't noticed him having much of an effect good or bad. Once in a while you'll see him skating by out there and you'll think 'hmm that was Loui Eriksson". But mostly you'll just forget he's in the lineup.

 

[Pavel96]

Eriksson was pretty effective last game.

Well, he did produce next to nothing.

 

[Icebreakers]

Imagine giving Loui a 6 million dollar cheque on july 1st for his signing bonus. I wonder if Loui feels happy or guilty for accepting it. I mean obviously hes going to accept it but like... is he celebrating?

No wonder why hes disinterested. He already got 90% of his pay cheque.

 

[Pavel96]

Imagine giving Loui a 6 million dollar cheque on july 1st for his signing bonus. I wonder if Loui feels happy or guilty for accepting it. I mean obviously hes going to accept it but like... is he celebrating?

Maybe he's smiling.... all the way to the bank?

 

[LeftCoast]

Eriksson is probably playing his best hockey since coming to the Canucks.










Unfortunately, his best is ... at best ... mediocre. He's solid enough defensively, but offensively he seems to have lost all ability to handle the puck. It looks like he's either playing with a tennis ball or a concrete stick. Tyler Motte is a more effective player in pretty much all situations.

 

[Josepho]

wrong thread

 

[bandwagonesque]

Effective eh? So you'd really describe him as - "successful in producing a desired or intended result". A 6 million dollar player (brought in to score) that can't score, is effective if ' he is successful in producing..." no stats but being sound defensively.

Neither the article nor the person referencing it is claiming any of the things you're arguing against.

 

[Pavel96]

Neither the article nor the person referencing it is claiming any of the things you're arguing against.

Lol he called him an effective nhl player. I posted the definition of effective and applied it to what loui was brought in to do as an NHL player, as advertised by the person who brought him in, and then compared that to what he's done as an NHL player.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Lol he called him an effective nhl player. I posted the definition of effective and applied it to what loui was brought in to do as an NHL player, as advertised by the person who brought him in, and then compared that to what he's done as an NHL player.

He didn't say Eriksson has done what he was brought here to do. He didn't say he has lived up to what management said he'd be. You're arguing against statements no one has made.

 

[Pavel96]

He didn't say Eriksson has done what he was brought here to do. He didn't say he has lived up to what management said he'd be. You're arguing against statements no one has made.

The poster said he was an 'effective' nhl player. He didn't provide his specific definition of effective to go off of so I went off the one commonly accepted- effective: successful in producing a desired or intended result . Being effective at your job means being good at it specifically and being able to get your job done. If he was brought in and paid top dollar to be a scorer, as his main role, and he is failing miserably at it, in no way could he be termed effective.

He could be considered a 'useful' player, sure. Useful and effective are pretty different and I think the word effective gives him too much credit and is not applicable to him in this situation.

 

[bandwagonesque]

The poster said he was an 'effective' nhl player. He didn't provide his specific definition of effective to go off of so I went off the one commonly accepted- effective: successful in producing a desired or intended result . Being effective at your job means being good at it specifically and being able to get your job done. If he was brought in and paid top dollar to be a scorer, as his main role, and he is failing miserably at it, in no way could he be termed effective.

He could be considered a 'useful' player, sure. Useful and effective are pretty different and I think the word effective gives him too much credit and is not applicable to him in this situation.

He regularly produces the desired or intended result as a hockey player. The weren't implying he produces the result expected of a player earning his salary, and you knew they weren't.

 

[Pavel96]

He regularly produces the desired or intended result as a hockey player. The weren't implying he produces the result expected of a player earning his salary, and you knew they weren't.

so what is the desired or intended result of a hockey player? To not get waived and shows up for practices and games?

The intended result of playing in hockey games is to put the puck in the net more than the other team. As a forward billed as an elite scorer, regardless of salary, the intended result is for him to put the puck in the net. He is not getting his most important intended results - regardless of his salary.

The poster stated he is an effective NHL player - at this stage in his career he is not.

 

[VanJack]

It's amusing how the Canuck spinmeisters, including the coach, feel they have to have Louie Eriksson's back. The guy is now the highest paid player on their team and hasn't scored since last February. You look at the game tonight. With so many key guys out of the lineup you expect your veteran players to step up.

But guys Eriksson, Gudbranson and Sutter couldn't pick up the team and really aren't capable of elevating their games, despite their collective salaries of $14m a season. But I suppose the guy wearing the goat-horns is the GM, so maybe that's why Eriksson has so many in house defenders.

 

[bandwagonesque]

so what is the desired or intended result of a hockey player? To not get waived and shows up for practices and games?

The intended result of playing in hockey games is to put the puck in the net more than the other team. As a forward billed as an elite scorer, regardless of salary, the intended result is for him to put the puck in the net. He is not getting his most important intended results - regardless of his salary.

The poster stated he is an effective NHL player - at this stage in his career he is not.

The article and the poster referencing it were saying that Erikkson still has a place in the NHL, irrespective of what he's paid or why. You know that's what they were saying and everyone reading this thread knows you know. You're accusing people of holding opinions you know with near certainty they do not actually hold. I'm saying this simply as soneone who values rationality and is bored with internet trolls. I have no interest in defending Erikkson or this team's management and have never done so.

 

[Pavel96]

The article and the poster referencing it were saying that Erikkson still has a place in the NHL, irrespective of what he's paid or why. You know that's what they were saying and everyone reading this thread knows you know. You're accusing people of holding opinions you know with near certainty they do not actually hold. I'm saying this simply as soneone who values rationality and is bored with internet trolls. I have no interest in defending Erikkson or this team's management and have never done so.

Lol, yeah I'm supposed to ignore the literal words that were written and just "know" what the poster meant, instead. I've taken what was written and commented directly on it. Your value of 'rationality' is ironic in the sense that what you are asking me to do is not rational (ignore what was literally written and just "know" what the poster meant). But I guess you are implying that I am a troll (otherwise why specifically reference it - and aren't we not supposed to do that here? lol) and you are bored but continue to reply to this? Not following the rationality?

 

[PunkRockLocke]

The article and the poster referencing it were saying that Erikkson still has a place in the NHL, irrespective of what he's paid or why. You know that's what they were saying and everyone reading this thread knows you know. You're accusing people of holding opinions you know with near certainty they do not actually hold. I'm saying this simply as soneone who values rationality and is bored with internet trolls. I have no interest in defending Erikkson or this team's management and have never done so.

You're giving him too much credit. I don't think he has any clue what that other poster and the article are trying to say.

Chasing his tail.

 

[geebaan]

Please stop playing him on the first line