Eriksson’s production may be down, but don’t count him out
High-priced forward remains a good bet to rejoin Sedins despite lack of production
The most telling moment of the Loui Eriksson era in Vancouver went down before training camp even began.
It was a quiet Friday afternoon during the final days of hockey’s off-season when the Canucks announced they were officially taking a chance on Thomas Vanek.
An offensive gunslinger, Vanek was brought in on Sept. 1 to help the Sedins improve the power play and, it turns out, ride sidesaddle with them at even strength.
In the halcyon days of July 2016, many were convinced the Canucks had filled this exact role when they decided to pay Loui Eriksson US$36 million in a massive deal that spans six years.
Vanek, by way of comparison, is on a one-year, US$2-million deal.
It’s not entirely fair to compare the two. Eriksson is a solid defending forward, a good penalty killer and his net worth isn’t simply measured in offensive production.
But sorry, no one gets paid US$6 million a year to kill penalties. Eriksson was signed to score and many of those hoped-for goals were supposed to go down with the Sedins. If he had been successful at it, it’s unlikely the Canucks ever would have thought of Vanek.
The Eriksson deal was a divisive one a year ago.
Those who liked it predicted he’d help squeeze the most from the Sedins in their sunset years. He had just scored 30 goals with the Boston Bruins and had proven effective when partnered with the twins for Sweden internationally. He was believed to be a solid bet to help fix the team’s scoring woes and some media even said he was going to make the Canucks competitive.
Those who loathed it — it made many worst free-agent signing lists in 2016 — were concerned the final years would be anchors, weighing down a team that should be young and up-and-coming.
Critics were also worried Eriksson wouldn’t be good enough to make the Canucks contenders early in the contract’s life, while being just productive enough to stall the rebuild. Turns out everyone was wrong. Eriksson has scored just 11 goals since arriving in Vancouver. He hasn’t made the team better now and one can only guess at how this will look in 2021.
That dark imagery is probably not safe for work.
There are no do-overs and the contract was constructed to be buyout proof, so the Canucks and Eriksson are in this together.
Now they need to figure out how to get the most out of him, because things have been trending in the wrong direction.
They’ll have to wait on that, though. Eriksson was shoved into the goalpost on a rush by Tanner Glass of the Calgary Flames Saturday night, and had to leave the game with a knee injury. His status isn’t known yet.
Going into the game, he had one goal in his last 23 games and two shot attempts in the first three games of this season. Thursday, he was essentially benched in the final 10 minutes of a 4-2 loss to the Winnipeg Jets, even though the Canucks desperately needed a goal late.
Vanek, meantime, looked really good with the Sedins.
Head coach Travis Green has made it clear he believes in Eriksson. Despite a salary, which looks like something that could fight Godzilla in a monster movie, and that lack of production, there is still a lot to believe in.
Eriksson remains a great bet for a bounce-back season. His 8.3 shooting percentage last year was half of what it was the season before in Boston at 16.3 per cent. His career average is 13.4 per cent and if he hits that shooting percentage average, he could be in the 20-goal range.
He is an historically streaky scorer. He probably needs three good runs this season to get to this 20-goal mark and right now it would be considered a rousing success. That in itself is noteworthy because when he was signed, some thought he was lock to get 30. Also, Eriksson may yet still be the best fit with the Sedins. The underlying data suggests this was the case last year. The Sedins were most successful at controlling play when they were with Eriksson.
Green said he was aware of the data, which sure points to him giving the trio a long look at some point this season.
“I don’t know how long they tried it last year. It wasn’t a long time,” Green said. “I’m not saying we won’t go back to that. Loui brings other elements to the game than just goal scoring. He’s one of our top penalty killers. He’s a good reliable player. We can use him in different situations. Power play. Matchups.
“I might use him tonight in a matchup role. He’s a valuable player other than goal scoring. But I would like to see him get back to the 20-goal range.” So would management. No one knows how the owners are going to respond if the Canucks miss the playoffs again.
But if it happens and Eriksson scores, say, 11 goals again, which some will look at as US$545,455 per goal, there could be more interest in making some changes.