Article content continued

The trade for James Neal makes more sense for the Oilers than it does for the Flames, Wagner says, even if Neal had a horrible year in Calgary. “What is the takeaway for the Canucks? It means that Eriksson can be traded, if they want to move him. It just might require finding a terrible contract that another team wants to get rid of, but is just slightly less bad than Eriksson’s, along with a little creativity. What have Brandon Dubinsky, Justin Abdelkader, and Andrew Ladd been up to lately?”

Others in Vancouver are proposing trade scenarios, such as Harman Dayal of The Athletic, who wonders if Eriksson might be moved to Anaheim for Ryan Kesler’s contract: “Management will need to think outside of the box if they want an exit strategy this year and in that case, trading for a rich LTIR contract like Kesler’s could make sense for all parties.”

But Dan Murphy of Sportsnet Vancouver doesn’t see Eriksson going anywhere, as he said on the radio: “You’re not trading him for another bad contract because you don’t have that cap space. I believe they had something close to being done at the deadline for Lucic, but it never went through because I’ve heard Eriksson would not wave to go to Edmonton… Calgary would not have done Eriksson for [James] Neal … They needed size, and he probably would not have waived to go to Alberta anyway. I don’t see him going anywhere at this point.”

David Quardrelli of the Canuckway blog wondered if Eriksson, who has three years left on a deal at $6 million per year, might go to Dallas for Andrew Cogliano (2 more years at $3.25 million per year) or Martin Hanzal (one more year at $4.75 million). “Loui Eriksson is still an NHL calibre hockey player. If it weren’t for his godawful contract that the Vancouver Canucks are currently the not-so-proud owners of, then he would surely be a much easier player to move via trade. That darn contract.”