Tim Erixon

EspenK

Registered User
Sep 25, 2011
15,842
4,445
You seem to think the organization has it out for the dude, has it ever occurred that maybe JUST MAYBE he's not good enough?

Or to you that maybe someone does have something against him?

My guess is that there is something about the way he plays,not physical enough maybe, that holds him back.

As was pointed out in the off-season thread I don't think we can keep Erixon & Goloubef down on the farm for another year. At least one and possible two of the young D-men are likely to be traded away before the start of next season. Depends on what the front office wants to do with Nikitin & Schultz.

My greatest fear is that Erixon isn't a fit here and for the protection of the franchise is traded for a bag of pucks.
 

Sore Loser

Sorest of them all
Dec 9, 2006
7,622
1,220
Spokane, WA.
The telltale of Tim Erixon's status as a player for the CBJ comes from his ice time when he did play in the NHL this year - which averaged a full two minutes less than any other defenseman not named Cody Goloubef, when he was in the lineup.

Either he isn't ready, or he just isn't good enough.
 

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
The telltale of Tim Erixon's status as a player for the CBJ comes from his ice time when he did play in the NHL this year - which averaged a full two minutes less than any other defenseman not named Cody Goloubef, when he was in the lineup.

Either he isn't ready, or he just isn't good enough.

Personally I find this line of argument very frustrating. There is a group of us who think Erixon is an NHL quality defenceman, who for whatever reason, was given very limited opportunities this past year. We ask why, and debate a number of possible reasons.

The other side responds: "He played less, therefore he isn't good enough".

Not exactly persuasive.

It reminds me of the debate early in the season over whether JJ should be playing 25+ minutes a night, and whether he is a qualified #1 defenceman. Some of us argued that he was struggling, and shouldn't have so much responsibility.

The other side responds: "Of course he's qualified, he plays 25+ minutes a night."

This is all just normative/descriptive confusion; anytime there is a debate over what a player's role should be, it serves no purpose to remind us what the player's role is. We know.
 

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
34,649
15,879
Exurban Cbus
Or to you that maybe someone does have something against him?

My guess is that there is something about the way he plays,not physical enough maybe, that holds him back.

Isn't that the same as "not being good enough"?

The telltale of Tim Erixon's status as a player for the CBJ comes from his ice time when he did play in the NHL this year - which averaged a full two minutes less than any other defenseman not named Cody Goloubef, when he was in the lineup.

Either he isn't ready, or he just isn't good enough.

Why isn't the telltale of Tim Erixon's status as a player for the CBJ the time he spent with the big club the prior year when he outplayed the remainder of the young blueliners in his "generation" - i.e. Prout, Savard, Goloubef?
 

blahblah

Registered User
Nov 24, 2005
21,327
972
Why isn't the telltale of Tim Erixon's status as a player for the CBJ the time he spent with the big club the prior year when he outplayed the remainder of the young blueliners in his "generation" - i.e. Prout, Savard, Goloubef?

He did mention ice time and Prouts splits for two months were 14:31 or below. Not sure what ice time in two games was going to prove. I would have expected them to be low.

Erixon did play well for us the previous year, which makes his banishment a little more confusing. Savard nor the team exactly came out on fire. I understand some of the points made by others, but he should have played a lot more than 2 games last season.
 

CBJWerenski8

Rest in Peace Johnny
Jun 13, 2009
43,696
26,743
I don't understand why everyone thinks the coach has it out for the guy. He played the entire year here two years ago, or at least most of the year, and he was OK. Not anything special, but he could hold his own. He obviously either had a step back or Savard had a really good summer, because Savard outright took his job. I get the fascination with the guy, he's a former first rounder, and apart of the biggest trade in franchise history, but the kid will more than likely have a spot here next year unless he's dealt. I have hopes for him, but Savard proved last year he deserved to be here over Erixon.
 

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
I don't understand why everyone thinks the coach has it out for the guy. He played the entire year here two years ago, or at least most of the year, and he was OK. Not anything special, but he could hold his own. He obviously either had a step back or Savard had a really good summer, because Savard outright took his job. I get the fascination with the guy, he's a former first rounder, and apart of the biggest trade in franchise history, but the kid will more than likely have a spot here next year unless he's dealt. I have hopes for him, but Savard proved last year he deserved to be here over Erixon.

You still don't get it. The argument some of us are making is that Erixon lost his spot for reasons other than his play, and those reasons could be the coach, handedness, waivers, etc.... When you tell us that he must have played poorly, which you know because he lost his spot, you look utterly clueless. See my post above, it applies to you too.

A more sensible thing to argue is something like "though sometimes players will not be in the lineup for a variety of reasons, in this case its probably play". That's fine. But asserting that all lineup decisions are based on play is just wrong.

And it's insulting that you think this is some draft pedigree thing, which is a terrible reason to like a player. I didn't like Erixon at all after the Calgary snafu, and I didn't think much of him until I watched him play in 2013. At times he was brilliant, and he has exactly the kind of brains we want running our game from the backend.
 

CBJWerenski8

Rest in Peace Johnny
Jun 13, 2009
43,696
26,743
You still don't get it. The argument some of us are making is that Erixon lost his spot for reasons other than his play, and those reasons could be the coach, handedness, waivers, etc.... When you tell us that he must have played poorly, which you know because he lost his spot, you look utterly clueless. See my post above, it applies to you too.

A more sensible thing to argue is something like "though sometimes players will not be in the lineup for a variety of reasons, in this case its probably play". That's fine. But asserting that all lineup decisions are based on play is just wrong.

And it's insulting that you think this is some draft pedigree thing, which is a terrible reason to like a player. I didn't like Erixon at all after the Calgary snafu, and I didn't think much of him until I watched him play in 2013. At times he was brilliant, and he has exactly the kind of brains we want running our game from the backend.

Once again. He lost his job to Savard, whether that was because of play, handiness, or AHL eligibility, he did. I'm sure if Erixon proved himself a roster spot in training camp he would have, regardless of any of the reasons above. He evidently didn't, and when he did get his chance in call-ups, he never stood out.

The only thing I said about draft pedigree was the interest given in Erixon. So if that's 'insulting' for you, then well, so be it.
 

pete goegan

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jun 6, 2006
13,020
350
Washington, DC
Insulting? Clueless? Oh, yes, it's the offseason and the mistreatment of Tim Erixon is the burning topic of the week! It is certainly possible that Tim somehow alienated his coach or GM, the guys who determined where and how much he played, but it is equally (or more?) likely that other factors (handedness, contract status, practice performance, etc.) were more important in the decisions.

I thought the endless rehashing of the Prospal and Gaborik moves were tiresome, but they, at least, were important pieces in the on-ice performance. This is mudslinging at other posters because of disagreements over the handling of a still-very-young 6/7/8 defenseman! OK, then.

These next few months are going to be hell around here!
 

Tulipunaruusu*

Registered User
Apr 27, 2014
2,193
2
I thought the endless rehashing of the Prospal and Gaborik moves were tiresome, but they, at least, were important pieces in the on-ice performance. This is mudslinging at other posters because of disagreements over the handling of a still-very-young 6/7/8 defenseman! OK, then.

Prospal and Gaborik were less likely to positively influence Columbus future than those young 6th-8th defencemen that could possibly be in the NHL line-up for years to come... Hopefully for Erixon it was the right medicine to play big role in AHL.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad