Note: This article was written prior to the Sami Salo injury being reported on 07/23. While Salo going on LTIR might buy Mike Gillis more time to make a trade, it doesn't change the fact that the Canucks currently are overloaded with D and need to dump salary. Unless of course Salo just retires rather than face 4-6 months of rehab, in which case they don't need to make a trade.

If you follow the Canucks, or if your team needs a top 4 defenceman, you’ve probably heard that Kevin Bieksa is on the trading block. 

The Canucks need to clear some cap space, and with the acquisitions of Ballard and Hamhuis, they are stacked at D. There are currently 9 NHL caliber D under contract, plus a few prospects (i.e. Oberg) who could do spot duty as the 7th or 8th D.

Dan Hamhuis ($4,500,000) *

Keith Ballard ($4,200,000) *

Kevin Bieksa ($3,750,000) 

Sami Salo ($3,500,000) *

Alex Edler ($3,250,000)

Christian Erhoff ($3,100,000)

Shane O’Brien ($1,600,000)

Andrew Alberts ($1,050,000)

Aaron Rome ($750,000)

*Hamhuis, Ballard and Salo have No Trade Clauses (NTC).

Looking at that list, it seems easy enough to single out Bieksa as the one to be traded. He makes the most of the D without NTCs, and is a UFA after this season. 

However, I’d argue that considering all the factors, it is Erhoff who should be traded to clear cap space, not Bieksa. Both make similar money, are close in age (Bieksa is 29, Erhoff is 28) and both are UFAs at the end of this season.

Canucks GM Mike Gillis hasn’t come out and said explicitly that Bieksa is expendable. Rather he is exploring his options to better the team, and isn’t going to force a trade that doesn’t make sense. Delaying the trade makes sense because the Canucks are still waiting on the arbitration award for Mason Raymond, and aren’t sure which (if any) rookies are making the team (i.e. Cody Hodgson). 

Also, at the draft, it was reported the Gillis was shopping both Erhoff and Bieksa, so he isn’t opposed to trading Erhoff if the situation is right.

So it is still up in the air which D is going to be traded. All we know is that someone will be gone, as no team carries 9 D on the active roster. Given their injury troubles last year, I’m willing to bet Gillis will carry 8 D on the active roster this year.

In my opinion, Gillis should be looking ahead to the playoffs, not the regular season. Edmonton will be a power in a few years, but are still rebuilding. Colorado is in the same boat, albeit a year or two ahead of the Oilers. Minnesota isn’t going to be challenging for the division this year, and the less said about the Sutter insanity in Calgary the better. 

So barring a monumental collapse, the Canucks should win the division and secure home ice for the playoffs. Therefore, they need gritty playoff warriors more than they need skilled players who have troubles elevating their game when the playoffs roll around.

During the 2009-2010 regular season, Erhoff was clearly the better player between the two. Bieksa suffered a skate cut that severed muscles in his leg, and so was limited to 52 games. For comparison, I’ve also included Bieksa’s numbers extrapolated as if he played a full season.

No question, Erhoff brought more offensive production. Even if he had played the full 82 games, Bieksa only was on pace for 33 points. Erhoff also was markedly better on plus/minus.

But looking at the other stats, the comparison isn’t as clear. 

Bieksa out hit Erhoff even with his injury shortened season, and extrapolated over 82 games, he was on pace to almost double Erhoff in hits.

Give aways and take aways are also in Bieksa’s favor, whether you look at his actual stats over 52 games, or extrapolate it out over 82.

I found the penalties stats to be enlightening. Bieksa has a reputation (perhaps unjustly, but I’ll discuss that later) for making dumb plays and then taking bad penalties.

But when you look purely at the minor penalties, Erhoff actually put the Canucks shorthanded more than Bieksa did. The bulk of Bieksa’s PIM came from fighting majors and misconducts, since he isn’t afraid to drop the gloves if necessary.

Looking at the 2009-2010 Playoff stats, and the comparison is even more in Bieksa’s favor. For those who don’t follow the Canucks, they played against LA in the first round (won in 6), and Chicago in the second round (lost in 6).

Here, you can see the true worth of Bieksa for the Canucks, assuming Mike Gillis is looking ahead to the playoffs.

When the games got more physical and intense, Bieksa simply responded better than Erhoff.

Bieksa led the Canucks defense in points, a category he came in fourth during the regular season. Erhoff tied Bieksa in goals (3) and came in just a single point behind him.

But there is no question that for offensive production, Bieksa upped his play more than Erhoff when every shift mattered.

The other stats tell a similar story. Bieksa outhit Erhoff, blocked more shots, had a better plus/minus rating and had less give aways.

Now, as I mentioned above, Bieksa has a bit of a reputation in Vancouver for making boneheaded plays. His detractors will point to highlights of Chicago players over the last 2 years scoring playoff goals when he is out of position.

So what? 

Show me a skater, forward or defense, on Calgary, Vancouver (2009), Detroit, Nashville, Vancouver (2010), San Jose or Philadelphia that wasn’t made to look like a fool when playing against the Blackhawks over the last 2 playoffs. 

Who didn’t fall for a deke by Kane, get out hustled by Toews, or be just plain out muscled by Byfuglien, and then end up on the wrong side of a highlight reel goal? 

The Hawks were great, that doesn’t mean that their opponents were necessarily bad. And Bieksa was far from the worst of the Canucks defense during those two series.

If the Canucks trade Erhoff and keep Bieksa, they’ll probably suffer a bit of a drop in regular season offense. But seeing as they scored the 2nd most goals in the NHL last season, and their top 6 forwards are all returning, this shouldn’t hurt their chances at a division title. And if Bieksa can return to the numbers he posted prior to suffering the skate cut injuries, he should be good for 40+ points.

Trading Erhoff would free up 3.2 mil in cap space, trading Bieksa frees up 3.75 mil. That half a million difference could be made up in a variety of ways, but probably through something as simple as ditching Alberts  for a cheaper 8th D or getting rid of Hordichuk (700k) for a cheaper 4th liner.

There should be a market for Erhoff to go cheaply as a salary dump, especially once the Kaberle situation is resolved in Toronto. Most teams that lose out on Kaberle probably wouldn’t mind adding a smooth skating offensive defenseman who can put up 44 points. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that Gillis acquired Erhoff last summer basically for free. He traded San Jose a pair of busted prospects for Erhoff and Lukowich when the Sharks needed to clear cap space for Heatley. 

Even if all Gillis gets back is a 3rd rounder, it’d still be an upgrade over Rahimi and White, two prospects who would be hard pressed to make an AHL team, let alone an NHL team.

It might be unconventional to trade for a player, then trade him away less than a year later, but you could consider it the equivalent of real estate investing. 

Buy a property (Erhoff) when the market is down (Sharks in cap trouble), keep it for a year, and then flip it for a profit after doing some renovations (career best stats in 2009-2010) when the market is right (Canucks in cap trouble). 

And Gillis hasn’t shied away from unconventional moves in his tenure as GM.

We probably won’t see a trade until closer to September, but playoff time, I know which player I’d rather have on the ice.