Skip to content

Ericsson on lockout workouts: Am I doing this for a reason?

Dec 22, 2012, 6:50 PM EDT

San Jose Sharks v Detroit Red Wings - Game Three Getty Images

Jonathan Ericsson was supposed to earn $3.25 million this season while playing on a Detroit Red Wings’ blueline that had something to prove following the retirement of Nicklas Lidstrom. Instead, he’s spending his days participating in player workouts so that he’ll be as close to ready as possible if the season is saved.

Unfortunately, the NHL-NHLPA negotiations have been basically dead lately despite the fact that we’re rapidly approaching the mid-January deadline to save the season. Faced with that grim reality, staying upbeat can’t be easy.

“I’m really bored. It gets old. You don’t even know why you’re on the ice, why you’re waking up,” Ericsson said, according to Bob Duff.

“Am I doing this for a reason? The motivation goes up and down.”

Ericsson also tried to stay sharp with stints in Sweden earlier in the season. However, only ended up playing in three games with Vita Hasten of Sweden’s third-tier league and another four games Sodertalje of Sweden’s second-division. He left for tax reasons, but he was getting plenty of ice time while he was there.

  1. id4joey - Dec 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM

    He should ask himself what is the reason for not signing yet?

  2. sampulls - Dec 22, 2012 at 8:08 PM

    Another stupid comment from another stupid player.

  3. manchestermiracle - Dec 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM

    It would seem that, should the NHL ever take the ice again, we’ll have a bunch of fans cheering for the guy in the owner’s box. From some of the comments on here I find it hard to believe that some of these people understand who it is they’re supposed to be rooting for. When’s the last time an owner scored a goal, 1917?

    This reminds me of the audience who cheered to let the sick guy die because he couldn’t afford health insurance. The owners are trying to bend the players over and give them the shaft and some of the yokels on here are cheering the owners on. I understand you miss your hockey, but why would you want to see the guys who provide that entertainment get hosed?

    • broadstreetbeatdown - Dec 22, 2012 at 11:46 PM

      Hosed LOL thats a good one. The worst NHL player makes over half a million a year and has every expense paid for. If thats getting hosed where can I find a fire hydrant?

    • frank433 - Dec 23, 2012 at 12:44 AM

      Yes, lets give the players everything that they want so the teams can lose more money and the sport is back in this same situation in another 6 years.

      • manchestermiracle - Dec 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM

        Right, frank, because it’s obviously the players’ fault the owners can’t run their businesses in the black. A player can’t sign a fat contract without an owner offering it. Duh.

  4. ducksk - Dec 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM

    Hosed? Really? Seriously? If you own a franchise and you want to loose money on a >300illion investment then you have more money than I. They should loose money so we can all enjoy at their expense? Why don’t you go buy one and see how that works.

    • manchestermiracle - Dec 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM

      Seriously? Yes, quite. I have no sympathy for owners who have put themselves in this position repeatedly. You act as if the alcoholic who keeps crashing his car should be allowed to blame alcohol, the car, the road, anything but himself. The owners’ idea of a way to stop themselves from offering unsustainable player contracts is to just shut the game down. How anyone can keep blaming the players for signing contracts the owners are putting on the table is beyond me.

      And the word is “lose.” I’m not sure what “loose money” is, but apparently it isn’t “tight.”

      • woodstakes - Dec 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

        You’re right manchestermiracle! They want teams to function as they do in MLB but stay fairly evenly competitive with a salary cap like the NFL, but don’t want to do what the other leagues do when they decided to institute a salary cap. Which is a real revenue sharing program! According to the Forbes article if you add up ALL of the operating losses accrued they equal: $129.5M in losses combined by ALL the leagues teams that showed operating income losses. Meanwhile the top 12 teams in the league showed operating profits of: $349.3M. Now what do you think would happen in the NFL or NBA?? My guess is they would find a way to do a revenue share that based on percentages of revenue.

        I hear people say “How is it fair for 3 teams to prop everyone else?” Well, first of all these Team OWNERS along with Bettman decided to put these teams where they are. Next, after deciding to put them where they are and watching them fail for well over a decade now… they decide to keep them there. Not only do they decide to keep them there… they even purchased one of them just to insure they stayed there.

        So since the players didn’t walk in and say “Move a franchise here and expand here…” how is it fair for the players to “prop up everyone else?” to cover their collective bad business decisions?

        If it was just limited to the expansions/relocations I’d almost be ok with it since they tried to grow and failed. Yet every year I see THEM drive the player salaries up and up and up to try to build a team to win the cup and then once the CBA expires they want to hit a reset button and go back to the mid ’90′s salaries. Yes I said THEM because the players only sign what the ownership is offering to pay them. Nothing more! If a player wants a certain number and no owner will pay it… guess what they get? They get less than they want or they stop playing here.

        They’ve repeatedly shown that they will find any and every way to circumvent the CBA in order to beat the cap hit. Now if the players just fold you will see this every single time the CBA expires, why?? Because what will be enough? Just breaking even? $10 M profits+?? $20 M+?? There’s always going to be the need for more.

        IF the players don’t stand now and stop this idea that they can circumvent every CBA spend beyond their means without instituting a meaningful way of standing up failing teams then we will see this type of lockout again and again and again. Because the owners will keep trying to hit the reset button.

        Another reason to have a meaningful revenue share is how long do you think the top 3-6 teams are going to want to share their profits with teams in failing locations? IF you say not for very long you’re probably right. They will put pressure on the rest of the owners to move these teams to places where they are more likely to succeed. They will push for the GAME to GROW which is what is NOT happening here. If anything these repeated work stoppages are killing the game. The game has been growing at 7%! In this economic setting 7%!! That’s crazy good. Yet they are willing to let all that momentum go by the wayside. Salaries aren’t the problem… the locals of a select few teams are the issue.

  5. fortwaynekomets - Dec 22, 2012 at 11:18 PM

    loose as a goose!

  6. polegojim - Dec 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM

    Not surprised Ericsson’s having a tough time rationalizing continued conditioning. His work ethic has NEVER been impressive… even during a FULL season.

    He’s big man who plays very small in the D zone.

    Go ahead and put the OTHER skate in your mouth too Jon.

    In spite of him… GO RED WINGS!

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (2072)
  2. P. Kessel (1283)
  3. M. Richards (1248)
  4. N. Backstrom (1147)
  5. M. Giordano (1008)