When Can We Be Sure Enough to Call an NHL Player Lazy?

There was one line in a reader's comment about Elias Pettersson that caught my attention: “You Can't Fix Lazy.” It's a good line. It's also a pretty big conclusion to reach about a player we don't actually know very well.

I understand where the frustration comes from. Pettersson signed an eight-year, $92.8 million contract after putting up 102 points in 80 games in 2022-23. Since then, things haven't gone nearly the way anybody expected. His production dropped, injuries became part of the story, and questions about his consistency and engagement have followed him around.

Now Ryan Johnson appears ready to give him another opportunity as the Canucks begin this rebuild. That's probably the right thing to do. Not because Pettersson is guaranteed to return to being a 100-point player. But because Vancouver needs to find out what it actually has.

Could It Be That We’re Too Quick to Call a Player Lazy?

This is where I get a little uncomfortable with the “lazy” label. A player who doesn't battle hard enough, doesn't get into the dirty areas or seems reluctant to shoot can certainly look disinterested. I’ve watched enough hockey to know that there can be a difference between a player who is struggling to compete and one who is simply going through the motions.

But I've also watched players lose confidence. I've watched players play cautiously because they're worried about making the wrong decision. I've watched injured players hesitate before going into traffic. And I've watched highly paid players become so conscious of expectations that they stop playing naturally.

Pettersson has had injuries. He's had enormous expectations. He's had contract pressure. He's also been playing in Vancouver while the organization around him has gone through a pretty remarkable amount of turmoil.

That doesn't excuse poor play. But it does make me wonder whether “lazy” is really the right diagnosis.

What If Ryan Johnson Is Actually Doing the Smart Thing?

The Canucks are rebuilding. They're not trying to squeeze one more playoff run out of this roster. That changes the equation. If Pettersson were 32 and the Canucks were trying to win the Stanley Cup this spring, maybe Johnson would have to make a much harder decision. But Pettersson is 27 and under contract for years. Why wouldn't you give him another chance?

The Canucks don't need him to prove anything in September. They need to see what he looks like when he's healthy, confident, and playing on a team with a clearer direction.

Maybe he doesn't bounce back. Maybe the reader is right, and nothing changes. But I wouldn't decide that before giving him the opportunity.

Sometimes You Don't Fix the Player. You Change the Environment.

This might be the more interesting part of the Pettersson story. The new Canucks management group isn't responsible for the contract Pettersson signed or for all the circumstances surrounding it. Ryan Johnson and the Sedins are building something different now.

Maybe Pettersson fits into that. Maybe he doesn't. But if the Canucks can get even something close to the player who scored 102 points, suddenly this rebuild looks a little different. That's worth finding out.

I don't know whether Elias Pettersson is lazy. I don't know whether he's lost confidence, whether his injuries have changed him, or whether something else is going on. What I do know is that the easiest thing in hockey is to put a label on a struggling player.

I’ve Seen Coaching Try to Force Talented Players to Opt Out of Their Strengths.

The harder thing is figuring out whether there's still a player underneath it worth saving. And at 27, I think the Canucks owe themselves—and Pettersson—the chance to find out.