Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

What Was The Canucks Worst Trade Ever


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
119 replies to this topic

#91 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,442 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:03 AM

All the Hodgson haters have another fifteen years of this to come.
It's all positive for me but not so good for Gillis lovers and the Hodgson hate machinery.


The only thing constant in every thread you post in is your absolute hatred of Gillis. The positive for me is to watch you butt hurt Hodgson fanbois cry like a litte girl. Kassian wont become Neely but if you think Hodgson is going to be an elite player in this league you are sadly mistaken.

#92 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:24 AM

The only thing constant in every thread you post in is your absolute hatred of Gillis. The positive for me is to watch you butt hurt Hodgson fanbois cry like a litte girl. Kassian wont become Neely but if you think Hodgson is going to be an elite player in this league you are sadly mistaken.

yeah hodgson will become a 60-70point guy at best while kassian will hit the 55 point mark and 200 hit mark at best
AUmxe4h.gif
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!

Go Canucks Go!

#93 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,526 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 14 May 2012 - 10:51 AM

Hmmm... here are some that people haven't mentioned yet:

1. Traded Pavel Bure + others to the Florida Panthers for Ed Jovanovski + others
2. Adrian Aucoin and a 2nd round pick to the Tampa Bay Lightning for Dan Cloutier.
3. R.J. Umberger and Martin Grenier to the New York Rangers for Martin Rucinsky.

The RJ Umberger trade was a fantastic trade for the Canucks, well had the potential anyways...

Umberger wasn't going to sign with the Canucks either way and they were able to package him with a minor league enforcer to get Martin Rucinsky, who was one of the most sough after rentals. Since Umberger wasn't going to sign with the Canucks, the Canucks were going to get a compensatory second round pick in the upcoming draft.

So it was going to be RJ Umberger and Martin Grenier for Martin Rucinsky and a second round pick.

Unfortunately, the Canucks didn't get the pick because the Rangers couldn't sign him.

But to rank it was one of the worst trades, I don't think it even comes close.

Posted Image


#94 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,820 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:02 PM

All you people thinking the Hodgson trade is the worst in Canucks history should become Leafs fans - your negative expectations would be better satisfied.


All the Hodgson haters have another fifteen years of this to come.
It's all positive for me but not so good for Gillis lovers and the Hodgson hate machinery.



the question here is what was the worst trade in Canucks history? - the fact people are prejudging the Hodgson/Kassian trade and already assuming that is the worst move ever is nothing but negative expectations, plain and simple - based upon a few weeks - rather ridiculous to put this in the category of worst trades when the yeast hasn't even risen yet - you turning that into "Hodgson hate machinery" is extremely over-stated to say the least - my comment has nothing at all to do with hating Hodgson.

p.s. you forgot to add to your comment that Gillis is an evil lawyer.

#95 BurnabyJoe

BurnabyJoe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 06

Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:06 PM

Pavel Bure and Cody Hodgson wanted out.

Of course those trades will be lopsided.
http://i8.photobucke...e/canucks40.jpg <- Jim Robson's 40th Anniversary Team.

#96 Wilbur

Wilbur

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:53 PM

Hmmm... here are some that people haven't mentioned yet:

1. Traded Pavel Bure + others to the Florida Panthers for Ed Jovanovski + others
2. Adrian Aucoin and a 2nd round pick to the Tampa Bay Lightning for Dan Cloutier.
3. R.J. Umberger and Martin Grenier to the New York Rangers for Martin Rucinsky.


Really? Those 3?

1. Bure wanted out. Rarely does a GM get full value for a player that holds out demanding a trade.

2. Granted Cloutier wasn't the goalie the Canucks needed in the playoffs, he provided a number of quality years in net and ended, for at least a little while, the goaltending carousel in net. Definitely worth a defenceman of Aucoin's caliber and a 2nd pick.

3. See #1. Umberger wasn't signing with the Canucks and they were a couple of months away from losing him for nothing. So they got something for him while they could. How'd that trade work out for the Rangers, btw?

Personally, I've never like the Brown for Kucera trade. Circumstances meant they had to trade them, but I'm pretty sure nobody in the league was really aware of it. Kucera barely provided anything for the Canucks considering the asset they gave up. I think that trade sped up the decline of that '94 cup team.

#97 gradin123

gradin123

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 03

Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:15 PM

The worst pure trade was clearly Neely up to this point.

However, more recently I think the worst decision(which was only part trade) was the decision to go with Ballard over Willie Mitchell.

Willie Mitchell has not made it a secret he wanted to stay here but when the Canucks signed Hamhuis and traded for Ballard he knew he was out.

So as a result the Canucks decided to give up:

Willie Mitchell
Michael Grabner
1st Round Pick(Howden)
and 700,000 in cap space

for
Keith Ballard

That is pretty bad!

If the Canucks had Willie Mitchell instead of Ballard last year they likely would have won the cup.

Edited by gradin123, 14 May 2012 - 06:35 PM.


#98 Honky Cat

Honky Cat

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,632 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 10

Posted 14 May 2012 - 11:25 PM

The worst pure trade was clearly Neely up to this point.

However, more recently I think the worst decision(which was only part trade) was the decision to go with Ballard over Willie Mitchell.

Willie Mitchell has not made it a secret he wanted to stay here but when the Canucks signed Hamhuis and traded for Ballard he knew he was out.

So as a result the Canucks decided to give up:

Willie Mitchell
Michael Grabner
1st Round Pick(Howden)
and 700,000 in cap space

for
Keith Ballard

That is pretty bad!

If the Canucks had Willie Mitchell instead of Ballard last year they likely would have won the cup.


If I recall,Willie had a a very brutal concussion,and there was serious doubt he would ever play again.At the time,we badly needed insurance on defence (we were ravaged by injuries in the 2010 playoffs)...Hence, Gillis traded for Ballard.

Grabner was basically cut by the Panthers after preseason in 2010..... (that alone makes it not one of the worst trades in Canuck history)

#99 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,312 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 15 May 2012 - 12:15 AM

If the Canucks had Willie Mitchell instead of Ballard last year they likely would have won the cup.


The reason they lost is they scored 8 goals in 7 games. I fail to see how Willie could have helped unless you can see him scoring 2 goals a game.

#100 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:20 AM

The reason they lost is they scored 8 goals in 7 games. I fail to see how Willie could have helped unless you can see him scoring 2 goals a game.

Lol
AUmxe4h.gif
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!

Go Canucks Go!

#101 Kumquats

Kumquats

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,437 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 08

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:33 AM

Although the worst have been covered,i wish the Canucks had sent a package that didn't include Mike Peca and the pick that became McKee.Mckee was a solid hitter and Peca could've centered Mogilny.


I was really pissed about this one. Peca was my favorite young Canuck.. Pat Quinn said he would never trade a young center because of this trade.

The first season after this trade, the Sabers didn't make the playoffs, we did but got eliminated in the first round. We went on to not make the playoffs for 4 years. Buffalo made the playoffs and nearly won the Cup in 99.
Posted Image

#102 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:56 AM

However, more recently I think the worst decision(which was only part trade) was the decision to go with Ballard over Willie Mitchell.

Willie Mitchell has not made it a secret he wanted to stay here but when the Canucks signed Hamhuis and traded for Ballard he knew he was out.

So as a result the Canucks decided to give up:

Willie Mitchell
Michael Grabner
1st Round Pick(Howden)
and 700,000 in cap space

for
Keith Ballard

That is pretty bad!

If the Canucks had Willie Mitchell instead of Ballard last year they likely would have won the cup.


If I recall correctly, the Canucks did offer Mitchell a contract. Mitchell chose to go to LA for a bigger amount of money, and I do not begrudge him his choice.

One of the factors in why the Canucks did not offer Mitchell a bigger deal was due to his concussion, and the liklihood that the team might not be able to get insurance on this contract should Mitchell once again be concussed. Gillis was willing to risk a couple of million on Mitchell, but not the higher amount for which he did sign in LA.

Fun Fact: LA signed Mitchell for the same amount of his previous contract with the Canucks, but only for two years, so they are not that willing to gamble on Mitchell's condition either.

As to the Ballard deal, I'm okay with Giliis trading away Grabner, who is not that reliable at either end of the ice, and Bernier, who has continued to under-perform for what was expected of him (now with NJD). I do regret that Gillis had to give up a 1st rounder, but that being said, until Howden actually does something at the NHL level ...

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#103 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 814 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 09

Posted 15 May 2012 - 01:58 PM

If I recall correctly, the Canucks did offer Mitchell a contract. Mitchell chose to go to LA for a bigger amount of money, and I do not begrudge him his choice.

One of the factors in why the Canucks did not offer Mitchell a bigger deal was due to his concussion, and the liklihood that the team might not be able to get insurance on this contract should Mitchell once again be concussed. Gillis was willing to risk a couple of million on Mitchell, but not the higher amount for which he did sign in LA.

Fun Fact: LA signed Mitchell for the same amount of his previous contract with the Canucks, but only for two years, so they are not that willing to gamble on Mitchell's condition either.

As to the Ballard deal, I'm okay with Giliis trading away Grabner, who is not that reliable at either end of the ice, and Bernier, who has continued to under-perform for what was expected of him (now with NJD). I do regret that Gillis had to give up a 1st rounder, but that being said, until Howden actually does something at the NHL level ...

regards,
G.


So we could have gotten Mitchell for two years, $7 million? Instead we got Ballard for a very loooong time at $4.2. Huge mistake, very poor judgement. Grabner was either first or second in even strength goals last year. We only scored a handful of goals all series, having a great scorer like that could have helped. Put those two mistakes together, throw in the first round pick and you have one of the poorest decisions in Canucks history. Probably not in same category as Neely, but clearly has to be mentioned.
It was my understanding Mitchell was doubtful to start the year but I don't remember anybody saying it was a career ender. Gillis was worried about the start of the year. We were in a weak division and were clearly going to win it, he should have been focused on the team going into the playoffs. Just terrible foresight and judgement.

#104 verybcman

verybcman

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 07

Posted 15 May 2012 - 03:44 PM

Basically all trades were bad up to this point. Simply because none was able to produce a Stanley Cup.

#105 DreamHerO

DreamHerO

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 10

Posted 15 May 2012 - 08:52 PM

I was really pissed about this one. Peca was my favorite young Canuck.. Pat Quinn said he would never trade a young center because of this trade.

The first season after this trade, the Sabers didn't make the playoffs, we did but got eliminated in the first round. We went on to not make the playoffs for 4 years. Buffalo made the playoffs and nearly won the Cup in 99.

MOTHER OF GOD, Change Pat Quinn to Mike Gillis, and Peca for Hodgson. JESUS
Posted Image

#106 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:23 PM

So we could have gotten Mitchell for two years, $7 million? Instead we got Ballard for a very loooong time at $4.2. Huge mistake, very poor judgement. Grabner was either first or second in even strength goals last year. We only scored a handful of goals all series, having a great scorer like that could have helped. Put those two mistakes together, throw in the first round pick and you have one of the poorest decisions in Canucks history. Probably not in same category as Neely, but clearly has to be mentioned.
It was my understanding Mitchell was doubtful to start the year but I don't remember anybody saying it was a career ender. Gillis was worried about the start of the year. We were in a weak division and were clearly going to win it, he should have been focused on the team going into the playoffs. Just terrible foresight and judgement.


1.) Never suggested that Mitchell's injury was career ending. What I did suggest was that there may have been difficulties in the Canucks acquiring insurance for his contract because of his past concussion issues. If Mitchell were signed and he did get another concussion, then the team was stuck eating his contract, which would have made team ownership rather annoyed.

LA was even more in need of quality d-men than Vancouver and so they were willing to risk signing Mitchell. Good for them for taking a big risk, and good for him. If anything, the Canucks might be faulted for not having the same insurance carriers as the Kings, and/or maybe team ownership might be faulted for not wanting to risk $7 million on Mitchell not taking another head shot.

Too bad for you that Gillis did show excellent business judgement by not signing Mitchell. Had Mitchell been re-signed and then concussed, Gillis might not have been given a contract extension. :)

2.) "Last year Grabner..."

This year Grabner dropped his goal production by 14, and dropped from +13 to -18.

Might Grabner have scored some goals? Maybe. I suspect that his poor defensive play would have resulted in even more LA goals scored. Grabner is also a very soft player. I doubt that he would have stood up against the physical play of the Kings.


Have things worked out in the Ballard trade? Nope, but I am optimistic that things are getting better. Is this trade even in the running for an honorable mention as one of the worst Canuck trades? Not even close.

As has been mentioned so many times before, Gillis assessed that Grabner likely wasn't going to make the team, and rather lose him for nothing, he was traded. This assessment was shown to be correct when Grabner's efforts (or lack thereof) got him waived to the minors by Florida and picked up by the Islanders. Bernier wasn't what Gillis hoped he could be, but his contract was low risk which made him easy to to move (more excellent business sense on the part of Gillis).

I do regret the losing the 1st, but when you get right down to it, that was the only asset of substance Gillis gave up.

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#107 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:46 PM

MOTHER OF GOD, Change Pat Quinn to Mike Gillis, and Peca for Hodgson. JESUS


Not even close. I see this as being a very weak comparison. Hodgson is no where near Peca in ability. Let Hodgson win a Selke once, let alone twice as Peca did and then you might be able to start making comparisons... heck, even if Hodgson were to get a nomination for the Selke I'd give him some more credit.

This being said, I wasn't that much in favour of this deal at that time as Peca was becoming a favorite player of mine. On the other hand, this deal did lead to the Canucks acquiring Morrison from the NJD a few years later. So, if we were to continue with your line of thought, then Kassian is Mogilny. He will have a number of productive years, and then he will be traded for a younger player who will become the number one center for the Canucks.

Cool, it's all going according to plan. :)

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#108 Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 05

Posted 15 May 2012 - 11:38 PM

Hodgson to Buffalo for two, count 'em, two pylons!!!!!!!!! Ha!!! Gillis should have his head read!!!!...


I suppose it is pointless to suggest that you have a little patience. Players traded at the deadline often have issues settling in to a new team and city. Once they are given their homework for the summer and have time to prepare for camp, they just as often show the kind of promise that the GM saw in them before he made the trade. Kassian has all the right tools to succeed and he'll be given the opportunity to make the club out of camp. Same with Gragnani, who has really a nice offensive skill set. If he learns to play well in his own end, he has a shot at making the team as a depth defenceman. The problem with so many pople on these boards is that they want immediate payoff from a trade. Well, it almost never works that way. Consider Markus Naslund.

Markus Naslund, at the age of 22, came from Pittsburgh at the deadline and scored 3 goals in 10 games for the rest of the season. Over the next two seasons he didn't score more than 41 points a season. In his third full year he led the team with 66 points and it wasn't until his 5th full season that he finally cracked the 40 goal barrier, at the age of 27. If CDC had existed when Naslund first arrived, the same people who now criticize Kassian and Gragnani would have lamented the loss of Alex Stojanov who, by the way, accomplished diddly squat after leaving Vancouver.

Patience, grasshopper, patience.

#109 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,106 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 16 May 2012 - 11:57 AM

Anybody who thinks there is a possibility that Hodgson will become good enough to make his trade worse than the Neely one is seriously out to lunch. He may end up a decent 1st liner...but HOF-er? Not a chance...

Edited by D-Money, 16 May 2012 - 11:58 AM.

Posted Image

#110 Grand17

Grand17

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 09

Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:27 PM

hodgson- kassian

coho would be a perennial 30 goal scorer on this team and kassian probably wont even be in the nhl in 3 years

#111 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,106 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:59 PM

/\
See? Out to lunch!

Despite his injuries Neely was a 3-time 50 goal scorer. One year he scored 50 in only 49 games. And the other piece the Bruins got with him wasn't all that bad either.
Posted Image

#112 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:07 PM

hodgson- kassian

coho would be a perennial 30 goal scorer on this team and kassian probably wont even be in the nhl in 3 years


"Coho" will be selling cars for his dad in three years time while Kassian will be a perennial 20 - 25 goal man.

I prefer my pipe dream to yours, particularly since Kassian plays for the Canucks while that other guy plays for someone else.

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#113 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 814 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 09

Posted 16 May 2012 - 05:55 PM

1.) Never suggested that Mitchell's injury was career ending. What I did suggest was that there may have been difficulties in the Canucks acquiring insurance for his contract because of his past concussion issues. If Mitchell were signed and he did get another concussion, then the team was stuck eating his contract, which would have made team ownership rather annoyed.

LA was even more in need of quality d-men than Vancouver and so they were willing to risk signing Mitchell. Good for them for taking a big risk, and good for him. If anything, the Canucks might be faulted for not having the same insurance carriers as the Kings, and/or maybe team ownership might be faulted for not wanting to risk $7 million on Mitchell not taking another head shot.

Too bad for you that Gillis did show excellent business judgement by not signing Mitchell. Had Mitchell been re-signed and then concussed, Gillis might not have been given a contract extension. :)

2.) "Last year Grabner..."

This year Grabner dropped his goal production by 14, and dropped from +13 to -18.

Might Grabner have scored some goals? Maybe. I suspect that his poor defensive play would have resulted in even more LA goals scored. Grabner is also a very soft player. I doubt that he would have stood up against the physical play of the Kings.


Have things worked out in the Ballard trade? Nope, but I am optimistic that things are getting better. Is this trade even in the running for an honorable mention as one of the worst Canuck trades? Not even close.

As has been mentioned so many times before, Gillis assessed that Grabner likely wasn't going to make the team, and rather lose him for nothing, he was traded. This assessment was shown to be correct when Grabner's efforts (or lack thereof) got him waived to the minors by Florida and picked up by the Islanders. Bernier wasn't what Gillis hoped he could be, but his contract was low risk which made him easy to to move (more excellent business sense on the part of Gillis).

I do regret the losing the 1st, but when you get right down to it, that was the only asset of substance Gillis gave up.

regards,
G.


But we couldn't score against Boston and we traded the 2nd best goal scorer in the league in even strength situations. He was the best in the league in non power play situations (even + short handed). There was nobody in the entire league that had more goals than him. We needed secondary scoring. And that couldn't have helped? There was literally nobody better at scoring goals. That's not an asset? I think you are getting a little emotional. I understand you don't want this to be true, but while Chara was shutting down the twins, we needed secondary scoring.
I did enjoy how you said that LA's D was too tough. Ummmm, the reason they were so good? Yeah, Mitchell might have something to do with it. You can go on and on about reasons bad trades were made, but at the end of teh day we need a gm that gets them right, we don't. But we do have excuses. Boy do we have excuses.

#114 cdubuya

cdubuya

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,381 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 16 May 2012 - 07:14 PM

Trevor linden for a first round pick
Posted Image

#115 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,820 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 May 2012 - 08:21 PM

Barry Pederson - 185 lbs. shoots right, center.
Cody Hodgson - 185 lbs, shoots right, center.

Cam Neely - 218 lbs, shoots right, right wing.
Zack Kassian - 214 lbs. shoots right, right wing.

#116 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 16 May 2012 - 09:26 PM

But we couldn't score against Boston and we traded the 2nd best goal scorer in the league in even strength situations. He was the best in the league in non power play situations (even + short handed). There was nobody in the entire league that had more goals than him. We needed secondary scoring. And that couldn't have helped? There was literally nobody better at scoring goals. That's not an asset? I think you are getting a little emotional. I understand you don't want this to be true, but while Chara was shutting down the twins, we needed secondary scoring.
I did enjoy how you said that LA's D was too tough. Ummmm, the reason they were so good? Yeah, Mitchell might have something to do with it. You can go on and on about reasons bad trades were made, but at the end of teh day we need a gm that gets them right, we don't. But we do have excuses. Boy do we have excuses.


1.) Folks who are critical of Grabner more often than not do acknowledge his strengths. He is a fast skater. He has all sorts of offensive upside and he would likely have helped the Canucks by scoring some goals. I do not see any debate on these points (at least, not from me).

Where we differ is that his critics also see Grabner's downside and are not willing to overlook it because of his scoring potential. Grabner can be selfish, "selfish" defined as him not being willing to remain in shape over the off season. Selfish is also defined as him not being reliable with regard to his defensive play (-18 this year. Only thirteen forwards had a poorer +/- than Grabner. This being said, two of those guys are Rick Nash and Eric Staal).

For every goal that someone asserts Grabner might have scored, I suggest that he would have been responsible for at least that many scored against the Canucks, if not more.

When Grabner's downside is commented upon, the repsonse seems to invariably be a reference to his scoring ability (something which his critics have already accepted as a given), or excuses related to why this blemish is not the fault of Grabner but rather someone else like his linemates or a coach. There is little to no acceptance that Grabner has flaws as a hockey player. These flaws are what got him chased from Vancouver and Florida.

2.) Emotional? Me? About Grabner? Not sure how you derived that from anything I've ever written but, okay. If you say so.

While Chara was shutting down the Sedins, what were the rest of the Bruins doing? Was Chara the only guy who checked on their team? I suggest that their entire team was mostly healthy and had bought into a system which allowed them to shut down the Canucks. Grabner was going to have made that much of a difference? I think not.

3.) I suppose we will continue to disagree about what made this trade bad. I like Ballard, and I believe he will play well for the rest of his time here. I see parting with the first round pick as the worst aspect of the trade. Losing Grabner, I still do not see as being any great loss.

4.) Regarding Mitchell, once again there seems to be selective hearing on your part. I've never disputed Mitchell's ability. What I was noting is that the Canucks had reservations about Mitchell's health and whether they could insure his contract. The team made a business decision and did offer Mitchell a contract. Mitchell made a business decision and refused the Canucks offer in favour of a deal with LA, who were in even greater need of a d-man than the Canucks and were willing to risk a larger sum for Mitchell. Good for both parties, however, there is also a pretty real threat that another head shot like his previous injury could have a major impact on Mitchell's life. Enjoy.


regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#117 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,106 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:59 AM

Barry Pederson - 185 lbs. shoots right, center.
Cody Hodgson   - 185 lbs, shoots right, center.

Cam Neely     - 218 lbs, shoots right, right wing.
Zack Kassian - 214 lbs. shoots right, right wing.


+1

I've known that Kassian was at least similar in form to Neely, but I didn't know that Hodgson was such a Pederson clone.
Posted Image

#118 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,106 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:05 AM

MOTHER OF GOD, Change Pat Quinn to Mike Gillis, and Peca for Hodgson. JESUS


Peca > Hodgson


Me, when I saw Peca destroy Teemu Selanne:

Posted Image
Posted Image

#119 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,106 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:25 AM

This being said, I wasn't that much in favour of this deal at that time as Peca was becoming a favorite player of mine...


Posted Image
Posted Image

#120 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 May 2012 - 12:28 PM

Posted Image


Posted Image

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.