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.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.