Mikey2Dope Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 ...and so it becomes Sulzer and Hodgson for Kassian. What a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 NHL12's default roster has Joslin on the Canes' 2nd unit PP. Guess that is exactly where Gragnani will be for 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Gragnani will likely be in the AHL for the bulk of the upcoming season, actually. He was signed to a 2-way deal for a reason. Same reason that Joslin was bought out. They don't want to pay an NHL salary for an AHL player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Doctor Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Was like having Raymond on D, the way he circled the offensive zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Hodgson has nothing to do with Gragnani. They were two seperate deals (Hodgson for Kassian straight up and Sulzer for Gragnani straight up). So it becomes that we traded Sulzer for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 What did Gillis say about the guy in the presser after the Hodgson deal? It was something like 'big talented offensive defensemen don't come along every day'... and we don't even bother to qualify him? I don't know, this is a real head-scratcher to me. Seems like MAG deserved a shot at making the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Doctor Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Obviously Sulzer was an NHL caliber player but he would not have been with us this year anyways. Gillis rollled the dice and lost but either way we lost nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sulzer was never going to beat out Humhuis, Bieksa, Edler, Ballard, Salo Rome, Alberts, last year, for a full time spot and this year he would not have beaten out Hamhuis, Bieksa Ballard, Edler, Garrison, Tanev or Alberts Proclaiming a 'fail' for no longer having an 8th defenseman on the depth chart is a bit ludicris...this way Sulzer gets a shot with a team that may be able to use him, we got to test drive Grags...and he wasn't going to beat these guys out either...so it is more win win than lose lose. But don't let me interupt your hate on for the Hodgson trade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Like it matters, AV never used Sulzer anyway. What a fricking surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Like it matters, AV never used Sulzer anyway. What a fricking surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 It was never explained why he wasn't qualified despite Gillis reporting that he had been qualified a week before free agency during an interview on the Team 1040. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoosh Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscience Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Should have asked for a first round pick instead. Especialy if we were not even going to give him a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Should have asked for a first round pick instead. Especialy if we were not even going to give him a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 It was never explained why he wasn't qualified despite Gillis reporting that he had been qualified a week before free agency during an interview on the Team 1040. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 It was never explained why he wasn't qualified despite Gillis reporting that he had been qualified a week before free agency during an interview on the Team 1040. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 As tight lipped as the Gillis crew are, you'd imagine that something would slip out if there were such an error. Probably because they figured they'd land Schultz and Garrison and didn't want to have that many D on the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Gragnani may not have been willing to accept his qualifying offer - chances are he wanted more than the $575 he would have made as a Canuck. Regardless, the signing of Garrison pretty much muscles Gragnani out - and in case no one noticed, no one signed Gragnani for 11 days, so the urgency was obviously not there. Gragnani makes no sense as a third pairing defenseman - so he doesn't really fit in the scheme anymore. For folks getting dramatic about the loss of Sulzer - he was signed as a UFA and played 12 games in Vancouver. He cost no assets and therefore moving him for Gragnani cost no assets. Quit indirectly whining about the Hodgson deal, whiny whiners. Best of luck to Grags - if he settles in, there is lots of potential there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dion Phaneuf Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Grags will be successful on Carolina , we can't keep up with his pace. Joslin for Gragnani is a dumbassed swap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Man I miss Aaron. Gragnani was the Juliet to his Romeo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.