Anyone else feel bad for Gillis?

[Baggins]

i try going with short direct posts hoping to keep you slightly on a point, not working very well.

When you go off on these never ending lists of excuses you keep contradicting yourself.

"Even I could spot the potential.............he would have to be put on waivers"

"Our D was so thin we had to make the trade............we were so deep Bieksa was rumoured to be traded by everybody here"

"He had a much better year than anybody could have predicted..............he has no value"

but when i point any of these out it's just more nonsense.

anyway, i don't want to put words in your mouth. but maybe something a little direct.

if Bieksa was thought to be traded, instead of making a bad trade for Ballard, maybe, here's an idea.............DONT TRADE HIM!

Your statement that Gillis was under pressure to add a d man, before free agency as Bieksa was thought to be traded, is still my favorite. You see my point was, nobody could trade him but Gillis, so how could he think he was traded? I know better than to ask a direct question, but....................have at it. I noticed even Baggins jumped ship on you on this one, he aint touching it.

[King of the ES]

So what you're saying is Tanev has to prove himself in training camp to make the roster while two GM's made a mistake not gifting Grabner a roster spot for failing to do so. Nice double standard you have going there.

[Baggins]

The Canucks gave up on Grabner 20 games into his NHL career.

Everybody with half a hockey brain should be questioning that move-and will question that move - for the next fifty years.

It has all the makings of Neely Part 2.

Let's hope Quinton Howden does not turn into an NHL gem or it is just a laugher all around.

[Gollumpus]

Read my post. I said "training camp will dictate". I've personally never been that impressed by Tanev.

[Baggins]

"Gifting"? Part of management's role is to use foresight. Grabner showed enough promise in those 20 games over 2009-10 to warrant a spot on our 2010-11 team. There were multiple games where he was the best player on the ice. Let's not kid ourselves here. He showed up big-time. And, that aside, he showed a lot of promise in the AHL - 81 goals in 212 games on the best team in the league is nothing to sneeze at. He had paid his dues in the minors, and he generated a LOT of buzz around the NHL upon his call-up.

You're not suggesting that Tanev has had a bigger impact in his 54 NHL games, are you? 0 goals, 3 assists?

[King of the ES]

I think the kid has a lot of potential. What don't you see in him? Lack of skating ability or scoring potential? He looks like he has the size and appears that he knows how to use it.

[King of the ES]

You say on one hand Tanev needs to earn his spot in camp and on the other Grabner should be handed a roster spot regardless of his camp. That sir is a double standard.

[Baggins]

"Sir", no, I did not say that at all.

I said that Grabner performed well enough in 2009-10 to be included in the future plans of this team. It'd be pretty stupid to put on waivers a guy that got 11 points over a 20-game effective NHL tryout, and was part of a line that was generating league-wide buzz. We made a mistake by trading him, Florida also made a mistake by waiving, and NYI (first team in line, I believe) was wise enough to snap him up.

[King of the ES]

Well if 20 games is a sufficient measuring tape I can only assume Tanev has a guaranteed spot regardless of his camp then as he's already shown himself to be a reliable bottom pair d-man with considreably more than a 20 game preview. You can't have it both ways. Either camp counts for prospects or it doesn't.

[Baggins]

Here's the difference: Grabner scored goals. He had/has blazing speed. He was regularly noticeable on the ice and he was also the 14th overall pick.

Tanev is a featherweight that doesn't produce points. He's "reliable" in the sense that he may not have made any blithering errors quite yet, but, to be frank, it's not all that difficult to just sort of "blend in" on D, and make a career out of it. Just ask Mike Weaver.

[King of the ES]

Just to be clear....as a GM you would move a top six forward coming off a career year to create a roster spot for a prospect with 20 games under his belt. A prospect with a history of showing up to camp in poor shape and was waiver eligible. A prospect who was still questionable defensively after four years of development and also had a history of disappearing when games became too physical. You'd do this based purely on his potetial as every prospect always lives up to his potential. You would see that as the sensible move. Is this what you're saying?

[tiredatwork]

Really?

The moving Bieksa rumors began AFTER signing Hamhuis as a UFA. Not after acquiring Ballard. The moment Hamhuis was acquired this board went wild with Bieksa is out threads, The Province writers fuelled the fire, and then the rumors went national. Meanwhile MG visited Bieksa at his home in Ontario to tell him he had no intention of moving him and to ignore the rumors. All the Bieksa crap was well after Grabner was gone.

[Gollumpus]

I don't like seeing the "3rd line C" projections used on a 1st rounder, but, whatever, I really know nothing about him. Either way, I think it's silly to say that the off-season has been "great" because a 1st round selection was made.

[Baggins]

The never ending paragraph guy just argued that we had to get Ballard as Bieksa was thought to be traded. If Gillis went to Ontario to tell him he wasn't going to be traded that contradicts the other guy. You guys need to get your bizarre arguments together.

You aren't really trying to back him up though, you are still made about that healthy scratch bet we made and that the Grabner/ballard trade went exactly as I said it would. You hate being wrong and that's what this is all about.

[tiredatwork]

Fans started speculating Bieksa would be moved after Ballard was acquired. It exploded after Hamhuis was signed. Although MG had received several enquiries about Bieksa he took the time to see Bieksa face to face and tell him to ignore the rumors he wasn't being moved. What's so tough about that to follow? It was nothing more than fan/media rumor mongering.

You keep saying crap like "I hate you" and "I'm mad" which isn't the case at all. I see you as too stubborn to look at the situation objectively. Or perhaps it's just too much of a Grabner fan to look at it objectively. I can honestly say I'll never regret moving Grabner in the least. His lack of work ethic combined with his waiver status and our top six coming off a career year meant he had run out of time here. Moving him for something we actually needed made the most sense of the available options.

[Baggins]

Why does he have to play on the top-6? If guys were only played in the spot where they were alleged to be at their best, Burrows would be a 4th line agitator, and Kesler would be a 3rd line C.

You create a spot for Grabner, and alternate as the year goes on. Not unlike what was done with Hodgson. Or even Kassian, for that matter. The point is that it was obvious that he was an NHL talent.

"No room" isn't an excuse, there could've been room, but Gillis decided that Grabner wasn't worth making room for, which was an obvious ERROR.

[NucksBruins]

Dear Lord, Grabner was the #3 ranked Islanders right winger in points last season. By reading some of these posts, you would think we traded a young Brett Hull... 32 points and a -18, one power play goal. He did have a whopping 16 hits, so he is that power forward the team desperately needs. Pro-rated over 82 games, Raymond would have scored 30 points and he had 32 hits in 55 games.

After the season Grabner just had, following a 34 goal season the year before and a massive raise, CDC would be screaming for him to be traded.

[Baggins]

Probably i draw those conclusions as you've called me an idiot several times in the past.

You called me an idiot when I said Ballard was going to be a healthy scratch in the playoffs.

The long winded guy just argued that we had to get Ballard as Bieksa was thought to be traded.

You just said gillis had to fly to Ontario to tell Bieksa he wasn't going to be traded.

You don't see anything conflicting in the two above statements?

Isn't it more likely that the person who was wrong about the trade might not be objective? If i was wrong and didn't change my position then sure, I'm not being objective. But i was bang on. It's you that didn't have the right read on the situation and still won't change your opinion.

[kanucks1]

I don't feel bad for the guy, he treated Willie Mitchell poorly, let erhoff walk essentially, dicked salo around and went all out on Matt Sundin but wont go all out on Weber...he drafted a great player in cody hodgson and somehow got Cody so angry that the guy needed to be traded. He then traded a can't miss young prospect for two projects one of which clearly has not panned out (Gargnani). He then had a golden goose fall into his lap only to let a division rival sign him-its a business, promise the kid he will get a good look at top 4 minutes and power play and see how he does, don't say well we might not play you much, you are really going to have to fight for ice time.

lets not discuss the ballard trade and resigning a coach who makes young players wait an ice age to get nhl minutes.

I feel bad for the fans

[tiredatwork]

That was more local fans hoping Bieksa would be moved than anything factual. MG said after the season that his biggest priority was improving the defensive depth and making the third line tougher to play against. Ballard became available at the draft and the three prospects MG was interested in were already taken. So he dealt on the defensive depth. But the press didn't go whole hog on the BIeksa trade rumor mill until Hamhuis was signed. Btw, I never said, "he had to fly to Ontario". MG was in Ontario for a meeting and chose to pay Bieksa a visit to tell him face to face he wasn't being traded.

My objectivity rests completely in why Grabner was traded. Whether it was Ballard or not, Grabner was going to be moved. As I have already said, you can question whether Ballard was the best choice, but not whether Grabner should have been moved. If all else failed I would have moved Grabner for a draft pick. Given his history and the teams situation there just wasn't a place on the team for him. He ran himself out of time here. In order for him to have any success he needed a team so weak they were willing to gift him a spot and leave him in until he got up to speed. That wouldn't have happened here. On a contender he would have suffered the same fate as he did in Florida. He wouldn't have made it past the preseason.

In the end it comes down to this for me:

Would we have been better off keeping Grabner? No. Short of gifting him a roster spot, he would have been lost to waivers. Gifting a prospect a spot who can't be bothered to show up in shape and ready to play isn't the message I'd want to send to the rest of the team. In the end something is always better than nothing. Which is what we would have had if we hadn't traded him.