Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Anyone else feel bad for Gillis?


This topic has been archived.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

#211 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:34 AM

Grabner's 27 goal average over two New York Islander seasons look stellar.

That would make him the third highest scoring Canuck this past year if replicated here.

How many years as a Canuck did the team wait for Daniel and Burrows to produce 27 goal years on average?

Answer: Seven for Daniel and five for Alex.

Grabner got 20 games.

#212 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,774 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:37 AM

Seriously, shut it, pal.

We're both making good points and offering good support for our positions. The worst part about this board is the notion that you're somehow a "negative troll" if you're not waving the Canuck flag for every single move that they make. It's good to think for yourself. If myself, or nucknit, or whoever, doesn't like a move made by the Canucks, what's wrong with voicing our opinion? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS MESSAGE BOARD!

Also, every move is not considered bad. As mentioned many times, I like the off-season extension of Raymond. There's good value there, IMO. That said, I don't think there's anything else that I like. Does that make me wrong? NO. It's an OPINION.

So, please, quit crying about negativity. These guys don't care what we say about them, and neither should you. Grow up.


No you're all making some good points and offering moderate support but that's not really the problem nor did I bring it up as such. I also never said you couldn't have an opinion...the problem being none of you seem willing to change your opinion or even acknowledge anything that is counter intuitive to your preconceived notions.

So please KofES...don't shut it. But don't expect for people not to comment about your opinions or about how you do things...in fact feel fry to whine and cry every time somebody disagrees with you and totally ignore their valid and backed up points...but again with that don't expect to not get backlash for it...that is was a message board is for. You can't just put something out as an opinion and expect it to be protected under the opinion law.

Thank you though to all three of you for once again giving the exact sentiment I said you would...kind of telling dontchathink?

Also the idea that you think that one move Gillis has made that nearly went to arbitration somehow nullifies my statement about the Gillis hate I seriously have to question the credit I give you. Although we disagree on nearly everything it seems I do still hold you in pretty high regard as being a very intelligent poster...at least on this account.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 04 August 2012 - 11:46 AM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#213 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:45 AM

"that is was a message board is for ya big baby."

Nice,Employee,keep em coming.

Your act is tiring but as you look like a tool and your rage is hilarious just keep it coming,big boy.

#214 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:48 AM

No you're all making some good points and offering moderate support but that's not really the problem nor did I bring it up as such. I also never said you couldn't have an opinion...the problem being none of you seem willing to change your opinion or even acknowledge anything that is counter intuitive to your preconceived notions.


Oh, and you do?

Neither you, nor anyone else, have budged in any of our arguments. Mike Gillis can do NO wrong, in your eyes. There's ALWAYS a bunch of excuses to be used.

"Hindsight" was even an excuse, offered by Baggins. Hindsight. Really, that is comedic gold. If hindsight didn't matter, no teams would ever change anything, their GMs, their coaches, nothing. What would be their reason to? Who cares that mistakes were made, that's only something that can be evaluated IN HINDSIGHT!

#215 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,336 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:54 AM

Please tell me more about wanting to spend $4.60M for six years on an undrafted 28 year-old with one decent NHL season under his belt.


Think of it like a X-Mas present. Wait until December to see whether you got a pony or a lump of coal.


Jesus, there is so much wrong with this post.

You're suggesting that Garrison is individually better Rome & Salo combined, yes? Too funny.

You're then assuming that 145 lb. Chris Tanev will be "able to make the jump full-time next year". That is an assumption, not a fact. Training camp will dictate. But from what I see of Tanev, he needs to be locked in a room at Morton's and be fed liquid steak through a tube for multiple hours per day. He will get pushed around badly, and probably isn't as ready as you think.

Number 3, you're assuming that Salo's injury history will repeat itself, and because Garrison (who has played LESS THAN 200 GAMES IN THE NHL) hasn't yet had a significant injury, he's somehow immune from the inherent risks of getting injured. Yet another dangerous assumption on your part.

IMO, and at this point, Salo is clearly a better player than Garrison. Garrison is Gillis' crapshoot. I suspect it will fail, big time.


I believe he was suggesting that Garrison is better than either Rome or Salo. He is physical like Rome and adds in the offensive potential of Salo. If you want to think the worst of each and every situation have at it.

Tanev weighs more than 145, you big silly, but more to the point of your comments in this area, you criticize the McCabe for making an assumption that Tanev can jump in. So, isn't what you are doing also an assumption, that Tanev can't jump in? You then go on to further criticize McCabe about making assumptions about Salo being injury prone and Garrison not having had any kind of serious injury, yet. However, history would support the assumption that Salo will continue to be injury prone, while the jury would be out on Garrison until such time as he does get injured (assuming he does get injured).


You're calling a 1st round pick a success? :lol: Boy, yeah, such aptitude shown by Gillis, walking all the way to podium, and making good use of his vocal chords to call Brendan Gaunce's name. What a success.

And did you say "no drama" when referencing our current goalie situation? :lol:

Garrison is a PURE gamble. That was a risky signing. Good chance it doesn't turn out. And then what? Will you blame Gillis?

"Better than anticipated" chance of signing Shane Doan? Do we have the same odds as we did Schultz?

Luongo's value is INCREASING? OK, I think I've officially seen everything on these boards.


What are you talking about? Should Gillis have gone up and announced the pick using semaphore?

So, are you going to be cheering against the Canucks this year, or just Garrison? Just curious for future reference.

The Canucks have a better chance of signing Doan than they ever did of signing Schultz. It was pretty clear that he wanted to go to a younger team. There were lots of folks here who already had his sweater in the rafters.

If you've seen everything then I guess you'll be leaving? There is an argument that Luongo's value is increasing. There are other perspectives which suggest otherwise. We'll see what Gillis gets.

And I see you still have trouble with that sticky "Caps Lock" key. Bummer.


Two teams making an ERROR doesn't at all mask the fact that it was an ERROR.


Or, two teams saw the same thing, and it was only after the shock of being traded and then waived to be sent to the minors, again, that he picked himself up. As mentioned before, too bad he didn't think to put forth any effort while he was here.


Um, yes, everything is in hindsight. What's your point? Does that somehow absolve Mike Gillis of his mistakes? Gee, I'd sure love to have a job where I can just raise my hand and say "OOOH! OOOH! Hindsight!" and be waived of my responsibilities.

In hindsight, I'm sure that OJ Simpson regrets lopping off his ex-wife's melon, should he thus be freed from prison?


Frankly, this is a silly post.

The point being made was that the deal was made for a select number of reasons. Those reasons are still valid. Your position is like saying the day after the trade, "the Kessel deal was bad because Boston knew they were going to get the second overall pick in the draft." That is using hindsight to justify your position. It's a very simple concept: before and after.


I think Hodgson will be Cam Neely Part II, but Grabner's a mistake, no doubt about it. The people who are defending Gillis about this trade are nothing but unreservedly biased homers. 29/29 other markets in the NHL would call the trade a mistake.

For those referencing "hindsight" - was it a good move for Calgary to trade Dion Phaneuf to Toronto, than, for Nik Hagman & Matt Stajan? At the time, Calgary had a newly-acquired Bouwmeester, who had shown the ability to be a #1. Also at the time, both Hagman & Stajan were fairly productive offensive players on Toronto.

So, I guess, using the "at the time" logic, Darryl Sutter didn't make a mistake in making this deal?


Neely Part ll? Okay, sure.

I suppose you have been in constant communication with other GM's about the Ballard deal? I suggest that 29/29 other markets would say that it was a good deal, which hasn't worked out as well as hoped for the Canucks.

Using your Calgary example as you've outlined it, then yes, you've got the concept. Now go explain it to tiredatwork. After the fact analysis is a completely different discussion.

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

#216 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,774 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:58 AM

Oh, and you do?

Neither you, nor anyone else, have budged in any of our arguments. Mike Gillis can do NO wrong, in your eyes. There's ALWAYS a bunch of excuses to be used.

"Hindsight" was even an excuse, offered by Baggins. Hindsight. Really, that is comedic gold. If hindsight didn't matter, no teams would ever change anything, their GMs, their coaches, nothing. What would be their reason to? Who cares that mistakes were made, that's only something that can be evaluated IN HINDSIGHT!


Gillis has absolutely made wrong moves (or at least moves I disagreed with)...even more so when we look at it in hindsight which even though you want to pass of as "comedy gold" is a pretty valid point unless you think Gillis has a crystal ball. It's not that hindsight absolves anything...but it does factor in to the type of arguments you or tired make and the ones Nucknit used to make before he started quoting poetry and making entertaining one liners.

I don't think I've ever said Gillis has never done wrong...can you show me where I have?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#217 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,774 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:58 AM

"that is was a message board is for ya big baby."

Nice,Employee,keep em coming.

Your act is tiring but as you look like a tool and your rage is hilarious just keep it coming,big boy.


And yet you're there for it every time. :D


Nothing from you about KofES comments about crying and shutting up huh? color me surprised. :D

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 04 August 2012 - 12:00 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#218 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:08 PM

Jesus, there is so much wrong with this post.

You're then assuming that 145 lb. Chris Tanev will be "able to make the jump full-time next year". That is an assumption, not a fact. Training camp will dictate. But from what I see of Tanev, he needs to be locked in a room at Morton's and be fed liquid steak through a tube for multiple hours per day. He will get pushed around badly, and probably isn't as ready as you think.


Two teams making an ERROR doesn't at all mask the fact that it was an ERROR.


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.

:lol:

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#219 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:09 PM

Tanev weighs more than 145, you big silly, but more to the point of your comments in this area, you criticize the McCabe for making an assumption that Tanev can jump in. So, isn't what you are doing also an assumption, that Tanev can't jump in?


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

What are you talking about? Should Gillis have gone up and announced the pick using semaphore?

So, are you going to be cheering against the Canucks this year, or just Garrison? Just curious for future reference.

The Canucks have a better chance of signing Doan than they ever did of signing Schultz. It was pretty clear that he wanted to go to a younger team. There were lots of folks here who already had his sweater in the rafters.


The draft point was a response to some guy who claimed that the Canucks are having a "great" summer because they drafted Brendan Gaunce.

I wouldn't waste my time on these boards if I wanted the Canucks to lose, trust me. That said, I don't see them going in the right direction. You all see a 3rd consecutive President's Trophy, and a Stanley Cup. That's fine. I don't. I think that this has not been a good off-season at all, and it's following-up a pitiful showing in the playoffs.

If you've seen everything then I guess you'll be leaving? There is an argument that Luongo's value is increasing. There are other perspectives which suggest otherwise. We'll see what Gillis gets.


Great, let's hear it.

The point being made was that the deal was made for a select number of reasons. Those reasons are still valid. Your position is like saying the day after the trade, "the Kessel deal was bad because Boston knew they were going to get the second overall pick in the draft." That is using hindsight to justify your position. It's a very simple concept: before and after.


No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that using the logic of "well, the Canucks needed a defenceman" doesn't EXCUSE the after-effects of the trade, those being a $4.25M guy who's being benched coming into our system, and a 35-goal scoring speedster, along with a very promising prospect, leaving our system. That's a mistake. And "hindsight" is not a valid excuse.

Neely Part ll? Okay, sure.


Honestly, at the time of the deal, I thought it was a decent, reasonable trade. But man, the more I see and hear of Cody Hodgson, the more I get the feeling that that guy is just WIRED to succeed, similar to the way that a guy like Jonathan Toews is. He just wants it, and expects it. I also see a lot of potential in Kassian, but I think that anyone starting a team, today, that would pick Kassian over Hodgson, is nuts.

#220 Grave

Grave

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:15 PM

.

2nd place is the 1st loser

#221 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:15 PM

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.

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.

Edited by Baggins, 04 August 2012 - 12:17 PM.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#222 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:18 PM

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.

:lol:


"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?

#223 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:50 PM

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.


So has every player ever traded been "given up on"? Or are they simply a moveable asset?

Grabner was given FOUR YEARS to develop. By the time he showed any semblance of being ready our top six had a career year and he was waiver eligible. Where did that leave Grabner as far as our needs where concerned? He was a tradeable asset at that point and without him we went on to be the highest scoring team in the league, won the presidents trophy, and went to the SCF. Wouldn't that indicate that MG was correct in his assessment of our situation?

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#224 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,336 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:59 PM

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


Yeah, you did say that. I got a little ahead of myself there as to what I wanted to say. My bad. That being said, I do agree with your assumption that Tanev could use some more weight in order to increase his effectiveness at being a d-man.


The draft point was a response to some guy who claimed that the Canucks are having a "great" summer because they drafted Brendan Gaunce.


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.

I wouldn't waste my time on these boards if I wanted the Canucks to lose, trust me. That said, I don't see them going in the right direction. You all see a 3rd consecutive President's Trophy, and a Stanley Cup. That's fine. I don't. I think that this has not been a good off-season at all, and it's following-up a pitiful showing in the playoffs.


The team has gotten younger. We'll see if Garrison pans out. I don't know if he'll reproduce his offensive numbers from last year, but I do feel pretty confident that he could do something similar playing with the Sedin line and (likely) Edler. And I have a high degree of confidence that he will be solid defensively, something for which he was known prior to last season.


No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that using the logic of "well, the Canucks needed a defenceman" doesn't EXCUSE the after-effects of the trade, those being a $4.25M guy who's being benched coming into our system, and a 35-goal scoring speedster, along with a very promising prospect, leaving our system. That's a mistake. And "hindsight" is not a valid excuse.


And I'm not suggesting that the reasons for a trade should excuse the after-effects of a trade. I'm saying that the reasons for a trade are distinct from the after-effects of a trade, and should be viewed separately.

In the case of the Ballard trade, Grabner had known potential and was then moved for various reasons. The after-effect of the trade is still unfolding, althought to this point it hasn't looked as good for the Canucks as they might have hoped, but it is a trade which is still unfolding. Ballard has shown improvement. Grabner has shown a marked downturn from his previous year. We'll see how things turn out this year.


Honestly, at the time of the deal, I thought it was a decent, reasonable trade. But man, the more I see and hear of Cody Hodgson, the more I get the feeling that that guy is just WIRED to succeed, similar to the way that a guy like Jonathan Toews is. He just wants it, and expects it. I also see a lot of potential in Kassian, but I think that anyone starting a team, today, that would pick Kassian over Hodgson, is nuts.


Hodgson has lots of potential. I also think he'll be a good player, not a great player, but a good one.

Was Hodgson's potential ever going to be met here in Vancouver where he was so far down the depth chart? No.

Does the 2nd line need a playmaker? Sure. Does it follow that Hodgson was the right guy to be that playmaker just because he was the guy here? No.

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

#225 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 01:05 PM

"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?


At least Tanev shows up to camp in shape to compete for his 7/8 spot on the roster. The fact that Grabner failed to this for FOUR YEARS would indicate he had to be gifted a roster spot. Something he failed to do in Florida as well. 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.

Tanev may not be big and physical, but he has proven himself to be a reliable, positionally sound bottom pair d-man. He's also a career plus which certainly says something abpout a bottom pair non-offensive d-man. Which is why he has earned at least a limited role on the team thus far. Being on the fringe won't get him a free pass in camp though. He'll still have to show up ready to compete as there are other prospects who will also show up ready to compete for his role. Something Grabner failed to do rtepeatedly.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#226 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 01:13 PM

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.


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.

Was Hodgson's potential ever going to be met here in Vancouver where he was so far down the depth chart? No.

Does the 2nd line need a playmaker? Sure. Does it follow that Hodgson was the right guy to be that playmaker just because he was the guy here? No.


First of all, the Sedin's are 32 years old and are under contract until 2014. If they don't retire at that point, they'll be only a few years away, probably no more than 3 at the absolute max (IMO, it will highly depend on where the Canucks are, as I don't imagine that they'd want to go anywhere else). In 2014, Cody Hodgson will be 24. If that were really one of the reasons for his move, it's pretty short-sighted, is it not?

In addition, where is it said that a guy like Ryan Kesler can't be traded? One thing that bothers me about managers in the NHL these days is that they tend to not use very strong logic when trading. You should be trading guys when they're high, not when they're low. Would anyone have been upset at us losing Kesler in trade in the 2011 off-season, for, say, Shea Weber? I don't think anyone should be that surprised at Kesler having a significant pullback season this year, because he's not really a natural goal-scorer. In theory, it probably would've been smart to trade him, just like it would've been smart to trade Schneider at practically any point over the last 2 seasons. Now, we're stuck trading a very good goalie who holds all the leverage for whatever team Roberto approves of that gives us the least embarrassing package in return. Is that a smart idea?

#227 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 01:16 PM

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.


"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.

#228 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 01:37 PM

"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.


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.

Edited by Baggins, 04 August 2012 - 01:37 PM.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#229 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 01:46 PM

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.


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.

#230 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 02:37 PM

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.


You're going purely on production in comparing a bottom pair d-man to a forward when it comes to gifting a roster spot? Good comparison.

Funny though, I also recall Grabner being benched for his defensive play. One of his many problems.

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?


Edit:
Btw, 3 of Grabners 5 goals in that 20 game season came in one game against a non-playpoff team (Aneheim) with goaltending legend Curtis McEhlhinney (who had played under 30 NHL games at the time) in goal. Creating "a league wide buzz".

Edited by Baggins, 04 August 2012 - 02:54 PM.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#231 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 03:08 PM

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?


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.

#232 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 03:20 PM

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.


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.

#233 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,336 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 03:50 PM

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.


I'm optimistic about this pick, and being a fan rather than a GM, I can afford to be. :)

I see 3C as a bottom projection for Gaunce. I see him being even a 2C should the need arise. And even if he is a career 3C, if he is good in the face-off circle, is sound on defense, scores 15 - 20 goals a season and gets around 50 pts, plays physically and does it for at least 12 years in a Canucks uniform, then I'll be pretty pleased.

If he does better than that, then that would be pretty good as well.


First of all, the Sedin's are 32 years old and are under contract until 2014. If they don't retire at that point, they'll be only a few years away, probably no more than 3 at the absolute max (IMO, it will highly depend on where the Canucks are, as I don't imagine that they'd want to go anywhere else). In 2014, Cody Hodgson will be 24. If that were really one of the reasons for his move, it's pretty short-sighted, is it not?


Yeah, moving Hodgson without having a lot of extra quality prospects at center was a risky move. However, there's nothing to say that Hodgson wouldn't have jumped ship at the first opportunity of UFA status. This being said, Gaunce will likely be able to take up some of the slack in a few years time, and there is the (very?) good possibility that Gillis will pick up a guy who can become the 2C here after the Sedins retire and Kesler moves to 1C.


In addition, where is it said that a guy like Ryan Kesler can't be traded? One thing that bothers me about managers in the NHL these days is that they tend to not use very strong logic when trading. You should be trading guys when they're high, not when they're low. Would anyone have been upset at us losing Kesler in trade in the 2011 off-season, for, say, Shea Weber? I don't think anyone should be that surprised at Kesler having a significant pullback season this year, because he's not really a natural goal-scorer. In theory, it probably would've been smart to trade him, just like it would've been smart to trade Schneider at practically any point over the last 2 seasons. Now, we're stuck trading a very good goalie who holds all the leverage for whatever team Roberto approves of that gives us the least embarrassing package in return. Is that a smart idea?


Nothing says that Kesler can't be traded, except for his NTC (which starts in 2012 - 13), and the fact that he is a Selke winner not so long ago. You'd really trade that guy in favour of keeping Hodgson? I have to admit, I don't see the sense in this.

Kesler has done things in the NHL. He will likely continue to do things in the NHL. Hodgson has potential to do things. And he has also shown significant areas of weakness in his game.

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

#234 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 04:56 PM

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.


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.

Edited by Baggins, 04 August 2012 - 04:57 PM.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#235 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 05:13 PM

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.


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.

#236 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 05:29 PM

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.


Create a spot on a contender for a guy that can't be bothered to show up ready to play? That sure sounds like gifting a spot to me. I'd have to agree, he wasn't worth creating a spot for.

Kassian, given his size, is capable of playing virtually any role on the team. He actually has the flexibility to fit in from first to fourth line better than Hodgson or Grabner. Hodgson was given an opportunity purely to increase his trade value as he just didn't have the NHL experience yet. At least he had drive to go with his talent. To be honest I expected him to be traded. I just didn't think it would happen during the season. A large part of the reason he got the opportunity is Malhotra's eye injury and the resulting decline in his play. It also created a better 2nd PP option to Malhotra with Kesler on the first unit. Which is to say at least there was a benefit to having him on the roster.

With Grabner on the other hand there was no actual need. MG changed the third line to the checking line acquiring Malhotra and Torres. Grabner wouldn't fit there. And Grabner as a fourth line grinder? Please supply any logic to putting him in a role that he had a history of shying away from. The fact that we went on to win the presidents cup, led the league in scoring, and gave up the fewest goals would indicate to me that MG's plan was the correct one. It's only unfortunate that Malhotra had the freak eye injury and then there was an extreme number of playoff injuries. Despite all those injuries we still made it to game seven of the finals.

It really comes down to the circumstances as they stood at the time. Moving Grabner was a logical choice when a d-man became available at the draft.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#237 NucksBruins

NucksBruins

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 05:36 PM

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.
Posted Image

#238 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 August 2012 - 06:23 PM

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.

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.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#239 kanucks1

kanucks1

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 04 August 2012 - 06:30 PM

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



I now do not like you!

regards
Pcuzz B)
Posted Image


CDC Fantasy League GM Chicago Blackhawks

#240 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 06:45 PM

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.


You're stating your incorrect opinion as fact again. We would have been better off in keeping Grabner, that should have happened. It didn't, we lost. You can say "i would have made teh same mistake Gillis made", thats a fair statement and then give your reasons. You can't say we weren't better off in keeping Grabner, that is clearly wrong, where your lack of objectivity comes in.




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.