Gollumpus Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 We gave up a lot. Im not really interested in your spin to justify it after the fact. But thanks for taking your time to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredatwork Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The Canucks gave up a 1st rounder for Ballard. Nothing else that went to Florida with it was of any use to the team. I say that again, the Canucks gave up nothing of value to them, at that time, other than the 1st round pick. Bernier wasn't going to make the team, except as perhaps a 4th liner, and at $2 million that made him too expensive an asset to keep. Grabner was a bust, until he got bounced around the League a bit, and then he woke up and started to play. Even if the team did keep him (because they should have recognized his "potential", right?), the team was so close to the cap ceiling that they'd have to let someone else go. Yeah, if I'm in charge of the Canucks at that time, there's no way that I reward Grabner for floating. The idea of this trade was great. Bring in a good d-man for a 1st rounder and a couple of under-performing, cap dump contracts. The team needed help on defence what with injuries, other guys looking like they were going to be traded, and Hamhuis not signed as yet. That was not a high price tag, at that time. The downside of this deal is how it has worked out, so far. Ballard had injuries and adjustment issues such as finding a regular partner with which to play. Other guys got injured, which meant that Bieksa wasn't traded, as pretty much everyone on here were assuming was going to happen, and he played pretty well. Raymond had a downturn in his point production from the previous season. The biggest "downside" of the deal was that Grabner did wake up, which led so many knowledgable people to pull out the 20/20 GM card. Whether or not he will continue to perform is an open question. His production dropped and his +/- fell into the minus category this past year from what it was in his first year with the Islanders. I think the verdict is still out on this trade. Grabner could contiinue his downward turn from last season. Bernier could finally find his legs and become a solid 3rd liner, or he'll just continue to be what he's become. Howden (the 1st round pick) might become a pretty good center, and with the Canucks a bit short in that area, he might be good to have. This being said, he might also become a serviceable 3rd line center in the minors. Ballard could show what he's really got in the way of talent, and with a regular partner he could become an amazing player here for the next three years. But, I suppose you'd just prefer that things went to pot for the team so you can continue to smugly say, "I told you so." Yeah, we need more people like you. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Grabner was 2nd in the league in non pp goals the year we went to the finals. Those could have come in handy v boston. Ballard was unusable in that series. What happens going forward doesn't really matter, losing the 2nd best goal non pp (even strength + sh goals) could have made a difference in the cup finals. Whatever happens going forward really can't undo that. I know you don't want to believe that stat, but it's real. It's a fact, not an "at the time" excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Grabner was 2nd in the league in non pp goals the year we went to the finals. Those could have come in handy v boston. Ballard was unusable in that series. What happens going forward doesn't really matter, losing the 2nd best goal non pp (even strength + sh goals) could have made a difference in the cup finals. Whatever happens going forward really can't undo that. I know you don't want to believe that stat, but it's real. It's a fact, not an "at the time" excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The only problem I have with acquiring Ballard was his multiple concussions and the fact that this organisation does not seem to understand the cumulative issues surrounding concussions and the recovery time involved- if a player ever,truly fully recovers. Ballard could go on to have years of very successful blue line representation for the Canucks ,but they really gambled,just as they have with Booth. I would also let Hamhuis play second line minutes and get a healthy first line d man for Luongo. For all those that think Daniel Sedin will play NHL hockey into his forties,that is the hope but his concussion he just suffered brings those odds way down. The Canucks have a lot of multiple concussed players and acquiring said concussed players is a gamble in and of itself that most posters here do not even mention,let alone begin to address or evaluate in their evaluations or prognostications. http://www.knowconcussion.org/2012/03/30/canucks-keith-ballard-has-been-down-concussion-road-before/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Sure he would have come in handy had Gillis gifted Grabner a spot he didn't earn, traded a top six forward coming of a career year to create the spot, and then waited half the season for him to get his act together. Contenders do that all the time with slow to develop prospects with a history of showing up to camp in poor shape. What you fail to see is he wouldn't have made this team out of camp and been lost to waivers just as happened in Florida. Short of having a crystal ball to foresee what would come, moving him was the smarter idea. He wasn't moved because we "gave up" on him. He wasn't moved because he lacked talent. He was moved because he had a snowballs chance in hell of making this team under the circumstances and was waiver illegible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoman13 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The acquisition of Booth has been a negative so far. Less PPG than Samuellson at a higher cap hit. Samuellson also showed up for FLA's playoff series where as Booth was useless. Yes they were; however, MG has not had the balls to trim the fat of less contributing players, ie. Mason Raymond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredatwork Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Ah, there's that "20/20 GM card" I mentioned earlier. The Canucks didn't "lose" anything in that deal, except for a 1st round pick. They also got rid of two underperforming players who weren't going to be here by the time the playoffs came around. Grabner and Bernier would have been waived, and Grabner would likely have been picked up by someone else, such as the Islanders. Gillis used these useless assets so he didn't have to give up anything more valuable than the 1st rounder. Grabner wasn't going to be 2nd best in the League in non pp goals if he had stayed here. Why?: 1.) he wouldn't have gotten the opportunity, because of other guys who were already here. Everyone else was better than he was. Did Grabner have potential? Yep, and so did Bernier. 2.) the other thing, and this is perhaps the more likely reason, is that he would probably have continued being a floater if he stayed here. To this point, Ballard hasn't been as much of an asset as it was hoped he would be when the Canucks traded for him. His problems are mostly from external reasons, as opposed to Grabner who's problems were self-inflicted. I see signs that Ballard is improving, and I believe he will be a good d-man on this team for the next three years. regards, G. Darn, beat me to it. That will learn me to go to the store and not finish a post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I don't feel bad for anyone who's a millionaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Why is it we have to SPIN everything we dont like? The Trevor Linden trade was one of the most horrible days in Canucks history . SPIN : Ya but it got us Bertuzzi and Mc Cabe and we sucked so we got Daniel and Mc Cabe got Henrik and we got La la la lungo so trading Linden was the greatest trade evarrrrrrr Drafting Stojanov was an idiot pick !!!! SPIN ya but we got Naslund for Stojanov so it was the greatest pick evarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Here is the deal with the Ballard trade He was a top 4 guy. He was not an ALL STAR. He was a top 4 guy on a mediocre team. No spin. No bs. He has his strengths and shortcomings. No spin. No bs. We gave up a 14th overall pick who had scored 30 goals and 22 goals in the AHL and had already got a hatty in the NHL . He was known for being lazy in training camp. He had also shown flashes of what he could become . He was also considered the FASTEST player in the NHL There was really no spot for him here unless he improved or sat in the press box. He wasnt ready yet. We also gave up a first round pick which was a low first rounder but a player that should at least make the NHL Now, is this a good trade? Never mind Florida idiotically waives Grabner we cannot know that. There is no way the canucks waive him. He sits in the press box just like Tambo did in his place . The bottom line is if Gillis had waited 7 more days , we do get Hamhuis and there is no way we make that trade. No spin . No bs. He took a chance and lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 weber deal is stupid would never do it if i were mg if Doan wants what he alegedly wants im happy standing pat and seeing what we get for one of our goalies. Im still not convinced it will be luo traded I thik hes been pumping schnides tires to up his value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 hmmm, 20/20? Baggins despises me but would still concede that the day after the trade i was talking about how bad the trade was. It wasn't crystal ball stuff, just spotting potential. I got it right, pretty simple. Grabner only got 3rd line minutes with the Isles, considering what we were giving Tambillini I think we could have squeezed him in our top 9. He was trying too hard to do too much, his words, once he was given a chance and played his game he was top 10 in the league goal scorer. You want to call it a wake up call, but that's really not true. I doubt you will be interested in that though. In the end we gave up the 2nd best non pp goal scorer in the league for next to nothing then couldn't score in the finals. Instead of the laundry list of excuses and finger pointing, you could go with "i was wrong". I guess you aren't wired that way, plus you'll always have Baggins or some other Gillis cool aid drinker to be in denial with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Why is it we have to SPIN everything we dont like? The Trevor Linden trade was one of the most horrible days in Canucks history . SPIN : Ya but it got us Bertuzzi and Mc Cabe and we sucked so we got Daniel and Mc Cabe got Henrik and we got La la la lungo so trading Linden was the greatest trade evarrrrrrr Drafting Stojanov was an idiot pick !!!! SPIN ya but we got Naslund for Stojanov so it was the greatest pick evarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Here is the deal with the Ballard trade He was a top 4 guy. He was not an ALL STAR. He was a top 4 guy on a mediocre team. No spin. No bs. He has his strengths and shortcomings. No spin. No bs. We gave up a 14th overall pick who had scored 30 goals and 22 goals in the AHL and had already got a hatty in the NHL . He was known for being lazy in training camp. He had also shown flashes of what he could become . He was also considered the FASTEST player in the NHL There was really no spot for him here unless he improved or sat in the press box. He wasnt ready yet. We also gave up a first round pick which was a low first rounder but a player that should at least make the NHL Now, is this a good trade? Never mind Florida idiotically waives Grabner we cannot know that. There is no way the canucks waive him. He sits in the press box just like Tambo did in his place . The bottom line is if Gillis had waited 7 more days , we do get Hamhuis and there is no way we make that trade. No spin . No bs. He took a chance and lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
komodo1970 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The only decision that still doesn't sit well with me was the decision to let Willie Mitchell go. I'm glad Willie moved on and became an integrel part of LA's cup win. Hopefully MG learned a lesson when it comes to a players heart and determination. I think the ability to read a players inner self and whether or not they have what it takes to make a successful return is an important attribute. However, other than that, I am happy with what he's been able to achieve with our team. That being said, I think it important that he finds the right pieces for this team moving forward. I think we are right at the door for a cup victory, I think when he signed Sturm last year, he was trying to find a diamond in the rough. A player with potential that came at a cheap price. Unfortunately, It didn't work out, but I think this year he's going to go after more of a sure thing, whether it be a free agent or a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucksBruins Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I must have missed the part where Grabner became a superstar? He had a good season in 2010-11, sure, but he wasn't great in 2011-12. He scored 32 points (including 4 in his last 2 games of the year), was a minus 18 and had 1 power play goal. Even now, I don't know who you take out of the Canucks line up for him. Raymond? Okay and then tell me people wouldn't be complaining about the poor year he just had and how he "peaked" with 52 the year before. We hate players when we have them and idolize them when they leave. Personally, I felt Grabner was a decent scorer but invisible when he wasn't scoring and there just wasn't any room for him on the team. In terms of the original post, there is no need to feel bad for Gillis. I do feel for fans who can't enjoy cheering for a contender every year. If there is a simple formula needed to win the championship, we would have repeat champions. Tampa Bay (04) - Carolina (06) - Anaheim (07) - Detroit (08) - Pittsburgh (09) - Chicago (10) - Boston (11) - Los Angeles (12). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 hmmm, 20/20? Baggins despises me but would still concede that the day after the trade i was talking about how bad the trade was. It wasn't crystal ball stuff, just spotting potential. I got it right, pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredatwork Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't see anything special in your comment. (For the record, I wasn't that happy about the deal, mostly because of the 1st going out, and I wouldn't have minded something more coming back.) Grabner's offensive potential was well recognized, by everyone, even me. It's only some people who have selective hindsight about why the trade was made, and the value of the assets which were exchanged to their original teams. And for the most part, the only reason that this is still a topic of discussion here is that Grabner had one pretty good year, followed by an okay year, while Ballard has had two below par years (for various reasons). If Grabner continues to diminish as he has this past year, and Ballard continues to improve (as he looked like was doing at the end of this year) then this subject will disappear. Or maybe Grabner will continue to have a brilliant career in New York. It still doesn't change the fact that he was a useless asset to this team at the time of the trade, and the Canucks moved him to fill a need elsewhere. 20/20 card again. How many games would any of us have said that Tambellini was going to get that year? 5? 10? Certainly he wasn't being slotted in by anyone to play 62 games. So, assuming Grabner was kept, and only played 10 games, how many goals would he have scored? But, if he were kept then he would have played the 62 games that Tambellini played, right? Or is this an instance where you would be playing that 20/20 hindsight card? Amongst other things, Tambellini cost less than Grabner, and in that cap stressed period each $100 grand counted, and Tambellini was a better checker than Grabner ever showed while he was here. That is very interesting. He also mentioned that he wasn't coming to camp in shape, his words, which led to him being waived by the Panthers. I believe he even mentioned that being waived by the Panthers was a wake up call. Interesting. Grabner got his chance on a team which had no cap issues, and needed offense even more than the Panthers, which is why he was able to play his game. And he did well that year (and good on him, really). The following year, no so much (14 fewer goals, 6 fewer assists, and a shift from +13 to -18). This initial success doesn't change the fact that Grabner wasn't going to get those kind of minutes here. (See the comments on Tambellini) In the end, your arguments still rely on that 20/20 GM card. You do not go beyond "Grabner got 30+ goals". The reasons for the trade and the need for the getting a d-man is not at issue. The future potential of Grabner, at that time, is not at issue. The value of Bernier and Grabner to the Canucks, at the time of the trade, is not at issue. The thing of it is, the end isn't here yet. Ballard still has three years left on his contract. He has shown signs of improved play, and he will likely be a valuable member of this team for the duration that term. Grabner, as mentioned had one pretty good year, and one less than good year. Not sure how "I was wrong" in anything. Your final comments here are once again relying on that 20/20 GM card. As mentioned, we all knew Grabner had an offensive upside. I don't recall anyone (you included) making a forecast that he would score 30+ goals his first year with the Islanders... nor do I know of anyone saying he'd have such a significant drop-off the following year. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 There is a difference between a hot topic and a beaten dead horse. I clicked on hot topic, but got the dead horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'm not sure you understand what "20/20 hindsight" means. Let's say after year 1 of the trade I jump on board and say "hey, what a terrible trade, we gave away a first and one of the top 10 goal scorers in the league for a guy that's a healthy scratch!". That would be using hindsight. When I say the day after the trade how bad it was....... that's called being right, aka assessing the players involved correctly. You weren't able to do that, neither was Gillis, so you need endless paragraphs of nonsense. My position hasn't changed, not a single bit of it. How can that be hindsight? If anything it was foresight, predicting accurately how the trade would play out. Again, exactly as I said it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredatwork Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Even a blind squirrel finds the occassional acorn. it's doesn't change the situation as it stood. Which you cannot acknowledge. No, you would have traded a top six forward coming off a career year to gift a prospect that takes the summer off a roster spot because he has potential. Again, Grabner wasn't traded because he didn't have talent. He was traded because of the situation here as it stood at the time. The situation: Entire top 6 coming off a career year Grabner waiver elligible Grabner has a history of showing up to camp in poor shape Need for a d-man You say Grabner could have been the difference maker in the finals against Boston. So he would have... 1 - Scored 7 goals in game 3 for a strangle hold 2 - Scored 5 goals in game 4 for the big advantage 3 - Scored 4 goals in game 6 to win the cup 4 - Scored 5 goals in game 7 to win the cup 5 - been among the long list of injured players 6 - disappeared due to the physical play Which answer do you see as a the more likely of the six? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.