Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

billabong

question: do we know why gillis let gragnani walk?

Recommended Posts

He was definetely not the best on the defensive end of things. He reminded me of a mini Erhoff. I think if given the time and coaching he could have been more like Erhoff or Karlsson (almost) but at age 27 the window on being a prospect with upside to a career minor leaguer was very small. There is probably more to it that we will never know. Personally I thought he was still an asset worth keeping in case Edler goes down. We don't have many puck carrying defensemen after that. Bieksa and Hammer are OK but not great. I think if Edler gets hurt our PP doesn't have anything even similar to replace him with. Now that Weber is not available, we should lock him up!! We will be hurting without him if he walks next year or if a team pulls a philly on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because he sucked. Nuff said. You don't keep players around that you don't intend on using. Thats what you call smart management. I'm surprised your even asking this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gragnani was kind of redundant for this team... he's an offensive d-man, lots of potential, but defensively... well, bad.

if we didn't sign garrison for 6 years maybe they would have given MAG a shot to learn from salo... but it didnt go that way, and there really isn't any chance for him to play on the canucks.

sorry to see a high potential offensive d-man go - but garrison is better anyways. later gragnani! your name was friggen hard to spell anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully it's because MG noticed we need to get bigger on our back end and more physical. Gragnani showed some nice offensive vision and talent, but we have our puck-movers for the next 5 seasons in Edler and Bieksa and don't really need anyone else.

Look down the list of Cup winners, they all had 2 puck-moving offensive defencemen and the other 4 were physical, shutdown guys who were solid defensively but not point producers by any means.

L.A - Doughty and Voynov (puck movers), Greene, Mitchell, Scuderi etc. (shutdown guys)

Boston - Chara and Kaberle (puck movers), Seidenberg, McQuaid, Ference etc. (shutdown guys)

Chicago - Keith and Campbell (puck movers), Seabrook, Sopel, Hjalmarsson etc. (shutdown guys)

Pittsburgh - Gonchar and Letang (puck movers), Eaton, Scuderi, Orpik, Gill etc. (shutdown guys)

Detroit - Lidstrom and Rafalski (puck movers), Kronwall, Stuart, Lebda, Chelios, Lilja (shutdown guys)

Obviously each one of those defences had a Norris winner or nominee, but the complexion of the defence is the same. Now look at our defence from the year we lost the Cup:

Edler, Ehrhoff, Bieksa (puck movers) Hamhuis (shutdown guy)

Look at it now:

Edler and Bieksa (puck movers), Hamhuis, Garrison (shutdown guys)

Ballard and Tanev really don't fit anywhere yet because they lack identity, Ballard has played physically in the past but isn't big or defensive sound enough to be a shutdown guy and isn't scoring enough points to be considered an offensive puck mover. Meanwhile, Tanev isn't scoring points and isn't physical enough to be a shutdown defenceman.

If we had Gragnani our balance would have been thrown out of whack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully it's because MG noticed we need to get bigger on our back end and more physical. Gragnani showed some nice offensive vision and talent, but we have our puck-movers for the next 5 seasons in Edler and Bieksa and don't really need anyone else.

Look down the list of Cup winners, they all had 2 puck-moving offensive defencemen and the other 4 were physical, shutdown guys who were solid defensively but not point producers by any means.

L.A - Doughty and Voynov (puck movers), Greene, Mitchell, Scuderi etc. (shutdown guys)

Boston - Chara and Kaberle (puck movers), Seidenberg, McQuaid, Ference etc. (shutdown guys)

Chicago - Keith and Campbell (puck movers), Seabrook, Sopel, Hjalmarsson etc. (shutdown guys)

Pittsburgh - Gonchar and Letang (puck movers), Eaton, Scuderi, Orpik, Gill etc. (shutdown guys)

Detroit - Lidstrom and Rafalski (puck movers), Kronwall, Stuart, Lebda, Chelios, Lilja (shutdown guys)

Obviously each one of those defences had a Norris winner or nominee, but the complexion of the defence is the same. Now look at our defence from the year we lost the Cup:

Edler, Ehrhoff, Bieksa (puck movers) Hamhuis (shutdown guy)

Look at it now:

Edler and Bieksa (puck movers), Hamhuis, Garrison (shutdown guys)

Ballard and Tanev really don't fit anywhere yet because they lack identity, Ballard has played physically in the past but isn't big or defensive sound enough to be a shutdown guy and isn't scoring enough points to be considered an offensive puck mover. Meanwhile, Tanev isn't scoring points and isn't physical enough to be a shutdown defenceman.

If we had Gragnani our balance would have been thrown out of whack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you watch him play?

he was suppose to have an offensive upside but I never saw that in his play.

depth d-man at best but not very good defensively (or offensively).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis spoke about this very topic yesterday when he co-hosted the Team 1040 show. He said they (the organization) thought Gragnani possesed a certain skill set that they (the organization) didn't see once he arrived here. He also felt that the development of Kevin Connuaton was coming along VERY well and that Connuaton could be everything they thought Gragnani was going to be only with more size and speed.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have to guess I would say Gragnani had 0 intention of staying. MG did the classy move and just let him walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sulzer and Gragnani were both depth d-men. Gragnani had more experience on the PP. He was depth, in case of injuries, in what was hoped to be a long Playoff run. He's not as quick as hoped and Gillis will find better options. This is one of those "move along, nothing to see here" topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scouting on Grags looks suspect if you trade for a prospect and let him go a few months later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.