Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

question: do we know why gillis let gragnani walk?


This topic has been archived.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

#61 CanuckFan1981

CanuckFan1981

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 03:48 PM

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.

#62 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:59 PM

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.

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#63 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 07:01 PM

I think he should have been re-signed. But, MG said Connaution made him irrelevant.
Posted Image

#64 KING ALBERTS

KING ALBERTS

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 07:15 PM

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.
Posted ImagePosted Image

i fel off the banwagon and hit my hed on a rok


#65 Canadiac

Canadiac

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 07:33 PM

Because he was an irresponsible disappointment.

#66 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,685 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:33 AM

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.
Posted Image

#67 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:49 AM

Why in the hell did Gillis bother trading for this guy?


The Sulzer for Gragnani component of the trade with Buffalo was just a garbage swap. But Gillis probably thought that Gragnani had more possibilities in a further trade this off-season because of his supposedly better offense relative to Sulzer. Hence, their playing him in the minimum number of games to qualify for RFA.

Then, when he apparently didn't accept the QO, letting him walk was for the best.

A mean-nothing component to the Hodgson-Kassian trade. Many big trades have these kinds of minor player swaps included.

#68 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:52 AM

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.



Holy overanalysis, Batman!

If we still had Gragnani, he'd be in the press box or Wolves-bound, so no balance would have been upset in the first place.

#69 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,582 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:05 AM

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).


3 points in his last 4 games...on a new team, with a new system...

I had high hopes for MAG, but I guess the organization felt he wasn't worth the investment.
Posted Image

#70 SuperReverb2

SuperReverb2

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 624 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:25 AM

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.

:)

#71 CHIPS

CHIPS

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:47 PM

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

CanucksvsBruinsPollsmall-1.jpgRogerNeilsonSmall.jpgSig too big. 


#72 Hunter.S-Kerouac

Hunter.S-Kerouac

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 11

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:52 PM

So according to that theory, all we are missing is a no.1 defenceman?

Weber :sadno:



#73 RWMc1

RWMc1

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:59 PM

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.

Vancouver Canucks Stanley Cup Champions 2014/15 So let it be written, So let it be done!

 

My Cup Runneth. Go get it and bring it here!

 

Cupquester "Who are those horrible little men?"
 


#74 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,264 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:46 PM

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

In fairness, we traded a player we'd gotten as a UFA the summer prior (who we were hardly playing anyways), so he wasn't a major asset to lose. It would have been nice to get something for him if they did feel they had to let him go, but ca c'est la.

In the end, Gillis has said they think Connauton will be able to match or exceed what Gragnani was bringing so they were looking at giving our prospects more of a chance.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 





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.