Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Are you worried about the Canucks' future ?


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#121 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,914 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:01 PM

Losing W Mitchell was a huge mistake. Since when does a team giver up on a shutdown hometown Defensive stud because of an injury? Didn't stop Mayray and Manny from soldiering on. LA sure didn't think it was a big risk.


oldnews is correct and you are full of nonsense.
You have zero understanding of brain injuries.
MayRay and Manny did not have brain injuries.
LA took a gamble and it was a medical risk Willie should not have taken.
  • 0

#122 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,545 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:48 PM

well, if the Canucks short term future is a bad as you think, then they will have losing seasons and start getting all that young talent you get when you get better drafting positions.
  • 0

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#123 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,818 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:06 AM

Only on CDC would two guys with almost no NHL experience (Lack and Tanev) be compared to two guys who are shoo ins for the HHOF. Laughter ensued.


You completely missed the point.
The OP started this thread claiming that the Canucks have no prospects (other than Honzik and Labate.??)
The odd thing about the post regarding Detroit is that the players named, two of their best, weren't exactly blue chip prospects - not even close - they were pulled from the late rounds of the draft - and both of them were 25 years old before scoring 50 points in the NHL.
There was no comparison of Burrows, Lack, and Tanev (obviously three very different players themselves and no one has suggested they are future hall of famers) to Zetteburg or Datsyuk - the point was where the Canucks got those three players - from outside of the draft (or Craig Button lists) entirely. Burrows is not exactly chopped liver, Lack has been considered the Canucks top prospect, and Tanev their premiere rookie last year.
What I find laughable is the denial that Lack or Tanev could be considered quality prospects.
  • 0

#124 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,342 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:21 AM

You've got your risks backwards. There was far more risk in acquiring Ballard than there was in re-signing Mitchell. Ballard required parting ways with two young roster players and a 1st round pick (one of those roster players went on to score 35 goals and earn a Calder nomination the next year), and he also came with the baggage of a long-term, big-money contract. If Mitchell couldn't play, he goes on LTIR, which is not counted against the cap, and the Canucks move on to plan B.


No actually you have the Risk backwards, there was alot more risk re-signing a player who suffered a serious injury that potentially could have been a career threatening injury, than there was acquiring a top 4 defensemen who can play in all situations, is durabile, and is capabale of 20-25+ Minutes a night. (and remember this was right after the Cooke/Savard thing so
there was alot more stigma & unpredictability surrounding concussions.)

And Mitchell would have still garnered a contract from us that was around 3.5 anyways, so the big contract argument doesn't make alot of sense.


(Oh and as for the bolded part, I'm sure it would have been great for MG to know that Grabner would breakout and Raymond would flop prior to making the deal, unforgettably MG doesn't have a crystal ball, and lets be honest, judging by your immense pessimism for all of our prospects, you probably thought he wouldn't be anything. That was probably an anomoly for you too. And don't act like it wasn't and you expected that)

The LTIR argument is one that you only seem to bring up when it's convenient for your argument, such as your desire to acquire Scottie Upshall. Why doesn't the same rationale apply to Mitchell?


Oh the irony.

If I had a dollar for everytime you didn't use the same rationale on something except when it was convenient for your argument then I would surely be a millionaire.

I expect the same thing to happen with Garrison/Salo. You and so many others are justifying letting Salo go because the Canucks "can't afford" to give him 2 years (which makes no sense), yet you're missing the really risky part of the transaction, and that is the 6-year contract (!!!) that was given to Jason Garrison. The regret will be dual, of letting ol' reliable Salo go, and of buying way too heavily into the hype of Jason Garrison. Both will be mistakes.


Jason Garrison is just as reliable as Salo, he also has the size and defensive ability to his advantage, which makes him more effective, and he also is more durable.

And actually not being able to give him a contract that is longer than 1 year makes perfect sense, he is over 35, injury prone and we are heading into a new CBA, and at the time there was even less predicability than there is now, which is no predictability whatsoever, it was like looking into a black hole.

And actually we are "justifying letting him go" not only because of the contract but also because we got an upgrade in Garrison.


Oh and now that I am here and have caught your attention, I would like to know who your favorite team is? (I guess you missed me asking the last 2 times)

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 30 December 2012 - 01:22 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#125 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,466 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:25 AM

We could have had Camara, but noooooooo, we had to pick David Honzik. We could have had Gaudreau but nooooooo, we had to pick..... Honzik.

But...but...you said the Canucks only had Honzik and Labate for the future!!
  • 2

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#126 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,342 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:37 AM

Shut the troll who has more posts than you because his opinion is that the Canucks has lesser skilled prospects than any of the teams in their division? Are you the NRA or from communist China?

Prove me wrong then, prove that any of the NW division team pool of prospects are inferior to us. OK, that's right. Go sit down.


Which prospects exactly are you concerned with and why?
  • 0

zackass.png


#127 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,914 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 02:48 AM

And Mitchell would have still garnered a contract from us that was around 3.5 anyways, so the big contract argument doesn't make alot of sense.
Jason Garrison is just as reliable as Salo, he also has the size and defensive ability to his advantage, which makes him more effective, and he also is more durable.
And actually we are "justifying letting him go" not only because of the contract but also because we got an upgrade in Garrison.

Gillis.org allegedly low-balled Willie so there was no 3.5 going down,at any rate.
I am fine with this strategy given that the Canucks took care of Willie when he was in dire straits.
Garrison has not played one game for the Canucks and certainly does not have the stellar record Salo earned.
Gillis may have tried to justify 'letting him go' but on trade day-front and centre of CDC- the Canucks were telling the general public their #1 priprity was to re-sign Sami,which was a publicity stunt,obviously.
This regime is good at the media control game.
  • 0

#128 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,342 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 03:18 AM

Gillis.org allegedly low-balled Willie so there was no 3.5 going down,at any rate.
I am fine with this strategy given that the Canucks took care of Willie when he was in dire straits.
Garrison has not played one game for the Canucks and certainly does not have the stellar record Salo earned.
Gillis may have tried to justify 'letting him go' but on trade day-front and centre of CDC- the Canucks were telling the general public their #1 priprity was to re-sign Sami,which was a publicity stunt,obviously.
This regime is good at the media control game.


There is no way we could offer the deal Sami got in Tbay, so with that in mind and the fact that Garrison is younger, bigger and more durable, I'm fine with letting Sami go then picking up Garrison in his place.

I'm a big Sami fan but no way we could have signed that deal.
  • 0

zackass.png


#129 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,914 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 03:39 AM

There is no way we could offer the deal Sami got in Tbay, so with that in mind and the fact that Garrison is younger, bigger and more durable, I'm fine with letting Sami go then picking up Garrison in his place.
I'm a big Sami fan but no way we could have signed that deal.


I understand what you are saying but Sami was a specialist on the PP and Garrison is a defender -kind of a mix between Hamhuis and Bieksa,with the size of Eddy.
The only reason people consider him as anything PP specialist related was his points parade with Brian Campbell.
We will see how he does with Eddy.If Eddy opts for the sun with Matthias and Sami we are screwed.

Edited by nuck nit, 30 December 2012 - 03:56 AM.

  • 0

#130 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:58 AM

Gillis.org allegedly low-balled Willie so there was no 3.5 going down,at any rate.
I am fine with this strategy given that the Canucks took care of Willie when he was in dire straits.
Garrison has not played one game for the Canucks and certainly does not have the stellar record Salo earned.
Gillis may have tried to justify 'letting him go' but on trade day-front and centre of CDC- the Canucks were telling the general public their #1 priprity was to re-sign Sami,which was a publicity stunt,obviously.
This regime is good at the media control game.


It was a disgrace to part with Sami.
More alarmingly we keep parting with older players with class for "NOT QUITE what we need." Garrison is a decent size with a good shot but where is the pushback? Similarly Booth is brave, goes to the net but hasn't a clue how to/when to pass or defend.

There is an argument (leaving aside age) for putting Hodgson in there too as Kass seems to have further to go to be effective in our team the more I watch him.

Rome goes and we sign 2 disasters one (Joslin) who doesn't even look good enough for the Wolves. I can't even remember who the other guy was.

Edited by Bodee, 30 December 2012 - 04:59 AM.

  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#131 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 30 December 2012 - 07:24 AM

No actually you have the Risk backwards, there was alot more risk re-signing a player who suffered a serious injury that potentially could have been a career threatening injury, than there was acquiring a top 4 defensemen who can play in all situations, is durabile, and is capabale of 20-25+ Minutes a night.


"Risk" is what you're risking to give up when placing a bet. Signing Mitchell would not have been risky at all. If he can't play, he goes on LTIR. That's it. We gave up Grabner, Bernier, and Howden for Ballard, meaning that MG placed a huge bet on the value that he could give to this team - and it hasn't materialized at all.

Contrary to your claim, he's not a top-4 defenseman, he doesn't play in all situations, he's not durable, and he hasn't shown a capability of playing 20 - 25 minutes per night as a Canuck.

You simply don't understand risk if you think that signing Mitchell was riskier than giving up what we did for Ballard. Acquiring Ballard has cost us a young forward with blazing speed that can score, another bottom-six young forward, and an intriguing 1st round draft prospect. Mitchell would've cost us nothing but salary. Risk is clearly higher in one scenario.

Oh and as for the bolded part, I'm sure it would have been great for MG to know that Grabner would breakout and Raymond would flop prior to making the deal, unforgettably MG doesn't have a crystal ball, and lets be honest, judging by your immense pessimism for all of our prospects, you probably thought he wouldn't be anything. That was probably an anomoly for you too. And don't act like it wasn't and you expected that


Unfortunately, he's in the position that he's in because he's assumed to have a crystal ball; or, at least, inside knowledge. The "crystal ball" argument can be used to justify any horrible trade or signing ever made. Doesn't make it any more valid, nor does it absolve the GM in question of his accountability to it. Any mistake is their fault.

Jason Garrison is just as reliable as Salo, he also has the size and defensive ability to his advantage, which makes him more effective, and he also is more durable.

Oh and now that I am here and have caught your attention, I would like to know who your favorite team is? (I guess you missed me asking the last 2 times)


Jason Garrison is not as reliable as Salo. He doesn't have nearly the resume. Is Tanev also equally reliable as Hamhuis?

And yes, I'm a fan of Toronto. That's why I spend so much time on the Canucks' message board.
  • 0

#132 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,818 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:55 AM

Gillis.org allegedly low-balled Willie so there was no 3.5 going down,at any rate.
I am fine with this strategy given that the Canucks took care of Willie when he was in dire straits.
Garrison has not played one game for the Canucks and certainly does not have the stellar record Salo earned.
Gillis may have tried to justify 'letting him go' but on trade day-front and centre of CDC- the Canucks were telling the general public their #1 priprity was to re-sign Sami,which was a publicity stunt,obviously.
This regime is good at the media control game.


Gillis did not "lowball" Willie. He offered the same money - the difference maker was the LA offered an extra year - Gillis wasn't comfortable offering a two year term when it wasn't clear if Mitchell would be able to play again. LA could afford to eat the salary and cap hit - at the time, they weren't a SC contender, they were a bubble team - yes, the gamble paid off for them (and in all honesty, despite the fact that Mitchell was a big part of putting LA over the top, I'm very happy for him).
  • 0

#133 Westcoasting

Westcoasting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:00 AM

Gillis did not "lowball" Willie. He offered the same money - the difference maker was the LA offered an extra year - Gillis wasn't comfortable offering a two year term when it wasn't clear if Mitchell would be able to play again. LA could afford to eat the salary and cap hit - at the time, they weren't a SC contender, they were a bubble team - yes, the gamble paid off for them (and in all honesty, despite the fact that Mitchell was a big part of putting LA over the top, I'm very happy for him).


You must have your players mixed up... Willie wasn't offered a contract. He worked out for them and a few other teams but L.A was the team that offered up a contract.
  • 0

#134 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,818 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:05 AM

Come on folks.
Sami Salo was my favorite Canuck. In the thread where I think it was Vintage who asked what Canuck you'd like to have a beer with, it was a no-brainer for me. I love the guy.
But you're getting a little carried away here. We never heard the end of the Sami criticisms - which were really a bunch of BS as a result of his bad luck with injuries - the guy, as many have stated, has ballz of STEEL!
However - like Mitchell - Sami was offered a great contract and a two year term - he is 38 years old, which meant under the CBA in which the term was signed, his cap hit would have counted against the Canucks regardless. Putting 7.5 million against Sami in the "window" years is something the Canucks understandably thought twice about. Everyone knows they need cap space to re-sign Edler - and almost everyone knows (with the exception of a few Nancies) what a quality two-way blueliner Garrison is. I'm not going to go into his corsi numbers, but what was clear was his outstanding performance in both shutdown and offensive roles, and the fact that he made his partners better. Signed below market value - great 'risk'. He makes having to let go of Sami a little easier to stomach. Imagine if the Nucks had to settle for a weak overpayment like Wideman.
Perhaps people should wait until an actual letdown before so prematurely attempting to put a thumb tack in Gillis' coffin.
If the worst y'all have got is Ballard, you're wasting our time.
  • 0

#135 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:12 AM

oldnews is correct and you are full of nonsense.
You have zero understanding of brain injuries.
MayRay and Manny did not have brain injuries.
LA took a gamble and it was a medical risk Willie should not have taken.


So you are some kind of neuro surgeon or what? I'd say the canucks doctors have zero understanding of brain injuries if they figured Willie Mitchell was done for. They also screwed up big time with Hodgson.

Reasons for not keeping WM: He was injured, but like KES said, if he wasn't able to play, he could have gone on the LTIR. The real gamble was letting him go, and we lost, big time.

So we can't sign WM to 2 years for 3.5m but Sundin is can come in here for 2 at 10m$? And its ok to take a risk on MayRay when he's proven what a liability he is when he's healthy and Manny can play with his injury but Willie Mitchell and Ohlund gotta go because they are too risky? The more I drink about it the more MG's organization looks like Rookie of the Year candidate.



"Risk" is what you're risking to give up when placing a bet. Signing Mitchell would not have been risky at all. If he can't play, he goes on LTIR. That's it. We gave up Grabner, Bernier, and Howden for Ballard, meaning that MG placed a huge bet on the value that he could give to this team - and it hasn't materialized at all.

Contrary to your claim, he's not a top-4 defenseman, he doesn't play in all situations, he's not durable, and he hasn't shown a capability of playing 20 - 25 minutes per night as a Canuck.

You simply don't understand risk if you think that signing Mitchell was riskier than giving up what we did for Ballard. Acquiring Ballard has cost us a young forward with blazing speed that can score, another bottom-six young forward, and an intriguing 1st round draft prospect. Mitchell would've cost us nothing but salary. Risk is clearly higher in one scenario.



Unfortunately, he's in the position that he's in because he's assumed to have a crystal ball; or, at least, inside knowledge. The "crystal ball" argument can be used to justify any horrible trade or signing ever made. Doesn't make it any more valid, nor does it absolve the GM in question of his accountability to it. Any mistake is their fault.



Jason Garrison is not as reliable as Salo. He doesn't have nearly the resume. Is Tanev also equally reliable as Hamhuis?

And yes, I'm a fan of Toronto. That's why I spend so much time on the Canucks' message board.


You are correct, sir.
  • 0

#136 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,818 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:14 AM

You simply don't understand risk if you think that signing Mitchell was riskier than giving up what we did for Ballard. Acquiring Ballard has cost us a young forward with blazing speed that can score, another bottom-six young forward, and an intriguing 1st round draft prospect. Mitchell would've cost us nothing but salary. Risk is clearly higher in one scenario.


And yes, I'm a fan of Toronto.


You're out to lunch.
The part you are clearly oblivious to is the risk of having an extremely shallow blueline if Mitchell didn't recover a prayed.
Acquiring Ballard and Hamhius was exactly what Gillis had to do given the roster the Canucks had.
The result? Some whiners can complain that the Canucks only managed a couple President's and a Game 7, but that was a risk he had to take imo...
Could AV have stuck Grabner or Bernier on the blueline? Yeah, no.
Do you get the point?
  • 0

#137 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:16 AM

everyone knows (with the exception of a few Nancies) what a quality two-way blueliner Garrison is. I'm not going to go into his corsi numbers, but what was clear was his outstanding performance in both shutdown and offensive roles, and the fact that he made his partners better. Signed below market value - great 'risk'. He makes having to let go of Sami a little easier to stomach. Imagine if the Nucks had to settle for a weak overpayment like Wideman.
Perhaps people should wait until an actual letdown before so prematurely attempting to put a thumb tack in Gillis' coffin.
If the worst y'all have got is Ballard, you're wasting our time.


Here we go again with the unproven players being hoisted up on the CDC pedestal. Garrison for NOrris!!!!!

How about actually waiting til a player proves something before crowning them king of the world?

Guy hasn't even played 1 minute for us yet lmao

Edited by scottiecanuck, 30 December 2012 - 11:22 AM.

  • 0

#138 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:19 AM

You're out to lunch.
The part you are clearly oblivious to is the risk of having an extremely shallow blueline if Mitchell didn't recover a prayed.
Acquiring Ballard and Hamhius was exactly what Gillis had to do given the roster the Canucks had.
The result? Some whiners can complain that the Canucks only managed a couple President's and a Game 7, but that was a risk he had to take imo...
Could AV have stuck Grabner or Bernier on the blueline? Yeah, no.
Do you get the point?


AV will stick anyone except for BAllard on the blueline, eg Rome Tanev plug plug Ballard for Bernier/Grabner/1st rounder was shyte at the time and it's shytier now.

Edited by scottiecanuck, 30 December 2012 - 11:20 AM.

  • 0

#139 Westcoasting

Westcoasting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:29 AM

You're out to lunch.
The part you are clearly oblivious to is the risk of having an extremely shallow blueline if Mitchell didn't recover a prayed.
Acquiring Ballard and Hamhius was exactly what Gillis had to do given the roster the Canucks had.
The result? Some whiners can complain that the Canucks only managed a couple President's and a Game 7, but that was a risk he had to take imo...
Could AV have stuck Grabner or Bernier on the blueline? Yeah, no.
Do you get the point?


Ummm i never wrote any of that... you must have copied and pasted to the wrong poster.
  • 0

#140 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:34 AM

You're out to lunch.
The part you are clearly oblivious to is the risk of having an extremely shallow blueline if Mitchell didn't recover a prayed.
Acquiring Ballard and Hamhius was exactly what Gillis had to do given the roster the Canucks had.
The result? Some whiners can complain that the Canucks only managed a couple President's and a Game 7, but that was a risk he had to take imo...


And that was no thanks at all to Keith Ballard, who the Canucks were prepared to fly in Nolan Baumgartner while he was vacationing at Disneyland and suit him up before inserting #4 into the SCF lineup.

As usual, you're not considering opportunity cost. What if the Ballard trade was never made, and we had access to a guy like Grabner, or a guy like Bernier (instead of Oreskobust, for example), in the SCF? Were goals at all hard to come by in that series?

Could AV have stuck Grabner or Bernier on the blueline? Yeah, no.
Do you get the point?


The point makes no sense, because, last I checked, you're still allowed to make trades and/or other roster adjustments once the season starts. You're actually saying that if Mitchell was extended instead of acquiring Ballard, and then he got injured again, that we'd be "stuck" having to put a guy like Michael Grabner on D? Florida would've been just as eager to dump Ballard onto us at the 20-game mark as they were at the draft.

Edited by King of the ES, 30 December 2012 - 11:39 AM.

  • 0

#141 RAMBUTANS

RAMBUTANS

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 06

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:12 PM

The proof is in the pudding. Did Mitchell help the Kings win the Cup? Yes. Did MG made an error about not signing Mitchell? Absolutely. Why? LA benefitted.
  • 0
Mr. Reputable of the HFBoards

#142 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,222 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:25 PM

"Risk" is what you're risking to give up when placing a bet. Signing Mitchell would not have been risky at all. If he can't play, he goes on LTIR. That's it. We gave up Grabner, Bernier, and Howden for Ballard, meaning that MG placed a huge bet on the value that he could give to this team - and it hasn't materialized at all.

Contrary to your claim, he's not a top-4 defenseman, he doesn't play in all situations, he's not durable, and he hasn't shown a capability of playing 20 - 25 minutes per night as a Canuck.

You simply don't understand risk if you think that signing Mitchell was riskier than giving up what we did for Ballard. Acquiring Ballard has cost us a young forward with blazing speed that can score, another bottom-six young forward, and an intriguing 1st round draft prospect. Mitchell would've cost us nothing but salary. Risk is clearly higher in one scenario.



Unfortunately, he's in the position that he's in because he's assumed to have a crystal ball; or, at least, inside knowledge. The "crystal ball" argument can be used to justify any horrible trade or signing ever made. Doesn't make it any more valid, nor does it absolve the GM in question of his accountability to it. Any mistake is their fault.



Jason Garrison is not as reliable as Salo. He doesn't have nearly the resume. Is Tanev also equally reliable as Hamhuis?

And yes, I'm a fan of Toronto. That's why I spend so much time on the Canucks' message board.


You don't see a player that has a concussion that prohibits him from even mild workouts for six months as a risk? He hadn't even started skating yet when LA signed him. So yes, LA gambled. Btw, Gillis never even gave Mitchell an offer. He said he would look at making an offer when Mitchell showed he could take contact and he signed with LA before he got to that point.

Whether Grabner went for Ballard or not doesn't change the fact he wasn't going to be a Canauck come fall. Grabner ran out of time here and would have to clear waivers to go to the farm. Our entire top six just came off a career year. Given Grabners penchant for taking the summer off and showing up to camp in poor shape, there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell he was going to make this team. It was move him or lose him to waivers. No crystal ball needed there. It wasn't a question of Grabner having talent. We all knew that. There was simply no hope of him making the team that fall. Something, anything, is better than nothing. MG was trying to get this team to the cup. The first that went in the deal wasn't going to help us now. A player you're in position to lose and have no spot for, plus a bottom end 1st pick, plus a salary dump for a top four d-man isn't a bad deal.

Why even bring up Bernier? Everybody on our third line is better than him. He was a salary dump in the deal as he was a very overpaid third liner at the time. What happens when a team is taking on a salary dump? You pay extra to get rid of that salary. Hence Grabner plus a first. Just as we gave up little for Ehrhoff as he came with a salary dump that needed to be buried in the minors.

According to Gillis, Salo was offered similar money to what he signed for in Tampa. He was offered a one year deal with a promise to continue signing him to one year deals as long as he was healthy and wanted to play. The fact Salo wanted nothing less than a two year deal tells me even Salo wasn't willing to gamble on himself staying healthy. Salo's choice.
  • 1
Posted Image

#143 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,222 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:29 PM

The proof is in the pudding. Did Mitchell help the Kings win the Cup? Yes. Did MG made an error about not signing Mitchell? Absolutely. Why? LA benefitted.


LA gambled and it paid off. We didn't need to gamble with the addition of Hamhuis.
  • 2
Posted Image

#144 Zoolander

Zoolander

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,190 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:45 PM

Can't wait for this line:

Jensen - Gaunce - Kassian

WCE 2.0

You'll be waiting a long time.


Hahahahahah! Agreed, Kassian is not Bertuzzi, and Jensen is far from Naslund. Both are great players but Jensen doesn't have the speed, and Kassian doesn't have the size. Both will be great top 6 players for us though. I'm not 100% sold on Gaunce though, I don't think he has the skill to be in the top 6.

And although I dislike the OP and think he's a troll....I am kinda worried about the Canucks future. The Sedins are 2 of the top 10 if not top 5 players in the league, and I think trading them could land us some 'can't miss' prospects.
  • 0
My 2014 Draft wishlist: 1st rd: Draisaitl, Virtanen, Scherbak. 2nd rd: Brendan Lemieux, Thatcher Demko (Goalie)
Posted Image
Future Canucks top 6:
Shinkaruk-Draisaitl-Scherbak
Virtanen-Horvat-Jensen

#145 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,222 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:51 PM

And that was no thanks at all to Keith Ballard, who the Canucks were prepared to fly in Nolan Baumgartner while he was vacationing at Disneyland and suit him up before inserting #4 into the SCF lineup.

As usual, you're not considering opportunity cost. What if the Ballard trade was never made, and we had access to a guy like Grabner, or a guy like Bernier (instead of Oreskobust, for example), in the SCF? Were goals at all hard to come by in that series?



The point makes no sense, because, last I checked, you're still allowed to make trades and/or other roster adjustments once the season starts. You're actually saying that if Mitchell was extended instead of acquiring Ballard, and then he got injured again, that we'd be "stuck" having to put a guy like Michael Grabner on D? Florida would've been just as eager to dump Ballard onto us at the 20-game mark as they were at the draft.


Quite the assumpton there. Ballard wouldn't have been available 20 games in. The Panthers made him available at the draft to improve their draft. As in available to anybody. The Canucks were one of three teams making offers. When a player is being shopped around you can't say "we'll wait six months" because he's being shopped around the league not to us specifically. And Grabner wouldn't have been here 20 games in as he wouldn't have made the team.
  • 0
Posted Image

#146 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,222 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:55 PM

Hahahahahah! Agreed, Kassian is not Bertuzzi, and Jensen is far from Naslund. Both are great players but Jensen doesn't have the speed, and Kassian doesn't have the size. Both will be great top 6 players for us though. I'm not 100% sold on Gaunce though, I don't think he has the skill to be in the top 6.

And although I dislike the OP and think he's a troll....I am kinda worried about the Canucks future. The Sedins are 2 of the top 10 if not top 5 players in the league, and I think trading them could land us some 'can't miss' prospects.


So give up any hope of the Stanley Cup and roll the dice on some prospects? Even "can't miss" prospects do indeed miss. Glad you're not the GM.
  • 0
Posted Image

#147 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,342 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

"Risk" is what you're risking to give up when placing a bet. Signing Mitchell would not have been risky at all. If he can't play, he goes on LTIR. That's it. We gave up Grabner, Bernier, and Howden for Ballard, meaning that MG placed a huge bet on the value that he could give to this team - and it hasn't materialized at all.

You simply don't understand risk if you think that signing Mitchell was riskier than giving up what we did for Ballard. Acquiring Ballard has cost us a young forward with blazing speed that can score, another bottom-six young forward, and an intriguing 1st round draft prospect. Mitchell would've cost us nothing but salary. Risk is clearly higher in one scenario.


Yes it was, there was no way of knowing if he would return, and if he would be able to play at that level. I get your point, but Ballard was an upgrade for us and a much needed one at that.

Mitchell's time here had just past, everyone needs to accept that and move on. At the time Keith fit our needs perfectly and the deal made alot of sense, and what we gave up isn't nearly as much as you made it seem.

Grabner had one breakout year and followed it up with a terrible season, basiclly he is on the same path Raymond was on, so he had one good year and one bad year, just like Ballard.

Bernier is a cap dump for us in the deal, he had little to no value in this trade, it was just good for us to get rid of him to add more speed and grit on the 3rd line. Great job trading him in the deal.

Howden is projecting to be a 2nd/3rd liner, he's not a blue chip prospect by anymeans and when you consider we have a # of prospects in that 2nd/3rd liner range, it isn't a huge loss. Especially when it is required to make the moves that addresses our needs and helps us get alot closer to a cup.

Contrary to your claim, he's not a top-4 defenseman, he doesn't play in all situations, he's not durable, and he hasn't shown a capability of playing 20 - 25 minutes per night as a Canuck.


Well that's what he had proven when we aqcuired he and that was the need at the time (Against Hindsight isn't a fair way to judge), He had a tough start, was injured and struggled, everyone unfairly piled on, he stepped up last year, got alot better, and was our best D-man at the end of it all and is starting to be what we expected. let's hope it continues.


Unfortunately, he's in the position that he's in because he's assumed to have a crystal ball; or, at least, inside knowledge. The "crystal ball" argument can be used to justify any horrible trade or signing ever made. Doesn't make it any more valid, nor does it absolve the GM in question of his accountability to it. Any mistake is their fault.


That makes no sense.

Your looking only through hindsight to make judgments, and acting like the outcome was crystal clear prior to making the move.

And just to add, would you have traded a 25 Goal scorer who was 24 and just came off a breakout season and appeared to be on the rise, or an unproven rookie who was inconsistent and couldn't crack the lineup full time.

I was/am a huge Grabner fan but trading Raymond instead of him would have been an incredibly stupid move.

And also when assessing the price (which I don't think was that bad considering what we thought we were getting) there were 7other teams actively interested and pursuing him, we had to step up and offer the 1st.

Jason Garrison is not as reliable as Salo. He doesn't have nearly the resume. Is Tanev also equally reliable as Hamhuis?

And yes, I'm a fan of Toronto. That's why I spend so much time on the Canucks' message board.


Terrible comparison, Hamhuis is our best defensemen and plays on the 1st pair in our most important situations, I love Tanev but he doesn't play in nearly as a big a role.

And I would like to here your explaination on why you think he isn't more reliable or as reliable as Salo, rather than making terrible comparison's to try to justify your stupid theories. so go ahead explain.


I never said you were a leafs fan, I just asked what team is your favorite. So Canucks? Someone else? Or are u neutral and just come here to provoke us. Which is it? I honestly would like to know who your cheer for.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 30 December 2012 - 04:36 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#148 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,342 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:35 PM

Quite the assumpton there. Ballard wouldn't have been available 20 games in. The Panthers made him available at the draft to improve their draft. As in available to anybody. The Canucks were one of three teams making offers. When a player is being shopped around you can't say "we'll wait six months" because he's being shopped around the league not to us specifically. And Grabner wouldn't have been here 20 games in as he wouldn't have made the team.


Actually there were 7 teams interested, nonetheless I agree entirely.
  • 0

zackass.png


#149 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,818 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:57 PM

As usual, you're not considering opportunity cost. What if the Ballard trade was never made, and we had access to a guy like Grabner, or a guy like Bernier (instead of Oreskobust, for example), in the SCF? Were goals at all hard to come by in that series?


Pullease. Bernier has 6 NHL goals since the Canucks traded the superstar. I like the guy, but get real - trading him sure as hell didn't cost the Canucks a Cup.
  • 0

#150 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,818 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 05:00 PM

The proof is in the pudding. Did Mitchell help the Kings win the Cup? Yes. Did MG made an error about not signing Mitchell? Absolutely. Why? LA benefitted.


The proof is in the pudding. LA lost in the first round in 2011 after signing Mitchell, while the Canucks went to the Stanley Cup Final.
Dumb, reductive hindsighting.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.