nuck nit Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.