RAMBUTANS Posted December 30, 2012 Author Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoolander Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Can't wait for this line: Jensen - Gaunce - Kassian WCE 2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Ummm i never wrote any of that... you must have copied and pasted to the wrong poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 By my calculations, that's twice as many goals as Keith Ballard has, since being acquired by the Vancouver Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 calculate this. three power play goals as Bernier sits in the box for boarding. I'll add him to your silly list of guys that would deliver a Cup to Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 You're making an equal assumption. How do you know that Florida would've accepted any of the other offers? You don't. And if we were to lose out on Keith Ballard, guess what, somebody else could've been made available, very easily. Trades are allowed, and they don't even need to be at the deadline to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 By my calculations, that's twice as many goals as Keith Ballard has, since being acquired by the Vancouver Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Sadly Bernier wouldn't have been competing for Ballards spot. He would have been competing for Hansens spot. Hansen had 25 goals over the past 2 seasons to Berniers 6. Hansen is hands down better. Bernier was a salary dump. Which brings me back to: why even bring him up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.