Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

If you could reverse one Canucks trade, which would it be..........

vcr1970

By vcr1970
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

rkoshack Abbotsford Regular

rkoshack

Posted
Posted

People just looking at stats on nhl.com and using that as their argument for wanting Hodgson back for Kassian instead of actually watching him play. He's looked decent but he's definitely benefitting from playing with the hottest player in the league right now. Defensively he's still lost many times and has had a few real bad giveaways a couple that led directly to goals. He also has a lot of work to do in the face off circle.

Buffalo has allowed more goals than any other team in the league this season. Yes more than Florida, yes more than Columbus. They're brutal defensively and also dead last in faceoff %. I'm not saying that's all because of Hodgson but he's certainly not helping in those areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hunter.S-Kerouac Canucks Regular

Hunter.S-Kerouac

Posted
Posted

OK, the obvious one is out (Neely for Pederson+)..............

Of the rest (during my lifetime at least), the three that come to mind for me are.........

Rick Vaive and Bill Derlego for Tiger Williams and Jerry Butler (I think this was the deal).

Bure for Jovo, Gagner and ???? was it Morrison?

Kassian for Hodgson

If you can think of one better than the three above, please let me know and add it to the list.

Of the three above, I would give us back Cody............5 goals, 5 assists in 10 games...........he'd be our leading scorer right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Gumballthechewy

Guest Gumballthechewy

Posted
Posted

Neely.

Most of these other trades brought something that the Canucks needed at the time or pieces or player that are with the team today, however the Neely trade was a dud all around for the Canucks, and we would have had a 1st round pick, Boston used it to pick Glen Wesley, 3rd overall. I mean we did get Barry Pederson and yeah was good for the first two years, but he didn't exactly get us anywhere.

And like someone said above me, 94 would have been ours, just imagine the first two lines like this:

Bure - Linden - Neely

Courtnall - Ronning - Adams

Mmmmm..... Tasty....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bloodycanuckleheads Abbotsford Star

bloodycanuckleheads

Posted
Posted

Here's something you young kids don't seem to understand...

Imagine you have two teams. Equal in every way. Equal in scoring. Equal in defense. Equal in intangibles... The only difference between the two is that one team is big and strong - and the other is small and weak.

Now, which team is going to win in the long run?

Now, logically, you'd think they'd be equal - but you'd be wrong. The big/strong/mean team will win WAY more than the other. And, there's a simple reason: when the big team hits the smaller team, the smaller team gets hurt more. Big things tend to break little things. Not always, but the majority of the time. In a series of games (like the playoffs for instance), the bigger team will hurt the smaller team more than the smaller team hurts the bigger team. By the end of the series, the bigger team will have more un-injured players - AND - they will be in better physical shape. And, that translates into more goals and more wins. This is why big, bruising teams have a MUCH greater tendency to win the Stanley Cup than smaller teams (and it's why we lost in the finals to Boston).

So, even if Hodgson and Kassian are equally talented players - Kassian is WAY better to have on our team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riffraff Canucks Hall-of-Famer

riffraff

Posted
Posted

None of those trades are ones I'd reverse.

I would not have put the Williams trade on the list. Much like how Kassian has brought a change of attitude and confidence in the play of the team, Williams did the same thing for the Canucks back in the early 80's. Toronto may have gotten more goals with Vaive and Derlago, but it didn't do much, if anything, to improve their regular season and playoff results. The Canucks actually went to a Cup final with Williams.

The Jovanovski deal is one I may have tinkered with, in 20/20 hindsight. I'd still have traded Bure. He wanted out and Jovanovski as the main piece coming back was pretty darn good. I was sorry to see Hedican go, and I might have tried to hold on to him.

The Kassian deal is a no-brainer. We have seen what Kassian has done for this team with his offensive production, his sound defensive play, his physical play, and most importantly, the change of attitude he has inspired in his team mates. Hodgson was always touted as being a leader and "future captain" on this team. Kassian has actually gone out and led by example.

If you want to ride the points hobby-horse you have to take the good with the bad. The Canucks might not get as many goals or points from Kassian as they may have gotten from Hodgson, but they also wouldn't have had the increased number of goals scored against, which is a good thing. Currently, Kassian may only have 5g 1a to Hodgson's 5g 7a, but he is also +2 to Hodgson's -2. This is a -4g difference in team production, and looking at the team results this year, could have resulted in fewer wins.

Yeah, I'll keep the big guy who hits, fights when needed, skates well, has a great pass, has good hockey sense, is versatile and can play on any line, can score goals, and inspires his team over Hodgson.

I would want to tinker with the Ballard trade. I'm not sure that I'd want to give up a 1st, but that was the price for a top-4 d-man. We are only now seeing what Gillis got in that deal, and Ballard is looking pretty good. Sadly, his contract is a bit high for where he plays and the new CBA may well mean that the Canucks will have to move Ballard.

I regret moving Bernier more than I regret trading Grabner. To be blunt, I don't think you could get anything more for Grabner than what Gillis did manage to achieve. Grabner just couldn't get his head screwed on right, and it took him being traded and then waived (with the intent of sending him to the minors) before he finally woke up. What more do you think Gillis could have gotten for Grabner? This is meant as a serious question, not an attack :).

As I see it, the other teams would know what Grabner could potentially do on offense, but would also be aware of his short-comings in other areas of the game. They would also know that the Canucks were very close to the cap ceiling and couldn't afford to keep Grabner up here sitting in the press box. They'd also know that the Canucks were (and still are) a very deep team and that Grabner very likely would not be kept up on the merits of his play. This, along with the cap considerations, meant the Canucks would have to waive Grabner in order to return him to the minors, and he would very likely have been claimed which would mean the Canucks would lose him for nothing in return, other than they'd have a freed up contract space.

So, if you were Tallon, and you saw the Grabner situation unfolding as it was, would you really have paid more for Grabner? And were Gillis to try and trade Grabner on his own what would inspire another GM to offer more than a low pick or prospect in return for Grabner? He was an asset the Canucks could likely not keep, and it was questionable that he would make it to the NHL, so they would know that they had Gillis over a barrel.

This season looks like Grabner may be making a bit of a return to his scoring results of two years ago, however, his -3 says he's still playing like he did last year (where he finished -18).

Meh, Ehrhoff wanted to take his "best chance to win a Cup" with Buffalo. The fact that they were offering more money and term than what the Canucks could reasonably afford is beside the point, of course.

Salo went with longer term and more money as well. This being said, who would the Canucks not have with the money going to Salo (or Ehrhoff)? Garrison, Schneider, Burrows, Edler, all of those guys were signed in place of Salo (and no, you can't count all of the depth guys as you'd need to take out about a half a dozen to equal the money Salo did sign for in TB). And where would he have played this year? Ahead of Ballard or Tanev, perhaps?

And then there's the thing of the 35+ contract which would make signing Salo a very risky proposition what with his injury history.

regards,

G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...