Kevin Bieksa you are really...

[Peter Zezel]

<br />Edler&gt;Bieksa<br />Hamhuis&gt;Bieksa<br />Ballard&gt;Bieksa<br />Erhroff&gt;Bieksa<br />Alberts(so far)&gt;Bieksa<br /><br />Bieksa&gt;Rome?? Probably <br /><br />Of coarse as a 5th or 6th defenceman Bieksa is suitable.  But at 3.75 million he's certainly a waist of valuable cap room.<br /><br />An offensive defencmen with points in 1 game this year.  What does he bring to the table for his price tag? Is he 3 times the player Rome is? <br /><br />The bottom line is if Bieksa was making 750k a year this thread would not exist.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.<br />

I'm a fan of Bieska, I think is a valuable player who is finding his stride this year. My question is at 3.75 mil a year and only having points in 1 game. What is his trade value? Can we get something back of equal value and if not is there any point in a trade. He's an experienced Canuck defenseman who knows the system and playing well so far this year. But if we trade him to save on cap room, get a player of lesser value, who also needs to learn the Canuck system, it could be disruptive to the chemistry of the team. We all saw what happened to Alberts last year. And if we are seriously trying to make a cup run, can we afford to take a chance?

[sampy]

Edler>Bieksa

Hamhuis>Bieksa

Ballard>Bieksa

Erhroff>Bieksa

Alberts(so far)>Bieksa

Bieksa>Rome?? Probably

Of coarse as a 5th or 6th defenceman Bieksa is suitable. But at 3.75 million he's certainly a waist of valuable cap room.

An offensive defencmen with points in 1 game this year. What does he bring to the table for his price tag? Is he 3 times the player Rome is?

The bottom line is if Bieksa was making 750k a year this thread would not exist. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Alberts is not better than Bieksa. I know your hatred for Bieksa has forced your blindness, but you won't find any logical hockey mind that agrees with you.

You are not paying Bieksa's salary so why do you care. In case you want to reply with the salary cap response, we don't have any salary cap issues right now. IF and a big IF Salo comes back and Gilman can't fit him in without moving someone and IF for the first time in a long time we go into April with a completely healthy defence, well then we can have this conversation but at this point time, it is not an issue.

So thanks again for another post that very few agree with.

[hank&dan]

I'm a fan of Bieska, I think is a valuable player who is finding his stride this year. My question is at 3.75 mil a year and only having points in 1 game. What is his trade value? Can we get something back of equal value and if not is there any point in a trade. He's an experienced Canuck defenseman who knows the system and playing well so far this year. But if we trade him to save on cap room, get a player of lesser value, who also needs to learn the Canuck system, it could be disruptive to the chemistry of the team. We all saw what happened to Alberts last year. And if we are seriously trying to make a cup run, can we afford to take a chance?

Your right. Bieksa has very low trade value and this is why he's probably still a Canuck. The best case for the canucks would be if we were able to move him for a pick(s).

Rome has filled in seamlessly thus far. Can't he be a suitable insurance policy?

Edler Erhroff

Hamhuis Alberts

Ballard Rome/Salo

[Sharpshooter]

Edler>Bieksa

Hamhuis>Bieksa

Ballard>Bieksa

Erhroff>Bieksa

Alberts(so far)>Bieksa

Bieksa>Rome?? Probably

Of coarse as a 5th or 6th defenceman Bieksa is suitable. But at 3.75 million he's certainly a waist of valuable cap room.

An offensive defencmen with points in 1 game this year. What does he bring to the table for his price tag? Is he 3 times the player Rome is?

The bottom line is if Bieksa was making 750k a year this thread would not exist. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Bieksa >= Alberts

Bieksa > Rome

Bieksa >= Ballard(so far)

Bieksa < Hamhuis

Bieksa < Edler(offencively) Bieksa > Edler (defencively)

Bieksa < Ehrhoff

There, that's a bit more thought out for you. See, that's what happens when you stop and think and evaluate rationally. I think Juice is a top 4 guy right now(as of literally right now). I think with a healthy lineup next year or even later this year, he'll most likely slot in at #5 or #6(depending on Salo and who AV keeps Juice with)....and a reduced salary next year, if he accepts it.

And if you ever used that noodle that natural selection gave you, you'd recognise that he has reigned his offensive efforts a bit to focus on his defensive efforts moreso, while being paired with Alberts. You complain if he's not defensive enough while trying to be too offencive minded and then, when the mood strikes, you complain if he's not offencive enough as he looks to be more defencively sound....do you see a pattern emerging yet?

You complain...that's your poorly, self chosen niche...and you're not very good at that either.

[wallstreetamigo]

Edler>Bieksa

Hamhuis>Bieksa

Ballard>Bieksa

Erhroff>Bieksa

Alberts(so far)>Bieksa

Bieksa>Rome?? Probably

Of coarse as a 5th or 6th defenceman Bieksa is suitable. But at 3.75 million he's certainly a waist of valuable cap room.

An offensive defencmen with points in 1 game this year. What does he bring to the table for his price tag? Is he 3 times the player Rome is?

The bottom line is if Bieksa was making 750k a year this thread would not exist. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

I think there is some fair commentary in here. He most definitely not 3 times the player that Rome is and he has had his offensive struggles so far.

Now a couple of guys will attack you as a hater, but imo the points are pretty valid.

I'm a fan of Bieska, I think is a valuable player who is finding his stride this year. My question is at 3.75 mil a year and only having points in 1 game. What is his trade value? Can we get something back of equal value and if not is there any point in a trade. He's an experienced Canuck defenseman who knows the system and playing well so far this year. But if we trade him to save on cap room, get a player of lesser value, who also needs to learn the Canuck system, it could be disruptive to the chemistry of the team. We all saw what happened to Alberts last year. And if we are seriously trying to make a cup run, can we afford to take a chance?

A couple of obvious points:

1. Bieksa is not named Sedin and as such is not so integral to the team that he cannot be traded.

2. Trading Bieksa would not disrupt the chemistry any more than trading any other player or letting any players go as free agents and replacing them with others. There might be an adjustment period like there is with all players, but I dont think Bieksa is so valuable that it would derail the entire team from competing for the Stanley cup. That is overstating his importance a lot, imo.

3. Bieksa has trade value I am sure. What that is, who knows.

4. It is very possible that at some point a move will have to be made (not necessarily Bieksa), so chemistry will be affected anyway.

5. The goal is to put the best team on the ice within the confines of the salary cap. MG is trying to build a team where every contract is seen as value for the money. Bieksa is one of the few contracts that really is not at this point.

[hank&dan]

Alberts is not better than Bieksa. I know your hatred for Bieksa has forced your blindness, but you won't find any logical hockey mind that agrees with you.

You are not paying Bieksa's salary so why do you care. In case you want to reply with the salary cap response, we don't have any salary cap issues right now. IF and a big IF Salo comes back and Gilman can't fit him in without moving someone and IF for the first time in a long time we go into April with a completely healthy defence, well then we can have this conversation but at this point time, it is not an issue.

So thanks again for another post that very few agree with.

I care because I'm a Canuck fan. We are very tight against the cap, it makes it nearly impossible to upgrade a certain area need be at the deadline to make a run. You didn't even read my post, you just started attacking me. I never said Alberts is better than Bieksa, but, so far this year he has been as good or better. Speak for yourself, everything you write is all opinion. Try bringing facts into your argument, you won't sound like such a dud.

[sampy]

Bieksa >= Alberts

Bieksa > Rome

Bieksa >= Ballard(so far)

Bieksa < Hamhuis

Bieksa < Edler(offencively) Bieksa > Edler (defencively)

Bieksa < Ehrhoff

There, that's a bit more thought out for you. See, that's what happens when you stop and think and evaluate rationally. I think Juice is a top 4 guy right now(as of literally right now). I think with a healthy lineup next year or even later this year, he'll most likely slot in at #5 or #6(depending on Salo and who AV keeps Juice with)....and a reduced salary next year, if he accepts it.

And if you ever used that noodle that natural selection gave you, you'd recognise that he has reigned his offensive efforts a bit to focus on his defensive efforts moreso, while being paired with Alberts. You complain if he's not defensive enough while trying to be too offencive minded and then, when the mood strikes, you complain if he's not offencive enough as he looks to be more defencively sound....do you see a pattern emerging yet?

You complain...that's your poorly, self chosen niche...and you're not very good at that either.

Agree with this post from start to finish. The one H&D will most likely comeback at you with is Ballard but he hasn't been impressive at all yet. In fact offensively and defensively I think he has been our worst dman so far. I know he is recovering from surgery and a concussion which is why I am not throwing in the towel and I do believe he can play a lot better. Saying that, if Ballard doesn't get better and Bieksa is traded, him and his $4.2 will be the next target for the trolls like H&D.

[Aquiace]

The funny thing is...

If Bieksa completely turns around, scores 20 goals and 80 points, has a +/- of +50, lays out hits every night and quarter backs every powerplay... people wouldn't think "Great, he finally came to be an excellent defenseman and an invaluable member of the team"

Oh no.

They'd say "His trade value is high! Let's trade him!"

[hank&dan]

Bieksa >= Alberts

Bieksa > Rome

Bieksa >= Ballard(so far)

Bieksa < Hamhuis

Bieksa < Edler(offencively) Bieksa > Edler (defencively)

Bieksa < Ehrhoff

There, that's a bit more thought out for you. See, that's what happens when you stop and think and evaluate rationally. I think Juice is a top 4 guy right now(as of literally right now). I think with a healthy lineup next year or even later this year, he'll most likely slot in at #5 or #6(depending on Salo and who AV keeps Juice with)....and a reduced salary next year, if he accepts it.

And if you ever used that noodle that natural selection gave you, you'd recognise that he has reigned his offensive efforts a bit to focus on his defensive efforts moreso, while being paired with Alberts. You complain if he's not defensive enough while trying to be too offencive minded and then, when the mood strikes, you complain if he's not offencive enough as he looks to be more defencively sound....do you see a pattern emerging yet?

You complain...that's your poorly, self chosen niche...and you're not very good at that either.

Some days you argue Bieksa is with Alberts so that he can be a little more offensive, other days you blame Alberts for Bieksas lack of offence. Which is it?

You suggest a pay cut for Bieksa yet you say Ballard and him are equal? Is Ballard worth less than 3.75 million? Gillis doesn't think so.

[hank&dan]

Agree with this post from start to finish. The one H&D will most likely comeback at you with is Ballard but he hasn't been impressive at all yet. In fact offensively and defensively I think he has been our worst dman so far. I know he is recovering from surgery and a concussion which is why I am not throwing in the towel and I do believe he can play a lot better. Saying that, if Ballard doesn't get better and Bieksa is traded, him and his $4.2 will be the next target for the trolls like H&D.

Ballard has been a HUGE part of the recent success of our PK. He has 1 less block than Bieksa in FIVE less games..

I haven't seen a single glaring error from Ballard. A steady, consistent, and dependable defensemen. All opposites to boo boo.

[Sharpshooter]

Some days you argue Bieksa is with Alberts so that he can be a little more offensive, other days you blame Alberts for Bieksas lack of offence. Which is it?

You suggest a pay cut for Bieksa yet you say Ballard and him are equal? Is Ballard worth less than 3.75 million? Gillis doesn't think so.

I have never said Bieksa is with Alberts in order to be a little more offencive. Show me where I've said that. I've always maintained that he has looked good defencively because he had to play within a more defencive minded effort because of the pairing with Alberts. That's not a slight on Alberts, it's a recognition that Bieksa can and has adapted his game depending on who he plays with. That's an aspect of flexibility and a positive trait in Bieksa's maturity.

Ballard has not been better than Bieksa, so far...price tage aside. A price tag doesn't mean automatically better, especially when "you're" comparing one player at the end of a multiyear contract to a player at the begining of a multiyear contract. The contracts only serve as a recognition to where each player started off, as a player to warrant such a contract, for the most part. And i never suggested Ballard was worth anything...more or less, salary wise...but happy fishing.

You obviously cannot see passed your arguments nose to recognise nor evaluate any nuance. So just stick to "Bieksa Bad", "Bieksa No Hockey Good", and "It Bieksa Fault"

[hank&dan]

I have never said Bieksa is with Alberts in order to be a little more offencive. Show me where I've said that. I've always maintained that he has looked good defencively because he had to play within a more defencive minded effort because of the pairing with Alberts. That's not a slight on Alberts, it's a recognition that Bieksa can and has adapted his game depending on who he plays with. That's an aspect of flexibility and a positive trait in Bieksa's maturity.

Ballard has not been better than Bieksa, so far...price tage aside. A price tag doesn't mean automatically better, especially when "you're" comparing one player at the end of a multiyear contract to a player at the begining of a multiyear contract. The contracts only serve as a recognition to where each player started off, as a player to warrant such a contract, for the most part. And i never suggested Ballard was worth anything...more or less, salary wise...but happy fishing.

You obviously cannot see passed your arguments nose to recognise nor evaluate any nuance. So just stick to "Bieksa Bad", "Bieksa No Hockey Good", and "It Bieksa Fault"

So Bieksas adapted into a defensive liability without an offensive presence? Great..

I would say GM's try to match a players salary to the value they bring to the team. Ballards higher salary = higher value

We've all agreed that Bieksa doesn't deserve the 3.75 mill he gets....where does that put him vs Ballard

Also, Ballard not being better this season than Bieksa is totally YOUR opinion. There's no statistical evidence that he's been any better.

[Peter Zezel]

1. Bieksa is not named Sedin and as such is not so integral to the team that he cannot be traded. Trading Bieksa would not disrupt the chemistry any more than trading any other player or letting any players go as free agents and replacing them with others. There might be an adjustment period like there is with all players, but I dont think Bieksa is so valuable that it would derail the entire team from competing for the Stanley cup. That is overstating his importance a lot, imo. 3. Bieksa has trade value I am sure. What that is, who knows. 4. It is very possible that at some point a move will have to be made (not necessarily Bieksa), so chemistry will be affected anyway 5. The goal is to put the best team on the ice within the confines of the salary cap. MG is trying to build a team where every contract is seen as value for the money. Bieksa is one of the few contracts that really is not at this point.

[goobers80]

What I have seen from Ballard, is better than what I have seen from Bieksa. He (Bieksa) is alright, but super overpriced. If Keith Ballard only is able to help the PK become a good unit, then that is a pretty great improvement over last year. He blocks a bunch of pucks and is playing on the third pairing with Rome, who is not the greatest but is doing okay. I would say Bieksa is about even with Andrew Alberts so far this year. I would give the edge to Alberts only because he seems to get beat mostly from lack of footspeed and not playing totally idiotic at times (like Bieksa). I am not saying Bieksa hurts the team badly, but for his salary he needs to be wayyyy better!

You could compare the two all you wish, but how long has Bieksa played in this system? How about Keith Ballard? Who was recovering from surgery and now a slight concussion. Even if Ballard is put as Bieksa's equal, then that is pretty bad really (for Bieksa).. And I would be pretty surprised if anybody thought Keith did not help the PK way more than Bieksa. If Ballard becomes more comfortable in the system and becomes 100% , I have no trouble seeing him being quite a bit better than Bieksa (who seems to never improve anymore).

[Sharpshooter]

So Bieksas adapted into a defensive liability without an offensive presence? Great..

I would say GM's try to match a players salary to the value they bring to the team. Ballards higher salary = higher value

We've all agreed that Bieksa doesn't deserve the 3.75 mill he gets....where does that put him vs Ballard

Also, Ballard not being better this season than Bieksa is totally YOUR opinion. There's no statistical evidence that he's been any better.

My god you're a daft one, aren't you? How has Bieksa become a defensive liability? If anything he's even more reliable defencively than in his past.

As far as statistical comparison's are concerned between Ballard and Bieksa:

Bieksa = 3pts, +4, 19 shots.

Ballard = 0 pts, -3, 3 shots

Yeah..no argument there, eh?

You think MG matched salaries to the value that players bring? Do ya skippy? Well the team's top line of Sedin-Sedin-Burrows say hi. Tell me how their salaries match the value they bring to the team. I can't wait to hear you explain the salary = value on those guys. Please i'm all ears....please explain it to me like, i'm like you...a little kid. Please Hank&Dan, please!

Actually, please shut up...just... just shut up. I feel your lunacy infecting my brain like an ignorant and malignant tumour of twisted logic and tangential tripe.

[c0medyClub]

In all seriousness, since Bieksa sucks so much, Hank&Dan or Canucklion should offer their services to the Canucks for free. They can replace Bieksa in the meantime until Salo gets back.

[sampy]

Ballard has been a HUGE part of the recent success of our PK. He has 1 less block than Bieksa in FIVE less games..

I haven't seen a single glaring error from Ballard. A steady, consistent, and dependable defensemen. All opposites to boo boo.

Coming from the guy who notices when Bieksa does a left crossover instead of a right crossover you haven't seen any Ballard errors??? Did you not see when he tripped over the blueline last game on that 2on1, thankfully it never ended up back in our net, though if it did it would have been Bieksa's fault just like your sig says. I think Ballard will be a lot better, but he is easily our 6th dman right now.

I care because I'm a Canuck fan. We are very tight against the cap, it makes it nearly impossible to upgrade a certain area need be at the deadline to make a run. You didn't even read my post, you just started attacking me. I never said Alberts is better than Bieksa, but, so far this year he has been as good or better. Speak for yourself, everything you write is all opinion. Try bringing facts into your argument, you won't sound like such a dud.

Does the bolded part even make sence, you just contraticted yourself. And above you also said Alberts was better.

[RUPERTKBD]

Bieksas going to take a discount no matter where he goes. No one is dumb enough to give this guy 3.75 million........ again.

Agreed, but that's not what he meant. But you knew that, didn't you?

And Rey: Stop. Please. You're embarrassing yourself.

[one night]

What I have seen from Ballard, is better than what I have seen from Bieksa. He (Bieksa) is alright, but super overpriced. If Keith Ballard only is able to help the PK become a good unit, then that is a pretty great improvement over last year. He blocks a bunch of pucks and is playing on the third pairing with Rome, who is not the greatest but is doing okay. I would say Bieksa is about even with Andrew Alberts so far this year. I would give the edge to Alberts only because he seems to get beat mostly from lack of footspeed and not playing totally idiotic at times (like Bieksa). I am not saying Bieksa hurts the team badly, but for his salary he needs to be wayyyy better!

You could compare the two all you wish, but how long has Bieksa played in this system? How about Keith Ballard? Who was recovering from surgery and now a slight concussion. Even if Ballard is put as Bieksa's equal, then that is pretty bad really (for Bieksa).. And I would be pretty surprised if anybody thought Keith did not help the PK way more than Bieksa. If Ballard becomes more comfortable in the system and becomes 100% , I have no trouble seeing him being quite a bit better than Bieksa (who seems to never improve anymore).

Maybe you should look at the +/- before making stupid judgements.

[hank&dan]

Coming from the guy who notices when Bieksa does a left crossover instead of a right crossover you haven't seen any Ballard errors??? Did you not see when he tripped over the blueline last game on that 2on1, thankfully it never ended up back in our net, though if it did it would have been Bieksa's fault just like your sig says. I think Ballard will be a lot better, but he is easily our 6th dman right now.

Does the bolded part even make sence, you just contraticted yourself. And above you also said Alberts was better.

I believe Bieksa is a better defenceman than Alberts as I've watched him play from day one as a Canuck. So far this year Alberts has played very well. Maybe even as good or better than Bieksa. Thats why I italicized "so far". But nice try.