CANUCKLELION Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Well it's better to give few answers then crapty ones like you did. Alberts can fight. Yeah, your right. Ballard hasn't won a fight since April 05 2009 according to hockeyfights.com (he's fought 9 times since then, going 1-4-5 Kesler isn't a great fighter, although he can hold his own, but if he gets hurt, thats our third best player (in my opinion anyways, I doubt anyone would argue top 5), will be out of the line up. As far as the forth line goes, no one is really a good fighter, in most cases they are pretty close fights. Pretty sure Juice is a RHS, so your wrong right now we have one. And the question was regarding if and (in most likelihood) when Salo is injured again, would we have any if we got rid of Bieksa, the answer would be none. Again, assuming Salo gets injured, how many do we have? a limited role doesn't add up to top 4. You keep saying Sammy has size and Bieksa doesn't. You do know they are only an inch different right? We have players that can play either the first line and second line, or the second line and the third line, but Sammy is the only one who can effectively play all three, I'll give you that. We have more depth up front then on the back end, and come playoff time, that rude cap hit doesn't mean crap. Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion/ opinions. In thre last 3 years both Alberts and Ballard have fought more frequently than Bxa, but the point you mssed is that Alberts size will prove to be more valuable than Bxa's fighting ability, come play off time. And both Alberts and Ballard out hit Bieksa, again a more relevent stat. Bxa's shot is a joke, especially compared to Salo's howitzer, thus IMO there won't be a real rhs on D til he gets back. Speculating on Salo's likelyhood of future injury is about the same odds as speculating on Bxa getting another injury, as Bxa up until this season had missed more games due to injury than Salo had over the last FOUR years. 4 yrs is not a snapshot, it is the story, Bxa is just as prone to injury as Salo is. Oh yeah Samuelsson is only an inch taller but he's 25 lbs heavier than BXa, plus he plays fwd, where the team is not necessarily big. So no there isn't as much quality depth up front as you suggest, whereas on the backend I belive there are more options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Kent Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion/ opinions. In thre last 3 years both Alberts and Ballard have fought more frequently than Bxa, but the point you mssed is that Alberts size will prove to be more valuable than Bxa's fighting ability, come play off time. And both Alberts and Ballard out hit Bieksa, again a more relevent stat. Bxa's shot is a joke, especially compared to Salo's howitzer, thus IMO there won't be a real rhs on D til he gets back. Speculating on Salo's likelyhood of future injury is about the same odds as speculating on Bxa getting another injury, as Bxa up until this season had missed more games due to injury than Salo had over the last FOUR years. 4 yrs is not a snapshot, it is the story, Bxa is just as prone to injury as Salo is. Oh yeah Samuelsson is only an inch taller but he's 25 lbs heavier than BXa, plus he plays fwd, where the team is not necessarily big. So no there isn't as much quality depth up front as you suggest, whereas on the backend I belive there are more options. No, Bieksa has fought more then both Alberts and Ballard, with less games played. Nice try though. And I was talking about fighting not hitting. When Joe ButtFcuk runs Luongo and knocks him out of action for 3 weeks a fighter would be more useful. Bieksas shot bring a joke is your opinion. While it's not the same shot as Salos, his shots are great for getting tipped in front. Besides, Salo doesn't shoot that much anymore (which hopefully changes). Over the last 4 seasons, Bieksa has lost 74 games due to 2 injuries, and 11 games do to 3 injures, for a total of 85 games due to 5 injuries. Salo has been injured for 50+ games, with 13 injuries, excluding all the games he's missed this season. So, yeah Bieksa has been injured just as much, the difference is, he doesn't get injured as often as Salo does. STFU already about Bieksa being as injury prone as Salo. Injury prone is about the frequency of injuries, not severity. Size aside, as far as skill goes, there is way more depth up front then on the back end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion/ opinions. In thre last 3 years both Alberts and Ballard have fought more frequently than Bxa, but the point you mssed is that Alberts size will prove to be more valuable than Bxa's fighting ability, come play off time. And both Alberts and Ballard out hit Bieksa, again a more relevent stat. Bxa's shot is a joke, especially compared to Salo's howitzer, thus IMO there won't be a real rhs on D til he gets back. Speculating on Salo's likelyhood of future injury is about the same odds as speculating on Bxa getting another injury, as Bxa up until this season had missed more games due to injury than Salo had over the last FOUR years. 4 yrs is not a snapshot, it is the story, Bxa is just as prone to injury as Salo is. Oh yeah Samuelsson is only an inch taller but he's 25 lbs heavier than BXa, plus he plays fwd, where the team is not necessarily big. So no there isn't as much quality depth up front as you suggest, whereas on the backend I belive there are more options. You're so disingenuous that it's almost quite hilarious if it wasn't so sad. You're talking about games missed in the last four seasons??? Well, from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, Salo played 16 more games than Bieksa. Big whoop! Oh here's an interesting stat...in those 16 less games, Bieksa put 21 more shots on net than Salo and 4 more points as well....since we're talking about 4 years and the 16 less games he's played. That's quite the story, isn't it.?? Bieksa in 16 total less games played than Salo, gets more shots on net and scores more than Salo and is younger and faster and tougher.....yep, quite the story indeed. Quite the FOUR year story, eh? Bieksa is more prone to injury?? Yeah he should train harder in order to avoid sharp skate blades that slice into him. He's had a handful of injuries compared to the plethora of injuries had by Salo. Bieksa has had a calf laceration, a knee injury, a fractured foot, severed tendons in his ankles, again from a skate blade...and that's really about it. Salo on the other hand has had these injuries: I hope you're not seriously trying to compare Bieksa fighting prowess to Alberts' or Ballards'???. Alberts is punching bag and Ballard I doubt has won as many fights as Juice. There is no comparison between those three, Bieksa is hands down the better and more legitimate fight there, and he'd drop both of them as well. Ballards has had 23 regular season fights since Bieksa came into the league in 2005-2006, and Bieksa has had 27 regular season fights in comparison, and Alberts has had only 16. And as far as fight records go(according to hockeyfights.com) : Bieksa has 24 wins 2 losses and 2 draws since 2005-2006. Ballard has 3 wins 10 losses and 9 draws & 1 undecided since 2005-2006(And one of his wins was against Crosby, lol) Alberts has 1 win 10 losses and 5 draws since 2005-2006. There's no fracking comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 No, Bieksa has fought more then both Alberts and Ballard, with less games played. Nice try though. And I was talking about fighting not hitting. When Joe ButtFcuk runs Luongo and knocks him out of action for 3 weeks a fighter would be more useful. Bieksas shot bring a joke is your opinion. While it's not the same shot as Salos, his shots are great for getting tipped in front. Besides, Salo doesn't shoot that much anymore (which hopefully changes). Over the last 4 seasons, Bieksa has lost 74 games due to 2 injuries, and 11 games do to 3 injures, for a total of 85 games due to 5 injuries. Salo has been injured for 50+ games, with 13 injuries, excluding all the games he's missed this season. So, yeah Bieksa has been injured just as much, the difference is, he doesn't get injured as often as Salo does. STFU already about Bieksa being as injury prone as Salo. Injury prone is about the frequency of injuries, not severity. Size aside, as far as skill goes, there is way more depth up front then on the back end. Bieksa good at defending the crease? You have to be kidding, gawd, there is a whole montage of gif's showing Bieksa's gaffes in the goal crease. I still maintain it would be harder for a guy like Byfuglien to move or get position on the much bigger Alberts, than Bieksa, but honestly there aren't too many in the league that can handle that 260lb behemoth Byfuglien. Being as he is no longer a Hawk, the question may not need to be answered. The Nuck's back end isn't big, so I would just as soon keep the big boys around in case the slot turns into another battle of the meat men, like it did last year when with a healthy Bxa, the Nuck's didn't have an answer for the big boys like Byfuglien. Getting back to Samuelsson, I'm still not convinced that his ideal combination of smarts, size, skill and willingness to shoot would be far harder to replace than Bieksa's minutes, once Salo returns. Either way I admire your focus on supporting the Nuck's but disagree with your position on Bxa and what he brings to the team. Whatever happens with the team as they work towards achieving cap compliance, I just hope it turns out to be the right move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Well Parent and Rome would barely free up half the cap space to keep Bxa so keep going, how are they going to replace Glass for 500? My point is that most successful teams will attempt to keep as many minimum wagers that can play as possible vs a small, slow, overpaid Dman who is susceptible to costly giveaways and brainfarts on a consistent game to game basis. Do you have any quantifiable stats to support this claim, or are you talking out your posterior as usual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike27 Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Under my plan, we would also still have a full roster. Even if Bieksa leaves and Salo comes in, and THEN we get multiple injuries, we'd still have no cap space to bring anyone up. We screwed both ways, my version or your version. You see that right? Non roster players are irrelevant to our capspace or our roster being full or not, so let's leave what we can get for Bieksa aside for the time being....it really has no bearing. We sure as hell couldn't trade him for any roster player at all. It would have to be for picks or prospects. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were waiving five players from the current roster of 25 (including injured Salo and Rypien) and adding one extra player, leaving the roster at 21. My version would have the roster at 23 players, so a couple of injuries would still be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were waiving five players from the current roster of 25 (including injured Salo and Rypien) and adding one extra player, leaving the roster at 21. My version would have the roster at 23 players, so a couple of injuries would still be okay. Sorry if I wasn't clear. My plan is to waive Parent, Alberts, Rome, Rypien and Glass.....and in turn bringing up one player $600k or less to play on the 4th line if Glass gets picked up, as well as, having Salo AND Bieksa in the lineup. In your scenario, we trade Juice, bring Salo back, and have Parent, Rome and Rypien in reserve and have about $300k in capspace. So even in your scenario, what would you do, if we had an injury to Glass and Tambellini in the same night, and they were out 6 games each? Now what does your scenario allow that mine doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 I think, since you're asking, that carrying one replacement player for a short period of time after the trade deadline is a possible solution in order to keep the best defence group possible, going into the playoffs. Is it the best? Well, possibly. In all honesty, if it worked out, then yeah...if it didn't then it would still be doable but challenging for MG and AV. Sometimes you gotta make bold moves if you want to get ahead. Waiving 5 guys is a bold move.....not a reckless one. We'd still have a full roster compliment as well as the option to bring guys up for 7 games or 20 days, i think it is, if any of our guys get hurt. If the injury isn't serious then I think we could manage spreading the ice time among our players to fill that absence, if it is a serious injury, well, that's what the LTIR and cap relief are for, Baumer would be the scenario is we had two dmen injured. First of all, Rome Parent and perhaps Alberts aren't all going to get claimed....be realistic for a sec. And Rome is quite capable of filling in for up to 7 games if he's paired with a responsible dman as his partner. Also, Baumer has the maturity and experience of coming up as a call up in order to play pretty sound defensive hockey. He plays a really simple game, and it would work out fine with 3rd pairing minutes. He filled in admirably last season. And again, we're talking about the regular season....not playoffs here. With the team playing good offensive hockey(#1 in the western conference in goal diff) and an experienced goaltender and pairings that would match experienced dmen with the new guys...we could easily ride out a stretch of 7 games till the injured regular or regulars got back. It wouldn't be that big of a deal. Of course i'd rather have our regulars in the lineup....and I wouldn't want any injuries, let alone two. But, we, even after the waiver process would have the personnel and cap relief in my scenario to still be plenty defencively viable. Come playoffs, we'd have the best 1-3 pairings of any team...even CHI, overall. Just think of the combo possibilities. I don't care how much of a Bieksa hater you are, you would at least have to admit that even Salo - Bieksa as a third pairing come the playoffs is pretty sexy, especially behing Edler - Ehrhoff and Hamhuis - Ballard. You'd be a complete moron to say otherwise, or say Salo and Alberts looks just as good. And to answer your other questions....hell yeah, Bieksa is better than Rome, Alberts and Parent defencively. He's more offensively productive than any of them head to head and he's as offensively productive versus them combined! He's also head and shoulders better than them defencively. His +/- rating is far enough ahead of them that it actually means something right now and he's effectively shut down the top lines of most teams very well recently. Something that Alberts and Rome would never be asked to do by te coaching staff.....god forbid, they ever do. Also, he's got as many points as Glass does currently and he's able to stick up for his teammates as well as Rypien....albeit not with the same calibre or size of fighter that Rypien does. But that's what we have Desbien, Volpatti, Glass for. Or just Volpatti and Desbien if we lost Glass....which i doubt would happen, and wouldn't be a huge loss even if it did. So yeah, Bieksa outperforms all these guys statistically, and in leadership areas in the dressing room. Take off your hater glasses, and try to see the positive of having both Salo and Bieksa in the lineup, and stop worrying about the decimation of the D. I told you before Alberts is the only one in real danger of getting picked up. Rome and Parent would easily make it through, as would Rypien and Glass. Just the benefit and the cementing of our backend is worth it to our team, in the playoffs or the end of the season. If you can't see that, then you're in blind hate mode Wally. Short-term injured players can be replaced on the roster, but their cap hit is not removed or replaced at all. In other words, if you are right up to the cap with a roster of 21 players, then as soon as you get more than one injury that is not LTIR, then you are playing with an undermanned lineup. The Calgary Flames lost their bid to make the playoffs a couple of seasons ago because of this exact scenario. If the Northwest division lead is still tight towards the trade deadline (ie Col and Van for example are still battling it out) and the other divisions like the Central and Pacific are still really strong, not winning the Division title could actually mean not making the playoffs for the Canucks. Combined with losing all of our defensive depth in the process and our best 4th liner, this is an awful risk to take to keep a guy who actually costs the team in the playoffs more than he helps them. Bieksa may individually be better than the guys you mention, but not collectively. That is the difference. Having all of those guys or just Bieksa is not even a close contest. Let Bieksa go and give his minutes to Ballard who is already outshining Bieksa with half the minutes per game. Ballard is starting to outshine Hamhuis too actually......he has been better than both in the majority of the games since coming back from his benching by AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Kent Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Short-term injured players can be replaced on the roster, but their cap hit is not removed or replaced at all. In other words, if you are right up to the cap with a roster of 21 players, then as soon as you get more than one injury that is not LTIR, then you are playing with an undermanned lineup. The Calgary Flames lost their bid to make the playoffs a couple of seasons ago because of this exact scenario. If the Northwest division lead is still tight towards the trade deadline (ie Col and Van for example are still battling it out) and the other divisions like the Central and Pacific are still really strong, not winning the Division title could actually mean not making the playoffs for the Canucks. Combined with losing all of our defensive depth in the process and our best 4th liner, this is an awful risk to take to keep a guy who actually costs the team in the playoffs more than he helps them. Bieksa may individually be better than the guys you mention, but not collectively. That is the difference. Having all of those guys or just Bieksa is not even a close contest. Let Bieksa go and give his minutes to Ballard who is already outshining Bieksa with half the minutes per game. Ballard is starting to outshine Hamhuis too actually......he has been better than both in the majority of the games since coming back from his benching by AV. No he hasn't. Plus, he is playing against less skilled opponents. So double fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Do you have any quantifiable stats to support this claim, or are you talking out your posterior as usual? Gee I thought you had been following the thread, lol Somewhere back there there are 10 pages discussing how BXa leads the team in give aways and as far as brain farts go, do you want me to re-run the gif montage of Bieksa's ghastly goal crease gaffes again? I don't believe you could come up with any other Nuck who has been known to brainfart more frequently. Even last nite he took a selfish boneheaded penalty late in the game. He has a penchant for untimely penalties. So now we are down to size, Bieksa is listed at 6'1" 195lbs in the Hockey news and at 198lbs on the CDC site, so lets say 198lbs. What is the average size of an NHL Dman? As far as average size by position (based on teams' active rosters on Jan. 4): Goaltender: 6-1, 193Center: 6-1, 199Left wing: 6-1, 204Right wing: 6-0, 202Defensemen: 6-2, 210— Mike Brehm and Kevin Allen The avg size of defencemen in the 2010 draft, now we're talking 18 yr olds, was 6'1" 202lbs, many of these guys are still growing and all will put on weight as they grow into adulthood. So the 6'2" 210 lb avg will probably hold up for a while. So yeah Bxa is small by NHL standards, not under sized, but still easier to play against physically than an NHL defender of more mass, say 210 or 220 lbs or more. fact is Bxa is a small, mistake prone, defender that doesn't put up points. Small guys have to play smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 No he hasn't. Plus, he is playing against less skilled opponents. So double fail. He is also defending a lot better than Bieksa and Hamhuis are overall. Many of the quality scoring chances certainly seem to be coming on their watch and they can thank Luongo for stopping a lot of the chances they are giving up by not being able to contain other team's top players as effectively as they will need to in the playoffs. Quality of competition has something to do with that, but the quality of players they are playing WITH is also a lot better than Ballard, who sees a lot of time with the 4th line. Also, It is not easy to play better and look more effective on the ice when you are playing 12-14 minutes with no PP and limited PK time compared to a guy who is getting 23-24 minutes including all the PP and PK time. That is exactly what Ballard has been doing though. He is single handedly making Bieksa look more expendable with each passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Short-term injured players can be replaced on the roster, but their cap hit is not removed or replaced at all. In other words, if you are right up to the cap with a roster of 21 players, then as soon as you get more than one injury that is not LTIR, then you are playing with an undermanned lineup. The Calgary Flames lost their bid to make the playoffs a couple of seasons ago because of this exact scenario. If the Northwest division lead is still tight towards the trade deadline (ie Col and Van for example are still battling it out) and the other divisions like the Central and Pacific are still really strong, not winning the Division title could actually mean not making the playoffs for the Canucks. Combined with losing all of our defensive depth in the process and our best 4th liner, this is an awful risk to take to keep a guy who actually costs the team in the playoffs more than he helps them. Bieksa may individually be better than the guys you mention, but not collectively. That is the difference. Having all of those guys or just Bieksa is not even a close contest. Let Bieksa go and give his minutes to Ballard who is already outshining Bieksa with half the minutes per game. Ballard is starting to outshine Hamhuis too actually......he has been better than both in the majority of the games since coming back from his benching by AV. I realise the 21 man roster is not ideal of course. That goes without saying. And i'm talking about enacting this plan after the trade deadline, meaning bringing Salo back after Mar 3. Well, after the trade deadline, we have about 1 month, where we would be vulnerable. We're talking 17 games of course. So in that time if we lost a few man games to injuries, I think we'd survive. Why? Well, because if we lost a dman, i'm sure we wouldn't lost Rome AND Alberts through waiver wire pickup. Rome could easily handle third pairing duties while we allowed the injured dman to go onto LTIR, to #1, heal and #2, rest before the playoffs arrive. We'd also acquire enough cap space to bring up a couple of guys....on Alberts or Rome, and a forward or two. If we lose a forward, same deal...we put that forward on LTIR and bring up a reliable forward, perhaps Hodgson who could play on the wing or at center. We'd have to shuffle our lines if we lost a top6 player....like we're doing with Raymond. Actualy let's take Raymond as the example. He's missed how many games? 4, i think? well, do you think that we couldn't survive another 5 or 6 without him? We seem to be doing ok. Even with Ray's $2.5 mill relief, in my scenario we could call up Hodgson or Shirokov and Rome and still have room to call up Baumer or Perrault if we bring up Shiro instead of Cody. My point being....LTIR will have to be used...but it's not that big of a deal...because I think we'd be ok as a team. We're pretty deep all around and waving those 5 guys WILL NOT mean that ALL 5 guys get picked up....so you can rest the argument of depth decimation. And yeah, Bieksa is better than each of those guys individually, i agree. Hey, the scenario is a risk....but it's a risk cap wise even if Salo comes back and we lose Bieksa. Same crap different pile relative to our ability to call players up in case of injury. The numbers aren't there for us in keeping Salo either. I'd just rather keep Bieksa AND Salo than Salo AND Alberts. It's a no brainer. And it was for you once before.....or have you changed your tune from a hundred pages or so ago??? Hmmm?? Before you were all like, yeah I'd like to keep them both and now you're like no, we can't because Alberts hits more and is bigger. I think you had a little shiver run up your back because there actually might be a reasonable possibility that we actually do keep Juice. Scary, ain't it!? Ballard outshining Bieksa? I don't know what last 2 games you watched. Were your eyes open or closed....oh that's right, one game you didn't actually see in its entirety, did you? Well, i'm sure your limited viewing allows for better assessment of both of them comparatively. Oh, and the coach disagrees with you.....you remember him dontchya? He's the one who gets paid the big dollars to assess his players and won Coach of the Year and also coached us to 3 consecutive division titles....you know...the expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Gee I thought you had been following the thread, lol Somewhere back there there are 10 pages discussing how BXa leads the team in give aways and as far as brain farts go, do you want me to re-run the gif montage of Bieksa's ghastly goal crease gaffes again? I don't believe you could come up with any other Nuck who has been known to brainfart more frequently. Even last nite he took a selfish boneheaded penalty late in the game. He has a penchant for untimely penalties. So now we are down to size, Bieksa is listed at 6'1" 195lbs in the Hockey news and at 198lbs on the CDC site, so lets say 198lbs. What is the average size of an NHL Dman? As far as average size by position (based on teams' active rosters on Jan. 4): Goaltender: 6-1, 193Center: 6-1, 199Left wing: 6-1, 204Right wing: 6-0, 202Defensemen: 6-2, 210— Mike Brehm and Kevin Allen The avg size of defencemen in the 2010 draft, now we're talking 18 yr olds, was 6'1" 202lbs, many of these guys are still growing and all will put on weight as they grow into adulthood. So the 6'2" 210 lb avg will probably hold up for a while. So yeah Bxa is small by NHL standards, not under sized, but still easier to play against physically than an NHL defender of more mass, say 210 or 220 lbs or more. fact is Bxa is a small, mistake prone, defender that doesn't put up points. Small guys have to play smart. Bieksa is right around Hamhuis and Ballard's size. What's your point? Hammer is about 10 pounds heavier and the same height and Ballard is an inch shorter and 10 pounds heavier. Big difference! Bieksa still plays just as hard nosed as either of them. Geez, you're really reaching now on things to criticise, aren't you?! The last gasps of an idiot savante! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Kent Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 He is also defending a lot better than Bieksa and Hamhuis are overall. Many of the quality scoring chances certainly seem to be coming on their watch and they can thank Luongo for stopping a lot of the chances they are giving up by not being able to contain other team's top players as effectively as they will need to in the playoffs. Quality of competition has something to do with that, but the quality of players they are playing WITH is also a lot better than Ballard, who sees a lot of time with the 4th line. Also, It is not easy to play better and look more effective on the ice when you are playing 12-14 minutes with no PP and limited PK time compared to a guy who is getting 23-24 minutes including all the PP and PK time. That is exactly what Ballard has been doing though. He is single handedly making Bieksa look more expendable with each passing game. Maybe in your opinion. Regular Non-haters would disagree with you. And I don't know what games your watching, but as far as I see, there are a lot more scoring chances because of Ballards play, then Either Hammhuis or Bieksa. And don't even start with QOP, Bieksa played with both Alberts and Rome on a regular basis last year, and at parts this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinated.pea Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 He is also defending a lot better than Bieksa and Hamhuis are overall. Many of the quality scoring chances certainly seem to be coming on their watch and they can thank Luongo for stopping a lot of the chances they are giving up by not being able to contain other team's top players as effectively as they will need to in the playoffs. Quality of competition has something to do with that, but the quality of players they are playing WITH is also a lot better than Ballard, who sees a lot of time with the 4th line. Also, It is not easy to play better and look more effective on the ice when you are playing 12-14 minutes with no PP and limited PK time compared to a guy who is getting 23-24 minutes including all the PP and PK time. That is exactly what Ballard has been doing though. He is single handedly making Bieksa look more expendable with each passing game. LOL what?! I get that everyone sees things differently but Ballard has not "single-handedly" outplayed Hamhuis or Bieksa, by any means. I find this notion that Bieksa is just having minutes thrown at him for no reason at all to be completely disingenuous. IMO it comes from a stance of pessimism. Bieksa plays his minutes because he's EARNED them. He doesn't get them from thin air - in the last couple of games, watch the good plays he makes against the opposing team's top lines; it shows that he is able to undertake the workload, and stay a plus player while he's at it. Ballard played 20+ minutes against Tampa, Edmonton and Columbus. He had his chance on the PP, and in the end, he didn't prove to be much of a difference maker. And another thing that doesn't necessarily have to do with your post but should be brought up anyways: Bieksa and Ballard's minutes don't come interchangeably. Bieksa's played pretty consistent minutes for a while now whereas Ballard's been up and down. What does that tell us? It says that their play is not related! Ballard playing well and getting more minutes doesn't automatically mean Bieksa playing poorly and getting less minutes, and vice versa. Both have played their roles very well, in fact the entire blueline has been fantastic in the last couple of games. The difference is that while both have played 20+ minutes at some point in the season, Bieksa's earned his shot at keeping those minutes. So much so that I would directly disagree with your last statement there in that with each passing game, Bieksa's made it harder and harder for management to deal him because of how well he's played. Right now, him and Hamhuis are looking good, and they're playing their roles almost to perfection. #2 and #3 play against opposing top lines almost every night, and unless actual evidential statistics are given that show that opposing teams having SO many more chances directly because of Bieksa and Hamhuis and not because of the other three guys on the ice, regardless of whatever line they're on, it's superbly hard to point the finger solely at them. I understand that Ehrhoff went down and that probably factors into Ballard's minutes going up and down too, but another arbitrary fact that should not be left out is the complimentary D pairings that Bowness talked about in an interview posted back a while ago. Bieksa and Hamhuis play well together, as do Edler and Ehrhoff, as do Ballard and Alberts (and on occasion, Rome). Is is possible for there to be chemistry with other pairings? Sure. But right now, with the D being as effective as it is, why would anyone touch a thing? If you're truly as objective as you say you are, why be stingy about who gets what or who outplays whom, instead of looking at the previous game, see how well everyone played, and be happy that the blueline is playing terrifically and functioning like a well-oiled machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Okay, so I bought Canucklion a Bieksa jersey and poster for Christmas. As well as one of those mini figurine dealies. Also, I made a personal request to Canucks management that Canucklion is to receive Bieksa's game worn jersey at the final Canucks game; a late Christmas present. I know you're a huge fan of the guy. Not bad, not bad. Sorry I overlooked that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 You think carrying one replacement player on the roster for the regular season is a better solution than simply trading Bieksa to bring Salo back? Doing this kind of thing has never worked out well for ANY team. Think of all the times already this season that the Canucks have had 2 or 3 guys out with minor injuries at the same time. Under your scenario, the team would have to place guys that become injured on LTIR regardless of how long they will be injured for OR be forced to play with a less than full roster. Inflexibility like that is never a good solution. This also speaks nothing about what the team would then look like with even one injury on the D. Baumgartner or a not even close to being ready rookie as the #7 dman waiting to step in when an injury happens? Arguing for this as a solution you must also believe that in the event of injury the #6 spot is not too important if you are okay with any of those guys stepping in as our first D replacement in the playoffs. If you are arguing that this would be okay, then why would we need a 3.75 million dman in that spot in the first place? It is obviously not an important spot on the team in your estimation. I don't care how much of a Bieksa homer you are, he is not better than Alberts, Rome, Parent, Glass, and Rypien combined. I would rather have 3 guys like Alberts, Parent, and Rome than one Bieksa. All 3 are comparable to Bieksa defensively and provide much better depth in the event of injuries. Decimating the entire depth of the defense just to keep Bieksa is not a good solution. Good post, but what sharpie doesn't seem to understand in his desperate options to try to make room for Bieksa is that his trade proposal is a non-starter anyway. Even Garth Snow isn't stupid enough to want a combo pack of Rypien, Glass, Parent, Rome, Alberts, with Samuelsson being the "name" player. all for giving up what they desperately need themselves -- prospects. As for a team with a different focus, why would a playoff contender -- Montreal, Washington, e.g. -- want those marginal to journeymen NHLers? How would that help them? No, Bieksa apparently and fortunately, has value, and as a UFA, is a hand grenade about to go off in the hands of the team who's last in the game of musical chairs. edit: big LOLZ! I now read that Samuelsson wouldn't have to be thrown in. So some team is gonna want a package of Rome, Alberts, Rypien, Glass and Parent! This is priceless. I take it back. There IS lotsa comedy from the Bieksa boys, even if it's of the unintentional variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Gee I thought you had been following the thread, lol So now we are down to size, Bieksa is listed at 6'1" 195lbs in the Hockey news and at 198lbs on the CDC site, so lets say 198lbs. What is the average size of an NHL Dman? As far as average size by position (based on teams' active rosters on Jan. 4): Goaltender: 6-1, 193Center: 6-1, 199Left wing: 6-1, 204Right wing: 6-0, 202Defensemen: 6-2, 210— Mike Brehm and Kevin Allen The avg size of defencemen in the 2010 draft, now we're talking 18 yr olds, was 6'1" 202lbs, many of these guys are still growing and all will put on weight as they grow into adulthood. So the 6'2" 210 lb avg will probably hold up for a while. So yeah Bxa is small by NHL standards, not under sized, but still easier to play against physically than an NHL defender of more mass, say 210 or 220 lbs or more. fact is Bxa is a small, mistake prone, defender that doesn't put up points. Small guys have to play smart. Bieksa, when he was first brought up by the Canucks, was listed at 5'11'". Then, at about 27 years of age, the next year, he mysteriously grew to 6'0", and now he's supposedly 6'1". He ain't 6'1". Many players get inflated height and weight listings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike27 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Sorry if I wasn't clear. My plan is to waive Parent, Alberts, Rome, Rypien and Glass.....and in turn bringing up one player $600k or less to play on the 4th line if Glass gets picked up, as well as, having Salo AND Bieksa in the lineup. In your scenario, we trade Juice, bring Salo back, and have Parent, Rome and Rypien in reserve and have about $300k in capspace. So even in your scenario, what would you do, if we had an injury to Glass and Tambellini in the same night, and they were out 6 games each? Now what does your scenario allow that mine doesn't? In my scenario, Glass and Tambellini would be in the pressbox with one other healthy scratch, and 20 guys on the ice/bench. In your scenario, if I read it correctly, Glass and Tambellini would be in the pressbox (injured) and 19 guys would be on the ice/bench, one short of a full playing roster. Remember, Bieksa has a higher cap hit than Salo by $250k, so losing Bieksa and bringing Salo off the LTIR improves the Canucks tight cap situation. In summary, while I agree your scenario would work as long as injuries were very very minimal, the Canucks would be put into Cap hell very quickly if a few injuries occured. Then someone would have to be firesaled out of here just to become cap compliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Good post, but what sharpie doesn't seem to understand in his desperate options to try to make room for Bieksa is that his trade proposal is a non-starter anyway. Even Garth Snow isn't stupid enough to want a combo pack of Rypien, Glass, Parent, Rome, Alberts, with Samuelsson being the "name" player. all for giving up what they desperately need themselves -- prospects. As for a team with a different focus, why would a playoff contender -- Montreal, Washington, e.g. -- want those marginal to journeymen NHLers? How would that help them? No, Bieksa apparently and fortunately, has value, and as a UFA, is a hand grenade about to go off in the hands of the team who's last in the game of musical chairs. edit: big LOLZ! I now read that Samuelsson wouldn't have to be thrown in. So some team is gonna want a package of Rome, Alberts, Rypien, Glass and Parent! This is priceless. I take it back. There IS lotsa comedy from the Bieksa boys, even if it's of the unintentional variety. Holy Frack are you an even bigger moron than I thought? I didn't think it was possible but you proved me wrong. Congrats?! Reading comprehension much? Although I love your post and its rant worthiness. But the epic failure by you, makes me happier. Thank you for providing me with my big smile of the day. I guess there really is a Santa Claus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.