RUPERTKBD Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I disagree. I think he would fetch a surprisingly high return at or near the trade deadline. For all his flaws he can still be a very effective piece in the right role and environment. I would be willing to bet several teams would line up for him actually. His cap hit is a bit high but he is also not a ufa rental. This isn't the first time I've seen you say something like this and I find it a bit confusing. You say "several teams would line up for him", yet earlier you maintained that he couldn't play offense or defense. How can you reconcile both of those statements? And if your statement that he fetch a high return is correct, what is it that you know that all of these NHL teams don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 This isn't the first time I've seen you say something like this and I find it a bit confusing. You say "several teams would line up for him", yet earlier you maintained that he couldn't play offense or defense. How can you reconcile both of those statements? And if your statement that he fetch a high return is correct, what is it that you know that all of these NHL teams don't? Aside from the fact that the stupidity level on what GM's are willing to pay for pretty much any veteran asset at the deadline is pretty much off the charts? Look what Nonis and Gillis as examples paid for useless veteran depth.........the trade deadline is a time where all assets are overvalued by GM's. Bieksa is not a useless player. He is definitely not a consistent top 4 quality guy anymore though, especially on a D like ours that has to rely on him to play big minutes and do it all. He tries to do too much on both sides of the puck which is his biggest weakness as a player imo. He doesn't accept that he can't do it all anymore. On a better built D though where he could be more sheltered in terms of his deployment and paired with the right partner where he does not have to try to carry a pairing he can still be an effective player. He is a #5 quality guy at this stage that can step up an play top 4 for spurts and look good doing it. He is just declining too much to be that consistently. Given his ability to fight and his other intangibles plus his history of playing well in contract years, this is the year to trade him. The Canucks are not a good enough team to be a playoff threat this season. Keeping Bieksa or trading him will have minimal impact on that now and going forward. Same with guys like Burrows, Higgins, etc. It is time to get younger. The argument to keep Bieksa is always that we have no one better. While that is debatable considering how poorly he has played this season, it is still not a reason for a team that needs to re-tool with youth to hang onto a mid 30's player that is declining. Losing him for nothing as a UFA does not help us. And I would bet by the time his contract is up he is on the 3rd pairing but will not sign a cheap "I love Vancouver" contract to stay. He will take the big money and term offered by teams like Toronto or Benning will have to overpay to keep him. Simple asset management says it is better for a team with a bunch of holes to get something back that can be better down the road than overpay Bieksa to stay beyond this contract. I understand people love him but people not being willing to admit he is seriously declining is just sad. It happens to all players eventually. And it is happening to him the last couple of years. Could he have a rebound on a better team with better D? Maybe. But looking at our D I don't think it is happening for him here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Aside from the fact that the stupidity level on what GM's are willing to pay for pretty much any veteran asset at the deadline is pretty much off the charts? Look what Nonis and Gillis as examples paid for useless veteran depth.........the trade deadline is a time where all assets are overvalued by GM's. Bieksa is not a useless player. He is definitely not a consistent top 4 quality guy anymore though, especially on a D like ours that has to rely on him to play big minutes and do it all. He tries to do too much on both sides of the puck which is his biggest weakness as a player imo. He doesn't accept that he can't do it all anymore. On a better built D though where he could be more sheltered in terms of his deployment and paired with the right partner where he does not have to try to carry a pairing he can still be an effective player. He is a #5 quality guy at this stage that can step up an play top 4 for spurts and look good doing it. He is just declining too much to be that consistently. Given his ability to fight and his other intangibles plus his history of playing well in contract years, this is the year to trade him. The Canucks are not a good enough team to be a playoff threat this season. Keeping Bieksa or trading him will have minimal impact on that now and going forward. Same with guys like Burrows, Higgins, etc. It is time to get younger. The argument to keep Bieksa is always that we have no one better. While that is debatable considering how poorly he has played this season, it is still not a reason for a team that needs to re-tool with youth to hang onto a mid 30's player that is declining. Losing him for nothing as a UFA does not help us. And I would bet by the time his contract is up he is on the 3rd pairing but will not sign a cheap "I love Vancouver" contract to stay. He will take the big money and term offered by teams like Toronto or Benning will have to overpay to keep him. Simple asset management says it is better for a team with a bunch of holes to get something back that can be better down the road than overpay Bieksa to stay beyond this contract. I understand people love him but people not being willing to admit he is seriously declining is just sad. It happens to all players eventually. And it is happening to him the last couple of years. Could he have a rebound on a better team with better D? Maybe. But looking at our D I don't think it is happening for him here. I wasn't really looking for a rehash of what your opinion has been of Kevin Bieksa has been since this thread started years ago. I was wondering why you think a guy whom you claim can't play offense or defense would generate a high return. So, your answer in a nutshell is "the stupidity of GMs". Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Bieksa has another year left on his deal so any team looking to add depth at the deadline will very well take that into consideration. So which teams are Bieksa willing to waive for? Of those teams (likely contenders), which ones would actually want him and doesn't mind having him next season as well? Has to be a very very short list. Honestly, no team comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Aside from the fact that the stupidity level on what GM's are willing to pay for pretty much any veteran asset at the deadline is pretty much off the charts? .........the trade deadline is a time where all assets are overvalued by GM's. You like to overstate things to try to rescue a point - but context - not so much. Regardless, you might cherry pick a few Shero deals, but otherwise, the storyline doesn't reallly hold up. Last year's deadline deals: One hockey trade - Callahan 1st for St Louis. and Thomas Vanek for Sebastian Colberg. Gaborik for Frattin and a 2nd Legwand for Eaves and Jarnkrok Meszaros for a 3rd Hemsky for a 3rd and 5th. Goc for a 3rd and 5th. Ruutu for Loktionov (to the KHL) Schultz for a 5th. Dubnyk for FC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 GMs show rare restraint at trade deadline2013-04-04The trade deadline is supposed to be the one day of the year when GMs make more mistakes than the other 364 days of the year combined.In all fairness, it probably was true until this year. That’s because, for the most part and with very few exceptions, teams showed a remarkable amount of restraint and good judgment when it came to making their final deals of the season. In fact, of the 17 trades involving 30 players in the final day of the deadline Wednesday, the only one where a team really probably overpaid was when the Minnesota Wild acquired Jason Pominville from the Buffalo Sabres.http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/51051-GMs-show-rare-restraint-at-trade-deadline.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I wasn't really looking for a rehash of what your opinion has been of Kevin Bieksa has been since this thread started years ago. I was wondering why you think a guy whom you claim can't play offense or defense would generate a high return. So, your answer in a nutshell is "the stupidity of GMs". Fair enough. Actually there is a lot more there than just the stupidity of gms but whatever. Bieksa fans will not accept any argument for him being traded anyway and you are no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawndy Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Rubbish! So's your avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 So last season Bieksa was our best top 4 "D" man and Edler was our worst "D" man Magically Edler has become a top shut down Defenceman. Last season, Just about every single one of you would have traded Edler away for peanuts Don't give up on Bieksa! Hamhuis will be back soon (his 25 minutes is sorely missed) and our Defence will look pretty darn good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzy Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Woooooooo heart and soul of the team but can't defend for crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Actually there is a lot more there than just the stupidity of gms but whatever. Bieksa fans will not accept any argument for him being traded anyway and you are no different. There you go, tossing straw whenever a discussion takes a turn against you. I didn't say anything against trading him. If it were a deal that helps the team, then I'd trade pretty much anyone. However, I've yet to see any solid proposal that makes any kind of sense for the team. Just a whole lot of hyperbole like "we'd be hard pressed to find a d-man playing as bad as Bieksa" and "he can't play offense or defense". My question was directly aimed at your opinion that he'd garner a high return, despite your assertion that he can't play offense or defense. The two statements seem to contradict each other IMHO and the only thing you said that addresses that particular anomaly is "the stupidity of GMs". If that truly is your answer, then fine, but stand by it instead of using the tired, old "Oh Bieksa can do no wrong in your books! You think he's the greatest defenseman ever!" routine. It was weak when you were doing it four years ago in this thread and it's weak now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 He's serviceable and can play a top 3-4 role on any contender. The issue is utilising KB as an asset to expeditiously build the team going forward. In order to do that he has to be traded while he is still valuable to contending teams,preferably when the return is traditionally highest. At the end of next season he will be shy of 35 years of age. With rare exception does the NHL ice d men beyond the age of 36: http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/RetireeAgeDistribution.php Waiting for KB to waive is like waiting for a CDC proposal that turns out to be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Bieksa's now sunk to the 210 worst D in the whole entire league (out of 262) with Hamuseless at 209 and Sbisa at 236. Do you think that D-core will take us to the promised land? Bieksa's on the fast track to Florida! And you've risen to the top of CDC's "makes ridiculous, unqualified claims" list. By what metric is Dan Hamhuis the 209th worst blueliner in the NHL? Absolute nonsense based undoubtedly on a silly cherry-pick. Someone needs to appraise Steve Yzerman of that, because apparently the dumbies at Hockey Canada consider Hamhuis an Olympian. That would be a free-fall decline - but that's not the case. It's really just a ridiculous claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 And you've risen to the top of CDC's "makes ridiculous, unqualified claims" list. By what metric is Dan Hamhuis the 209th worst blueliner in the NHL? Absolute nonsense based undoubtedly on a silly cherry-pick. Someone needs to appraise Steve Yzerman of that, because apparently the dumbies at Hockey Canada consider Hamhuis an Olympian. That would be a free-fall decline - but that's not the case. It's really just a ridiculous claim. Don't expect a reply. I asked about 10 days ago what his claim was based on and nada in response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Love Hamhuis but was having a tough start to this season before the injury. Not sure where the #210 figure comes in to play but.... Points-ranked 425th amongst skaters and 129th amongst d men. Not hard to see his stats sucked before his injury but he is the best defensive blue liner on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RU SERIOUS Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Well, one more game loss caused exclusively by Bieksa against L.A. tonight. This is another in the very many games he has given away due to his out of position, lazy, poor thinking defensive motions. His thought process is that of a old mid 30 y.o.man dreaming about retirement on the beaches in Florida. Lets oblidge! Trade him for anything you can get. He's probably worth a bit more than a bag of pucks now and the longer mgmt waits the less valuable he becomes. He isn't getting any younger and certainly not quicker - god knows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Well, one more game loss caused exclusively by Bieksa against L.A. tonight. This is another in the very many games he has given away due to his out of position, lazy, poor thinking defensive motions. His thought process is that of a old mid 30 y.o.man dreaming about retirement on the beaches in Florida. Lets oblidge! Trade him for anything you can get. He's probably worth a bit more than a bag of pucks now and the longer mgmt waits the less valuable he becomes. He isn't getting any younger and certainly not quicker - god knows! Right. It was Bieksa's fault that Stanton took that late penalty. And it was Bieksa's fault that Daniel couldn't clear the puck right before Stoll scored the game winner. (to say nothing of the fact that both were goals that Miller should have had) I don't no which is more ridiculous, this post, or the fact that five people saw fit to give it a plus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Well, one more game loss caused exclusively by Bieksa against L.A. tonight. Do you even understand the word "exclusive"? No exclusive in team but there are two i's in some words. (Imagine that) (never mind that part, it's complex) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzy Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Right. It was Bieksa's fault that Stanton took that late penalty. And it was Bieksa's fault that Daniel couldn't clear the puck right before Stoll scored the game winner. (to say nothing of the fact that both were goals that Miller should have had) I don't no which is more ridiculous, this post, or the fact that five people saw fit to give it a plus... So you're blaming Miller for Bieksa's lack of coverage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 So you're blaming Miller for Bieksa's lack of coverage? How did you come to a stupid conclusion like that based on what Rupert said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.