Baggins Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Rome is twenty pounds heavier than Tanev and is much more of a physical force around the net than Tanev may ever become. Rome has ten times the pro level experience over Tanev. Tanev can position himself and transition the play forward in a much more efficient manner. The Canucks organisation have decided Tanev's attributes are more important than just being able to clear the crease well,as Rome could. The Canucks had a big,physical crease clearing D man and let him go for nothing. "Aaron is a physical defensive defenseman who adds size and grit to our blue line," said Nieuwendyk. "He competes at a very high level and helps make our team harder to play against. We're very pleased to add Aaron to our team for the next three years." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 As Rome is subjected to the very same "system flaws" as Ballard one could still draw a conclusion there from the numbers. Anybody that believes Ballard played well throughout his first season here had to be completely blinded by his occasional hip check. He wasn't very good. I wrote that season off to his injuries. This past season he was better. But was he $4.2m worth better? No. I just don't think he's suited to that bottom pairing role which isn't going to change anytime in the near future on this team with Edler and Hamhuis ahead of him. Which is why he should be replaced by a physical defensive hulk that's good at clearing the crease. Which is one of Ballards weakest areas and we'd gain some cap space in the bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 As Rome is subjected to the very same "system flaws" as Ballard one could still draw a conclusion there from the numbers. Anybody that believes Ballard played well throughout his first season here had to be completely blinded by his occasional hip check. He wasn't very good. I wrote that season off to his injuries. This past season he was better. But was he $4.2m worth better? No. I just don't think he's suited to that bottom pairing role which isn't going to change anytime in the near future on this team with Edler and Hamhuis ahead of him. Which is why he should be replaced by a physical defensive hulk that's good at clearing the crease. Which is one of Ballards weakest areas and we'd gain some cap space in the bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I agree that Ballard is over paid for what he brings to this team, but why specifically don't you think he'd be a good third pairing D-man? Besides the over paid part, it seems like it'd be a luxury having a supposed top-4 caliber D-man that far down the depth chart. And you mention a big, crease clearing D-man, who did you have in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Astutely put .. as much as I like Ballard he does not fit our team .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.