[Speculation] Franson to be moved?

[riffraff]

I am not particularly attached to Edler or Franson actually. Nor am I suggesting Bieksa be traded for pucks just to get rid of him either.

I was suggesting that if the goal is to get younger - which should be the goal - and to improve other areas of the team at the same time, Franson would be a guy that could bring most of what Bieksa does but with more size and physical play while the return for Bieksa could help get younger/more skilled in other areas as well.

If the asking price for Franson is low enough and the potential return for Bieksa is high enough it could easily be a way to improve the team overall without really losing what Bieksa brings on the ice. That is something that a good GM should be willing to consider. They should not get so attached to the mythos of a particular player like Bieksa so as to think that he is untouchable. There is literally no player on the Canucks right now (other than perhaps the Sedins) who should be untouchable. If it will improve the team in terms of talent and cap it has to be something to at least consider.

[Dogbyte]

Agreeable and sensible from the youth angle and obviously depends on the return, however I see it still as a case of "give up to get" that being bieksa's capability of toughness which I anticipate seeing more of under torts.

I think it's worth seeing how some of our country club vips play under new coaching and then evaluate.

[oldnews]

I am not particularly attached to Edler or Franson actually. Nor am I suggesting Bieksa be traded for pucks just to get rid of him either.

I was suggesting that if the goal is to get younger - which should be the goal - and to improve other areas of the team at the same time, Franson would be a guy that could bring most of what Bieksa does but with more size and physical play while the return for Bieksa could help get younger/more skilled in other areas as well.

If the asking price for Franson is low enough and the potential return for Bieksa is high enough it could easily be a way to improve the team overall without really losing what Bieksa brings on the ice. That is something that a good GM should be willing to consider. They should not get so attached to the mythos of a particular player like Bieksa so as to think that he is untouchable. There is literally no player on the Canucks right now (other than perhaps the Sedins) who should be untouchable. If it will improve the team in terms of talent and cap it has to be something to at least consider.

[SamJamIam]

You honestly believe that Tanev has shown himself at this point in time to be a Hamhuis in the making? He has shown little offensive upside and no physical game to this point. That could very well change and evolve over time as he is still young but my point was that it has not up to this point. So suggesting he "will be" this or that is simply projecting at this point. There is no historical basis in reality to suggest he will develop into anything more than he is now. People just hope he does.

And you can honestly say that Bieksa was at his best the last two seasons? He mails it in a lot of the time, is a liability defensively without Hamhuis, rarely fights, and is inconsistent physically. I also do not value his leadership much because I dislike the thought of a guy who is never held accountable himself being give the role of holding others accountable. That is a recipe for chemistry issues over time. And I believe that has had a lot to do with the apathy we have seen throughout this lineup the last few seasons.

As for Ballard - who actually has nothing to do with the Canucks anymore so is really not relevant to the discussion - I guess we will see if his time in Vancouver is, as you suggest, the only part of his career that is worthy of being used to evaluate him as a player. I would say what he did before coming to Vancouver and what he does after should matter as well, just like you are suggesting it should for Tanev and Bieksa.

[wallstreetamigo]

A couple things - suggesting that Franson brings what Bieksa does is quite a stretch. Bieksa is a significantly different player than Franson - a better skater who rushes the puck with more effectiveness and frequency, far more "stand up" / keep your head up factor, a streak of anger in him makes him the "hardest" blueliner on the roster - Franson has more size, but plays softer minutes/a situationally offensive role and to suggest he's more "physical" is certainly creative. I really don't see relatively equating these players as credible - nor do I see people calling Bieksa "untouchable" - that is as much mythos as what you're apparently responding to.

The goal isn't simply to get younger - it is also to get better - and it would be debatable whether Franson would effectively make the Canucks better. The idea that adding a secondary Leafs asset would do so is also debatable.

But to put things in realistic context - the Leafs are in a situation where they may have to move Franson because they can't afford to re-sign him - while Bieksa is a 4.6 million cap hit.... If they can't afford Franson....

[wallstreetamigo]

Man, you have a nasty habit of replying to what you wanted to read, not what you actually read. My post was very straightforward but I'll reiterate:

Tanev is good. So good that we often forget how young he is. Bieksa is also good. He has his moments but like most offensive d-men (yes, like Edler) he produces points and plays defense at a level that most fanbases would beg for in their top 4. Downplaying these guys while (and I realize I'm drawing from other threads here) saying "Ballard just didn't get a chance!" is straight goofy. Why has the guy, who has had years to prove himself yet not done so, won your favour while 2 guys who have been producing in significantly more important roles not? It seems like there's a disconnect there.

As for Tanev being another Hammer, it's never been something I've really given thought to before but why not? Hammer isn't physically punishing but plays exceptional positional defense and is a calming presence in the backend. Obviously Hammer is better than Tanev at these things but could Tanev improve enough over the next 3-4 years to be on par with Hammer? Again I don't see why not. As far as points production, Tanev has shown he has a great outlet pass but he gets no PP time, has terrible defensive partners and so can't jump up or rack in the assists like Hammer does. Not too worried about this aspect of his game and as he gets better defensively, I expect he'll earn tougher minutes with better linemates and points will come.

[oldnews]

First, I never said to trade Bieksa to the Leafs for Franson, so that takes care of your last point.

As for the rest of that wishful thinking, lets see if the stats actually support your argument.

Franson - 45GP, 4G, 25A, 29Pt, 124 hits, 59 blocks

Bieksa - 36GP, 6G, 6A, 12Pt, 60 hits, 50 blocks

Nope, not at all. It is just what people WANT to believe about Bieksa. It is not actually reality when you look at the stats. The reality is that Bieksa has not been the player you seem to think he is for the past two seasons. Which is the whole point of trading a guy before he completely declines and loses his value for a younger comparable guy with more upside. When is his next contract year? THAT is when we will see him play like a beast.

I would take the risk that Franson has room to get a lot better while with Bieksa we have likely already seen the best of what he has and will only continue to get worse.