coryberg Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 4 hours ago, Alflives said: Would you still like Baer is we traded him along with pick 20 for pick 12? (Assuming we get 7 and 20 from Arizona. I'd rather take the player at 20 and Keep baer, not that big of a gap between 12-20. Then again I don't think I would want 7+20 for 5th. Tkatchuk and Dubois are top line players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 37 minutes ago, coryberg said: I'd rather take the player at 20 and Keep baer, not that big of a gap between 12-20. Then again I don't think I would want 7+20 for 5th. Tkatchuk and Dubois are top line players. Oh, I'm good with your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 On June 5, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Dazzle said: This is not a new discovery. We knew this prior to Gillis and we're even more aware of it with Benning at the helm. Benning's trying to fix the lack of depth that we had. There is a pretty big youth gap that came from trading first round picks. That being said, there were some years when trading them made sense. Patrick White's pick, for example, landed Erhoff, who was instrumental for the playoff run. Schneider -> Horvat (a high first round pick) The Michael Grabner trade was awful and probably the worst on that list. Grabner + a 1st (later turned out to be Quinton Howden) to FLA in exchange for Ballard. Sure, Howden didn't turn out to be good as most people predicted, but it was a TERRIBLE trade for an overpriced defenseman that FLA clearly wanted to get rid of. Nicklas Jensen -> Etem (another first rounder) Shinkaruk -> Baertschi, a high(er) 1st round pick. Kesler -> Bonino -> Sutter - all of whom were former first round picks. Sutter's never been injured prior to joining our team. McCann -> Gudbranson (a former high first round defenseman pick). I see where your point is, but it's not a very strong one. The only thing that I agree with is the 'lack of depth' part, but it's been well-known to people like Benning. I remember being very happy with that trade,when MG announced it at the deadline (I remember all of our Dmen going down in the playoffs against the Hawks,in the previous playoffs). In hindsight,I think we lost out on the trade because Ballard never panned out (AV wouldn't play him)..,and MG had him hanging around on the periphery of the roster for way too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Honky Cat said: I remember being very happy with that trade,when MG announced it at the deadline (I remember all of our Dmen going down in the playoffs against the Hawks,in the previous playoffs). In hindsight,I think we lost out on the trade because Ballard never panned out (AV wouldn't play him)..,and MG had him hanging around on the periphery of the roster for way too long. Ballard got a concussion a week into his time here - and then an MCL - and then a back injury - and then another concussion. He never had a chance here (not a comment about AV, just the reality that he never regained the form he had before arriving in Vancouver. It happens.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 40 minutes ago, Honky Cat said: I remember being very happy with that trade,when MG announced it at the deadline (I remember all of our Dmen going down in the playoffs against the Hawks,in the previous playoffs). In hindsight,I think we lost out on the trade because Ballard never panned out (AV wouldn't play him)..,and MG had him hanging around on the periphery of the roster for way too long. That's definitely a trade we wouldn't do again in hindsight (compounded by us signing Hamhuis shortly after when that wasn't a sure thing) but it was likely the right move at the time and had the best of intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 23 hours ago, elvis15 said: That's definitely a trade we wouldn't do again in hindsight (compounded by us signing Hamhuis shortly after when that wasn't a sure thing) but it was likely the right move at the time and had the best of intentions. At the time there was a handful of teams bidding on him. Injuries aside we got a good nhl defenceman and Florida got 2 4th line players... maybe Howden improves and becomes more than that but in the end I think florida is kicking themselves for coming up short while selling high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Found This audio from Ottawa TSN radio, an interview with Gudbranson, and how excited he is to be coming to Vancouver. More so, as a young man, already has his own charity set up for blood work, and stem cell research. Apparently his younger brother has been battling a type of blood Cancer. Gudbranson as a young man is already the real deal when it comes to having positive character, and leadership qualities , on and off the ice... http://www.tsn.ca/radio/ottawa-1200-1.504069?hootPostID=2fc9be3184fadd6eab3330c51aa23384 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Not sure if this was posted here. Sorry if it already did but looks like according to NHL 16 Vancouver lost the trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 13 minutes ago, iinatcc said: Not sure if this was posted here. Sorry if it already did but looks like according to NHL 16 Vancouver lost the trade Thanks for the laugh, that was hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LM11 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 If NHL 16 video game says its a bad trade, then we should fire the management and just hire someone to play out scenarios on the game and make our moves based on that. Why pay for a hockey guy anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Oh hey, We're still doing this? Man....that's sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 That video is a guy who knows nothing about building a team from the net out.We needed more help on D then forward and why not get another punishing player like we did to fill that need.i think benning YES overpaid a bit,but to get what you want like i said earlier you have to do that.Now our D is MUCH improved,our Goalies are good,now we just need a forward or two to balance out the lines!!Good job benning and that guy making the video should be FIRED!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 5 hours ago, cripplereh said: That video is a guy who knows nothing about building a team from the net out.We needed more help on D then forward and why not get another punishing player like we did to fill that need.i think benning YES overpaid a bit,but to get what you want like i said earlier you have to do that.Now our D is MUCH improved,our Goalies are good,now we just need a forward or two to balance out the lines!!Good job benning and that guy making the video should be FIRED!!!!!! I been gone for a while, are there lots of Canucks fans this stupid? Gudbranson>>>>>McCann It'll be nice to have a defenseman that isn't afraid to make eye contact with opponents in front of our net. Most in Florida considered him a future captain and a player you build around. But I forgot this is Vancouver where all our prospects are the best. Where's Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen, Cassels, Sauve??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I agree the guy in the vid is pretty stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 On 6/9/2016 at 1:19 PM, Honky Cat said: I remember being very happy with that trade,when MG announced it at the deadline (I remember all of our Dmen going down in the playoffs against the Hawks,in the previous playoffs). In hindsight,I think we lost out on the trade because Ballard never panned out (AV wouldn't play him)..,and MG had him hanging around on the periphery of the roster for way too long. If we lost then you're saying Florida won the trade. The prospect was lost to waivers, the draft pick hasn't panned out and they took Bernier as a cap dump in the deal. I'd say Florida was the bigger loser as we did get some use out of Ballard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Baggins said: If we lost then you're saying Florida won the trade. The prospect was lost to waivers, the draft pick hasn't panned out and they took Bernier as a cap dump in the deal. I'd say Florida was the bigger loser as we did get some use out of Ballard. Thunderous hip checks and some decent scrappage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70seven Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 both teams lost the ballard deal. both teams also lost on the booth deal. van destroyed on the jovanovski and luongo deals. it is actually weird how through so many different GMs on both sides that these teams get together for trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I just have to say, Benning did an amazing job pulling the trigger on this deal when he did. With the other names coming off the trade market (Hamonic, Barrie, Vatanen)... the value of a top 4 RHD just went through the roof. No way we don't get outbid by another team like Edmonton if Gudbranson was available today. They would put their 1st round pick plus a top forward in a package. Several teams looking for a player for the same position as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedinery33 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 For everyone that hates this trade just look at it from this point of view. Would you trade your 1st round 26th Overall, 33rd and 93rd for 3rd Overall and a 5th? Most of you would do that in a heartbeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share Posted June 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.