Bieksa, and D-men who have been traded (Discussion)

[lmm]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

The Hockey News recently did a mock draft for Vegas and Pedan was their pick...Don't know why but that should answer your question.

do you have a link for that?

[Toyotasfan]

Two standouts are : Mitchell who looked like he was set to retire due to concussion but proved everyone wrong,  than Garrisson who was an absolute piece of garbage on our blue line but a total stud for Tampa.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Just now, Toyotasfan said:

Two standouts are : Mitchell who looked like he was set to retire due to concussion but proved everyone wrong,  than Garrisson who was an absolute piece of garbage on our blue line but a total stud for Tampa.

Really only Tanev came out looking good that year under Torts.

 

Vigneault had no hesitation using Garrison (on his off side no less) and Hamhuis as our shutdown pairing.

 

Who was our leading goal scorer (or tied for the lead) in a couple seasons for us as a Canuck?  Garrison.

[Toyotasfan]

10 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Really only Tanev came out looking good that year under Torts.

 

Vigneault had no hesitation using Garrison (on his off side no less) and Hamhuis as our shutdown pairing.

 

Who was our leading goal scorer (or tied for the lead) in a couple seasons for us as a Canuck?  Garrison.

Thanks for pointing that out , it's really not what I remember about him.

[Dr. Crossbar]

1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Agreed with much of this. And it's kind of the moment where things got away from MG.

 

But I don't necessarily put the blame on Ehrhoff. I think it was a mistake for MG to take the hard line that Bieksa's contract represented an internal cap on defensemen salaries. Ehrhoff was basically given an ultimatum to either accept an identical deal (at $4.6 million AAV) or move on.

 

It wasn't necessarily a bad offer but I think it was still a fair amount below market value. And the inescapable implication was that Ehrhoff and Bieksa were equal value players, which I don't think was accurate (especially at the time).

 

This was an assessment failure on Gillis's part IMO, both in terms of Ehrhoff's market value as an individual player (at the time) and his team value as the "straw that stirred the drink" on offense and on the production of key players like the twins.

 

Ehrhoff and his agent felt that he deserved more than Bieksa. And they were correct IMO. MG didn't need to get crazy and offer something like the Buffalo deal. More like the $5 million AAV Edler got a couple years later would have been sufficient (and likely acceptable on a very reasonable term).

 

And interviews with Ehrhoff after the fact pretty much affirmed that he ended up leaving over a few 100K AAV more than he was offered (and would have stayed on a comparatively short term compared to the idiotic deal Buffalo gave him).

 

Hard to know if keeping Ehrhoff would have dramatically changed our playoffs fates. Injuries to key players (Daniel), early exits to Cup winners (King 2012), and highly controversial officiating (Sharks 2013) probably would have eliminated the team with or without Ehrhoff in the lineup in 2012 or 2013. But it still would have been nice to see what we might have done if we kept the group intact (and kept playing the same way).

Really good points to expand in this. Well said. We're pretty much in the same wheelhouse on this. I know much of my frustration came from believing a deal could have (and should have) been made ... even when a good deal was on the table.

 

Never had an issue with Ehrhoff leveraging his value. Imo, he deserved more. If anything, at the very max, I think they should have given a 6-year, 30mill. That would've taken care of term and increase and kept our momentum intact with our top D.

 

I wonder if it was also a strategic misplay to force Ehrhoff's hand into a discount. The ultimatum deal certainly put Ehrhoff on the wrong side of PR since Bieksa was such a fan favorite. Made him look greedy and money motivated over accepting a fair offer to run for another cup. 

 

But that speaks to your point about MG's failure to properly assess his team value if he was willing to make an ultimatum offer equating two players of different value. As a former agent himself, I'd assume MG knew Ehrhoff's agent would likely balk at establishing his client's individual value at Bieksa.

 

Just wish there had been greater priority on keeping the team intact and reloading for a second run from a place of strength instead of settling.

 

[Silky mitts]

7 hours ago, Googlie said:

As we get ready for another KB visit,  I got to wondering how many defensemen have we traded who went on to outperform after the trade as compared to their Canucks record.

 

The only ones I can think of are Adrian Aucoin (all-star selection after trade) and Bret Hedican (Stanley Cup)

 

Some big names we traded were past prime, but still had decent post-Canuck seasons (such as Ohlund or Jovo) but I don't think we got burned by any like we did when trading forwards such as Neely, or, to a lesser extent, Grabner.

 

Current ones out there who might come back to haunt us, after Bieksa, include Weber and Clendenning, Bartowski and maybe Sanguinetti.

 

I just hope we don't trade Edler, Tanev or Sbisa - they do have the potential to haunt us in the future.

 

Who in your opinion is the best defenseman we let get away (excluding draft picks we should, in retrospect, have made)?

 

Lmaoo man I needed that laugh 

[terrible.dee]

There is no way we could have matched the type of money Erhoff would have gotten elsewhere, Buffalo or otherwise

 

His bargaining power would never be higher than it was when he signed, it would also most likely be the last contract of his career, he owed it to himself and his family to take the most money he could get, there is no way he would have gambled his security on the chance of playing for another cup, that's just silly, Ehrhoff could not have been kept

 

The only significant D man we let go too early and for not enough in return was Aucoin, Crawford didn't like him, then he hit Naslund with a puck in practice and he was gone

 

I remember hearing rumors about 
Cloutier and right before he came here the nux played Tampa and lit him up, well we won't be getting him, I thought 

 

The other guy who was good but we got much more in return was Brian Mc Cabe, Jasan Strudwick went on to capain the Oilers so I think he ended up being more of an asset then we thought

 

It rarely gets mentioned but during our darkest years of the 90's our blue line was: 

 

Jovonoski   Ohlund

Mc Cabe    Aucoin

Strudwick Cullimore  

 

This is the best D the Canucks have ever had (on paper) the talent level is insane

[oldnews]

No regrets.

 

Moving on from Juice - as much as I love the guy - was simply what the team needed to do.

Garrison likewise - liked him too, but the team needed something different.

 

The most difficult one may have been Mitchell - an extremely tough decision not to offer him a couple years of term when his future was so in question - the guy was an elite shutdown defenseman.   We did land Hamhuis, but losing Mitchell to that concussion was difficult.

 

I'd say we have far better successes in acquiring D than we've had losses in moving them.

 

Salo

Ehrhoff

Brown, Hedican

Jovo

(and imo Gudbranson, possibly even Sbisa)

Some really important, great deals for this team as far as I'm concerned.

[terrible.dee]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

No regrets.

 

Moving on from Juice - as much as I love the guy - was simply what the team needed to do.

Garrison likewise - liked him too, but the team needed something different.

 

The most difficult one may have been Mitchell - an extremely tough decision not to offer him a couple years of term when his future was so in question - the guy was an elite shutdown defenseman.   We did land Hamhuis, but losing Mitchell to that concussion was difficult.

 

I'd say we have far better successes in acquiring D than we've had losses in moving them.

 

Salo

Ehrhoff

Brown, Hedican

Jovo

(and imo Gudbranson, possibly even Sbisa)

Some really important, great deals for this team as far as I'm concerned.

2

it would seem the sooner we move on from Gudbransson the better,``````````````````````````````````````````````

 

it's great to have big tough guys but they have to be able to at least handle and move the puck, otherwise its like the other team has a PP when they are on the ice

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, terrible.dee said:

it would seem the sooner we move on from unsubstantiated drama, the better

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

1 hour ago, terrible.dee said:

 

It rarely gets mentioned but during our darkest years of the 90's our blue line was: 

 

Jovonoski   Ohlund

Mc Cabe    Aucoin

Strudwick Cullimore  

 

This is the best D the Canucks have ever had (on paper) the talent level is insane

IMHO, not quite at the 2011 level:

 

Hamhuis 

Bieksa  

Edler

Ehrhoff

Salo

 

Those are FIVE legit top four D (at the time)

 

Then the "spares":

 

Ballard  (awful fit for the team at the time - that's all on Gillis; but still was a guy that played top 4 minutes in his previous team)

Rome

 

And in the end, it still wasn't enough...

 

[MikeBossy]

6 hours ago, IBatch said:

I loved Babych and what he brought to the team.. Diduck and Babych made a fearsome duo both tough as nails good defensively and got their points.  I remember Probert lining up Babych behind our net and how he went flying ass over tea kettle, literally did a somersault over Babych when he dug in just before the hit.  Also his forearms were so big his jersey would get stuck on them...When he held on nobody could break his hold.  

Baybych was pure class - we came down to see a Canucks season opener and Babych was hurt at the time and on crutches. After the game we went down to get autographs for our kids. The Canucks had decided no autograph sessions that night - yet Babych came down and signed what must have been several hundred autographs while on crutches.... like I said classy individual.  

 

On topic I would have to agree with those who say Mitchell was our biggest loss - yet I understand at the time why Gillis did not sign him.

[Goat James]

16 hours ago, Father Ryan said:

I'm not going to even begin to profess knowledge of all the Dmen traded from the 'Nucks, but a recent one that we let go (free agency) that likely would have made a BIG impact on the team, especially in the '11 run, was Willie Mitchell. His presence could have really stabilized the back end, even more likely that Rome wouldn't have needed to make that big hit that seemed to wake up the Bruins, and in all likelihood was a fairly large factor in us not getting the Cup that year. Instead, he goes to LA, helped to stabilize their back end, and two Cups later, we're left to ponder the "woulda, shoulda, coulda" of letting Willie M go.

 

We would never have signed Dan Hamhius if we'd held on to Mitchell, but yeah, he went on to have a good career after he left. 

[IBatch]

14 hours ago, lmm said:

do you have a link for that?

It was in a recent issue called Vegas Baby...Vol 70 issue no.10.  they took Pedan from Vancouver other defenseman they took were Klein Brodin Emeline Cole Davidson Merrill Borowiecki Van Riemsdyk...For some laughs they took Lack as one of their three goalies...