View Single Post
10-02-2012, 12:24 PM
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
DaveG's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 33,944
vCash: 562
I'll probably get grilled for this, but Gleason and Belanger for Johnson and Tverdovsky isn't looking like the complete ass **** that a lot of people were assuming it to be at the time it was made.

Assumption at the time was the Canes were giving up a defenseman that, while raw, had multiple Norris potential, dumping a salary of a guy that would be sent to the minors, and getting back a more refined product with a much lower upside who was still coming into his own, and a #3 center. On paper at the time that's a huge advantage for LA.

End result:
Gleason established himself as a solid but unspectacular defensive dman, along the mold of a #3 guy, and has been one of the few Canes players regularly meeting expectations on what's been an underachieving team the past few seasons. Belanger was a bust in Carolina due to attitude issues. Still, if Johnson's play in LA can be used as an indicator, he likely would not have positively affected the Canes season outcomes any moreso then Gleason did over the course of the trade.

Johnson, while still a regular with the National Team, never really came into his own in LA, especially defensively. After a few seasons of play in LA he was moved, along with a first, to Columbus for Jeff Carter who was a bust for the Jackets. That said, LA won the cup, partly due to this trade which added center depth and allowed Voynov to make his impact on the Kings, so there's really no negative for them in this as an end result.

Last edited by DaveG: 10-03-2012 at 10:57 AM.
DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote