: Value of:
Carl Gunnarsson for a forward
View Single Post
12-24-2012, 03:52 PM
Join Date: May 2010
Originally Posted by
You don't... have the ability to think about how teams adapt to the personnel they have.
Gunnarsson is an excellent transition defenceman, and as such would quite easily earn 20+ on a balanced Cancuks blueline. Of course, it's not going to happen because Gunnarsson isn't going anywhere.... but that's beyond the point.
But that's just it, the Canucks won't have a "balanced" blue line. That's why Ballard, although I feel last season he played as well as Salo, and at times, as well as Bieksa, he is still getting 12-15 minutes a night.
Vignault forces defenders to earn that time, and it's entirely on a curve. Having Edler and Hamhuis playing the role of offensive or defensive specialist (2 of the 3 roles he wants a defender to be, the other being physical) kind of screws him up. I feel Gunnarsson, who would more then likely be a top 4 defender on most teams, wouldn't crack our top four (especially initially, as coach V is a bit of a xenophobe).
This is unless he could seemlessly play on the right side in exactly the role Vignault wants from him, as well as out plays Garrison/Ballard/Edler for that 2nd pairing RHD, making him psychic as well as a tremendous hockey player. I can say he's definately one over the other with certanty though. Our defensive structure is ridiculously rigid.
As for a proposal, I've put up Booth as my return. We need him more then we'd need Gunnar, and I know the same is true in Toronto with their wing depth, so it's not a good fit, I just saw that you were trying to make the argument he could fit in Vancouver, and I just entirely disagree. Lets draw the line, I won't make any more proposals for Gunnarsson, and we agree it's best that Toronto, if they are looking to move him for a foward, not look to Vancouver, who are looking to upgrade to higher end talent in terms of wingers and defenders. Sound reasonable?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Cogburn