Thread: Proposal: Vancouver - Montreal
View Single Post
Old
12-24-2012, 07:30 PM
  #41
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenbuis View Post
I hardly think that plekanac for hamhuis is insulting. Suggesting Ballard and Raymond is.
While value wise it may not be I still give hamhuis more value as he finished top 20 if not top 15 in Norris voting didn't he?

Now add in team needs and it becomes insulting. Hamhuis is at worst the #2 dman on the back to back presidents trophy winning team. Now their main needs are either a playmaking 2nd line winger for kes or a top line rw for the sedins. Pleckanac is none of those. He may be a 2C in Montreal but in Vancouver he is a 3C who plays C on the 2nd unit pp. Now at his what 5m cap hit why do the canucks exactly want him especially when it comes at the cost of their most steady and consistant d-man?

It's like canucks fans making a proposal that sees luongo go to the habs for say plekanac or cole/prospect/pick. Value wise it's more than fair but it only looks at vancouver's wants needs while totally disregarding montreals needs and wants

Here plecks is a non needed asset who would eat up a lot more cap space than needed for what his role would be. Just like luongo would be a non needed asset in Montreal who makes way too much cap space for his role


Last edited by Ched Brosky: 12-24-2012 at 07:38 PM.
Ched Brosky is offline   Reply With Quote