View Single Post
Old
01-23-2013, 03:30 PM
  #64
baartman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
you're wrong, I'm not expanding on your post, I'm disagreeing entirely with it.

You don't trade a guy like Garrison right after signing him. That's just a terrible way to run an organization and is what leads to future UFAs wanting more money and not wanting to sign with such organizations.

Garrison is a local boy. He took less than offered elsewhere to sign with Vancouver (given that Gillis insists now that all dmen sign within the framework of their current team, hence Hamhuis signs for $4.5mill/yr - less than offered by Pittsburgh or Philly, Bieksa signs for $4.6mill to forego FA, Edler signs for $5mill/yr to forego FA, etc).

Garrison signed with Vancouver with a NTC because he wanted to be a Canuck. Do you then turn around and flip him in a trade? This is the video game mentality that people don't think about enough here. You do this to any FA, what are the chances that the next UFA you want here is going to take less money than offered elsewhere to sign here?

Trading Garrison is just not an option for this franchise right now.

And therefore acquiring Gardiner would not force Garrison out. It would force Ballard out.

And the other area where I disagreed with your post is our team make up should such a move happen. We are not a better team with Gardiner next to Edler *right now* than we are with Garrison, who's better defensively, and that's exactly what Edler needed.

Not to mention that Garrison gives us another strong PK presence and another option for a shutdown defender that we can match against top lines. This team - a top end PP team, and a top-end offensive team, needs those options much more than another PMD right now, regardless of how good he could be one day. This team's window is now, not one day when Gardiner may improve enough to be a valuable top-4 guy on a top contending team.
If you read my post, you'll see you actually agree with me on some points, but who cares. I didn't know garrison had a NTC, which would complicate things i'm sure. My opinion of what gillis should do matters just as much as yours does, so arguing why Vancouver signed players is redundant, if you're in on the inner workings of the canucks, then good on you. I rarely trust what I hear from the media, even words spoken from the lips of players and GMs.

what I do know is, Vancouver is in cap trouble, and I don't know how well it would go over if lu and Ballard were both bought out, that's a lot of money to spend on players not playing for you, i'm sure they would rather try to trade away their issues.

Unfortunately for Vancouver, unlike Chicago, they didn't win the cup, so their moves are predicated on winning now more so than just alleviating roster issues, and asset management. So I see where you are coming from. My proposal alleviates cap issues in Van, whilst adding a future stud, and allows Toronto to still make moves this year, which i'm sure they want to do.

I guess our main difference is how we view Gardiner.

I don't play video games. I'm also not a GM of an NHL team. So what do I know?:-P

baartman is offline