Thread: Value of: Kevin Bieksa
View Single Post
Old
04-28-2013, 08:26 AM
  #139
F A N
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Canuck View Post
IMO the worst part of the trade was when the UFA period was about to open, MG could have essentially gotten a similar D-Man without giving up primary assets, heck assets at all. But hey there's no guaranteeing that any would sign with us.
Who were the similar defensemen available as a UFA? Paul Martin and Dan Hamhuis were the top two free agent defensemen realistically available that year. Others weren't similar to Ballard in terms of age and two-way play and Gillis wanted a mobile two-way defenseman.

The biggest thing was that MG made the deal because he didn't want to gamble on free agency and risk not upgrading the team's defense. The team needed to improve the defense and MG was right. There were no guarantees that MG could sign Hamhuis and who would have guessed that Bieksa would redefine himself playing beside Hamhuis (Bieska as a shut-down defenseman?) and prove to be such a valuable player in the playoffs? And of course, Ballard just proved to be a bad fit under AV and these things happen. A lot of Canucks fans still believe that Ballard is a capable top 4 defenseman somewhere else, just not under AV.

F A N is offline   Reply With Quote