HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

The Grabner+ for Ballard trade 1 year later...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-17-2011, 09:03 PM
  #26
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,740
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by EroticBakery View Post
I think the logic is that were it not for Ballard's cap hit, we would have had the cap space to resign Ehrhoff. It's a stretch but that seems to be what the OP is driving at.

As for Sturm, I have no idea..
If anything, he could have said that if we didnt trade for Ballard, we could have kept Grabner and signed Mitchell for the same price

LiquidSnake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2011, 09:55 PM
  #27
Jack Tripper
I Don't Even...
 
Jack Tripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,826
vCash: 625
i'm tired of hearing this discussion, but we could be in for another year of talking about this if grabner improves on his 34 goal campaign of a year ago

i mean, the guy was second in the league last year behind only sidney crosby in even-strength goal scoring on a per-60 minute basis, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that grabner could break the 40 goal mark with some decent powerplay ice time next season

Jack Tripper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2011, 10:39 PM
  #28
CrackerJibbs
Registered User
 
CrackerJibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
It's a fair trade if Ballard plays to his potential even with the emergence of Grabner. Top 4 defenseman for a one-dimensional 30 goal scorer. I know we gave a 1st too, but it was a pretty crappy 1st.
I have to disagree with your assessment of Grabner as one-dimensional. According Isles fans he was solid in his own end last year and was a constant thread on the penalty kill.

CrackerJibbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2011, 10:54 PM
  #29
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 7,819
vCash: 500
This really isn't a numbers game. If we kept Grabner Gillis would've done something else to address the D issue. And Mitchell wouldn'tve been signed because of his injury history, and would've gone to LA anyway for a better contract.

Whether or not Grabner gets the playing time... Well he did get plenty of chances last year, not sure if AV would keep him on Kesler's line if he had a massive cold streak to begin with. Not to mention how drastically Kesler has changed his play style, don't think Grabner would've benefited from playing with him this year.

Wilch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 03:45 AM
  #30
Smokey McCanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,891
vCash: 500
In retrospect, it was a bad trade.

Smokey McCanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 03:52 AM
  #31
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackerJibbs View Post
I have to disagree with your assessment of Grabner as one-dimensional. According Isles fans he was solid in his own end last year and was a constant thread on the penalty kill.
His defensive game evolved on a learning by doing status. Obviously he was willing to learn. But at his current level of defensive play I think he would have trouble getting a PK role on the Canucks, simply because the Canucks have a deeper supply of defensive forwards than the Islanders. And the fact that he was paired with Frans Nielsen a lot of the time helped a lot, as Nielsen could cover some of his mistakes. And his PK production is a product of his speed and playing with Nielsen, Nielsen is one of the best transitional forwards is the NHL, there's a reason he finished first in SH goals just in front of Grabner.

Jevo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 03:58 AM
  #32
Bougieman
Registered User
 
Bougieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,776
vCash: 500
Fantastic trade for both teams if ONE single consideration is taken into account:

AV has to let Ballard play.

Bougieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 05:03 AM
  #33
Askel
Registered User
 
Askel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Malmö/Vancouver
Posts: 1,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescently View Post
Samuelsson is an absolute garbage hockey player. Which is why he was demoted to the fourth line at various points last season.

He has horrible vision. He coughs up the puck way too much in the offensive zone. He is completely useless in the defensive zone. I can recall vividly 10 times last season when his ineptitude led to a goal. Hate to break it to people out there, but if you score 20 goals, but make 18 bad plays which lead to goals against, you didn't actually score 20 goals. You scored 2.

I cannot wait until this scrub is no longer on the team. He makes us worse. I'd happily trade him for a 7th rounder.
He scored 30 the year before, has won a cup and an olympic gold, but yeah he sure sucks

Sammy is 2:nd liner who is extremly useful for this team, he is the one guy who can sub in for Burrows. Yes Sammy is a bit inconsistent, but thats why hes a second liner not a first liner.

That bad bplay theory is BS by the way, samuelsson probably had 20 good plays who lead to goals by other players (at least) they are called assist, then hes back to 20 goals.

Askel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 05:33 AM
  #34
Nachoman AlfieSavage*
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askel View Post
He scored 30 the year before, has won a cup and an olympic gold, but yeah he sure sucks

Sammy is 2:nd liner who is extremly useful for this team, he is the one guy who can sub in for Burrows. Yes Sammy is a bit inconsistent, but thats why hes a second liner not a first liner.

That bad bplay theory is BS by the way, samuelsson probably had 20 good plays who lead to goals by other players (at least) they are called assist, then hes back to 20 goals.

Qb on the pp inflated his assist total.

Watching him last year was painful. Nearly every time he got the puck in the offensive zone the play would die within 10 seconds of the puck hitting his stick. He was absolutely dreadful last year.

Which is why, he played a lot of time on the third and fourth lines. Alain Vigneault agrees with me. Samuelsson was a liability. At the beginning of last year everyone was saying "you're crazy. He will play on the top line when he's not on the second. He's a 30 goal scorer blah blah blah" and what happened? He was demoted to the third line, and then down to the fourth. Only getting mere glances of the second line. Why? Because he is a defensive liability, and he is a momentum killer in the offensive zone.

He either makes a stupid pass, takes a low percentage shot, or coughs it up. Then there is his absolutely dreadful defensive zone coverage. He is without question the worst defensive player on the Canucks. Which is why our head coach, a professional hockey coach, put a "30 goal scorer" on the fourth line. He's garbage and I cannot wait until this lousy hockey player is no longer a Canuck. He makes whatever line he is on worse.

Nachoman AlfieSavage* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 05:46 AM
  #35
Askel
Registered User
 
Askel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Malmö/Vancouver
Posts: 1,215
vCash: 500
Sammy had 18 even strength assists, yes he had assist on the powerplay so what he got time on he best PP-unit in the league that makes him a good player.

Yes he wasnt as good last year as the year before (played with an injury all season).

He didnt play a lot of time on the 3rd and fourth line as I recall it.

Askel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 06:26 AM
  #36
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescently View Post
Qb on the pp inflated his assist total.

Watching him last year was painful. Nearly every time he got the puck in the offensive zone the play would die within 10 seconds of the puck hitting his stick. He was absolutely dreadful last year.

Which is why, he played a lot of time on the third and fourth lines. Alain Vigneault agrees with me. Samuelsson was a liability. At the beginning of last year everyone was saying "you're crazy. He will play on the top line when he's not on the second. He's a 30 goal scorer blah blah blah" and what happened? He was demoted to the third line, and then down to the fourth. Only getting mere glances of the second line. Why? Because he is a defensive liability, and he is a momentum killer in the offensive zone.

He either makes a stupid pass, takes a low percentage shot, or coughs it up. Then there is his absolutely dreadful defensive zone coverage. He is without question the worst defensive player on the Canucks. Which is why our head coach, a professional hockey coach, put a "30 goal scorer" on the fourth line. He's garbage and I cannot wait until this lousy hockey player is no longer a Canuck. He makes whatever line he is on worse.
You make it sound like Samuelsson played most of year on the 3rd and 4th line, while in reality Ryan Kesler and Mason Raymond was his most regular line mates. That is not mere glances of the second line, it's playing regularly on the second line. So no, it doesn't look like Alain Vignelaut agrees with you on Samuelsson. But if you want to keep twisting reality in your favour, be my guest.

Jevo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 06:51 AM
  #37
Nachoman AlfieSavage*
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jevo View Post
You make it sound like Samuelsson played most of year on the 3rd and 4th line, while in reality Ryan Kesler and Mason Raymond was his most regular line mates. That is not mere glances of the second line, it's playing regularly on the second line. So no, it doesn't look like Alain Vignelaut agrees with you on Samuelsson. But if you want to keep twisting reality in your favour, be my guest.
The fact that any "30 goal scorer" gets demoted to the third and fourth line should speak volumes.

Wanna know why he didn't stay on the third and fourth lines? Because he is absolutely garbage defensively. Our third line was generally a shut down line. Used against other teams tops lines when we could to free up the Sedins to play against the other teams third line. They had one primary objective. Shut down whatever line you play against. Samuelsson is so horribly bad at defensive hockey, that he made the third line worse relative their primary objective. To play shut down hockey first, and chip in offensively when you can second.

So AV stuck him on the fourth line for a while. Didn't work out there either. Fourth line, at least ours, is an energy line. Go out for a 45 second shift, try not to get hemmed into your own zone, throw some hits, and play with serious intensity. Well, Samuelsson and intensity go together about as well as Sarah Palin and a book on astro physics, so naturally that didn't work either.

So whats left to do? He stinks up the third and fourth lines, which he was demoted to because he was stinking up the second line. Alain Vigneault being the defense first coach that he is, had no choice. If he is being a defensive liability on our defensive third line and energy fourth line, best to just stick him on the second line and hope Kesler can carry him. Hope that he doesn't screw up as much as he inevitably did.

Fact is, there is no place on this team for him. I will be SO very happy when he is gone next year. Say what you want, 1 year removed from a 30 goal campaign and a top coach in the Nhl puts you on the fourth line. That says something. He sucks, and Im happy we only have to see his crappy play for one more year.


Last edited by Nachoman AlfieSavage*: 09-18-2011 at 07:22 AM.
Nachoman AlfieSavage* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 08:19 AM
  #38
JayBeautiful
Nature Boy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Maple Ridge BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescently View Post
The fact that any "30 goal scorer" gets demoted to the third and fourth line should speak volumes.

Wanna know why he didn't stay on the third and fourth lines? Because he is absolutely garbage defensively. Our third line was generally a shut down line. Used against other teams tops lines when we could to free up the Sedins to play against the other teams third line. They had one primary objective. Shut down whatever line you play against. Samuelsson is so horribly bad at defensive hockey, that he made the third line worse relative their primary objective. To play shut down hockey first, and chip in offensively when you can second.

So AV stuck him on the fourth line for a while. Didn't work out there either. Fourth line, at least ours, is an energy line. Go out for a 45 second shift, try not to get hemmed into your own zone, throw some hits, and play with serious intensity. Well, Samuelsson and intensity go together about as well as Sarah Palin and a book on astro physics, so naturally that didn't work either.

So whats left to do? He stinks up the third and fourth lines, which he was demoted to because he was stinking up the second line. Alain Vigneault being the defense first coach that he is, had no choice. If he is being a defensive liability on our defensive third line and energy fourth line, best to just stick him on the second line and hope Kesler can carry him. Hope that he doesn't screw up as much as he inevitably did.

Fact is, there is no place on this team for him. I will be SO very happy when he is gone next year. Say what you want, 1 year removed from a 30 goal campaign and a top coach in the Nhl puts you on the fourth line. That says something. He sucks, and Im happy we only have to see his crappy play for one more year.
Fact is, I tried as hard as I could to remember Samuellson playing on the 4th line and I couldn't so...... Fact is, I went back and checked the ice times for the last 1/2 of the season and ...... Fact is, there was only 1 game that might have shown he might have played 4th line minutes the Jan. 14th 4-2 win over Wash when he had 10:56 ice, Fact is, he had considerably more ice time than Raymond for all but 8 of those last 41games, 7 of those games for less than 1 minute more ice, Fact is, I don't know what season, team or player you were watching but it sure as hell wasn't last years Canucks or Samuellson, Fact is

JayBeautiful is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 08:26 AM
  #39
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneGreat View Post
How many times do we have to go over that Grabner WOULD NOT have made the team last year?
I think it is one of those big picture--long term things

Not sure if it was on this board or the florida board I said that this deal could blow up for the nucks if Grabner got his head out of his arse

I was never a ballard fan and he ended up doing what I thought he would do

Ballard would be better on a bottom team with little or no pressure

__________________
trying to fend off exwife number 2
45000/010113
GO SHARKS GO

Last edited by jumptheshark: 09-18-2011 at 09:25 AM.
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 09:17 AM
  #40
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayoshi View Post
1) This summer the Canucks lost Ehrhoff, their top scoring Dman last season. Without Ballard's $4.2M on the books, I'm sure we could have re-signed him.
the issue with ehrhoff wasn't cap hit or dollar figure, but term. ballard or not, MG wasn't going to give him a ten year deal. he ended up signing for less dollars per year than we reportedly offered, but for many many more years.

as for grabner, we traded a guy who was considered a good but non-elite prospect for a top four defenseman. this season will tell us whether ballard is indeed worth what he was thought to be worth when the trade was made. but grabner is one of those guys that elite teams sometimes give away for the greater good.

as we all know, detroit is the model this franchise is basing itself on. they gave away guys like leino and kyle quincey for far less. they didn't cave into hudler's contract demands and let him walk to the KHL for a year. doesn't seem to have hurt them too much.

grabner, the guy flat out doesn't show up to training camp. despite grabner's potential, which ended up being maybe higher than any of us had anticipated, i have no doubt MG still waives him if he had still been around last fall. that sends a message to schroeder, tanev, coho, and every other prospect that you have to show up ready to work from day one. if a presidents trophy winning team, if a stanley cup finalist has to let go of a relatively one-dimensional thirty goal scorer to set an example for the other prospects, then so be it.

the real loser, of course, is florida fans. they give away ballard for a late first rounder and two guys they eventually waived. and then the next offseason they take the savings they got from salary dumping ballard to sign or trade for either less established players or even more inflated contracts (or both), just to hit the cap floor. ridiculous.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 10:07 AM
  #41
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 7,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescently View Post
Qb on the pp inflated his assist total.

Watching him last year was painful. Nearly every time he got the puck in the offensive zone the play would die within 10 seconds of the puck hitting his stick. He was absolutely dreadful last year.

Which is why, he played a lot of time on the third and fourth lines. Alain Vigneault agrees with me. Samuelsson was a liability. At the beginning of last year everyone was saying "you're crazy. He will play on the top line when he's not on the second. He's a 30 goal scorer blah blah blah" and what happened? He was demoted to the third line, and then down to the fourth. Only getting mere glances of the second line. Why? Because he is a defensive liability, and he is a momentum killer in the offensive zone.

He either makes a stupid pass, takes a low percentage shot, or coughs it up. Then there is his absolutely dreadful defensive zone coverage. He is without question the worst defensive player on the Canucks. Which is why our head coach, a professional hockey coach, put a "30 goal scorer" on the fourth line. He's garbage and I cannot wait until this lousy hockey player is no longer a Canuck. He makes whatever line he is on worse.
Not sure what Samuelsson did to you to make you hate him this much, but he's doing his job just fine. He was injured most of last year. Yeah he coasts a bit, but so do many other offensive minded 2nd line winger. PP does inflate numbers, but when Edler/Ehrhoff were healthy he was slotted onto our dreadfully bad 2nd PP unit. He made the most out of the time he ha with the Sedins and Kes. Plus, a ton of top 6 forwards get time in the PP, so like Samuelsson, their numbers are inflated too. Also, he's getting paid $2.5m a year. Not to mention he's one of the few compatible players we have that can be slotted into the Sedin line.

Also, if you're going to dog on Samuelsson, at least provide a solution? And if you start a Samuelsson+Schneider+Hodgson+whatever garbage we have for Parise thread in the proposal forums... God help us.

Wilch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 11:03 AM
  #42
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,049
vCash: 500
I'm not the biggest fan of Samuellson, but iri seems to have a hate on the is close to getting an ignore button. I dislike people who hijack a thread for their own personal issues.

The trade is looking so-so right now. Lets talk about the Leafs Kessel deal instead, which may turn out to be the worst trade in history ...

billvanseattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 11:14 AM
  #43
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBeautiful View Post
Fact is, I tried as hard as I could to remember Samuellson playing on the 4th line and I couldn't so...... Fact is, I went back and checked the ice times for the last 1/2 of the season and ...... Fact is, there was only 1 game that might have shown he might have played 4th line minutes the Jan. 14th 4-2 win over Wash when he had 10:56 ice, Fact is, he had considerably more ice time than Raymond for all but 8 of those last 41games, 7 of those games for less than 1 minute more ice, Fact is, I don't know what season, team or player you were watching but it sure as hell wasn't last years Canucks or Samuellson, Fact is
Neither Sammy or Raymond had a great season last year; but that viewed in hindsight. Person who is claiming Sammy is "garbage" isn't providing any solid facts/reasons why any coach or GM would dump a 30 goal scorer/team leading playoff point producer that post-season after the 2009-10. We wouldn't have gotten out of the 1st round in the those playoffs without Sammy's clutch goal scoring.

Fine, if you feel like you dumping/trading a guy during the 2010-11 season if he's playing significantly worse; but how the heck does that mean Grabner gets that spot if he's not here? Grabner was dealt in the *off-season* because he was waiver eligible (and he has a history of *sucking in training camp* and a history of *slow starts* to the season - none of changed in either Florida or Long Island). Coach V has zero history of giving *unproven* guys that kind of slack; and if coach V didn't want a guy like Brendan Morrison around as a "spare" (where at the time we needed a spare center who can play wing far more than strictly a winger) - why would he keep Grabner around?

If he couldn't make the Florida pathetic forward lineup - that tells you how well Grabner played there - those are facts.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2011, 11:21 AM
  #44
Nachoman AlfieSavage*
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Neither Sammy or Raymond had a great season last year; but that viewed in hindsight. Person who is claiming Sammy is "garbage" isn't providing any solid facts/reasons why any coach or GM would dump a 30 goal scorer/team leading playoff point producer that post-season after the 2009-10. We wouldn't have gotten out of the 1st round in the those playoffs without Sammy's clutch goal scoring.

Fine, if you feel like you dumping/trading a guy during the 2010-11 season if he's playing significantly worse; but how the heck does that mean Grabner gets that spot if he's not here? Grabner was dealt in the *off-season* because he was waiver eligible (and he has a history of *sucking in training camp* and a history of *slow starts* to the season - none of changed in either Florida or Long Island). Coach V has zero history of giving *unproven* guys that kind of slack; and if coach V didn't want a guy like Brendan Morrison around as a "spare" (where at the time we needed a spare center who can play wing far more than strictly a winger) - why would he keep Grabner around?

If he couldn't make the Florida pathetic forward lineup - that tells you how well Grabner played there - those are facts.
I agree with you about Grabner. If Samuelsson wasn't here, he was still no guarantee to make the team. But it certainly wouldn't have hurt his chances. Having a hole on the right wing (aka no Samuelsson) would have certainly helped his chances of making the big club. Seeing as he got some time in during the playoffs, I think there is a strong chance that if Samuelsson wasn't there, he would have gotten the nod. Which, as we can see from his performance last year, would have been a very good thing.

Nachoman AlfieSavage* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 03:50 AM
  #45
F A N
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,285
vCash: 500
Lets not forget that the trade was made in the context that the Canucks were ready to compete for the Stanley Cup and the Canucks needed to improve their defense. Gillis made clear that he didn't want to gamble at coming up with no improvement to the defense after free agency period. Had Gillis known 100% that he would be able to land Hamhuis, Gillis likely wouldn't have made that trade. But he didn't know and didn't want to enter last season with the same group on defense.

As for Ehrhoff, the truth is that Gillis was never going to offer Ehrhoff substantially more than Hamhuis money. What didn't enter Gillis' equation was Bieksa's play last season. But really, who knew Bieksa would play the way he did in the playoffs and form such a strong partnership with Hamhuis?

As for Grabner, Gillis knew what he was giving up. He just didn't expect Raymond to go back to his old self and have Grabner become such a prolific scorer so soon.

F A N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 04:20 AM
  #46
Siludin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 421
vCash: 500
Ballard should get 16 minutes of ice time per game and should continue to play with Tanev.

He can carry the puck well and hit hard, and has shown he can put up offensive numbers.

If he sees time on the 2nd PP unit he could thrive.

Siludin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 04:25 AM
  #47
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazzy-19 View Post
I don't think Gillis would have waived Grabner. He's not an idiot, and the Canucks were aware of Grabner's history of ****** training camps. With that said, he would have struggled on the 4th line and being scratched as the 13th forward, as the Canucks wouldn't have been able to be as patient with him as the Islanders were. In all likelihood he would've been moved during the year anyway, but in a much lesser deal.
This is absolutely true.

I doubt we would have waived him, but if he'd been kept he probably would have been given Tambellini's icetime and it's highly unlikely he would have broken out with that opportunity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescently View Post
The fact that any "30 goal scorer" gets demoted to the third and fourth line should speak volumes.

Wanna know why he didn't stay on the third and fourth lines? Because he is absolutely garbage defensively. Our third line was generally a shut down line. Used against other teams tops lines when we could to free up the Sedins to play against the other teams third line. They had one primary objective. Shut down whatever line you play against. Samuelsson is so horribly bad at defensive hockey, that he made the third line worse relative their primary objective. To play shut down hockey first, and chip in offensively when you can second.

So AV stuck him on the fourth line for a while. Didn't work out there either. Fourth line, at least ours, is an energy line. Go out for a 45 second shift, try not to get hemmed into your own zone, throw some hits, and play with serious intensity. Well, Samuelsson and intensity go together about as well as Sarah Palin and a book on astro physics, so naturally that didn't work either.

So whats left to do? He stinks up the third and fourth lines, which he was demoted to because he was stinking up the second line. Alain Vigneault being the defense first coach that he is, had no choice. If he is being a defensive liability on our defensive third line and energy fourth line, best to just stick him on the second line and hope Kesler can carry him. Hope that he doesn't screw up as much as he inevitably did.

Fact is, there is no place on this team for him. I will be SO very happy when he is gone next year. Say what you want, 1 year removed from a 30 goal campaign and a top coach in the Nhl puts you on the fourth line. That says something. He sucks, and Im happy we only have to see his crappy play for one more year.
Samuelsson is either great or terrible.

He's one of those guys where if he's healthy and confident (as he was for most of 2009-10) he's a terrific asset and excellent 2nd line winger.

If he's carrying a knock, his play falls apart. He was playing with an abdominal injury for much of the 2nd half and absolutely - agree completely - he was terrible.

_________

As for the trade, it's still a logical deal that made perfect sense at the time. It just hasn't worked out.

There was just no way to predict that Ballard's play would fall off so badly at such a young age.

Stuff happens that you can't predict - if we traded Mason Raymond for Alex Ovechkin tomorrow and Ovechkin proceeded to suffer a career-ending injury in his first preseason game, that would be a 'bad trade' in terms of results but obviously doesn't mean you wouldn't do it in hindsight.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 10:59 AM
  #48
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
This is absolutely true.

I doubt we would have waived him, but if he'd been kept he probably would have been given Tambellini's icetime and it's highly unlikely he would have broken out with that opportunity.
Tambellini didn't make the team out of training camp either and cleared waivers twice.

The bottom line is one of Raymond or Grabner had to go, and Raymond was coming off a 25g campaign and just signed an extension.

We had (and still have) a surplus of two-way forwards with speed. We had a need for top end defensive talent, as Bieksa was still the team goat, Salo a bandaid and Hamhuis was just traded to Philly and expected to sign there. Our D looked like this:

Edler Ehrhoff
Mitchell (UFA) Salo
O'Brien Bieksa
Alberts

The only UFA options were Martin, Volchenkov and Michalek. It's always a risk when you trade your prospects but we traded from a position of strength to fill a weakness. None of us could have expected AV to mis-use Ballard or that he would have his first injury-filled season of his career. It's a good trade still.

It seems that people fall in love with their own prospects on this forum. What's the point of drafting the best player available if you aren't willing to trade them for actual needs?

GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 11:12 AM
  #49
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
Tambellini didn't make the team out of training camp either and cleared waivers twice.
Yeah I doubt they would've kept Grabner around as the "13 forward" especially if you consider how "well" his training camps have gone (as well as slow starts to the regular season if he did manage to get a few games later on in the season).

Does that mean Gillis would've put him up for waivers? Not at least without trying to deal him (but likely for not much more than a marginal asset given his waiver eligibility).

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2011, 01:04 PM
  #50
timorousme
luongod
 
timorousme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
samuelsson was hurt all of last year

timorousme is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.