Ballards atitude is almost perfect given all we have read and seen the guys been solid about team first.
Looks like most of last year was a rehab for Ballrd he should be far better this season being healthy right from the start if he is what MG thought he helps this team a lot so lets hope .
The talk sbout Sammuelson is strange he was known as a streaky scorer but solid d in his own end and a playoff beast he sure would have helped aganst Boston but was hurt all year
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.
This is crazy talk.
First, you don't think Florida would be aware of Grabner's history of terrible training camps either? These teams hire pro scouts for a reason. They'd have done their homework on anyone they were interested in acquiring via trade. So there's that.
The other thing is, how could you POSSIBLY justify keeping a non-veteran around on a cup competing team who positively dogged it in training camp just because "he has a history of not trying during training camp". What kind of message does that send? Florida had all the room in the world to keep the guy and couldn't bring themselves to do it.
If Grabner had not been traded last season, we would be screaming about how we waived him for nothing. At least this way it's Florida's shame, not ours, and we've got something to show for his absence.
First, you don't think Florida would be aware of Grabner's history of terrible training camps either? These teams hire pro scouts for a reason. They'd have done their homework on anyone they were interested in acquiring via trade. So there's that.
The other thing is, how could you POSSIBLY justify keeping a non-veteran around on a cup competing team who positively dogged it in training camp just because "he has a history of not trying during training camp". What kind of message does that send? Florida had all the room in the world to keep the guy and couldn't bring themselves to do it.
If Grabner had not been traded last season, we would be screaming about how we waived him for nothing. At least this way it's Florida's shame, not ours, and we've got something to show for his absence.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but yes, my opinion of FLA's management is just that low. Skille for Frolik? Yeesh. The whole 'we're re-vamping the attitude in the lockerroom so we're willing to make what appear to be bad trades on the surface' line is something only a Panther fan can rationalize.
Not trying to single you out. Just saying that Florida waiving Grabner was a mistake many many people saw at the time, not just in hindsight.
On topic: It would have been a huge risk to keep Grabner over Raymond at the time and an equally big risk not to guarantee we acquire a top4 dman before FA. Trading Grabner for Ballard addressed both risks so it was probably the correct decision at the time. It's, as many posters have mentioned in this thread, very unlikely that Grabner would have had the opportunity to right the ship in Vancouver and it would have been an even greater stretch to see him score 34 goals.
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.
Not quite. Ehrhoff wanted something like 5.5 for 5 years, so it was dollar figure/cap hit. MG did not want to pay him that, and offered him a deal identical to Bieksa's. He balked. Whether that was the correct decision remains to be seen.
I doubt the idea of signing for 10 years hadn't even crossed his mind until Buffalo offered him it.
I know Grabner doesn't really scream playoff-performer, but I think this sort of lineup could have made a huge difference in the playoffs, IMO. That second line as a whole was one of our weaker ones outside of Kesler, and I have no doubt having the identity of by far the fastest line in the league would have provided Kesler with much more room to do what he could do, and probably less chance of injury.
I still have hope for Ballard to play much better than he's shown. If Kevin Bieksa and Alberts could improve so much under our current system than I have confidence that Ballard will too.
I know Grabner doesn't really scream playoff-performer, but I think this sort of lineup could have made a huge difference in the playoffs, IMO. That second line as a whole was one of our weaker ones outside of Kesler, and I have no doubt having the identity of by far the fastest line in the league would have provided Kesler with much more room to do what he could do, and probably less chance of injury.
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Ehrhoff
Alberts/Tanev - Salo
Luongo
Schneider
Too bad. And who knows, maybe he would be one of the guys to be able to break through Thomas.
Grabner would have stayed plastered to the boards and probably wouldn't have made it through the offensive zone with all the clutching and grabbing going on - his speed would have been neutralized. He was not the type of player that would have made a huge difference.
Losing Grabner stung, but it was necessary to drop Bernier's salary. The 1st was tough as well. I think Howden is going to be an awesome player one day, but the Canucks weren't going to take him anyways.
Would have traded Raymond instead of Grabner. Knew right after his good season that teams would key in on him more and he would struggle. Not saying the same would have happened if we put Grabner in his place but Grabner is able to play a stronger game than Raymond.
Plus Raymond's value will never be as high ever again.
Would have traded Raymond instead of Grabner. Knew right after his good season that teams would key in on him more and he would struggle. Not saying the same would have happened if we put Grabner in his place but Grabner is able to play a stronger game than Raymond.
Plus Raymond's value will never be as high ever again.
Lets see what he looks like healthy though. Tough to be productive when you are fighting wrist/shoulder(can't remember which) injuries most of the year.
Would have traded Raymond instead of Grabner. Knew right after his good season that teams would key in on him more and he would struggle. Not saying the same would have happened if we put Grabner in his place but Grabner is able to play a stronger game than Raymond.
Plus Raymond's value will never be as high ever again.
20/20 hindsight talent evaluation. You should be drawing to inside straights and betting long shots at the track.
At the time Grabner had not demonstrated he could play a stronger game than Raymond and in fact at the Panthers camp he was so unimpressive that the offensively challenged Panthers waived him. The same thing would have almost assuredly happened in Vancouver and he would have been lost on waivers with no return. Also note that the three teams that passed on Grabner with prior waiver claim status to NYI all had people familiar with Grabner:
Oilers (Tambellini)
Leafs (Nonis/Burke)
CBJ (Scott Arneil)
And all three of those teams passed.
Mike Gillis disagrees with you as he noted Grabner was a "redundant asset" and that he was trading potential not performance. Raymond was coming off a 25 goal 2009-10 season - the same number of goals that Kesler scored with both of them playing 82 games. Mason Raymond has become a Top Six forward on an elite team.
Mike Gillis when asked about his mantra of building through the draft and developing players in the system being seemingly set aside in trading Grabner and a first round pick:
"When you have the Hart Trophy winner (Henrik Sedin) and six 25-goal scorers, you have to change your viewpoint," said Gillis, who also gave up winger Steve Bernier in the package.
"We're trying to get close to the Stanley Cup final today. We don't have enough top-quality defence-men. Ballard can play big minutes."
~ Canucks swap for Florida's Ballard - Matheson, Jim. Edmonton Journal [Edmonton, Alta] 26 June 2010: pp. C.4
This was reported by Jason Botchford at the time as well about Grabner being described by Gillis as a redundant asset.
They did surrender a first-round pick, but only after their scouts determined there wasn't a prospect on the board worth taking. In addition, they lost Michael Grabner, but convinced the Florida Panthers to take on Steve Bernier and his $2 million US salary.
Grabner is the only asset of real value the Canucks coughed up. But for all his promise and hypnotizing speed, he is the Canucks' fourth-best prospect behind Cody Hodgson, Jordan Schroeder and Cory Schneider. There will be angst about what kind of player he will become but he had nowhere to play in the Canucks lineup in 2010-11 and became, as GM Mike Gillis pointed out, redundant.
What Vancouver didn't need in Grabner -- another soft goal-scorer -- they did need in Ballard.
~ Ballard wants more pressure; wish granted. Botchford, Jason. The Province [Vancouver, B.C] 27 June 2010: pp. A.58.
In the same circumstances Gillis still makes that trade 10 times out of 10.
Would have traded Raymond instead of Grabner. Knew right after his good season that teams would key in on him more and he would struggle. Not saying the same would have happened if we put Grabner in his place but Grabner is able to play a stronger game than Raymond.
Plus Raymond's value will never be as high ever again.
Going into FA we had alot of holes on our defence 2big ones(uncertainity over ufa Mitchell)....
to have to go into July 1st and aquire two top 4 dmen (Hamhuis,VOlchenko,Madden,Michelak.....and to a lesser degree Gonchar) were theonly real dmen avaliable for our needs.
by getting ballard he only had to get one of those dmen.......and how much more would he have had to pay for one of thoseother guys. (amhuis 4.5 ), Volchenko 4.25,
P martin 5.0, Michelak 4 mil......................Gonchar 5.5mil
to me it was a great move..........tempered by grabner having a great year(but sometimes you need to give to get...... and after this year we may find that ballard was a steal.
addded note-- not that he wasnt wanted but he was redundent in that we could afford to lose him him and still have a player in a similiar role.
As many others have said, Grabner would not have made the team out of training camp last season. Since he had to pass through waivers, he was the obvious target to go. We would have to have either given him a free roster spot, started him on the 4th line, waived him, or traded him.
Anyways, it's too early to assess this trade. Maybe Ballard has a great year this year and we win the cup, then I'd call this trade a huge win.
Grabner is flash but Im not sure he can do it for a top club. He strikes me as a big fish in a small pond player.
Ballard was hurt when he got here, never able to train and get in condition to the level he was expected to, and still had to learn the 'system'. Way too steep a hill to climb for him considering the expectations of the club. This effect is seen often in all sports when a player leaves a 'small' team that has low expectations and they come to a contender.
I feel Ballard will step up and be a major part of the team this year.
This thread is a good indicator of the posters who actually understand how hockey assets work and those posters who don't have a clue. I'll let you decide for yourself which is which.
touche'.
