HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Vandermeer Waived (UPD: Clears - Jan 22)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-21-2013, 06:08 PM
  #51
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Canuck View Post
We have 3 extra defensemen on the roster and 0 extra forwards, meaning if another forward gets hurt, Cam Barker will be playing forward at this point.

This move is to hopefully call up Schroeder and relieve Ebbett of his duties.


(at least he'll have two defensemen to back him up when he turns over the puck - if he has a defenseman do that, it's a scoring chance for the other team )

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:13 PM
  #52
Southern_Canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Arrrgh - it is really hard to get on-side with these defenceman choices...

- Ballard is mediocre, was never worth the large contract he signed in Florida, and the Canucks somehow thought it was a good idea to trade for him.

- The Canucks sign Hamhuis (yay!)

- The Canucks let Ehrhoff go, even though he is a great fit for their PP, due to contractual concerns (while keeping Ballard)

- The Canucks let Rome go as a UFA (while keeping Ballard)

- The Canucks sign Cam Barker, who seems to be unsure what a defenceman does inside his own zone.

- The Canucks sign Jim Vandermeer at the request of several Canuck players (who probably like his toughness and team play - ummm... hint Canucks?), then waive him while keeping Barker... WTF?

S_C

Southern_Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:19 PM
  #53
TBIF
Registered User
 
TBIF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern_Canuck View Post
Arrrgh - it is really hard to get on-side with these defenceman choices...

- Ballard is mediocre, was never worth the large contract he signed in Florida, and the Canucks somehow thought it was a good idea to trade for him.

- The Canucks sign Hamhuis (yay!)

- The Canucks let Ehrhoff go, even though he is a great fit for their PP, due to contractual concerns (while keeping Ballard)

- The Canucks let Rome go as a UFA (while keeping Ballard)

- The Canucks sign Cam Barker, who seems to be unsure what a defenceman does inside his own zone.

- The Canucks sign Jim Vandermeer at the request of several Canuck players (who probably like his toughness and team play - ummm... hint Canucks?), then waive him while keeping Barker... WTF?

S_C
Ballard was needed if Hamhuis didn't sign, people forget his rights were traded around before.

Ehrhoff didn't look worth the contract he wanted.

Are you not on side with the Garrison signing?

Vandermeer was signed to a two way contract, this is to be expected.

TBIF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:22 PM
  #54
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 8,238
vCash: 500
Maybe Barker was kept around over Vandermeer because he's a funny guy and makes everyone in the locker room laugh.

Big smiles before the game is important.

Wilch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:55 PM
  #55
Southern_Canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBIF View Post
Ballard was needed if Hamhuis didn't sign, people forget his rights were traded around before.

Ehrhoff didn't look worth the contract he wanted.

Are you not on side with the Garrison signing?

Vandermeer was signed to a two way contract, this is to be expected.
Yes, the Garrison UFA signing looks decent.

Let's remember the Ballard trade was a 1st round pick, a former 1st round pick prospect (Grabner), and a salary dump from a former bad trade (Bernier). The Canucks can't get that kind of return for Luongo - this was an extremely bad trade - Ballard was not needed for that return.

The Barker signing makes me think the pro scouts have learned nothing.

The Vandermeer signing gave me a twinkle of hope - now doused by the waive.

S_C

Southern_Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:56 PM
  #56
luongo321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,773
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
Alberts is underrated. Plays a physical but safe game and knows his role as #7. I have no problems with AA assuming AV doesn't try making him a top 4 guy.
Safe? Didn't see him almost kill Raymond during the scrimmage? jk, I know what you mean. However, AA has been known to take some seriously stupid major boarding penalties in his past. Man it pisses me off when he does that. I can't believe he would hit his own teammate AND a guy that had a broken back previously. Complete idiot.

luongo321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:59 PM
  #57
luongo321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,773
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBIF View Post
Ballard was needed if Hamhuis didn't sign, people forget his rights were traded around before.

Ehrhoff didn't look worth the contract he wanted.

Are you not on side with the Garrison signing?

Vandermeer was signed to a two way contract, this is to be expected.
I wouldn't say ballard was needed. Why? HE ****ing sucks. It as a bad call by Canucks management. I wanted to rip my eyes out last night when he gave that puck away right in front of luongo.

luongo321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:03 PM
  #58
Intoewsables
 
 
Intoewsables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,138
vCash: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by luongo321 View Post
I wouldn't say ballard was needed. Why? HE ****ing sucks. It as a bad call by Canucks management. I wanted to rip my eyes out last night when he gave that puck away right in front of luongo.
The point is that Ballard was viewed as a top-4 defenseman at the time and there was no guarantee that Hamhuis would sign here. It was a poor deal in hindsight, but what if it wasn't made and Hamhuis signed elsewhere? We needed that insurance.

Intoewsables is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:08 PM
  #59
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern_Canuck View Post
Yes, the Garrison UFA signing looks decent.

Let's remember the Ballard trade was a 1st round pick, a former 1st round pick prospect (Grabner), and a salary dump from a former bad trade (Bernier). The Canucks can't get that kind of return for Luongo - this was an extremely bad trade - Ballard was not needed for that return.

The Barker signing makes me think the pro scouts have learned nothing.

The Vandermeer signing gave me a twinkle of hope - now doused by the waive.

S_C

I agree. Lots of head scratchers from our pro scouts. Marco Sturm shouldn't be forgotten here, and the jury is out on Booth as well.

I'd like to see some ice-time given to Alberts as well. We need that physical presence, and Tanev has shown smarts when pinching here and there. Alberts can play the simple game and throw punishing hits all night. IMO if given some regular ice-time, he will improve.

Momesso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:19 PM
  #60
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilch View Post
Maybe Barker was kept around over Vandermeer because he's a funny guy and makes everyone in the locker room laugh.

Big smiles before the game is important.
I think based on what's transpired they were worried about both Vandermeer and Barker being claimed. They are less worried about Vandermeer than Barker and the plan all along was to exploit Schroeder's waiver exempt status to buy the right time to sneak Vandy to Chicago.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:25 PM
  #61
Southern_Canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
I think based on what's transpired they were worried about both Vandermeer and Barker being claimed. They are less worried about Vandermeer than Barker and the plan all along was to exploit Schroeder's waiver exempt status to buy the right time to sneak Vandy to Chicago.
But - Cam Barker has so far proved to be exactly what several other teams discovered (as he demonstrated in two Canuck scrimmages) - an awful defenceman. Whereas Vandermeer is a slow, unspectacular, but tough and dedicated defenceman... Why in hell would the Canucks keep Barker over Vandermeer?

Barker is not likely to suddenly learn how to play "defense" - and his supposed offensive prowess is questionable, and not needed on a team that has Edler, Garrison, Hamhuis, and Bieksa...

I just don't get it.

S_C

Southern_Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:30 PM
  #62
ProstheticConscience
Kunst
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,596
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern_Canuck View Post
But - Cam Barker has so far proved to be exactly what several other teams discovered (as he demonstrated in two Canuck scrimmages) - an awful defenceman. Whereas Vandermeer is a slow, unspectacular, but tough and dedicated defenceman... Why in hell would the Canucks keep Barker over Vandermeer?

Barker is not likely to suddenly learn how to play "defense" - and his supposed offensive prowess is questionable, and not needed on a team that has Edler, Garrison, Hamhuis, and Bieksa...

I just don't get it.

S_C
Waivers. Vandermeer's on a 2-way deal, so his cap hit can be buried whereas Barker has a one-way deal for some unknown reason and therefore can't. Also IIRC someone needs to go down for someone else to come up. With our forwards the way they are, it's better to keep Ebbet in the press box than sending him back to the AHL and risking him getting claimed. I guess.

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:33 PM
  #63
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
the canucks could have kept mitchell, but they went after ballard. thanks gillis!

VeteranNetPresence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:36 PM
  #64
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
So when do we here about Schroeder being called up. I won't believe 'till I say it if you know what I mean..

keslerburrows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:38 PM
  #65
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
Waivers. Vandermeer's on a 2-way deal, so his cap hit can be buried whereas Barker has a one-way deal for some unknown reason and therefore can't. Also IIRC someone needs to go down for someone else to come up. With our forwards the way they are, it's better to keep Ebbet in the press box than sending him back to the AHL and risking him getting claimed. I guess.
Barker's entire cap hit can be buried just as easily as Vandermeer's because it's under $900K.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:41 PM
  #66
BerSTUzzi
Registered User
 
BerSTUzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
the canucks could have kept mitchell, but they went after ballard. thanks gillis!
At the time Mitchell left there wasn't even evidence that he was going to return to hockey at all, let alone our team. Stop playing the hindsight 20/20 card.

BerSTUzzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:43 PM
  #67
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslerburrows View Post
So when do we here about Schroeder being called up. I won't believe 'till I say it if you know what I mean..
Tomorrow once Vandermeers waiver period is over.

Jevo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:46 PM
  #68
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslerburrows View Post
So when do we here about Schroeder being called up. I won't believe 'till I say it if you know what I mean..
Schroeder wasn't reassigned in time to play for the Wolves on Friday, and then even after he was sent down, he didn't play on Saturday even though the Wolves only had 11 forwards. Even if you don't believe the Canucks when they outright said he'd be back with the team shortly, this has to make it pretty clear that they wanted him back up ASAP.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:46 PM
  #69
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerSTUzzi View Post
At the time Mitchell left there wasn't even evidence that he was going to return to hockey at all, let alone our team. Stop playing the hindsight 20/20 card.
mitchell wanted to stay here, and the canucks tendered an offer, but couldn't match other teams' offers because of ballards HORRIBLE contract.

VeteranNetPresence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:49 PM
  #70
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
mitchell wanted to stay here, and the canucks tendered an offer, but couldn't match other teams' offers because of ballards HORRIBLE contract.
If I remember correctly, when the Canucks traded for Ballard, Mitchell wasn't even cleared to work out yet.
What should they have done? Just sat and waited and hoped Mitchell would recover? Had things turned out differently, you'd likely be crying about it right now, too.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:51 PM
  #71
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
If I remember correctly, when the Canucks traded for Ballard, Mitchell wasn't even cleared to work out yet.
What should they have done? Just sat and waited and hoped Mitchell would recover? Had things turned out differently, you'd likely be crying about it right now, too.
if things turned out differently the canucks wouldn't have ballard. sounds good to me

VeteranNetPresence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:52 PM
  #72
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
mitchell wanted to stay here, and the canucks tendered an offer, but couldn't match other teams' offers because of ballards HORRIBLE contract.
Actually they would've had room for Mitchell after getting Ballard. It was the Hamhuis signing that likely spelled the end for Mitchell so that's the one you should really be taking issue with, but I guess it doesn't fit your narrative.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:55 PM
  #73
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Actually they would've had room for Mitchell after getting Ballard. It was the Hamhuis signing that likely spelled the end for Mitchell so that's the one you should really be taking issue with, but I guess it doesn't fit your narrative.
a cap hit is a cap hit, doesn't matter who it's from. the fact is that if the canucks didn't have ballard, they would have had room to match what LA was offering

VeteranNetPresence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:58 PM
  #74
Spectrefire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
mitchell wanted to stay here, and the canucks tendered an offer, but couldn't match other teams' offers because of ballards HORRIBLE contract.
Uh... no. Mitchell did want to stay, the Canucks did tender him an offer, but it was a low one year contract. Mitchell went to the Kings for one reason and one reason only, they offered him two years. Lots of teams wanted him for one year, the Kings were the only one willing to go with two. It had nothing to do with Ballard's contract.

20/20 hindsight sucks, but they made the right decision. Mitchell was too much of a risk at that point. LA had the cap available to take on the risk, and should he have failed there, they wouldn't have been hurt too much. The Canucks didn't have that luxury.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
a cap hit is a cap hit, doesn't matter who it's from. the fact is that if the canucks didn't have ballard, they would have had room to match what LA was offering
It wasn't the cap hit they were worried about, it was the 2 years. Same reason Salo went to Tampa. Canucks were willing to match the salary, not the term. But all that said and done, it would've been silly of them to offer 3.5m and 2 years to a guy who had a 50/50 chance of retiring right then and there.

Spectrefire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:00 PM
  #75
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
the canucks could have kept mitchell, but they went after ballard. thanks gillis!
Head injury is head injury.

craigcaulks* 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 10:30 AM.

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.