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, 08:01 PM
  #76
John Bender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
the canucks could have kept mitchell, but they went after ballard. thanks gillis!
To be fair to GMMG, no one was really beating down Willie's door to sign him. He had just missed an entire playoff and it was unknown if he would ever recover from his concussion.

I think it's a fair point to critique the Canucks pro scouting though. Some of the additions they have made are baffling (Sturm, Barker, etc.) and others have simply fallen flat (Ballard, Booth, etc.).

I almost want the Canucks NOT to trade Luongo to FLA so that we don't get another FLA player back.

John Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:01 PM
  #77
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrefire View Post
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.


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.
mitchell wanted to stay and was disappointed his time with vancouver ended.

VeteranNetPresence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:01 PM
  #78
Shoeless Joe
Registered User
 
Shoeless Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
Why do people assume GMs of sports teams can see into the future? Like every decision they make must work out. I don't understand.

Shoeless Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:02 PM
  #79
ProstheticConscience
Kunst
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,513
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Barker's entire cap hit can be buried just as easily as Vandermeer's because it's under $900K.
There was a reason somewhere in the waiver rules IIRC. I saw it somewhere, can't remember where. Thought it was because of the 1-way vs 2-way contract thing. Could be wrong, though. I'd like to think it was because of that, because I'd sure as hell like to think our coaching and management can see clearly enough to know Vandermeer is the better option of the two. Still have no idea why we picked up Barker.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
if things turned out differently the canucks wouldn't have ballard. sounds good to me
Nice revisionist history. Ballard was traded for before the team signed Hamhuis, we all knew we needed to upgrade the D, and Mitchell hadn't played since January of that year. At the time, as far as anyone knew, Mitchell was one step away from being in Lindros territory if he got another knock on the head.

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:02 PM
  #80
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrefire View Post
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.
Canucks were willing to match $3.75M to Salo?

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:02 PM
  #81
John Bender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intoewsables View Post
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.
I remember Ballard from Phoenix, and I thought he was so good - really rugged, great offensive upside, etc. He just looks so awkward on the ice now. I really think he needs a change of scenery.

John Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:03 PM
  #82
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless Joe View Post
Why do people assume GMs of sports teams can see into the future? Like every decision they make must work out. I don't understand.
i except a GM to bat at least .500 on trades. so far gillis' has been pretty low

VeteranNetPresence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:04 PM
  #83
Spectrefire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
mitchell wanted to stay and was disappointed his time with vancouver ended.
That's what I said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
i except a GM to bat at least .500 on trades. so far gillis' has been pretty low
Ehrhoff, Lapierre, Higgins, Booth, and Kassian's looking good.

I'd say that's not a shabby record.

Spectrefire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:05 PM
  #84
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
There was a reason somewhere in the waiver rules IIRC. I saw it somewhere, can't remember where. Thought it was because of the 1-way vs 2-way contract thing. Could be wrong, though. I'd like to think it was because of that, because I'd sure as hell like to think our coaching and management can see clearly enough to know Vandermeer is the better option of the two. Still have no idea why we picked up Barker.
Buried or not, one guy costs the team a lot more playing in Chicago.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:06 PM
  #85
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrefire View Post
That's what I said...


Ehrhoff, Lapierre, Higgins, Booth, and Kassian's looking good.

I'd say that's not a shabby record.
sorry i thought that you said didn't. first 3 are good trades, jury is still out on the last 2

VeteranNetPresence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:08 PM
  #86
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless Joe View Post
Why do people assume GMs of sports teams can see into the future? Like every decision they make must work out. I don't understand.
It's a great cop out to just claim "I can't see into the future."

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:09 PM
  #87
Spectrefire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
sorry i thought that you said didn't. first 3 are good trades, jury is still out on the last 2
At the time, the Booth trade was a great trade, and given all the **** Booth had to go through last season (major injury, settling to a new team, etc), 16 goals in 50+ games wasn't terrible.

Whenever you trade two aging scrubs for a top six forward, it's a trade you have to take, even if there's some risk involved.

Spectrefire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 09:16 PM
  #88
Lonny Bohonos
Kassian = P.A.G.A.N
 
Lonny Bohonos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United Nations
Posts: 7,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrefire View Post
At the time, the Booth trade was a great trade, and given all the **** Booth had to go through last season (major injury, settling to a new team, etc), 16 goals in 50+ games wasn't terrible.

Whenever you trade two aging scrubs for a top six forward, it's a trade you have to take, even if there's some risk involved.
No one can complain about the booth trade.

Sammy was getting close to the end of his career.

Whats his nuts german dude was past the end of his career.

Lonny Bohonos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 09:59 PM
  #89
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 347
vCash: 500
The Booth trade was great in terms of value. Sturm was dead weight and Sammy was old, injured, and probably gone in the offseason.

The jury is still out on how good of a fit Booth will be for this team (I think he'll work it out and be a solid addition), but there's no question that the trade was great value.

mriswith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 10:05 PM
  #90
jammyrft
Registered User
 
jammyrft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Up North eh
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
One can hope we ice the following:

Sedin - Sedin - Kassian
Higgins - Schroeder - Burrows
Raymond - Lapierre - Hansen
Volpatti - Malhotra - Weise
Ebbett

It won't happen but... I want it to.


I think you're bang on

jammyrft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 10:37 PM
  #91
MarkMM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delta, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBIF View Post
Jensen won't be available until end of march at the earliest
D'oh! Sorry, typo, I met Hansen.

MarkMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 11:04 PM
  #92
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrefire View Post
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.
That summer, Mitchell had rented the ice before us out at Planet Ice. He was talking to some of the guys (I missed him by about 15 minutes) and said that it was down to LA and Vancouver and that LA offered him a longer contract. Hockey players talk more than their agents would probably like.

Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 11:10 PM
  #93
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,419
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.
I was laughed off another forum for panning that trade as it happened. The only thing that came to justifying the trade was that an overpayment was necessary. When I heard that there was a snag that kept the trade from being filed, I was happy. Turned out that it was just Gillis deciding which first rounder he was going to give up.

I think people remember well that Hamhuis' rights were traded twice. The scuttlebutt (at least around these parts) was that he wanted to come here to play.

Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 11:13 PM
  #94
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonny Bohonos View Post
No one can complain about the booth trade.

Sammy was getting close to the end of his career.

Whats his nuts german dude was past the end of his career.
I liked the Booth trade at the time. The possible downer was how Booth's contract had more years left than Sturm or Samuelsson. That's looming large now.

Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 11:18 PM
  #95
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
I liked the Booth trade at the time. The possible downer was how Booth's contract had more years left than Sturm or Samuelsson. That's looming large now.
That's the reason the Panthers gave him up for so little. But you have to take some chances as a GM.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 11:20 PM
  #96
Strangelove
Registered User
 
Strangelove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Location! Location!
Posts: 852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
I was laughed off another forum

Strangelove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 11:28 PM
  #97
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove View Post

Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 11:59 PM
  #98
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,889
vCash: 500
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
You're right that Barker sucks, but Vandermeer is pretty useless at this point in his career as well. Sure, he can throw a few punches, but he's not actually a good player in any way.

So it's essentially a wash as far as i'm concerned, which of the two blueliners they decided to waive.

It's just silly that they decided to wait this long to do it, and/or that they signed all these garbage extra depth blueliners in the first place really.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 01:24 AM
  #99
Jefe88
Registered User
 
Jefe88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Port Coquitlam
Posts: 220
vCash: 500
Have they called up Schroeder yet?

Jefe88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 01:24 AM
  #100
Bieksallent
Registered User
 
Bieksallent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefe88 View Post
Have they called up Schroeder yet?
Gotsta wait for Vandermeer to clear waivers before they can do that.

Bieksallent 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 08:33 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.