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

Canucks Qualify Schneider, Lack, and Weise (UPD: Gragnani as well)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-19-2012, 11:01 AM
  #51
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Sorry, bit I really want to re-sign Salo to a 1 yr $1.5 M salary, and play him 50 games.

not sure where grags fits in if at all, but

Hams KB
Edler Schultz
Tanev Ballard (its possible that he's here again)
Salo Grags

with Salo replacing every injury is not a bad contingency line up, with Tanev and Schultz fighting it out for 2nd line duties based on how well they are playing ...
Ballard or Garrison?

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 11:08 AM
  #52
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,579
vCash: 500
Letting Gragnani walk isn't a big deal, or even a loss of an asset. By most accounts of Buffalo fans he was horrendous for the Sabres, got traded for Alex Sulzer of all people, and then was pretty brutal here. If he's not back it should be no shock. If an asset has no value its not an asset. I would like a minor revamping on D, and letting someone like Gragnani walk is just fine with me.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 11:13 AM
  #53
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
Letting Gragnani walk isn't a big deal, or even a loss of an asset. By most accounts of Buffalo fans he was horrendous for the Sabres, got traded for Alex Sulzer of all people, and then was pretty brutal here. If he's not back it should be no shock. If an asset has no value its not an asset. I would like a minor revamping on D, and letting someone like Gragnani walk is just fine with me.
That's a dumb asset management. As I mentioned on the first page, worst case is you sign him, try to waive him and hope he makes it down the AHL to help out the Wolves. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be signed.

Tiranis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 12:05 PM
  #54
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
That's a dumb asset management. As I mentioned on the first page, worst case is you sign him, try to waive him and hope he makes it down the AHL to help out the Wolves. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be signed.
Agreed. The guy was a PPG defenseman his last season in the AHL, players like that do have value. If it wasn't for Tanev, I'd definitely want this guy on our roster to see if he could develop a defensive game. The guy has quite a few tools and at age 24-25 he isn't a lost cause just yet. If there isn't room then fine, sign him and send him down. I'm no capologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is Gillis is trying to get him signed to a contract where he can avoid recall waivers. I forget what the conditions need to be for that to happen, but I think that's the goal.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 12:07 PM
  #55
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Agreed. The guy was a PPG defenseman his last season in the AHL, players like that do have value. If it wasn't for Tanev, I'd definitely want this guy on our roster to see if he could develop a defensive game. The guy has quite a few tools and at age 24-25 he isn't a lost cause just yet. If there isn't room then fine, sign him and send him down. I'm no capologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is Gillis is trying to get him signed to a contract where he can avoid recall waivers. I forget what the conditions need to be for that to happen, but I think that's the goal.
I think it's a $105K max AHL salary.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 05:08 PM
  #56
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,579
vCash: 500
An asset is something that has value. He was traded for Alex Sulzer. He did nothing here for that value to increase.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 05:33 PM
  #57
vannuckles
DieBettmanDie
 
vannuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver Island B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spamhuis View Post
Article's pretty dumb in that it says 'tips their hand on how canucks will handle goalies'.

Really? That is such a huge stretch...........

I mean to say, they should just give away assets for free??? What a stupid article. MSM can be so uselss sometimes.
"Useless sometimes" or useful all the time? (depending on who's side of the spin you are on). It has been THE biggest tool against us peasants, to keep us misinformed.

vannuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 05:36 PM
  #58
CCF
This is the year....
 
CCF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Across Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Not qualifying players or losing players for nothing reminds me of Burke waiving Bryzgalov. Poor asset management.

Qualify your players, see what they have to offer. Don't let them just walk for free, no matter who they are (barring they don't have any significant health issues).

CCF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 06:10 PM
  #59
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
An asset is something that has value. He was traded for Alex Sulzer. He did nothing here for that value to increase.
He's a 60 point AHL defenceman. At the very worst he has the value of a guy like Mancari who was signed to help the AHL team.

Tiranis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 06:31 PM
  #60
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
He's a 60 point AHL defenceman. At the very worst he has the value of a guy like Mancari who was signed to help the AHL team.
If guys like Mancari and Gragnani are assets, its a very loose wording of the term. Ryan Parent was considered an asset, too. Is Gragnani still an asset if he causes our young d-men in Chicago to play less? Or if we re-sign him because "he's an asset" and that causes us to not be able to sign someone better as a FA? There is an opportunity cost associated with all of this.

As many have stated, there is a highly likely chance that he will be qualified. However if he isn't it is because someone else felt he wasn't an asset either.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 06:51 PM
  #61
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
If guys like Mancari and Gragnani are assets, its a very loose wording of the term. Ryan Parent was considered an asset, too. Is Gragnani still an asset if he causes our young d-men in Chicago to play less? Or if we re-sign him because "he's an asset" and that causes us to not be able to sign someone better as a FA? There is an opportunity cost associated with all of this.

As many have stated, there is a highly likely chance that he will be qualified. However if he isn't it is because someone else felt he wasn't an asset either.
What does Parent have to do with anything? Gragnani would be an excellent veteran mentor, at least offensively and would make the Wolves more competitive considering he would easily be their #1 D. Parent was a #5 or #6 guy at best. We signed Mancari for quite a bit just to add some firepower to the farm, why wouldn't we re-sign a better player for cheaper than that?

Tiranis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 06:52 PM
  #62
jimmythescot
Registered User
 
jimmythescot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
If guys like Mancari and Gragnani are assets, its a very loose wording of the term. Ryan Parent was considered an asset, too. Is Gragnani still an asset if he causes our young d-men in Chicago to play less? Or if we re-sign him because "he's an asset" and that causes us to not be able to sign someone better as a FA? There is an opportunity cost associated with all of this.

As many have stated, there is a highly likely chance that he will be qualified. However if he isn't it is because someone else felt he wasn't an asset either.
If they're playing less, but they're winning games they'd have lost without him, and the defensive prospects are being put in situations where they're not being tested to destruction: it's great asset management.

jimmythescot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 07:27 PM
  #63
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
What does Parent have to do with anything? Gragnani would be an excellent veteran mentor, at least offensively and would make the Wolves more competitive considering he would easily be their #1 D. Parent was a #5 or #6 guy at best. We signed Mancari for quite a bit just to add some firepower to the farm, why wouldn't we re-sign a better player for cheaper than that?
Sorry my mistake, I thought Parent had been qualified by us on his last deal.

Regardless, I just don't agree with the thought that some of these middling players are assets of any type. Yes, I realize we need guys to fill out Chicago but if they don't feel that Gragnani has a future on the NHL team then it wouldn't be a shock to see him move on. I'm sure Gragnani still has his eyes on the NHL, not the AHL. If Gragnani's back fine, but if not it's not much of a loss either.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 07:35 PM
  #64
CookieCrumbs*
Heads Up!
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 879
vCash: 500
We need a hard hitting gritty defenseman. Does nobody else see this?

CookieCrumbs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:08 PM
  #65
vector209
Registered User
 
vector209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Scott Stevens perhaps. I heard he isn't playing for anyone at the moment.

vector209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:19 PM
  #66
CookieCrumbs*
Heads Up!
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector209 View Post
Scott Stevens perhaps. I heard he isn't playing for anyone at the moment.
Too bad with todays NHL after dishing a couple of his beautiful hits the man would be banned from the league. But yes, a Scott Stevens type of player.

CookieCrumbs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:24 PM
  #67
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Yeah, that's right, we should let all our RFAs walk for nothing. That's good asset management.

Unbelievable some people.
Absolutely.

Isn't Weise pretty young anyways? He seems to have some upside.

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:31 PM
  #68
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieCrumbs View Post
We need a hard hitting gritty defenseman. Does nobody else see this?
Ballard? To bad the refs won't let him use his *legal hip check*. That and of course there's the fact Bowness is in charge of the blueline.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 09:00 PM
  #69
CookieCrumbs*
Heads Up!
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Ballard? To bad the refs won't let him use his *legal hip check*. That and of course there's the fact Bowness is in charge of the blueline.
Ballard isn't our hardest hitting defenseman, but he's most definitely our "grittiest" defenseman. The guy has a temper. I personally would like to see him stick around next season. I think he brings more to the line up than he gets credit for, overpayment aside.

Edler is our hardest hitting defenseman without a doubt. But he's not nearly consistent enough in that department. He also doesn't have a mean bone in his body. I mean, he would never grab another players head in frustration and smash it against the glass with both hands

CookieCrumbs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 09:09 PM
  #70
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
If guys like Mancari and Gragnani are assets, its a very loose wording of the term. Ryan Parent was considered an asset, too. Is Gragnani still an asset if he causes our young d-men in Chicago to play less? Or if we re-sign him because "he's an asset" and that causes us to not be able to sign someone better as a FA? There is an opportunity cost associated with all of this.

As many have stated, there is a highly likely chance that he will be qualified. However if he isn't it is because someone else felt he wasn't an asset either.
The bolded is what i might venture has something to do with the situation.

Having a solid framework of established AHL vets to work around is certainly not a negative thing for our prospects. But if signing a guy like MAG essentially for the Wolves means that a guy like Polasek is going to sit in the press box half the season, or if he's going to take away those prime PP developmental minutes from other options...then as a Canucks fan, it's easy to let MAG go.

In the case of a guy like Mancari who was signed primarily as AHL goal scoring support, it was a bit of a different situation as our prospect pool at the AHL level was fairly dismal when it comes to scoring wingers at the time. In that sort of situation, Mancari wasn't really 'taking' ice time from any of our developmental prospects...rather, was facilitating their development by providing a 'finisher' out there, drawing defensive attention, etc. In the case of a guy like MAG, if the Wolves really need a guy to run around like a goofball blowing off defensive responsibilities and shirking physical confrontation, Gragnani may be our guy...but i can't help but think those minutes wouldn't be better served spreading out among our prospects who are still really developing.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 09:11 PM
  #71
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieCrumbs View Post
Edler is our hardest hitting defenseman without a doubt. But he's not nearly consistent enough in that department. He also doesn't have a mean bone in his body. I mean, he would never grab another players head in frustration and smash it against the glass with both hands
Too bad Ohlund's level of performance declined pretty fast else maybe some of the former's 'mean streak' would've rubbed off on Edler if we kept him on the team.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 12:43 AM
  #72
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
In the case of a guy like Mancari who was signed primarily as AHL goal scoring support, it was a bit of a different situation as our prospect pool at the AHL level was fairly dismal when it comes to scoring wingers at the time. In that sort of situation, Mancari wasn't really 'taking' ice time from any of our developmental prospects...rather, was facilitating their development by providing a 'finisher' out there, drawing defensive attention, etc. In the case of a guy like MAG, if the Wolves really need a guy to run around like a goofball blowing off defensive responsibilities and shirking physical confrontation, Gragnani may be our guy...but i can't help but think those minutes wouldn't be better served spreading out among our prospects who are still really developing.
The Wolves had Baumgartner and Parent playing regular minutes this season, both an absolute waste of space. Anyone claiming there's no room or need for MAG is out to lunch. Here are our prospects for the farm next year: Connauton, Sauve, and Polasek. Even if Andersson and Tommernes come over and are good enough then there's still 1 spot left.

Tiranis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 01:08 AM
  #73
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
The Wolves had Baumgartner and Parent playing regular minutes this season, both an absolute waste of space. Anyone claiming there's no room or need for MAG is out to lunch. Here are our prospects for the farm next year: Connauton, Sauve, and Polasek. Even if Andersson and Tommernes come over and are good enough then there's still 1 spot left.
Matheson played 60 games, too.

I suspect that, similar to Weise, if MAG had played 10-11 on the Moose rather than in Buffalo's system, we'd be hearing a very different story about him.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 03:51 AM
  #74
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieCrumbs View Post
We need a hard hitting gritty defenseman. Does nobody else see this?
"hard hitting gritty defenseman" describes Andrew Alberts and Aaron Rome, right?

Seriously, no, we need a steady right handed partner for Edler. Hopefully, with an offensive game and who can help quarter back a powerplay.

I'm really hoping it'll be Shultz.

Wisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 01:56 PM
  #75
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,933
vCash: 500
Gillis confirmed Gragani was qualified.

LickTheEnvelope 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 08:43 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.