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
01-22-2013, 01:47 AM
  #101
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,587
vCash: 500
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.[/QUOTE]

Truth in what you say here but also have to recognize that the Canuck management could have handled this better.

I think many realized that in picking up Ballard we were picking up a possible bad contract. There is little doubt that Florida saw the move as salary dump. Prior to the acquisition of Hamhuis maybe that was simply a chance we had to take.

However, once we got Hamhuis then the Canucks might well have been looking to move Ballard along. I know, at the time, this was suggested. I know this was a minority opinion but it had some value since it seemed apparent that Ballard would be playing in bottom pairing and his salary was too high for this position on the team.

Moreover, once the season began, it became quickly clear that Ballard was playing no where near up to his salary. At the time, I and others said that there should be serious consideration of dumping Ballard one way or another. I know I got lambasted for suggesting that Ballard should have been waived and moved (like Redden) to the minors. This would have opened up some serious cap space to get the kind of player needed for more success in the playoffs. In addition, given Ballard's injury problems and his play there was little chance he was going to get picked up so he might have remained available for the playoffs. As it turned out, the team stuck with Ballard and the possibly of using his cap space more wisely was lost. And in the playoffs, Ballard was non-existent.

In the end, the team is probably going to have to buy out Ballard and get nothing for him. If they have moved him quickly there is a chance they could have got something for him (maybe a mid round draft). Moreover by getting him out of here early they could have used his cap space.

You are right about the Mitchell situation. That is totally hindsight. But, there were some as early as the acquisition of Hamhuis who were worried about the Ballard situation. And not long into Ballard's first season some of us very much wanted the Canucks to correct the situation. Thus I don't think you can say this is all revisionism and just hindsight.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 01:51 AM
  #102
KidCanuck*
HORS∃Y
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
I'd send down Alberts (but we know that won't happen) even though he's probably the slightly better defense than Vandermeer in the hopes somebody will actually claim him (Vandermeer being the far cheaper cap hit). Plus, I'd rather have a guy like Vandermeer take on the useless thugs like Eager than Kassian.

Barker....meh........
Can't send down Alberts. Would still count towards our cap per new CBA.

KidCanuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 02:16 AM
  #103
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,187
vCash: 500
do you think vandy will clear?

David71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 02:16 AM
  #104
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
I would've waived Barker, I think Vandy brought something to the team we could really use, but hey maybe they'll just get Kassian to fight all the thugs until he breaks a hand. Since we have to keep the useless waste of air that is Cam Barker around.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 02:17 AM
  #105
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
re: Ballard's contract...part of the point of having underpaid guys in your top 4 is that you can afford to spend a bit more on your depth. On most teams Ballard is a top 4, and in a different system he's probably more effective.

Ballard's play has come along. He's still got some moments and makes some questionable decisions, but his play has improved with his time in the system. Sure, paid too much for a bottom pairing, but the discounts given by our top 4 guys makes this affordable.

I was a big fan of Ballards in PHX and thought he'd be a great acquisition. Hasn't fit in quite how I thought he would but I'm fine with seeing how he looks this season before making any decisions on his future. I'd rather have him for this season than dump him just to be rid of his contract.

alternate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 02:36 AM
  #106
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Can anyone see any circumstance besides tons of injuries where barker gets in the lineup?

Crows* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 02:52 AM
  #107
VanCanucks14
Registered User
 
VanCanucks14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,653
vCash: 500
What the heck do they see in Barker? He's looked awful even in the scrimmages. Vandermeer is the better choice yet he gets waived? The decisions this team makes sometimes...

Makes me feel bad because he and his wife were so excited to play here.

VanCanucks14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 02:57 AM
  #108
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanCanucks17 View Post
What the heck do they see in Barker? He's looked awful even in the scrimmages. Vandermeer is the better choice yet he gets waived? The decisions this team makes sometimes...

Makes me feel bad because he and his wife were so excited to play here.
He agreed to a 2 way deal. He knows what he is and what he got himself in to.

Crows* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 11:39 AM
  #109
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,518
vCash: 500
Vandermeer has cleared waivers.

Quote:
Ben Kuzma‏@benkuzma

Vandermeer clears waivers for re-assignment to Chicago Wolves. The Canucks may recall Jordan Schroeder.
ExpandReply
Retweet
Favorite
More

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 11:41 AM
  #110
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,239
vCash: 5555
Do it!

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 01:30 PM
  #111
Steveorama
Registered User
 
Steveorama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Can anyone see any circumstance besides tons of injuries where barker gets in the lineup?
Canucks' aircraft crashing into a mountain, after Barker was late and missed the flight?
That is about the only way I see it happening.

Steveorama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 07:27 PM
  #112
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Can anyone see any circumstance besides tons of injuries where barker gets in the lineup?
I could see Ballard getting sent to the press-box for a game if he keeps making plays like that bad give-away last game. Barker and Alberts will see some ice-time this year, AV isn't going to want them getting rusty.

Hammer79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:00 PM
  #113
ProstheticConscience
WWIII
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,495
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Truth in what you say here but also have to recognize that the Canuck management could have handled this better.

I think many realized that in picking up Ballard we were picking up a possible bad contract. There is little doubt that Florida saw the move as salary dump. Prior to the acquisition of Hamhuis maybe that was simply a chance we had to take.

However, once we got Hamhuis then the Canucks might well have been looking to move Ballard along. I know, at the time, this was suggested. I know this was a minority opinion but it had some value since it seemed apparent that Ballard would be playing in bottom pairing and his salary was too high for this position on the team.

Moreover, once the season began, it became quickly clear that Ballard was playing no where near up to his salary. At the time, I and others said that there should be serious consideration of dumping Ballard one way or another. I know I got lambasted for suggesting that Ballard should have been waived and moved (like Redden) to the minors. This would have opened up some serious cap space to get the kind of player needed for more success in the playoffs. In addition, given Ballard's injury problems and his play there was little chance he was going to get picked up so he might have remained available for the playoffs. As it turned out, the team stuck with Ballard and the possibly of using his cap space more wisely was lost. And in the playoffs, Ballard was non-existent.

In the end, the team is probably going to have to buy out Ballard and get nothing for him. If they have moved him quickly there is a chance they could have got something for him (maybe a mid round draft). Moreover by getting him out of here early they could have used his cap space.

You are right about the Mitchell situation. That is totally hindsight. But, there were some as early as the acquisition of Hamhuis who were worried about the Ballard situation. And not long into Ballard's first season some of us very much wanted the Canucks to correct the situation. Thus I don't think you can say this is all revisionism and just hindsight.
1) It's not as if we and MG all knew we weren't going to get the Ballard who had originally earned that contract.

2) Yeah, there were rumblings out there that Hamhuis really wanted to play here, but then there are millions of rumors bouncing around at any given time. For all anyone knew, Mitchell was a vegetable, Hamhuis was signing in Philly, Ballard didn't suck, Grabner was edging towards bust territory, and Bernier was...well, Bernier. Sure, some of us balked at the money Ballard was getting, but the scouting reports on him from Florida fans were all really positive from what I remember at the time.

3) Ballard actually might not suck so harshly if he can stay healthy and our coach actually plays him now that Rome's moved on. I admit, he's not worth what we're paying him right now, he's still very high-risk, but he can still be decent.

4) MG doesn't have magical ESP where he can see into the future, nor does he have 29 other NHL GMs banging on his door to take Ballard off our hands. When we got Hamhuis and Ballard, they were both supposed to be known for their durability. Anyone remember that? Look how that turned out. Best laid plans of mice, and all that. Lots of coulda, woulda, shoulda stuff there.

Anway, back on topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Can anyone see any circumstance besides tons of injuries where barker gets in the lineup?
Good Lord no. I'd rather the entire D from the Wolves were brought up before that.

ProstheticConscience is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:17 PM
  #114
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canuck View Post
Can't send down Alberts. Would still count towards our cap per new CBA.
Wasn't talking about cap savings but rather about roster spots; and whatever his faults, Alberts is still a #6 on a bad team. Only one year left on his contract so there's a good chance somebody will claim him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
but the scouting reports on him from Florida fans were all really positive from what I remember at the time.
Forget that.....how about the "scouting report" from his ex-coach - Bowness - who is our coach in charge of the blueline.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:21 PM
  #115
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
Not re-signing Mitchell made no sense to me whatsoever. If every concussed player was written off, most teams would be playing 4th line plugs. Tthose who retire like Savard and Pronger are the exception rather than the rule in my opinion.

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:24 PM
  #116
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
Not re-signing Mitchell made no sense to me whatsoever.
Again, when you have Salo - Mr. Glass - as the other guy in the top four; I think you make every effort to get a guy who's actually healthy and will likely stay healthy on your team. Who's to say Mitchell wouldn't have just gotten another injury with us if he re-signed? It would just be consistant with our "luck" with blueliners - even guys with a *proven track record of missing few NHL games in a season* (re: Hamhuis & Ballard).

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 02:12 AM
  #117
dwarf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Posts: 445
vCash: 250
Glad he cleared. He may yet play an important part on this team.

dwarf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 02:51 PM
  #118
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
Not re-signing Mitchell made no sense to me whatsoever. If every concussed player was written off, most teams would be playing 4th line plugs. Tthose who retire like Savard and Pronger are the exception rather than the rule in my opinion.
Mitchell's concussion was pretty bad. Despite how it turned out, it was the right move at the time.

Fat Tony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:20 PM
  #119
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
Not re-signing Mitchell made no sense to me whatsoever. If every concussed player was written off, most teams would be playing 4th line plugs. Tthose who retire like Savard and Pronger are the exception rather than the rule in my opinion.
The Canucks had a pretty close view of what was going on with him. I'd imagine that it really looked like he wasn't likely to have a strong recovery. It's not like they just saw he was concussed and wrote him off. It was their doctors that were working with him.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:21 PM
  #120
SedinFan*
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 10,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SedinFan*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Can anyone see any circumstance besides tons of injuries where barker gets in the lineup?
Nope.

SedinFan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:27 PM
  #121
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Again, when you have Salo - Mr. Glass - as the other guy in the top four; I think you make every effort to get a guy who's actually healthy and will likely stay healthy on your team. Who's to say Mitchell wouldn't have just gotten another injury with us if he re-signed? It would just be consistant with our "luck" with blueliners - even guys with a *proven track record of missing few NHL games in a season* (re: Hamhuis & Ballard).
No guarantees. Who's to say Ballard would work out ($24MM gamble). Who's to stay Luongo will play well for 5 more years only, retires early and leaves us footing the bill? Who's to say Booth will pan out? Who's to say Sturm was going to be a failure?

Everything has risk involved. Its a judgement call. To risk $7MM on a D man who was relied upon first for defensive assignments is on the balance of probabilities, worth it - much more than taking $20MM risks on Ballard and Booth each. don't you think so?

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:29 PM
  #122
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
Mitchell's concussion was pretty bad. Despite how it turned out, it was the right move at the time.
It was still worth taking the risk.

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:40 PM
  #123
rebel diamond
Registered User
 
rebel diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 5,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
It was still worth taking the risk.
Was it? If you'd asked people at the time which two players they'd rather have out of Mitchell, Hamhuis, and Ballard I feel the latter two would be overwhelmingly the most popular choices, even accounting for salary. Now, with a couple years of hindsight it's clear that Mitchell has recovered well from his concussion problems while Ballard never really fit into the system here. But Hamhuis is by far the best of the three, and declining to resign Willie helped us get him.

rebel diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:44 PM
  #124
rebel diamond
Registered User
 
rebel diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 5,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Can anyone see any circumstance besides tons of injuries where barker gets in the lineup?
Yep. They signed him to play, and if one or two dmen go down he'll get his shot in the rotation just like Alberts and Vandermeer, especially if someone we rely on for offense like Edler or Garrison is out. In fact, with the compressed season it seems all but inevitable that all 9 (or even 10 maybe if we call up Joslin or Connauton) of our defenders see game action.

rebel diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:01 PM
  #125
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel diamond View Post
Was it? If you'd asked people at the time which two players they'd rather have out of Mitchell, Hamhuis, and Ballard I feel the latter two would be overwhelmingly the most popular choices, even accounting for salary. Now, with a couple years of hindsight it's clear that Mitchell has recovered well from his concussion problems while Ballard never really fit into the system here. But Hamhuis is by far the best of the three, and declining to resign Willie helped us get him.
Could be, obviously I'm not privy to much of negotiations/going on, one thing that I found interesting in ^ Tony's and MW's comment about the extent of the concussion leads me to believe the team may have relied on this info. too much, a sort of sky is falling mentality at the time may have reigned and therefore, something "had to be" done aka the jumping from the frying pan into the fire analogy where Mitchell's concussion is the fire.


Last edited by Outside99*: 01-23-2013 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Goobledigook
Outside99* 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 01:38 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.