I liked the trade when it happened, but never knew AV would have such a hate-on for KB4, or that Grabner had 30+ goal potential. However, a year later I'm guessing in hindsight GMMG may not have pulled the trigger...
1) This summer the Canucks lost Ehrhoff, their top scoring Dman last season. Without Ballard's $4.2M on the books, I'm sure we could have re-signed him.
2) I hate the Sturm signing. Really, the guy is past his prime, has 2 wonky knees, and was f@#king waived last year by the Kings. But I'm guessing he was brought in to fill in the top 6, and add depth. Wouldn't Grabner be perfect for that role today? Sure, he might not have scored 33 goals for the Canucks last year but damn...
3) KB4 only played 10 of 25 playoff games during the run :/
Now, if Ballard actually gets a fair shake this year then in my opinion at best this trade is a saw-off...
From the Canucks current roster-
minus:
Ballard
Sturm
Oreo
We'll see. If Ballard can return to what he was before he struggled with injuries (a solid top 4 guy who can play relatively tough minutes and put up 30-35 points), then I think he'll be a key part of the Canucks.
And who knows, Grabner's making $3 million now. If he falters it's not like he's going to be a great bargain. People have ragged on Samuelsson for scoring at a 20 goal, 55 point pace at $2.5 million; how would they feel if Grabner dropped back to a 20 goal, 40 point pace for $3 million?
Grabner would've been waiver fodder if he wasn't traded, and I doubt MG gives Ehrhoff 10 million for his first season even without 4.2 on the books. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it was the right move at the time, and I still feel like Ballard could pull through this year.
I'm very curious to see what Ballard can do this year. Not a terrible trade if he can return to form.
It's a fair trade if Ballard plays to his potential even with the emergence of Grabner. Top 4 defenseman for a one-dimensional 30 goal scorer. I know we gave a 1st too, but it was a pretty crappy 1st.
1) This summer the Canucks lost Ehrhoff, their top scoring Dman last season. Without Ballard's $4.2M on the books, I'm sure we could have re-signed him.
Ehrhoff was offered the same deal as Bieksa, and turned it down. Gillis wasn't going to budge and decided to move on.
The Islanders won a waivers pick-up, the rest has been a wash so far- unless Ballard proves he can (and Edler can) step into what Ehrhoff was doing for us last year. Then I have no problem with it.
I doubt Grabner would've been the difference for us in the cup finals, but now we'll never know .
The deal made sense at the time it was made. I'm still satisfied with the deal knowing that Grabner was likely headed for waivers, Bernier was $2.5m in dead weight and the draft pick was a late 1st rounder. Ballard is better than he got to show last season and Oreskovich is a solid depth player.
I don't think Gillis would have waived Grabner. He's not an idiot, and the Canucks were aware of Grabner's history of ****** training camps. With that said, he would have struggled on the 4th line and being scratched as the 13th forward, as the Canucks wouldn't have been able to be as patient with him as the Islanders were. In all likelihood he would've been moved during the year anyway, but in a much lesser deal.
I was apprehensive about the trade when it happened, and still am. I like the *potential* Ballard has, if he can pull it together here and become a legitimate top-4 d-man again, playing 20+ minutes a night and putting up 30+pts...i'll get myself on-side with the trade. I've been a big supporter of Ballard and i really do like the upside there, but from what we've seen thus far...I still don't like the trade from a value standpoint.
BUT at the same time...this team made it to the cup finals last year, and down year or not, Ballard was an important part of that. So it is what it is.
Would also add that, despite being a 'crappy pick'...a guy like Howden or a number of others picked after that would all look pretty darn good in a Canucks prospect camp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneGreat
How many times do we have to go over that Grabner WOULD NOT have made the team last year?
I think this is really the crux of the issue though. I agree that Grabner would've been in incredibly tough trying to make this team last year. He certainly wouldn't have been given the leeway to 'learn' and 'make mistakes' and 'develop' that we saw him get in Long Island. And he wouldn't have been in key PK situations, etc. This team is just too deep for that. And ultimately...that's just not how AV rolls.
But that's where my issue lies basically. I understand that we're striving to follow the 'Detroit model', giving our prospects more time than usual and probably more time than a lot of fans are comfortable with, to 'develop'. But when you see a guy like Grabner go out and struggle to start the year, but then ultimately pot 34 goals while filling an important PK role and not really being a liability defensively...sure he's fairly '1-dimensional', but i think we're all agreed that he never would've developed into a near 35 goal scorer playing with the Canucks (despite our clear edge in talent).
Basically it comes down to willingness to let a young player 'learn on the fly'. That really just doesn't seem to be in AV's repetoire. So as long as AV is around (and despite his shortcomings, i support him and believe that overall he's a good coach), i think we're all going to have to accept the fact that our prospects are going to develop at a snails pace.
This year, with Kesler out to start the year and Hodgson looking like a prime candidate to fill in as a temp...I think will be incredibly telling about AV's ability to bring prospects along quickly...and willingness to put inexperienced players in a position to grow and succeed.
Grabner would've been waiver fodder if he wasn't traded, and I doubt MG gives Ehrhoff 10 million for his first season even without 4.2 on the books. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it was the right move at the time, and I still feel like Ballard could pull through this year.
Grabner WAS waiver fodder after the trade... that is how he ended up with the NYI when waived by the Panthers where he spun his wheels for a number of games.
Grabner WAS waiver fodder after the trade... that is how he ended up with the NYI when waived by the Panthers where he spun his wheels for a number of games.
just doing a little burnout before he hooked up and blew by everyone to score a boatload of goals. i like his style.
I liked the trade when it happened, but never knew AV would have such a hate-on for KB4, or that Grabner had 30+ goal potential. However, a year later I'm guessing in hindsight GMMG may not have pulled the trigger...
1) This summer the Canucks lost Ehrhoff, their top scoring Dman last season. Without Ballard's $4.2M on the books, I'm sure we could have re-signed him.
2) I hate the Sturm signing. Really, the guy is past his prime, has 2 wonky knees, and was f@#king waived last year by the Kings. But I'm guessing he was brought in to fill in the top 6, and add depth. Wouldn't Grabner be perfect for that role today? Sure, he might not have scored 33 goals for the Canucks last year but damn...
3) KB4 only played 10 of 25 playoff games during the run :/
Now, if Ballard actually gets a fair shake this year then in my opinion at best this trade is a saw-off...
From the Canucks current roster-
minus:
Ballard
Sturm
Oreo
plus/keep:
Grabner
Ehrhoff
2010 1st round pick
Grabner was f@#king waived last year by the Panthers.
How are Ehrhoff and Sturm even involved in this???
Terrible thread.
I think the logic is that were it not for Ballard's cap hit, we would have had the cap space to resign Ehrhoff. It's a stretch but that seems to be what the OP is driving at.
when Grabner was traded to the Panthers lots of people said he could score 30 goals in the southeast division, I just think people are upset he is actually did and with quite ease really if you consider it was without PP time. But really the NYI were the winners of the trade, because without him Florida got a salary dump + the Canucks 1st rounder for Ballard + scraps which is not that great if Ballard can play like a top 4 defenceman next year with 3 years left on his contract.
I was screaming back then that Mikael Samuelsson should be traded for a bag of pucks, and Grabner given his spot on the roster. That Raymond, Kesler, Grabner line looked absolutely deadly every time it touched the ice. But that DARN Samuelsson......
Samuelsson is such an awful hockey player..... Can't believe I have to endure watching him cough the puck up and make stupid plays for 1 more year.
I was screaming back then that Mikael Samuelsson should be traded for a bag of pucks, and Grabner given his spot on the roster. That Raymond, Kesler, Grabner line looked absolutely deadly every time it touched the ice. But that DARN Samuelsson......
Samuelsson is such an awful hockey player..... Can't believe I have to endure watching him cough the puck up and make stupid plays for 1 more year.
Samuelsson is 10 times the hockey player Mason Ryamond is, and probably ever will be.
At the time: Good trade venturing on Great. The late 1st seemed to be the only thing of value going the other way. Grabner had a poor camp, was in danger of being waived here as a 23 yr old, and then was traded, only to be waived by Florida. That was verification of what Grabner's value may have been at the time (although It think Tallon was foolish for waiving Grabs at all).
This past year: Obviously it looks poor. Ballard was in and out of AV's doghouse all season. For a 4.2m investment, that is unacceptable. Meanwhile, Grabner took off: 34 goals is nothing to scoff at. Although I think Grabner will get less at EV and more on the PP this year, the overall total should be around 25 goals. That would be a really great thing to have on this team. Based on this, and Quinton Howden's solid season, the trade has to be viewed negatively to this point.
In the future: If Ballard regains his form, he becomes marketable again. Teams will again look at the rising cap and his play + contract as assets. If a decent young player + pick is offered up for him, then the trade becomes a saw off. Basically, if Ballard returns to a form that demands an ok young player + pick in return, then that's fair. It's if he continues to struggle that the Grabner trade will be dismissed as a failure overall.
I like Ballard as a player, but I feel his time on this club will be short-lived. He's not the type of player you want playing on your bottom pairing. However, that's where the team will have him for the foreseeable future. Essentially, Ballard needs talent to work with and he won't get that by playing with 4th liners. So in the end, I hope he regains enough of his form that he becomes marketable again, and is traded for a fair return. Teams that could work as partners: NYI (surprise!), NJ, Dal, Col, Mon, Car, NYR... Still some options.
Samuelsson is 10 times the hockey player Mason Ryamond is, and probably ever will be.
Samuelsson is an absolute garbage hockey player. Which is why he was demoted to the fourth line at various points last season.
He has horrible vision. He coughs up the puck way too much in the offensive zone. He is completely useless in the defensive zone. I can recall vividly 10 times last season when his ineptitude led to a goal. Hate to break it to people out there, but if you score 20 goals, but make 18 bad plays which lead to goals against, you didn't actually score 20 goals. You scored 2.
I cannot wait until this scrub is no longer on the team. He makes us worse. I'd happily trade him for a 7th rounder.
Samuelsson is an absolute garbage hockey player. Which is why he was demoted to the fourth line at various points last season.
He has horrible vision. He coughs up the puck way too much in the offensive zone. He is completely useless in the defensive zone. I can recall vividly 10 times last season when his ineptitude led to a goal. Hate to break it to people out there, but if you score 20 goals, but make 18 bad plays which lead to goals against, you didn't actually score 20 goals. You scored 2.
I cannot wait until this scrub is no longer on the team. He makes us worse. I'd happily trade him for a 7th rounder.
He is one of the only proven playoff performer's we have on the team. He's clutch.
He is one of the only proven playoff performer's we have on the team. He's clutch.
Nah you're blind. You have to deal a guy after the 2009-10 season who scored 30 goals and led the team in playoff points that season because he's "garbage" and give that spot automatically to a guy who while "looking good" in a limited role with the Canucks; had actually accomplished nothing at the NHL level until he got picked up on waivers by the Islanders (and even then, took a bit of time before 'taking off").
Last edited by Barney Gumble: 09-17-2011 at 08:41 PM.
.
