Canucks Managerial Thread III

[fancouver]

I was never a fan of Garrison, so I didn't mind him leaving. The return for a 2nd round pick is pretty solid considering the 2 team limit (Tampa/Montreal), but I think most fans are just upset we got an AHL star instead. If we had kept the pick and theoretically selected McKeown, would it be a different story?

For me, yes.

 

[WTG]

Trading a top 4 defenseman for a prospect that has 50/50 chance of being in the NHL is not a good deal and probably a 2/10 shot at being as good as said top 4 defenseman.

I do not think it's even arguable.

 

[Intoewsables]

But if we didn't trade Garrison we wouldn't have your glorious avatar, so in the end everything worked out for the best.

Sbisa always delivers.

 

[fancouver]

Trading a top 4 defenseman for a prospect that has 50/50 chance of being in the NHL is not a good deal and probably a 2/10 shot at being as good as said top 4 defenseman.

I do not think it's even arguable.

At the time of the trade, he was our 5th defenceman behind Edler, Tanev, Hamhuis and Bieksa. Then there was Corrado who looked like he was close to full time spot. Having 4.6 million tied up on the blueline when the Canucks had trouble scoring was poor asset allocation/management.

So yes, getting a 2nd round pick back with no salary coming back is a good deal. It's just want Benning did afterwards that made the deal good to bad.

 

[Samzilla]

Sbisa always delivers.

"It's not delivery, it's Sbisa."

 

[Samzilla]

At the time of the trade, he was our 5th defenceman behind Edler, Tanev, Hamhuis and Bieksa. Then there was Corrado who looked like he was close to full time spot. Having 4.6 million tied up on the blueline when the Canucks had trouble scoring was poor asset allocation/management.

So yes, getting a 2nd round pick back with no salary coming back is a good deal. It's just want Benning did afterwards that made the deal good to bad.

At the time of the trade, Garrison was better than Bieksa. Corrado was coming off a poor year too after all the promise he showed in the 2013 playoffs.

 

[fancouver]

At the time of the trade, Garrison was better than Bieksa. Corrado was coming off a poor year too after all the promise he showed in the 2013 playoffs.

Sure, but who's the righty?

 

[Hit the post]

"It's not delivery, it's Sbisa."

If Sbisa isn't at your home in 30 minutes, you get Tanner Glass for free.

Sure, but who's the righty?

He played on the right side with Hamhuis (had AVs confidence as a shutdown pairing).

Course, the team wouldn't score any goals when they were on the ice together heh.

I was never a fan of Garrison, so I didn't mind him leaving.

Garrson's cap hit has been effectively replaced by #6 Pizza. Given a choice of this or the former; I'll take the former.

 

[fancouver]

If Sbisa isn't at your home in 30 minutes, you get Tanner Glass for free.



He played on the right side with Hamhuis (had AVs confidence as a shutdown pairing).

Course, the team wouldn't score any goals when they were on the ice together heh.


Garrson's cap hit has been effectively replaced by #6 Pizza. Given a choice of this or the former; I'll take the former.

Benning had Edler and Hamhuis as his LH and Tanev and Bieksa as his RH. There was your top 4 going into the season. Garrison as a 4.6m 5th defenceman doesn't make sense considering the team needed goals.

Like I said, its what happened after Benning got the 2nd round pick, people are displeased with. The actual return was good considering it was down to 2 teams.

If Benning signed someone like Stoner as the 5th defenceman, Canucks would have a different outlook. And then we also wouldn't needed to get Sbisa back from the Kesler trade.

 

[PM]

Top-4 defensemen are the hottest commodity around the league right now (we probably need two more to be a real threat) and somehow all we got was a late 2nd round pick, and we threw in a 7th. If you look down the list of teams 2 out of 3 could use at least one more top-4 dman, probably two. It was a terrible deal that did absolutely nothing to help us in the short or long term. It was change for change's sake.

 

[Hit the post]

Benning had Edler and Hamhuis as his LH and Tanev and Bieksa as his RH. There was your top 4 going into the season. Garrison as a 4.6m 5th defenceman doesn't make sense considering the team needed goals.

True enough - I've never said there wasn't a case for moving Garrison (in fact, I said it was a very logical move)

Problem is, our GM replaced that 'saved cap space' (moving Garrison) and used it up mostly on Pizza's (an even WORSE fit given our personnel here) - an inferior in every way player (other than so-called "scrums")

As for team goals....oddly enough, Garrison was tied for most goals [by D] during the regular season for each of his two seasons here (granted largely a result of being gifted far too many PP minutes).

 

[PM]

Benning had Edler and Hamhuis as his LH and Tanev and Bieksa as his RH. There was your top 4 going into the season. Garrison as a 4.6m 5th defenceman doesn't make sense considering the team needed goals.

Like I said, its what happened after Benning got the 2nd round pick, people are displeased with. The actual return was good considering it was down to 2 teams.

If Benning signed someone like Stoner as the 5th defenceman, Canucks would have a different outlook. And then we also wouldn't needed to get Sbisa back from the Kesler trade.

Teams aren't limited to having 4 good defensemen. I'd much rather have a good 3rd pairing defense than a good 4th line of forwards, that way you can keep all of your dmen around 20 minutes instead of playing Edler-Tanev for 26+.

And if Benning couldn't tell that Garrison was a better dman than Bieksa at the time then it's yet another strike against his "eye for talent".

 

[MS]

Benning had Edler and Hamhuis as his LH and Tanev and Bieksa as his RH. There was your top 4 going into the season. Garrison as a 4.6m 5th defenceman doesn't make sense considering the team needed goals.

Like I said, its what happened after Benning got the 2nd round pick, people are displeased with. The actual return was good considering it was down to 2 teams.

If Benning signed someone like Stoner as the 5th defenceman, Canucks would have a different outlook. And then we also wouldn't needed to get Sbisa back from the Kesler trade.

With the travel in the West, having 5 top-4 defenders is a basic necessity since someone is always hurt. That this was ever perceived as a 'bad thing' is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen.

And we didn't spend the savings on scoring. We've spent nearly as much on a piece of garbage in Luca Sbisa and the rest on a $6 million goalie we didn't need.

 

[Scurr]

Trading a top 4 defenseman for a prospect that has 50/50 chance of being in the NHL is not a good deal and probably a 2/10 shot at being as good as said top 4 defenseman.

I do not think it's even arguable.

It's not that simple. It's actually garrison for 2nd + cap space. This will lead to the usual Miller! Sbisa! retort but in a vacuum I think those kinds of deals can work out well if you spend the money wisely.

 

[y2kcanucks]

It's not that simple. It's actually garrison for 2nd + cap space. This will lead to the usual Miller! Sbisa! retort but in a vacuum I think those kinds of deals can work out well if you spend the money wisely.

Sure. But the money wasn't spent wisely. And the pick was wasted on a guy we probably could have had for free off waivers.

 

[PM]

With the travel in the West, having 5 top-4 defenders is a basic necessity since someone is always hurt. That this was ever perceived as a 'bad thing' is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen.

Yeah it's really weird how some people see having an expensive 4th line is more of a priority than a deep defense given that we always lose key defensemen and other than Tanev our current defensemen aren't all that reliable on their own anymore. It's not like we have a 30 minute monster to play half the game.

 

[PM]

It's not that simple. It's actually garrison for 2nd + cap space. This will lead to the usual Miller! Sbisa! retort but in a vacuum I think those kinds of deals can work out well if you spend the money wisely.

Still a bad deal to trade a Top-4 defensemen when this team's biggest weakness is it's poor defense. You know what we need right now? A Top-4 defenseman.

Edit: should clarify that I don't mean team defense, I mean actual defenders capable of playing at both ends of the ice. Not one-dimensional crap like Bartowski, Sbisa and Weber.

 

[Scurr]

Sure. But the money wasn't spent wisely.

Mcwtg's post didn't mention anything about the cap dollars or how it was spent. Like I said, those deals can work out. Ideally you're trading veterans like garrison to make room for young guys and their escalating salaries while restocking the cupboard at the same time. Kinda like with Sbisa... except with good players.

 

[Scurr]

Still a bad deal to trade a Top-4 defensemen when this team's biggest weakness is it's poor defense. You know what we need right now? A Top-4 defenseman.

Edit: should clarify that I don't mean team defense, I mean actual defenders capable of playing at both ends of the ice. Not one-dimensional crap like Bartowski, Sbisa and Weber.

I don't think a player like garrison is the team's biggest need, I think a PMD is. If we had one there wouldn't be as much of a need for guys like weber and bartkowski. Hutton may have answered our prayers, though.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Mcwtg's post didn't mention anything about the cap dollars or how it was spent. Like I said, those deals can work out. Ideally you're trading veterans like garrison to make room for young guys and their escalating salaries while restocking the cupboard at the same time. Kinda like with Sbisa... except with good players.

Except we're looking at this management group and their performance on the whole and it's been terrible. We essentially replaced Garrison with Vey and Sbisa. Awful move.

 

[Scurr]

Except we're looking at this management group and their performance on the whole and it's been terrible. We essentially replaced Garrison with Vey and Sbisa. Awful move.

Or Vrbata. Depends how you want to look at it.

Anyway, my response was to trading a known commodity for a lottery ticket in general.

 

[MikeK]

Except we're looking at this management group and their performance on the whole and it's been terrible. We essentially replaced Garrison with Vey and Sbisa. Awful move.

That is how I feel

 

[RandV]

It's not that simple. It's actually garrison for 2nd + cap space. This will lead to the usual Miller! Sbisa! retort but in a vacuum I think those kinds of deals can work out well if you spend the money wisely.

Technically I would say it's more cap reallocation, rather than cap space. Garrison had a contract that was below market value, so we went from underpaying a top 4 dman to either overpaying a bottom pairing dman, overpaying an average starting goalie, or breaking even on a top six forward.

Considering we are right now lacking a top 4 dman, I'd say trading Garrison is now a case of losing cap space.

 

[Hit the post]

Technically I would say it's more cap reallocation, rather than cap space. Garrison had a contract that was below market value, so we went from underpaying a top 4 dman to either overpaying a bottom pairing dman, overpaying an average starting goalie, or breaking even on a top six forward.

Considering we are right now lacking a top 4 dman, I'd say trading Garrison is now a case of losing cap space.

Jethro is learning. I thought the signing of Bartkowski was pretty decent (cap hit & term).

 

[MikeK]

Technically I would say it's more cap reallocation, rather than cap space. Garrison had a contract that was below market value, so we went from underpaying a top 4 dman to either overpaying a bottom pairing dman, overpaying an average starting goalie, or breaking even on a top six forward.

Considering we are right now lacking a top 4 dman, I'd say trading Garrison is now a case of losing cap space.

Either way, no matter how it's looked at or spun, it shows poor asset management and judgment on the part of Linden and GMJB.