Former Canucks Thread 2023-24 Edition

[Bojack Horvatman]

View attachment 860074

Absolutely. I loved when Minnesota fired Paul Fenton after a year. No "it was the coach" or "still learning on the job" bs. Actual standards.

Unfortunately our owner is a doorknob and was drinking the Benning kool-aid by the gallon

 

[ihaveyuidonttouchme]

b-mo and ed jovo back together talking about game 4

 

[David71]

Not sure why we traded for Keith Ballard to be honest, guy was here and was constantly healthy scratched by AV for his f*** boy Aaron Rome.

When Ballard did play, he wasn't the same player like we was in Arizona and Florida.
What the f*** where we thinking..

coach av hated ballard. didnt fit his "style" puck of the boards. its like how kuzmenko didnt fit tocheets system. when i first heard we got ballard and hamhuis 2 hipcheck kings, their D that year was gonna be a force to be reckon with deepest in the league. edler/erhoff/bieska/rome rounding out the others. but it wasnt meant to be. an 18 year tanev was slotted in his first playoff game against san jose that year in favour of ballard. although ballard did play with tanev in a small sample size because they couldnt find the "right partner for ballard plus he couldnt play the right side that year 2011.

 

[MS]

coach av hated ballard. didnt fit his "style" puck of the boards. its like how kuzmenko didnt fit tocheets system. when i first heard we got ballard and hamhuis 2 hipcheck kings, their D that year was gonna be a force to be reckon with deepest in the league. edler/erhoff/bieska/rome rounding out the others. but it wasnt meant to be. an 18 year tanev was slotted in his first playoff game against san jose that year in favour of ballard. although ballard did play with tanev in a small sample size because they couldnt find the "right partner for ballard plus he couldnt play the right side that year 2011.

AV gave Ballard a ton of rope and played him regularly for the first half of every season he was here ... until his poor play and the superior play of Aaron Rome pushed him out of the lineup every year.

Fun fact : when Ballard and Rome left us at the same time, Rome's TOI went UP in Dallas while Ballard's went DOWN in Minnesota.

The problem with Ballard was Ballard - he just never recovered from his Florida injury and was a small, kinda shit defender by the time he was here.

 

[F A N]

Like, it's pretty bloody obvious what his value was.

You have the McCann/Buchnevich/Graves/Nedeljkovic deals all right at the same time. Garland was probably the least-valued of those guys outside of maybe McCann.

And if Arizona hadn't wanted to trade him for a high 2nd? Then oh no. You could have traded a 3rd or a 3rd+ for McCann or Buchnevich.

A bunch of you guys started ramping up that it was Garland for #9 overall - which was one of the most ludicrous takes in the history of this board - and don't like hearing the actual truth.

Garland’s valuation should not be controversial.

They basically traded #9 overall for the privilege of exchanging $10 million in bad short-term cap for $50 million in bad long-term cap which is probably the single worst deal in the cap era.

What I specifically take issue with is the ‘Garland for #9 overall’ thing which is just absolute nonsense and one of the most ludicrous takes in the history of the board.

Yeah it's insane to think that Garland had the value of 9th overall or that he couldn't of been had for less or without OEL. Arizona was literally going full tank at the time. There was the recent trades as you mention. Garland could of been had for a 2nd + maybe a B prospect Plus Garland had nowhere near the value of any forward that has been traded for a pick that high in the last 10 years.

Here we go again. There haven't been much in the way of teams (especially drafting in the top half) trading down up/down in the draft in recent years so there's not much to go by. I think we can assume that it's actually not that easy to trade down. These trades really only happen when there is a team looking to trade up to draft a specific player and a team whose draft targets are gone.

It depends on the draft and who is available but in most drafts, there is a HUGE discrepancy in value between the #1 overall pick and #3 and between a top 3 pick and #5. There is a good difference in value between #5 and #9/10. There usually isn't a big difference between #9/10 and a #11-15.

Look at our own drafts. In 2013 we drafted Horvat 9th overall. According to Gillis he would have drafted him higher (he thought Horvat was a top 6/7 pick) had he successfully secured a higher pick. In 2014, there was a top 4 then Bennett and a bunch of guys who were similar. If Gillis was still in charge they might have traded down and picked Larkin or drafted Nylander/Ehlers. In 2017 the Canucks had Petey and Maker #1/#2. In 2018 the Canucks had Hughes #2/#3. Is there any doubt that had the Canucks secured the #3 overall pick in those drafts they would have selected Petey or Makar and Hughes (there is a chance Hughes doesn't get selected if they selected Makar of course).

More recently, the Canucks thought of trading down but selected Podkolzin instead as he was the last guy on their list of players who belonged in the higher grouping. The Canucks had Lekkerimaki ranked 8th and presumably would have picked him if the Canucks had a higher pick. Last year, the Canucks drafted Willander who was considered a reach. They didn't trade down because they didn't think he would be there. Comparatively, ASP was available at #17 (and if you look over at the draft threads, most posters here didn't think there was a lot of separation between the two).

There is a HUGE difference between saying Garland isn't worth the 9th overall pick and Garland being worth a 2nd. There's also a huge difference between saying the Canucks overpaid for Garland and Garland being worth a 2nd round pick. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. But MS will have you believe that the Canucks rejected an offer offer 9th overall for Ryan Miller but Arizona would have traded Garland for a 2nd round pick.

But what about the reports? Friedman said that Garland could bring quite a return. It's pretty well reported that the Leafs favoured Garland over Foligno at the trade deadline. Leafs traded a 1st and a 4th for Foligno. Presumably, Leaf's 1st was on the table for Garland and the Coyotes rejected the deal. But MS will have you believe that a few months later Coyotes would have taken a 2nd round pick from Vancouver for Garland. Just can't accept that he's wrong.

 

[MS]

Here we go again. There haven't been much in the way of teams (especially drafting in the top half) trading down up/down in the draft in recent years so there's not much to go by. I think we can assume that it's actually not that easy to trade down. These trades really only happen when there is a team looking to trade up to draft a specific player and a team whose draft targets are gone.

It depends on the draft and who is available but in most drafts, there is a HUGE discrepancy in value between the #1 overall pick and #3 and between a top 3 pick and #5. There is a good difference in value between #5 and #9/10. There usually isn't a big difference between #9/10 and a #11-15.

Look at our own drafts. In 2013 we drafted Horvat 9th overall. According to Gillis he would have drafted him higher (he thought Horvat was a top 6/7 pick) had he successfully secured a higher pick. In 2014, there was a top 4 then Bennett and a bunch of guys who were similar. If Gillis was still in charge they might have traded down and picked Larkin or drafted Nylander/Ehlers. In 2017 the Canucks had Petey and Maker #1/#2. In 2018 the Canucks had Hughes #2/#3. Is there any doubt that had the Canucks secured the #3 overall pick in those drafts they would have selected Petey or Makar and Hughes (there is a chance Hughes doesn't get selected if they selected Makar of course).

More recently, the Canucks thought of trading down but selected Podkolzin instead as he was the last guy on their list of players who belonged in the higher grouping. The Canucks had Lekkerimaki ranked 8th and presumably would have picked him if the Canucks had a higher pick. Last year, the Canucks drafted Willander who was considered a reach. They didn't trade down because they didn't think he would be there. Comparatively, ASP was available at #17 (and if you look over at the draft threads, most posters here didn't think there was a lot of separation between the two).

There is a HUGE difference between saying Garland isn't worth the 9th overall pick and Garland being worth a 2nd. There's also a huge difference between saying the Canucks overpaid for Garland and Garland being worth a 2nd round pick. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. But MS will have you believe that the Canucks rejected an offer offer 9th overall for Ryan Miller but Arizona would have traded Garland for a 2nd round pick.

But what about the reports? Friedman said that Garland could bring quite a return. It's pretty well reported that the Leafs favoured Garland over Foligno at the trade deadline. Leafs traded a 1st and a 4th for Foligno. Presumably, Leaf's 1st was on the table for Garland and the Coyotes rejected the deal. But MS will have you believe that a few months later Coyotes would have taken a 2nd round pick from Vancouver for Garland. Just can't accept that he's wrong.

Garland was a tiny scoring winger with a career high of 39 points due for an RFA raise. This is not a valued commodity.

Again, all you have to do is look at the Buchnevich and McCann trades. McCann was the same age, bigger, could play some C, nearly identical production ... and he went for a 3rd.

If anything it's being very generous to say that Garland for a high 2nd was fair value at the time.

Keep in mind that this was just ahead of an expansion draft and values were depressed.

 

[racerjoe]

AV gave Ballard a ton of rope and played him regularly for the first half of every season he was here ... until his poor play and the superior play of Aaron Rome pushed him out of the lineup every year.

Fun fact : when Ballard and Rome left us at the same time, Rome's TOI went UP in Dallas while Ballard's went DOWN in Minnesota.

The problem with Ballard was Ballard - he just never recovered from his Florida injury and was a small, kinda shit defender by the time he was here.

I bring this up cause there has been lots of talk about it, but it was a hip surgery. I am not sure if it was the same one that Kesler had or what that has been talked about, but if it was the same one as Ked, another example of a player not being able to return to what they were after it.

 

[MS]

I bring this up cause there has been lots of talk about it, but it was a hip surgery. I am not sure if it was the same one that Kesler had or what that has been talked about, but if it was the same one as Ked, another example of a player not being able to return to what they were after it.

Yup - hip surgeries and abdominal surgeries (Sutter) tend to spell death for NHL players, especially if their success had been built on superior skating ability.

 

[LemonSauceD]

I also seem to remember Ballard having back problems as well. Concussions, hips, back pain, very unlucky man.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Here we go again. There haven't been much in the way of teams (especially drafting in the top half) trading down up/down in the draft in recent years so there's not much to go by. I think we can assume that it's actually not that easy to trade down. These trades really only happen when there is a team looking to trade up to draft a specific player and a team whose draft targets are gone.

It depends on the draft and who is available but in most drafts, there is a HUGE discrepancy in value between the #1 overall pick and #3 and between a top 3 pick and #5. There is a good difference in value between #5 and #9/10. There usually isn't a big difference between #9/10 and a #11-15.

Look at our own drafts. In 2013 we drafted Horvat 9th overall. According to Gillis he would have drafted him higher (he thought Horvat was a top 6/7 pick) had he successfully secured a higher pick. In 2014, there was a top 4 then Bennett and a bunch of guys who were similar. If Gillis was still in charge they might have traded down and picked Larkin or drafted Nylander/Ehlers. In 2017 the Canucks had Petey and Maker #1/#2. In 2018 the Canucks had Hughes #2/#3. Is there any doubt that had the Canucks secured the #3 overall pick in those drafts they would have selected Petey or Makar and Hughes (there is a chance Hughes doesn't get selected if they selected Makar of course).

More recently, the Canucks thought of trading down but selected Podkolzin instead as he was the last guy on their list of players who belonged in the higher grouping. The Canucks had Lekkerimaki ranked 8th and presumably would have picked him if the Canucks had a higher pick. Last year, the Canucks drafted Willander who was considered a reach. They didn't trade down because they didn't think he would be there. Comparatively, ASP was available at #17 (and if you look over at the draft threads, most posters here didn't think there was a lot of separation between the two).

There is a HUGE difference between saying Garland isn't worth the 9th overall pick and Garland being worth a 2nd. There's also a huge difference between saying the Canucks overpaid for Garland and Garland being worth a 2nd round pick. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. But MS will have you believe that the Canucks rejected an offer offer 9th overall for Ryan Miller but Arizona would have traded Garland for a 2nd round pick.

But what about the reports? Friedman said that Garland could bring quite a return. It's pretty well reported that the Leafs favoured Garland over Foligno at the trade deadline. Leafs traded a 1st and a 4th for Foligno. Presumably, Leaf's 1st was on the table for Garland and the Coyotes rejected the deal. But MS will have you believe that a few months later Coyotes would have taken a 2nd round pick from Vancouver for Garland. Just can't accept that he's wrong.

There is a huge difference in balue between a late first and a top 10 pick. Toronto's pick would of been about the same value as a 2nd and b prospect I said above. There is zero precedence of a small winger taken in the 5th round with half a season of high end production being worth a top 10 pick. Especially in a flat cap where owners were trying to save every dollar. Kevin Fiala got a first and a very good D prospect but he was coming off an 85 point season and has draft pedigree.

Trade deadline 2020 was before the pandemic as well and Arizona gets to the cap floor by taking on LTIR contracts that are payed through insurance and Garland was due a raise. Players that were slightly overpaid could basically be had for free because of the flat cap. Like Pacioretty or how we got Schmidt (top pairing D for Vegas) for a 3rd. The pandemic and flat cap completely changed the value of players.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Last point on value of Garland. The 2022 deadline when we were trying to trade him it's been reported the best offer we got was from LA and was a 2nd. He was coming off a 50 esp season as well

 

[Vector]

I was told by someone who was kind of connected to the Canucks at the time that one problem with Ballard is that he's very dumb. Canucks ran a complicated defensive system and he couldn't figure it out.

Injuries, size, and an inability to grasp the defensive system did him in.

 

[RobertKron]

I was told by someone who was kind of connected to the Canucks at the time that one problem with Ballard is that he's very dumb. Canucks ran a complicated defensive system and he couldn't figure it out.

Injuries, size, and an inability to grasp the defensive system did him in.

He's also incredibly hard on himself. IIRC, it was reported at some point that reporters could hear him screaming at himself through the walls in the arena. Also, there's this:

Toned down? It still was enough for Coach Guentzel, a man who has been around college hockey since 1981 and seen many a tough competitior, to call him psycho. Ballard was a highly-touted national recruit, a defenseman who had offensive skills that would make any forward jealous. But while his hockey talent was well developed, Guentzel recalled Ballard's inability to let the negatives of the game go. As a self-admitted highly competitive person, Ballard would get caught up in everything that went wrong on the ice and let all the imperfect plays cloud his vision of the game.

Article goes on to say that he toned it down as his NCAA career continued, but maybe things got a bit more difficult to let go with the way everything was going in his time with the Canucks.

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

He's also incredibly hard on himself. IIRC, it was reported at some point that reporters could hear him screaming at himself through the walls in the arena. Also, there's this:



Article goes on to say that he toned it down as his NCAA career continued, but maybe things got a bit more difficult to let go with the way everything was going in his time with the Canucks.

I remember some fluff piece they did for social media or something and someone asked Ballard how to get on Vigneault's good side. He said something to the effect of "if you find out, let me know." Lmfao.

 

[F A N]

Garland was a tiny scoring winger with a career high of 39 points due for an RFA raise. This is not a valued commodity.

...
If anything it's being very generous to say that Garland for a high 2nd was fair value at the time.

Keep in mind that this was just ahead of an expansion draft and values were depressed.

Garland's career high of 39 points came in 49 games. You are wrong on Garland's value. Friedman would agree that your are out to lunch.

There is a huge difference in balue between a late first and a top 10 pick. Toronto's pick would of been about the same value as a 2nd and b prospect I said above. There is zero precedence of a small winger taken in the 5th round with half a season of high end production being worth a top 10 pick. Especially in a flat cap where owners were trying to save every dollar. Kevin Fiala got a first and a very good D prospect but he was coming off an 85 point season and has draft pedigree.

So he's not worth a top 10 pick. We overpaid. That's not the same as being worth a 2nd round pick.

Again, Toronto "preferred" Garland. So logically Arizona was offered AT LEAST what they offered for Foligno. I don't know why you have to twist Toronto's pick as being worth a 2nd and a B prospect. Toronto traded a 1st (25th overall) and 3rd for Foligno. That was the trade. Are you telling me that you think the 33 year old pending UFA Foligno with 7 goals 16 points in 42 games was equal in value to a 25 year old Garland who was a pending RFA with 12 goals 39 points in 49 games? C'mmon...

Fiala was traded for the 19th overall pick + Faber (a former 45th overall pick who was one of the top NCAA prospects). I think Faber was easily worth a mid 1st round pick at the time (I say this having completely underrated him). Keep in mind that there were discussions regarding Miller for Fiala. There were also trade discussions regarding LA targets and some posters like @VancouverJagger rated Faber highly. I think it's fair to say that Faber was a significant piece at the time of the trade. If you consider that the Canucks' draft targets were gone, I would have taken 19th overall pick + Faber to trade down from 9th no question. But that's not the point. Fiala was worth more than Garland and while Fiala's trade value was reduced due to his free agency status vis a vis Garland, he should still be considered to have been traded for more than Garland (arguably significantly more).

Trade deadline 2020 was before the pandemic as well and Arizona gets to the cap floor by taking on LTIR contracts that are payed through insurance and Garland was due a raise. Players that were slightly overpaid could basically be had for free because of the flat cap. Like Pacioretty or how we got Schmidt (top pairing D for Vegas) for a 3rd. The pandemic and flat cap completely changed the value of players.

Huh? We're talking about the 2021 trade deadline here.

Oh and Schmidt was acquired for a 3rd and then traded for a 3rd because he wasn't a top pairing D. He was overpaid. As for Pacioretty, he was making $7M, couldn't stay healthy, Vegas missed the playoffs, and he was critical of other players/ Vegas organization for having no accountability. I was definitely surprised at what Pacioretty was traded for but he was 34 years old, making $7M AAV, and coming off wrist surgery. Thats a bit different from trading for a 25 year old Garland who made his salary demands known.

Let's use some common sense here...

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

One detail ignored in this whole debate is how much of a hard-on Benning had for OEL.

Recall, OEL is the guy Benning pursued across two offseasons and was giddy at the prospect of landing a 'Norris winner if he played in the East' level of player. I highly doubt Garland was given a ton of thought or focus.

 

[MS]

Garland's career high of 39 points came in 49 games. You are wrong on Garland's value. Friedman would agree that your are out to lunch.

Jared McCann had 32 points in 43 games so a 36 point/49 game pace. McCann isn't tiny. McCann has C utility. McCann had one more year remaining on a contract that paid him $2 million less than what Garland would sign for.

McCann in the 3 years prior - 102 points in 187 games, 45 points/60
Garland in the 3 years prior - 96 points in 164 games, 48 points/60.

Jared McCann was a better asset at the time. Jared McCann was traded for a 3rd round pick on basically the same day. And you can do the same thing with Buchnevich.

It's actually *generous* to say that Garland was worth a high 2nd by the market at the time and you are simply not getting this because you're so locked into defending this terrible Benning trade and in denial about the fact that Benning basically gave a top-10 pick away for nothing.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Jared McCann was a better asset at the time. Jared McCann was traded for a 3rd round pick on basically the same day. And you can do the same thing with Buchnevich.

He also had the 'prestige' of being a first round pick. Yes, a late 1st rounder, but GMs are idiots who do value these things (see also: Gudbranson.)

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Jared McCann had 32 points in 43 games so a 36 point/49 game pace. McCann isn't tiny. McCann has C utility. McCann had one more year remaining on a contract that paid him $2 million less than what Garland would sign for.

McCann in the 3 years prior - 102 points in 187 games, 45 points/60
Garland in the 3 years prior - 96 points in 164 games, 48 points/60.

Jared McCann was a better asset at the time. Jared McCann was traded for a 3rd round pick on basically the same day. And you can do the same thing with Buchnevich.

It's actually *generous* to say that Garland was worth a high 2nd by the market at the time and you are simply not getting this because you're so locked into defending this terrible Benning trade and in denial about the fact that Benning basically gave a top-10 pick away for nothing.

Benning actually gave away a top 10 pick for negative value in the cap consequences of OEL.

 

[credulous]

i don't get the obsession with unpicking components of a trade like the oel deal. it was oel and garland for roussel, beagle, eriksson, the 9 overall, a 2nd and a 7th

it was a disaster however benning and armstrong arrived at it

 

[Bubbles]

Dan Hamhuis' thoughts,, wow they're really bringing all the 2011 alumni these days

 

[MS]

Benning actually gave away a top 10 pick for negative value in the cap consequences of OEL.

It’s generous to say Garland for a high 2nd.

It’s also generous to say that the $10 million in short term bad cap we shipped out = the $50 million in bad OEL cap we took in.

That leaves giving away #9 overall for free.

 

[Hodgy]

i don't get the obsession with unpicking components of a trade like the oel deal. it was oel and garland for roussel, beagle, eriksson, the 9 overall, a 2nd and a 7th

it was a disaster however benning and armstrong arrived at it

Ya, I've said it a bunch of times, but this was a unique deal where Benning thought he might be able to save his job by dumping three terrible contracts for a defenseman with a big contract that might regain form. I think Arizona required the 9th overall as they had just recently had their own top ten pick forfeited so getting back a top ten pick to save face was likely a requirement for them. It's impossible to say what Garland was valued at, but I am assuming that Benning needed/wanted to dump the three contracts and get OEL, and Arizona required the 9th overall as part of that deal.

 

[MS]

Ya, I've said it a bunch of times, but this was a unique deal where Benning thought he might be able to save his job by dumping three terrible contracts for a defenseman with a big contract that might regain form. I think Arizona required the 9th overall as they had just recently had their own top ten pick forfeited so getting back a top ten pick to save face was likely a requirement for them. It's impossible to say what Garland was valued at, but I am assuming that Benning needed/wanted to dump the three contracts and get OEL, and Arizona required the 9th overall as part of that deal.

Arizona saw a 70 IQ rube coming from a mile away and insanely got positive value for one of the worst contracts in the NHL. Another case

Take the #9 overall out of that trade ... and it's probably reasonably fair at the time (if still bad for us given where we were at and the way OEL would perform).