Former Canucks Thread 2023-24 Edition

[Vector]

Everyone play nice.

EVERYONE PLAY NICE.

 

[M2Beezy]

Everyone play nice.

EVERYONE PLAY NICE.

Only if you explain what happend to my avatar??

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

It’s literally directly in line with a pile of deals made that summer for nearly identical-value players ahead of the expansion draft.

You’re a Benning apologist who was trying to push the asinine ‘Garland was for #9 overall’ lunacy so you don’t like hearing it.

Yeah it’s clear that Benning had a giant boner for OEL going back to the off-season before the trade occurred. He was clearly the centre piece of the trade from Arizona and Benning mortgaged the future as a list ditch effort to save his job, which predictably failed miserably. Was funny when some posters thought Benning could win GM of the year following that trade though lol

 

[Vector]

Only if you explain what happend to my avatar??

You know why.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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..

we traded for keith ballard because he was a B+ offensive dman who was mobile, moved the puck okay, blocked shots, had a big hipcheck, and most importantly had played the full 82 games in four out of his five NHL seasons, his only injury ever as a pro being a fractured hand after blocking a shot in his second year.

the context is that the fragility and lack of depth of our d was an issue. going into the 2011 season, bieksa had missed double digit games in each of the previous three years, salo was salo, and ballard was brought in to replace willie mitchell, whose season-ending injury submarined what i still believe was that luongo/sedins core's single best shot at the cup.

if gillis had known he was going to land hamhuis in free agency, he probably never would have made the ballard trade, but that wasn’t a risk he was willing to take, which fair enough. with three guys who had finished top two in hart voting, it would be a waste to risk going into the season with a d of ehrhoff, bieksa, edler, salo, alberts, rome, and maybe if he’s brought back willie mitchell coming off a possibly career-altering concussion.

unfortunately, ballard needed hip surgery over the summer, which we reportedly weren’t informed of before the trade, and then four games into the season he suffered a concussion of his own. and yes, he and AV’s system were oil and water. just the absolute worst case scenario of everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

 

[EpochLink]

we traded for keith ballard because he was a B+ offensive dman who was mobile, moved the puck okay, blocked shots, had a big hipcheck, and most importantly had played the full 82 games in four out of his five NHL seasons, his only injury ever as a pro being a fractured hand after blocking a shot in his second year.

the context is that the fragility and lack of depth of our d was an issue. going into the 2011 season, bieksa had missed double digit games in each of the previous three years, salo was salo, and ballard was brought in to replace willie mitchell, whose season-ending injury submarined what i still believe was that luongo/sedins core's single best shot at the cup.

if gillis had known he was going to land hamhuis in free agency, he probably never would have made the ballard trade, but that wasn’t a risk he was willing to take, which fair enough. with three guys who had finished top two in hart voting, it would be a waste to risk going into the season with a d of ehrhoff, bieksa, edler, salo, alberts, rome, and maybe if he’s brought back willie mitchell coming off a possibly career-altering concussion.

unfortunately, ballard needed hip surgery over the summer, which we reportedly weren’t informed of before the trade, and then four games into the season he suffered a concussion of his own. and yes, he and AV’s system were oil and water. just the absolute worst case scenario of everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

Willie Mitchell turned out fine at the end, guy was a key to the Kings 2 cup wins. Although, he’s ruined his own legacy by being a f***ing bitch ass predator…

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Willie Mitchell turned out fine at the end, guy was a key to the Kings 2 cup wins. Although, he’s ruined his own legacy by being a f***ing bitch ass predator…

yeah the double irony is not only did ballard fall apart, physically, mentally, spiritually, mitchell held it together for two cups, although he did miss the entire 2013 season (the one between the two cups).

but yeah, disappointing that he turned out to be human garbage.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Willie Mitchell turned out fine at the end, guy was a key to the Kings 2 cup wins. Although, he’s ruined his own legacy by being a f***ing bitch ass predator…

I remember that spring. It was rumored Willie Mitchell was suffering severe PCS symptoms that were not really improving. He was still in "dark rooms" in May/June and there were insiders questioning whether or not he was going to resume his career.

LA took a rather bold gamble on a 33 year old which we couldn't afford to take...

 

[racerjoe]

It also wasn't Ballard on Willie, if anything it was Hamhuis Vs Willie, and even then we made Willie an over, the kings just paid a lot more for him.

 

[RobertKron]

It also wasn't Ballard on Willie, if anything it was Hamhuis Vs Willie, and even then we made Willie an over, the kings just paid a lot more for him.

Mitchell didn't sign until late August. At some point, the Canucks offered him a 1-year deal that, IIRC, was mostly bonuses. When they signed Hamhuis, Mitchell hadn't been cleared to work out or anything yet - almost 7 months after the injury - and the bigger concern for him was likely just living a normal life moreso than anything to do with hockey. The team was trying to build a cup winner, and couldn't afford to wait around on one guy, so moving on from Mitchell was absolutely the right move at the time.

FWIW, Mitchell's career eventually ended due to a later concussion and concern over long-term impact of his head injuries.

 

[F A N]

It’s literally directly in line with a pile of deals made that summer for nearly identical-value players ahead of the expansion draft.

You’re a Benning apologist who was trying to push the asinine ‘Garland was for #9 overall’ lunacy so you don’t like hearing it.

Here you go again. Such thin skin.

You are wrong and most people here know it. I'm not going to try to explain to someone who thinks Garland could be had at the time for a 2nd round pick again and again.

 

[racerjoe]

Mitchell didn't sign until late August. At some point, the Canucks offered him a 1-year deal that, IIRC, was mostly bonuses. When they signed Hamhuis, Mitchell hadn't been cleared to work out or anything yet - almost 7 months after the injury - and the bigger concern for him was likely just living a normal life moreso than anything to do with hockey. The team was trying to build a cup winner, and couldn't afford to wait around on one guy, so moving on from Mitchell was absolutely the right move at the time.

FWIW, Mitchell's career eventually ended due to a later concussion and concern over long-term impact of his head injuries.

Oh I don't disagree. But really it is not sign Hamhuis, and wait and see if Mitchell could get healthy. Or do what we did... which fell a game short of working.

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

f*** Willie Mitchell. Is that sign still up heading into Port McNeill?

 

[RobertKron]

Oh I don't disagree. But really it is not sign Hamhuis, and wait and see if Mitchell could get healthy. Or do what we did... which fell a game short of working.

I mean that second option was just plainly not an option other than as just the dumbest possible hindsight whining.

 

[DFAC]

 

[Lindgren]

I'll never forget seeing Kesler play in an exhibition game before his first regular season with the Canucks. After a couple of shifts I was asking myself, "Who is this guy?" I hadn't seen a lot of live NHL hockey, and I'd never seen such a skater—that fluid, powerful stride. It really stood out.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

gentleman

 

[MS]

Here you go again. Such thin skin.

You are wrong and most people here know it. I'm not going to try to explain to someone who thinks Garland could be had at the time for a 2nd round pick again and again.

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.

 

[bandwagonesque]

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.

1. If I wrote a post listing all the facts and context you're deliberately leaving out here and challenging the assertions you've supplied without argument, it would take me all morning and just lead to more posts requiring the same treatment.

2. The claim you're advancing was, if I recall correctly, mostly adjunct to the argument that OEL was essentially traded for the 9th overall pick, which is ten times crazier than thinking Garland was traded for it. No one here meets on the middle on much of anything, though.

 

[MS]

1. If I wrote a post listing all the facts and context you're deliberately leaving out here and challenging the assertions you've supplied without argument, it would take me all morning and just lead to more posts requiring the same treatment.

2. The claim you're advancing was, if I recall correctly, mostly adjunct to the argument that OEL was essentially traded for the 9th overall pick, which is ten times crazier than thinking Garland was traded for it. No one here meets on the middle on much of anything, though.

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.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

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.

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. Off the top of my head:

Derek Stepan: Proven top 6 Center( not a winger) that was consistently putting up 50-60 points and had playoff experience. Also came with Raanta who looked ready to be a starter.

Alex Debricat: 2 40 goal seasons and 32 goal season in short bubble year.

Kirby Dach: Big center that was a recent top 3 pick.

Plus it was well noted Benning offered a big package for OEL the previous year instead of resigning Tanev and Toffoli but couldn't come to an agreement. Also called OEL their #1D at the press conference and said he would of won a Norris if he played in the east.

Benning should of had all the leverage here. Arizona was desperate to replace the top 10 pick they foreited and to move OEL who wanted out. Boston and Vancouver were the only options and IIRC Boston was out because of the price. He was desperate to save his job though, and has no clue when he has the leverage like we so with the Bonino Sutter trade

 

[DFAC]

Watching Forsling play 20+ mins a night for arguably the best team in the East feels bad man

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

 

[Jyrki]

Watching Forsling play 20+ mins a night for arguably the best team in the East feels bad man

yeah but we really needed Adam Clendenning to play 15 minutes/night for 17 games that one year

The only consolation is that Jimbo wasn't the only one to write off Forsling, but as was typical of his tenure... he gave something to fill a need that could've been addressed for no assets spent if he had an ounce of patience or awareness

 

[StreetHawk]

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. Off the top of my head:

Derek Stepan: Proven top 6 Center( not a winger) that was consistently putting up 50-60 points and had playoff experience. Also came with Raanta who looked ready to be a starter.

Alex Debricat: 2 40 goal seasons and 32 goal season in short bubble year.

Kirby Dach: Big center that was a recent top 3 pick.

Plus it was well noted Benning offered a big package for OEL the previous year instead of resigning Tanev and Toffoli but couldn't come to an agreement. Also called OEL their #1D at the press conference and said he would of won a Norris if he played in the east.

Benning should of had all the leverage here. Arizona was desperate to replace the top 10 pick they foreited and to move OEL who wanted out. Boston and Vancouver were the only options and IIRC Boston was out because of the price. He was desperate to save his job though, and has no clue when he has the leverage like we so with the Bonino Sutter trade

Again, that's why you never keep a GM to the point of "being on the hotseat". Like BB of New England would do with players, best to move off a year early than a year late.

A patient GM knowing he has runway, can wait it out. Someone on the hotseat, going to make a panic move.

I mean, if Kevyn Adams is on the hotseat if Buffalo, he should have also been fired with Granato.