Kevin Bieksa appreciation thread

[me2]

The argument is academic -- the bottom line is that if our GM were on of the brilliant posters on this board who claims to have been right all along about Bieksa, we would have been left with a bag of pucks (that's what they wanted to trade him for, right?). You've got to imagine that Gillis at least got some feelers from other GMs about Bieksa given the speculated interest in him around the league by the likes of Montreal and Columbus, but Gillis held on to him, even if he realized that he might eventually be forced to deal him.

It's not about the bag of pucks it's about the $3.75m in cap space and what else you could do with it. Heatley is worth more than a bag of pucks, much more, but SJ would trade Heatley for a bag of pucks right now to get back that $7.5m in space. If we did the infamous Bieksa for Filatov deal we could have used the $3.75m to sign Zbynek Michalek (a much better player at the time of the signing).

 

[David71]

heres a story about how bieska was a canuck http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/8493/the-punch-that-led-kevin-bieksa-to-canucks

 

[me2]

Ultimately, though, this isn't a paean to how great Gillis is, though I think he's been extremely good. My claim is that many of this team's reactionary and impatient fans would have traded away key pieces of the team like Bieksa, the Sedins, and Kesler (not matched Philly's offer sheet), and still have the audacity to claim that they were right all along. I'm saying they're were wrong.

This team was ONE unlucky bounce or Sharp shooting better away from being eliminated in the first round with the worst meltdown in league history. One unlucky bounce from Luongo having to be traded if he even could have been. One unlucky bounce from the Sedins being gigantic playoff liabilities. One unlucky bounce from Gillis getting panned for not being more reactionary.

All the those fans were just one unlucky bouncy have been right.

 

[Connecticut]

It's not about the bag of pucks it's about the $3.75m in cap space and what else you could do with it. Heatley is worth more than a bag of pucks, much more, but SJ would trade Heatley for a bag of pucks right now to get back that $7.5m in space. If we did the infamous Bieksa for Filatov deal we could have used the $3.75m to sign Zbynek Michalek (a much better player at the time of the signing).

But isn't this just the armchair GMing that's just fantasy? Was Bieksa for Filatov ever on the table? Was Michalek ever going to sign here? Didn't he sign for $4M with Pittsburgh? So we would have been left with a bag of pucks plus an additional $3.75M in cap space -- despite beliefs to the contrary on hfboards, cap space doesn't win you many games. Gillis would have had to find someone as good or better to play here for that money. You can speculate that he would have signed Michalek, but that's just a fantasy. Look how hard Pit and Philly tried to sign Hamhuis and what good it did them, even with all the cap space they were willing to use up on him.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

heres a story about how bieska was a canuck http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/8493/the-punch-that-led-kevin-bieksa-to-canucks

Thats one of my all time favorite Canuck stories.

Hmmm..... wonder what Burkie will offer Bieksa.

He'll be on a flight June 30th to wherever Bieksa is vacationing hoping to accidentally bump into him.

 

[David71]

brian burke doesnt need anymore defenseman. they need forwards.

 

[I in the Eye]

This team was ONE unlucky bounce or Sharp shooting better away from being eliminated in the first round with the worst meltdown in league history. One unlucky bounce from Luongo having to be traded if he even could have been. One unlucky bounce from the Sedins being gigantic playoff liabilities. One unlucky bounce from Gillis getting panned for not being more reactionary.

All the those fans were just one unlucky bouncy have been right.

You're right... Every minute of every day is filled with both unlucky and lucky bounces, that determines what actually is, and what actually is, to be...

Luck plays a huge role in success or failure, for everything... My belief is that we manage luck, and reality, in ways that we don't (or can't) quite understand... The Canucks, like all of us living, are extremely lucky to be where we are today... But we've also put ourselves in a position to be lucky to be where we are today (i.e. didn't jump off a cliff before game 7 of the 1st round, etc.)...

 

[Canucker]

brian burke doesnt need anymore defenseman. they need forwards.

Toronto needs everything. They have one real offensive defenseman in Phaneuf but traded away their only puck mover. They need at least 1 more solid NHL defenseman.

 

[ugghhh]

This team was ONE unlucky bounce or Sharp shooting better away from being eliminated in the first round with the worst meltdown in league history. One unlucky bounce from Luongo having to be traded if he even could have been. One unlucky bounce from the Sedins being gigantic playoff liabilities. One unlucky bounce from Gillis getting panned for not being more reactionary.

All the those fans were just one unlucky bouncy have been right.

This is a good point, but the counter to this is that even when we did lose, we weren't that far off from getting to the SCF. If we did lose that game, it shouldn't have meant that our team is incapable of winning in the playoffs. It is very clear that the very team that was one bounce away from the worst meltdown in NHL history is also capable of winning a Stanley Cup.

A lot of fans are reactionary, but those of us who aren't, are generally of the mindset that there are things that can be improved, but that the direction and process of the team has a good chance of producing a winner.

Even if we had lost against chicago, it would be silly to trade away our core. It's a lot easier to make that argument now, but it is still the same argument. The results are important, but you can't base your decisions and opinions solely on results.

It's similar to the team preaching a focus on the process. The bounces won't always go your way, but as long as the process is right, you're going to have a good chance to get to where you want to be.

 

[me2]

But isn't this just the armchair GMing that's just fantasy? Was Bieksa for Filatov ever on the table? Was Michalek ever going to sign here? Didn't he sign for $4M with Pittsburgh? So we would have been left with a bag of pucks plus an additional $3.75M in cap space -- despite beliefs to the contrary on hfboards, cap space doesn't win you many games. Gillis would have had to find someone as good or better to play here for that money. You can speculate that he would have signed Michalek, but that's just a fantasy. Look how hard Pit and Philly tried to sign Hamhuis and what good it did them, even with all the cap space they were willing to use up on him.

I am not saying we would have done these things (we couldn't because of capspace), I am not saying we should have tried to do these things, I am just giving an example of what might be possible with capspace. The value of capspace is constantly under appreciated around here.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

I am not saying we would have done these things (we couldn't because of capspace), I am not saying we should have tried to do these things, I am just giving an example of what might be possible with capspace. The value of capspace is constantly under appreciated around here.

Yep, when you don't trade your pending UFA's and they sign somewhere else in the summer, you're not exactly losing them for "nothing" anymore. And we never would have landed Ehrhoff for nothing if SJ didn't value cap space.

 

[Connecticut]

I am not saying we would have done these things (we couldn't because of capspace), I am not saying we should have tried to do these things, I am just giving an example of what might be possible with capspace. The value of capspace is constantly under appreciated around here.

And I'm saying save it for your fantasy hockey league. If you were a fan of 29 other teams you probably would have wanted to sign Hamhuis, but that wasn't an option. It's really easy to be a great armchair GM when you don't have the constraints of reality to deal with.


Edit: re-reading your post, I see all you're saying is that you would get a bag of pucks plus cap space. This is true. But you would have had to first find a player that could bring to the table what Bieksa has brought for $3.75M or less, and then found a way to get that play into the organization.

There are not a lot of players who even qualify for the first step - bringing what Bieksa brings for his salary. And of those players there's none you could have acquired for just that cap space (e.g., free agents), and so you would have had to give up a good amount of assets to get them. Bottom line, keeping Bieksa was the best asset management, cap space considerations included.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i have no idea what you two are arguing about, but IF we end up not getting bieksa signed before july 1, a very small part of me would like to see burke give him some crazy over the top brian campbell contract then strip phaneuf of the captaincy and give it to bieksa. i kind of just want to see what phaneuf would do and say.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

strip phaneuf of the captaincy and give it to bieksa. i kind of just want to see what phaneuf would do and say.

Me not happy no C. Me not like Kevin. Me demand trade.

 

[Waveburner]

heres a story about how bieska was a canuck http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/8493/the-punch-that-led-kevin-bieksa-to-canucks

Brian Burke is so ****ing full of **** it's pathetic. He did not sign Bieksa the next day or even over the entire summer. Now I don't remember for certain what the rules were for NCAA Senior's at the time, but if they were the same as they are now Bieksa could have signed with any team that summer.

Instead he made Bieksa come to Canucks camp on yet another tryout contract before finally signing him at the end of preseason.

Keep pretending you have an eye for talent Burke. You're not fooling the people who pay attention.

 

[rban*]

This story sounds untrue/ I doubt a team will allow its players to fight each other in a parking lot. If media sees or finds out, it'll explode. Plus it's stupid. One player knocks another out cold, the injured player gets concussion, cant play, team loses....

Really is it great for camaraderie for players on same team to fight each other? No coach would allow that.

 

[Barney Gumble]

You're right... Every minute of every day is filled with both unlucky and lucky bounces, that determines what actually is, and what actually is, to be...

Luck plays a huge role in success or failure, for everything... My belief is that we manage luck, and reality, in ways that we don't (or can't) quite understand... The Canucks, like all of us living, are extremely lucky to be where we are today... But we've also put ourselves in a position to be lucky to be where we are today (i.e. didn't jump off a cliff before game 7 of the 1st round, etc.)...

When you think about it - most/all Stanley Cup winners required at least some luck. Even a team filled with legit "Hall of Famers" like the Habs needed some luck in one of their Cups (eg., Cherry forgetting to count to six).

 

[Chairman Maouth]

This story sounds untrue/ I doubt a team will allow its players to fight each other in a parking lot. If media sees or finds out, it'll explode. Plus it's stupid. One player knocks another out cold, the injured player gets concussion, cant play, team loses....

Really is it great for camaraderie for players on same team to fight each other? No coach would allow that.

Disagree. That stuff happens from time to time and who was there to stop them? Plus, this wasn't the big leagues we're talking about here. The "boys will be boys" thing is a rock solid part of our DNA. Add young guys and beer to that and you have a very believable story.

 

[The Big Foot]

This story sounds untrue/ I doubt a team will allow its players to fight each other in a parking lot. If media sees or finds out, it'll explode. Plus it's stupid. One player knocks another out cold, the injured player gets concussion, cant play, team loses....

Really is it great for camaraderie for players on same team to fight each other? No coach would allow that.

That story has been going around for years.

And do you think the coach was there?

 

[Connecticut]

This story sounds untrue/ I doubt a team will allow its players to fight each other in a parking lot. If media sees or finds out, it'll explode. Plus it's stupid. One player knocks another out cold, the injured player gets concussion, cant play, team loses....

Really is it great for camaraderie for players on same team to fight each other? No coach would allow that.

That's why Bieksa was worried that he'd be in trouble and surprised when it was seen as a good thing.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Just heard Don Taylor call Bieksa a Conn Smythe Trophy candidate.

What do you guys think? I think he can be in the discussion if he has another series like he had against the Sharks, but Henrik, Kesler and maybe Daniel are all probably ahead of him at this point without much question.

 

[Connecticut]

Just heard Don Taylor call Bieksa a Conn Smythe Trophy candidate.

What do you guys think? I think he can be in the discussion if he has another series like he had against the Sharks, but Henrik, Kesler and maybe Daniel are all probably ahead of him at this point without much question.

I think it's closer than Cherry calling him a Norris candidate, but it's a long shot. There's a pretty strong recency effect in the Conn Smythe -- it's very heavily influenced by the final series if somebody stands out there. There has never been a case of someone winning who isn't in the finals, although you could probably make the case for an MVP somewhere along the way whose team got eliminated in the conference finals.

So I think it will depend a lot on what happens in the finals. But even then, I think it will take a pretty miraculous series to vault Bieksa past Kesler, either Sedin, Luongo, or even Burrows. But whoever wins the Conn Smythe (hopefully a Canuck), it's pretty clear Bieksa will have played a huge supporting role in helping that happen.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

Just heard Don Taylor call Bieksa a Conn Smythe Trophy candidate.

What do you guys think? I think he can be in the discussion if he has another series like he had against the Sharks, but Henrik, Kesler and maybe Daniel are all probably ahead of him at this point without much question.

I think hes in the running for it. But its way to early too say obviously.

I do think he has a stronger case than many may give him.

Hes scored 5 goals of which all have been significant (not 100% on the 1st) either tying, go ahead or GWers.

Hes plus 10 and hes playing shutdown facing the same guys Kesler is.

Add to that intangibles such as getting the SJ off their game early after scrapping Marleau.

 

[rban*]

I have had an unofficial guide for POs for many years now. I consider any player, forward or otherwise, who gets 5 or more goals AND 10 or more points in the POs .. to have had a decent productive PO run. Obviously, it makes a difference tween a player whose team gets bounced in the first round versus someone whose squad makes it to the Finals.

Nevertheless, when you look at Cup winning teams over the years, the five/ten rule serves well, I have found. Ie, Cup winners whose players who get more than 5/10 are usually the better players on the team.. while those beneath that level are either passengers or secondary. (there are a few exceptions... people like Henrik and Thornton are assist monsters who dont get that many goals)

For a DMan like Bieksa to get 5 goals and 9 points is quite impressive (undoubtedly barring injury he will get at least one point in the Finals no matter what.. so he WILL hit 5/10).... considering that even a FORWARD who achieves those numbers is considered pretty impressive.

Even more impressive is that Bieksa has achieved this offense BUT is not considered a purely offensive DMan.... his defensive capabilities and snarl factor distinguish him from, say, Ehrhoff or even Boyle.

A very long and convoluted way of tipping my hat to him and repeating again how truly impressive he has been.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Me not happy no C. Me not like Kevin. Me demand trade.

or maybe he just clubs wilson over the head?