Barney Gumble
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2007
- 22,711
- 1
(at least he'll have two defensemen to back him up when he turns over the puck - if he has a defenseman do that, it's a scoring chance for the other team
)TSN: Vandermeer Waived (UPD: Clears - Jan 22)
- Thread starter BROCK HUGHES
- Start date
(at least he'll have two defensemen to back him up when he turns over the puck - if he has a defenseman do that, it's a scoring chance for the other team
)
Southern_Canuck
Registered User
- Sep 13, 2004
- 2,444
- 855
Arrrgh - it is really hard to get on-side with these defenceman choices...
- Ballard is mediocre, was never worth the large contract he signed in Florida, and the Canucks somehow thought it was a good idea to trade for him.
- The Canucks sign Hamhuis (yay!)
- The Canucks let Ehrhoff go, even though he is a great fit for their PP, due to contractual concerns (while keeping Ballard)
- The Canucks let Rome go as a UFA (while keeping Ballard)
- The Canucks sign Cam Barker, who seems to be unsure what a defenceman does inside his own zone.
- The Canucks sign Jim Vandermeer at the request of several Canuck players (who probably like his toughness and team play - ummm... hint Canucks?), then waive him while keeping Barker... WTF?
S_C
- Ballard is mediocre, was never worth the large contract he signed in Florida, and the Canucks somehow thought it was a good idea to trade for him.
- The Canucks sign Hamhuis (yay!)
- The Canucks let Ehrhoff go, even though he is a great fit for their PP, due to contractual concerns (while keeping Ballard)
- The Canucks let Rome go as a UFA (while keeping Ballard)
- The Canucks sign Cam Barker, who seems to be unsure what a defenceman does inside his own zone.
- The Canucks sign Jim Vandermeer at the request of several Canuck players (who probably like his toughness and team play - ummm... hint Canucks?), then waive him while keeping Barker... WTF?
S_C
TBIF
Registered User
- Jan 8, 2011
- 295
- 0
Ballard was needed if Hamhuis didn't sign, people forget his rights were traded around before.
Ehrhoff didn't look worth the contract he wanted.
Are you not on side with the Garrison signing?
Vandermeer was signed to a two way contract, this is to be expected.
Southern_Canuck
Registered User
- Sep 13, 2004
- 2,444
- 855
Yes, the Garrison UFA signing looks decent.
Let's remember the Ballard trade was a 1st round pick, a former 1st round pick prospect (Grabner), and a salary dump from a former bad trade (Bernier). The Canucks can't get that kind of return for Luongo - this was an extremely bad trade - Ballard was not needed for that return.
The Barker signing makes me think the pro scouts have learned nothing.
The Vandermeer signing gave me a twinkle of hope - now doused by the waive.
S_C
Safe? Didn't see him almost kill Raymond during the scrimmage? jk, I know what you mean. However, AA has been known to take some seriously stupid major boarding penalties in his past. Man it pisses me off when he does that. I can't believe he would hit his own teammate AND a guy that had a broken back previously. Complete idiot.
I wouldn't say ballard was needed. Why? HE ****ing sucks. It as a bad call by Canucks management. I wanted to rip my eyes out last night when he gave that puck away right in front of luongo.
Intoewsables
Registered User
The point is that Ballard was viewed as a top-4 defenseman at the time and there was no guarantee that Hamhuis would sign here. It was a poor deal in hindsight, but what if it wasn't made and Hamhuis signed elsewhere? We needed that insurance.
Snatcher Demko
High-End Intangibles
- Oct 8, 2006
- 5,944
- 1,344
I agree. Lots of head scratchers from our pro scouts. Marco Sturm shouldn't be forgotten here, and the jury is out on Booth as well.
I'd like to see some ice-time given to Alberts as well. We need that physical presence, and Tanev has shown smarts when pinching here and there. Alberts can play the simple game and throw punishing hits all night. IMO if given some regular ice-time, he will improve.
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
I think based on what's transpired they were worried about both Vandermeer and Barker being claimed. They are less worried about Vandermeer than Barker and the plan all along was to exploit Schroeder's waiver exempt status to buy the right time to sneak Vandy to Chicago.
Southern_Canuck
Registered User
- Sep 13, 2004
- 2,444
- 855
But - Cam Barker has so far proved to be exactly what several other teams discovered (as he demonstrated in two Canuck scrimmages) - an awful defenceman. Whereas Vandermeer is a slow, unspectacular, but tough and dedicated defenceman... Why in hell would the Canucks keep Barker over Vandermeer?
Barker is not likely to suddenly learn how to play "defense" - and his supposed offensive prowess is questionable, and not needed on a team that has Edler, Garrison, Hamhuis, and Bieksa...
I just don't get it.
S_C
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Waivers. Vandermeer's on a 2-way deal, so his cap hit can be buried whereas Barker has a one-way deal for some unknown reason and therefore can't. Also IIRC someone needs to go down for someone else to come up. With our forwards the way they are, it's better to keep Ebbet in the press box than sending him back to the AHL and risking him getting claimed. I guess.
VeteranNetPresence
Disco Super Fly.
keslerburrows
Registered User
So when do we here about Schroeder being called up. I won't believe 'till I say it if you know what I mean..
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
Barker's entire cap hit can be buried just as easily as Vandermeer's because it's under $900K.
At the time Mitchell left there wasn't even evidence that he was going to return to hockey at all, let alone our team. Stop playing the hindsight 20/20 card.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,510
- 8,643
Schroeder wasn't reassigned in time to play for the Wolves on Friday, and then even after he was sent down, he didn't play on Saturday even though the Wolves only had 11 forwards. Even if you don't believe the Canucks when they outright said he'd be back with the team shortly, this has to make it pretty clear that they wanted him back up ASAP.
VeteranNetPresence
Disco Super Fly.
mitchell wanted to stay here, and the canucks tendered an offer, but couldn't match other teams' offers because of ballards HORRIBLE contract.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,510
- 8,643
If I remember correctly, when the Canucks traded for Ballard, Mitchell wasn't even cleared to work out yet.
What should they have done? Just sat and waited and hoped Mitchell would recover? Had things turned out differently, you'd likely be crying about it right now, too.
VeteranNetPresence
Disco Super Fly.
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
Actually they would've had room for Mitchell after getting Ballard. It was the Hamhuis signing that likely spelled the end for Mitchell so that's the one you should really be taking issue with, but I guess it doesn't fit your narrative.
VeteranNetPresence
Disco Super Fly.
a cap hit is a cap hit, doesn't matter who it's from. the fact is that if the canucks didn't have ballard, they would have had room to match what LA was offering
Uh... no. Mitchell did want to stay, the Canucks did tender him an offer, but it was a low one year contract. Mitchell went to the Kings for one reason and one reason only, they offered him two years. Lots of teams wanted him for one year, the Kings were the only one willing to go with two. It had nothing to do with Ballard's contract.
20/20 hindsight sucks, but they made the right decision. Mitchell was too much of a risk at that point. LA had the cap available to take on the risk, and should he have failed there, they wouldn't have been hurt too much. The Canucks didn't have that luxury.
It wasn't the cap hit they were worried about, it was the 2 years. Same reason Salo went to Tampa. Canucks were willing to match the salary, not the term. But all that said and done, it would've been silly of them to offer 3.5m and 2 years to a guy who had a 50/50 chance of retiring right then and there.
