Do you really know what you are talking about?? If MG knew Hamhuis was 100% not going to sign with Philly or Pittsburgh and committed to sign in Vancouver, he most likely would not have traded for Ballard. It was not hard to figure out that Ballard was a backup plan.
Gillis had three pending UFA defensemen Erhoff, Bieksa and Salo.
Immediately after dealing for Ballard, Gillis was seen down on the draft floor speaking to other GM's about Bieksa. Ballard was brought in to replace Bieksa. Gillis doesn't get a deal he likes and decides to try and move Bieksa at a later date.
Hamhuis signs on July 1st
Salo ruptures achilles heal on July 22 and Bieksa is retained as he is the only RH shot. Why Gillis would think having just one RH shot made sense in his top 6 is another head scratcher.
It's clear the plan was to bring 2 new defensemen in and ship out Bieksa.
It's dumb luck that Gillis retained Bieksa, who was the teams best defenseman in the Canucks getting to the SCF.
He's lucky that Ballard deal didn't hurt the team worse than it did.
Why do poster's feel the need to defend every move Gillis makes?
Are you confusing the summer of 2010 with the summer of 2011?
Erhoff, Bieksa and Salo were not
"pending UFAs" in the summer of 2010
(summer of 2010 is when Ballard and Hamhuis were acquired).
The contracts of Erhoff, Bieksa and Salo were due to expire on July 1 2011
So yeah, your narrative is screwy....
No one knows if Gillis ever
tried to trade Bieksa (he vehemently denied the rumour from Burke).
Personally I don't buy the Bieksa trade rumours.
Yes, going into 2010-11 Canucks only had RH-shots Bieksa and Salo, but don't forget Ehrhoff played on the RS.
Yes, Salo was injured on July 22 2010, but the original estimate was only 3-6 months.
Depth defenseman Rome was decent on the right side as well.
But yeah, most of us were complaining about the lack of RH-shots as the season wore on
... and Salo took longer than hoped to return.
Disagree that "the plan was to bring 2 new defensemen in and ship out Bieksa".
Bieksa still had a year left on his contract, he was not a "pending UFA".
Anyhoo, I agree with Jovocop when he said:
"If MG knew Hamhuis was 100% not going to sign with Philly or Pittsburgh and committed to sign in Vancouver, he most likely would not have traded for Ballard."