Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours

[Jovocop]

Grabner may have got a lot of breakaways (often because he doesn't come down as low in the defensive end to help out like Raymond) but you only have to talk to an islander fan for a bit and they'll mention how terrible he was on breakaways this year. His defensive play also wasn't good. All of that resulted in him being scratched and benched at times as the year wound down.

Grabner is likely a 20/20 type of guy on middling team. I almost see him as sort of a Maxim Afinogenov (AMxim was a better playmaker and poorer scorer)...a guy who leaves you always wanting more. A guy who a couple of times in his career will have that great season that makes people say "H's figured it out" only to fall back down to a 30-40 point pace the next year.

If Grabner is still a Canuck, I am pretty sure lots of fans (RD) will be complaining how bad he is defensively, MIA in the playoffs, not big and strong along the boards...

[tantalum]

Nah, they'd be complaining about AV having him in the pressbox and how unfair it is etc etc etc.

[Gino's Knuckle]

given the performance against gritty teams in the past two playoffs, the last two years i.e. folding like a cheap tent, I am not convinced that we aren't a soft team. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and at this point eating pudding in the playoffs results in the Canucks losing teeth.

There's a difference between not having enough grit and toughness and being a soft team. The Canucks lost to the eventual Cup champions the past two years. The fact that the Canucks were outmatched in the grit and toughness department (injuries aside) suggests that the Canucks can improve in those areas and doesn't prove that the Canucks are a soft team that "fold[ed] like a cheap tent."

Okay, I guess now we can move to the semantics of determing the divergence between "not gritty enough" and "too soft". I don't know about the rest of you but what I saw in those two series evidenced an absence of heart and an absence of toughness. They are gritty enough to do well in the regular season when penalites are getting called, but don't seem to be nearly as effective when the play turns more gorilla style (which it always does in the playoffs). If we really want to debate the usage of the term "soft" an argument could be made that no NHL player actually fits that description given their fitness levels, strength and the willpower utilized to make it to the bigs. In fact the individuals more suited to that description are probably the ones typing on a message board rather than playing (myself included). But whether I am right or wrong using the term "soft", the team does not have the grit or toughness to win the only trophy that actually means anything. You can argue that until you are blue in the face but the facts say otherwise.

given the performance against gritty teams in the past two playoffs, the last two years i.e. folding like a cheap tent, I am not convinced that we aren't a soft team. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and at this point eating pudding in the playoffs results in the Canucks losing teeth.

So the Sharks, Hawks, and Preds weren't gritty?

Soft teams simply do not get to game 7 of a cup final, it just doesn't happen.

I never said those teams weren’t gritty. And sure we were able to get by them, but it wasn’t by grit or toughness (you could argue that on an individual level Kesler was a beast last year against the preds and I would agree with that but on a whole it wasn’t the case). Okay, let me rephrase a "not gritty enough" team made it to game 7 of the stanley cup final. I don't know what games you guys were watching but the lack of gritt and toughness has been endemic in the last two seasons' playoffs.

I do not like the fact that this team does not stand up for each other when liberties are taken out on their star players... we are not a tough team that will go to war for each other.

Personally, I don't like it either, but it's a strategic decision that has merit. Case in point, when Martin Hanzal crushed Dustin Brown from behind, the Kings didn't end up retaliating. Both the Kings and the Devils did a great job of not taking retaliation penalties and were reasons why both teams went to the SCF. You can make a case for the Canucks to add more toughness in the form of fighters, but given the makeup of the team the past two years, not taking retaliation penalties is the best strategy for the Canucks don't you agree?

I definitely agree if all we want to continue winning are those nice and shiny President's Trophies. So far the strategy has worked perfectly.

[Potatoe1]

They are gritty enough to do well in the regular season when penalites are getting called, but don't seem to be nearly as effective when the play turns more gorilla style (which it always does in the playoffs).

It seems like you are talking about a team that hasn't been having playoff success in recent years....

This is a Canuck board right?

The Canucks went to game seven of the finals last year right?

And again why does a poster who thinks the canucks Lack, Grit, Heart, toughness etc. give 2 shits about trading Grabner?

He is a downgrade over all of our forwards in all of those areas. Even Mason Raymond plays with more grit then Grabner.

[Jovocop]

They are gritty enough to do well in the regular season when penalites are getting called, but don't seem to be nearly as effective when the play turns more gorilla style (which it always does in the playoffs).

It seems like you are talking about a team that hasn't been having playoff success in recent years....

This is a Canuck board right?

The Canucks went to game seven of the finals last year right?

And again why does a poster who thinks the canucks Lack, Grit, Heart, toughness etc. give 2 shits about trading Grabner?

He is a downgrade over all of our forwards in all of those areas. Even Mason Raymond plays with more grit then Grabner.

Yikes...

[Gino's Knuckle]

They are gritty enough to do well in the regular season when penalites are getting called, but don't seem to be nearly as effective when the play turns more gorilla style (which it always does in the playoffs).

It seems like you are talking about a team that hasn't been having playoff success in recent years....

This is a Canuck board right?

The Canucks went to game seven of the finals last year right?

And again why does a poster who thinks the canucks Lack, Grit, Heart, toughness etc. give 2 shits about trading Grabner?

He is a downgrade over all of our forwards in all of those areas. Even Mason Raymond plays with more grit then Grabner.

Interestingly enough, there are many dimensions to the skillset of a hockey player. Sometimes players who lack gritt make up for it with other dimensions. I think I have been pretty clear in my statements that a speedy goalscorer with good upside would be a beneficial dimension to have IMO. I don't really feel like reiterating all of my comments with respect to same over and over, but, should you be interested, you are welcome to go back and read them.

[tantalum]

Yikes...

From what I saw of Grabner this past year it's true. Raymond may suck along the boards in the offensive zone but the guy does tend to try to help out (if he hasn't already button hooked himself into the ice and given the puck away on the offensive zone entry). Grabner seems to float around waiting for a pass.

I guess I see Grabner as one of three possible things:

A perennial 30 goal scoring short handed threat on a middling team

The 20/20 Afinogenov guy I mentioned earlier. It's not much different than what Raymond may be to be honest.

Spending long amounts of time in the pressbox when the other aspects of his game haven't improved and the deficiencies are no longer acceptable as the young player label is gone (it has to be concerning to see him get demoted from the first line on the Islanders down to the 3rd line and at time stapled to the bench or in the pressbox as the season progressed..it's the Islanders for goodness sakes it's not like they have a bunch of good forwards) .

I lean towards the second one but think all three have a shot of happening.

[Gino's Knuckle]

Yikes...

From what I saw of Grabner this past year it's true. Raymond may suck along the boards in the offensive zone but the guy does tend to try to help out (if he hasn't already button hooked himself into the ice and given the puck away on the offensive zone entry). Grabner seems to float around waiting for a pass.

I guess I see Grabner as one of three possible things:

A perennial 30 goal scoring short handed threat on a middling team

The 20/20 Afinogenov guy I mentioned earlier. It's not much different than what Raymond may be to be honest.

Spending long amounts of time in the pressbox when the other aspects of his game haven't improved and the deficiencies are no longer acceptable as the young player label is gone (it has to be concerning to see him get demoted from the first line on the Islanders down to the 3rd line and at time stapled to the bench or in the pressbox as the season progressed..it's the Islanders for goodness sakes it's not like they have a bunch of good forwards) .

I lean towards the second one but think all three have a shot of happening.

I would tend to agree with your analysis tant, except that for several years now I have been leaning towards the first of your options. I still see last year a a sophomore slump and expect to see a rebound year this year (time will tell whether I am correct or out to lunch on that one). I agree that his definsive play isn't on par with Raymond's, I just think his offense (and potential) is much better and sufficiently offsets that definiciency along with his lack of grit etc..

[Potatoe1]

I don't really feel like reiterating all of my comments with respect to same over and over, but, should you be interested, you are welcome to go back and read them.

The problem is that your comments don't make a lot of sense.

First you bemoan the loss of Michael Grabner, then you go off on a tangent about the Canucks not being gritty and tough enough to win in the playoffs.

If we aren't gritty enough why on earth would we swap out a bigger and more physical player like Higgens, Booth, Hansen, etc, to bring in a smaller softer forward who actually scores fewer points over all.

As poster with your opinions on our playoff failings should want absolutely nothing to do with Michael Grabner who might I add is making 3 mill per for the next 4 seasons.

It's just not a logical argument and comes across as just more of the bellyaching we have been reading the bulk of the summer.

[Gino's Knuckle]

I don't really feel like reiterating all of my comments with respect to same over and over, but, should you be interested, you are welcome to go back and read them.

The problem is that your comments don't make a lot of sense.
First you bemoan the loss of Michael Grabner, then you go off on a tangent about the Canucks not being gritty and tough enough to win in the playoffs.
If we aren't gritty enough why on earth would we swap out a bigger and more physical player like Higgens, Booth, Hansen, etc, to bring in a smaller softer forward who actually scores fewer points over all.
As poster with your opinions on our playoff failings should want absolutely nothing to do with Michael Grabner who might I add is making 3 mill per for the next 4 seasons.
It's just not a logical argument and comes across as just more of the bellyaching we have been reading the bulk of the summer.

I didn’t realize we were limited to discussing one dimension at a time. I guess a multi-facetted argument dealing with various critiques is unacceptable. Let me do a quick summary:

a) I would have preferred to have kept Grabner;
b) Someone indicated he was too soft;
c) I indicated the team was soft anyway (which led to a side argument on whether the team was “soft” or just “not gritty enough” ad infinitum);
d) I indicated that I felt Grabner’s skillset and potential (speedy goal scorer) outweighed his softness and deficiencies (i.e. the trade-off was worth it).

Just because I think the team needs to get tougher does not equate to my requiring that every movement of the team be about toughness. I think we all understand that you can have a general movement toward something (i.e. increasing toughness), without making every move solely on the basis of that goal (i.e. making a trade that might not get you closer to that specific target but one which you feels increases your overall talent etc.). Every move a team makes is in some senses a trade-off. In my opinion keeping Grabner would have been trade-off that I would have preferred (that is not to say I wouldn’t have made other moves to compensate for toughness).

Lay off the pejoratives and let’s keep the discussion civil. It seems we disagree on the upside of Grabner, that’s fine. Time will tell.

[Reefer2]

Quick question, what would we do with all our free time should the Nucks ever win the SC?

I guess we can always discuss the Whitecaps

[Potatoe1]

Lay off the pejoratives and let’s keep the discussion civil.

So pointing out the massive discrepancy in your arguments is uncivil?

Pejoratives?

Give me a break I never insulted you, sometimes people can feel "insulted" when their the weakness of their position is exposed, but that's more about you then anything I said.

I didn’t realize we were limited to discussing one dimension at a time. I guess a multi-facetted argument dealing with various critiques is unacceptable. Let me do a quick summary:

Multi-facetted arguments are fine as long as they are connected by some sort of logical flow.

Like I said, bemoning the loss of Grabner and then going into a diatribe about the teams over all lack of grit and inability to win in the post season makes no sence.

a) I would have preferred to have kept Grabner;

Yes you have said as much. You do understand however that Grabner is not waiver exempt which means he has to stay on the roster, which means that he has to play. If he does play it is at the expense of one of our other forwards all of whom are either far better (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows) or a lot grittier then Grabner (Hansen, Booth, Higgens, Lappy, Kassian, etc).

b) Someone indicated he was too soft;

Do you not agree ?

c) I indicated the team was soft anyway (which led to a side argument on whether the team was “soft” or just “not gritty enough” ad infinitum);

Again the point made no sense from the start. If the team is soft, why on earth would they want to be any softer. (again I would like to note that soft teams do not get to game 7 of the final, a point you avoided entirely)

d) I indicated that I felt Grabner’s skillset and potential (speedy goal scorer) outweighed his softness and deficiencies (i.e. the trade-off was worth it).

He had 32 points last season.

That is absolutely terrible production for a guy getting top6 minutes. You want to give up grit, and defensive play for a guy who produces less then our other top9 forwards?

And as for Grabners upside, that isn't really the point. Perhaps he can improve but the problem is you have to keep him on the roster and a team with cup aspirations isn't going to want to waste a roster spot on a player that doesn't help them win in the here and now.

[Topper]

LOL Spud

You just made me realize, Coho was Grabner.

Where were you when I was pointing that out........... oh yeah.........

[Gino's Knuckle]

Lay off the pejoratives and let’s keep the discussion civil.

So pointing out the massive discrepancy in your arguments is uncivil?
Pejoratives?
Give me a break I never insulted you, sometimes people can feel "insulted" when their the weakness of their position is exposed, but that's more about you then anything I said.

I never stated that you insulted me. But your condescension isn’t appreciated.
Think I made it pretty clear that my discussion with respect to the team’s softness/lack of grit was in response to someone else’s commentary – that isn’t discrepant, it is just a side topic. Not sure how much more clear I can be with that. I guess we can have separate threads for every different thought, but that seems a little excessive to me.

I didn’t realize we were limited to discussing one dimension at a time. I guess a multi-facetted argument dealing with various critiques is unacceptable. Let me do a quick summary:

Multi-facetted arguments are fine as long as they are connected by some sort of logical flow.
Like I said, bemoning the loss of Grabner and then going into a diatribe about the teams over all lack of grit and inability to win in the post season makes no sence.

And like I said, my discussion regarding the “softness” or “lack of grit” was in response to another poster. i.e. side argument. Would you see more logic were I to, as noted above, immediately start a new thread dealing with that side-topic rather than debating it in the same thread in which it was brought up?

a) I would have preferred to have kept Grabner;

Yes you have said as much. You do understand however that Grabner is not waiver exempt which means he has to stay on the roster, which means that he has to play. If he does play it is at the expense of one of our other forwards all of whom are either far better (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows) or a lot grittier then Grabner (Hansen, Booth, Higgens, Lappy, Kassian, etc).

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I understand. And as I have pointed out over and over, in my opinion the trade-off would have been fine. It's not as if keeping Grabner would have resulted in the exclusion of any moves to address the issue of toughness.

b) Someone indicated he was too soft;

Do you not agree ?

I agree he is soft. My point was and is and will continue to be that the dimension I feel he brings is worth the trade-off on a team which is already “soft” or “not gritty enough”. You can work on the grit in other moves.

c) I indicated the team was soft anyway (which led to a side argument on whether the team was “soft” or just “not gritty enough” ad infinitum);

Again the point made no sense from the start. If the team is soft, why on earth would they want to be any softer. (again I would like to note that soft teams do not get to game 7 of the final, a point you avoided entirely)

Since you didn’t seem to get it the first time, let me repost:

Just because I think the team needs to get tougher does not equate to my requiring that every movement of the team be about toughness. I think we all understand that you can have a general movement toward something (i.e. increasing toughness), without making every move solely on the basis of that goal (i.e. making a trade that might not get you closer to that specific target but one which you feels increases your overall talent etc.). Every move a team makes is in some senses a trade-off. In my opinion keeping Grabner would have been trade-off that I would have preferred (that is not to say I wouldn’t have made other moves to compensate for toughness).

As for the “avoided” point, did you actually watch the beating they took from Boston? Or from LA? Maybe they weren’t “soft” but they sure as hell weren’t gritty enough.

d) I indicated that I felt Grabner’s skillset and potential (speedy goal scorer) outweighed his softness and deficiencies (i.e. the trade-off was worth it).

He had 32 points last season.
That is absolutely terrible production for a guy getting top6 minutes. You want to give up grit, and defensive play for a guy who produces less then our other top9 forwards?
And as for Grabners upside, that isn't really the point. Perhaps he can improve but the problem is you have to keep him on the roster and a team with cup aspirations isn't going to want to waste a roster spot on a player that doesn't help them win in the here and now.

His production for the Canucks may have been better, and given what seemed to be really good chemistry with Kesler, likely would have been. As indicated prior, my opinion regarding the last season was that it was an anomaly. His season before was 33 goals – you don’t think that would have been more helpful than a defenseman who the coach won’t play?
His upside does remain a point, as does Kassian’s, Tanev’s, et al. I, again, see the dimension he brings to the team as something that could help now as well as in the future. Now maybe I am wrong on that, but that doesn’t make said argument illogical it just means that the facts upon which the argument is based are incorrect (if I am wrong).

[FAN]

Okay, I guess now we can move to the semantics of determing the divergence between "not gritty enough" and "too soft". I don't know about the rest of you but what I saw in those two series evidenced an absence of heart and an absence of toughness... But whether I am right or wrong using the term "soft", the team does not have the grit or toughness to win the only trophy that actually means anything. You can argue that until you are blue in the face but the facts say otherwise.

It boggles my mind that some people get pissed off whenever they think they're in a semantics discussion (not saying you), it's as if words have no meaning but I digress...

I agree with your point that the team did not have the grit or toughness to win the only trophy that actually means anything (as they were overmatched in those departments compared to the teams that won the Cup the past two years), but you were suggesting that the Canucks were devoid of grit and toughness not just "too soft" or "not gritty enough" which is what I disagreed with. This isn't semantics. It's logic. The Boston Bruins of last year could go up against the Broad Street Bullies in their primes and not be tough enough to win. But that doesn't mean that Bruins were soft does it?

Regardless, Canucks management had made tremendous efforts to address the grit and toughness problem.

I never stated that you insulted me. But your condescension isn’t appreciated.

Sorry to break it to you bud but that's Potatoe. He thinks only his opinion is the right one and writes like he's some sort of expert that everyone should listen to.