[News] Flames place Shinkaruk, Poirier, and Wotherspoon on waivers UPD: All 3 clear

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain in their heads that a guy who scores 19 goals and 32 points while sporting a $900,000 cap hit is an asset worth having for most teams. The Canucks would pretty obviously be able to trade him for a pick of some description, if they wanted to. Shinkaruk has no value at this point, hence his waiver.

But if your fandom requires never admitting that your team screwed up or never admitting that a rival did something right (even just modestly right; it's not like this was Jagr for Kris Beech) then, well, you do you I guess.

Except Granlund wasn't going to stick with the Flames that year and would have been lost on waivers.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

What does that have to do with your assertion Granlund would currently fit in our bottom six?

I don't think anyone would question the deal worked out better for Vancouver.

That doesn't change the fact it was trading two very minor assets for one another, and both wouldn't crack our roster as it sits now.

Somehow we have room for journeymen like Hamilton, Lazar, Brouwer and Stajan that are basically just warm bodies on our roster eating cap space though?

The OP certainly made the comment that these two players were no better than the other, which is just not even close to true. Even so, I have no idea why this is still being talked about as their is nothing left to argue. Anyone up in arms about this notion is just sad because the Canucks got the better of us for once.

[Reggie Dunlop]

No surprises, really.

Thought Wotherspoon would've challenged more, and Poirier would've been a nice come-back story, but such was not the case.

Shinkaruk seems to have plateaued.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain in their heads that a guy who scores 19 goals and 32 points while sporting a $900,000 cap hit is an asset worth having for most teams. The Canucks would pretty obviously be able to trade him for a pick of some description, if they wanted to. Shinkaruk has no value at this point, hence his waiver.

But if your fandom requires never admitting that your team screwed up or never admitting that a rival did something right (even just modestly right; it's not like this was Jagr for Kris Beech) then, well, you do you I guess.

Granlund has been good for the Canucks for where they are at...Its obviously a good move on there end for now. He scores 19 again and he will be getting a bigger contract then he is worth though.

Like I said by the time it means anything to the Canucks as far as being a playoff team I doubt he is even there. From the Flames side it was a good deal at the time, hasn't worked out....no big loss, no gain.

certainly not something to worry about, Calgary and Vancouver aren't even in the same league right now

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Joe Colborne had 19 goals 2 years ago when the Flames sucked

Remember when we boasted 5 20 goal scores (which included Moss and Kotalik)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain in their heads that a guy who scores 19 goals and 32 points while sporting a $900,000 cap hit is an asset worth having for most teams. The Canucks would pretty obviously be able to trade him for a pick of some description, if they wanted to. Shinkaruk has no value at this point, hence his waiver.

But if your fandom requires never admitting that your team screwed up or never admitting that a rival did something right (even just modestly right; it's not like this was Jagr for Kris Beech) then, well, you do you I guess.

Yeah, you'd have to be an idiot to let go of a player like Nigel Dawes. 32 points in 66 games for less than 750k!

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Granlund played a top 6 role putting up his most points with the Sedins. He got 18 minutes of ice time and 2 minutes of PP a night.

According to Hockey Reference, 8 of Granlund's 32 points last year came with the Sedins. 16 of his 19 goals came at even strength. 9 of his 13 assists came at even strength. His 976.5 total TOI would have ranked 17th on our team last year.

Originally Posted by dino7c

Joe Colborne had 19 goals 2 years ago when the Flames sucked

Joe Colborne was an inferior PKer to Markus Granlund with obviously lower hockey IQ on the same team 2 years ago.

[Ozy_Flame]

The Canucks are bottom-feeders with Granlund on it. Are people really spent on the trade? Last I checked the team was what mattered, not what a single player did.

Saying that we missed out on Granlund when he went to the Canucks is like saying you found a loonie after you lost your wallet down a sewer drain.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

According to Hockey Reference, 8 of Granlund's 32 points last year came with the Sedins. 16 of his 19 goals came at even strength. 9 of his 13 assists came at even strength. His 976.5 total TOI would have ranked 17th on our team last year.




Joe Colborne was an inferior PKer to Markus Granlund with obviously lower hockey IQ on the same team 2 years ago.

Easy on the facts there fella.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Granlund played a top 6 role putting up his most points with the Sedins. He got 18 minutes of ice time and 2 minutes of PP a night.

The reason Vancouver was ####, was because a player like Granlund was playing that role. Remember when the Flames got 25 goal scorer Blake Comeau? Yeah...crappy teams always have players who are put in a role they shouldn't be, who can do well but your team will be in the basement if they are.

Crying over Granlund is crying over spilled milk.

This is just not true. Everything I have found about the Canucks use of Granlund last year indicates he played his best hockey with Sutter where they drove possession to a rate of 54% corsi for and some of the best shots against metrics.

Pretending Granlund isn't a decent or at least serviceable NHL player is just being obtuse and makes our fan base look petty.

http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to...-18-1.19091735

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Somehow we have room for journeymen like Hamilton, Lazar, Brouwer and Stajan that are basically just warm bodies on our roster eating cap space though?

The OP certainly made the comment that these two players were no better than the other, which is just not even close to true. Even so, I have no idea why this is still being talked about as their is nothing left to argue. Anyone up in arms about this notion is just sad because the Canucks got the better of us for once.

Brouwer and Stajan we couldn't give them away...bad contracts so not really relevant. Yes we would trade either guy for Granlund, or any other player in the league making min.

Hamilton 2-way

Lazar, jury is still out...he could probably score 20 playing with the Sedins

Joe Colborne scored 19 his last season here when we sucked balls and he got a ton of PP time. Luckily we walked away

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Lazar, Brouwer, Freddy Hamilton, Stajan.

All either worse PKers than Granlund, worse ES players than Granlund, or both.



...You need more than four players to kill penalties. There's nothing bizarre about saying Granlund would have been our fifth option while playing a PK/Scoring bottom sixer role.



I am one of Stajan's most ardent defenders. But dig into it and you discover that he was consistently one of our least effective PKers last year. Part of that was absolutely playing with Bouma and Brouwer, but part of that can be confirmed with the eye test.

And Lazar is not currently a better player than Markus Granlund. His upside is basically... a more aesthetically pleasing Markus Granlund.

Comparing Lazar and Granlund in style couldn't be further off the mark.

When you're getting down to trying to justify someone's role and fit on the team because you believe they might be the fifth best option on the PK (subjective / debatable) you're reaching.

Just as you're reaching bringing Brouwer into the equation. He has a no-move clause and isn't going anywehre.

Which brings us to the point that all of this nit-picking your doing is really irrelevant, because they're no magic hypothetical situation where Granlund would be available to us right now.

He was moved partially because it was felt it was better take a chance on a prospect better suited to wing, and because of his pending waiver status at the time he was moved:

Granlund didn't work as a winger for the Flames, said Calgary general manager Brad Treliving, and with plenty of centres, the organization had a hole to fill, for a goal-scoring prospect, where Shinkaruk fits.


Treliving also noted Granlund could be lost on waivers next season if he doesn't stick in the NHL – whereas Shinkaruk remains exempt from waivers.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/spo...beandmail.com&

At best, it's debateable he'd be a good fit as a bottom line winger as the roster sits now.

It's certainly nothing to lose sleep over.

[Robbob]

My last comment on this Granlund debate. Him being a Flames probably means he wasn't sent down for fear of being lost on waivers and it means we don't sign Versteeg. Who would you rather have?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain in their heads that a guy who scores 19 goals and 32 points while sporting a $900,000 cap hit is an asset worth having for most teams. The Canucks would pretty obviously be able to trade him for a pick of some description, if they wanted to. Shinkaruk has no value at this point, hence his waiver.

But if your fandom requires never admitting that your team screwed up or never admitting that a rival did something right (even just modestly right; it's not like this was Jagr for Kris Beech) then, well, you do you I guess.

Exactly. Nobody is saying Granlund is a top line center. Just that we lost the trade and it's possible Granlund would make the Flames as our bottom 3-4 is up for grabs.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Unless they are in the faceoff circle. Or providing veteran leadership. Or standing up for teammates.

I think you are actually underrating Stajan's skill level based on who he has had to play with. He may hit a wall this year due to age, but while he's not as fast as Granlund or as good at shooting, he has decent instincts, has decent defensive ability and a good zone exit.

Plus he's clutch:

Apart from everything else and the "realness" of clutchness, Stajan shouldn't be in a position to be "clutch" there are 10 forwards on the roster who should be out there at the end of the game before him.

FTR: I really like what Stajan brings.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

According to Hockey Reference, 8 of Granlund's 32 points last year came with the Sedins. 16 of his 19 goals came at even strength.

Yes, his most points was with the Sedins as his linemates. He put up 7 with them on the ice. Then it was Sutter and Eriksson with 5 of his points coming with them as linemates.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Somehow we have room for journeymen like Hamilton, Lazar, Brouwer and Stajan that are basically just warm bodies on our roster eating cap space though?

The OP certainly made the comment that these two players were no better than the other, which is just not even close to true. Even so, I have no idea why this is still being talked about as their is nothing left to argue. Anyone up in arms about this notion is just sad because the Canucks got the better of us for once.

I put the loss of Granlund on Hartley. He never put Granlund in a scoring type of role and expected him to be a grinder, which was a complete waste of his skillset.

Treliving had no choice but to trade him, cause Hartley wasn't utilizing him properly, and Granlund was going to be lost to waivers eventually.

As for Shinkaruk, when Gaudreau went down last year and Gulutzan still didn't give Shinkaruk a chance, the writing was on the wall. Gaudreau's injury was the best opportunity for Shinkaruk to get meaningful top 6 and powerplay time where his skillset was best utilized and he did not get the opportunity.

[camm13]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Right because that's exactly what I said.

We have a list of forwards good on the PK. It doesn't justify getting smaller and softer on our bottom line. Not to mention he wouldn't see the same minutes and that he'd be relegated to a position he's proven to be less adept at.

So we got bigger by getting Brouwer, but that didn't make us any tougher. Granlund plays on the right wing, and the adjustment seems to be fine. I'd rather have him on the 4th line winger, than a 4.5 million brouwer playing 10 mins a night making 1/4 of what brouwe makes.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Exactly. Nobody is saying Granlund is a top line center. Just that we lost the trade and it's possible Granlund would make the Flames as our bottom 3-4 is up for grabs.

If you ignore the fact he would have been lost on waivers by now anyway...

lose him for nothing or shot at a former 1st rounder...that was the deal. Calgary had no room for him at the time because he wasn't good enough to crack the lineup. The traded him to buy some more time with another prospect.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Joe Colborne had 19 goals 2 years ago when the Flames sucked

Yep Colborne is like a 6'5 Granlund. And how valuable of an asset was he? We didn't even qualify him.

I think we did fine in the Granlund deal at the time the trade was made. Granlund was probably worth a 2nd rounder at most at the time we dealt him. Getting back a recent 1st rounder who still had NHL upside but people were skeptical about is probably worth about at 2nd rounder. Shinkaruk has disappointed but that's on Shinkaruk. The Flames knew he was a gamble, knew he was a small one-dimensional scorer that would only make the NHL if he could score at that level. So far he hasn't panned out and it doesn't look promising but it was a gamble like all draft picks are.

Crying over Granlund is pointless. He was never going to be a critical piece here. And Treliving is happy to waive, not-qualify or buyout non-critical pieces. And we actually got something back for him. If you're crying about Granlund leaving then you should be crying about Colborne and his 19 goals cause we got absolutely nothing for him. Guess what? Both guys are soft non-critical pieces on winning teams. Both guys are not worth lamenting the loss of. We have better pieces IMO.