Hank Moody

Members
  • Content count

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,002 Revered

About Hank Moody

  • Rank
    Comets Regular
  • Birthday 04/01/1992

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    ideen92@hotmail.com
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    naslund91@yahoo.ca

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Hockey, Soccer

Recent Profile Visitors

12,211 profile views
  1. Wouldn't exactly call it a weak goal Those shots are so hard to save but they look like you should've had them.. Just over the pad and just under the glove just a little off the hip, they're ridiculously hard to stop Really deceiving because they look like an easy save
  2. Anyone else think the atmosphere is super lame right now? I look forward to the SCF because the atmosphere is always insane... Tonight just feels really dead/lame Compared to the Bruins-Canucks series game 1, you couldnt even hear yourself over the TV it was so loud
  3. If Sutter and Gudbranson can live up to their billet, i'll absolutely agree with you. If not, we lose sorely. It only takes looking back at some of the 2nd round picks we've missed out on during the Burke/Nonis era to realize just how valuable those picks can be.
  4. This is since July of 2015. I'll give credit to Benning where it's due - that Baertschi trade was a good trade. So was Jensen for Etem. But overall, we've lost a lot of value. Vey for a 2nd? Which actually in the big picture was Garrison for Vey. Where is Garrison now, and where is Vey? Could we have used a Garrison? Absolutely. Look at what he's doing for Tampa Bay. That Kesler trade basically now boils down to: Kesler 2nd Round Pick (33rd Overall) 2nd Round Pick (Anaheim) 4th Round Pick Forsling (turned into Clendenning which turned into a deal for Sutter) for Sutter (Bonino + Clendenning trade) Sbisa Gudbranson 5th round pick That's pretty damn bad. If you ask me.
  5. We haven't lost value? At all? No, go ahead, tell me we haven't lost any value in our wheeling and dealing. And you seem to be so sure Gudbranson is going to be a top 2 dman but are not willing to give any credit to McCann or a 33rd overall pick of reaching their cieling, which is just as likely as Gudbranson reaching his. Barker, as mentioned above, was also a 3rd overall dman. Being drafted in a certain spot doesn't guarantee a player of being anything
  6. As I previously said, my problem is not with Gudbranson, who I think is a good defenseman (Not a top 2 guy, but a good defenseman). My problem is with the constant loss of value in trades. As I said, if you lose value in 1 or 2 trades to get the guys you want, by all means. But it's becoming an unsettling trend, and its a quick way to deplete yourself of assets. We need to make a couple of deals where we win, where we get the better value so incase the Sutters, Gubransons and the Granlunds of the world don't work out, we're not stuck sitting around with our hands on our no no parts with immoveable assets and no picks to fall back on.
  7. That's fine, but here's my side of it. We could also trade Horvat, Demko, Boeser, our 5th overall pick and Tanev for Pietrangelo if we want to. That's not the point. You can get almost any player in the league if you want him bad enough. The point is, what are the alternative options? Do you A) realize the team is nowhere near contending, re-sign Hamhuis, keep the 33rd overall pick and flip McCann for someone else/keep him (Net value: McCann, a d-man at 33rd overall, Hamhuis) or trade all 3 of these things off for Gudbranson? McCann and Hamhuis for Gudbranson? Makes sense. McCann, Benson/Johansen, Hamhuis. Does not.
  8. You didn't read my post, you just blatantly spouted off on your own agenda. I said that this trade, McCann for Gubranson, was equal enough value. Florida needed a young guy to bolster their offense, and we needed a big d-man. We helped solve Florida's problem by giving them McCann for their 5-6 dman, so why do we need to add in a 33rd overall pick just to make this deal happen? McCann is not in his 30's. He's a 19 year old who's shown just as much promise as Gudbranson has shown in the NHL to pan out to be what they're both projected as being. So what is so off here that we need to add a 33rd overall pick into the equation aside from bad negotiating? A good GM would realize Florida needs McCann just as much as we need Gudbranson given their Cap situation, their needs for offense etc, and wouldn't throw in picks just to get things expedited.
  9. Rowe said himself they made this deal because they didn't get the offense they needed in the playoffs, and McCann could provide some of what they were missing.
  10. For those of you who think we blindly hate on benning blah blah here's my explanation on why I'm constantly angered. This is a trade you make if you feel you're a big Dman away from contending, not when you're rebuilding and finished 3rd last in the league with the lowest scoring in the entire NHL Benning himself said we lost value in the deal but it was something he felt we had to do to get a young Dman. I say we could've kept Hamhuis and gotten a young Dman with that 33 pick because we're not anywhere near winning a cup This is about being a bad negotiator. Jared McCann has shown he's a promising prolific player in the NHL and the panthers were starved for offense. Gudbranson hasn't lived up to 3rd overall and was a 5-6 Dman on Florida. So why is the value so off that we need to add another very high 2nd rounder? It's just tossing in picks for no reason Why did we have to add a pick to Kassian just to get Brandon Prust? Why did we have to add a 2nd to bonino to get Brandon Sutter? We're making fair deals and then just throwing in picks because of bad negotiation, it's that simple. All of those picks are unnecessary Sutter makes 3 mill more than bonino. Assuming you can sign Hamhuis at 3.5 mill, do you take Bonino Hamhuis and a 2nd round pick or Sutter? I'm not saying ones better than the other, just phrasing it that way its just constantly losing value, that's what bugs me. Lose value on one or two trades to get the player you want, not on EVERY trade. That's a quick way to deplete yourself of all assets we need someone who can negotiate a damn deal.
  11. Simply enough if the Canucks trade Hamhuis at the deadline for a 2nd at least, this trade is fine. But it the worst part is we're gonna let hammer walk in FA for nothing and give up this many assets to replace him sickening
  12. I still don't think that changes our situation all too much, Hutton protected over Hamhuis, maybe, and Tryamkin and Rodin would be left unprotected but i'm sure there will be much more NHL-ready players picked before those two guys.
  13. Hey guys! With the expansion draft rules released today, I had a thought that it might serve to benefit the Canucks greatly. Here are the rules: -Can protect 7F, 3D, and 1G OR 8 skaters and a goalie -players with NMCs have to be protected (sorry CLB and CHI fans) -players with NTCs can be left exposed -players with 2 years or less of NHL service is exempt. Let's say the draft will take part after next season so include next season into NHL service. (I think this is included in the rules) So within these rules, I thought the Canucks would look something like this if Expansion were to happen in one years time. Vancouver Canucks Bo Horvat Daniel Sedin Henrik Sedin Brandon Sutter Markus Granlund Jannik Hansen Sven Baertschi Edler Hamhuis Tanev Markstrom Exempt: Virtanen, McCann, Gaunce, Tryamkin, Hutton Left Unprotected: Burrows, Dorsett, Etem, Higgins (Probably gone as a UFA anyway), Vey, Bartkowski (Assuming he re-signs, along with Vey), Sbisa, Miller (Probably gone as a UFA anyway), Weber, Biega Now if this is the case, given not much else changes landscape wise on the Canucks roster this offseason (If we were to sign a big name UFA, probably replace Granlund on the protected list with said UFA), we could actually serve to greatly benefit from expansion given our extensive list of exempt players. Here are some players who I would expect to take roster spots in 2017-2018 and be exempt from Expansion: Jake Virtanen Jared McCann Ben Hutton Nikita Tryamkin Thatcher Demko Brock Boeser Brendan Gaunce Our first pick this offseason (Laine, Pool Party, Matthews, Dubois, Tkachuk, Chychrun) That's 8 roster spots (including one goalie) that are exempt. That gives us a TON of flexibility to be able to do what? Acquire players from other teams with much less exemptable players who don't want to lose them to expansion for nothing. For example, I did Washington just to prove my point. Washington Capitals: Ovechkin Backstrom Burakovsky Kuznetsov Johansson Wilson Oshie Carlson Niskanen Alzner Holtby Automatically protected: Vrana, Barber, Bowey, Samsonov, Stephenson, Siegenthaler, Vanecek Exposed: Williams, Chimera, Orlov, Richards, Beagle, Galiev, Latta, Winnick, Orpik, Schmidt, Weber, Chorney and Grubauer From this list, i'd take an Orlov on this team anyday. That might mean having to leave a Hamhuis unprotected but by that time Hamhuis will be 35 and it might just be time to move on. I'm sure there are a lot of great players that will be forced to be left unprotected when expansion comes around, and the Canucks could benefit greatly from having so many young guns on the roster that they can add a few more quality players by preying on teams who don't want to lose valuable assets for absolutely nothing. Thoughts?
  14. Going to the game tonight hit me with your best ducks chirps I can use!
  15. What rubs me off the worst way is literally singling out our rookies in his comments. It's one thing to say "I feel I deserved a shot to play with the twins", it's another to say "I didn't want to play with rookie centers" Horvat busted his ass off all season and was the hardest working Canuck on the team. How are you going to throw a 19 year old center who tried to carry your line in the top 6 under the bus? What kind of veteran does that?