• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

90 Neutral

About AmexHiggins

  • Rank
    Aces Star
  1. The myth of the "tank" rebuild

    Although I don't agree with tanking, it does increase the chance of winning it all with pocketing high draft picks, especially under a salary cap era where you need ELC players to make instant impact almost immediately. However, tanking I think only increases the likelihood of success, but by no means a guarantee. If a team happens to go for a tank and ends up on the wrong side of the coin, the consequence will be a crappy team and a team/city that no players want to play in as OP refers. LA and Chicago didn't deliberately tank, but the teams were poorly managed so that they are heavily underperforming, thus allowing them to get players like kopitar, doughty and jack Johnson (which in turns flipped for Jeff carter), but goo scouting also got them guys like quick and taffoli. Similarly in Chicago, the Hawks got nothing going for them after Tony Amonte and Ed Belfour and Eric Daze turned out to be a huge disappointment, thus allowing them to draft towes, Kane, and seabrook. But then again, Duncan Keith is a second rounder. To to be honest, we kind of tanked in the late 90s as well. Again, I don't think it's intentional because of messier and Keenan, the entire Canucks team was so poorly managed. We ended up getting the sedins. Bad scouting also got us Bryan Allen at 4th overall, instead of guys like Simon gagne or Alex tanguay. correct me if I'm wrong, I do believe Crosby is a fluke because crosby's draft year was right after lockout, so I think a few teams (including the Canucks) have the same chance of getting the 1st overall as the pens. So so all in all, I do believe a tank will increase the likelihood of winning a cup, but definitely not a guarantee and it is for sure a high risk high reward play. I personally don't like it because I wouldn't like a team/city to tank every 5-6 years to rebuild a 2-3 years window of winning a cup.
  2. I would bother to continue following this team because I'm a Canucks fan. Fun and hard time... we go through it. I'm just thankful that Vancouver has a hockey team for me to cheer for. I mean, ask the Jets fan, they didn't have a team to cheer or bash for a while.
  3. Aquilini.. "hey Jim... i told you to get granlund to boost our scoring. What the hell did you f*&king do?" JB.. "I did. I did exactly as you asked." Aquilini.. "you got the wrong granlund." JB.. "Markus Granlund? In our conference?" Aquilini.. "Mikael Granlund, you genius." JB.. "There's a Mikael Granlund? I thought there's only a Mikael Backlund."
  4. Faith in Benning

    Exactly.. The good thing about him too is that his contract gives benning a lot of options. He's in his last year. If Canucks like him, he can be extended. If Canucks tank, he will be a decent trade bait at deadline
  5. Faith in Benning

    Calm down there buddy.. looks like I need to print it out black and white for you that it is sarcasm as well... Read my other post and you will see where I stand with benning.. Just because you dish out sarcasm doesn't mean others are not capable of doing so
  6. Faith in Benning

    I know.. we totally should have gotten lucic because we totally should be a contender this year and trading away our draft picks to take on more cap hit.
  7. Faith in Benning

    What's wrong with bringing in ppl you like? It's always like this in pro sports whenever there is a change in front office. Back to OP, I still have faith in Benning, more like I don't have any reason not to. Did we take a step back this offseason? Maybe, but isn't this what we want to get high pick for a rebuild? Should we deserve more for Lack? Maybe, but maybe there is nothing more out there... If we keep him, we may lose him for nothing next summer.
  8. Are we in full rebuild. Or just clueless?

    I truly believe that the kassian move is to prepare for flipping prust at trade deadline for picks. Kassian is not movable at deadline, while character guys like prust will be wanted in playoff as "the missing piece" for 4th line. In a way, I think Benning is preparing for the firesale in deadline by shoring up what he thinks other team would want by trade deadline. I can see higgins, hamhuis, and vrbata joining that firesale list, maybe hansen and burrows as well.
  9. [Signing] Canucks sign Matt Bartkowski

    That.. All these one year deals line up with the Sedins contract and expect a fire sale this trade deadline for an extreme makeover end of season
  10. Although the term is "retool", I think the management is thinking of a "rebuild" by other's standard. The core player is 35+. However, I also think that the team won't be ready with the young future core taking over for another 2-3 years. By that time, all current core players' contracts will expire and will be moved/retired. There are two good reasons to keep them: 1. You don't want a team full of young prospect and throw them in the deep end. Look at the Oilers. McDavid may be the piece that will turn their corner finally, but they have wasted so many good prospect and without quality NHL players to lead them, they will never move to the next level. 2. I think that's the biggest issue. The Vancouver market can't take a bottom 5-league finish for 2-3 straight seasons in order to stock up high picks. Having said that, I'm not a big fan of the Vrbata signing, because he also partly contributes to the cap problem and "prevent" canucks from getting any higher picks. Fans look at toews and kane and said we should tank. I agree somewhat, but I think when this does happen for a couple years. Everyone will be calling for Benning's head.
  11. i don't mind o'reilly even if it means 6.25mil cap to qualify or 7mil for 4. He is 22 with lots of mileage left. Realistically though it will take way more than a hamhuis or edler straight up. it will probably by a hamhuis/edler + prospect + conditional pick Since he's 22, i don't mind throwing gaunce or jenssen or corrado the other way. If avs want horvat or shinkaruk, then maybe another decent prospect back the other way.
  12. Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?

    yes, we need burrows and i want him back!
  13. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    quite frankly, nobody on the team has a minus. I still don't think bieksa play great in the first two games, I thought he coughed up the puck a few times and he was clearly beaten by kopitar in the first game, but a more realistic question is: Who actually played a great game in either of the first two games? The first two were tight, sluggish and with lots of mis-passes. They kind of reminded me from the old boring minnesota's style of play.
  14. OMG Rain?

    Rain is better than -30C sunlight in winter like Alberta. Trust me, I've been through both.
  15. Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?

    i was about to mention that too.. I LOVE IT! it was too funny. Burrows probably knows Murph was a pretty funny guy so I think he's just trying to poke fun at Murph. I think the media and the players are actually pretty close in this market. no need to do any apology or anything. they always poke fun at each other. I still remember murph was making fun of glass' hair during the superskill. Good stuff.