EmployeeoftheMonth

Members
  • Content count

    4,346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,353 Gaming the system

About EmployeeoftheMonth

  • Rank
    Canucks Second-Line
  • Birthday 05/28/1980

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    yewchie@hotmail.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Over There

Recent Profile Visitors

22,458 profile views
  1. Not even close. Van/Cal? Sure that was a nice little grudge. But Calgarys main rival has always been Edmonton no matter where each team is in the standings. Also you are grossly over estimating the "rivalry" this team had with Chicago. lol. I'm not saying their haven't been rivalries I'm saying this team has never had a true rival. A team that no matter what there is a build up to much like the Battle of Alberta or the Blackhawks/Wings. This isn't rocket science. I'm not talking about little spats that last a few years. I was referring to real rivalries that last for the length of a franchise. Original six rivalries like Boston/Montreal. Geographical rivalries like the Battle of Alberta/California/Ontario. Perhaps I'm not making that clear enough.
  2. I'm sorry but you aren't following what a true rivalry is. A true rivalry is something that just lasts a few seasons. Boston and Chicago were teams we maybe had a grudge with but neither of those are real rivalries. Perhaps you only started watching in 2011 because we've had plenty of grudges with teams over the last 40+ years, but I wouldn't say this team has ever had another team that is a real rival a la Edmonton/Calgary or Chicago/Detroit or Boston/Montreal.
  3. I think (for me at least) there is a difference between hating a team as a fan and a real rivalry. Sometimes an event can cause a rivalry like the Lemieux - Draper incident.
  4. We don't have any true rivals. True rivalries need both groups considering the other their biggest rival. Flames? They have the Oilers. Oilers? See above Blackhawks? Any Hawks fan worth their salt will always consider the Red Wings their Rival? Any LA based team has the other LA based teams. I don't think this team has ever really had a true rivalry. Probably won't ever have one either until Seattle gets a team.
  5. At the end of the day I think losing out on Milan Lucic in a Canucks uniform sucks. Having said that losing out on that contract does not suck.
  6. Arbys, Roast beef sale.
  7. Both of them only had 1 season with over 100 points. It was a great year for the team but you can't really take their best season when it was a huge leap over their second best season.
  8. Hey Brah, your truth is your truth Brah. Seriously though, the actual truth is there's much more to hockey than Crash and Booms. The team can still add some of that but that doesn't have anything to do with this signing.
  9. You're probably right. Lets stop following this team. You first bro, I'm right behind ya...promise.
  10. Yes but then we likely wouldn't have been the team signing him. He would have gone to some other team that was offing him a 6 x 6 deal.
  11. The fourth preseason game.
  12. Not sure the people in this thread understand what the definition of tampering is.
  13. I'm not sure if people are over valuing McCann or undervaluing Gudbranson but (and obviously this is just my opinion) Benning took Florida for a ride with the trade. I don't say that trying to take anything away from McCann but Guds is a much better all around player let alone a player this team needs more that McCann.
  14. Yeah my bad, forgot about that. So I mean move a year down for each of my projections. I fear that there is going to be a lot of teams willing to overpay for him but I don't know if any of them will overpay enough for him to give up too much term. I guess we will see though.
  15. I would agree with you if it wasn't reported that they were fine with the money just not the term. Of course it all goes together but; and perhaps I should have been more clear, it seems that term is his primary concern right now. Obviously he's not going to take a low ball offer for max term but he may go a little less than market value for the right term. He might get that. It depends on if there is a bidding war for him or not. I could see him going 5 - 5.5 for 7 - 8 years. Our guess for what he goes for aren't exactly light years away. If JB wants him I would bet he plays on the second line and is signed at 5.5 for 8 years. or 5 for 8 with a NMC.