C.Schneider

Members
  • Content count

    504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

676 Esteemed

About C.Schneider

  • Rank
    Comets Star

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

5,140 profile views
  1. Wait we're not making the playoffs? But I thought our team was built to compete now and provide a winning environment?
  2. I would love to see what JVR could do with Bo. T needs a defence, we've got that. JVR should be very expandable for TO at this point.
  3. For one, I never said Bettman would force a Stanley cup on any team. I said he would ensure the investment is well protected, meaning he would do everything he can to steer their course in a favourable way - hence the reason why I stated Las Vegas has a better chance of hoisting the cup before we did, I never stated they would definitely win the cup, or that the Canucks would be denied of a cup. Furthermore, it is no secret Bettman desires hockey to grow in the States. And before you start a shenanigan accusing me of how there is no proof Bettman hates Canadian teams (or the Canucks) and all that... I'll stop you. That is what few on this board are confused on. It isn't that Bettman hates us, or hates Canada. It simply is that the audience and the market is far superior in the States. Albeit not fully materialised, the potential is vastly greater than us. As a lead exec. of a corporation, it only makes sense for Bettman to prioritise on bigger prospects and, for this reason, provide favourable decision towards them. Sure, the most ideal outcome for Bettman and crew would be for small market teams to win a cup, which would instantly inject a good chunk of fan base (e.g. Tampa, Carolina, etc.. ), however, having major U.S. cities in the spotlight doesn't hurt their U.S. marketing either. U.S. citizens like the idea of having things branded USA (an extreme example being Trump). They want to know, and feel that what they are consuming belongs to them. One of the biggest reason NHL cannot mimic the success of its competitors (MLB, NFL, NBA) is due to this, because most U.S. viewers feel hockey doesn't belong to them. Las Vegas was strategically chosen to increase hockey's exposure and popularity in the States, despite other cities (e.g. Quebec) in the running who could have provided far more stable revenue in the short term. Just like any new project, the league will be carefully monitoring the growth and providing special attention to ensure success of this franchise. It doesn't need tinfoil theories to simply state an educated opinion that Las Vegas most likely has better odds of winning a cup before we do, especially with the current state of the Canucks.
  4. I'll be absolutely thrilled with that as well. I'm just saying that is where the negotiation point will start for us, similar to what we offered Kesler during his tenure with the Canucks. 7 years at 42 and I'll gladly take it.
  5. Not being offensive or rude, but just out of curiosity, what is your line of profession? Because even with small corporate, if you have ever been part of a management decision group, you will know politics exist everywhere. NHL is a billion dollar business, and no business gets to that point without carefully orchestrating results of their investment. I'm not saying they directly fix the games to the point Aquilini will be giving WD order to purposefully throw a game (although this extreme has existed, and still does, in many sports). Nor am I saying 29 other GMs, and the league, conspire against the Canucks to make sure they never win a Stanley cup. But it is common sense to realise Bettman and the big boys will execute certain procedure to protect their new investment (Las Vegas), as well as protect their project / favourite markets. I mean this is just standard protocol of a business executive, and that is the reason Bettman is there in the first place as the lead exec. of the NHL: to overlook and prioritise each and every move in the NHL that will suit to their best interest. It just sucks that the Canucks aren't part of this privileged group. They don't hate us on purpose (like some believe on this board), we're just that kid left in the corner not getting the love or attention as others.
  6. I'd do 6 x 5.25 per... not sure if Bo's camp would.
  7. I understand some people over-exaggerate and formulate the extreme... however, to assume a corporation as big as the NHL doesn't pull strings from the back to ensure their investment is protected is naive. People have to start realizing, before NHL is a sport, it is a business.
  8. Guys please... TML are not giving up Nylander or Marner. They're probably willing to give their B- or C players with high draft picks now that they are pretty much set on their future core.
  9. Relocated / new franchises have a proven record of success / winning a Cup. Also, this is Bettman's baby. I'm sure they'll be given every chance to succeed in the NHL, which makes me think they have a better chance at the Cup than we do.
  10. The only thing black and white was your reference to Boeser being the only replacement for LE. I'm only confirming what Benning and TL has confirmed upon LE's signing: That LE will provide us a solid first line with the Sedins (due to their past chemistry on team Sweden) which will help Canucks remain competitive for a playoff spot. I stated a fact. There wasn't an ounce of opinion involved to even label anything black and white, or skittle rainbows. I also acknowledged that he is a veteran who could help us during the transitional period. However, it still does not change the fact that he was primarily brought in to help us compete now. I'm going to assume your argument isn't going deeper than this, and you just wanted to make a point about LE, as I can only assume, you are somewhat a fan of this signing.
  11. LE was signed to to help now. Management firmly believes, and have expressed numerous times our goal is to remain competitive and compete for the playoff. I'm sure your idea of having LE as a transitional vet is also valid, but the main reason behind the signing was to give us chance at a playoff run, like now. LE takes a roster spot, regardless of which line he plays on. He started the year on the top line, which could have easily been filled by Burrows or Hansen. That leaves a spot open for the bottom 9, so yes, it does take away a spot from youth. Forgive me for asking this, but I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue, or if you're arguing for the sake of arguing?
  12. There is a difference between purposefully tanking, and just wanting the team to run its course of a natural rebuild. Trust me, the crowd that actually wants to throw games away is very minimal. The "lets make the playoff every year" flock seem to have a penchant on falsely accusing anyone with a realistic judgement of wanting to just rig games so we end up at a higher lottery standing. Sure, the results on paper might be similar, however the action of the management group shows otherwise. Just because the incompetency of management plummeted our standing, doesn't mean they are actually being true to a rebuild. They still held on, and will most likely hold on, to expiring contracts because we're all but mathematically eliminated from the wild card spot. They still signed a terrible contract to compete for a playoff spot, which in result strips away a position for our youth to play with the big club. They still overwork our vets to a ridiculous ice-time while limiting our youngsters to minimal play time. They have, and still are shopping for band-aid solution at the expense of our future. The process counts just as much as the result. However, at this rate, we will obtain neither.
  13. Most of us know what a retool is, and I understand what you are referring to. But what was the original purpose of the retool? To remain competitive (playoff spot) while providing a winning environment for our youngsters. Neither has happened, and it isn't bound to happen with our ageing core approaching closer and closer to their expiry date. The original plan of retool (a la Detroit Model) would have been optimal, of course, but there are reasons why most other teams choose to rebuild than retool. The odds of succeeding a retool are slim, and if you are to fail a retool (which the Canucks are clearly doing), it simply delays the inevitable of requiring to rebuild. Hence why a lot of us aren't very happy with the management; Canucks management is forcefully steering a ship towards a crash course and refusing to change course, whoever may be the captain steering the wheel. Just to clarify, I never asked for a fire sale (e.g. selling the Sedins and all)... however, some moves that should have been made were not made, and some moves that should have never been made were made. This management is so confused and conflicted, it pains to know the following few years will be nothing but a blank write-off and a time not-well wasted.
  14. Is this a rebuild? I hope so, but as previously mentioned in an article, we're at the stage we cannot do it "half-assed". I'm sure it is a transition because every moment is a transition... but a transition to what? Most of us don't mind the pain we have to endure... we've already been trained, as a Canucks fan, to deal with pain the moment we signed up. However, the pain we are going through right now seems like pointless pain with no light at the end of the tunnel. That is what most of us are unhappy with.
  15. Just think of what we poached last time we drafted 9th overall. Then imagine JB (well F.A.) saying no because we want a "shot" at making the playoff with this team of ours... Now picture our last 9th overall player. Then imagine JB (well F.A.) saying no because we want a "shot" at making the playoff with this team of ours... Now...