Drop Em

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

75 Neutral

About Drop Em

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. IF Anaheim were to offer Ritchie up for a rental like Hamuis, you take that deal, say thank you very much sir.....and run before they change their mind. The Canucks do need defensive prospects more than they need forwards, but having multiple true power forwards in the system is never redundant when they're so hard to come by.
  2. Burrows time has come and gone. It's time to trade him for whatever they can get for him. The team is looking to get younger and faster and Burrows is neither of those. A team who looks at themselves as a cup contender like the Rangers, coached by AV, who knows Burrows and whom Burrows played well for for years would seem like a good fit and so would Montreal (although they have to worry about just making the playoffs if Price doesn't get back soon). I'll admit that I've never been the biggest Burrow fan. I did appreciate his determination and the work ethic and the drive that he showed to get to the NHL and quite honestly he was one of the few Canucks who you could rely on to not disappear in the playoffs because he was willing to go to the dirty areas to score. And he was always very defensively aware, a good penalty killer and could play anywhere on any line for a period of time.....but that time has now passed by. He's lost a step and half, he's not nearly as solid defensively as he was and his production is just a fraction of what it once was. Add to that that he always seems to have negative drama following him around (case in point this years two publicized incidents - and yes I realize one of those was from years ago but it was still crap that I'm sure the team didn't want to have to deal with on any level), mainly because he can never seem to keep his big mouth shut, and yes I include the biting incident in that, but also because he rarely backs up his all of his yapping. It's also the hair pulling, the embellishing etc and it all should lead to him getting a ticket out of here because that's the type of culture that Burrows was the leader of, that Benning said he wanted to change. Because you can't teach an old dog new tricks and a leopard doesn't change his spots. I'm a little surprised that it hasn't happened already but I'm sure that has more to do with his salary and the no trade clause than it does a lack of desire on Benning's part to deal him. This is professional hockey in the best league in the world. It's a business and when you're not producing, it's time for you to go and have a change of scenery. I don't care if you're high fiving guys after you win a game or not, that has no relevance, as you're not being paid 4.5 million to be a cheer leader, you're being paid to produce. I understand the allegiance that some fans have towards him but because of the length of time he's been here, but again it's a business. And if Linden can be traded, probably the truest Canuck ever who showed nothing but class both ON AND OFF the ice - in true Canuck fashion, then Burrows can definitely go.
  3. I wanted Mallet to make it because I like him and the style of game that he brought to the table but it became pretty apparent that he had too many good players ahead of him to make it with the Canucks. In saying that, I love the looks of Pedan and it's exactly the kind of guy that the Canucks have been lacking for years. Big, tough, mean, can skate and has some offensive potential. The only thing that I'm a little concerned about is the upper body injury that kept him off the ice for so long last year. I haven't read or heard what the injury was, but a lot of times upper body injury means concussion. I hope not, but if that's the case, then having those issues so early in his career, especially if it was a long term thing, with the style of game that he plays could be problematic including when he's dropping the gloves. After watching his fights, he's a very open fighter and will take a punch to land one(usually haymakers), which is exciting and commendable but a little worrisome if he has concussion issues. But hey, any guy who willingly drops the gloves and who's good at it and can also play, I'll take any day.
  4. PROGUE, since when is Booth a hulking winger? He's only 6'0 and 215lbs. That's only average. He's shorter than the average but heavier. I understand what you're saying though. But I don't think that putting two of the Canucks most inconsistent players alongside a totally unproven rookie centre is a recipe for success........and like I said, defensively it's a little scary.
  5. Not sure what you base that claim on, but Kassian is hardly a 'liability' and his underlying numbers consistently reflect that - Booth even moreso - he may not produce (offensively) as expected but defensive liability doesn't begin to define him - and Schroeder development has specifically focused on making him a responsible young center, and by all accounts, including his time and usage in Vancouver, would indicate anything but being a 'liability'. I am going to guess that Plogue was suggesting that a pair of big, physical wingers with upside who have excellent speed and are actually defensively responsible on the wing for a very creative, fast, and dynamic (albeit slightly smaller) center could make for a difficult matchup for opposition's depth lines and third pairings. old news.......Ok, sorry for just cutting and pasting your reply but my reply with quote thing isn't working and I'm not sure why. But I base my claim on a few things, not the least of which is my eyes. Kassian is probably my favorite Canuck but he is not a good or an even average defensive player.....yet. Why do you think that he mentions it in almost every one of his interviews since he's been here? That he has to work on and keep working on his defensive side of the game? He's not mentioning it because he's already good at it, he's mentioning it because that's the weakest part of his game, that and his physical consistency. He is quite often out of position in his own zone. He's gotten better but he's still not where the coach trusts him to be out there when the games on the line. As for Booth, he's never been known as a good or even an average defensive player and this dates back to his days in Florida. When was the last time that you seen him out there at the end of a game protecting a lead or checking the other teams top players? Even when his fragile body is healthy enough to be out there if he could stay in the lineup. And Schroeder? I think that if the Canucks trusted him enough to be their 3rd or 4th line centre, which is a defensive role, then they wouldn't have signed Richardson or even Santorelli. You don't see many borderline midget centres in the NHL who are great defensively, especially rookies or young players. And part of being a good defensive player as a centre is being able to win draws and Schroeder is a liability in the face off circle too. And just because the Canucks are grooming him to be a solid all around centre, doesn't mean that he's there yet. In time he could and should improve but right now to put him with Kassian and Booth would be a defensive mess.
  6. PLOGUE, I'm not too sure what makes you think that a Kassian line with Schroder and Booth will be a matchup nightmare for anyone. Kassian is just now starting to put some consistent games together, Schroeder has shown very little in his brief NHL career and hasn't even been consistently good at the AHL level and David Booth is totally invisible on most nights, if he can stay healthy long enough to actually be available to play. Not to mention that all 3 of these guys are defensive liabilities. They'd be a matchup nightmare alright........ but for us. Let Kassian bide his time and continue to improve and play with guys who are proven NHL players at both ends of the rink(Kesler and Higgins) and not two guys who have shown nothing in 3 years in a Canucks uniform.
  7. Archibald wasn't drafted the same year as Schroeder, in fact he was never drafted at all. He was signed by the Canucks as an undrafted free agent.