Barry_Wilkins

Members
  • Content count

    1,084
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

726 Esteemed

About Barry_Wilkins

  • Rank
    Canucks Prospect

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,948 profile views
  1. People have been saying for the past three years that they're done whenever they go on a 4 game point drought, yet they continue to put up 70 + a season. I expect they'll continue to decline very slowly for the next two years, though who knows? With a better winger and PP (with Erickkson), they could actually increase those totals. In any case, they won't decline enough to take us from a mid-pack team to bottom three.
  2. ? You lost so much interest that you have to keep responding. "Something about the Sedin's [sic]?" Are you this dense, or just disingenuous? I, and several others, on this thread, have challenged you to back up your desire for tanking in light of the Sedins being signed on for (at least) another two years. How do you go about getting (another) bottom 3 finish while they're on the roster (assuming they stay healthy)? Should Aquilini hire Tonya Harding for a hush-hush hammer tap? Should we send Gudbranson and Tanev on a one-month "maintenace" vacation at the end of a three-game winning streak? Should we play Higgins on our top line? Obviously, these are facetious questions, but they have a sliver of seriousness to them, too. We aren't finishing bottom 3 (again) if healthy. So how would you proceed, exactly, to construct a line-up for the next two years, to say nothing about their deployment, keeping in mind that season ticket holders, while sipping their $10 corporate beer, aren't going to put up with seeing Pedan and Biega playing 20 minutes a night?
  3. I've read your other multiple replies. They're contradictory, vague as to how your "plan" manifests itself in all its particulars, and makes no allowance for how other teams' GMs would have to interact with Benning in order to make your approach work, specifically in regards to trades. You still haven't addressed my (and others') point regarding the Sedins.
  4. The "evidence" you use to support your arbitrary ten year cycle is laughable. Ah yes, the anomalous 05-06 season, when the mighty Carolinians bested the powerhouse eighth-seeded Oilers. And the comparable Canucks run of '82 where we won the first three series as a .500 team, doing so against opponents (all three) who had a worse record than us. (And a ten year cycle represents the gap between '94 to '11? Is your calculator broken?) I sure hope we finish 3rd worst in the league sometime soon. It's been so long, huh?
  5. You realize, do you not, that "your argument is weak" is classic non sequitur? I didn't say only one "team in the history of hockey has ever benefited [sic] from tanking". Reading comprehension is your friend. You also didn't adequately explain what exactly constitutes "rushing a rebuild", not only as it relates to the Canucks, but more in explicitly laid out terms that could easily be used to slot any team in any period into either camp. I also note that you completely ignored the not insignificant matter of the Sedins' situation, ethically (NMCs), financially, cohesively, and competitively. But thanks for "salvag[ing[ this conversation".
  6. I thought you were tired of these arguments and this thread? You seem to think that the draft is the only option for acquiring core players. You're wrong. Benning traded McCann (a low 1st rounder) and an early 2nd rounder (very low probability of playing more than 100 NHL games) for a top 4 Dman on a depleted Canucks back end, and who will be an important asset for a decade. It was an excellent trade by our GM, not just to try to make the playoffs next year, but for the long term. Likewise, Eriksson isn't here to keep the Sedins happy for 2 years, but to to be an effective contributor for most, if not all, of his contract. You can argue that Eriksson'll fade, but it's debatable, and it's certainly not true that -- in this case, again -- he's just a bandaid. LA Kings - 2 Stanley Cups. Their only high draft pick, Doughty at #2. Shrewd trades pushed them over the top. Chicago - 3 Cups with #3 Toews and #1 Kane. But they didn't purposely tank. They just sucked, with Pulford as the GM, for decades. Pittsburgh - Malkin at #2 and Crosby at #1. 2 Cups in 7 years. Only team which can be said to have benefited by tanking. Oh, and your "accidental" or do-nothing tank doesn't count. As long as the Sedins are on the team, and the Canucks aren't decimated by injury (the case with Tortorella as well as last season), they aren't competing for a high lotto pick.
  7. For those moaning about the Eriksson signing as if this means we're "going for it" this upcoming season, and are likely to either just miss or just make the playoffs, bowing out early if the latter, and acquiring a worse draft pick for our troubles, I'd just remind those people that the Sedins will be 36 when the season begins, and Eriksson will be 31. When the Sedins move on, either by trade (or more likely) retiring with their one career team, Eriksson should still be able to compete as a first line winger. Boeser or Virtanen could possibly be a first line wingers, as well. Shorter analysis: Eriksson isn't just a two-year stop gap. One surprise out of Horvat, a good draft choice in the next 1 or 2 years, a shrewd trade, or a surprise UFA, and we can finally have a replacement that eventually approaches Hank's numbers. (Not saying anyone will match them, because Hank is a rare talent.). Some fans have the twin vision of myopia and foggy lenses. In other words, making the mistake of thinking our current prospects and young players will never develop into anything approaching top line material, as well as not being aware of the many different ways elite talent can be acquired. In Benning I trust.
  8. Canucks draft in their highest slot since 1999, and for a player in a position in which we have had a black hole in depth and quality until Benning's latest shrewd moves, and some fans want to trade him before he plays a game for us? Time I take a break from CDC till the season begins.
  9. Does your elevator go to the top floor? You're complaining about CDCers not embracing Lucic or Kane. They are not (or were not, in Lucic' case) on our team. If you were crying for Lucic to be a Canuck, as it seems, you must have been disappointed on July 1. It also means that you must have been at least mildly disappointed that we got Erikkson since we couldn't have had both. (You may have heard of something called the salary cap.) Bottom line: fans have every right not to want particular UFAs or players on the trade block here for any variety of legitimate reasons. Character issues is one big one that needs to be discussed.
  10. Lucic isn't on our team, so how can dissing him be considered being poor fans? Also, not giving Lucic and Kane a chance means giving some other player(s) a chance. What's the matter, don't like Erikkson? What kinda fan are you?
  11. I'd red star, underline, put this in a different font, and change the colours of this quote if I could. Fans are naive. They imagine this talented 24 year-old on their team, a hometown boy who would probably change his ways by, somehow, having his heart thawed when back in familiar surroundings with the community cheering him on, both -- he and they -- basking in mutual admiration. Get real, folks. Yeah, some athletes change. But most, the vast majority, don't. He's played organized hockey for over a decade, and Kane's character has been revealed. It isn't pretty. Many troubled athletes, as Fig says, don't care. They get one or two fat contracts, and ride their talent for as long as any team will put up with them. He'll lose out on a lot of $$ during a too-short career, but character flaws aren't changed by flipping a switch. If anything, bank on him creating even more mischief on his new team. Why do you think Buffalo wants to trade him? They have a lot of great, young talent. The last thing they need is a skating time bomb teaching them how to be career dipsh!ts.
  12. It's not just a matter of taking a chance, and, if he effs up again (as he probably would), shrug and say, "oh, well, time to move on". Guys like Kane with off-ice problems and character flaws don't just poison the locker room and on-ice cohesion for the time they're here, but they leave a noxious stink within the organization that lingers. That involves -- but is not limited to -- young players (and we have a lot of them) learning bad habits from him. They would rightly figure that if a star can act like a jerk, it seems OK to loosen the reigns a bit on their own responsibilites. I'm not saying it'd be the end of the world if we got him, but hockey, unlike baseball, is a team game where physical sacrifices have to be made for teammates almost every shift. There's a lot of trickle-down problems just waiting to hatch with a talented but immature Kane (eating up 5.25 per) here.
  13. Rendulic won't cost many spondulicks.
  14. No Lucic?
  15. Slow, aging D are going the way of the dodo in today's NHL. Three years ago, teams would be jumping to land Jackman or Carle, even Greene.