Barry_Wilkins

Members
  • Content count

    1,245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

911 Esteemed

About Barry_Wilkins

  • Rank
    Canucks Prospect

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

4,600 profile views
  1. Didn't Nilsson post an excellent .926 SV% last year? And that's with an atrocious Buf defense in front of him. Seems he may have figured things out. Best UFA goalie out there, and that includes Ryan Miller. Very happy with this signing.
  2. That's not saying much. Like Benning's other signings. Hate this one. If you thought Sbisa was an adventure in his own zone, wait till Del Zotto -- the anti-Tanev -- tries to figure out where to be, go, or pass.
  3. Has anyone here singing his praises actually watched Del Zotto play? AV benched him a few years ago in NY, and his play has deteriorated even more since. Off-ice issues, and Benning/Linden supposedly want character guys. No hockey sense in his own zone. Bartkowski v2.0. And he'll probably get more than a year, and more than $2 mil per. Even if they signed him for 1 year, he won't garner anything notable (if anything) at the trade deadline. If that's not enough, his defensive play will be exposed even more with Van. After all, he's not playing top minutes, sheltered by Tanev. Only silver lining: if it's 1 year, maybe it's a Benning stealth tank move.
  4. I'm mystified as to the number of people here who can't figure out why Vegas is getting a rosier deal than what expansion teams have usually received. 1) $500 million shelled out has a tendency to garner the purchaser some good will coming back the other way. 2) A quickly-competitive Vegas benefits Bettman in that his long-standing woody for parity is more easily strengthened and maintained. The last thing he wants to see is his shiny new toy 15 points from a playoff spot by Xmas. 3) A quick Vegas success will make it more desirous for another potential franchise (Seattle? Another Sun Belt metropolis?) to step up with $500 million. (Or will it be $750 million by then?) Ka-ching! 4) You can bet the other 30 owners are delighted with how this is playing out. Half a billion split amongst them, and if things go pear-shaped for Vegas? Big deal, they can just transfer to another locale. I doubt the latter, though. Bettman should have put a stake through the heart of Phoenix a decade ago, but the iron lung -- in the form of TV rights and Southern exposure -- is still animating ARI for its 25 non-Lower Mainland fans.
  5. Taylor was great when he had the decades-long TV shtick. And on the radio, he's a very good interviewer. But his opinions on many matters re Canucks and the NHL -- and that's the focal point of his gig on 1040 -- are not only uninteresting, but frequently idiotic.
  6. Mittlestadt or Heiskanen or Glass will be guaranteed available. No worries.
  7. No, I didn't read the book. Again, you didn't answer any of my points. See, the way a debate works is that when you respond to a post -- when you quote it -- it's up to you to respond specifically to those very points. What you're attempting to do is an extremely common, shifty tactic in a debate, which is to ignore those points in order to change the topic. If you want to discuss that book, then it's up to you to start another post, and give detailed answers as to how the points in that book relate to this particular draft lottery, which, on the surface, would be hard to do since it happened just an hour ago. Again, the onus is on you to prove -- not speculate, which is cheap, easy, and the methodology of conspiracy theorists everywhere -- your charges.
  8. You didn't answer answer any of my questions you quoted. When people go ballistic in mentioning a scandal from another sport 98 years ago, it's so over the top it almost beats Kyrie Irving doing a childish defensive double down on his flat Earth beliefs. The onus, always, is on the one who brings up a charge to delver the proof. Face it, if the Canucks finished 13th last, and we ended up with the #2 overall pick, you'd think this lottery system was new, innovative, and exciting.
  9. By your frenzied rationale, you could bring up the same events whenever Daly is seen whispering to Bettman in any hotel corridor. You have no proof. Take those fillings out that cause you to hear alien voices.
  10. I don't know. It was always fairly close after the first 2 spots. Seems Hieskenan, if he's available for us, could be an excellent pick, and it'd be a coin flip as to who would be better in the long term between him, Vilardi, and Middlestadt. Or even Glass. And there'll be other career surprises, many quite a few, after the #5. Falling this year is much easier to take than not moving up one or two spots last year.
  11. Can't be bothered to read through your tin hat scenarios, if you have any. But I'm casually interested now, all the same. How would this scam work, exactly? Do Phi, Dal, and NJ independently contact KPMG? How much do you think it would be worth it to a huge, moneyed accounting firm, with profits already up their ying yang, to take on this explosive scandal? Is it worth NJ, Dal, and Phi to submit -- what? multimillions? -- to KPMG? Wouldn't it seem if KPMG were to consider this enormous risk to ask for something more like $100 million or (probably) more? Would that be worth it to any of those teams, to move up four to ten spots? Is Hischier over, say, Glass, worth that much, and also the risk of getting banned from the league if the scandal breaks? Or is your angle that Bettman is getting much of the kickbacks, in which case KPMG would have to inflate their asking price even more for the lesser cut of the pie? Think Bettman wants to blow up the league? Think the owners want to end that gravy train, and allow any hint of this insanity to get out? Think things would be quiet around the league and with the media once Phi, Dal, NJ, Bettman, KPMG, and other ancillary operatives start talking amongst themselves? Think the media wouldn't pursue any scrap of this to the fullest extent? Or do you think at all?
  12. Exactly. Amazing how so many people don't seem to get this. There might be a player this management team covets who's available at #5, but not at #7.
  13. You mean like last year with TO? I get all the rage, but if I thought the system was rigged, I'd quit watching the NHL for good immediately.
  14. Because winning at poker is not luck when it happens over a long period of time. Just as in hockey, when one team beats another because the other side hits 5 posts while outshooting the winners 45-17, any individual poker game can yield unlikely results. But, as Green himself said in the initial presser, habits and knowledge and process -- performed consistently -- are the keys to winning, and that if the right decisions are made, winning isn't guaranteed on any one night, but will be increased over a long season. More specifically, quick mathematical decisions are important in hockey -- just as they obviously are in poker -- in that a coach needs to know risk vs reward ratios on certain line changes, on face-off choices, on direct match-ups, on oZone starts, on Corsi combos, etc etc etc. It's a great analogy, actually. Green's a smart guy who gets the big picture. I'm excited to see how he works with the Canucks.