• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,698 Revered

About Gollumpus

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line
  1. Probably, "Screw it, from now on I'm going without a tie." regards, G.
  2. Alphabetically: Greg (Gus) Adams Bieksa Hansen Higgins Kurtenbach Linden Ronning Sedin Sedin Smyl Snepts regards, G.
  3. Hey, that's "Mister Bastard" to you. regards, G.
  4. Stopped reading at this point. regards, G.
  5. JB may bring up his lunch at this... regards, G.
  6. Yeah, but you could be the first to put in a video link to that scene. Oh wait.... regards, D.
  7. Nathan McIver, correction, Tomas Moizis. regards, G.
  8. Getting a guy like Marleau could have benefits in the team's development, however: 1.) While the Sharks might like to have Miller, I have my doubts that they would like him at $6 million as this seems a bit high for a back up goalie. Further, the Sharks are only gaining around $600,000+ if the two contracts were traded. While this is nothing to sneeze at, it's still not a big load off of their cap. Also, why wouldn't they look for a cheaper option in trade, or in a UFA for a back-up? 2.) What do the Sharks do to replace Marleau's scoring? That's 25 goals out of their line-up. 3.) The Sharks might be without a 2nd for the next two years, but this trade puts the Canucks without a 2nd. for possibly two years. This is a killer for me. 4.) There's a lot of hope in that the two players *could* re-sign with their new teams. I'd expect that it's just as likely that Marleau and Miller would both be more likely to sign with SJ (assuming a contract was offered). 5.) I'd be happier giving the ice time to a younger forward. 6.) Depending on how the season was going, if SJ were interested in Miller, then I'd be inclined to trade him there (with his consent) for picks and/or prospects at the trade deadline. As they are without any 2nds for the next while, and they are unlikely to want to trade a 1st straight up for Miller, then I'd go with a 3rd and a very good prospect, or, a 1st for Miller and a 2nd Option #2 is likely more acceptable to them as it could just be like trading down several spots (assuming the Canucks do poorly this upcoming season). regards, G..
  9. Yes it is, because you've posted it. regards, G.
  10. One might argue that it is you who is having trouble letting go of the issue, but w/e. I liked Cracknell here. It wouldn't have hurt my feelings if he was re-signed by the Canucks. This being said, the team does have a number of up and coming guys who need to be exposed to the NHL, so I'm happier with the decision to give them that ice time. Hudler did a pretty good job in Calgary. This does not mean that he would do the same job here. Also, as with the 4C position, I'm more about giving that ice time to younger players so the team can see what they have in these assets. I like Hamhuis. I would have liked to see him re-signed. So who sits/plays in the AHL/gets waived in favour of having Hamhuis on the roster? All three of these guys might indeed make the Canucks "better", at least in the short term. Longer view, I'm good with what the team has chosen to do. regards, G.
  11. Richard Brodeur regards, G.
  12. Don't give up Hope.... regards, G.
  13. This goes without saying, none the less it is something which should be said... and often. regards, G.
  14. I must have missed that game. regards, G.