• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,411 Revered

About Gollumpus

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line
  1. Elephant in the room - Hank and Danny

                                          regards,  G.
  2. What should Nucks do if they get #2 pick in 2016 draft

    There is some merit to your position. Chychrun has lost some ground in the last while, but even so, he's still one of the top d-men available in the draft, and the Canucks do need d-men prospects with upside. I suspect that he will be picked before Sergachev, whether he merits being picked that high or not based on his play of the last while.  From the limited amount of stuff I've seen in the last while, Sergachev is looking pretty good and I'd be very pleased if he was available when the Canucks turn came up to pick.                                      regards,   G.
  3. What should Nucks do if they get #2 pick in 2016 draft

    Assuming the Canucks did manage to acquire the 2nd overall (and I'm not sure that they can achieve this) I'd prefer that they took Chychrun. The need for a top-flight d-man is too high for this franchise. As I do believe that the Canucks will draft around 10th or lower, I'd want them to take Sergachev (assuming he was still available). Following that pick, and depending on who was still available, I'd like the team to see about getting a second 1st (perhaps from Carolina (LA's pick) or Boston (SJ's pick). If he was still available, I'd look at taking another d-man, perhaps Moverare or Mcavoy.                                                   regards,  G.
  4. Probably some, or all of the reasons are relevant on some level.  I would agree that Prust, Weber and even Higgins could find a new team by the trade deadline. I'm also fairly certain that a large number of folks who are dancing at their relegation to the minors will then complain that the return wasn't enough.                                                     regards,  G.
  5.                   regards,  G.
  6. Name That Canuck!

    Howie Young?                          regards,  G.
  7. Name That Canuck!

    Jim Agnew                       regards,  G.
  8. Who Should Play John Scott in the John Scott Movie?

    This guy. You might have to find an extra 5 - 6 inches in height, but they look kind of the same.                                            regards,   G.
  9. Loser Points (Discussion)

    "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." - Will Munny Once upon a time, the NHL had 10 minute OT's. Early in the 1942 season, the NHL decided to end regular season OT, in consideration of WW2 travel restrictions. The last regular season OT game (until 1983) was on November 10, between Chicago and New York, New York being the winner (5-3). (The score appears to be correct, and this suggests that there was no sudden death aspect to these OT games. Perhaps all current day, regular season OT games, should be for a full 5 minutes?) Going into that game, Chicago had a record of 1-0-1, for 3 points. After the game, Chicago had a record of 1-1-1, for 3 points. What's missing there? What you claim "...Must and Always will get AWARDED..." appears to be something which was not always awarded. Perhaps it was a ruder time. I have not been able to discover a single instance of "loser points" being awarded from this era. If you were still tied after the 10 minute OT, you got a point. If you lost after OT, you lost. My view is that points will be awarded as the NHL decides they want them to be awarded. "Loser points" are currently being handed out because the league had to pacify the owners of bottom feeder franchises, and to keep up the appearance of the NHL being competitive. If someone came forward with a business plan which showed the owners that they could make more money by eliminating 5 minute OT periods, shoot outs and loser points, then they'd all be gone. It's a circus.   Otherwise, there appear to be inconsistencies in your position. You start with "regulation time" not capitalized, but later go with "Regulation Time". "TIME LIMIT", "AWARDED", "RUDE" and "NEVER" should be bolded, no?                                                              regards,  D.
  10. Loser Points (Discussion)

    No, they don't. Losing teams should get nothing. I am okay with teams playing to a draw and getting one each after regulation. As it is now, and as the system the NHL is moving towards, it's all a big sideshow. That being said, if the NHL wants to keep the 5 minute OT and the teams can't decide the game after that, then you punish the loser. It will ensure that both sides try their hardest to get some points during the OT rather than chance getting no points in the shoot out. I'd also go back to 5 v 5 in the 5 minute OT.                     regards, G.
  11. Loser Points (Discussion)

    What if the game is still tied after the OT (assuming we're talking a 5 minute OT)?   I would prefer a return to the 2 pts for a win, 1 pt for a tie, 0 pts for a loss. No regular season OT, no shoot outs. If the NHL wants to stick with the gimmicks then, 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for an OT win with 1 loser pt, and only 1 pt for a shoot out win with no loser point. This puts pressure on both teams to try and win before the shoot out.                                                             regards, G.
  12. Jannik Hansen

    1.) An observation/question I would put forward is: if Hansen was on an elite team, wouldn't they want to keep him? A third liner who has speed, can check, plays a physical style and can also provide a certain amount of offensive production is a pretty valuable asset (see McCannon's post above). Add to this that he has two seasons left a very cap friendly contract. Trading such a player who is (arguably) in his prime doesn't seem to be a very helpful move and would only serve to move your elite team towards a non-elite status.  2.) A second observation/question I have is: what kind of asset(s) do people believe would come back from trading Hansen? You are suggesting a high pick (a 1st?) and/or a prospect. Assuming that the other team wins the Cup, that pick becomes the 30th overall. I don't see this pick alone being as valuable as having Hansen on the Canucks' roster for another two years (on a very cap friendly deal) and possibly for another few years after the current deal is done. What kind of prospect would the other team be willing to offer, in addition to the 1st round pick? I presume that the Canucks would target d-men prospects. A few examples from some of the teams who have a good chance at winning the Cup are: Washington - Bowey; Chicago - Pokka, Dallas - Honka, Florida - Matheson, NY Islanders - Pullock. Would any of these team want Hansen? And if so, would they pay their 1st and the prospect named? I'm not so sure.                                                                regards,  G.  
  13. [Waivers] DET - Joakim Andersson

     Isn't Europe Detroit's farm team?                                 regards, G.
  14. [Speculation] Brandon Pirri

    I think this is an optimistic return for what the Canucks are offering in your proposal. I would be inclined in a trade with Florida to offer them Vrbata (50% retained) and a 2nd for just Petrovic.  I don't believe Higgins (50% retained) and the choice of Weber/Bartkowski adds much from the Canucks' side, but if Benning can get Pirri for all that, then bonus!                                                   regards,  G.
  15. The Pro Tank Thread

    Buffalo has the potential to be a successful "tank and rebuild". The order is important. Further, I would agree with CP that you can't call them successful until they are actually successful... unless what you meant is that Buffalo has pulled off a successful tank and you weren't commenting on their future success.                                                  regards, G.