Baggins

Members
  • Content Count

    10,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Baggins last won the day on June 8 2017

Baggins had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,806 Gaming the system

1 Follower

About Baggins

  • Rank
    Canucks Franchise Player
  • Birthday June 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Burnaby BC Canada
  • Interests
    Hockey

Recent Profile Visitors

14,445 profile views
  1. There was plenty of push back from the Canucks, We also got away with a great deal. Most memorable for me was Henrik giving Chara a wicked two hander hack to his ankle while heading to the bench. This wasn't a little whack. Hank wound up like he was going to hit one out of the park. Thought for sure it would be called with a ref about 8 feet behind him and looked directly at them. No call. Both teams got away with crap. They called penalties, with the Nucks averaging 4 pp's per game, but let far, far too much go. And when your pp is 20.4% for the playoffs but only 6% in the finals you do have to give some credit to the other team. Thomas in particular. Btw, Marchand knew he could get away with it because everybody else was tied up and Daniel doesn't fight. Plus if anybody comes at him after the fact his team gets a PP with the instigator. It was a golden opportunity for him and being a weasel he took it. He either took our top goal scorer off for five or gave his team a PP with an after the fact reaction. Win/win for the weasel. Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  2. I have the reverse view on this. The Nucks have more higher end skill. High skill often feasts on rust to start a season. More likely to capitalize on mistakes made due to rust. Also the older players may be smarter but they can suffer the effects of rust as well.
  3. As bad as the reffing was the Canucks averaged 8:07 PP time per game while the Bruins averaged 6:37 per game. The B's outscored the best PP in the league 5-2 in the series. PP opportunities were 33 to 27 in the Canucks favor. Average shots per game were 35.1 to 32.1 in the Canucks favor (186 to 152). Hits were 260 to 227 in Vancouver's favor. So the Canucks overall out hit them, out shot them and had more PP's in the series yet lost. I don't believe for a second Daniel fighting Marchand would have made a difference. The difference in the series was health and goaltending. Thomas was great for 7 games, setting an NHL record for saves in a final, while Luongo was great for 3. Would Luongo have been better with a healthier D in front of him? Would the Nucks have been better at scoring sans all the injuries to Henrik, Kesler, Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, Edler, and even Hanhuis? That's where I believe the series loss is, not one incident between Daniel and Marchand. I've maintained all along injuries and Thomas gave the Bruins win. With an honorable mention to Chara for the job he did on Henrik (even though it was often illegal). He was on Henrik like a bad stink through the series.
  4. In fairness the expansion Blues were serious longshots to win the cup those first three years. The original six were in one division and all 6 expansion teams in the other. The winner of each division meeting in the finals. Guaranteeing an expansion team in the finals for those three years. If the Blues had been in the O-6 division those three seasons their point total would have only put them in the playoffs once as fourth seed. For those three years the original six conference final was realistically the Stanley Cup final. The original six weren't mixed in divisions until the Vancouver and Buffalo expansion. Ironically the Canucks went in the Eastern Conference. The only original 6 team moved to the expansion west division was Chicago who easily won the division after having won the original 6 division the previous regular season. Needless to say Chicago won in the playoffs to advance to the SCF losing to the Bruins.
  5. It wasn't just the players out though. Kesler was playing with both a shoulder and groin injury, Higgins on a broken foot, Edler with broken fingers, Bieksa with a bruised acl, Ehrhoff with a shoulder bad enough he avoided contact whenever he could. Losing both Hamhuis and Rome in the final was really just the topper. I still believe if they got there even reasonably healthy they would have taken the series. But you can only take so many injuries before that mountain just becomes too high. The final factor after injuries was goaltending. Thomas was on fire and kept his team in all 7 games. That misconduct was a terrible call. Players get away with saying far more and far worse without a misconduct than what Danny said to the ref. Just another bogus call in the series.But what most either forget, or choose to ignore, is Vigneault preached discipline throughout. Let the other guy take the penalty. The Sedins always led by example and would of course follow what the coach preached. And all the other guys on the ice were already tied up with other Bruins. To me it's just self righteous ego and macho bravado blowing it out of proportion.
  6. Really the whole matter comes down to opinion. There are those that believe a SC win is a requirement. Or even playoff success. That of course would exclude great players that never had the luxury of playing on great teams. The HHoF has no requirement of a SC or even playoff success. For that matter there are some in the HHoF that never even played in the NHL. Marcel Dione never made it past the second round and is in the HHoF and LA retired his number. Great player, not great teams. Stanley Cup wins are a team accomplishment not an individual one. Individuals contribute to team success but one player doesn't make that success alone. So what is the criteria for jersey retirement? Truthfully there isn't one. Teams can and do retire jerseys for a variety of reasons. But I think the biggest reasons are what the player meant to the team on and off the ice, how he represented the organization, and how long the player was with the team being a heavy influence as well. A player with 10 years or more playing his entire career for one franchise is a rare thing. A player playing 1000 games, or even 800 for one franchise is not common. So for me it's the combination of what the player meant to the team on and off the ice, how he represented the franchise, and how long he did that. What a player meant to the team can include any or all of leadership, production, and/or playoff success. To me the only jersey retired that doesn't fit the bill is Bure. Great talent and exciting player but just didn't play enough games here or represent the team as the others did both on and off the ice. My opinion. In the end there is no set in stone criteria and it's simply up to the individual franchise.
  7. It wouldn't change anything. You'll never get agreement on a logo/uni as everybody has their own favorite. No matter what is used there will be those constantly wanting change to what they like (or something completely new) in a never ending cycle.
  8. Baggins

    Judd Brackett

    From what I've read he wants full autonomy over the scouting department. I don't know of many GM's that aren't involved in the scouting. Their head is typically first on the block after all. With Benning having set the department in his own direction, plus his scouting background, I'm not surprised he's against giving full control over to Brackett.
  9. Baggins

    Judd Brackett

    Negotiations are a two way street. One could just as easily say Brackett quit (refusing Benning's offer) rather than being fired (Benning not caving to his demands). I don't view it either of those ways. It's just two parties unable to come to an agreement acceptable to both sides. It happens.
  10. Note: only the final paragraph is directed directly at your post Bitter Melon. The first two paragraphs are simply in regard to my opinion of the arguments for and against particular logos. To me saying the Orca logo isn't valid because we're not the Vancouver Orca's is like saying the wheel doesn't belong in the Red Wings logo. It is of course ignored that the SiR is also rendered invalid by that argument as the image doesn't match the team name. The argument to that of course is it represents the sport played. Which isn't actually common around the league with only 4 primary logos containing hockey imagery. 5 if you include the less obvious Orca crashing through the ice but that would validate it as representing the sport so we'll ignore that. Yet there's 15 primary logos that include an element linked to where the team plays from a letter (like C - Calgary, P - Philadelphia) to the full deal (like Florida, Washington), to an image strongly tied to the location (Detroit, Vancouver). For me where the team plays is more important in a logo for identity than what the team plays. And the numbers mentioned back that opinion up. I was in junior high when the Nucks joined the NHL and hated the SiR from the moment I saw it. To me it was clunky, bland and the most boring logo in the league tied with the Rangers. The V was pure hideousness. The skate was an improvement but only after dumping the yellow jersey for white. But when they unveiled the Orca logo it just screamed Vancouver for me. It reminded me of wandering downtown Vancouver as kid and seeing native art and Orca imagery everywhere from art itself to t-shirts & hats to jewelry and nick-nacks. Those images were everywhere. It made me think of going to the Vancouver Aquarium and the totem poles in Stanley Park that I visited so many times as a kid. My first thought seeing the logo was "now that's Vancouver". That's why I love the Orca logo. It symbolizes where the team plays just as the wheel does in the Red Wings logo. To me there's no image that can truly portray the term Canuck (a Canadian). Which leaves using a C to rep the team name or using the entire word. Using the C in an image that reps the city as the Haida stylized Orca does is perfect in my opinion. There's two things I absolutely agree with you on. First, fans will never agree on a logo and no matter what it is there will be those vocally lobbying against it in a never ending cycle. Second, if you want a team identity you can't keep changing it. As the current logo is the longest running (considerably longer than any other) it makes sense to stick with it and use the alternate jersey for variety. In the end liking or disliking a logo is purely a matter of personal taste. Everybody has different taste. Then there's those that desire change purely for the sake of change. But that would mean never having an identity at all.
  11. Working hard to live up to your name?
  12. Completely irrelevant to the validity of a logo.
  13. C for Canucks C for Canucks C for Canucks C for Canucks C for Canucks.....
  14. It doesn't mention a stick in rink in the dictionary either. As a matter of fact Websters Dictionary doesn't mention a cartoon lumberjack in the definition either. Just "a person born, raised, or living in Canada : a Canadian". Perhaps we should just use Kurtenbach's face as our logo. He's a Canadian and was the original captain. Problem solved. C for team name Canuck, Orca image for where the team plays. Calgary - C for where the team plays - flames image for team name. Both cover the same elements just in opposite ways. But you already know and choose to ignore it. There's nothing at all wrong with the Orca logo as it covers both the team name and where it plays. Both valid elements in a sports logo.