We Are All Cucks

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Neutral

About We Are All Cucks

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. [Official] Sedin's announce retirement from NHL

    Dag Nab it. I am officially a moron for falling for this. Thing is, if you fall for this, your reaction will betray your true opinion on how you feel about Sedins' decision. Mine was: "no. no. no, NO!"
  2. (Rumour) Stars open to moving No. 3 pick

    Without using time I don't have to read 19 full pages, I'd like to jump in and suggest that Tanev for 3 O/A straight-up (let alone if we are tossing in extras) doesn't make sense from the Canucks' point of view. Tanev is a top 2 or top 4 pairing who is proven in the NHL. He comes with a great contract and is 27, in his prime. The Canucks realistically don't have a chance to compete for about 3 years (maybe sooner, maybe later...but let's take 3 as the median), but then will be looking to field a competitive team. A 30 year old Tanev at that time may have passed his prime but should still be an effective, responsible veteran who will continue to be a great leader. So, even if we keep Tanev through the painful years, he will be valuable to us after them. I think most people would assume that if the Canucks possess the 3 and 5 O/A one of those would be a D, and one would be a C. If a C is in the plans without trading Tanev, then we gain a young D who will be ready to play in...3-4 years: just when we are competing. The big problem is that Tanev is a known commodity with a known (very high) ceiling, and picking a D provides the furthest thing from a known commodity. In a best case (while still being realistic) scenario, that D becomes a top 2 guy. Being more realistic, they become a serviceable NHL D. Even so, that might mean a 5/6 guy, and that's a very realistic scenario. Without Dallas throwing in more, I don't see the point of any direct 3 O/A for Tanev trade. It's just not worth the risk. Even when the Canucks are tying to compete again, having Tanev then would be phenomenal. That, or diversify your options now. A better bet would be to trade for the 6-10 range draft picks and get our D or C there, since there is so little separation between 3-10. That way, the return would include more than just the draft pick. I'm all for trading Tanev, but I think for Dallas' pick, it's nonsense. Please explain to me why I'm wrong.
  3. Payback is a Bitch

    I hear one of the Canadien's Tenors is a free agent. Pick 'em up!
  4. So, without reading all 108 pages of this... Generally speaking, regarding the trade, "old school" guys love it, while "analytics folk" hate it and think the Canucks got robbed. This, I believe can provide a decent, very cursory, summary of the two camps on this. Considering Benning has said he doensn't care what the analytics community has to say (quote saying "we won the cup without fancy stats", or something), that means he's happy to think that half the management teams in the NHL think he got robbed on this deal, because he's sure he got a good one. Now, let's return to the trade deadline, where Dan Hamhuis was on the block and after all that go-round with Calgary and Dallas, Benning decides to hold on to Hamhuis for nothing (and now with Gudbranson here, since we'll probably let Hammer go, it really looks like nothing) to maintain his pride and avoid the appearance of getting fleeced in a deal (I'm way too busy to dig up quotes, but I'm confident enough about this one, so feel free to find it yourself). So, based on the no-Hamhuis trade, we have Benning willing to refuse free assets to save face, while on the other hand, with the Gudbranson deal, he's quite willing to give away assets even if it means losing face. Whichever camp you fall into, in light of the Hamhuis no-trade this just seems like another example of odd asset management on JB's part.
  5. Name of your first pet and first street you lived on.

    Torpedo Trunk
  6. Name That Goalie!

    Last guess on this one for me... Antero Niittymaki
  7. Name That Goalie!

    Ollie Kolzig? Don't think I'm right, but I'll hazard a guess!
  8. Name That Goalie!

    Pete Peters? I love this thread, haha. It reminds me of all the hockey cards sitting in my garage!
  9. Name That Goalie!

    Correct. Pretty easy, but I had to represent my all-time fave!
  10. Name That Goalie!

  11. Name That Goalie!

    Chico Resch of the Colorado Rockies
  12. [Official] Vancouver Whitecaps Thread

    As happy as I am to see Demerit get the recognition, I feel YP Lee has been the best at his position for the caps this year and might have deserved a nomination even more.
  13. [Official] Vancouver Whitecaps Thread

    The way I see this is similar to the off setting penalty and diving call people complain about in hockey. People complain about this but in a hockey game, if it is a legitimate hook or something and the guy embellishes it to make it worse, both are justifiable calls. Same deal here. Camilo clearly took an "inadvertent" tumble on the play, but buddy on SJ stuck his foot out when he was clearly beaten. Maybe Camilo should/could have been punished too, but it was still the right call.
  14. [Official] Vancouver Whitecaps Thread

    Lol. Did Rintoul just refer to the "ginger contingent" in vancouver? I assume he feels he is part of it, along with robson, lulay and schneider. Anyone know if the Canadians or Giants have any redheads?
  15. [Official] Vancouver Whitecaps Thread

    Okay. Now let's see what Miller can do.