Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * - 54 votes

Kevin Bieksa you are really...


  • Please log in to reply
9932 replies to this topic

#5191 BruinsForCup2011

BruinsForCup2011

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 10

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:47 AM

Who we "get rid of" is beside the point. I am well aware of the Cap situation and who is the logical choice to be moved.

What I was referring to is the assertion by the anti-Bieksa crowd that his departure will automatically make the team "better" defensively.


Of course it won't - addition by subtraction nary works in professional hockey.

Unless we're talking about Jokinen and Tanguay, for example LOL ;)

Get rid of = trade, deal, ship, move, etc etc etc etc. Semantics.

Edited by RoyalFlush2233, 14 December 2010 - 12:48 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5192 Zach Morris

Zach Morris

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:47 AM

Who else can we get rid of, that has equal to or greater than Salo's salary, that will not affect the depth chart moreso?

Samuelsson perhaps?? But we might want to hang onto him over Bieksa.. there was a thread about that

I don't see who else on D we could move that would not hurt the "depth" even worse - and we can't keep Salo, Bieksa, AND everyone else.

The depth is going to take a hit somewhere - we knew were virtually over the cap when the season began.

My main concern is that if we keep Bieksa and we have to give him a raise, we might have to permanently have HIM in our top 6 (Even with the cap going up 2m.) instead of Ehrhoff. And I'm sorry, but Ehrhoff > Bieksa.


I'm no Cap expert. So I will leave it in the hands of MG and his cronies to figure it out. But they have been working it already from what I can see.

Burrows was probably able to come back in game 7 or 8, but they made sure he stayed out for the 10 game period so some of his contract will get knocked off.

Also didn't Chicago get penalized for their cap issues, and did they not win a cup, and do they not still have Toews, Kane, Kieth, Seabrook, Hossa, Sharp, and Campbell on their team.
  • 0
Posted Image

"Incredulous"

#5193 BruinsForCup2011

BruinsForCup2011

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 10

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:48 AM

I'm no Cap expert. So I will leave it in the hands of MG and his cronies to figure it out. But they have been working it already from what I can see.

Burrows was probably able to come back in game 7 or 8, but they made sure he stayed out for the 10 game period so some of his contract will get knocked off.

Also didn't Chicago get penalized for their cap issues, and did they not win a cup, and do they not still have Toews, Kane, Kieth, Seabrook, Hossa, Sharp, and Campbell on their team.


He was ineligible to return before 10 games as he was on LTIR.

Chicago penalized themselves by handing out bonuses - one of which was for Toews I believe to win the Conn Smythe. ($1.3m bonus, they had to defer 4m worth of bonuses to this year's salary cap instead of last year)

You're also not listing the dozen or so players they had to let go - and now their depth is shabby at best, and that's an understatement.

Edited by RoyalFlush2233, 14 December 2010 - 12:50 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5194 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:49 AM

Of course it won't - addition by subtraction nary works in professional hockey.

Unless we're talking about Jokinen and Tanguay, for example LOL ;)

Get rid of = trade, deal, ship, move, etc etc etc etc. Semantics.

Then you and I are in agreement.

However, the likes of CANUCKELION, Tatoes and even Wallstreet, who claims to "defend" Bieksa on occasion disagree with us.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#5195 Zach Morris

Zach Morris

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:50 AM

Of course it won't - addition by subtraction nary works in professional hockey.

Unless we're talking about Jokinen and Tanguay, for example LOL ;)

Get rid of = trade, deal, ship, move, etc etc etc etc. Semantics.


well we would not get a an equal dman in return, because then we would gt his equal cap.......

We will deal him for a draft pick and or futures. So Rupert is saying that the naysayers are chomping at the bit to get rid of Bieksa, and they will still gripe if we don't win the cup...
  • 0
Posted Image

"Incredulous"

#5196 BruinsForCup2011

BruinsForCup2011

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 10

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:51 AM

Then you and I are in agreement.

However, the likes of CANUCKELION, Tatoes and even Wallstreet, who claims to "defend" Bieksa on occasion disagree with us.


I've rarely seen Wallstreet say anything that isn't backed up by a logical argument - but then again, I haven't bothered to sit down and read all 281235923 pages of this thread :lol:

Just thought I'd chime in!

well we would not get a an equal dman in return, because then we would gt his equal cap.......

We will deal him for a draft pick and or futures. So Rupert is saying that the naysayers are chomping at the bit to get rid of Bieksa, and they will still gripe if we don't win the cup...



Everyone always gripes about everything.

When we win the cup, there will still be 10 threads about ZOMG why didn't we sweep the cup finals..

or Why did Luon5o let in 5 goals in Game 3 FAIL

Edited by RoyalFlush2233, 14 December 2010 - 12:53 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5197 Zach Morris

Zach Morris

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:53 AM

He was ineligible to return before 10 games as he was on LTIR.

Chicago penalized themselves by handing out bonuses - one of which was for Toews I believe to win the Conn Smythe. ($1.3m bonus, they had to defer 4m worth of bonuses to this year's salary cap instead of last year)

You're also not listing the dozen or so players they had to let go - and now their depth is shabby at best, and that's an understatement.



Who put him on LTIR by the way....

MG and his cronies so that they can subtract some of his salary from the cap.....
  • 0
Posted Image

"Incredulous"

#5198 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:53 AM

Who else can we get rid of, that has equal to or greater than Salo's salary, that will not affect the depth chart moreso?

Samuelsson perhaps?? But we might want to hang onto him over Bieksa.. there was a thread about that

I don't see who else on D we could move that would not hurt the "depth" even worse - and we can't keep Salo, Bieksa, AND everyone else.

The depth is going to take a hit somewhere - we knew were virtually over the cap when the season began.

My main concern is that if we keep Bieksa and we have to give him a raise, we might have to permanently have HIM in our top 6 (Even with the cap going up 2m.) instead of Ehrhoff. And I'm sorry, but Ehrhoff > Bieksa.

We don't have to keep bieksa or give him a raise.

Also depending on where negotiations are with Ehrhoff that may also be an option regardless of what the fans think or feel.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5199 BruinsForCup2011

BruinsForCup2011

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 10

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:57 AM

We don't have to keep bieksa or give him a raise.

Also depending on where negotiations are with Ehrhoff that may also be an option regardless of what the fans think or feel.


We have to trade someone THIS YEAR.

Who put him on LTIR by the way....

MG and his cronies so that they can subtract some of his salary from the cap.....


I'm aware who makes the decisions around here. I was just saying there's no "keeping him out" that long - we HAD to put him on LTIR and we HAD to keep him on it for 10 games, even if he was ready sooner. That's all I was saying.

Edited by RoyalFlush2233, 14 December 2010 - 12:59 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5200 Zach Morris

Zach Morris

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:58 AM

I've rarely seen Wallstreet say anything that isn't backed up by a logical argument - but then again, I haven't bothered to sit down and read all 281235923 pages of this thread :lol:

Just thought I'd chime in!




Everyone always gripes about everything.

When we win the cup, there will still be 10 threads about ZOMG why didn't we sweep the cup finals..

or Why did Luon5o let in 5 goals in Game 3 FAIL


Exactly my point.

We are winning - 2nd in the Western conference, and we seem to castrate our players anyways.

As I said earlier every mistake is magnified, but every good play is ignored!! This double standard is rediculous.

I am starting to feel like my Friends do about Canucks fans. I know its a little Mutinous, but seriously, there are more teams than the Nucks, and there are more players than Bieksa in the NHL.

Also we cannot win every game, and we cannot score every time we touch the puck.

Edited by Zach Morris, 14 December 2010 - 01:00 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

"Incredulous"

#5201 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:58 AM

well we would not get a an equal dman in return, because then we would gt his equal cap.......

We will deal him for a draft pick and or futures. So Rupert is saying that the naysayers are chomping at the bit to get rid of Bieksa, and they will still gripe if we don't win the cup...

For the record, I'm okay with moving Bieksa (preferably to the eastern conf) for picks and/or prospects. We have to shed salary, but the last thing I want to see is an asset wasted on another guy to challenge for the "coveted" 4th line center spot.

The guys who I have a problem with are quite simply, the ones who don't see kevin Bieksa as an asset. There are many of them, which is one reason I spend so much time in this thread.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#5202 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,609 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:01 AM

See duodenum? It's morons like this who keep us coming back.

There's got to be something seriously wrong with that guy. A few loose screws, who knows :lol:
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#5203 Zach Morris

Zach Morris

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:04 AM

For the record, I'm okay with moving Bieksa (preferably to the eastern conf) for picks and/or prospects. We have to shed salary, but the last thing I want to see is an asset wasted on another guy to challenge for the "coveted" 4th line center spot.

The guys who I have a problem with are quite simply, the ones who don't see kevin Bieksa as an asset. There are many of them, which is one reason I spend so much time in this thread.



Me too Man - It is almost inevitable that KB is going to get moved, but as you say the ppl that call him a bum don't know what they are talking about.

They live inside a bubble where reason and common sense cannot enter, only stubbornness and negativity can.

Its absolutley asinine!!

Edited by Zach Morris, 14 December 2010 - 01:06 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

"Incredulous"

#5204 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:05 AM

We have to trade someone THIS YEAR.



I'm aware who makes the decisions around here. I was just saying there's no "keeping him out" that long - we HAD to put him on LTIR and we HAD to keep him on it for 10 games, even if he was ready sooner. That's all I was saying.

Only if Salo comes back and we need to shed Cap.

Who get traded will depend on a lot of things:

- play
- fit with the team direction
- cap hit
- depth
- if it's contact renewal time then asking price.
- etc etc etc


If there's one thing you can accuse MG of is being methodical. I doubt he will make a move without consdiering all the factors. Can't be said about all GMs.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5205 BruinsForCup2011

BruinsForCup2011

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 10

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:05 AM

Me too Man - It is almost inevitable that KB is going to get moved, but as you say the ppl that call him a bum don't know what they are talking about.

They live inside a bubble where reason and common sense cannot enter, only stubbornness and negativity can.

Its absolutley asinine!!


^^

LOL

Kinda like:

"Trade that BUM Bieksa for Hedman + 1st"

People tend to contradict themselves sometimes..

Only if Salo comes back and we need to shed Cap.

Who get traded will depend on a lot of things:

- play
- fit with the team direction
- cap hit
- depth
- if it's contact renewal time then asking price.
- etc etc etc


If there's one thing you can accuse MG of is being methodical. I doubt he will make a move without consdiering all the factors. Can't be said about all GMs.


+1

Edited by RoyalFlush2233, 14 December 2010 - 01:07 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5206 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:07 AM

Exactly my point.

We are winning - 2nd in the Western conference, and we seem to castrate our players anyways.

As I said earlier every mistake is magnified, but every good play is ignored!! This double standard is rediculous.

I am starting to feel like my Friends do about Canucks fans. I know its a little Mutinous, but seriously, there are more teams than the Nucks, and there are more players than Bieksa in the NHL.

Also we cannot win every game, and we cannot score every time we touch the puck.

This. I had no comments about Bieksa until a few months ago when the ridiculousness seemed to reach a new level brought on by the Salo/cap "issue".
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5207 BruinsForCup2011

BruinsForCup2011

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 10

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:10 AM

This. I had no comments about Bieksa until a few months ago when the ridiculousness seemed to reach a new level brought on by the Salo/cap "issue".


Even when he basically cost us the series against Chicago? (I think this is where a lot of the hostility toward him is coming from - another isolated bad play, but a costly one nonetheless)

Edited by RoyalFlush2233, 14 December 2010 - 01:11 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5208 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:11 AM

For the record, I'm okay with moving Bieksa (preferably to the eastern conf) for picks and/or prospects. We have to shed salary, but the last thing I want to see is an asset wasted on another guy to challenge for the "coveted" 4th line center spot.

The guys who I have a problem with are quite simply, the ones who don't see kevin Bieksa as an asset. There are many of them, which is one reason I spend so much time in this thread.

And this.

In fact I could see a bigger trade happening if bigger piece of the puzzle is deemed to be missing. IE if a premier #1 Dman was made available etc

Simply trading Bieksa for a decent player brings the issue of cap coming back. Trading him for a bag of pucks, 9th round pick, 4th liner/Ahler does nothing for us this year.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5209 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:13 AM

Even when he basically cost us the series against Chicago? (I think this is where a lot of the hostility toward him is coming from - another isolated bad play, but a costly one nonetheless)

Which play are you referring to?
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5210 BruinsForCup2011

BruinsForCup2011

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 10

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:59 AM

Which play are you referring to?


Sorry lol I meant in the '09 series
  • 0

Posted Image


#5211 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,474 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 14 December 2010 - 02:00 AM

It would be nice if we could keep Bieksa AND Salo

Ehrhoff Edler
Hamhuis Ballard
Bieksa Salo

That is a sick top 6!

Ways we could shed cap space:

Raymond - 2.5
Samuelsson - 2.6
Alberts - 1.1
Rome - 700,000
Torres - 1
Schneder - .9

To Tampa
Raymond
Alberts
Schneider

To Vancouver
Purcell - 1.75 saved
B. Jones - 1.1 saved (Moose or Bolduc replacement)
2nd or 3rd round pick

Total saved: approx 3 million

Then trade Tyler Weiman & 6th round pick to Montreal for Curtis Sanford & 7th round pick

Sedin Sedin Burrows
Tambellini Kesler Purcell
Torres Malhotra Samuelsson
Glass Bolduc/Jones Hansen

Ehrhoff Edler
Hamhuis Ballard
Bieksa Salo
Rome Parent

Luongo
Sanford
  • 0
Sig too big.

#5212 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 14 December 2010 - 04:21 AM

I don't know how anyone in their right mind can suggest that Bieksa wasn't largely responsible for that play turning out as a goal.

Yeah..well, im a defenceman, which means crap to shinola here....especially when you want to unfairly whip a player named Bieksa.

Fact of the matter is...you have 2 camps made up of very different sets of people.

Now...ive actually seen him play....i mean i really saw him play...and the "Bieksa-apologists-lovers" or whatever silly tag you want to label us has, have a different camp of folks.

Me playing Hockey really means nothing....but being an absolute observer of the fundamentals serves me well.

What is total comedy hour is that in my camp, we may have a a few true pros, and a few like me who have watched the game enough to actually make an objective say on the matter.

The absolute funny thing is....even when the "Bieksa-lovers-apologists" even make some type of amends that there was a weak game by Juice, nothing is ever really said. And i am pleased that most (not counting me because i think most of your haters are so full of doggy do-do, and generally grasp so goddamned hard at straws) have been gentlemanly in their approach to you all....

But really....the most comedic thing is that most of you have predestined that Bieksa sucks so fricking hard, because you knew he had to be moved...much before Salo came down with his idiot injury.

But you ride on an injury riddled campaign.....and keep on riding it to the point that you cannot differentiate between a good effort and an out and out lousy one makes this thread moot.

You are the same clowns that thought the franchise should sign Cammy and J-Bow over the Twins, in Daniel and Henrik's last off season here.

You are the same braintrusts that thought Naslund does not deserves our respect.

You are the same types that feels that Torres doesnt do enough.

Same guys that thinks, despite getting the best out of all of the players that have been provided to him, that AV should be dismissed.

And the best thing of all??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have no goddamned idea what the hell you are talking about, because you have ZERO objectivity.

Its pretty fricking easy to throw anyone remotely tied to this franchise under the bus and trust me...i rarely use that cliche...but all you haters...or wait....MODERATES, drink cliches like it was heroin.

You know...even weak Hockey markets are not as boorish as most of you.

Christ.....even the LA Kings forum support Doughty...and he is making Bieksa look like a frigging god.

Seriously...does it take Don Taylor to actually make you watch the game as it is meant to be watched????!!!!!!!!

I am glad to be a part of this thread just to remind the guys that believe their own brand of bullsh!, that you look so goddammed stupid....and seriously...the haters do look that stupid.

When Salo is ready,,,,one of 2 will be moved.

Be happy that we have a RH puck-moving defenceman-one healing-and one active....because most leanrned Hockey minds will tell you it is a boon to the team.

Again.....we do not have Steve McCarthy on our team anymore,

Stop acting like we do.

Effing children.....ill pat my own self righteous back when i supported Naslund, Bert, Baron, Sopel, Clouts, Edler, Alberts, Kesler(hands of stone) The Twins..etc.etc.

Most of you wouldnt recognize help to a Hockey franchise if it sat on your goddamned face and said "make me__"

Wallow in your narrow view of Kevin Bieksa.

When He is gone...in 2-3 years time, you same people will be whining as always as to why Gillis didnt draft a RH, gritty, puck moving defenceman. (Oh...im just sooooo waiting for someone to thow out some prospect that will never make the team thats a RH shot.)

Yeah...its a rant...and i dont care, as much as i will never care about most of you talking out of your rectums.

The next time Bieksa has a horrid game...i am more than happy to let you know.

But then again...thats all you ever look for, the crap...and never the sugar.

Edited by BedBeats™2.0, 14 December 2010 - 04:25 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.


#5213 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,440 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 December 2010 - 07:09 AM

Who put him on LTIR by the way....

MG and his cronies so that they can subtract some of his salary from the cap.....

You're right you're no cap expert. :lol:

Injuries, long term or otherwise, do not get subtracted from the cap or save cap space. You can replace a player on LTIR with up to that players salary even if it puts you over the cap limit. The only cap relief is the amount that exceeds the cap limit.

From the start of the season we have been over the cap limit. Which is to say, after cap relief, we've been at the cap maximum all season.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#5214 Zach Morris

Zach Morris

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 14 December 2010 - 08:05 AM

You're right you're no cap expert. :lol:

Injuries, long term or otherwise, do not get subtracted from the cap or save cap space. You can replace a player on LTIR with up to that players salary even if it puts you over the cap limit. The only cap relief is the amount that exceeds the cap limit.

From the start of the season we have been over the cap limit. Which is to say, after cap relief, we've been at the cap maximum all season.


sorry!!!

hahaha

well I knew there was something there!! - Salo's contract does not count until he comes back right?

And is is pro rated so that if he comes back half way thru only half his cap counts toward the total?
  • 0
Posted Image

"Incredulous"

#5215 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 December 2010 - 08:09 AM

sorry!!!

hahaha

well I knew there was something there!! - Salo's contract does not count until he comes back right?

And is is pro rated so that if he comes back half way thru only half his cap counts toward the total?

Salos counts.

You can go over the cap for the duration he's out by the amount of his contract.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5216 Zach Morris

Zach Morris

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 14 December 2010 - 08:29 AM

Salos counts.

You can go over the cap for the duration he's out by the amount of his contract.


Thanks!!

So A move needs to happen is what you are saying.

Salo is a great player, but he scares me big time. Anyone see that movie "Unbreakable" - two words - Sam Jackson.

What about moving Salo?

Bieksa IMO is actually playing better this season. I also think that AV believes it as well.

He is getting roughly 22 minutes a game http://www.nhl.com/i...wName=timeOnIce

I bet this new pairing of Hamhuis and Bieks will work out great!!
  • 0
Posted Image

"Incredulous"

#5217 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 December 2010 - 08:40 AM

Thanks!!

So A move needs to happen is what you are saying.

Salo is a great player, but he scares me big time. Anyone see that movie "Unbreakable" - two words - Sam Jackson.

What about moving Salo?

Bieksa IMO is actually playing better this season. I also think that AV believes it as well.

He is getting roughly 22 minutes a game http://www.nhl.com/i...wName=timeOnIce

I bet this new pairing of Hamhuis and Bieks will work out great!!

Barring other injuries etc yes it looks like someone will have to be moved.

Salos injury issues may be a consideration moving forward.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5218 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,836 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 14 December 2010 - 08:55 AM

Then you and I are in agreement.

However, the likes of CANUCKELION, Tatoes and even Wallstreet, who claims to "defend" Bieksa on occasion disagree with us.


As I have said many times, if Gillis and Gilman can come up with a way to keep Bieksa that does not involve shipping out someone better or decimating depth, I would have no issue with that. Unfortunately, the cap situation is what it is and all else being equal Bieksa is the player who can be traded who:

1. Clears up the cap issue himself without decimating team depth (ie. trading Samuelsson + others) or without getting rid of a better player (ie. Ehrhoff or Edler).

2. Has skills that are either already adequately replaced or are easily replaceable by others already on this team.

3. Is a UFA who likely won't fit salary wise on this team next season.

4. Does not have a NTC.

Why you keep trying to lump me in with people who simply want him gone for the sake of it is beyond me. There are valid reasons he is (and should be) the likely choice to go if and when the time comes.
  • 0

#5219 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 14 December 2010 - 09:04 AM

^^

LOL

Kinda like:

"Trade that BUM Bieksa for Hedman + 1st"

People tend to contradict themselves sometimes..

It's a question of which ones are the less informed: Those who suggest the trade above, or those who suggest trading him "for a bag of pucks". :rolleyes:

Bieksa IMO is actually playing better this season. I also think that AV believes it as well.

Cue the "that doesn't mean anything because AV plays favorites" crowd.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#5220 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 14 December 2010 - 09:22 AM

As I have said many times, if Gillis and Gilman can come up with a way to keep Bieksa that does not involve shipping out someone better or decimating depth, I would have no issue with that. Unfortunately, the cap situation is what it is and all else being equal Bieksa is the player who can be traded who:

1. Clears up the cap issue himself without decimating team depth (ie. trading Samuelsson + others) or without getting rid of a better player (ie. Ehrhoff or Edler).

2. Has skills that are either already adequately replaced or are easily replaceable by others already on this team.

3. Is a UFA who likely won't fit salary wise on this team next season.

4. Does not have a NTC.

Why you keep trying to lump me in with people who simply want him gone for the sake of it is beyond me. There are valid reasons he is (and should be) the likely choice to go if and when the time comes.



and in your opinion how can that be done? Spitball some idears with me on this.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image




8 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users


Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.