Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Kevin Bieksa you are really...

Zigmund.Palffy

By Zigmund.Palffy
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

BedBeats™2.0 Canucks Rookie

BedBeats™2.0

Posted
Posted

Unless someone create GIFs or movies of Edlers, Hamhuis, Ehrhoffs frackups and boneheaded plays it won't change. Is it worth the time an effort to show just how bad each of our D can and has been at times this year to show Bieksa isn't that bad? Probably not.

The other thing I notice and maybe I've noticed this as I have not been following the canucks as closely as others nor exposed to media over the last few years: is how brutal the sports media scene has gotten and how much it's actually driving what people say, on here for example.

There been several slang terms, phrases etc used to describe someone or something and I've wondered how it's come about. Then I read some article or quote from an article from a few years back and I see where it comes from.

There is an absolute direct correlation to local sports media and maligned panic stricken, conspiracy theory, armchair GM idiot opinions.

I made a sober (thought you would like that one!) rant about that in either a AV or Naslund negative thread.

There so many examples how both media and the fans coexist.....this messageboard gives tools like Kuzma and some 1040 personalities, stories to marinate on, even when it is a non-issue.

That whole Luongo is overpaid/Niemi rubbish is borne from an article that Willes wrote immediately after the Canucks were bounced from the playoffs.....and people use that opinion as their own.

The term "WCE". That was born right here on CDC...someone here coined it in a poll looking for a nickname for the Nazzy/Bert/Mo line.

The anti-Sedin sentiment when they were about to be free agents, Bieksa, Albie, all of that rubbish that made zero sense in the first place...are all borne out of callers on 1040 after games...and people here appropriate someone else's weak opinion.

I am lucky...its easy to spot those guys here on CDC, my father routinely listens to 1040 and parrots many of the same things i read here, so i have a cheater system/filter.

The best thing about what you pointed out, is that its a pleasure to relate to people that actually think for themselves on CDC (and watch a Hockey game as a whole) and never rely on media to shape their feelings, they are few and far between.

In this particular thread, they are called Bieksa Lovers.

The indistinguishable group think/mob mentality here is just disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aixtek Abbotsford Regular

Aixtek

Posted
Posted

I don't think you realize what I'm saying.

I know that Bieksa has much more trade value than Salo, I'm not an idiot.

If you read my posts previous to this instead of skimming my last post and coming up with some half-ass assumption you would realize that I want to keep Bieska over Salo due to the undeniable inevitability of another Salo injury.

Firstly let me apologize for not having the attention span or the time to go through this entire thread and make sure I know exactly what everyone is thinking...

So then honestly, we're just going to trade Salo for a bag of pucks then? Elite players in their last year or two of their career aren't worth SH!T on the market... didn't we just pick up Sundin on FA because he couldn't resign? Imagine for a minute you are the GM of any team (other then Toronto), what would you give up in a trade for a (when healthy) top 10 defense man in this league who at best will be around for another year and is, as you say, undeniable inevitably injury prone? My answer to that question is a 1st round pick and a crummy 4th liner and ONLY if I know I was picking #25-30 and was a serious contender to get the cup THIS year or next. MAYBE Tampa bay or Buffalo could take that trade, but all the REAL contenders are at the cap limit....

LET ME REPEAT THAT - all the REAL contenders are at the cap limit... and can't take Salo's wage without dumping a huge salary hit themselves. So if you're not able to take a run, why would you ever take Salo over Bieksa? This isn't about what we want (cause I want to give up Salo for 2 1st round picks a couple of amazing prospects as well), its about what could happen in a non-idealistic (lets say realistic) hockey world...

So - the nucks have, really 3 good realistic possible solutions:

1) Trade Bieksa to get a return we can use to win the cup in 3 years

2) Keep Bieksa and let MG work some crazy magic with a 3 or 5 way trade deal that sends our roll players off and we get something just as good AND cheap in return.

3) My previous solution of knee capping Bieksa and putting him on LTIR until the playoffs

Personally I rank from most desirable to least, numbers 3, 2 and 1.

Sigh, if only there was some way we could retroactively ask our entire roster to reduce their paycheck (and cap hit) by 150k each, thus allowing us to keep Salo and Bieksa.

PS - isn't it great how everyone said at the beginning of the season when salo went down with his stupid injury, "crap son, I hope Bieksa plays really well so when Salo comes back we can actually trade him and get an awesome return on him"? Now he's playing like Bieksa mark 3.5 and theres a huge debate on who to keep? hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baggins Canucks Franchise Player

Baggins

Posted
Posted

Firstly let me apologize for not having the attention span or the time to go through this entire thread and make sure I know exactly what everyone is thinking...

So then honestly, we're just going to trade Salo for a bag of pucks then? Elite players in their last year or two of their career aren't worth SH!T on the market... didn't we just pick up Sundin on FA because he couldn't resign? Imagine for a minute you are the GM of any team (other then Toronto), what would you give up in a trade for a (when healthy) top 10 defense man in this league who at best will be around for another year and is, as you say, undeniable inevitably injury prone? My answer to that question is a 1st round pick and a crummy 4th liner and ONLY if I know I was picking #25-30 and was a serious contender to get the cup THIS year or next. MAYBE Tampa bay or Buffalo could take that trade, but all the REAL contenders are at the cap limit....

LET ME REPEAT THAT - all the REAL contenders are at the cap limit... and can't take Salo's wage without dumping a huge salary hit themselves. So if you're not able to take a run, why would you ever take Salo over Bieksa? This isn't about what we want (cause I want to give up Salo for 2 1st round picks a couple of amazing prospects as well), its about what could happen in a non-idealistic (lets say realistic) hockey world...

So - the nucks have, really 3 good realistic possible solutions:

1) Trade Bieksa to get a return we can use to win the cup in 3 years

2) Keep Bieksa and let MG work some crazy magic with a 3 or 5 way trade deal that sends our roll players off and we get something just as good AND cheap in return.

3) My previous solution of knee capping Bieksa and putting him on LTIR until the playoffs

Personally I rank from most desirable to least, numbers 3, 2 and 1.

Sigh, if only there was some way we could retroactively ask our entire roster to reduce their paycheck (and cap hit) by 150k each, thus allowing us to keep Salo and Bieksa.

PS - isn't it great how everyone said at the beginning of the season when salo went down with his stupid injury, "crap son, I hope Bieksa plays really well so when Salo comes back we can actually trade him and get an awesome return on him"? Now he's playing like Bieksa mark 3.5 and theres a huge debate on who to keep? hehe

1 - When did Salo get elevated to "elite" status. I like the the guy and he's a very good two way d-man, but elite? Come on.

2 - NTC. I have doubts Salo would waive it so trading him is a rather unlikely option.

3 - Teams that can't take Salo's cap hit can't take Bieksa's either. Rather pointless using that as an argument when Bieksa has a higher cap hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmployeeoftheMonth Canucks Second-Line

EmployeeoftheMonth

Posted
Posted

It's fun to watch him screw up time after time.

"Oh I was wrong....Oh um Errrrrr uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh IT doesn't matter because that's still not good enough and um did you see this one play when him um screwed up."

Seriously Canuckelion you act as if Bieksa had his way with your sister at prom? Kick your dog? He's not a great d man there's no doubt of that but jesus christ he isn't even 1/10th as bad as you'd like to make him out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El_Capitan Abbotsford Regular

El_Capitan

Posted
Posted

This thread has been the most fun for me of all the threads on CDC so far this season, but its Xmas eve so I'm gonna keep this brief as lots of hustle & bustle going on out there....a skeleton goes into a bar and orders a pint of beer and a mop

Have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas to you as well, all the best in the new year!

I have a joke as well but it's a Princess Diana joke and people seem to laugh at first then stare at me as if I'm an awful person. As if.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hank&dan Abbotsford Regular

hank&dan

Posted
Posted

Yeah he was actually +2, but if you want to pretend he was 0, you go ahead.

Don't jump for joy. Plus 2 when the good guys score 7 isn't all that impressive.

I'll tell you what is impressive though. Not registering a single point when the team scores 7 goals and you have the most ice time. He must have been really focused on his defensive game last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmployeeoftheMonth Canucks Second-Line

EmployeeoftheMonth

Posted
Posted

Don't jump for joy. Plus 2 when the good guys score 7 isn't all that impressive.

I'll tell you what is impressive though. Not registering a single point when the team scores 7 goals and you have the most ice time. He must have been really focused on his defensive game last night.

SO once again by your failed logic only Burrows and Henric were impressive last night because they were the only 2 with over a +2.

Christ you must have thought Ballard was a real piece of &*$^ last night with only 3 minutes less icetime than Bieksa and he did nothing of note statistically other than register 2 minutes of penalty time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baggins Canucks Franchise Player

Baggins

Posted
Posted

well 4 Dmen had points tonight, Ehrhoff with a goal and Alberts, Edler + Hamhuis with assists. 7 goals scored and BXa led all Dmen with 22:05 of ice, had no points + was a 0 +/-, . If that is playing well for 3.75 mil , I simply can't wait till Salo gets back.

Bieksa was on ice for 3 goals for and 0 against +2

Hamhuis was on ice for 3 goals for and 0 against +2

Ehrhoff was on ice for 3 goals for and 2 against +1

Edler was on ice for 3 goals for and 3 against +0

Ballard was on ice for 1 goal for and 1 against +0

Alberts was on ice for 1 goal for and 0 against +1

Looks to me like Bieksa and Hamhuis played their shutdown role quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CANUCKLELION Canucks Prospect

CANUCKLELION

Posted
Posted

Bieksa was on ice for 3 goals for and 0 against +2

Hamhuis was on ice for 3 goals for and 0 against +2

Ehrhoff was on ice for 3 goals for and 2 against +1

Edler was on ice for 3 goals for and 3 against +0

Ballard was on ice for 1 goal for and 1 against +0

Alberts was on ice for 1 goal for and 0 against +1

Looks to me like Bieksa and Hamhuis played their shutdown role quite well.

Well if they were on for 3 goals fo and 0 against , wouldn't they be +3? I don't believe they were both on for PP goals.Still there were 7 goals for and for BXa, not to have a point, tells me he was a no show offensively. As far as being defensively sound, remember they were playing the Blue Jackets eh, that and his partner, who had less ice time also managed a +2, and picked up a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RUPERTKBD Canucks Hall-of-Famer

RUPERTKBD

Posted
Posted

Well if they were on for 3 goals fo and 0 against , wouldn't they be +3? I don't believe they were both on for PP goals.Still there were 7 goals for and for BXa, not to have a point, tells me he was a no show offensively. As far as being defensively sound, remember they were playing the Blue Jackets eh, that and his partner, who had less ice time also managed a +2, and picked up a point.

Still, for a guy who's so bad defensively that he's a "career AHLer" and will likely be "playing in Europe" next season, he's doing pretty good, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...