Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 11 votes

Raymond? Do We Really Want Him?


  • Please log in to reply
663 replies to this topic

#91 BigRedMachine

BigRedMachine

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 06

Posted 04 February 2012 - 06:01 PM

Yes we want him. As trade bait.
  • 1

#92 Wilfred

Wilfred

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 06:13 PM

Too many people trying to be Clutch V2.0
  • 0

#93 Pride

Pride

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 09:02 PM

You need to find another sport sir and preferably another team. You debase yourself with a comment like that but worse still, you show you don't understand the game.


raymond is expendable in every sense of the word and just because I don't try to baby every player on the canucks doesn't mean I don't get it.

go away troll
  • 0

#94 Kack Zassian

Kack Zassian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 04 February 2012 - 09:45 PM

People need to appreciate what top 6 production really is. Top 6 is saying your in the top 180 forwards in league scoring.

Last season top 6 cutoff would be 34 points.

So in his 70 games Raymond was 149 in league scoring with 39 (not prorating to 82 games) But 170th in ES TOI/game

He produces at a very respectable rate,

If he played all 82 games and hit 46 points he would be 108 in production in the league, while getting 170th most ES TOI/game.
  • 2

#95 Wolfhard

Wolfhard

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 04

Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:48 AM

People need to appreciate what top 6 production really is. Top 6 is saying your in the top 180 forwards in league scoring.

Last season top 6 cutoff would be 34 points.

So in his 70 games Raymond was 149 in league scoring with 39 (not prorating to 82 games) But 170th in ES TOI/game

He produces at a very respectable rate,

If he played all 82 games and hit 46 points he would be 108 in production in the league, while getting 170th most ES TOI/game.

Great point, if all we were discussing if Raymond was good enough to play top 6 on the weakest team in the NHL, which would be where that 180 mark would put him.

But we're discussing top 6 on the Canucks. He's currently 9th on our team among forwards with .48 points per game. Meaning he's the poorest performer on the 3rd line. Sandwiched neatly between Manny Malhotra (.25), and Jannik Hansen (.50). I'm not counting Ebbett and Duco who are closer to him, but have limited games.

So enough about the "top 6" talk. Seems to me that Raymond needs to focus on staying in the top 9 before we discuss top 6.
  • 1
My stance on the Canucks;
- Schneider should not be traded. Luongo can be great, but is inconsistent. Schneider means more to us as a capable backup than what he could bring in a trade.
- We need toughness that can play. Top lines would be great, but I'll take it anywhere I can get it. As long as he doesn't hurt his line, I'm happy.
- We need a meaner net-clearing defenceman. Mobility is a plus.
- Ballard is a good player in a bad situation. He's not being used effectively. I believe he can succeed, but a move would be good for him too.
- Raymond is skilled, but needs to change his game or size to be more effective. Booth negates him in the top 6.
Read the above before attacking my comments, so you know where they're coming from. Once you've read, attack away if you please.

#96 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,103 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 05 February 2012 - 01:10 PM

oooh nice resume there. Gotta love the reference to your personal life. As if that astounding history of your hockey endeavors actually means anything. (Especially when your assessment on Raymond is poor)

Fact is, Kesler has a better shot than Raymond and took it from the slot where he has a high percentage of scoring.

Raymond on the other hand (has a weaker shot than Kesler) and took a wrister from the half-wall with no screen which happened to bounce off a d-man's butt and in.

You compared the 2 shots like they were similar.

Fact is, you still have no clue.


Both shots were deflected in by an opposition defender. That's the "similarity" I was referring to. And you're calling me out for exaggerating the similarity between the two goals after you claimed that Raymond spent "half the game on his hands and knees"?

Trust me kid, I've been on this board for over 8 years and I've seen NHL2010K "experts" like you come and go more times than I can count. I'll be here long after you and your 13 posts have to move out of your mom's basement and can't afford the internet anymore.

I know more about this game than you ever will.

BTW: Nice shootout goal yesterday, eh? Didn't fall down once....

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 05 February 2012 - 01:14 PM.

  • 2
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!

#97 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:59 PM

Both shots were deflected in by an opposition defender. That's the "similarity" I was referring to. And you're calling me out for exaggerating the similarity between the two goals after you claimed that Raymond spent "half the game on his hands and knees"?

Trust me kid, I've been on this board for over 8 years and I've seen NHL2010K "experts" like you come and go more times than I can count. I'll be here long after you and your 13 posts have to move out of your mom's basement and can't afford the internet anymore.

I know more about this game than you ever will.

BTW: Nice shootout goal yesterday, eh? Didn't fall down once....


If I was in fact a kid living out of my parent's basement, I would probably take the same approach you took (talking about your 45+ years of hockey experience (like it meant ANYTHING on an internet forum) and try to defend myself by talking about how my standard of living is most likely much higher than yours but this is a hockey forum so I'll keep on point.

You were the one that made the mistake of comparing Raymond's shot to Kesler's shot. If the ONLY thing in common was the fact that they were both deflected, then it was a pretty poor comparison and probably should have been omitted as it does not help in supporting ANY arguments at all.

The only logical argument it could potentially support is the old hockey term of "shoot from anywhere". (Of course, you did not say that and that was not your point so that point is moot)

But going on, if you WERE in fact smart enough to say that, I would counter that that's precisely Mason Raymond's problem. He really does shoot from "anywhere" and when he has good line mates that are in better position and doesn't use them, he becomes the detriment to that line.
  • 1

#98 joecanada777

joecanada777

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,352 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 04

Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:02 PM

Sure I think hes ok for third line. No higher for now though
  • 0

QUOTE(queen_canuck_fan)
cuz when I saw you outside in the bushes, by length I would have guessed 11...

QUOTE(Whiskey7 @ Apr 19 2007, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is done in almost every sport, in every league, for a great player who has an "oooooo" sound in his name. I'm always a bit surprised when people don't pick up on it, and announcers on TV have to clarify for those at home.

#99 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,103 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:19 AM

If I was in fact a kid living out of my parent's basement, I would probably take the same approach you took (talking about your 45+ years of hockey experience (like it meant ANYTHING on an internet forum) and try to defend myself by talking about how my standard of living is most likely much higher than yours but this is a hockey forum so I'll keep on point.

You were the one that made the mistake of comparing Raymond's shot to Kesler's shot. If the ONLY thing in common was the fact that they were both deflected, then it was a pretty poor comparison and probably should have been omitted as it does not help in supporting ANY arguments at all.

The only logical argument it could potentially support is the old hockey term of "shoot from anywhere". (Of course, you did not say that and that was not your point so that point is moot)

But going on, if you WERE in fact smart enough to say that, I would counter that that's precisely Mason Raymond's problem. He really does shoot from "anywhere" and when he has good line mates that are in better position and doesn't use them, he becomes the detriment to that line.


First of all, 45 years of experience does mean something (even on an internet forum). Like it or not, experience translates into knowledge. The only people I've ever heard dispute this are people who lack that experience.Secondly, the only comparison I ever made to the two shots was the fact that they were both deflected in by opposing defensemen. It was you who decided to make more of the comparison than there actually was.Finally, congrats on your "high standard of living", but you still are a kid as far as I'm concerned.
  • 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!

#100 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:47 AM

First of all, 45 years of experience does mean something (even on an internet forum). Like it or not, experience translates into knowledge. The only people I've ever heard dispute this are people who lack that experience.Secondly, the only comparison I ever made to the two shots was the fact that they were both deflected in by opposing defensemen. It was you who decided to make more of the comparison than there actually was.Finally, congrats on your "high standard of living", but you still are a kid as far as I'm concerned.


Ok, so taking a page out of your book. I've been watching hockey with a critical eye for over 20+ years. I guess that also means my experience translates to knowledge.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that just because you have been around hockey for 45+ years doesn't excuse you for your poor judgement in Raymond. 45+ years is not a trump card to an argument when you are wrong.

That's actually an argument fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". Google it if you have no idea what I'm talking about. Except in your case and your vague description of your credentials, you're not even much of an "authority"


Also, what was the point of bringing up Kesler's goal when we are talking about Raymond? You are the one that brought it up.

Your only point was to say Kes' shot went off a d-man too?

Wow, the 45+ years of hockey knowledge is really paying off. I'm really glad your 45+ years of experience really came to help me on these boards because I wasn't sure Kes' shot went off a d-man...

Edited by CanucksJay, 06 February 2012 - 08:53 AM.

  • 0

#101 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,103 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:05 AM

Ok, so taking a page out of your book. I've been watching hockey with a critical eye for over 20+ years. I guess that also means my experience translates to knowledge.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that just because you have been around hockey for 45+ years doesn't excuse you for your poor judgement in Raymond. 45+ years is not a trump card to an argument when you are wrong.

That's actually an argument fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". Google it if you have no idea what I'm talking about. Except in your case and your vague description of your credentials, you're not even much of an "authority"


Also, what was the point of bringing up Kesler's goal when we are talking about Raymond? You are the one that brought it up.

Your only point was to say Kes' shot went off a d-man too?

Wow, the 45+ years of hockey knowledge is really paying off.  I'm really glad your 45+ years of experience really came to help me on these boards because I wasn't sure Kes' shot went off a d-man...


So you've been "watching" hockey for 20 years and you think that makes you expert enough to say that someone is "wrong" even though that someone actually plays and has played at a high level?Google anything you like, unless you've ridden the buses and been in the trenches, your understanding of the game is limited.As I said before, I occasionally have these battles with CDC rookies who decide to come here and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. They're all long gone and I'm still here.My posting history is there for all to see if they care to. Feel free to have a look and then come back and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
  • 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!

#102 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:23 AM

So you've been "watching" hockey for 20 years and you think that makes you expert enough to say that someone is "wrong" even though that someone actually plays and has played at a high level?Google anything you like, unless you've ridden the buses and been in the trenches, your understanding of the game is limited.As I said before, I occasionally have these battles with CDC rookies who decide to come here and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. They're all long gone and I'm still here.My posting history is there for all to see if they care to. Feel free to have a look and then come back and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.


Again, I really don't care if you've ridden the buses, blah blah. I still don't think your assessment of Raymond is correct.


Here's my take.

He's a better version of someone like Matthew Lombardi. Raymond is a good 2-way checking forward that lacks vision, grit and hands which prevents him from being a bonafide top 6 player.
He "may" get some top 6 time on a basement team or on this team when we are battling through injuries but is more suited as a 3rd line player.
His career ceiling is 50-55 pts but his career average will be more like 35-40 pts and will never make more than 3m.

Moreover, he will never be the one leading his line. He will always be a complimentary player on a line. It's his linemates that will determine whether he finishes the season with 55 pts or 35 pts.

Why I say trading him is not a bad option is that right now, his value seems inflated around the league and we are dealing from a position of strength.

Right now, Raymond's biggest selling point is that he has the perception around the league as a potential 2nd liner with great speed who is still young.

However, once Raymond solidifies his role as a 3rd line player and gets older without improving, we will not get as much return for him in a trade.

I basically see him turning into a Manny Maholtra (minus the faceoff skills).
That's still a very respectable NHL career but those guys can be picked up for 2.5m or less on the open market and my thoughts are, if we can get an upgrade right now, we should do that.

Right now Raymond seems to be worth more than what he really brings to the team.

Ok so I'll ask you straight up.

What is Raymond's potential and will he achieve it?

Your turn. How do you see his career playing out?

Edited by CanucksJay, 06 February 2012 - 09:35 AM.

  • 0

#103 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,103 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:19 AM

Again, I really don't care if you've ridden the buses, blah blah. I still don't think your assessment of Raymond is correct.


Here's my take.

He's a better version of someone like Matthew Lombardi. Raymond is a good 2-way checking forward that lacks vision, grit and hands which prevents him from being a bonafide top 6 player.
He "may" get some top 6 time on a basement team or on this team when we are battling through injuries but is more suited as a 3rd line player.
His career ceiling is 50-55 pts but his career average will be more like 35-40 pts and will never make more than 3m.

Moreover, he will never be the one leading his line. He will always be a complimentary player on a line. It's his linemates that will determine whether he finishes the season with 55 pts or 35 pts.

Why I say trading him is not a bad option is that right now, his value seems inflated around the league and we are dealing from a position of strength.

Right now, Raymond's biggest selling point is that he has the perception around the league as a potential 2nd liner with great speed who is still young.

However, once Raymond solidifies his role as a 3rd line player and gets older without improving, we will not get as much return for him in a trade.

I basically see him turning into a Manny Maholtra (minus the faceoff skills).
That's still a very respectable NHL career but those guys can be picked up for 2.5m or less on the open market and my thoughts are, if we can get an upgrade right now, we should do that.

Right now Raymond seems to be worth more than what he really brings to the team.

Ok so I'll ask you straight up.

What is Raymond's potential and will he achieve it?

Your turn. How do you see his career playing out?


You see, if you had just stuck to this instead of "you don't know what you're talking about" and "you're wrong" we'd have no problem.

Your assessments are fair and I'm certainly not against trading Raymond if the return is to the Canucks' benefit. Where we differ I suppose, is what that "beneficial" return might be.

It's my opinion, based on my years of playing and watching, that Raymond's value to the Canucks is underrated by many members of CDC, yourself included. However, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, as long as they don't try and belittle me, or tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

We'll agree to disagree on Mason Raymond. I think that considering the direction that NHL contracts are currently going, 2.5 million is pretty reasonable for what he brings to the table.

You don't. Fair enough. Time will tell who's right and who's wrong.
  • 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!

#104 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:36 AM

I thought your opening post was bad, but congrats on unseating it.

I don't know what game you were watching, but you obviously had your hater glasses on. Raymond did play well last night

Not only is this thread unoriginal, but it is inaccurate as well. Nice first post. You'll fit right in around here....


You see, if you had just stuck to this instead of "you don't know what you're talking about" and "you're wrong" we'd have no problem.

Your assessments are fair and I'm certainly not against trading Raymond if the return is to the Canucks' benefit. Where we differ I suppose, is what that "beneficial" return might be.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, as long as they don't try and belittle me, or tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.


It's funny that you are the one upset about getting belittled. Re-read what you first wrote. If you can't take it, don't dish it. (My knowledge from 30+ years of life)

We'll agree to disagree on Mason Raymond. I think that considering the direction that NHL contracts are currently going, 2.5 million is pretty reasonable for what he brings to the table.

You don't. Fair enough. Time will tell who's right and who's wrong.


My prediction is that Raymond's career earnings will average between 2.5-3.0 which is not impressive when he's already making 2.55 as an RFA and still has many years of UFA in front on him.

His career average in points will be 35-40 pts.

That's ok for a 3rd liner but if we can get a better player (solid top 6 or top 4 d-man) by trading Raymond + Pick, I think its worth it.

You still haven't come out and said exactly what you expect from Raymond career wise.

It just shows that you don't have the guts to really show what you think of him.

Do you see him as a 3rd liner or a top 6? Do you see him as a 35 pt guy or a 60 pt guy?

You're answers are so wishy washy it just makes you look too scared to actually have an opinion. You have 45+ years of experience. What do you think?

Edited by CanucksJay, 06 February 2012 - 10:38 AM.

  • 0

#105 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,103 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:33 AM

It's funny that you are the one upset about getting belittled. Re-read what you first wrote. If you can't take it, don't dish it. (My knowledge from 30+ years of life)



My prediction is that Raymond's career earnings will average between 2.5-3.0 which is not impressive when he's already making 2.55 as an RFA and still has many years of UFA in front on him.

His career average in points will be 35-40 pts.

That's ok for a 3rd liner but if we can get a better player (solid top 6 or top 4 d-man) by trading Raymond + Pick, I think its worth it.

You still haven't come out and said exactly what you expect from Raymond career wise.

It just shows that you don't have the guts to really show what you think of him.

Do you see him as a 3rd liner or a top 6? Do you see him as a 35 pt guy or a 60 pt guy?

You're answers are so wishy washy it just makes you look too scared to actually have an opinion.  You have 45+ years of experience. What do you think?


Scared? That's a strange thing to say. I "think" he's a lot more valuable to the team than you do and I factor more than points into that equation. What he'll do in the future is simply a guess, but if he can maintain what he's doing now, I'll be okay with it

To put it in perspective, I'm fine with keeping Hansen around at his current numbers as well.

As I said earlier, I'm okay with him being traded as long as the return is worth it. Since we have little wiggle room Cap wise, any trade involving him would have to be for someone who has a similar Cap number. I just don't see anyone out there who fits the bill.

Anyway, the whole "career" thing is not really how this "debate" got started. We disagreed on how Raymond played in the Detroit game and apparently, we still do.
  • 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!

#106 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 06 February 2012 - 12:37 PM

If I was in fact a kid living out of my parent's basement, I would probably take the same approach you took (talking about your 45+ years of hockey experience (like it meant ANYTHING on an internet forum) and try to defend myself by talking about how my standard of living is most likely much higher than yours but this is a hockey forum so I'll keep on point.

You were the one that made the mistake of comparing Raymond's shot to Kesler's shot. If the ONLY thing in common was the fact that they were both deflected, then it was a pretty poor comparison and probably should have been omitted as it does not help in supporting ANY arguments at all.

The only logical argument it could potentially support is the old hockey term of "shoot from anywhere". (Of course, you did not say that and that was not your point so that point is moot)

But going on, if you WERE in fact smart enough to say that, I would counter that that's precisely Mason Raymond's problem. He really does shoot from "anywhere" and when he has good line mates that are in better position and doesn't use them, he becomes the detriment to that line.


Isn't it strange though that almost all the criticisms of Raymond are found in any top 6 player. It is just that when Raymond does them there are those who sit in front of their tvs refusing to blink just so they can haul them off their notebook the next day on here.

Ironically this was the normal way to critique Ballard until fairly recently.

I am not saying Raymond plays out of his skin every night. Which player does? However, it is obvious that the coaches and management view Raymond's appetite for work to be one of the key factors in the Canucks being successful. His speed is another one of his strengths, that seems to endear him to MG and AV.

His points scoring is comparable to Booth over the last 4 years and almost twice the production of Higgins and Hansen. Not one of these players have the additional strengths to the same degree that Raymond has.

So what we are in effect saying is that it would be extremely difficult to replace Raymond and his wide range of qualities at anything like his salary.
  • 1
Kevin.jpg

#107 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 06 February 2012 - 01:06 PM

Pretty weak post again bro... just keep skirting the issue...

By now, it's pretty clear where I stand with Raymond.
IMO, He is a 3rd liner that has great speed and is reliable defensively. (yes, MY opinion)
A 3rd liner RFA with a cap hit of 2.55 who is defensively sound but lacks size and grit is iffy. Just to make it clear, I would even prefer someone like Tim Jackman over Raymond (on 3rd line) as he'll add toughness to the team while still playing solid 2-way hockey (at a smaller cap hit)

I feel like Raymond's problem is that he's not good enough to be top 6 as his offensive instincts and skills aren't quite there. However he's also just above average as a 3rd liner as there are people better suited for that role that bring grit, size, toughness while maintaining a solid 2-way game.

After ALL your posts, I still have no idea where you stand with Raymond.
Is he a 3rd liner or a 2nd liner?
Is he better offensively or defensively?

To make as many posts as you did in this thread and still be unclear about your view of Raymond is pretty comical. You called me a kid so talk to me like a 4 year old and please let me know in a direct manner instead of fluff like, "I'd be happy if he keeps playing the same way".

Also, the arguement wasn't just about the Detroit game so stop trying to change the arguement.

Here's what you wrote



I thought your opening post was bad, but congrats on unseating it.

Not only is this thread unoriginal, but it is inaccurate as well. Nice first post. You'll fit right in around here....



So I'm only going by what you wrote.

If you think my original post was bad (which had NOTHING to do with the Detroit game), then clearly, it's NOT just about the Detroit game. Also you called the thread unoriginal and singled out my "nice first post" which again was NOT about the Detroit game.

Sorry for lawyering your a$$ but I just find it funny when people flip flop their arguements.
  • 2

#108 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 06 February 2012 - 01:14 PM

Isn't it strange though that almost all the criticisms of Raymond are found in any top 6 player. It is just that when Raymond does them there are those who sit in front of their tvs refusing to blink just so they can haul them off their notebook the next day on here.

Ironically this was the normal way to critique Ballard until fairly recently.

I am not saying Raymond plays out of his skin every night. Which player does? However, it is obvious that the coaches and management view Raymond's appetite for work to be one of the key factors in the Canucks being successful. His speed is another one of his strengths, that seems to endear him to MG and AV.

His points scoring is comparable to Booth over the last 4 years and almost twice the production of Higgins and Hansen. Not one of these players have the additional strengths to the same degree that Raymond has.

So what we are in effect saying is that it would be extremely difficult to replace Raymond and his wide range of qualities at anything like his salary.


I disagree with you about this.
I've never complained about Bieksa (when he was everyone's whipping boy) or I still don't complain about Ballard.

I feel like I'm calling everything as is.

With Ballard, I feel like he really hasn't been given a fair chance and my thoughts are, at 4.2m, if we arent going to let him play HIS style of hockey, might as well trade him. It's not Ballard's fault.

He's prob the best d-man at rushing the puck up the ice with speed BUT, we never let him do it. We want him to do something else.

Hell, we even play Rome over him on the PP

Raymond on the other hand has been given many opportunities from 2nd to 4th line.
It's not a coincidence that Booth and Higgins have taken his spot.

AV gave Raymond all the chance in the world to keep his spot on 2nd and Raymond was the one that blew it.

Ballard has never been given a fair shake by AV which is unfortunate.

What extra strengths does Raymond have over Booth, Higgins and Hansen?

In my opinion its those 3 guys that have the extra strength that Raymond lacks (such as, strength along the boards, going to the dirty areas)

Edited by CanucksJay, 06 February 2012 - 01:16 PM.

  • 0

#109 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,103 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 02:29 PM

Pretty weak post again bro... just keep skirting the issue...

By now, it's pretty clear where I stand with Raymond.
IMO, He is a 3rd liner that has great speed and is reliable defensively. (yes, MY opinion)
A 3rd liner RFA with a cap hit of 2.55 who is defensively sound but lacks size and grit is iffy. Just to make it clear, I would even prefer someone like Tim Jackman over Raymond (on 3rd line) as he'll add toughness to the team while still playing solid 2-way hockey (at a smaller cap hit)

I feel like Raymond's problem is that he's not good enough to be top 6 as his offensive instincts and skills aren't quite there. However he's also just above average as a 3rd liner as there are people better suited for that role that bring grit, size, toughness while maintaining a solid 2-way game.

After ALL your posts, I still have no idea where you stand with Raymond.
Is he a 3rd liner or a 2nd liner?
Is he better offensively or defensively?

To make as many posts as you did in this thread and still be unclear about your view of Raymond is pretty comical. You called me a kid so talk to me like a 4 year old and please let me know in a direct manner instead of fluff like, "I'd be happy if he keeps playing the same way".

Also, the arguement wasn't just about the Detroit game so stop trying to change the arguement.

Here's what you wrote





So I'm only going by what you wrote.

If you think my original post was bad (which had NOTHING to do with the Detroit game), then clearly, it's NOT just about the Detroit game. Also you called the thread unoriginal and singled out my "nice first post" which again was NOT about the Detroit game.

Sorry for lawyering your a$$ but I just find it funny when people flip flop their arguements.


I did think your first post was bad, mainly because you used phrases like "Raymond always shoots on a 2 on 1". Anyone who uses such absolutes has a pre-existing bias, IMO.

However, it was your second post that I was commenting on, and it most certainly did have something to do with the Detroit game. You disagreed with another poster who said that Raymond had played well in that game, then went on with ridiculous hyperbole, saying that Raymond had spent "half the game on his hands and knees".

But hey, good job on the "lawyerin'" there, Matlock
  • 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!

#110 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 06 February 2012 - 03:57 PM

I did think your first post was bad, mainly because you used phrases like "Raymond always shoots on a 2 on 1". Anyone who uses such absolutes has a pre-existing bias, IMO.

However, it was your second post that I was commenting on, and it most certainly did have something to do with the Detroit game. You disagreed with another poster who said that Raymond had played well in that game, then went on with ridiculous hyperbole, saying that Raymond had spent "half the game on his hands and knees".

But hey, good job on the "lawyerin'" there, Matlock



Here are your comments...

"I thought your opening post was bad, but congrats on unseating it.

Not only is this thread unoriginal, but it is inaccurate as well. Nice first post. You'll fit right in around here...."


Let me break this down for you. I took the liberty of bolding some of the key phrases so you understand more clearly. These bolded comments would seem like you not only disagreed with my assessment of Raymond on the Detroit game but the "thread" in general from the first post on.

So then don't say

"Anyway, the whole "career" thing is not really how this "debate" got started. We disagreed on how Raymond played in the Detroit game and apparently, we still do."

By writing that comment, you are saying that the "debate" occured as a result of our differences in the Detroit game when in fact, the WHOLE point of the thread was a disagreement from the beginning. It just sounds like you are looking for a clause to get out of the argument when the scope of the argument is the overall play of Mason Raymond (not 1 game)
  • 0

#111 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,103 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 04:12 PM

Here are your comments...

"I thought your opening post was bad, but congrats on unseating it.

Not only is this thread unoriginal, but it is inaccurate as well. Nice first post. You'll fit right in around here...."


Let me break this down for you. I took the liberty of bolding some of the key phrases so you understand more clearly. These bolded comments would seem like you not only disagreed with my assessment of Raymond on the Detroit game but the "thread" in general from the first post on.

So then don't say

"Anyway, the whole "career" thing is not really how this "debate" got started. We disagreed on how Raymond played in the Detroit game and apparently, we still do."

By writing that comment, you are saying that the "debate" occured as a result of our differences in the Detroit game when in fact,  the WHOLE point of the thread was a disagreement from the beginning. It just sounds like you are looking for a clause to get out of the argument when the scope of the argument is the overall play of Mason Raymond (not 1 game)


As I said, I disagreed with your overall assessment of Raymond's play from post #1. I disagree that he "always" does the things that you claim. I also felt that you'd fit right in around here because there are several CDCers trotting out the hackneyed "perimeter player" argument.

For me, the debate started when you claimed that Raymond spent "half the game on his hands and knees", then proceeded to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Of course, we still disagree on Raymond's overall play. Frankly, I think that Gillis would be considered a fool if he did as you suggest and traded Raymond for Jackman.
  • 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!

#112 TheCammer

TheCammer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 08

Posted 06 February 2012 - 04:27 PM

Prorating his numbers from last year to the 82 games he played in 09/10.

POINTS
Even strength:
09/10 - 35
10/11 - 37

PP:
09/10 - 18
10/11 - 7

Total points:
09/10 - 53
10/11 - 45.7

AVERAGE ICE TIME PER GAME
Even strength:
09/10 - 13:41
10/11 - 13:21

PP:
09/10 - 2:04
10/11 - 1:22

Total:
09/10 - 17:19
10/11 - 15:47


Do you see the differences? Even strength he was actually on pace to exceed his 09/10 season. The drop in production came on the PP, but that was to be expected. His PP time dropped by about 33% in large part because the 2nd unit didn't get on the ice as often.

Now consider these two tidbits:

1 - Raymond suffered three injuries last season (sprained wrist, broken thumb, shoulder) all of which would have affected shooting and passing. Yet he was on pace to exceed his previous seasons even strength production. Explain that one.

2 - Kesler was moved to the 1st PP unit and was replaced by Malhotra. That's replacing a 70+ point center with a 25 point center. Combined with 33% less PP time, how could any logical being expect Raymond to even come close to his previous years PP production even if you ignore the shot affecting injuries.

You can't just look at point totals and make an assumption. You have to look at all the numbers and take into consideration circumstance that will have an impact. Considering those circumstances I think it's amazing that his point pace only dropped 7.3 points over an 82 game season from the previous year. Last year the average second line winger produced 44 points. Which is what Raymond was on pace for with less PP time and without Kesler on that second unit.

Honestly, I was more critical of Raymond in 09/10 than 10/11 largely because of his defensive play. Last year I wasn't critical of him at all. His defensive play took a leap last year while under the circumstances (injuries and PP) I expected a loss of production.

The truth is Raymond is nowhere near as bad as people make out. Those 40-50 point players tend to be streaky. That's the reality. Raymond may well be part of a trade. I for one won't be disappointed if he isn't. He provides offensive depth and defensive responsibilty. But I won't be broken hearted if he is part of a trade either.

On to this years stats. I went through the last 20 games and Hodgson had 15 points to Raymonds 10 points. But 5 of Hodgsons points have come on the PP where Raymond has seen little playing time in the last 20 games. Which means even strength Hodgson has 10 points to Raymonds 10 points in that period. Is that actually bad considering how far ahead physically Hodgson is in comparison to Raymond in that time? One more stat of note: Hodgson has one 2 goal game this season coming January 21st against San Jose. Raymond was first assist on both of them. Selfish biatch that he is. In fact all four out of five of Raymonds assists in that time have been first assists. While of Hodgsons 7 assists only 3 were first assists with two of those coming on the PP. Also 5 of Raymonds points came in the first ten games and five in the last ten games. So much fior inconsistant.

BTW, Hodgson is listed as 6' 185 lbs. The same height and weight as Raymond. Wouldn't that make him weak and undersized as well?


I'll say it again, Raymond is nowhere near as bad as people make out. He's simply gone from "Everybody Loves Raymond" to "Everybodies Whipping Boy". One thing I've learned in my years on this board is there always has to be a primary whipping boy and a couple of secondary. And typically the criticism is simplistic and grossly exagerated.


Well said Baggins. Good Post +1
  • 2
Posted Image

#113 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,772 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 06 February 2012 - 04:49 PM

Raymond is a decent-to-good (and occasionally VERY good) player. He shouldn't get dogged so much.

That said, he has proven that he does not take his game to another level in the playoffs. In fact, all facets of his production seem to slip in the postseason. This is evident with his 15 points in 46 playoff games.

Last postseason, he threw 19 (lightweight) hits. The only players who played even half as many games as he did who had less hits were the twins. And yes, he is a penalty killer, but how effective is he? Malhotra actually managed to equal his blocked shots in 1/4 of the games, and with 1/2 of the eyes. Our penalty killing was in the middle of the pack for the playoffs. The year before we had the worst PK in the history of the NHL of all teams to actually win a series.

Offensively, anything Raymond can do, Sedin/Sedin/Kesler/Burrows/Booth/Higgins/Hodgson can do better.
Defensively, anything Raymond can do, Kesler/Burrows/Malhotra/Lapierre/Hansen/Higgins can do better.

He's a tweener. Great for depth, but far from expendable. If we need cap space and a trading chip to improve another area, he's the obvious choice. That doesn't mean he sucks, or is useless - he's be a shoe-in on the 2nd line for at least 1/3 of the league. But for the Canucks, they have simply acquired/developed enough players to make him unnecessary.

Edited by D-Money, 06 February 2012 - 04:52 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#114 Vaeneir

Vaeneir

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 11

Posted 06 February 2012 - 04:54 PM

Hey dummy, I don't know if you've noticed, but NOBODY on the Canucks draws penalties anymore. It's not because the calls aren't there to make, it is because they just aren't being made. Nobody is calling trupping, interference, holding, slashing, etc on teams playing the Canucks. It is a league thing. Can't have one team with a PP miles ahead of everyone else, it discourages the mayhem.


Nobody calls penalties in favor of the Canucks because the Canucks embellish to get the powerplay. I'm not talking about diving, here, I haven't seen any Canucks truly dive in a long time. I'm talking about trying to make the infraction look worse than it is as opposed to trying to play through it.

In Booth's first couple of games here, I watched him split the D, get hooked, battle his ass off anyway and end up getting taken to the ice. A penalty was called and the Canucks went on the powerplay. It was at that moment that I realized that it's been a long time since I've seen a player fight their way through an illegal play. The majority of the team just seems to go down too easily and hope for the call; if I were a ref, I'd look at that and think "he could've fought through that check if he tried", and allow play to go on. I've thought that on numerous occasions. If the 'Nucks start fighting through the checks, battling hard and demonstrating that they are giving it every damn ounce of fight they've got to keep going and they STILL go down, the refs won't have a choice but to call the infraction. Never know, it might even generate a scoring chance or two. D-men don't generally resort to holding, hooking and tripping unless they've been beat on the play and are trying to prevent a scoring chance to begin with.

I know I hijacked the topic a bit here, but that's what I want to see: players fighting through the checks rather than allowing them to happen.
  • 0

#115 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 07 February 2012 - 08:56 AM

Raymond is a decent-to-good (and occasionally VERY good) player. He shouldn't get dogged so much.

That said, he has proven that he does not take his game to another level in the playoffs. In fact, all facets of his production seem to slip in the postseason. This is evident with his 15 points in 46 playoff games.

Last postseason, he threw 19 (lightweight) hits. The only players who played even half as many games as he did who had less hits were the twins. And yes, he is a penalty killer, but how effective is he? Malhotra actually managed to equal his blocked shots in 1/4 of the games, and with 1/2 of the eyes. Our penalty killing was in the middle of the pack for the playoffs. The year before we had the worst PK in the history of the NHL of all teams to actually win a series.

Offensively, anything Raymond can do, Sedin/Sedin/Kesler/Burrows/Booth/Higgins/Hodgson can do better.
Defensively, anything Raymond can do, Kesler/Burrows/Malhotra/Lapierre/Hansen/Higgins can do better.

He's a tweener. Great for depth, but far from expendable. If we need cap space and a trading chip to improve another area, he's the obvious choice. That doesn't mean he sucks, or is useless - he's be a shoe-in on the 2nd line for at least 1/3 of the league. But for the Canucks, they have simply acquired/developed enough players to make him unnecessary.


I agree with this assessment. He is not an awful player. Problem is we have different players playing different roles on the team and while he is decent at all the roles (utility player) he does not excel at any one role which puts him in no man's land.

My point for trading him is that most teams still see him as a young speedy 2nd liner capable of putting up 60 pts and perhaps building from it when I personally think that 1 year was an anomaly.
  • 0

#116 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,772 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 07 February 2012 - 09:22 AM

I will say this though: If Higgins doesn't get his health straightened out, then Raymond will probably be staying.
  • 0
Posted Image

#117 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 07 February 2012 - 09:32 AM

(This is Joe Shmo's wife, I just wanted to say something of my own..)

Give the op a break, guys. I'm not going to get into the debate of Raymond; I'm not my own account and don't feel like it anyway. (I won't even get into it with my husband. :)) At least recognize that this op has articulately outlined his thoughts and ideas and, although he isn't pro-Raymond, has tried to be multi-dimensional and list some of his pro's too. (That's becoming a rarity in debates, I've found.) This isn't a badly written thread where some guy comes on and writes "Me hatez Raymoond. He sukz so baad." all in caps lock and with no real argument pro or con for the player, just that he doesn't like him. This op actually has intelligence. I just wish people would debate the content of the post if they are so inclined rather than comment on the originality of the title. Or did people read it? I was under the assumption anyway that the title was a bit of a joke rather than some mindless copy of the burrows thread anyway.

Just sayin'. Carry on. :)

(By the way, this is in reference to the first couple pages. I got sick of reading the same things after that, so if the content changed, my apologies. :))

Edited by Joe_Shmo, 07 February 2012 - 09:35 AM.

  • 1
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#118 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 07 February 2012 - 12:06 PM

Let's pick the up coming game against the Preds.

Is there even one of you Raymond haters prepared to put their money where their judgement is and do a scouting report on Mason Raymond?

You must declare your intention to carry it out now, not come up with one after the game.
I mean it's a gift to you guys...........right? He is just so bad it must be the easiest report in history.

He's greedy.
He falls down a half the time he's on the ice.
He won't go to the net or the dirty areas.
He has no chemistry with his line mates.

This should be an easy win then for you guys.

Also please be professional and note.

His forecheck / backcheck.
His line mates.
His transition play.

Or you can just chicken out and continue to post biased garbage on here and expect us to take notice.
  • 1
Kevin.jpg

#119 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 07 February 2012 - 12:56 PM

(This is Joe Shmo's wife, I just wanted to say something of my own..)

Give the op a break, guys. I'm not going to get into the debate of Raymond; I'm not my own account and don't feel like it anyway. (I won't even get into it with my husband. :)) At least recognize that this op has articulately outlined his thoughts and ideas and, although he isn't pro-Raymond, has tried to be multi-dimensional and list some of his pro's too. (That's becoming a rarity in debates, I've found.) This isn't a badly written thread where some guy comes on and writes "Me hatez Raymoond. He sukz so baad." all in caps lock and with no real argument pro or con for the player, just that he doesn't like him. This op actually has intelligence. I just wish people would debate the content of the post if they are so inclined rather than comment on the originality of the title. Or did people read it? I was under the assumption anyway that the title was a bit of a joke rather than some mindless copy of the burrows thread anyway.

Just sayin'. Carry on. :)

(By the way, this is in reference to the first couple pages. I got sick of reading the same things after that, so if the content changed, my apologies. :))


Thanks for that.

I think the title had everyone up in arms. CDC has a pretty quick trigger finger
  • 0

#120 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 07 February 2012 - 01:07 PM

Let's pick the up coming game against the Preds.

Is there even one of you Raymond haters prepared to put their money where their judgement is and do a scouting report on Mason Raymond?

You must declare your intention to carry it out now, not come up with one after the game.
I mean it's a gift to you guys...........right? He is just so bad it must be the easiest report in history.

He's greedy.
He falls down a half the time he's on the ice.
He won't go to the net or the dirty areas.
He has no chemistry with his line mates.

This should be an easy win then for you guys.

Also please be professional and note.

His forecheck / backcheck.
His line mates.
His transition play.

Or you can just chicken out and continue to post biased garbage on here and expect us to take notice.


I'm busy to do one on a weeknight against the Preds or Wild but I wouldn't mind doing one on Sat against the Flames.This is actually an advantage to the Raymond fans because he seems to play his best against Calgary (home town Cochrane). This way I have Sunday to review (PVR) and post.

Bodee are you up for the Sat game?

I think we need a bigger sample size but we can start with this. What is a decent sample size?

We all know one game does not make or break a player and my thoughts are based on watching many seasons of Raymond.

P.S.

I know what Raymond does well and I've commented on it so I actually don't think its as biased as many people think.

If I was to grade Mason Raymond on his skill set, I would grade

Speed: A
Balance: C+
Defensive Awareness:B+ (Good on the back checks, decent when puck is already in the defensive zone)
Shot: C+
Pass:C
Strength: C-
Vision: C


Please feel free to add categories or give your own grades.

Edited by CanucksJay, 07 February 2012 - 01:20 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 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.