Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 11 votes

Linden For Gm


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
269 replies to this topic

#91 thema

thema

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 01 February 2013 - 01:36 PM

Edit: Oh and we aren't dirty, Classless, disrespectful, exc. We are actually one of the more classy & respectful teams.




Pretty much the whole rest of the hockey world disagrees with you I'm afraid. Bert/Moore, Burrows' biting and hair pulling, Kesler's incessant diving, the constant whining from the GM on down, the Rypien "memorial" controversy, the riot where at least 60% of the participants were wearing Canucks merch... The list is almost endless.

Oh, and it sure seems that Trevor has distanced himself from this ownership group as much as he can without actually publicly criticising it. Methinks it's the Aquillini's. Maybe he has tried to do real estate business with them (where they have a chequered history apparently).

Edited by thema, 01 February 2013 - 01:39 PM.

  • 0

#92 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 February 2013 - 01:41 PM

Pretty much the whole rest of the hockey world disagrees with you I'm afraid. Bert/Moore, Burrows' biting and hair pulling, Kesler's incessant diving, the constant whining from the GM on down, the riot where at least 60% of the participants were wearing Canucks merch... The list is almost endless.


Every team has that stuff. Just to use Boston as an example.

Savard's biting, Ference flipping off the crowd, Boston Rioting, Everyone Diving, Marchand sloughfooting, Bias commentators, overly cocky fans, not showing respect off the ice (In scrums), exc.

Our team actually shows respect, everyone calls us dirty yet our team is full of respectful europeans. This era of the team isn't all that dirty or classless at all, we barley get suspended, we don't go for dirty hits, we show respect for opponents. We are just unfairly labelled. I'm fine with it as we will never shake that label but it's the truth we aren't nearly as dirty, and cheap, and cocky, exc. as some think.
  • 1

zackass.png


#93 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,731 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 01 February 2013 - 01:54 PM

Just because Trevor was a great hockey player and leader does not make him a candidate for the role as GM. He does not have the skills in contract law, agency law, and accounting that are required for the job. Yes, people like the guy, but it still does not mean they will sign with him.

I understand Trevor played a pivotal role in the 2004 bargaining process, but before you go and give him the GM role, should he not at least have some experience as an assistant first.

This thread makes no sense to me.
  • 0
Posted Image


#94 NZCanuck

NZCanuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:13 PM

Tell us why. There is nothing worse than just making statements without backing up your point.

Gillis has done a fine job as GM, and as someone said, there will have to be major disappointment before he loses his job. Well, I can give you this disappointment: should we fail to make the SCF this year - yea, we could even fall out of the playoffs in this first round the way things are going. This season, the fans want nothing less than total victory and if they don't get it, more people will call out Gillis and expect him to have the boot.

I can point to a number of controversial moves that Gillis made that most fans disagree with - the only thing that will change their minds is a Stanley Cup.

Dealing away Hodgson - the trading of our future
Trading for Ballard - at best, an overpayment for a good defenseman (gave up the high potential Michael Grabner), at worst a total bust
Giving up Mitchell - Mitchell was still valuable, even despite his concussion, plus he brought irreplaceable intangibles
Not repairing rift with Linden - Linden, in the eyes of the fans, is the Vancouver Canucks itself. Bad for PR not to bring him back in some capacity.


Not sure those are all strong points.

The Hodgson trade may actually turn out to be the better trade for the Canucks.

Ballard has been a good D and has been our best this year. Gillis can't control how AV plays him.

Can't remember the situation around Mitchell but didn't he want more than we were willing to give as we didn't know how the concussion would pan out?

Yes the Linden thing could be done but it's not Gillis' call and he needs to focus on the team now- not the team that was.
  • 0

#95 foskco87

foskco87

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:46 PM

Yeah great idea, make Linden GM. With the witch-burning mob of a fan base that the canucks have? So when we lose 3 games in a row the whole canucks fan base will forget everything he did for our team and want his head on a pike. Especially the younger fans who wont have the same appreciation for Linden most of us have.
  • 0

#96 derr12

derr12

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 11

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

I hate Linden fans. Most unrealistic people ever. The guy was a decent player and great off the ice. Nothing more.


Don't forget that he is one bad mother "SHUT YO MOUTH!"

Im just talkin bout plays-with-busted-ribs, bodychecks dudes thru glass, capn canuck, Trevor Linden.

I also heard he killed hitler.
  • 0

#97 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:31 PM

Our team actually shows respect, everyone calls us dirty yet our team is full of respectful europeans. This era of the team isn't all that dirty or classless at all, we barley get suspended, we don't go for dirty hits, we show respect for opponents. We are just unfairly labelled. I'm fine with it as we will never shake that label but it's the truth we aren't nearly as dirty, and cheap, and cocky, exc. as some think.


If certain players aren't dirty, those respectful Europeans aren't really built for war. Specifically, Henrik was disappointing as a leader - he is well spoken and all, but he doesn't have the fire-in-the-belly determination to win, otherwise, he and his brother wouldn't be intimidated by the likes of Marchant and Bolland, and henceforth, would've actually put pucks in the net in the final round. Coupled with the likes of Burrows and Lappierre, it only makes them look worse.
  • 0

#98 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:42 PM

Not sure those are all strong points.

The Hodgson trade may actually turn out to be the better trade for the Canucks.

Ballard has been a good D and has been our best this year. Gillis can't control how AV plays him.

Can't remember the situation around Mitchell but didn't he want more than we were willing to give as we didn't know how the concussion would pan out?

Yes the Linden thing could be done but it's not Gillis' call and he needs to focus on the team now- not the team that was.


Well, surprisingly this trade is turning out well. Didn't really expect this, but even then, one can't help but feel the axe-above-you, what if something were to happen to cause another rift with Kassian and they trade him?

Okay, well now the Ballard matter is turning around - well after the moment was gone (in 2011). Again, there's no guarantee he and AV have sealed up their rift. Even then, I wouldn't have made that trade - it was a steep overpayment. I rather would have kept Mitchell and Bieksa and sign Hamhuis.

On Linden, it always pays to keep positive standing with your team's most important players in history. Rocky Wirtz understood that - when taking over the Hawks, he repaired the franchise's relationships with Bobby Hull and appointed him ambassador.

So really, Gillis is turning out to be hockey's John Cummins, rebuilding the ship only to sink it. That's why I still rest my case that Linden should take over. Or perhaps Smyl, as someone else suggested, for his in-house experience.
  • 0

#99 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:50 PM

If certain players aren't dirty, those respectful Europeans aren't really built for war. Specifically, Henrik was disappointing as a leader - he is well spoken and all, but he doesn't have the fire-in-the-belly determination to win, otherwise, he and his brother wouldn't be intimidated by the likes of Marchant and Bolland, and henceforth, would've actually put pucks in the net in the final round. Coupled with the likes of Burrows and Lappierre, it only makes them look worse.


Wait hold on a second...

So you want to change our GM because we are cheap, dirty, classless, disrespectful, exc. And then I present the notion that we actually aren't any of those things, and that we actually are quite classy, respectful, exc.

But then you respond by saying we can't win by being all those things. Which contradicts your original argument.

So what is your actual stance here? :blink:
  • 0

zackass.png


#100 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:27 PM

Wait hold on a second...

So you want to change our GM because we are cheap, dirty, classless, disrespectful, exc. And then I present the notion that we actually aren't any of those things, and that we actually are quite classy, respectful, exc.

But then you respond by saying we can't win by being all those things. Which contradicts your original argument.

So what is your actual stance here? :blink:


My stance is that those classy players may have character qualities - but not enough to win. Plus, the guys around them have character problems which only hamper the team's image and overall success (that is different from honest toughness from guys like Gino). Being dirty doesn't win you the Cup, neither does being classy, or having skill. Character is what separates winners from losers.

Gretzky didn't win four cups by being the most skilled player. He did so by being the ultimate character player - without it, he wouldn't have won one Cup nor would he have 2857 points at the end of the day. Bossy wouldn't have been the great goal scorer he was without his character. Stevens, for all his toughness, knew how to play with character (and understood when not to cross the lines), and won three Cups.
  • 0

#101 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:53 PM

My stance is that those classy players may have character qualities - but not enough to win. Plus, the guys around them have character problems which only hamper the team's image and overall success (that is different from honest toughness from guys like Gino). Being dirty doesn't win you the Cup, neither does being classy, or having skill. Character is what separates winners from losers.

Gretzky didn't win four cups by being the most skilled player. He did so by being the ultimate character player - without it, he wouldn't have won one Cup nor would he have 2857 points at the end of the day. Bossy wouldn't have been the great goal scorer he was without his character. Stevens, for all his toughness, knew how to play with character (and understood when not to cross the lines), and won three Cups.


We don't have character? Are you serious? This team is loaded with character.
  • 0

zackass.png


#102 thema

thema

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM

We don't have character? Are you serious? This team is loaded with character.


If you mean "characters" then I agree with you.
  • 1

#103 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,934 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:24 PM

Well, surprisingly this trade is turning out well. Didn't really expect this, but even then, one can't help but feel the axe-above-you, what if something were to happen to cause another rift with Kassian and they trade him?


The "rift" of which you speak was all about playing time. Something Hodgson seemed to feel entitled to despite a Selke and Art Ross winner ahead of him in the depth chart. Kassian on the other hand appears to be happy earning what he gets. He said himself his promotion to the top line can be taken away as easily as it was given. There seems to be a distinct attitude difference between the two.


Okay, well now the Ballard matter is turning around - well after the moment was gone (in 2011). Again, there's no guarantee he and AV have sealed up their rift. Even then, I wouldn't have made that trade - it was a steep overpayment. I rather would have kept Mitchell and Bieksa and sign Hamhuis.


Who says there's a rift to be sealed up? Ballard arrived damaged and was redamaged twice his first season. He didn't play well. At the time of the trade, and the signing of Hamhuis, Mitchell hadn't skated or even started working out since his concussion in January. He didn't even start skating (without contact) until mid August.

I didn't see the Ballard trade as a "steep overpayment" at all. Do you know why we got Ehrhoff so cheap from San Jose? We also took Brad Lukowich as a San Jose salary dump. Florida took Bernier off our hands as a salary dump. What else did Florida get for Ballard? A late first round pick that may or may not pan out (or be several years away from helping) and a waiver eligible prospect with a penchant for showing up to camp in poor shape. When you put it in realistic terms it doesn't sound like much for a proven NHL d-man. Florida got two future possibilities and an overpriced 3rd liner for a current top 4 d-man.

On Linden, it always pays to keep positive standing with your team's most important players in history. Rocky Wirtz understood that - when taking over the Hawks, he repaired the franchise's relationships with Bobby Hull and appointed him ambassador.


What makes you think there isn't a positive standing with Linden? I seem to recall him being on the ice for the Naslund number retirement. He'd only be there if he was invited. The only negative comment he's made since retiring was regarding Keenan. He even named Crawford and AV his his favorite coaches during his career.

So really, Gillis is turning out to be hockey's John Cummins, rebuilding the ship only to sink it. That's why I still rest my case that Linden should take over. Or perhaps Smyl, as someone else suggested, for his in-house experience.


Sure, back to back presidents trophies is a sinking ship.

It doesn't matter who the GM is, there is no guarantee at all of winning the cup. If there was, the free spending Red Wings would have won the cup every year for a decade. In a cap world a team can be favored, but anything can happen. Winning the cup requires three things: a good team, staying relatively healthy through the playoffs, and players getting hot at the right time. There's your big secret to winning the cup.
  • 1
Posted Image

#104 BigUncle16

BigUncle16

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,145 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 03

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:23 PM

Man no wonder why the rest of the nhl hates us.... People on this board want Gillis and Vigneault fired, and the whole freakin team traded. Kesler somehow went from god status/captain material to a useless and overrated guy who should be on the first plane out of town after the season. Edler, top 10 in dman points during the regular season, is everybodys new favourite scapegoat and apparently a completely worthless defenseman.

Vancouver has the worst fans in the nhl. Yea... we care about hockey, and we are passioniate, but we are also high maintenance, stuck up, and un-supportive. We are the only team in the playoffs who goes dead silent when losing, and boo's our own team instead of cheering like crazy to try to swing momentum if its not going their way.

Do we need changes.... sure I think so, but the amount of bi-polar fans on here is ridiculous! Gillis wins gm of the year, and then apparently should get the boot the next year? He's a hell of a gm and is always trying to improve the team. Its not his fault the guys he brought in have been given zero chance from the coach. If AV showed some more confidence in Hodgson, maybe he would still be here and wouldn't have demanded a trade because he was unhappy with his icetime. Maybe people wouldn't be criticisng the trade as much if Kassian was actually given a fair chance and played more than 3 minutes a night.

Anyways... bringing in Linden doesn't solve or guarantee anything. If this were to happen he would have to put in his time with the team and learn the ropes. Gillis has done a very good job and doesn't deserve to get the boot.


You've obviously never watched games played in Montreal. But agree with pretty much everything else you said. But being fickle fans is one thing, I don't get quite get the Trevor Linden worship in this city. Sure he was a great player, great guy and everything, but I don't get the idolization.
  • 0
Posted Image

#105 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:52 PM

We don't have character? Are you serious? This team is loaded with character.


Let us know when you've woken up...

What kind of character team:
- Has stars who get easily intimidated or frustrated, so they fall down on their job? (Sedins vs. Bolland, Luongo vs. Byfuglien, etc.)
- Challenges opponents only to back down from a real confrontation to avoid getting beat up?
- Resorts to playing dirty? (This would be fine if they were actually able and willing to follow through with their threats...)
- Treats players as expendable commodity (dealing them off without trying to fix the problem or giving them a second chance. Letting fans throw teir players under the bus and not defend them...)

This is only a tip of the iceberg. But really, with all of this, how can you call it a character team? And how can you call Gillis a success for creating character, when it really isn't here?
  • 0

#106 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:07 AM

The "rift" of which you speak was all about playing time. Something Hodgson seemed to feel entitled to despite a Selke and Art Ross winner ahead of him in the depth chart. Kassian on the other hand appears to be happy earning what he gets. He said himself his promotion to the top line can be taken away as easily as it was given. There seems to be a distinct attitude difference between the two.


That's why they could have put Hodgson on the second line, and simply shift Kesler over to a wing. That would've been in my view, a dynamic secondary two-way threat. Sometimes, people know they are worth more than what the "upper management" gives them, and no self-respecting player would settle for less. Gillis should've been more empowering to Hodgson here


Who says there's a rift to be sealed up? Ballard arrived damaged and was redamaged twice his first season. He didn't play well. At the time of the trade, and the signing of Hamhuis, Mitchell hadn't skated or even started working out since his concussion in January. He didn't even start skating (without contact) until mid August.

I didn't see the Ballard trade as a "steep overpayment" at all. Do you know why we got Ehrhoff so cheap from San Jose? We also took Brad Lukowich as a San Jose salary dump. Florida took Bernier off our hands as a salary dump. What else did Florida get for Ballard? A late first round pick that may or may not pan out (or be several years away from helping) and a waiver eligible prospect with a penchant for showing up to camp in poor shape. When you put it in realistic terms it doesn't sound like much for a proven NHL d-man. Florida got two future possibilities and an overpriced 3rd liner for a current top 4 d-man.


AV almost rarely ever played Ballard, even when the guy was healthy - often times, he resorted to using Rome. Even when playing and at good health, he was still underwhelming for the price paid.

Grabner alone is worth more than what you rate him. He's managing almost a PPG this season, has far more runway, and would've been valuable depth. Limited depth hurt Vancouver in the final round against Boston with all the injuries piling up.

At best, Ballard wasn't worth what they traded.


What makes you think there isn't a positive standing with Linden? I seem to recall him being on the ice for the Naslund number retirement. He'd only be there if he was invited. The only negative comment he's made since retiring was regarding Keenan. He even named Crawford and AV his his favorite coaches during his career.


The fact that Linden isn't even sitting as a Canuck ambassador, even though that's just an honourary title. But earlier, people were suggesting there is a rift with Linden and the Canucks. Even if there isn't, his absence in an active role is taking the team the wrong way.

Sure, back to back presidents trophies is a sinking ship.

It doesn't matter who the GM is, there is no guarantee at all of winning the cup. If there was, the free spending Red Wings would have won the cup every year for a decade. In a cap world a team can be favored, but anything can happen. Winning the cup requires three things: a good team, staying relatively healthy through the playoffs, and players getting hot at the right time. There's your big secret to winning the cup.


The sinking ship was last season when they fell to the eighth seeded Kings and are hardly in a better position this season to even win a Presidents' Trophy, let alone battle back to the finals.
  • 0

#107 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,661 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 03

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:16 AM

Let us know when you've woken up...

What kind of character team:
- Has stars who get easily intimidated or frustrated, so they fall down on their job? (Sedins vs. Bolland, Luongo vs. Byfuglien, etc.)
- Challenges opponents only to back down from a real confrontation to avoid getting beat up?
- Resorts to playing dirty? (This would be fine if they were actually able and willing to follow through with their threats...)
- Treats players as expendable commodity (dealing them off without trying to fix the problem or giving them a second chance. Letting fans throw teir players under the bus and not defend them...)

This is only a tip of the iceberg. But really, with all of this, how can you call it a character team? And how can you call Gillis a success for creating character, when it really isn't here?


Has stars who get easily intimidated or frustrated, so they fall down on their job?


Lots of stars in this league gets frustrated or intimidated. Kane, Kessel to start.

- Challenges opponents only to back down from a real confrontation to avoid getting beat up?


Who? Sean Avery never played for us.

Resorts to playing dirty? (This would be fine if they were actually able and willing to follow through with their threats...)


Like what? Our team does not put guys into hospitals on purpose.

Treats players as expendable commodity (dealing them off without trying to fix the problem or giving them a second chance.


Samuelsson and Sturm were the only example. Every team gets rid of old guys who can't play any more. Gary Roberts got it from Pittsburgh off the top of my head.

We have a character team. Let me give you some examples:

Henrik shares with Bouwmeester as the NHL ironman. Considering he has a target on his back every game, that's pretty good.

Burrows and Tanev, undrafted, worked their way up from lowest of the low.

The fact that you don't hear Schneider nor Luongo bitching about not getting what they wanted. Look at Nash last year as a comparison.

Kesler's work ethic is second to none. He will do just about anything to win hockey games. Dustin Brown is a much better diver than Kesler. The only reason Kesler gets the heat is that he is actually not very good at it.

Malhotra. Hamhuis. Sedins. Salo before he was picked up by Tampa. These are some of the most respected guys in the league.
  • 0
Posted Image

#108 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:21 AM

You've obviously never watched games played in Montreal. But agree with pretty much everything else you said. But being fickle fans is one thing, I don't get quite get the Trevor Linden worship in this city. Sure he was a great player, great guy and everything, but I don't get the idolization.


Linden is more than a universally respected icon in Vancouver. He is an able leader with a substantial resume that, coupled with his legacy and importance within the city, should make him a candidate for the job. A dark-horse, an underdog maybe, but a definite contender.

- Former NHL captain - 9 years
- President of the NHLPA (During the lockout, he was a key negotiator for the players) - 8 years, plus being a repreentative since 1990
- Business owner/operator, Club 16 Fitness (1 year+)
- Real estate developer (4 years)
  • 0

#109 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:33 AM

Let us know when you've woken up...

What kind of character team:
- Has stars who get easily intimidated or frustrated, so they fall down on their job? (Sedins vs. Bolland, Luongo vs. Byfuglien, etc.)
- Challenges opponents only to back down from a real confrontation to avoid getting beat up?
- Resorts to playing dirty? (This would be fine if they were actually able and willing to follow through with their threats...)
- Treats players as expendable commodity (dealing them off without trying to fix the problem or giving them a second chance. Letting fans throw teir players under the bus and not defend them...)

This is only a tip of the iceberg. But really, with all of this, how can you call it a character team? And how can you call Gillis a success for creating character, when it really isn't here?


Did you see our game in anaheim the other night? I seem to recall Perry getting pretty frustrated. And I'm not sure how we treat players as an expendable commodity, I'm not always thrilled with our asset managment but we don't throw away valuable players, we actually treat our players very well. Not sure how that has to do with Character of this team anyways.

Oh and: LOL how do we resort to playing dirty?! :lol: What did we have 1 suspension last year? That came in the playoffs. Probably the least amount in the league. But yes we are very dirty.
  • 0

zackass.png


#110 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:34 AM

Lots of stars in this league gets frustrated or intimidated. Kane, Kessel to start.


That didn't stop Kane from scoring the Cup winning goal and avoid getting hit by the Canucks' bigger guys.

Who? Sean Avery never played for us.


Lapierre, Burrows, to name a few.

Like what? Our team does not put guys into hospitals on purpose.

Biting and spearing opponents, only to run away from big goons.


Samuelsson and Sturm were the only example. Every team gets rid of old guys who can't play any more. Gary Roberts got it from Pittsburgh off the top of my head.

You forgot Mitchell and Hodgson, guys who deserved every chance to prove themselves one more time until they win. At least with Roberts, he was already in his forties when Pittsburgh let him go. Linden, well he was done for as a player given his age, and someone else (not me, btw), suggested he take over as GM from Nonis (probably just a joke).

- I will say, back then, I wasn't in favour, because I didn't think he had qualified experience. But now, I say, if a former agent can be a GM, then why can't a former player who served as team captain, NHLPA president, and has business experience, hold the job. What's more, the team is following certain straits that just aren't helping, and so that's why I say it's time for a change.
  • 0

#111 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,934 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:00 AM

That's why they could have put Hodgson on the second line, and simply shift Kesler over to a wing. That would've been in my view, a dynamic secondary two-way threat. Sometimes, people know they are worth more than what the "upper management" gives them, and no self-respecting player would settle for less. Gillis should've been more empowering to Hodgson here


Sure displace your Selke winning center to make room for a whiney prospect. Makes complete sense. How would the Selke winner feel about that? Maybe the veteran feels "he worth more than that".

Unlike most here, I fully expected Hodgson to get moved. He wasn't going to sit on the third line until Henrik or Kes retired. Nor would he displace either any time soon. He was a moveable asset.


AV almost rarely ever played Ballard, even when the guy was healthy - often times, he resorted to using Rome. Even when playing and at good health, he was still underwhelming for the price paid.


Ballard didn't get the ice time because he wasn't playing well. Didn't I already say that? Edler is better offensively and Hamhuis is better defensively. Where does that put Ballard? Third pair with third pair ice time. He resorted to Rome because at least he played a safe simple game and was effective. When Ballard played well his ice time went up. When he played poorly his ice time went down. Doesn't that seem the least bit sensible?


Grabner alone is worth more than what you rate him. He's managing almost a PPG this season, has far more runway, and would've been valuable depth. Limited depth hurt Vancouver in the final round against Boston with all the injuries piling up.

At best, Ballard wasn't worth what they traded.


It doesn't matter what Grabner does after the fact. It matters what the situation was at the time he was moved. Our ENTIRE top six coming off a career year. Grabner never showing up to camp in game shape. Grabner being waiver eligible. Those are the FACTS of the situation. Add it up and Grabner had little chance of making the team but had enough potential he wouldn't clear waivers. Something is better than nothing. Which is what we would have had if we hadn't traded him. What does Florida have out of the deal? A draft pick with one whole NHL game under his belt. We have a d-man that's currently playing well. So who won the trade at this point? I could give a rats tush if Grabner ever scores 50 goals. It wasn;t going to happen here because he wouldn't have made the team and wouldn't have cleared waivers. Again, something is better than what Florida currently has out of the deal. How did Grabner work out for Florida? He showed up in poor shape (yet again), didn't impress (yet again), didn't clear waivers (as expected), and was claimed by a team even more desperate for forwards. Like that wouldn't have happened here on a contender whose top six veterans were coming off a career year. That was the situation. That's why he was moved.


The fact that Linden isn't even sitting as a Canuck ambassador, even though that's just an honourary title. But earlier, people were suggesting there is a rift with Linden and the Canucks. Even if there isn't, his absence in an active role is taking the team the wrong way.


What people? Your school chums? Linden has his property development business, his fitness center business, still does public speaking, his charity involvement, and is quite happy not having the team travel schedule. Yet, he still makes appearances at games. What on earth makes you think he's unhappy? It seems to me you're simply unhappy with his choices and would prefer to make crap up that face reality.


The sinking ship was last season when they fell to the eighth seeded Kings and are hardly in a better position this season to even win a Presidents' Trophy, let alone battle back to the finals.


Sure , falling to one of the best goalies in the league while our top two goal scorers were injured is just rediculous. Even the mighty free spending pre-cap Red Wings had first round exits. Keep hitting that panic button kid, this season is still young and we're still missing two of our second line players. Yet we're still leading our division. That just sucks.
  • 1
Posted Image

#112 canacks1970

canacks1970

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 06

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:08 AM

My stance is that those classy players may have character qualities - but not enough to win. Plus, the guys around them have character problems which only hamper the team's image and overall success (that is different from honest toughness from guys like Gino). Being dirty doesn't win you the Cup, neither does being classy, or having skill. Character is what separates winners from losers.

Gretzky didn't win four cups by being the most skilled player. He did so by being the ultimate character player - without it, he wouldn't have won one Cup nor would he have 2857 points at the end of the day. Bossy wouldn't have been the great goal scorer he was without his character. Stevens, for all his toughness, knew how to play with character (and understood when not to cross the lines), and won three Cups.



Being Dirty doesn't win you cups??? How did Philly win those cups in the 70's? You think Boston beat us with skill and class? So if Dale Weiss has great Character is he going to be a great goal scorer like Bossy? Of course not! Players like Gretzky and Bossy didn't put up point just on Charater alone . They were skilled as well as playing along with great players like Kurri , Coffee, Anderson . If you want to bring Character then Mr. Anderson didn't have the best Character but he ended up with winning 4 cups. Mr.Bossy was scoring goals because he had a great player playing along side of him like Brian Trottier,Nystrom, Clarke Gillies, Dennis Potvin.
Are you going to tell us the Dave the Hammer Schultz and Dave Semenko won cups on Character?
Just because Linden had a great Career and was the face of the franshice doen't mean he would be a great Gm. How did the Great One do as a coach? Not every player can be a great coach or Gm? You notice that Linden has stepped away from the game for like 5 years now and counting. It usually means he quite happy what he's doing outside of hockey.
Believe it or not most NHL Gm's or coaches weren't the greatest players. Most of them were plug players who had short Careers who struggled in the minors. Some of them never played an NHL game in their life. But somehow they became better coaches and Gm.
Why would you want to change Gm at this point. A Gm at this point has made this team stay competitive and never missed the playoffs under his helm.
  • 0

#113 canacks1970

canacks1970

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 06

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:28 AM

That didn't stop Kane from scoring the Cup winning goal and avoid getting hit by the Canucks' bigger guys.



Lapierre, Burrows, to name a few.


Biting and spearing opponents, only to run away from big goons.



You forgot Mitchell and Hodgson, guys who deserved every chance to prove themselves one more time until they win. At least with Roberts, he was already in his forties when Pittsburgh let him go. Linden, well he was done for as a player given his age, and someone else (not me, btw), suggested he take over as GM from Nonis (probably just a joke).

- I will say, back then, I wasn't in favour, because I didn't think he had qualified experience. But now, I say, if a former agent can be a GM, then why can't a former player who served as team captain, NHLPA president, and has business experience, hold the job. What's more, the team is following certain straits that just aren't helping, and so that's why I say it's time for a change.


Ok so do you understand we are in a cap era correct. You wanted to take a chance on Willie Mitchell? When everybody at the time didn't know if his Career was over. Highsight is 20/20.
Its time for a change? Hey were not the Toronto Maple Leafs here. Would you like to go back when this team miss the playoffs 5 years in a roll in the mid 90's early 2000? How about we go back when this team only finished above .500 TWICE thoughout the 70's and 80's? Gillis made a few mistakes like any other Gm. But what had he done that really hurt this team? He chance the mindset of this team when winning a Division isn't good enough anymore. And what traits do you look for in a team? Every year a certain teams wins the cup with a certain trait ,but it doesn't always work on another. So are you giving up on the season already?
Let see now we had one week of training camp and you expect the team to gel right away? We don't have Kess or Booth. We don't know how the other teams will do down the road if they can stay healthy.
  • 0

#114 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 April 2013 - 03:58 PM

Well, right now, I'm starting to see more and more dissatisfaction with MG's time at the helm. And I have to agree, the team is starting to lose it's direction and motivation to win. When this happens, it's time for a change in the leadership.

People say Linden is happy running Club 16 and his other ventures, and has no interest in returning. That I can understand. But I think he needs to consider changing his mind and take over Canucks so he can right the ship.


The other option, not stated in the headline is Stan Smyl. The man has by now plenty of experience throughout the organization and at all levels, from coaching, to scouting and development, and now senior advisor to the GM.

With either man in charge, I believe he would bring in players who have nothing but a real desire to make their home in Vancouver and with the fans. This kind of loyalty would reap almost unconditional public support, the kind TL or SS themselves garnered even when his chips were down. No more of the fickle, fairweather bandwagoners. He would also target character players who would make themselves accountable and can grind through even the dark days. Last but not least, he might change the coaching staff, bring in a fresh voice, someone who instills character, passion, and will to win. Put this in place, and then the wins would follow.

Edited by VanNuck, 03 April 2013 - 03:58 PM.

  • 1

#115 LuonGO Canucks Go

LuonGO Canucks Go

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,090 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 07

Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:05 PM

Lets start of by giving Linden some job in Farm team if it comes to Abbotsford

Edited by LuonGO Canucks Go, 03 April 2013 - 04:05 PM.

  • 0

#116 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:08 PM

I was going to suggest Linden for coach, but this makes sense, too.

... maybe he can be both. Clearly AV and Gillis see this team completely differently and have no ability to communicate with one another.
  • 0
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

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

#117 Honky Cat

Honky Cat

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 10

Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:17 PM

No disrespect to Trevor Linden,but great players do not neccesarily mean that thy're going to be great NHL GM's or coaches..Wayne Gretzky and Steve Yzerman say hello.
  • 0

#118 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:18 PM

I was going to suggest Linden for coach, but this makes sense, too.

... maybe he can be both. Clearly AV and Gillis see this team completely differently and have no ability to communicate with one another.


I was going to suggest Smyl would take over as head coach, but actually, despite his experience, from what other players said of him, he's not very effective in that capacity. He's better suited to being GM or assistant GM.

Don't know if Linden is capable behind the bench, but I think he's perfectly capable in the front office. But if he must change the coaching staff, he'd likely hire back his old boss Pat Quinn.
  • 0

#119 TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 13

Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:25 PM

But but but but but I like Gillis!
  • 0

#120 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:25 PM

Every team has that stuff. Just to use Boston as an example.

Savard's biting, Ference flipping off the crowd, Boston Rioting, Everyone Diving, Marchand sloughfooting, Bias commentators, overly cocky fans, not showing respect off the ice (In scrums), exc.


Don't you mean Marchand period?

No disrespect to Trevor Linden,but great players do not neccesarily mean that thy're going to be great NHL GM's or coaches..Wayne Gretzky and Steve Yzerman say hello.


This, all the way to the bank.

Edited by Gumballthechewy, 03 April 2013 - 04:27 PM.

  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!





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.