Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Sign Mikeal Samuelsson?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
76 replies to this topic

#61 Raph

Raph

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,598 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 09

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:39 AM

Old, injury prone, slow, dont need an aging vet.

last time i check it is 1 point in 5 games not 0

But i agree he was brought to score goals


Old, slow, injury prone guy got 5 pts in 7 playoff games. Trading Samuellson was a dumb move to bring a risky player with a high cap hit like Booth.

Samuellson had a reasonable cap hit, can actually put a wrist shot that doesn't hit the goalie square on the logo, and only 1 year left on his contract.

Oh, and Samuellson ahd a better PPG than Booth on a trapping Florida team.

#62 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:44 AM

Good players make things happen on their own. If Booth needs Kesler to be going for him to score, then he isn't worth almost as much as Kesler.

I still have faith that he can become that 30 goal scorer again, but his contract will never be as moneyball as Samuelsson's was. Which is why this was a risky trade. At best he was going to live up to his 4.2 million dollar salary, but worst case scenario, he beomes a fringe 20 goal scorer like Raymond with almost double the cap hit.

Agreed 100%. I hated that trade. Even though Sturm was sent packing in the deal.

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#63 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:45 AM

you're a moron

ftfy

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#64 pianoman13

pianoman13

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 06

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:50 AM

0 points in 5 games means he's on pace for 0 points....

The guy was brought in to score goals. If he was getting chances I'd give him a break, but he wasn't even close to scoring.


so what forwards did score in the playoffs then? we got 8 goals, with something like 3 or 4 by defence men. I'm glad we got him, once he plays a full season here without being injured by a suspendable hit he will be even better.

No videos in sig please. 


#65 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:03 PM

so what forwards did score in the playoffs then? we got 8 goals, with something like 3 or 4 by defence men. I'm glad we got him, once he plays a full season here without being injured by a suspendable hit he will be even better.

I think DeNiro agrees.
"I still have faith that he can become that 30 goal scorer again, but his contract will never be as moneyball as Samuelsson's was."

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#66 Zackassian

Zackassian

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 242 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 04

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:58 PM

Sammy would be pretty far down the depth chart for me. Could probably find a spot for him at 1 mil, but I doubt he would move back for that.

Gillis has also said we need to get bigger and younger. Sammy doesn't fit that mold.

Edited by Zackassian, 18 May 2012 - 12:59 PM.

It's a split squad game.

#67 The Situation

The Situation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,698 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 09

Posted 18 May 2012 - 01:16 PM

Posted Image













I would like Samuelsson back at a reasonable price but trading and resigning is just awkward for the team and the player.
Posted Image

#68 cmpunk

cmpunk

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 11

Posted 18 May 2012 - 02:37 PM

Many fans didn't realize how much better Sammy made our pp. Yeh he may have coughed it up a few times, but so did our defense in game 2 of the LA series. But on the pp, he had very good vision making good slick passes but he had a very good and accurate shot but most importantly got most of his shots through at the net.

He would make our pp better I think. Samuelsson would have been a huge help against the Bruins in SCF for sure.

Edited by cmpunk, 18 May 2012 - 02:38 PM.

Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#69 BenSurgeon

BenSurgeon

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 07

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:59 PM

He is not the type of player the Canucks need. They have to bring in more girtty players as they have enough of those "soft types". He is not a bottom 6 forward and there is no place to fit him into the top 6.
Ben Surgeon

#70 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:03 PM

I'd like him back. For a small price though/
Posted Image

#71 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,496 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:30 PM

So many emotionally based nostalgic sentimentalists here
Posted Image


CanucksSayEh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
When the playoffs come around, nobody is scared of getting in a fight, but every night, they get their mom to check under the bed for Raffi Torres.

#72 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,531 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:38 PM

I haven't a problem with Sammy. He went where the money was greatest and good for him. The games I watched him play he was pretty decent and definitely top 6.

I know it is off season but I am throwing out the concern that Sammy walked or was pushed. The Booth deal is still a question ? as we wait for next year. I liked the way he went to the net. Getting back to Sammy I question how he was used. Nice shot but on the PP point? What do we expect next year, Booth on the point? My question is whether this is leading to a coaching issue rather than a player issue. One of the best lines for the NJD was the 4th line with Steve Bernier. Oh, he has size, wasn't that what Van is needing? Just sayin.

#73 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,263 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:07 PM

Assuming (a big "if") no feathers were ruffled in the trade, Samuelsson would be exactly the type of target that would help. Sammy probably also thought that Burrows role with the Twins would have been his when he first signed here? He did throw a bit of disdain around from time to time.

A contract at $1.7 to $2.2 which delivered a 220 lb guy who was nifty enough with the puck to play on any of the top 3 lines would be smashing!

It will probably be someone else, but it's fun thinking! :rolleyes:

Thoughts??

Samuelsson is a UFA, and is an experienced playoff player. He would be a great depth addition I think. We all know how good he was a few years ago in the playoffs against the Kings, and I still think he would have helped a lot in the SCF.

Sign him? If so how much? I would give him a 1-2 year contract 1.5m-2m per.

But I would definately make a push to get him back here at the right price and if wants too come back.


Take personalities out of the way, and I can see clearly why MG traded for Booth. He's a faster, more athletic player. But Sammy was also more talented, certainly with the puck. So it was an incomplete trade, one that needed a 3rd player thrown into the mix to make it work. The trade left a play making void on the line.

It would be poetic to re-sign Sammy to fill that?

I'd take him over David "Bear Slayer" Booth at this point...


Yeah we need more gritty players, but it depends on who we can get? At 220 lbs, Sammy can compete physically on a line that has speed elsewhere. And he adds way more talent than any grit player we will get at his price. It could work?

Danny/Hank/Burr
Booth/Kess/Sammy


BenSurgeon


Wolves Prospect
  • Posted Image
  • Members
  • Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
  • 151 posts
    Joined: 02-March 07


Posted Today, 05:59 AM

He is not the type of player the Canucks need. They have to bring in more girtty players as they have enough of those "soft types". He is not a bottom 6 forward and there is no place to fit him into the top 6.

Edited by Canuck Surfer, 18 May 2012 - 06:15 PM.


#74 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,263 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:22 PM

I beg to differ and challenge your memory!

The Twins/Burrows had trouble competing against Bolland, Eager, Big Buff, Ladd, Versteeg and company. When Sammy was pulled up to play with the Twins, we still made it to game 7 with a bigger body playing with the Twins.

2009/10 stat line > 8 goals and 7 assists for 15 points in 12 play off games to lead all Canucks.

:bigblush:

I am a bit of a skeptic with regard to Samuelsson being a playoff performer.

He had one great series, in 2009 - 10 against the Kings. These were not the Kings we are currently seeing but rather a much softer and poorer defensive team. Against a physical Chicago team in the next series, Samuelsson was something of a no show. Heck, even Raymond scored more goals.

The following year, he was also something of a no show. Maybe he was injured, and if so that might explain why he was less than spectacular against the very physical Hawks and Predators.

regards,
G.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 18 May 2012 - 06:30 PM.


#75 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,106 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 18 May 2012 - 07:11 PM

I beg to differ and challenge your memory!

The Twins/Burrows had trouble competing against Bolland, Eager, Big Buff, Ladd, Versteeg and company. When Sammy was pulled up to play with the Twins, we still made it to game 7 with a bigger body playing with the Twins.

2009/10 stat line > 8 goals and 7 assists for 15 points in 12 play off games to lead all Canucks.

:bigblush:


2009/10 stat line vs the Kings: 7 goals and 4 assists in six games.

2009/10 stat line vs the Hawks: 1 goal and 3 assists in seven games.

Of those points, only the goal and one of the assists are associated with a Sedin also being involved in the scoring summary. The other two assists involve Wellwood.

Between the two of them, the Sedins got 8 goals and 20 assists over those two series. Against Chicago, they got 2 goals and 7 assists. While a big body may have helped the Sedins, I'm not so sure that Samuelsson was the big body which was needed.

I retain my skeptical view of Samuelsson being a playoff performer, at least based upon his two post seasons here.

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#76 fagin

fagin

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 08

Posted 18 May 2012 - 09:26 PM

Good players make things happen on their own. If Booth needs Kesler to be going for him to score, then he isn't worth almost as much as Kesler.

I still have faith that he can become that 30 goal scorer again, but his contract will never be as moneyball as Samuelsson's was. Which is why this was a risky trade. At best he was going to live up to his 4.2 million dollar salary, but worst case scenario, he beomes a fringe 20 goal scorer like Raymond with almost double the cap hit.

......Your 1st line could also be reversed.If Kesler needs his linemate to be going for him to score then he ain't worth his 5mil.

#77 fagin

fagin

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 08

Posted 18 May 2012 - 09:50 PM

It's funny how people always point the blame at Keslers wingers when every winger seems to struggle when paired up with Kesler. How many more wingers do we have to try out with Kesler before we realize Kesler is the problem? Centers are responsible for distributing the puck, the greatest centers of all time were all playmakers. Kesler plays like a winger which screws everyone on his line. Tunnel vision, if Kesler doesn't carry the line himself, the line sucks. That's because he doesn't know how to use anyone else. Great players make everyone else better, Kesler makes people worse. When are we going to realize Kesler isn't as great as he's hyped up to be?

........Very well put ! Myself I have said many times he,Kesler, is the common denominator on the 2nd line.And that is our main 2nd line problem.

Edited by fagin, 18 May 2012 - 09:51 PM.





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.