Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Rumours/Reports] Official Roberto Luongo Trade Thread (Keep it all here please)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4386 replies to this topic

#1711 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:47 PM

More GMs in is not a bad thing? The more the better, the higher the demand, the better the return.


Yes if Vinny is not on the table. If Stevie thinks we would consider taking Vinny's contract (when we absolutely said no before), it means MG's position has soften from rejections from other teams.

Edited by CB007, 26 June 2012 - 03:47 PM.

Posted Image

#1712 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:50 PM

we need a 3rd line center. Just so you know. And yeah, Kesler ain't coming back until December, Matthias can probably step into his role for

I'd rather get an offensive center. Somebody could move to the wing or ideally Kesler can be on the 3rd line. Kesler will still get his minutes but he will be in a more defensive role. Kesler isnt a passer and he struggles to create offense. Kesler would be perfect on the 3rd line against every teams top players and can still chip. The 3rd line could very well get more minutes then the 2nd line.
Canucks Need Offense. Last 2 playoffs have shown this.

Edited by sampy, 26 June 2012 - 03:53 PM.


#1713 arsenalian

arsenalian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 06

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:51 PM

Yes if Vinny is not on the table. If Stevie thinks we would consider taking Vinny's contract (when we absolutely said no before), it means MG's position has soften from rejections from other teams.

Ah gotcha. I'm sure MG isn't going to unload one long-term contract for an even more cumbersome one in Vinny's though.

#1714 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:55 PM

I'd rather get an offensive center. Somebody could move to the wing or ideally Kesler can be on the 3rd line. Kesler will still get his minutes but he will be in a more defensive role. Kesler isnt a passer and he struggles to create offense. Kesler would be perfect on the 3rd line against every teams top players and can still chip. The 3rd line could very well get more minites then the 2nd line.
Canucks Need Offense. Last 2 playoffs have shown this.


I agree with you, Kesler would make one of the best 3rd liners in the league, and it sure would give us one of the deepest scoring threats. But if we stick a rookie like Schroeder in there it would create controversy, and if we sign a veteran UFA it would surely cost a lot of cap space.
Posted Image

#1715 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,990 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:59 PM

Like I said before, I'd be happy if we got Vinny, as long as one of their top prospects is coming back too.

Vinny's still got some game left, he just needs a change of scenary.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#1716 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,723 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:00 PM

Like I said before, I'd be happy if we got Vinny, as long as one of their top prospects is coming back too.

Vinny's still got some game left, he just needs a change of scenary.

We'd have to dump a lot of salary to be able to sign UFA's if we get Vinny.

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#1717 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:02 PM

Like I said before, I'd be happy if we got Vinny, as long as one of their top prospects is coming back too.

Vinny's still got some game left, he just needs a change of scenary.


And if they take Ballard...
Posted Image

#1718 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:03 PM

Here is Tampa on capgeek:

http://capgeek.com/c...cap=$70,300,000
Posted Image

#1719 The Kassassin Train

The Kassassin Train

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,140 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 05

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:18 PM

Meh @Real_ESPNLeBrun says Panthers ownership has okayed taking on a salary like Roberto Luongo's.

The key difference is that Sopel can fill in for Seabrook and Campbell just fine. Bieksa, he is garbage so in that sense he is like the worst defenseman in the league.


When Cody (Hodgson) gets older, he might be better than Datsyuk.


Let's not push this guy (Kassian). He's still immature, and if he fails on the 2nd line it's because he isn't ready. Some guys really need years to develop, it's how well and how fast players adapt to the game. In my opinion, I'd rather have Horvat getting 2nd line minutes. He will start off on the 3rd line next season but I see him making the transition, being a great compliment to whoever plays his wings.

At this point, I don't see Kassian fitting in to any role other than a 3rd. If players like Kassian start getting 2nd line minutes then we just stay inconsistent as a team.


The idiocy on CDC....

#1720 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,990 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:31 PM

It seems like right now each GM is trying to out-cheap the other one.

Until Gillis gets some serious offers, he should be in no rush to trade Lu.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#1721 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:49 PM

On the lighter side, I wonder if Lu has ever wanted to do this to CS.


#1722 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:51 PM

Freakin awesome. MG is awesome. He's not backing down from asking for a quality package.

I for one believe MG when he says if he doesn't get a good return hell keep both goalies to start the year.

#1723 EDLER.IS.BEAST

EDLER.IS.BEAST

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts
  • Joined: 03-March 11

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:51 PM

I'd rather get an offensive center. Somebody could move to the wing or ideally Kesler can be on the 3rd line. Kesler will still get his minutes but he will be in a more defensive role. Kesler isnt a passer and he struggles to create offense. Kesler would be perfect on the 3rd line against every teams top players and can still chip. The 3rd line could very well get more minutes then the 2nd line.
Canucks Need Offense. Last 2 playoffs have shown this.


I agree with you, Kesler would make one of the best 3rd liners in the league, and it sure would give us one of the deepest scoring threats. But if we stick a rookie like Schroeder in there it would create controversy, and if we sign a veteran UFA it would surely cost a lot of cap space.


Kes on the wing and Vinny playing C makes more sense like when Sundin was here, that gives us two legit scoring lines.. It doesn't matter if Kesler struggles to create offense, that's the point of getting Lecavalier in the first place, he should pot at least 30 with Lecavalier setting him up.

How would Schroeder taking the 3rd line center spot (if he makes the team) create controversy? It was the same thing as last year with Cody on that line except Schroeder is better defensively.

#1724 Scruffy05

Scruffy05

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 06

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:55 PM

Three things common that I find among a large contingent of CDC posters is as follows:

1. A penchant for snap/rash decisions based purely on emotion and/or not fully formed opinion. Anybody willing to "dump Luongo for a 7th round pick so we can get out of his contract" is guilty of this one. Luongo is still a top goalie and, compensation wise, is not overpaid if you look at the full sample size. Yes, it is for a lot of years, but that is, in part, because it is one of those circumvention contracts. Luongo turns any team, at the very least, into a perennial playoff threat. Once you make the playoffs, anything can happen. Luongo has significant value.

This is business. Don't let emotions get in the way, otherwise you are lost.

2. A severe overvaluing of prospects. Prospects are awesome, you can dream and hope on them. They get the blood flowing. We all know what we will get with Kesler, but who knows what Bjugstad may be! Right? He may even be better!

Well, yes, he may. But he may not.

Imagine a scenario a couple years ado where we could have traded him for Cam Barker, Al Montoya, Rob Schremp, Gilbert Brule, Ryan Parent, Matt Lashoff.... A couple of years ago this would have looked like highway robbery. Now? Not so much.

Bjugstad has a chance at becoming better than Kesler. He has a very good chance of becoming nobody anybody cares about. Prospect flame out.

A good idea for determining prospect value: Do it how game theorists calculate risk. I will use EA Sports style ratings to keep things simple.

A player in his prime has a rating of 84. A prospect has a rating of 70 (not as good right now) has a 50% chance of being rated 92 (much better). What that prospects value should be to you? Half way (50%) between the two numbers or only 81. Any accomplished game theorist and mathematician with those numbers would not make that trade.

3. This one is more annoying. I've seen it many times. A rumor or report says the asking price for Luongo is Bujdstad++ and all of a sudden people start pulling in player from all over like Kesler and Raymond and Tanev and and for Bjugstad and players far better than him. This frustrating.

This is the same as walking into a store to buy a toaster and end up leaving with a big screen TV, new cutlery, a new bedroom set, no pants and a massive hole in your wallet. Most likely? You just get the toaster. Sometimes other players are included. They are called throw-ins for a reason, non-core, non valued players used to balance out perceived unbalanced scenarios and make the numbers work.

And importantly, I see a whole lot of turd polishing in here. If you are trading a guy 'to get rid of him', then any information you put as positives for why the other team even wants him do not matter. If he was as good as you make him out to be, you would keep him, you wouldn't just 'get rid of him'.

My personal belief? Luongo for a bluechip prospect, a serviceable player and a pick. If we add anything in it wouldn't be much more valuable than an Andrew Alberts. The mission is to trade Luongo, not Luongo and a huge chunk of the forward corps...

Just my two cents.
QUOTE
You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was "but we've always done it this way." A million dead people can't have been wrong, can they?

-- (Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant)

#1725 Scruffy05

Scruffy05

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 06

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:07 PM

Kes on the wing and Vinny playing C makes more sense like when Sundin was here, that gives us two legit scoring lines.. It doesn't matter if Kesler struggles to create offense, that's the point of getting Lecavalier in the first place, he should pot at least 30 with Lecavalier setting him up.

How would Schroeder taking the 3rd line center spot (if he makes the team) create controversy? It was the same thing as last year with Cody on that line except Schroeder is better defensively.


Kesler won 53.6% of his faceoffs as a top guy at the dot, Lecavalier only won 47.8%. Why would we move Ryan to the wing? Lecavalier is far removed from his 06-07 season. Kesler has far more points since 08 when he was given a role with some prominence. Currently, as of right now if I had to pick between them? I think Kesler is the better center.
QUOTE
You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was "but we've always done it this way." A million dead people can't have been wrong, can they?

-- (Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant)

#1726 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,326 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:07 PM

<p>

Three things common that I find among a large contingent of CDC posters is as follows:

1. A penchant for snap/rash decisions based purely on emotion and/or not fully formed opinion. Anybody willing to "dump Luongo for a 7th round pick so we can get out of his contract" is guilty of this one. Luongo is still a top goalie and, compensation wise, is not overpaid if you look at the full sample size. Yes, it is for a lot of years, but that is, in part, because it is one of those circumvention contracts. Luongo turns any team, at the very least, into a perennial playoff threat. Once you make the playoffs, anything can happen. Luongo has significant value.

This is business. Don't let emotions get in the way, otherwise you are lost.

2. A severe overvaluing of prospects. Prospects are awesome, you can dream and hope on them. They get the blood flowing. We all know what we will get with Kesler, but who knows what Bjugstad may be! Right? He may even be better!

Well, yes, he may. But he may not.

Imagine a scenario a couple years ado where we could have traded him for Cam Barker, Al Montoya, Rob Schremp, Gilbert Brule, Ryan Parent, Matt Lashoff.... A couple of years ago this would have looked like highway robbery. Now? Not so much.

Bjugstad has a chance at becoming better than Kesler. He has a very good chance of becoming nobody anybody cares about. Prospect flame out.

A good idea for determining prospect value: Do it how game theorists calculate risk. I will use EA Sports style ratings to keep things simple.

A player in his prime has a rating of 84. A prospect has a rating of 70 (not as good right now) has a 50% chance of being rated 92 (much better). What that prospects value should be to you? Half way (50%) between the two numbers or only 81. Any accomplished game theorist and mathematician with those numbers would not make that trade.

3. This one is more annoying. I've seen it many times. A rumor or report says the asking price for Luongo is Bujdstad++ and all of a sudden people start pulling in player from all over like Kesler and Raymond and Tanev and and for Bjugstad and players far better than him. This frustrating.

This is the same as walking into a store to buy a toaster and end up leaving with a big screen TV, new cutlery, a new bedroom set, no pants and a massive hole in your wallet. Most likely? You just get the toaster. Sometimes other players are included. They are called throw-ins for a reason, non-core, non valued players used to balance out perceived unbalanced scenarios and make the numbers work.

And importantly, I see a whole lot of turd polishing in here. If you are trading a guy 'to get rid of him', then any information you put as positives for why the other team even wants him do not matter. If he was as good as you make him out to be, you would keep him, you wouldn't just 'get rid of him'.

My personal belief? Luongo for a bluechip prospect, a serviceable player and a pick. If we add anything in it wouldn't be much more valuable than an Andrew Alberts. The mission is to trade Luongo, not Luongo and a huge chunk of the forward corps...

Just my two cents.



#1727 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:07 PM

I agree with you, Kesler would make one of the best 3rd liners in the league, and it sure would give us one of the deepest scoring threats. But if we stick a rookie like Schroeder in there it would create controversy, and if we sign a veteran UFA it would surely cost a lot of cap space.

That is why in a perfect world MG signs Schultz and trade for a young offensive center. I wish MG has traded for Turris. Flo has some nice centers too.

#1728 LegionOfDoom

LegionOfDoom

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 07

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:30 PM

Cs2016 that video was epic! Lol still laughing

#1729 EDLER.IS.BEAST

EDLER.IS.BEAST

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts
  • Joined: 03-March 11

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:33 PM

Kesler won 53.6% of his faceoffs as a top guy at the dot, Lecavalier only won 47.8%. Why would we move Ryan to the wing? Lecavalier is far removed from his 06-07 season. Kesler has far more points since 08 when he was given a role with some prominence. Currently, as of right now if I had to pick between them? I think Kesler is the better center.


Kesler is the better center, that's why it doesn't make sense to me to put him on the 3rd line. We don't need 06/07 Lecavalier, he put up 50 points in 65 or less games played the past two seasons, 70 in a full season a year before those and was a point per game player in the 2011 playoffs. Those two on the same line could do some serious damage. Either get Vinny to play wing or just put in Kes for the important faceoffs. The only thing I don't like of course is his cap hit.

I'd rather the Canucks go after Doan though, lower cap hit, would look good on the 1st or 2nd line and Kesler keeps his center position.

Edited by EDLER.IS.BEAST, 26 June 2012 - 05:36 PM.


#1730 Scruffy05

Scruffy05

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 06

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:00 PM

<p>


I'm sorry, it was a long time since I was last on... or maybe the emoticon is not showing up for me. What does < p > mean?
QUOTE
You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was "but we've always done it this way." A million dead people can't have been wrong, can they?

-- (Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant)

#1731 Scruffy05

Scruffy05

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 06

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:02 PM

Kesler is the better center, that's why it doesn't make sense to me to put him on the 3rd line. We don't need 06/07 Lecavalier, he put up 50 points in 65 or less games played the past two seasons, 70 in a full season a year before those and was a point per game player in the 2011 playoffs. Those two on the same line could do some serious damage. Either get Vinny to play wing or just put in Kes for the important faceoffs. The only thing I don't like of course is his cap hit.

I'd rather the Canucks go after Doan though, lower cap hit, would look good on the 1st or 2nd line and Kesler keeps his center position.


I totally understand and agree with you. Kesler should not be sent down to the third line, I like him where he is. If Vincent were to join, he would be the winger. That was my main point behind my response. Not certain On Lecavaliers ability to play wing, I haven't seen an aweful lot of him.

Unfortunately I feel Vinny is in no way worth his current contract and to inject a leader like that into our locker room? I feel we should learn from the lessons of Mark Messier. It worked well enough with Mats Sundin though...
QUOTE
You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was "but we've always done it this way." A million dead people can't have been wrong, can they?

-- (Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant)

#1732 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:19 PM

All and all Lecavalier is not a good choice for us. I would go as low as Komiserak and a 1st rounder instead. At least Komo's contract expires soon, or we can always AHL his ass.
Posted Image

#1733 nuckfanfromafrica

nuckfanfromafrica

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:20 PM

Three things common that I find among a large contingent of CDC posters is as follows:

1. A penchant for snap/rash decisions based purely on emotion and/or not fully formed opinion. Anybody willing to "dump Luongo for a 7th round pick so we can get out of his contract" is guilty of this one. Luongo is still a top goalie and, compensation wise, is not overpaid if you look at the full sample size. Yes, it is for a lot of years, but that is, in part, because it is one of those circumvention contracts. Luongo turns any team, at the very least, into a perennial playoff threat. Once you make the playoffs, anything can happen. Luongo has significant value.

This is business. Don't let emotions get in the way, otherwise you are lost.

2. A severe overvaluing of prospects. Prospects are awesome, you can dream and hope on them. They get the blood flowing. We all know what we will get with Kesler, but who knows what Bjugstad may be! Right? He may even be better!

Well, yes, he may. But he may not.

Imagine a scenario a couple years ado where we could have traded him for Cam Barker, Al Montoya, Rob Schremp, Gilbert Brule, Ryan Parent, Matt Lashoff.... A couple of years ago this would have looked like highway robbery. Now? Not so much.

Bjugstad has a chance at becoming better than Kesler. He has a very good chance of becoming nobody anybody cares about. Prospect flame out.

A good idea for determining prospect value: Do it how game theorists calculate risk. I will use EA Sports style ratings to keep things simple.

A player in his prime has a rating of 84. A prospect has a rating of 70 (not as good right now) has a 50% chance of being rated 92 (much better). What that prospects value should be to you? Half way (50%) between the two numbers or only 81. Any accomplished game theorist and mathematician with those numbers would not make that trade.

3. This one is more annoying. I've seen it many times. A rumor or report says the asking price for Luongo is Bujdstad++ and all of a sudden people start pulling in player from all over like Kesler and Raymond and Tanev and and for Bjugstad and players far better than him. This frustrating.

This is the same as walking into a store to buy a toaster and end up leaving with a big screen TV, new cutlery, a new bedroom set, no pants and a massive hole in your wallet. Most likely? You just get the toaster. Sometimes other players are included. They are called throw-ins for a reason, non-core, non valued players used to balance out perceived unbalanced scenarios and make the numbers work.

And importantly, I see a whole lot of turd polishing in here. If you are trading a guy 'to get rid of him', then any information you put as positives for why the other team even wants him do not matter. If he was as good as you make him out to be, you would keep him, you wouldn't just 'get rid of him'.

My personal belief? Luongo for a bluechip prospect, a serviceable player and a pick. If we add anything in it wouldn't be much more valuable than an Andrew Alberts. The mission is to trade Luongo, not Luongo and a huge chunk of the forward corps...

Just my two cents.


couldn't agree more

#1734 WeatherWise

WeatherWise

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 11

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:25 PM

Slightly off-topic, but Pat Quinn has suggested that the Canucks retire Pavel Bure's number.

Just hours after Pat Quinn announced Pavel Bure's induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame on June 26, 2012, he joined BMac and Taylor on the TEAM 1040 to discuss Pavel's career, his accomplishments, his character, and why Pavel should have his number retired by the Vancouver Canucks.

Throughout the interview, Quinn was very supportive of Pavel, offering praise, defending his controversial departure from Vancouver, and providing his opinion on why Bure should have his number retired by the Canucks as well as why Pavel was a special player.

"Pavel certainly ranked up there, and when he was on the attack, there was nobody better."

"If the Canucks are wise at all, they'll come out and ask him to be there."

"If you're going to recognize anybody, you probably should recognize the most electrifying player we've ever had in uniform. We've had some great players, but nobody, nobody, was as electrifying as him."


Pat Quinn wholeheartedly supports the retirement of Pavel Bure's number into the rafters of Rogers Arena.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bddc8tOwwvA&feature=plcp

This is a follow-up to the Valeri Bure interview posted last year.
The greatest segue into a weather segment.

#1735 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,326 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:27 PM

I'm sorry, it was a long time since I was last on... or maybe the emoticon is not showing up for me. What does < p > mean?


I quoted your post but something screwed up i was going to say if you want turd polish on the cheap just drop down 1 forum..lol.

#1736 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:28 PM

I'm sorry, it was a long time since I was last on... or maybe the emoticon is not showing up for me. What does < p > mean?

IDK
AUmxe4h.gif
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!

Go Canucks Go!

#1737 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:30 PM

Slightly off-topic, but Pat Quinn has suggested that the Canucks retire Pavel Bure's number.

Just hours after Pat Quinn announced Pavel Bure's induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame on June 26, 2012, he joined BMac and Taylor on the TEAM 1040 to discuss Pavel's career, his accomplishments, his character, and why Pavel should have his number retired by the Vancouver Canucks.

Throughout the interview, Quinn was very supportive of Pavel, offering praise, defending his controversial departure from Vancouver, and providing his opinion on why Bure should have his number retired by the Canucks as well as why Pavel was a special player.

"Pavel certainly ranked up there, and when he was on the attack, there was nobody better."

"If the Canucks are wise at all, they'll come out and ask him to be there."

"If you're going to recognize anybody, you probably should recognize the most electrifying player we've ever had in uniform. We've had some great players, but nobody, nobody, was as electrifying as him."


Pat Quinn wholeheartedly supports the retirement of Pavel Bure's number into the rafters of Rogers Arena.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bddc8tOwwvA&feature=plcp

This is a follow-up to the Valeri Bure interview posted last year.


The question would be which number... 10 or 96?
Posted Image

#1738 Vlas=d

Vlas=d

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 09

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:38 PM

The question would be which number... 10 or 96?


obviously 10...

#1739 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:40 PM

obviously 10...


But 10 is such a common number... 96 he can have any day, 10 I don't know...
Posted Image

#1740 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:42 PM

And according to this regular twitter user, Burke is flying to Vancouver.

https://twitter.com/...SocialAssassin2

SamJam and I are trying to squeeze his sources out of him but he won't.

Edited by CB007, 26 June 2012 - 06:42 PM.

Posted Image




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.