Bieksa's Quote Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The grudge factor, whether or not it is a non-existent one, was not even the main reason why I am against a trade for Bolland in the first place. The real reason is simple: helping a deeply hated rival like Chicago is a mistake that must be avoided at all (reasonable) costs. Unless we get a damn good offer from them, I say screw the Blackhawks and their weak@$$ trade proposals. (Well I say screw the Blackhawks anyway, but I meant screw the trade relationship in addition to the Blackhawks themselves...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The grudge factor, whether or not it is a non-existent one, was not even the main reason why I am against a trade for Bolland in the first place. The real reason is simple: helping a deeply hated rival like Chicago is a mistake that must be avoided at all (reasonable) costs. Unless we get a damn good offer from them, I say screw the Blackhawks and their weak@$$ trade proposals. (Well I say screw the Blackhawks anyway, but I meant screw the trade relationship in addition to the Blackhawks themselves...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bieksa's Quote Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 There's another way to look at this... ...the Canucks feel they have a better option in net with Schneider. Theoretically, they would get significant return fro the Hawks for Louie's services. These two things being the case, the Canucks have strengthened themselves in two areas. Chicago has improved in net, but gotten weaker up front. Most of us believed that the Canucks are the better team before this proposed deal. From what I can see, this increases the gap between the two, rather than decreasing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Sedins will ask to be traded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Depends on your analysis of the trade from both sides. If this is the case then I'm all for it. But if the gap isn't increased then I'm not buying it. Luongo for Bolland straight up (I'm not saying anyone has proposed this) would be flat out unacceptable. There'd have to be more to it than that for it to work. Remember that from a Canucks point of view, losing Luongo is not necessarily a good thing. Losing the goaltending tandem is a huge blow (regardless of whether Lu wants to leave). The goaltending duo is a key to our defensive success. You do not want to overplay your goalie. If Schneider plays over 55-60 games, I'm going to feel very anxious about how he performs under all of the mental stress along with the physical fatigue that comes with playing so many games. He looks like he has ALL of the makings of a great no.1 , but he's still not a proven starter. Even if he was, he'd still have his limitations, as do all goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John.Tallhouse Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Anyone who supports Bolland as a Canuck does not know what it takes to be a Canuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niloc009 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Even though I was primarily opposed to Bolland as a Canuck, I've warmed to the idea. He's a game-breaker. Not offensively, but defensively. He's an extremely capable 3rd line centre, who can throw opponents' top players off their game with ease. Remember how his return immediately shifted the momentum in Chicago's favour during the 2011 series? The Sedins weren't the same when he came back. If it's Bolland + a depth defenceman, plus a prospect, for Luongo, I'd take the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Anyone who supports Bolland as a Canuck does not know what it takes to be a Canuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradinToSmyl Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Anyone who supports Bolland as a Canuck does not know what it takes to be a Canuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edler Is a Beast Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Why would we even want him? He's a rat that nobody likes and he can't even play well to make up for it. If Luongo ended up going to Chicago, I'd rather we hand him over for free rather than get Bolland in exchange. Personally I still think Marchand is public enemy #1 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Anyone who supports Bolland as a Canuck does not know what it takes to be a Canuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burrows101 Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 I heard Dave Bolland dated his cousin....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burrows101 Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 And who changed my Topic Title???lol its just Dave Bolland Hell NO!!! not /yes??? WTF!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 And who changed my Topic Title???lol its just Dave Bolland Hell NO!!! not /yes??? WTF!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossram Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I just don't think either organization would make this deal. However as much as everyone with the Canucks hates Bolland, he is a good player and would undoubtedly make the Canucks a better team. I would take him in my team any day. Players are professionals and would get over petty grudges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John.Tallhouse Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Are you back to this again? You are 10, right? What does it take to be a Canuck? It takes Mike Gillis to offer you a contract or trade for you. So tell us all, Tallhouse. What does it take to be a Canuck, in your opinion? You have said numerous times that Gillis only wants "character" players. Well, he has biters, hairpullers, embellishers, divers and whiners on his roster and lots of them... Kes... Burr... Lappy... Hansen... Bieksa... all of whom I absolutely love to cheer for. What whimsical characteristics do you see that all 50 of our players under contract possess so that King Fairy Mike Gillis signs them all to the land of the Magical Ice Hockey Utopia of Vancouver? Please... enlighten us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead420 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I guess you aren't a fan then because all 3 would bring the Canucks something that they are sorely lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 you still don't get it? just a stats guy I guess.. I'm not going to regurgitate the fine points that have been made over the last 10 pages ,there is no point, I haven't been claiming to know everything just simply stating a point of view, don't know why you've got such disrespect for someone with an opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John.Tallhouse Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I've already made my points on what it takes to be a canuck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I've already made my points on what it takes to be a canuck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.