Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Ed Willes' Tweets on Gillis/Weber


  • Please log in to reply
548 replies to this topic

#271 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:27 PM

Brad Ziemer@BradZiemer
The #Canucks seriously discussed presenting an offer sheet to Weber, but determined there was no way to land player: that Preds would match.


This is why I really hope NSH does NOT match; it'd be hilarious to see Gilman try and dance around this one.

BZ: Lawrence, in light of the Flyers landing Shea Weber, do you think that it may have been an idea to throw an offer sheet his way?

LG: Um, well, er, we're really happy that we were able to land Jason Garrison, he, er, was who we had targeted all along, and, um, we just think that, uh, he'll be great moving forward...
  • 0

#272 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:28 PM

Comedy. Whatever Gillis does it the right decision in your mind. period. I do think you actually believe that statement though.

Incorrect as usual.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#273 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:43 PM

This is why I really hope NSH does NOT match; it'd be hilarious to see Gilman try and dance around this one.

BZ: Lawrence, in light of the Flyers landing Shea Weber, do you think that it may have been an idea to throw an offer sheet his way?

LG: Um, well, er, we're really happy that we were able to land Jason Garrison, he, er, was who we had targeted all along, and, um, we just think that, uh, he'll be great moving forward...

I don't think we would've offered Weber an offer sheet because we would never have offered the kind of offer sheet Holmgren had because it would be bad for our cap. Therefore IMO the management believed that anything they offered would be matched since it would have to be significantly lower than Philly's offer. Burr and Edler are both UFA's next year so signing Weber to that kind of an offer sheet could influence their decision into demanding more money and that would be bad for the team cap wise.
  • 0

#274 CanucksFanMike

CanucksFanMike

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,304 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 11

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:51 PM

:picard: last time i checked Willis isn't a GM for an NHL team.... there is a reason why MG is our GM and this nutcase isn't
  • 1
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#275 Champions of Nothing

Champions of Nothing

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,961 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:52 PM

A member of the media trying to pump up a non-story that none other than himself will write about?

No....
  • 1

Posted ImagePosted Image
Sig by Ranyart. FEEL FREE TO USE EITHER!

VOTE FOR EDLER!

And might as well vote for Daniel, Henrik, Kesler, Luongo and..... I guess Aaron Rome?


#276 luckylager

luckylager

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 11

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:19 PM

Schultz wasn't going to get the minutes he was after and in his shoes, I might just want to play with all of the talent in Oiltown for a few years; they're going to be scary.
Garrison should be a good replacement for ol' Sammy but... How has it been going for the last 2 or 3 guys he got from Florida?
Oh yeah, Booth, Bitz and Ballard, how's that going guys? Disappointed?? Yeah, me too.
Granted MG didn't lose in the Booth trade, he's just not what I hoped he was.
  • 0

#277 Steve Carell

Steve Carell

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,613 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:43 PM

Willes is such a tool. I remember before Game 7 against the Hawks last season he was saying the Canucks didn't have the heart to do well in the playoffs, and wouldn't you know the Canucks go on to Game 7 of the SCF's.
  • 0

#278 Brendan Gaunce

Brendan Gaunce

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Joined: 22-June 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 10:21 PM

Even if we got a steal on Weber for an offer sheet. (ex. 6m AAV 5 year) Nash. would just match it.
  • 0

Posted Image


#279 canucks3322

canucks3322

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 11

Posted 21 July 2012 - 10:24 PM

the only players I would offer that type of contract is to Crosby, Stampkos < not sure if I spelled his name right but on to my point Weber is not worth 14 years at $101 this deals gonna bite Holgremn in the ass
  • 0

#280 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 21 July 2012 - 10:35 PM

Ed Willes is a hack. Just like 90% of the Province sport writers
  • 0
Posted Image

#281 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 22 July 2012 - 12:01 AM

You would have to be crazy to sign one of these big names to a 14 year contract etc... It just does not make sense... Of all these 10+ year deals how many of them have worked out? Dipietro? Luongo? Lecavalier? NONE
  • 0
I Love Lamp...

#282 Walkin'2929

Walkin'2929

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 08

Posted 22 July 2012 - 12:16 AM

Sounds like another anti-Gillis rant from our typically overly-zealous local media, designed to whip us all into a frenzy.

Okay, so we all want to see our team get better and maybe have a chance at winning the Stanley Cup. But, at what cost? Does Ed Willes really believe that getting suckered into another horrendous long term contract is the way to go?

Besides, the real issue with this team is not on the "D". It's getting our forward lines to put the puck in the net.
  • 0

#283 Kesheniel

Kesheniel

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 22 July 2012 - 12:29 AM

To me Ed Willes will always be one of the traitors who lost us the Finals two years ago. There is a time for constructive criticism, there's even a time for non-constructive criticism. It is not when you are in the Cup Finals, then it becomes treason. Boston's media supported their team even when it was unreasonable and even ludicrous to claim that they were the good guys playing good old-fashioned hockey and we were the devil. Our media trashed and submarined our own team right when they most needed support. I will never ever forget how that happened, they sold out the team at the worst possible time and sabotaged the Cup run, maybe it wasn't determinative - but it was not helpful.

Local media should be supportive of the team, if their personal animosity for people in the organization makes that impossible then they should go somewhere where people are of like mind - I mentioned the Star - go have a grand old Canucks-bashing party with Damien Cox and friends, there are already more than enough people in this city who claim to support the Canucks but spend most of their time talking about how terrible our players/coaches/management/decisions are, as if we'd finished out of the playoffs instead of being more successful than ever in franchise history.

There's so much hate for the Canucks out there, we don't need it from our own media and fans too, it's time to circle the wagons and demonstrate solidarity with this team, not fall apart all over the place about acquisitions anyone with half a brain can see will never happen.


Probably the best post I have ever seen on CDC
  • 0

#284 PrimeMinisterBure

PrimeMinisterBure

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:02 AM

Probably the best post I have ever seen on CDC


The bar has never been set very high.
  • 0

#285 PrimeMinisterBure

PrimeMinisterBure

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:07 AM

This is why I really hope NSH does NOT match; it'd be hilarious to see Gilman try and dance around this one.

BZ: Lawrence, in light of the Flyers landing Shea Weber, do you think that it may have been an idea to throw an offer sheet his way?

LG: Um, well, er, we're really happy that we were able to land Jason Garrison, he, er, was who we had targeted all along, and, um, we just think that, uh, he'll be great moving forward...


You are so right to the point that it's just... depressing.
  • 0

#286 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,830 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:20 AM

Schultz wasn't going to get the minutes he was after and in his shoes, I might just want to play with all of the talent in Oiltown for a few years; they're going to be scary.
Garrison should be a good replacement for ol' Sammy but... How has it been going for the last 2 or 3 guys he got from Florida?
Oh yeah, Booth, Bitz and Ballard, how's that going guys? Disappointed?? Yeah, me too.
Granted MG didn't lose in the Booth trade, he's just not what I hoped he was.


Less money, less playing time, less opportunity, less long term potential, everyone is older than you.

The Oilers sounds a helluva lot more appealing than we do. And people still cry like Gillis dropped the ball and we were robbed.
  • 0
Posted Image

#287 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:42 AM

Why are we crying about Weber? It's nothing to do with whether or not we got Weber it is everything to do with not getting alternatives we CAN afford and CAN feel comfortable with. We are not even doing that in any certain or inspiring way.


MG seems to me to be creating too many conditions on his signings and ending up either not getting anything, anything useful or gambling on future payback.

This might not be too disturbing except that the criteria that matters........what does this team need? .............gets lost in a mist of too expensive, wrong type of character, does it fit in with AV's style of game etc. We are NOT addressing our problems. We don't need to spend mega bucks to do that either.

Moreover the more success we have in the league, the more it is devalued and draft wise it continually hurts us.

I think it is time AV and MG started to back themselves. By that I mean ............and this will upset a lot of fans on here........start to make our team more evolutionary. MG needs to trade valuable pieces for pieces that will make us better.

This is hard for me to say because I have been as guilty as any on here when it comes to parting with our players. However there comes a time when you have to ask if this style of hockey and GM'ng is going to get us that Stanley Cup.

I think we could have avoided what I'm proposing if MG had gone out and acquired the 2/3 pieces we needed right after the Finals, but he didn't and now we look, despite our PT repeat, like a team who has been rumbled.

We still have a long period of pre season to go and much can happen in that time. We also need to see how our injured players come back. Nevertheless I see this season as very much a last chance saloon and if we don't start hitting the marks and altering our style to one that gets respect then I am of the opinion that the team needs overhauled.

Edited by Bodee, 22 July 2012 - 01:49 AM.

  • 2
Kevin.jpg

#288 OrrFour

OrrFour

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 06

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:04 AM

Why are we crying about Weber? It's nothing to do with whether or not we got Weber it is everything to do with not getting alternatives we CAN afford and CAN feel comfortable with. We are not even doing that in any certain or inspiring way.


MG seems to me to be creating too many conditions on his signings and ending up either not getting anything, anything useful or gambling on future payback.

This might not be too disturbing except that the criteria that matters........what does this team need? .............gets lost in a mist of too expensive, wrong type of character, does it fit in with AV's style of game etc. We are NOT addressing our problems. We don't need to spend mega bucks to do that either.

Moreover the more success we have in the league, the more it is devalued and draft wise it continually hurts us.

I think it is time AV and MG started to back themselves. By that I mean ............and this will upset a lot of fans on here........start to make our team more evolutionary. MG needs to trade valuable pieces for pieces that will make us better.

This is hard for me to say because I have been as guilty as any on here when it comes to parting with our players. However there comes a time when you have to ask if this style of hockey and GM'ng is going to get us that Stanley Cup.

I think we could have avoided what I'm proposing if MG had gone out and acquired the 2/3 pieces we needed right after the Finals, but he didn't and now we look, despite our PT repeat, like a team who has been rumbled.

We still have a long period of pre season to go and much can happen in that time. We also need to see how our injured players come back. Nevertheless I see this season as very much a last chance saloon and if we don't start hitting the marks and altering our style to one that gets respect then I am of the opinion that the team needs overhauled.

Wow that was an amazing read. Stunning in its incoherence.
  • 1

#289 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:49 AM

Maybe I need to get out more, but I've never heard of this guy.

Ed Willes has recently tweeted out some pretty direct messages about Mike Gillis regarding the whole Shea Weber ordeal. I apologize if this has been posted already, but these tweets are pretty strong and worthy of discussion. For the record, I think it's great when a local reporter has a strong opinion like this, and ISN'T AFRAID to share it.

Here are the 3 tweets:

The Canucks have already lost out on Justin Schultz. If they lose Shea Weber it's a massive body blow to the Gillis regime.

Weber is a BC boy. There have been multiple reports that he wanted to play for the Canucks. This is a player Gillis had to sign.

Sorry, Jason Garrison doesn't cut it. Ownership wanted Weber badly. This is a major story in the Canucks' world. Believe it.

With emphasis on the 3rd tweet, this is pretty powerful, direct stuff from a local guy who's been around forever. Note, though, that I don't think Willes has EVER been a fan of Gillis, nor even this ownership, to be frank. He was always a STRONG Dave Nonis supporter, and I do recall a few articles written by him when Nonis was fired, digging into the Aquilini's' business, questioning their character even, and similarly doing the same to Gillis.

Anyway, very interesting to see a direct calling-out by a media member. And for the record, I'm in full agreement with Mr. Willes.



1.) Do you still "think it's great when a local reporter has a strong opinion like this, and ISN'T AFRAID to share it" if the opinion being expressed is one with which you do not agree? Would you have bothered to make this thread if these tweets were all sympathetic, complimentary and congratulatory of Gillis' efforts?

2.) Schultz signed where he was going to get the kind of playing time he wanted, not the playing time he has earned. He went where he felt he was getting what was best for Justin Schultz. Perhaps he will do well in Edmonton, assuming they shield him from playing against any large, grinding forwards...

3.) The "BC boy" chip has gotten pretty worn out. Weber signing elsewhere is a "body blow" only if one wants to try and use it as a criticism.

Ownership would very likely have been consulted by Gillis if he was going to offer the size of contract needed to sign Weber. If ownership "wanted Weber badly" and money was no object, then they would have given Gillis carte blanche to sign him, but more likely informed Gillis that there was a point beyond which they were unwilling to go. I would assume that ownership would also have been briefed about the potential downside of signing Weber to such a contract, specifically with regard to cap issues. Either way, I feel pretty sure that what happened from a Canucks standpoint happened with the Aquilini's being fully informed by Gillis. And if Gillis took the position that the team couldn't afford this deal, then ownership made an informed choice, and agreed with that position.

Hamhuis and Garrison are BC boys who opted to play here for less than they could have gotten elsewhere. Schultz signed where he could get ice time which he has not earned and may well not be deserving of by the time the season hits December. Weber possibly wanted too much in the way of term and/or cash to play here (ie. no hometown discount.) Yes, that's right, he went where he got more money and/or term, or, just maybe for what he felt was a better chance of winning the Cup and with a younger team.

Of course it might also be that, when it came right down to it, Weber really just didn't want to play here after all.

4.) We haven't even seen Garrison play a game here and already he doesn't cut it? He's big, has weight, plays a physical game with that size, is a good defensive d-man, and after Tanev is the youngest d-man currently signed who we can assume will make the big club by the start of the season. He was the third most sought after UFA d-man this off season (Suter and Schultz being the top two). He has shown he can also produce points, but whether last year was a one off or will he continue to score points remains to be seen. Regardless of his offensive production he will still be a very good d-man.

And as noted, he wants to play here, at a discount. Yeah, he just doesn't cut it.

5.) These tweets are by no means direct or powerful stuff. I think they are kind of lame. These are merely opinions from a guy who has an axe to to grind, and he is taking the most popular anti-position in these recent events.

Gillis picked up the guy he had the best chance succeeding in getting. Mission accomplished in that regard. If Garrison had bolted to somewhere else then I might have been concerned about the team's future and their ability to attract UFA's.

Schultz was a less than 50/50 chance of signing here, mostly because he was likely going to play bottom-6 minutes more often than not. Weber was (IMHO) never going to sign here, and even if he truly did want to be here it would have ruined the cap structure of the team.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#290 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:57 AM

1.) Do you still "think it's great when a local reporter has a strong opinion like this, and ISN'T AFRAID to share it" if the opinion being expressed is one with which you do not agree? Would you have bothered to make this thread if these tweets were all sympathetic, complimentary and congratulatory of Gillis' efforts?


No. But then again, it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary for tweets like that, and therefore not thread-worthy. These were STRONG, direct tweets.

2.) Schultz signed where he was going to get the kind of playing time he wanted, not the playing time he has earned. He went where he felt he was getting what was best for Justin Schultz. Perhaps he will do well in Edmonton, assuming they shield him from playing against any large, grinding forwards...


Stop regurgitating what you hear from our management team and try and think for yourself for a change.

Like I said before, Schultz can "want" whatever he wants, but if he stinks, he's not going to play. He'll be given a chance - just like he would've here - but if he's not any good, HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HIDE IT. And do you honestly think that if he's not any good, Edmonton will feel obligated to continue playing him on the top four and give him PP time, because of a verbal commitment/suggestion in contract negotiations? Fat freakin' chance. If he sucks, he WILL NOT PLAY.

Ownership would very likely have been consulted by Gillis if he was going to offer the size of contract needed to sign Weber. If ownership "wanted Weber badly" and money was no object, then they would have given Gillis carte blanche to sign him, but more likely informed Gillis that there was a point beyond which they were unwilling to go. I would assume that ownership would also have been briefed about the potential downside of signing Weber to such a contract, specifically with regard to cap issues. Either way, I feel pretty sure that what happened from a Canucks standpoint happened with the Aquilini's being fully informed by Gillis. And if Gillis took the position that the team couldn't afford this deal, then ownership made an informed choice, and agreed with that position.


Well, I'll put more weight into a local, decade-and-a-half, well-connected sports journalist's information than "Gollumpus"' assumptions on CDC, thank you.

Let me guess - you also thought that Tony Gallagher was full of crap when he was talking about the rift between Cody Hodgson and the Canucks in November, right? As I recall, 98% of CDC wrote it off as "Gallagher trying to sell newspapers". Whoops.
  • 2

#291 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 22 July 2012 - 07:30 AM

Wow that was an amazing read. Stunning in its incoherence.


Sadly, that says more about you than me.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#292 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 July 2012 - 07:38 AM

Looks like somebody is overrating just how 'strong' tweets can be.

Ed Willes tweets something.

Most of us: 'Yawn.'

You: 'OMG THAT WAS STRONG!' lol


Justin Schultz isn't the basis of this thread, right? Hmm... Seems to be a lot of blabbering about him still. Here's the thing: Edmonton could use him FAR more than we could. You cannot make an argument otherwise. The reason Edmonton was a lottery team was because of their defense. That being said, if we had gotten Schultz, that's great. But he's not the basis of this thread. Pffft.

Again, the case of Weber coming here now doesn't really exist. If Nashville didn't match any western conference rival's sheet, then Detroit would be first in line, not us. (Hello, Lidstrom replacement?) If they don't match Philly's, well at least he's in the east. That's the sell in Nashville anyway. Again, crying a river about this franchise is pretty ridiculous when you look at what's happening in Nashville.

The Canucks explored ways to acquire Weber. They could not. However, the odds of this dream coming true were always very slim. Ed Willes, you, and anyone else trying to drum up drama about that are just singing their same old sad tune. 'Whaaaaaaaaah!'
  • 0
Posted Image

#293 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 July 2012 - 07:41 AM

If we did not acquire Garrison, then enter 'strong' tweets about that ultimate failure as well. 'He was a local boy and there were multiple reports of him wanting to play here.'

KA-POW! (That was strong.)
  • 0
Posted Image

#294 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 July 2012 - 07:54 AM

Truth is that the Shea Weber offersheet is the ONLY story happening right now. If Ed Willes doesn't tweet about it 'strongly', then what the hell else is he doing besides tweeting about Meatloaf?
  • 0
Posted Image

#295 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 07:57 AM

Justin Schultz isn't the basis of this thread, right? Hmm... Seems to be a lot of blabbering about him still. Here's the thing: Edmonton could use him FAR more than we could. You cannot make an argument otherwise. The reason Edmonton was a lottery team was because of their defense. That being said, if we had gotten Schultz, that's great. But he's not the basis of this thread. Pffft.

Again, the case of Weber coming here now doesn't really exist. If Nashville didn't match any western conference rival's sheet, then Detroit would be first in line, not us. (Hello, Lidstrom replacement?) If they don't match Philly's, well at least he's in the east. That's the sell in Nashville anyway. Again, crying a river about this franchise is pretty ridiculous when you look at what's happening in Nashville.


Don't care about Detroit, don't care about Edmonton. Though that is funny that you're bringing up points brought up by ME, before Schultz signed, when this ENTIRE BOARD was convinced that he was going to sign with Vancouver, and I always thought that Edmonton was the logical landing spot ("Dude, have you ever BEEN to Edmonton?! And Schultz wants to win a Cup!").

The Canucks explored ways to acquire Weber. They could not. However, the odds of this dream coming true were always very slim. Ed Willes, you, and anyone else trying to drum up drama about that are just singing their same old sad tune. 'Whaaaaaaaaah!'


"Explored ways" = sat around for a few minutes over latte's and chose to not do anything. Sorry, doesn't cut it.

Here's the thing - say "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!" all you want, but when Garrison FLOPS, and when this team's chances at winning a Cup clearly dwindle to near zero over the next year or two as the Sedin's begin to decline, you may be singing a different tune regarding Weber, and what perhaps SHOULD HAVE happened around here to try and win a Cup when we actually had a chance, instead of just trying to "be competitive without mortgaging the future".
  • 0

#296 PrimeMinisterBure

PrimeMinisterBure

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:04 AM

Looks like somebody is overrating just how 'strong' tweets can be.

Ed Willes tweets something.

Most of us: 'Yawn.'

You: 'OMG THAT WAS STRONG!' lol


Justin Schultz isn't the basis of this thread, right? Hmm... Seems to be a lot of blabbering about him still. Here's the thing: Edmonton could use him FAR more than we could. You cannot make an argument otherwise. The reason Edmonton was a lottery team was because of their defense. That being said, if we had gotten Schultz, that's great. But he's not the basis of this thread. Pffft.

Again, the case of Weber coming here now doesn't really exist. If Nashville didn't match any western conference rival's sheet, then Detroit would be first in line, not us. (Hello, Lidstrom replacement?) If they don't match Philly's, well at least he's in the east. That's the sell in Nashville anyway. Again, crying a river about this franchise is pretty ridiculous when you look at what's happening in Nashville.

The Canucks explored ways to acquire Weber. They could not. However, the odds of this dream coming true were always very slim. Ed Willes, you, and anyone else trying to drum up drama about that are just singing their same old sad tune. 'Whaaaaaaaaah!'


Just a few years ago, people were saying, "Stop whining about this franchise not winning a Stanley Cup. This team is more competitive now than it's ever been." Now, when people start complaining about the complete ineptitude of Mike Gillis in failing to put forth any offer to one of the best defensive players the league has seen in decades and who actually showed interest in this organization, all you have to say is, "Stop whinning about this franchise not getting any closer to winning a Stanley Cup. Look at how bad some others have it." Canucks fans are tired of this loser mentality, and of management not taking the competetive steps needed to be any more than just somewhat better than the sh***y mess this team has been in the past. What happens if the Canucks run into the Kings next season during the playoffs? Is there any chance that they eliminate them with the sole addition to the team being Jason Garrison? There is absolutely no chance of that happening. But, according to your reasoning--and probably Mike Gillis', based on his inaction on this incredibly important Weber situation--at least we might be in a better position than the Predators.
  • 0

#297 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:05 AM

Sounds like you don't care about anything but your own crybaby agenda and you have no capacity for actual debate.

'I don't care about that. This is about GILLIS failing!'

As if the Canucks' will to do things is the only factor to consider.

I recommend you take a step back and breathe. Ed Willes has clearly done his job and has stirred you up. Good job, Ed Willes? Go back to tweeting about Meatloaf?
  • 1
Posted Image

#298 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:08 AM

^ So? More crying helps how?

Hey, i'm onboard with getting all the free agents too. Sign me up.

Oh sht, reality...
  • 1
Posted Image

#299 PrimeMinisterBure

PrimeMinisterBure

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:13 AM

^ So? More crying helps how?

Hey, i'm onboard with getting all the free agents too. Sign me up.

Oh sht, reality...


Hah, a reference to the Leafs in your name is appropriate, since you obviously have the same thought-process as one. Loserdom is where this team is headed, and you're leading the way for the fans.
  • 1

#300 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:15 AM

Sounds like you don't care about anything but your own crybaby agenda and you have no capacity for actual debate.

'I don't care about that. This is about GILLIS failing!'

As if the Canucks' will to do things is the only factor to consider.

I recommend you take a step back and breathe. Ed Willes has clearly done his job and has stirred you up. Good job, Ed Willes? Go back to tweeting about Meatloaf?


Please, DEBATE! Explain to me how we're in a better position to win a Cup this year than we were last year - because nobody seems to be able to, even though I'm seeing a lot of "Gillis has had an amazing off-season so far!" sentiment.

The opposite of being a crybaby is being a cheerleader, so let's hear some REASONS as to why anybody should believe that we'll be a better team this year, and have a better shot at Lord Stanley, than any of the last two seasons.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.