Uller34 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I dont get it....98 mill x2, 110 m for big names...3-4 mil per yr for line plugs......and Nash goes for a song...a first and some players who will never reach half of Nash's skill level. So the value of a player is based on ..being a free agent? restricted or free? but if your a proven assest.. you get squat?!?!?! Well now we know for sure VALUE wise MG screwed up not getting value for Cory because we getting squat for Lou if Nash is an example of player undercontract vs what teams pay if not under contract or restricted. The whole *&^%$^&* system messed up if thats how they valuing players now. Canucks missed the boat to get most value out of having 2 great goalies and the ability to cash in on one...now we get scraps for a great goalie who wants out (and rightfully so after being benched in playoffs when losses not his fault) because the other GM's going to only offer crap like they did for Nash knowing eventually they have to take whats offered. Sad Sad day for Canuck fans who hoped MG would get something for Lou...no hope now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonshinefe Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
our time is now Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Anti gillis fan stay back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 CDC: Something happens. One thread about it. 25 threads about why the Canucks didn't do it. 25 threads on how experts are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 What the &!*&* does vauling mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Not even sure what I just read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrows91 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocHouse Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 CDC: Something happens. One thread about it. 25 threads about why the Canucks didn't do it. 25 threads on how experts are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John.Tallhouse Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't like vauling players... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Narsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 What the &!*&* does vauling mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Commentator Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I dont get it....98 mill x2, 110 m for big names...3-4 mil per yr for line plugs......and Nash goes for a song...a first and some players who will never reach half of Nash's skill level. So the value of a player is based on ..being a free agent? restricted or free? but if your a proven assest.. you get squat?!?!?! Well now we know for sure VALUE wise MG screwed up not getting value for Cory because we getting squat for Lou if Nash is an example of player undercontract vs what teams pay if not under contract or restricted. The whole *&^%$^&* system messed up if thats how they valuing players now. Canucks missed the boat to get most value out of having 2 great goalies and the ability to cash in on one...now we get scraps for a great goalie who wants out (and rightfully so after being benched in playoffs when losses not his fault) because the other GM's going to only offer crap like they did for Nash knowing eventually they have to take whats offered. Sad Sad day for Canuck fans who hoped MG would get something for Lou...no hope now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucks all the way Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 What the &!*&* does vauling mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I dont get it....98 mill x2, 110 m for big names...3-4 mil per yr for line plugs......and Nash goes for a song...a first and some players who will never reach half of Nash's skill level. So the value of a player is based on ..being a free agent? restricted or free? but if your a proven assest.. you get squat?!?!?! Well now we know for sure VALUE wise MG screwed up not getting value for Cory because we getting squat for Lou if Nash is an example of player undercontract vs what teams pay if not under contract or restricted. The whole *&^%$^&* system messed up if thats how they valuing players now. Canucks missed the boat to get most value out of having 2 great goalies and the ability to cash in on one...now we get scraps for a great goalie who wants out (and rightfully so after being benched in playoffs when losses not his fault) because the other GM's going to only offer crap like they did for Nash knowing eventually they have to take whats offered. Sad Sad day for Canuck fans who hoped MG would get something for Lou...no hope now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I can really tell this is a boring off-season for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kj29 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 ^no surprise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Singh Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.