Visp Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 For future reference, i mean if you plan on writing for the Canucks in the future, you should know that 'the fans' here expect us to sign pretty much all the free agents every summer. I mean you probably know that. At least i hope you would. But if that's the bar, then failure to do 'as the fans expect' should be fairly expected. ie. It's impossible. Also for future reference, while this might sound like some knowitall blabbering anonymous hater is not fully appreciating your article, it would help at this point to not come up with a mere review of what we already know. Instead, realizing what cdc is all about, it would be more usefull to create a multitude of fake twitter accounts to boost your rumour breaking cred while randomly speculating on where Luongo could possibly end up. That is, somewhere other than what's already been discussed or for a package not already discussed. At this point we want to be entertained by 'totally awesome rumour breaking' and 'WE'RE GOING TO GET _____!' talk. Not bored by endless doom 'n gloom reviews. Yes. Feed the monster of cdc expectations. It doesn't even have to be legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cIutch Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 cmon mike , do what we all want you to do extend higgins contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehamburglar Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I dont want to trade Luongo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 This is a poorly written article that's full of factual and grammatical errors. First of all, Gillis said that they never offered Weber a long-term contract because they knew Nashville would match BEFORE Nashville actually matched it, not after, as the article states. Gillis was proven to be completely accurate in his assessment and it's foolish to levy any charges of incompetence against him in regards to this specific situation. The Schultz situation is purely speculative. And since we signed Garrison (three strikes what?), I think it's pretty safe to say that we did fairly well. After all, we got one of the top two young defensemen that was available this offseason, not too shabby. Shane Doan has not signed anywhere. Period. He has received several attractive offers from some pretty good teams and he has not signed any of them. The fact that he has also not signed with the Canucks is entirely a non-issue. Everyone knows that Phoenix holds his loyalty, but even still, if he signed with Pittsburgh or New York, could you really fault Gillis for that? Is it Gillis' fault that Pittsburgh and New York have really great, attractive teams? Silliness. Also, you cannot centre around something, that's an oxymoron. You can centre ON something, however. As for Luongo's situation, it's pretty simple really. Gillis does not need to force anything right now. The dust should probably settle on Doan at the least, and if Gillis thinks that waiting a little longer can get the team a better deal, then by all means. And how can you even criticize him for starting with a high asking price? It came across as a criticism to me, anyway, and yet in practice it's simply good negotiating by our general manager. So all of that leads me to this: what exactly was the point of the article? Was this meant to be critical of Gillis, or was it supposed to be "telling it like it is" in some hard-nosed style of journalism that "digs deep"? That's not meant to be mean, but I am legitimately pointing out that the focus of this article is sorely lacking and it feels like its "edginess" was forced and misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visp Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 This is a poorly written article that's full of factual and grammatical errors. First of all, Gillis said that they never offered Weber a long-term contract because they knew Nashville would match BEFORE Nashville actually matched it, not after, as the article states. Gillis was proven to be completely accurate in his assessment and it's foolish to levy any charges of incompetence against him in regards to this specific situation. The Schultz situation is purely speculative. And since we signed Garrison (three strikes what?), I think it's pretty safe to say that we did fairly well. After all, we got one of the top two young defensemen that was available this offseason, not too shabby. Shane Doan has not signed anywhere. Period. He has received several attractive offers from some pretty good teams and he has not signed any of them. The fact that he has also not signed with the Canucks is entirely a non-issue. Everyone knows that Phoenix holds his loyalty, but even still, if he signed with Pittsburgh or New York, could you really fault Gillis for that? Is it Gillis' fault that Pittsburgh and New York have really great, attractive teams? Silliness. Also, you cannot centre around something, that's an oxymoron. You can centre ON something, however. As for Luongo's situation, it's pretty simple really. Gillis does not need to force anything right now. The dust should probably settle on Doan at the least, and if Gillis thinks that waiting a little longer can get the team a better deal, then by all means. And how can you even criticize him for starting with a high asking price? It came across as a criticism to me, anyway, and yet in practice it's simply good negotiating by our general manager. So all of that leads me to this: what exactly was the point of the article? Was this meant to be critical of Gillis, or was it supposed to be "telling it like it is" in some hard-nosed style of journalism that "digs deep"? That's not meant to be mean, but I am legitimately pointing out that the focus of this article is sorely lacking and it feels like its "edginess" was forced and misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Everyone missed out on Weber. No one has missed out on Doan yet. Nowhere near a Luongo 'deadline'. Most of us wanted Garrison far more than Schultz. Garrison is a proven two-way, 23 minute, top 4 guy who does all things well - highly sought after and signed at less than market value. Schultz was like a free draft pick that everyone wanted, but no contender in their right mind would guarantee him ice time - that is earned. What have you done for me lately MG. Garrison was huge, but that was so many weeks ago... (Oh yeah, Schneider signed for less than he would have been offer sheeted for...) Dramatic article, but not much substance to the story there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 So basically the same crap that is floating around on these forums. Yawn...someone let me know when it's preseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrousettCanuck Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Whatever happened to getting Jason Arrnot. He would be an absolute perfect addition to our roster at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Hasn't delivered? Yeah we aren't a successful team. He tried to do everything he could to get Weber, to get Schultz, to get those guys, the Doan and Luongo situations are an on-going process. He got us Booth for really nothing in the big picture, he's making us bigger and better, and it takes time. More will happen this month just watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Booth............for nothing. Really? I don't think Sammy was someone who we were desperate to get rid of and Detroit seem to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Booth............for nothing. Really? I don't think Sammy was someone who we were desperate to get rid of and Detroit seem to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noheart Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 MG has added much more than he has subtracted from this team. That's all you can really ask for. Just need some good luck to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I hate when writers talk about what "the fans" wanted, like he is the entire fanbase. Does he speak for me (or you)? - no. Also hate when people talk about acquiring "additions in the top 6 forward group and a franchise blue-liner" like it's as easy as whipping up to 7-11 to grab a Slurpee. Sure it is. Really hate it when (unproven with regard to the NHL) players "demand guaranteed minutes". No - because if you play like crap, you sit - that's how it is. You earn your ice time, it isn't guaranteed. Does not indicate a team first attitude to me. (Although I'm not reading too much into what these hack writers put out) "Three strikes"? This isn't baseball, it's hockey. And it's not like it's a "strike" when you make a pitch for someone and they decline or go elsewhere - they hold the key in that, as the batter looking over the pitches (if we must use the baseball analogy). Not much to see here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Considering we just traded a centre because his daddy was demanding his son gets more ice time. I find it ironic we were in the Schultz discussion at all if he and his agent was looking for guaranteed ice time. As Eastwood said: "You want a guarantee. Buy a toaster." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 This is a poorly written article that's full of factual and grammatical errors. First of all, Gillis said that they never offered Weber a long-term contract because they knew Nashville would match BEFORE Nashville actually matched it, not after, as the article states. Gillis was proven to be completely accurate in his assessment and it's foolish to levy any charges of incompetence against him in regards to this specific situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 First thing, nobody cares about grammar. It's an article, not a thesis. Second, "incompetence" might be a bit harsh, "lazy" might be a bit more appropriate. Paul Holmgren, at least, put his team in the position where they MIGHT get Weber, for effectively zero. Mike Gillis did not - and you can bet that he was sweating those 6 days more than anybody, with knowledge that he'd be skewered by British Columbians if Nashville chose to not match the offer. In addition, that's not the only way that Weber could've been acquired. Poile was fielding trade offers. Gillis could've/should've offered him the moon. A deal around Kesler would've made perfect sense. Kesler's perfect for Nashville. Would've been logical. Throw in Connauton, Sauve, Jensen, whatever, just get the deal done. Gillis wanted to get Weber one way, and that was at a cost of nothing but money. Sometimes, you need to be a bit bold and aggressive when trying to get someone that'd be the perfect fit for the team. So would it have been OK for Columbus to bring back Rick Nash for the 2012-13 season, and "wait for something better", or, for the betterment of the team, do you think it's best that they just shipped him out, moved on, and rid themselves of the distraction, before it got bigger and bigger, and worse and worse? Because the Luongo situation is its identical. You CANNOT bring that guy back. He has asked for a trade. TRADE HIM. If the GM thinks that 33 year-old Roberto Luongo's value is going to appreciate by sitting on our bench and watching hockey games at ice level, he is a moron. Not going to happen. NO upside to holding on to Roberto. I think the point is that, in general, this team is not getting better! And it even seems to be at a crossroads; are we contenders, or are we not? Not many contending teams that I know of are willing to let one of their franchise's best defencemen ever walk after being too cheap to offer an additional year. Aaron Rome's another guy that's walked. That's 1/3 of our D, by my calculation. Replacing these guys is a huge question mark, who was given a 6-year, $4.6M per deal. Huh? In addition, our 2nd line C will be out until Christmas, meaning that he probably won't be himself until Valentine's Day, if we're lucky. Who's going to fill that role in his absence? Currently, it's between Max Lapierre and an unproductive AHLer. Contender? The Canucks seem to be treading water right now, which is the point of the article. This is a worse team than the last two years' versions. And pre-season is only about 4 weeks away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Sami imo was too good to let go for the want of one more year............when fit he was known quality, calm under pressure and a big body. Rome was not the greatest of Ds but he was a great team man and solid defensively, as far as I can see, he is yet to be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Salo is ancient and Rome is a plug. Both are overpaid on their new teams. Meanwhile, Garrison has broke out defensively the year before last and he could've gotten more if he wanted to. Ffs, please learn something, ES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Salo is ancient and Rome is a plug. Both are overpaid on their new teams. Meanwhile, Garrison has broke out defensively the year before last and he could've gotten more if he wanted to. Ffs, please learn something, ES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Uhh, assuming that Schultz and Weber were interested in signing with us but signed with other teams technically means we missed out on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.