Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

We Won't Get Another Top 6 Forward


This topic has been archived.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

#61 Newsflash

Newsflash

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,267 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 08

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:04 PM

I don't know where the insults are coming from, but touche.


IF YOU SMELLLLL LALALALALALA WHAT THE ROCK IS COOKIN

I just think Luongo (fully aware of the fact that he will be moved) would probably get a little frustrated sitting around, waiting for Gillis to trade him "until the time is right." And the meantime, he goes out there and fetches us wins.


Of course he would love to be traded NOW, but why should that matter to us if we can get a better deal later? If Luongo is unhappy with us because of it, too bad. It's not like we're going to have to deal with that after he's traded.

And I pretty much worship the ground Luongo walks on too. My favorite Canuck atm. But business is business.

It's not bush league. GM's have traded players who wanted out, at later dates, before.

Forgive me for seeing it this way.


ye nah brah

EDIT: That ye nah brah is not me not forgiving you or whatever we're doing here. I just did not know what to write there.

Edited by Newsflash, 16 August 2012 - 07:14 PM.

Buddy I called this EXACT situtation on here two years ago and was flamed, so I guess I have a bit of hockey knowledge, not to mention the 4 years I played in the OHL idiot.


The conspiracy theories that used to be against Lateralus:
Puberty, life, movie theaters, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out during a children's movie, Toy Story 3, Pixar, who ever decided to make Woody so damn attractive, a job, his mothers basement, being 40, being 40 five years ago, dogs who can out run him, all dogs, the Olympic committee, Truth, Fact, Honesty, Logic, Newsflash, a father figure who was there to see him learn to ride his first bike, bikes,

#62 Newsflash

Newsflash

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,267 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 08

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:13 PM

Absolutely.


I disagree.

Look at how Ray Shero handled Jordan Staal. That's how you take care of business. Not this posturing crap.


But I disagree!

Take your lumps, Gillis, you backed yourself into a corner in this one, and you're getting what you deserve.


Why did he back himself up into a corner? For reasons stated above, he does not have to trade him soon. He has all the time in the world.

What does he deserve exactly?

Suck it up and trade the man.


Posted Image

Buddy I called this EXACT situtation on here two years ago and was flamed, so I guess I have a bit of hockey knowledge, not to mention the 4 years I played in the OHL idiot.


The conspiracy theories that used to be against Lateralus:
Puberty, life, movie theaters, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out during a children's movie, Toy Story 3, Pixar, who ever decided to make Woody so damn attractive, a job, his mothers basement, being 40, being 40 five years ago, dogs who can out run him, all dogs, the Olympic committee, Truth, Fact, Honesty, Logic, Newsflash, a father figure who was there to see him learn to ride his first bike, bikes,

#63 beer&meat

beer&meat

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 915 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:16 PM

You really need a freaking source for this (other than the fact that Luongo publicly came out and said it's time for him to move on?) Have you been living under a rock for the last 3 months?

If you don't believe that Luongo has lost his starting job to Schneider, you're the one out to lunch. And when the hell did I say Luongo was bad in the playoffs? Why the hell are you putting words in my mouth? Everybody and their grandmas know that it was the lazy/lousy play of the team in front of Luongo/Schneider that cost us. Schneider, however, was still better than Luongo in the Kings series.The stats speak for themselves.

It has never been publicly stated he has lost his starting spot, so you saying he has, doesn't make it true. Luongo saying it's time to move on only says he is willing to give it up.
I never once said that you said "Luongo played poorly in the playoffs" I was simply pointing out the fact that the only reason C.S. got the start was because A.V. was trying to shake things up (which you agreed with me on). If C.S. played poorly in his first game Luo would have played the next game (yes I know speculation, but the odds are are my side).
Honestly if you think Luongo lost the starting position based on stats from 5 games then I really..... :picard:

I know I know now your going to spout off about stats for the year, don't bother. You brought up the Kings series, not me, I didn't reply to you about stats.
IMO if Luongo is in a Canucks jersey at the start of the season, he'll get the start. C.S. is either going ot have to earn it, or wait until Luongo is traded.
You need to calm down just a little and re-read my post, I never put words in your mouth, maybe you should take a break from the CDC, you seem very agitated by other people's opinions when they are different from yours.
I don't ride with the band, I roll with the team.

I've been a Canuck fan since 2004-05 when the team was going through a huge transition phase, missed the playoffs


#64 mysticriver

mysticriver

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 478 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 11

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:32 PM

It has never been publicly stated he has lost his starting spot, so you saying he has, doesn't make it true. Luongo saying it's time to move on only says he is willing to give it up.
I never once said that you said "Luongo played poorly in the playoffs" I was simply pointing out the fact that the only reason C.S. got the start was because A.V. was trying to shake things up (which you agreed with me on). If C.S. played poorly in his first game Luo would have played the next game (yes I know speculation, but the odds are are my side).
Honestly if you think Luongo lost the starting position based on stats from 5 games then I really..... :picard:

I know I know now your going to spout off about stats for the year, don't bother. You brought up the Kings series, not me, I didn't reply to you about stats.
IMO if Luongo is in a Canucks jersey at the start of the season, he'll get the start. C.S. is either going ot have to earn it, or wait until Luongo is traded.
You need to calm down just a little and re-read my post, I never put words in your mouth, maybe you should take a break from the CDC, you seem very agitated by other people's opinions when they are different from yours.


Okay, maybe I do need to calm down a bit.

But IMO (and I'm sure there are others who agree), Luongo will be traded before the season starts and Schneider will be our #1.

Posted Image

Sig/Avatar by ExpectoPatronum


#65 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,378 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:45 PM

doan wants to win a cup. there's not a snowballs chance in hell he's going to sign here.

If you make an account, you use only that account. So don't make another one CupIsAll.

Edited by Steven Stamkos' Mullet, 16 August 2012 - 07:52 PM.

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

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

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


#66 beer&meat

beer&meat

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 915 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:56 PM

Okay, maybe I do need to calm down a bit.

But IMO (and I'm sure there are others who agree), Luongo will be traded before the season starts and Schneider will be our #1.


I don't disagree with that, although I'm wondering if it's a smarter move to hold onto him until his value is a little higher, the only problem with that is Luongo has the last say, which only makes him worth w/e the team HE wants to go to is willing to pay.
I don't ride with the band, I roll with the team.

I've been a Canuck fan since 2004-05 when the team was going through a huge transition phase, missed the playoffs


#67 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 17 August 2012 - 11:21 AM

Even if we don't get Doan, we might still get a top 6 guy by:

1) Trading Luongo
2) Signing UFAs. Heselius, Langkow, Hecht, Arnott
3) Signing RFAs. Evander Kane, Omark, Ennis


I doubt Luongo will get a top 6 forward that can actually make an impact on this team.

Huselius, Lankow, Hecht and Arnott definitely do not cut it as top 6 forwards that can win us a cup. Look at LA's top 6.

We can't just pry out RFA's so easily, especially Kane.
Posted Image

#68 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 14 September 2012 - 05:19 PM

Told you we won't get Doan :bigblush:


But in all seriousness, I hope we can get something outta Luongo, it's really making me wonder now if we're even going to trade Luongo.
Posted Image

#69 winacup

winacup

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 14 September 2012 - 05:23 PM

at least we still have mayray.........
Posted Image

#70 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,887 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 14 September 2012 - 06:22 PM

Actually,Luongo stated he wanted to be a starting goaltender and that is why we are where we are.
To believe that Luongo wants to be a #2 goaltender is not in keeping with reality of what has transpired and been stated.

#71 Clonedanielsedin

Clonedanielsedin

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,353 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:50 AM

They don't need one. When you make it to the finals and make the playoffs every year you're set. Its all up to chance and hard work now.

#72 winacup

winacup

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:58 AM

when you do all that and don't win the cup you have to come to the realization that you're not good enough and that you need to get better players to get it done.
Posted Image

#73 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:03 AM

Actually,Luongo stated he wanted to be a starting goaltender and that is why we are where we are.
To believe that Luongo wants to be a #2 goaltender is not in keeping with reality of what has transpired and been stated.


Also, to believe that the Canucks want to pay $5.2M per year to their backup goaltender is not dealing with reality.

#74 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:09 AM

They don't need one. When you make it to the finals and make the playoffs every year you're set. Its all up to chance and hard work now.


Seriously? If you really thing that all we need is hard work, you're wrong. Just because we make it to the playoffs every year and made it it to ONE final since '94, that doesn't mean squat all. In fact, it means nothing at all. How many finals did the Kings make it to? But they have a cup no? I'd rather miss the playoffs and make our team better rather than have a chance every year and blow it every time.

I don't know about you, but I want to see a god damn cup at least in my lifetime, and if we don't make bold moves that will NEVER happen. You don't need to be a hockey analyst to figure that out.
Posted Image

#75 winacup

winacup

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:13 AM

Seriously? If you really thing that all we need is hard work, you're wrong. Just because we make it to the playoffs every year and made it it to ONE final since '94, that doesn't mean squat all. In fact, it means nothing at all. How many finals did the Kings make it to? But they have a cup no? I'd rather miss the playoffs and make our team better rather than have a chance every year and blow it every time.

I don't know about you, but I want to see a god damn cup at least in my lifetime, and if we don't make bold moves that will NEVER happen. You don't need to be a hockey analyst to figure that out.


couldn't have said it better myself
Posted Image

#76 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,495 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:57 AM

Posted Image

#77 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 01:05 PM

UMADBRO?
Posted Image
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

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

#78 Jaku

Jaku

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 03:08 PM

If Luongo gets traded the Canucks will get a top 6 forward in return.
R.I.P- #37 Rick Rypien, #28 Luc Bourdon, #38 Pavol Demitra Forever Canucks.
Posted Image
Credit to Khalifawiz501 for the Sig.
Posted ImageColorado Avalanche GM in CDC STHS Sim League

#79 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 04:38 PM

Agreed. And we only have 4 top-6 forwards. That's the problem.

top-6 caliber forwards:
H.Sedin
D. Sedin
Burrows
Kesler

2 players who should still be top-6 forwards but aren't anymore:
Booth: He used to be, but hasn't played like that in a few years... small window before latest knee injury he looked promising...
Raymond: He used to be too... but again, hasn't played like that in a few years...

Possible top-6 players:
Shroeder: Small but so what if he can bring it.
Jensen: Probably too young to jump in this next year.
Kassian: He did it for a few games after the trade. But not mentally ready, couldn't sustain.

It would be great if Booth and Raymond can jump up to their previous level of play... But they probably should have been able to at least by the end of last season but both were performing under-expectation. Hope, but don't expect with these 2...

Leaving the youngsters... if 1 of them actually cracks the top-6 consistently it will be a huge boon for us! If 2 of them do so we have a re-made team. Odds are against that happening however! Expect only 1 of them to make it. I'd love it if Schroeder and Kassian displaced Booth and Raymond (can Shroeder play wing?) but I'd better stop smoking that stuff...

Probably we need one top-6 to at least make a tandem with Kesler and have some sort of 2nd line. Or we go Kesler-Burrows... but why break up the #1 line, shouldn't do that imho.

Anyways, teams that win the cup almost always have contributions from drafted / young players - serious contributions. If Schroeder and Kassian are busts we aren't winning anything with just Raymond and Booth, but I'd like it proven otherwise of course ;)

From Luongo: Excpect a player like Kassian, that might make it. So probably another youngster in there that can potentially make the top-6.

last word: Remember Datsyuk? I remember him playing 3rd line for the wings for a few years before being promoted. seem to remember Kesler and Burrows doing the same thing. Best thing is to give the kids a chance if you believe in them. got to play them and let them evolve. AV seems to not do this, which doesn't bode well for one of the youngsters making the lineup anytime soon...

Edited by canucksnihilist, 15 September 2012 - 04:43 PM.


#80 komodo1970

komodo1970

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:25 PM

Move Booth to the right side and slide Jensen into the left wing spot. Problem solved.

#81 NoShowWilly

NoShowWilly

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:37 PM

we need a prospect to make the jump. This team does not have the tradable assets required to get a top six forward through trade.

#82 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,418 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:40 PM

Jensen and Kassian have great futures, but they are ready or they are not. I wouldn't want to push them into roles.

Powerforwards just need a bit of age to them. Hard to intimidate grizzled vets with a babyface. Also you could see Kassian (like any mortal) was in young player awe of the superstars he was skating with and against.

I don't now if there is a trade with LU that can get what we need, but Raymond is not the answer, so if we are relying on kids being able to step up, better hope they are ready for the task. This is supposed to be a contender, not a rebuild.

Edited by TimberWolf, 15 September 2012 - 05:41 PM.

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#83 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:06 PM

Seriously? If you really thing that all we need is hard work, you're wrong. Just because we make it to the playoffs every year and made it it to ONE final since '94, that doesn't mean squat all. In fact, it means nothing at all. How many finals did the Kings make it to? But they have a cup no? I'd rather miss the playoffs and make our team better rather than have a chance every year and blow it every time.

I don't know about you, but I want to see a god damn cup at least in my lifetime, and if we don't make bold moves that will NEVER happen. You don't need to be a hockey analyst to figure that out.


How many years are you willing to miss the playoffs in order to get better? Or are you saying that this was what the Kings were doing,"getting better" by missing the playoffs 11 of the past 17 seasons, and having minimal success when they did get to the post season?


Of the Flyers and the Kings, which team made the "bolder" moves last season?

From what you wrote above, I would suggest that the Flyers are that team. They moved Richards to the Kings and Carter to Colombus, which brought back a joint return of Voracek, Simmonds, Schenn, a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd. The Flyers got younger, gained some valuable picks, lost some skill but gained a lot more in potential, and about $2 million cheaper in their cap hit. They look to be a very successful team for the next decade.

They still finished 3rd in the east (again), and lost to the eventual SC finalist (again). So, even though they traded away two star players the team did just as well with the future stars that were brought in.

The Kings brought in Richards, and he didn't bring a huge improvement with him. The Kings were once again doubrful to make the playoffs at the trade deadline. Getting Carter at the deadline did help. The Kings made the playoffs (just), and went on to win the Cup. They also lost a lot of their future (Johnson, Simonds, Schenn, and picks), and over $11 million of their cap locked up in Richards and Carter for another decade. But, yes, they got a Cup. I wonder what their chances are of getting another one anytime soon?


So which team made the bolder moves? From your perspective, I suspect you would say the Kings, because they won it all, yes? How much of the results for these two teams is the result of the efforts of the new players brought in? I'd argue that the Flyers got the better of their deals. As noted, the team finished the same as previous seasons, with the potential to finish even better.

Perhaps the "boldest" move the Kings made all season was having Quick go on a hot streak at the right time. Having a practically unbeatable goalie does help your trades look "bolder".

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

#84 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 16 September 2012 - 12:46 AM

They both made bold moves... I'm not saying LA only won because of that. They made trades that made their top 6 better, something that we need to do. And Philly will be rewarded soon, just wait and see.

Are you seriously saying that we don't need to make any moves?
Posted Image

#85 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 16 September 2012 - 04:07 AM

They both made bold moves... I'm not saying LA only won because of that. They made trades that made their top 6 better, something that we need to do. And Philly will be rewarded soon, just wait and see.


And I think you are missing my point, chum.

What I'm suggesting here is that LA's "bold moves" paid off because of an outside factor, in this case that Quick played phenomenally well. Without Quick, LA's moves don't look as bright, do they? The Kings were not showing any great signs of improvement from the acquisition of Richards. Carter did contribute 6 goals in the regular season and 8 goals in the playoffs, as did Kopitar and Brown. Doughty, Williams and even Penner each had pretty good playoffs, and none of them would have had 20 games to get all of those points if Quick hadn't played the way he did.

Quick was the deciding factor in these past playoffs, and without him LA doesn't make it make it past the second round.

And while we're at it, Sutter was pretty important too, right? Both of these guys (Quick and Sutter) were by far more important to LA's success than Richards and/or Carter.

Are you seriously saying that we don't need to make any moves?


You are seriously using "seriously" a lot... seriously. :P

How do you jump to the conclusion that I believe the Canucks do not "...need to make any moves" from my previous post? Not once did I mention Vancouver's situation. My comments were restricted to La's situation and that of the Flyers' which made for a nice compare and contrast in that both of the big names that the Flyers dumped turned up in LA.


I do suggest that the Canucks do not/did not have the same amount of quality assets who were disposable to their team as LA. Were the Canucks to make "bold moves", just who could they have traded at last season's deadline?

Schneider? Edler? Hodgson? Booth? Burrows? Higgins? Hansen? Raymond? Ballard? Tanev? Picks? Other prospects?

These are the guys who would have been the likely candidates to be moved, and no, I have not included anybody with a NTC/NMC on that list, and do remember to leave all 20/20 observations as the quality of their play over the last part of the season and playoffs at the door.

I see the general feeling on these forums as being that (from the above list) only Schneider or Edler could serve as the center piece of a significant trade. The team needs were (and perhaps still are), a top-6 right winger, another top-4 d-man and perhaps a 3rd line center.

If the Canucks traded Edler, they haven't done anything to fill that gap on defence, unless this trade was for some "superstar" d-man, and just who would be giving up a guy like that if their team had a shot at the playoffs? And if they didn't, what kind of a price would they want in addition to Schneider or Edler? Colombus got Johnson and a conditional 1st for Carter, and that trade was pretty close to being a contract/salary dump by Colombus. If the Canucks did pick up a top-6 winger, how much better off would the team be without Edler on defense and/or without Schneider backing up Luongo in case of issues in goal? And no, I do not believe that Hodgson and a 1st gets the Canucks a player like Richards or Carter.

This is where my contention enters, that the Canucks didn't have the "disposable" parts which LA had available to trade, and the reason for this was because of the Canucks' better record for the past decade.


regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 16 September 2012 - 04:08 AM.

Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#86 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,887 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 16 September 2012 - 04:31 AM

Chum:
verb (used without object)
3.
to associate closely.
4.
to share a room or rooms with another, especially in a dormitory at a college or prep school.

#87 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:14 AM

Chum:
verb (used without object)
3.
to associate closely.
4.
to share a room or rooms with another, especially in a dormitory at a college or prep school.


It can also be fish refuse or scraps discarded by a cannery, chum.

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

#88 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,829 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 16 September 2012 - 09:35 AM

After the Doan fiasco ( what a waste of time waiting for his answer) I don't see any top 6 additions unless arnott signs and maybe a young gun like Jensen impresses

#89 Wilbur

Wilbur

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 16 September 2012 - 09:47 PM

And I think you are missing my point, chum.

What I'm suggesting here is that LA's "bold moves" paid off because of an outside factor, in this case that Quick played phenomenally well. Without Quick, LA's moves don't look as bright, do they? The Kings were not showing any great signs of improvement from the acquisition of Richards. Carter did contribute 6 goals in the regular season and 8 goals in the playoffs, as did Kopitar and Brown. Doughty, Williams and even Penner each had pretty good playoffs, and none of them would have had 20 games to get all of those points if Quick hadn't played the way he did.

Quick was the deciding factor in these past playoffs, and without him LA doesn't make it make it past the second round.

And while we're at it, Sutter was pretty important too, right? Both of these guys (Quick and Sutter) were by far more important to LA's success than Richards and/or Carter.



You are seriously using "seriously" a lot... seriously. :P

How do you jump to the conclusion that I believe the Canucks do not "...need to make any moves" from my previous post? Not once did I mention Vancouver's situation. My comments were restricted to La's situation and that of the Flyers' which made for a nice compare and contrast in that both of the big names that the Flyers dumped turned up in LA.


I do suggest that the Canucks do not/did not have the same amount of quality assets who were disposable to their team as LA. Were the Canucks to make "bold moves", just who could they have traded at last season's deadline?

Schneider? Edler? Hodgson? Booth? Burrows? Higgins? Hansen? Raymond? Ballard? Tanev? Picks? Other prospects?

These are the guys who would have been the likely candidates to be moved, and no, I have not included anybody with a NTC/NMC on that list, and do remember to leave all 20/20 observations as the quality of their play over the last part of the season and playoffs at the door.

I see the general feeling on these forums as being that (from the above list) only Schneider or Edler could serve as the center piece of a significant trade. The team needs were (and perhaps still are), a top-6 right winger, another top-4 d-man and perhaps a 3rd line center.

If the Canucks traded Edler, they haven't done anything to fill that gap on defence, unless this trade was for some "superstar" d-man, and just who would be giving up a guy like that if their team had a shot at the playoffs? And if they didn't, what kind of a price would they want in addition to Schneider or Edler? Colombus got Johnson and a conditional 1st for Carter, and that trade was pretty close to being a contract/salary dump by Colombus. If the Canucks did pick up a top-6 winger, how much better off would the team be without Edler on defense and/or without Schneider backing up Luongo in case of issues in goal? And no, I do not believe that Hodgson and a 1st gets the Canucks a player like Richards or Carter.

This is where my contention enters, that the Canucks didn't have the "disposable" parts which LA had available to trade, and the reason for this was because of the Canucks' better record for the past decade.


regards,
G.

Right on so many things there but you're wasting your breath (or fingers in this case).
The bold moves that posters like winacup want to see are:

Trade:
Daniel Sedin
Henrik Sedin
Alex Burrows
Ryan Kesler
Jannik Hansen
Chris Higgins
Keith Ballard
Alex Edler
Kevin Bieksa
Robert Luongo
Chris Tanev
David Booth
Zack Kassian

Put on waivers:
Manny Malhotra
Max Lapierre
Dale Weise
Aaron Volpatti
Andrew Alberts

Fire:
Mike Gillis
Lawrence Gilman
Stan Smyl
Ron Delorme
Dave Gagner
Alain Vigneault

Did I miss anyone of significance?

Now, this doesn't have to be done all at once, but maybe over a few weeks (and what an entertaining few weeks!) And when the dust settles you can start your rebuild with Cory Schneider and Mike Burnstein.
/sarcasm

In reality, some people think a rebuild right now is the way to go. But even then, the Canucks aren't going to get players that will lead them to Stanley Cups they'll just get depth. You trade the Sedins now, you aren't going to get players that have more top end potential than the Sedins right now. Like you said, look at the Flyers trades. Schenn, Couture, and Voracek are all great prospects. But none of them project to be better than Carter or Richards. They'll be good, but probably not better. The Flyers were able to make those trades and not suffer too much because of the emergence of Giroux. The Canucks have no Giroux. So making any trades would be, at best, just rearranging the deck chairs. The best route for the Canucks to go is ride their current players and improve where you can. The odd miracle can happen like the Ehrhoff trade for the Canucks or Boston signing Chara, but that's rare. Generally, a team drafts and develops their main horses to get them to the stantley cup. Unfortunately, the Canucks will probably have to wait to draft those and ride it out with the current team they have (which still has a very good chance btw).

Don't think Gillis knows this, look at his picks and the Hodgson trade. Gaunce, Jensen, Kassian are all big bodies that should be tough to play against. Sure they lack the elite skill but that will come after the Sedin era is over and the Canucks get some earlier picks again. Jensen wasn't picked to help the Sedin's, he was picked to help the next Ryan Nugent-Hopkins.

#90 Canucklehead420

Canucklehead420

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 460 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 04

Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:29 PM

I don't know where the insults are coming from, but touche. I just think Luongo (fully aware of the fact that he will be moved) would probably get a little frustrated sitting around, waiting for Gillis to trade him "until the time is right." And the meantime, he goes out there and fetches us wins.

Forgive me for seeing it this way.


exactly. hes probably going to be here for whenever hockey starts up again. everyone seems to think Corys #1 job is set in stone and Lu is just going to pout on the bench all year. its going to light a fire under his A$$ to get his job back.




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.