Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Do you honestly believe we improved enough?


  • Please log in to reply
248 replies to this topic

#121 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,557 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:28 PM

If Doan signs here, and the Luongo trade brings in some half decent parts, I'd say this team is probably at least on par with the team we had in 2011.

Luongo could probably land a decent top-six forward, a thirdline centre, and maybe another depth defensemen?

Edited by Sergei Shirokov, 02 September 2012 - 01:28 PM.

  • 0

#122 winacup

winacup

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:50 PM

if we want to win a cup we'll need a team that's better than the 2011 team..........
  • 0
Posted Image

#123 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:58 PM

Former captain...yes, highest paid...yes, public request....false.


If you say so. For my amusement, though, what was he referring to when he said "I think it's best for both parties to just move on"? Was he referring to Mike Gillis' intense persuasive efforts to try and bring back Sami Pahlsson for another season?
  • 0

#124 bobopan

bobopan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,530 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 02 September 2012 - 03:10 PM

No. Our top six is still very suspect to me. We had scoring issues this past post-season and same during the SCF run.. Booth is still a question mark, so is Kesler due to his health and god help us if Raymond is still in the fold come playoff time.
  • 0

#125 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 02 September 2012 - 05:54 PM

If you say so. For my amusement, though, what was he referring to when he said "I think it's best for both parties to just move on"? Was he referring to Mike Gillis' intense persuasive efforts to try and bring back Sami Pahlsson for another season?

Could be that he's referring to the team asking him to waive his NTC. That's a dot we have because he said he'd waive it. Again a dot we don't have is the one you're putting in.

Your smarmy response aside you have to admit that even in this post you haven't provided a "dot" you're flat out making an assumption based a comment. You're making the assumption that he "publicly asked for a trade" when what we know is he "publicly said if the team asked him to waive his NTC he'd do it." Unless you can point to something that isn't based on making an assumption I'm not sure what your argument is here.

/amusement
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#126 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 02 September 2012 - 06:14 PM

Your smarmy response aside you have to admit that even in this post you haven't provided a "dot" you're flat out making an assumption based a comment. You're making the assumption that he "publicly asked for a trade" when what we know is he "publicly said if the team asked him to waive his NTC he'd do it." Unless you can point to something that isn't based on making an assumption I'm not sure what your argument is here.


OK. Roberto didn't explicity come out and say that he wanted a trade. You're right. By saying what he did, I am assuming that he wants out. You're right.

I guess, though, that that means that you don't think Cody asked for a trade, or wanted out, either? He never publicly said that he asked for a trade. Those are just assumptions by most Canuck fans. This would lead, then, to your belief that Cody Hodgson for Zack Kassian was a straight-up hockey decision by Mike Gillis, right?
  • 0

#127 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,471 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 07:03 PM

VANCOUVER — Vancouver Canucks head coach Alain Vigneault let the cat out of the bag on French language TV: Goalie Roberto Luongo does indeed want a trade out of Vancouver.
Speaking over the telephone to a Montreal-based TVA Sports show called Le Match, Vigneault was asked if he agreed that Luongo needed a fresh start. (Vigneault was on the show Wednesday night to discuss his contract extension.)
“First of all, that is what he wants right now,” Vigneault said in the translated quote. “What we need to do is what's best for our organization and our team. We have to look at what's best for our organization and Roberto.”


Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz25MswdPYB


  • 0

#128 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 02 September 2012 - 09:55 PM

You are probably right, but your assurances are based on speculation.

As for your comment about Luongo "sitting on the bench and playing every 8 games" is also speculation, and uneducated speculation at that. I'm pretty sure that MG can be quoted saying "If Luongo is on the team at the start of the season, him and CS would fight for starting position"
Luongo will win that fight all day long.


Not with the way he plays at the start of every season my friend.
  • 0

#129 Mack Attack

Mack Attack

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:14 AM

For those saying we have no chance or are going to lose in the first round again, which teams are better? Detroit and San Jose are on the decline. Chicago doesn't have goaltending, while Nashville and Phoenix have little else. St. Louis doesn't have offence. LA is probably the most complete team, but they won't have the same drive as they did this season and haven't made any improvements. I'd say we at least have as good a chance as any other team to come out of the West.

Also don't get how some people think we'd have been better off keeping Salo over Garrison while simultaneously complaining that Gillis doesn't make any changes. It's clear if you watched the team at all during the second half of the season that Salo cannot handle a top 4 role on a contender anymore. I would have loved to keep him on the bottom pairing, but the deal didn't make sense. We had to add a top 4 dman. We missed out on Schultz, weren't ever going to get Suter, so who would people have wanted instead? Wideman? Garrison has three seasons of incredibly solid defensive play under his belt. It's not like he's an unknown. He's not going to score 16 goals again, but 5-10 while adding good defensive ability and size is an upgrade over Salo, no matter how you try to spin it.

We could use a legit 2nd liner. It's our only glaring weakness right now. Doan is still a possibility, but if/when we don't get him there's still a chance we could get one in a Luongo deal. Kassian could also make an impact, but don't think it's too likely.

We don't need to get a 3rd line centre; we have the perfect candidate already in Maxim Lapierre. He was lights out during the 2011 playoff run in that spot. If they tried him there no reason to think he wouldn't excel. If he doesn't then you can look at upgrading at the deadline. Arnott doesn't fit; he's not a reliable defensive option at this stage in his career.

We're one big piece (top 6 winger) and a few depth players (easily acquired in season) away from being favourites. Don't think it's as drastic as everyone is making it out to be.

Edited by Mack Attack, 03 September 2012 - 02:17 AM.

  • 1

#130 ilduce39

ilduce39

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,513 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:22 AM

Could this team be better?: Yes.

Could this team win a Stanley Cup?: Yes.
  • 0
T-Bone said:
remind them all of Tbone, remeber me for how I lived, not how I was banned
*sig too big

#131 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:28 AM

Two years ago we had a lot of forwards having career years, last year we didn't. One must not assume that Booth and Garrison are going to be busts when one has only been here for part of one season, and the other hasn't played a game for Vancouver yet.

I'll take the approach that Manny will get his game back, Booth and Garrison will be Booth and Garrison, the Twins, Kes and others will have bounce back seasons and some of the younger players will step up and play key roles.

There's also the Luongo and perhaps Doan situtation so all in all, I think this team has more talent and depth than ever, it's all a matter of putting it together, staying healthy and motivated.

Of course, looming over all this discussion is the dark shadow of the Bettman Lockout which makes any discussion in this or for that matter any other topic seem irrelevant, which totally pisses me off.


I like the quote in your sig.

I also agree with your quote, pretty much have to rely on fans shaking the Magic 8-Ball for analysis and updates; all to partially relieve my utter despair at the vacuum the off-season has created in my sports interest.
  • 0
Posted Image

#132 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 September 2012 - 07:28 AM

For those saying we have no chance or are going to lose in the first round again, which teams are better? Detroit and San Jose are on the decline. Chicago doesn't have goaltending, while Nashville and Phoenix have little else. St. Louis doesn't have offence. LA is probably the most complete team, but they won't have the same drive as they did this season and haven't made any improvements. I'd say we at least have as good a chance as any other team to come out of the West.


Edmonton will be a lot better, as will Minnesota. Calgary is a wild card - they could also have a big turnaround year. In general, though, I do agree with you that a lot of other teams aren't improving either.

Also don't get how some people think we'd have been better off keeping Salo over Garrison while simultaneously complaining that Gillis doesn't make any changes. It's clear if you watched the team at all during the second half of the season that Salo cannot handle a top 4 role on a contender anymore. I would have loved to keep him on the bottom pairing, but the deal didn't make sense. We had to add a top 4 dman. We missed out on Schultz, weren't ever going to get Suter, so who would people have wanted instead? Wideman? Garrison has three seasons of incredibly solid defensive play under his belt. It's not like he's an unknown. He's not going to score 16 goals again, but 5-10 while adding good defensive ability and size is an upgrade over Salo, no matter how you try to spin it.


How can you say that? You're OK with giving a 6-year, $4.6M per deal to a guy who'll score 5 - 10 goals and add "good defensive ability"? If that's the case, why not just bring back Aaron Rome at 25% of the price?

Look, Garrison's being paid as a top-3 NHL defenceman, he better perform to that level. And the thing that frightens people (me, especially), is that he's really not proven himself as worthy of that contract. He's had 1 good season, and he's 28 years old. To be frank, this contract has ALL the elements of a bust. And by "good", I mean that he's had 1 season that would suggest that he's worth the contract that we gave him. Don't tell me that he was a "shutdown defenseman" in his prior two seasons, as that's a load of crap (look at his team's record for proof). He was given this contract based on his 2011-12 season, period. If he fails to live up to it, it is a failed signing, period.

We don't need to get a 3rd line centre; we have the perfect candidate already in Maxim Lapierre. He was lights out during the 2011 playoff run in that spot. If they tried him there no reason to think he wouldn't excel. If he doesn't then you can look at upgrading at the deadline. Arnott doesn't fit; he's not a reliable defensive option at this stage in his career.


He was there last year, too, so why did MG go out and get Sami Pahlsson if Lapierre is so "perfect"? Fact is, he's not perfect, he's got all the tools, but has been given up on by two teams after making the NHL and at his fairly young age, which is typically a pretty clear signal. He's still not proven. He's a 4th line C, at this point, until he can consistently perform in a role of greater importance. Not taking stupid penalties, not acting like an idiot, being able to add some offense, etc.
  • 1

#133 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 September 2012 - 08:44 AM

OK. Roberto didn't explicity come out and say that he wanted a trade. You're right. By saying what he did, I am assuming that he wants out. You're right.

I guess, though, that that means that you don't think Cody asked for a trade, or wanted out, either? He never publicly said that he asked for a trade. Those are just assumptions by most Canuck fans. This would lead, then, to your belief that Cody Hodgson for Zack Kassian was a straight-up hockey decision by Mike Gillis, right?

I never said Cody publicly asked for a trade though did I? I'm not perpetuating something that's false to make my point over and over and over again. You told me to connect the dots so I did; I just choose not to add dots that I can't see. We know plenty of things about Cody but one thing that has never been known is that he asked for a trade. We know plenty of things about Roberto and one of them is that he said he'd waive his NTC; not that he "publicly asked for a trade.

Assumptions are fine; even if they aren't based on much like this. My problem was you seemed to keep putting it out as a fact and I was curious if he actually did publicly say he wanted out; and he didn't so all's well that ends well I guess
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#134 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 September 2012 - 08:47 AM

VANCOUVER — Vancouver Canucks head coach Alain Vigneault let the cat out of the bag on French language TV: Goalie Roberto Luongo does indeed want a trade out of Vancouver.
Speaking over the telephone to a Montreal-based TVA Sports show called Le Match, Vigneault was asked if he agreed that Luongo needed a fresh start. (Vigneault was on the show Wednesday night to discuss his contract extension.)
“First of all, that is what he wants right now,” Vigneault said in the translated quote. “What we need to do is what's best for our organization and our team. We have to look at what's best for our organization and Roberto.”

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz25MswdPYB

Yeah I've seen that and my first impression was the same as yours except for that as I pointed out earlier Gillis quickly corrected AV and AV explained his comment was a little lost in translation. In fact iirc AV corrects himself during the same interview before before it was over.

I'm actually pretty sure I even posted it already but it may not have been in this thread.


Coach 'misspoke' on Luongo trade: GM



Gillis says Vigneault later corrected comment that goalie wants fresh start elsewhere


BY ELLIOTT PAP, VANCOUVER SUN MAY 26, 2012



Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz25QFbKXmQ
Vancouver Canuck general manager Mike Gillis said Friday that head coach Alain Vigneault "misspoke" when he told a French-language TV show that goalie Roberto Luongo wanted a trade out of Vancouver.
Appearing on the club's flag-ship radio station Team 1040, Gillis said he and Vigneault talked Thursday night and the coach explained that he "didn't mean what he said" about Luongo.
In the original interview Wednesday night, Vigneault was asked if he agreed that Luongo needed a fresh start after being supplanted as the Canucks' No. 1 goalie by Cory Schneider during the playoffs. Vigneault replied (translated): "That's what he wants right now."
According to Gillis, Vigneault later corrected that statement with his interviewers.
"[That] is my understanding," Gillis said. "I haven't heard the interview but he went and told whoever was conducting it that he had misspoke immediately after it happened and I think he did. Like I said, I haven't heard the interview but that's what Alain told me last night and that he clarified it in his mind ... you know, [he] didn't mean what he said."
Gillis reiterated Luongo has maintained the same stance - he would accept a trade if it best suited the team - that he declared to reporters in his April 24 exit interviews.
"No, it's not full-on that we're trying to find him a new home," Gillis said. "What he indicated was that if we felt a change was necessary, he would do what-ever was best for the team once we made that decision. And that's all he said.
"We haven't come to the conclusion yet what's in the best interests of the team and Roberto is going to be part of the process. I talked to him again last week to see how he was feeling and we're going to start moving ahead now that we've cleared up some other issues. We'll start looking at where we want to go with this situation and others."
Gillis added that if Luongo and Schneider were back, they would compete for the No. 1 job. (On his conference call Wednesday, Vigneault had strongly hinted Schneider would start next season as the No. 1. "What happened in the playoffs would be an indication of what might happen moving forward," said the coach.)
"I know you guys want to read into every possible meaning that you can," Gillis continued, "but the reality is that if both are back, they'll be competing for the No. 1 job and whoever wins it will win it."


Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz25QFPa3vm

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 03 September 2012 - 09:04 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#135 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,930 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 10:31 AM

Edmonton will be a lot better, as will Minnesota. Calgary is a wild card - they could also have a big turnaround year. In general, though, I do agree with you that a lot of other teams aren't improving either.


True, Edmonton has brought in the potential for more offense. There hasn't been anything done to improve their defense. Schultz is not going to clear the front of the net, assuming he ever finds himself in that position, which shouldn't be too often. For the most part, it looks like Edmonton is relying on their younger players being another year older and more experienced.

Minnesota did pick up Suter and Parise. Have they really done all that much else to improve a team which finished last in goals for, and had the third worst goal differential? Will they make the playoffs next season? Likely. Will they go all that far? I don't think so, unless Minnesota picks up some additional pieces by the trade deadline.


Don't tell me that he was a "shutdown defenseman" in his prior two seasons, as that's a load of crap (look at his team's record for proof). He was given this contract based on his 2011-12 season, period. If he fails to live up to it, it is a failed signing, period.


I'm confident about Garrison's defensive strengths. Garrison finished last season at +6, on a team that finished -24 in goals for/against (203/227), which suggests he was doing something right. The season prior to that, when Florida had an even worse goals for/against (195/229), Garrison finished at only -2, while scoring 15 fewer points.

As has been previously stated by Garrison's critics, he owes all of his scoring success to Campbell. I suspect that this is only somewhat true. Garrison scored more goals to start the season and fell back to gaining more assists as the opposition started to key on his shot from the point. This sort of thing is to be expected. So, if Garrison was able to score 16 goals on a team with a substantially weaker offense, I don't see why you are so certain that he would be completely incapable of replicating the feat on a team like the Canucks. Will Garrison score 16 goals next season? I don't know, and neither do you. You may hope he doesn't so you can come on these forums and say, "I told you so", but you don't know.

I see Garrison having the potential to get the same number of points as he did in Florida. If his results of last season were because of his defensive partner, Campbell, then Garrison should be able to do quite well being paired with Edler and playing with the Sedins.

Now, if you want to point out that Garrison is not a power play QB, I believe you have a reasonable issue to discuss. Garrison does not, to my knowledge, have any substantial record in this regard.


He was there last year, too, so why did MG go out and get Sami Pahlsson if Lapierre is so "perfect"? Fact is, he's not perfect, he's got all the tools, but has been given up on by two teams after making the NHL and at his fairly young age, which is typically a pretty clear signal. He's still not proven. He's a 4th line C, at this point, until he can consistently perform in a role of greater importance. Not taking stupid penalties, not acting like an idiot, being able to add some offense, etc.


I agree. :)

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

#136 Avicii

Avicii

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,363 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 07

Posted 03 September 2012 - 01:15 PM

Won't win it all with Kesler as a sniper in the 2C spot.

Especially if he has 2 PWFs on his wing. Doesn't work MG... If you're going Boston style, you need a playmaker..

Edited by Ares, 03 September 2012 - 01:15 PM.

  • 1

Posted Image


#137 Mack Attack

Mack Attack

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 01:55 PM

Edmonton will be a lot better, as will Minnesota. Calgary is a wild card - they could also have a big turnaround year. In general, though, I do agree with you that a lot of other teams aren't improving either.


Agreed about those teams (still think Edmonton will be lottery picking this season though), but yeah my point is I don't see any other team in the west that are above and beyond us. Each team has holes, same as us.

How can you say that? You're OK with giving a 6-year, $4.6M per deal to a guy who'll score 5 - 10 goals and add "good defensive ability"? If that's the case, why not just bring back Aaron Rome at 25% of the price?


Because Aaron Rome is not a top 4 defenceman. Neither is Salo at this point in his career. We needed to add someone, and Garrison was the best fit available. Obviously the money is high, but that was the cost of adding him. If Gillis wasn't going to pay it he would have had to have another option up his sleeve. None of our prospects are ready to be thrust into a top 4 role and Ballard just doesn't fit on this team.

Look, Garrison's being paid as a top-3 NHL defenceman, he better perform to that level. And the thing that frightens people (me, especially), is that he's really not proven himself as worthy of that contract. He's had 1 good season, and he's 28 years old. To be frank, this contract has ALL the elements of a bust. And by "good", I mean that he's had 1 season that would suggest that he's worth the contract that we gave him. Don't tell me that he was a "shutdown defenseman" in his prior two seasons, as that's a load of crap (look at his team's record for proof). He was given this contract based on his 2011-12 season, period. If he fails to live up to it, it is a failed signing, period.


He is a shutdown defenceman first and foremost. It doesn't matter if the team was crap or not, that's what kind of player he is and was. Unfortunately we had to pay a premium because of his career year. Like I said, if he can add 5-10 goals, 25-30 points while playing a shutdown role we're looking pretty good. Edler needs a steady presence to excel, and I really think Garrison can be that guy. You have every right to be sceptical, but at least on paper he seems like a very good fit. It could blow up in our faces, sure. But it could also work out great.

He was there last year, too, so why did MG go out and get Sami Pahlsson if Lapierre is so "perfect"? Fact is, he's not perfect, he's got all the tools, but has been given up on by two teams after making the NHL and at his fairly young age, which is typically a pretty clear signal. He's still not proven. He's a 4th line C, at this point, until he can consistently perform in a role of greater importance. Not taking stupid penalties, not acting like an idiot, being able to add some offense, etc.


The only time he's been given the spot on this team is the '11 playoff run, and he was a beast. I don't know why he hasn't been given a shot at it since, it baffles me. He also had 19 points primarily playing a 4th line role in the defensive zone all the time. I think the offence wouldn't a problem playing with better wingers. At the very least, give him a shot. Like I said, if it doesn't work out you can go out and get a guy at the deadline.

Edited by Mack Attack, 03 September 2012 - 01:55 PM.

  • 1

#138 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,471 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:40 PM

Coach 'misspoke' on Luongo trade: GM
Gillis says Vigneault later corrected comment that goalie wants fresh start elsewhere


"Yeah I've seen that and my first impression was the same as yours except for that as I pointed out earlier Gillis quickly corrected AV and AV explained his comment was a little lost in translation. " Employee

We have all seen what Gillis did and it is obvious who told the truth.
  • 0

#139 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,471 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:51 PM

Brian Campbell's Norris calibre offensive prowess = skewed +/- for Jason Garrison.
  • 0

#140 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:54 PM

Assumptions are fine; even if they aren't based on much like this. My problem was you seemed to keep putting it out as a fact and I was curious if he actually did publicly say he wanted out; and he didn't so all's well that ends well I guess


Yeah, all this assumption is based on is the player in question saying that it's time to move on, his own coach saying that he wants to move on, the backup goaltender being signed to a new, multi-year, big-money contract, and the hockey world at-large discussing Luongo destination scenarios because 99.999999% think that it's a given that he's on way out.

Totally baseless assumption, you're right.
  • 2

#141 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 September 2012 - 03:14 PM

Coach 'misspoke' on Luongo trade: GM
Gillis says Vigneault later corrected comment that goalie wants fresh start elsewhere


"Yeah I've seen that and my first impression was the same as yours except for that as I pointed out earlier Gillis quickly corrected AV and AV explained his comment was a little lost in translation. " Employee

We have all seen what Gillis did and it is obvious who told the truth.


Coach 'misspoke' on Luongo trade: GM
Gillis says Vigneault later corrected comment that goalie wants fresh start elsewhere


"Yeah I've seen that and my first impression was the same as yours except for that as I pointed out earlier Gillis quickly corrected AV and AV explained his comment was a little lost in translation. " Employee

We have all seen what Gillis did and it is obvious who told the truth.


Coach 'misspoke' on Luongo trade: GM
Gillis says Vigneault later corrected comment that goalie wants fresh start elsewhere


"Yeah I've seen that and my first impression was the same as yours except for that as I pointed out earlier Gillis quickly corrected AV and AV explained his comment was a little lost in translation. " Employee

We have all seen what Gillis did and it is obvious who told the truth.

Incorrect. Av is the one who corrected himself.Reading the article is kind of essential to be able to comment about it.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#142 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,471 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 03:26 PM

Incorrect. Av is the one who corrected himself.Reading the article is kind of essential to be able to comment about it.


Right,so how do you screw this up so bad?
Gillis repeatedly corrected AV. Is that so hard to figure out?
Do you get paid to protect Gillis from himself?

Vancouver Canuck general manager Mike Gillis said Friday that head coach Alain Vigneault "misspoke" when he told a French-language TV show that goalie Roberto Luongo wanted a trade out of Vancouver.

Gillis said he and Vigneault talked Thursday night and the coach explained that he "didn't mean what he said" about Luongo.

According to Gillis, Vigneault later corrected that statement with his interviewers.

" ... you know, [he] didn't mean what he said." Gillis
  • 0

#143 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 03 September 2012 - 03:38 PM

If AV didn't mean it then why did he say it? This is what I'd like to know.
  • 2

#144 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 September 2012 - 03:49 PM

Because Aaron Rome is not a top 4 defenceman. Neither is Salo at this point in his career. We needed to add someone, and Garrison was the best fit available. Obviously the money is high, but that was the cost of adding him.


The best UFA available, perhaps, not necessarily the best fit. I am not convinced on Jason Garrison, at all, as you all know. The money is very high, and the resume is just not there. It's a roll of the dice. And quite honestly, it just magnifies the mistake that was letting Christian Ehrhoff walk, who could've been had at a cap hit of $600K per annum less. And he's not much older than Garrison.

The only time he's been given the spot on this team is the '11 playoff run, and he was a beast. I don't know why he hasn't been given a shot at it since, it baffles me. He also had 19 points primarily playing a 4th line role in the defensive zone all the time. I think the offence wouldn't a problem playing with better wingers. At the very least, give him a shot. Like I said, if it doesn't work out you can go out and get a guy at the deadline.


I don't agree with this. He's had plenty of shots to secure that spot. My theory on Lapierre is that he's just such a jerk, such an annoying guy to play against, that he actually makes his opponents better, because they hate him so much that he fires them up and in effect brings out their best.

I used to live in Calgary, and there were a lot of times where Iginla would be floating through the game, not really having much of an impact at all, and the atmosphere would be fairly quiet. Then, someone would do something stupid, take some cheap shot at him, or a teammate, and it'd wake him up. He'd then pop a goal or two, add 5 shots on net, etc. I honestly feel that Lapierre has that effect. He's so annoying that it fires up the opposition, and they play better. The spot's been there for his taking - think about it, his competition has been Sami Pahlsson and Cyclops Malhotra, ever since the CH deal - but he hasn't taken it. My theory would also explain why an otherwise talented guy would be dumped by both Montreal & Anaheim before entering what should be his prime years. There are issues with the guy. Not unlike Kyle Wellwood, really, though he may have finally found a home in Winnipeg.
  • 0

#145 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 September 2012 - 03:52 PM

If AV didn't mean it then why did he say it? This is what I'd like to know.


Maybe he misremembered the question that he was asked, much like Roger Clemens misremembered whether he was actually shot up with the clean and the clear.
  • 1

#146 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 September 2012 - 03:59 PM

Coach 'misspoke' on Luongo trade: GM

Gillis says Vigneault later corrected comment that goalie wants fresh start elsewhere


Is this like when Mike Gillis "misspoke" on Team1040, when he was blatantly asked as to whether or not he had qualified MA Gragnani, responded with "Yes", and then we all found out that that was flat-out lie a couple of days later?
  • 1

#147 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,930 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 04:20 PM

Brian Campbell's Norris calibre offensive prowess = skewed +/- for Jason Garrison.


Brian Campbell's Norris calibre offensive prowess < the ability and talent available on the Canucks. Ergo, we should be able to look forward to an even greater skewed +/- for Garrison this season.

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

#148 Strawberries

Strawberries

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 03 September 2012 - 04:28 PM

Brian Campbell's Norris calibre offensive prowess < the ability and talent available on the Canucks. Ergo, we should be able to look forward to an even greater skewed +/- for Garrison this season.

regards,
G.


Agreed the Sedins are going to tee him up all day
  • 0
Posted Image

#149 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,930 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 04:37 PM

Cyclops Malhotra


?

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

#150 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,471 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 04:42 PM

Brian Campbell's Norris calibre offensive prowess < the ability and talent available on the Canucks. Ergo, we should be able to look forward to an even greater skewed +/- for Garrison this season.

regards,
G.


As you incorrectly implied,his +/- does not define his defensive capablilites when racking up serious points with an offensively gifted Norris contender.
However,Garrison is said to be a positionally astute defender so he should provide the team with Hamhuis 'B' type play.
He will need to play alongside a Norris capable defender to duplicate his scoring feat so let's hope Edler can mesh with him.
  • 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.