WolfxHaley Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I love this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eretz canucks Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 If we're gonna deal with Anaheim anyways: VAN Schneider Ballard 1st ANA Ryan Fowler 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 The only explanation is to ask a simple question: if they were so injured, why were they playing? Cody Hodgson could've been playing. And BTW, hairline fractures occur all the time and can go untreated. Don't let the jargon fool you. "Broken" does not accurately reflect the severity of the injury. And just because Boston didn't report their injuries, like the Canucks were so quick to do, does not mean that they didn't have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Our health was not the reason for the loss. The Canucks choked, plain and simple. Pooped all over themselves with fear in Boston, 3 times. The Canucks were up 2-0, and all they had to do was not lose 4/5 games to the Boston Bruins - which is exactly what happened. You're not going to convince me that "injuries" were the cause of our loss, so if that's the goal, may as well just stop. I don't consider anybody who's playing to be "injured", no matter what Mike Gillis tells me via the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Wow, almost every post on this page was in response to King, and the three that weren't, one was marvelling at the responses, another one was agreeing with another poster replying to King, and the 3rd was unrelated. Does anyone see a problem here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Sorry; a clarification. I did not call your perspective propaganda; I called the whole presentation of the Hodgson affair by Gillis this. I did think you expand on this viewpoint that he was pitching a tad too aggressively from time to time. Comments like "for you Hodgson lovers give it up"... If Gillis was completely right, Kassian would have been a monster for us in the play off's. I would have preferred him saying right when the trade was made that, perhaps they made some mistakes, but Hodgson wanted more than we can offer him at the moment. So we're offering him a chance and also offering Kassian the chance to the big dominating winger we also need. Meh; back to new business. Huh? What? I'm not sure there is much point of engaging with this. Call my perspective propaganda if you choose - I call it keeping things in context. I can't bother to get too concerned about claims like that. Calling Gillis a "politician" is more propaganda than anything I said. Likewise, regarding your claim that I am calling anyone who writes on Hodgson "blind" and a "blithering idiot". I have never said anything resembling that, to anyone. Play victim if you need to - I'm not talking down, I simply disagree, and have said as much - you have taken the liberty of putting a bunch of stuff in my mouth - I never called Hodgson a "wash out" - I never called you anything resembling a "tree hugger" - honestly, you're pretty defensive and have resorted to alot of embellishments - and ironically, I am as much of an "environmentalist" as the next person. If you are going to protest so much about what I have written and want me to respond honestly, you'll have to take less liberties rewriting, 'paraphrasing', and misrepresenting what I have said. Lastly, if you are going to object to the notion that you are a Hodgson lover, you might want to edit that "Hodgson you look so very pretty" declaration of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 No Dan Hamhuis was physically unable to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Holy crap, can you honestly read what you've written and seriously not think you are stretching to the outer limits of possibility just to satisfy your stupid claim that we weren't injured? This is worse than the Luongo/Gillis co-conspiracy to raise Schneider's value or the Oilers would say no to a Luongo for Paajarvi trade; worse than the Phaneuf is top 5 in the league, and handedness doesn't matter. This is a plain and simple straight forward published frick'n truth that you are disputing. This isn't just some half brained polar opinion of yours on some mostly intangible over flogged topic that there is no actual answer to. You are making yourself look silly. Man up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Awww, did I touch a nerve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Awww, did I touch a nerve? Look, call it what you will, at the end of the day, it's an excuse! Not much else to it. I don't doubt that the Canucks were banged-up, just like I don't doubt that the Bruins were, too. The NHL playoffs has that effect. But anybody who's deemed fit enough to play in an NHL game should be held accountable for their performance, and not be able to use the "oh, well I was injured" alibi, which seems to be the annual MO for this organization. I've heard Mike Gillis flat-out say on the radio that we lost the Cup because we were injured, which, IMO, is just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Sorry; a clarification. I did not call your perspective propaganda; I called the whole presentation of the Hodgson affair by Gillis this. I did think you expand on this viewpoint that he was pitching a tad too aggressively from time to time. Comments like "for you Hodgson lovers give it up"... If Gillis was completely right, Kassian would have been a monster for us in the play off's. I would have preferred him saying right when the trade was made that, perhaps they made some mistakes, but Hodgson wanted more than we can offer him at the moment. So we're offering him a chance and also offering Kassian the chance to the big dominating winger we also need. Meh; back to new business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 How about this? Luongo and Hodgson to Toronto Myers and Frattin to Vancouver Grabovski, Gardiner, and Connauton to Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'd prefer: Hodgson to Toronto Myers and Frattin to Vancouver Grabovski and Gardiner to Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'd prefer: Hodgson to Toronto Myers and Frattin to Vancouver Grabovski and Gardiner to Buffalo. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Right, so you think Luongo + Connauton will get us Myers and Frattin? oldnews' proposal isn't bad, I just can't imagine a scenario where Buffalo trades Tyler Myers. 6'8" defenceman who are mean and can score are just way, way too rare. They'd be crazy to move him. Besides, why would they need Gardiner if they already have Ehrhoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Right, so you think Luongo + Connauton will get us Myers and Frattin? oldnews' proposal isn't bad, I just can't imagine a scenario where Buffalo trades Tyler Myers. 6'8" defenceman who are mean and can score are just way, way too rare. They'd be crazy to move him. Besides, why would they need Gardiner if they already have Ehrhoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Rome + AV for Myers. Ballard + Raymond for Chara Luongo for Justin Bieber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Rome + AV for Myers. Ballard + Raymond for Chara Luongo for Justin Bieber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Luongo for Justin Bieber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Make it Selena Gomez in place of Bieber and you got a deal. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.