Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3002 replies to this topic

#31 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 07 October 2012 - 05:00 PM

hey king, check this out....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_zvEm1KyQ8


Is this supposed to be funny? I don't get it.
  • 0

#32 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 07 October 2012 - 05:03 PM

Seriously, the contradictions here vis-a-vis Jason Garrison are hilarious.

Jason Garrison is only in the NHL because he worked for cheap enough ($675K cap hit) to be attractive to a team like the cash-strapped Florida Panthers, who gave him his shot - and then went on to let him walk in exchange for Filip Kuba.

Jason Garrison has played 1/3 the games that Dennis Wideman has. Jason Garrison has 1/3 the goals that Dennis Wideman has. Jason Garrison has 1/4 the points that Dennis Wideman has. Jason Garrison has never exceeded Dennis Wideman in points in a single season - not even in his "breakout" year!

Yet, somehow, in some way, Dennis Wideman's contract is "an overpayment" that "could get ugly", but, somehow, some way, Jason Garrison's contract is just terrific, even the signing of the year! EXPLAIN THIS CONTRADICTION AND LACK OF LOGIC IN THIS!



I'd sure take him on the Canucks, wouldn't you? I'd certainly take Bouwmeester if Calgary's considering dumping him. Heck, they can have Ballard, Booth, Malhotra...there's a fair share of trash on this team that they can take off of our hands, if they want.

But I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't want to!

Inexplicable lack of production aside, Bouwmeester still plays 25:57 per game, ranking him 6th in the entire NHL. His 5 goals that you mention is still more than Hamhuis had last season, as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KANI2dpXLw

Edited by oldnews, 07 October 2012 - 05:12 PM.

  • 0

#33 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 07 October 2012 - 05:05 PM

Is this supposed to be funny? I don't get it.



Edited by oldnews, 07 October 2012 - 05:05 PM.

  • 0

#34 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 07 October 2012 - 05:25 PM

I'd sure take him on the Canucks, wouldn't you? I'd certainly take Bouwmeester if Calgary's considering dumping him. Heck, they can have Ballard, Booth, Malhotra...there's a fair share of trash on this team that they can take off of our hands, if they want.

But I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't want to!

Inexplicable lack of production aside, Bouwmeester still plays 25:57 per game, ranking him 6th in the entire NHL. His 5 goals that you mention is still more than Hamhuis had last season, as well.


Inexplicable? It's called playing Flames hockey.

Hamhius - 4 goals, 33 assists, +29 (second consecutive +29 season), 4.6 million cap hit.
Bouwmeester - 5 goals, 24 assists, -21, (fifth consecutive - season) 6.7 million cap hit.

If you were a GM your phone would be busier than Feaster's (or Milbury's was)...

Edited by oldnews, 07 October 2012 - 05:33 PM.

  • 0

#35 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,068 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 07 October 2012 - 06:28 PM

I guess in the end I've simply come to wonder why King of ES cheers for Vancouver, when every move this team makes infuriates him, every player is overrated/overpaid, and every other fan is below him.

Honest question to the King: what about this team DO you like?
  • 2

#36 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 07 October 2012 - 07:13 PM

I guess in the end I've simply come to wonder why King of ES cheers for Vancouver, when every move this team makes infuriates him, every player is overrated/overpaid, and every other fan is below him.

Honest question to the King: what about this team DO you like?


That will be the day when we see # 29 raised to the rafters.
  • 0
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....


#37 TowelPower12

TowelPower12

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:02 PM

Seriously, the contradictions here vis-a-vis Jason Garrison are hilarious.

Jason Garrison is only in the NHL because he worked for cheap enough ($675K cap hit) to be attractive to a team like the cash-strapped Florida Panthers, who gave him his shot - and then went on to let him walk in exchange for Filip Kuba.

Jason Garrison has played 1/3 the games that Dennis Wideman has. Jason Garrison has 1/3 the goals that Dennis Wideman has. Jason Garrison has 1/4 the points that Dennis Wideman has. Jason Garrison has never exceeded Dennis Wideman in points in a single season - not even in his "breakout" year!

Yet, somehow, in some way, Dennis Wideman's contract is "an overpayment" that "could get ugly", but, somehow, some way, Jason Garrison's contract is just terrific, even the signing of the year! EXPLAIN THIS CONTRADICTION AND LACK OF LOGIC IN THIS!



I'd sure take him on the Canucks, wouldn't you? I'd certainly take Bouwmeester if Calgary's considering dumping him. Heck, they can have Ballard, Booth, Malhotra...there's a fair share of trash on this team that they can take off of our hands, if they want.

But I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't want to!

Inexplicable lack of production aside, Bouwmeester still plays 25:57 per game, ranking him 6th in the entire NHL. His 5 goals that you mention is still more than Hamhuis had last season, as well.


cool he had 1 more goal and 8 LESS points than Hamhuis last year

how does this make him good, i'd take Hamhuis for 2 million less all day
  • 0

#38 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 05:33 AM

I guess in the end I've simply come to wonder why King of ES cheers for Vancouver, when every move this team makes infuriates him, every player is overrated/overpaid, and every other fan is below him.

Honest question to the King: what about this team DO you like?


Right, because I disagree with some of the moves that the GM makes, I'm "not a fan". Uh huh.

Show me where it says that to be a fan, you need to blindly support any move that the GM makes, ever, you need to love any player who wears the jersey, etc. That's just a dumb take.
  • 0

#39 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 05:35 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KANI2dpXLw


I guess you need to resort to these types of responses when there's no reasonable response that you can offer that suggests that Jason Garrison is not overpaid, while Dennis Wideman is.

Not surprising.
  • 0

#40 Mike Versace ESQ

Mike Versace ESQ

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 08

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:00 AM

Right, because I disagree with some of the moves that the GM makes, I'm "not a fan". Uh huh.

Show me where it says that to be a fan, you need to blindly support any move that the GM makes, ever, you need to love any player who wears the jersey, etc. That's just a dumb take.


And once again you choose to ignore the question that was asked of you and argue something completely different.
  • 1

Posted ImagePosted Image


FOLLOW @MikeVersace1

#shapcrew #membersonly

credit to CanucksHD for the avatar


#41 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:37 AM

I guess you need to resort to these types of responses when there's no reasonable response that you can offer that suggests that Jason Garrison is not overpaid, while Dennis Wideman is.

Not surprising.


I guess you need to ignore the fact that you got RICK ROLL'D.

And I see you abandoned those dumb Flames claims you were making.

I guess you missed the numerous posts where I already explained why I think Wideman was an overpayment - and the commentary from most of the hockey world agreed. Here's what Capsville had to say...
George McPhee didn't negotiate a new contract with unrestricted free agent defenseman Dennis Wideman. "I didn't want to mislead a player."


"As productive as he was offensively,there were times when Wideman appeared to be something of a liability in his own end... which is kind of the opposite of what you're going for at that position. His minus-8 rating was second-worst rating among Caps defensemen, [the other, a 22 yr old] a rating which at times reflected his poor - and sometimes downright head-scratching - decision-making with the puck. By the end of the season he had been on for 86 goals-against, almost a third of the team's total goals-against for the season. At even strength, Wideman finished with the team's second-highest GAON/60 (and the highest in the playoffs).
Wideman turned into something of a scapegoat during the postseason - particularly in the first round - as he seemed destined to be on the ice whenever that big, heartbreaking goal was scored on the Caps. He finished the fourteen game run having been on for 13 goals-against, including eight in that catastrophic first series alone (when the team only gave up 15 total), and was a team-worst minus-7.

Does Wideman improve the Flames' blueline? Yes, based on the current personnel.
Will he frustrate the hell out of Calgary Flames with his occasional lapses? Yes.
Is he overpaid? Totally. Maybe another coach cracks the code on Wideman, who was atrocious in the playoffs. Or maybe he'll be seen as a liability making too much coin. And lord knows salary never affects perception, right Jay Bouwmeester?
And five years of Dennis Wideman could lead to a therapist's couch. Good thing, as of now, there's not a no-trade clause listed for him."

"That sound you just heard was Jason Garrison and Ryan Suter popping champagne."

Note the last line king. It's the one that refers to the two defensemen who were really worth a big payday. Also note what Garrison actually signed for relative to those two other players.

Yep. Gillis is doing an awful job, while Feaster is over there building a wild-card of a team hahaha!
Sure wish we had those Bouwmeester and Wideman characters as opposed to Hammer and the Bomb!

To review:
Hammer and Garrison, outstanding shut down guys who can also score and were a combined +35 and a combined 9.2 million cap hit next year.

Bouwmeester and Wideman - pylons who were a combined -29 and have combined for 8 consecutive minus seasons - will be combined 13 million cap hit next year.

Edited by oldnews, 08 October 2012 - 08:49 AM.

  • 0

#42 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:41 AM

Right, because I disagree with some of the moves that the GM makes, I'm "not a fan". Uh huh.

Show me where it says that to be a fan, you need to blindly support any move that the GM makes, ever, you need to love any player who wears the jersey, etc. That's just a dumb take.


You know what's really dumb king? That you are head cheerleader in the Jay Feaster fan club - and at the same time, are here whining ceaselessly about the job Gillis is doing.

So which one is it? Are you actually a frustrated Leafs fan or a frustrated Flames fan, here to project your hopelessness?
  • 0

#43 Mike Versace ESQ

Mike Versace ESQ

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 08

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:46 AM

You know what's really dumb king? That you are head cheerleader in the Jay Feaster fan club - and at the same time, are here whining ceaselessly about the job Gillis is doing.

So which one is it? Are you actually a frustrated Leafs fan or a frustrated Flames fan, here to project your hopelessness?


Don't bother asking, he won't answer. Actually, he'll quote your post and answer something completely different than what you asked.
  • 1

Posted ImagePosted Image


FOLLOW @MikeVersace1

#shapcrew #membersonly

credit to CanucksHD for the avatar


#44 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:57 AM

"That sound you just heard was Jason Garrison and Ryan Suter popping champagne."

Note the last line king. It's the one that refers to the two defensemen who were really worth a big payday. Also note what Garrison actually signed for relative to those two other players.


Have you ever heard of sarcasm? That sounds like a pretty facetious line, to me. They're popping champagne because they got paid a king's ransom, is what it is. You've still not come close to convincing me that Jason Garrison is somehow "worth" what he got paid, while Wideman's contract is a huge albatross. Neither are great, but Garrison's carries it with it FAR, FAR, FAR more risk.

Yep. Gillis is doing an awful job, while Feaster is over there building a wild-card of a team hahaha!
Sure wish we had those Bouwmeester and Wideman characters as opposed to Hammer and the Bomb!

To review:
Hammer and Garrison, outstanding shut down guys who can also score and were a combined +35 and a combined 9.2 million cap hit next year.

Bouwmeester and Wideman - pylons who were a combined -29 and have combined for 8 consecutive minus seasons - will be combined 13 million cap hit next year.


"The Bomb", wow, that is too funny. I've never seen a 28 year-old guy with a 2.5 year NHL resume earn a nickname like that...BTW, did Jeff Finger ever have a nickname? Just curious. Their career paths have been similar to this point.
  • 0

#45 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:02 AM

You know what's really dumb king? That you are head cheerleader in the Jay Feaster fan club - and at the same time, are here whining ceaselessly about the job Gillis is doing.

So which one is it? Are you actually a frustrated Leafs fan or a frustrated Flames fan, here to project your hopelessness?


And again, if someone doesn't have the pom-poms out whenever the Vancouver Canucks and whoever is their GM makes a move, THEY ARE SOMEHOW DEEMED "NOT A FAN"!

I'm deemed a Calgary Flames/Jay Feaster fan because I'm questioning how you can think that the Jason Garrison contract was so great, while the Dennis Wideman contract was so bad. It makes no sense. The one who's had a far more noteworthy career, and is not much older, is the bad one. That is not logical. And you can't defend it, besides Muppet retorts and/or "YOU'RE NOT A REAL CANUCK FAN!" witch-hunt behaviour.
  • 0

#46 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:04 AM

Have you ever heard of sarcasm? That sounds like a pretty facetious line, to me. They're popping champagne because they got paid a king's ransom, is what it is. You've still not come close to convincing me that Jason Garrison is somehow "worth" what he got paid, while Wideman's contract is a huge albatross. Neither are great, but Garrison's carries it with it FAR, FAR, FAR more risk.


Actually the article was written before they were signed king. What the article is referring to is the fact that Feaster had just set the UFA defensman payday bar insanely high - and those players were cracking the champagne in anticipation - which is why most people around here had given up on getting Garrison - because if Wideman was actually worth the 5.25 he signed for, Garrison was valued in the 6 million range. Ironically, in the end, as I pointed out, Garrison was more highly valued on the UFA market than Wideman was, but actually signed for less. TSN (a source you maintain to trust) - and virtually everyone else in the hockey world - ranked Garrison higher. Do the math on the discount that you deny king - and yet you are still whining about an overpayment for Garrison. Incredibly ridiculous considering you are here maintaining that Wideman and Bouwmeester are worth their cap hits.

Edited by oldnews, 08 October 2012 - 09:17 AM.

  • 0

#47 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:14 AM

And again, if someone doesn't have the pom-poms out whenever the Vancouver Canucks and whoever is their GM makes a move, THEY ARE SOMEHOW DEEMED "NOT A FAN"!

I'm deemed a Calgary Flames/Jay Feaster fan because I'm questioning how you can think that the Jason Garrison contract was so great, while the Dennis Wideman contract was so bad. It makes no sense. The one who's had a far more noteworthy career, and is not much older, is the bad one. That is not logical. And you can't defend it, besides Muppet retorts and/or "YOU'RE NOT A REAL CANUCK FAN!" witch-hunt behaviour.


Spare me king. You are mixing up arguments again. I never said you aren't a "real fan" - and playing the victim card here is a bit much - like I said before, if there was a list of top embellishers on CDC, you'd be the posterboy. I am simply suggesting that you are a real Flames or Leafs fan haha.

Edited by oldnews, 08 October 2012 - 09:19 AM.

  • 0

#48 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,505 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:24 AM

I guess in the end I've simply come to wonder why King of ES cheers for Vancouver, when every move this team makes infuriates him, every player is overrated/overpaid, and every other fan is below him.

Honest question to the King: what about this team DO you like?


Wait...

Are people still of the mind that King isn't really just a bored fan of another team?
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#49 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:53 AM

Incredibly ridiculous considering you are here maintaining that Wideman and Bouwmeester are worth their cap hits.


You say something like this, and yet I'm the embellisher around here.

This is just purely false. In fact, two posts ago I called Wideman's deal "not great". And not once did I say that Bouwmeester was worth his cap hit. I said that he's a very, very good player. That does not imply that he's worth his $6.7M cap hit.

Edited by King of the ES, 08 October 2012 - 09:53 AM.

  • 0

#50 WonderTwinPowers

WonderTwinPowers

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 07

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:18 PM

Another Luongo thread bites the dust...
  • 0

#51 bigpush

bigpush

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 673 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:50 PM

If Calgary was as terrible as some of you guys claim they were last year, they must of been really lucky to of finished 5 points out of the playoffs. So lucky to have 247 man games missed which was good enough for 6th highest in the league. Only Pits had more injuries and still made the playoffs. They had a very tough season and had a legit shot to make the 8th seed, adding 1 legit top 6 forward (Hudler- I don't care who he played with last season he is still a top 6 guy), 2 potential top 6 guys in Cervenka and Baertschi and Wideman, who yes is overpaid and mostly offensive but is a proven NHLer who will score goals and improve the powerplay.

The flames have improved from last year and are generally a hardworking grinding team with great goaltending. The biggest weakness last year was injuries and lack of scoring which one is luck and the other they addressed IMO.

Also I think Garrison is total risk, he is being billed as a reliable shutdown guy with a great shot.....kinda like Ballard was being billed minus the great shot but with offensive abilities. He could also turn out to be like Bieksa who got a late start in the NHL but turned out to be one of our best dman over the last few season. No guarantees either way as he just does not have enough experience in the NHL to know for sure. To be claiming that he was signed to a good contract is a little premature, I think was a calculated risk by Gillis who I do trust but its a risk all the same.
  • 0

#52 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:39 PM

I'd sure take him on the Canucks, wouldn't you? I'd certainly take Bouwmeester if Calgary's considering dumping him. Heck, they can have Ballard, Booth, Malhotra...there's a fair share of trash on this team that they can take off of our hands, if they want.


You say something like this, and yet I'm the embellisher around here.

This is just purely false. In fact, two posts ago I called Wideman's deal "not great". And not once did I say that Bouwmeester was worth his cap hit. I said that he's a very, very good player. That does not imply that he's worth his $6.7M cap hit.


Yes, you are probably embellisher #1, but certainly no one is "witch hunting" you - having fun with your posts would be a far more accurate description.

Saying that you sure would take Bouwmeester, and that you'd give up a handful of our "trash" for him, in addition to maintaining that he is very very good certainly implies that you think he's worth his cap hit - you don't get to separate a guy from his cap hit/contract when you take him king. That's not how things work in the NHL.

By the way - we are still waiting on your Luongo proposal.

Edited by oldnews, 08 October 2012 - 03:09 PM.

  • 0

#53 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

If Calgary was as terrible as some of you guys claim they were last year, they must of been really lucky to of finished 5 points out of the playoffs. So lucky to have 247 man games missed which was good enough for 6th highest in the league. Only Pits had more injuries and still made the playoffs. They had a very tough season and had a legit shot to make the 8th seed, adding 1 legit top 6 forward (Hudler- I don't care who he played with last season he is still a top 6 guy), 2 potential top 6 guys in Cervenka and Baertschi and Wideman, who yes is overpaid and mostly offensive but is a proven NHLer who will score goals and improve the powerplay.

The flames have improved from last year and are generally a hardworking grinding team with great goaltending. The biggest weakness last year was injuries and lack of scoring which one is luck and the other they addressed IMO.

Also I think Garrison is total risk, he is being billed as a reliable shutdown guy with a great shot.....kinda like Ballard was being billed minus the great shot but with offensive abilities. He could also turn out to be like Bieksa who got a late start in the NHL but turned out to be one of our best dman over the last few season. No guarantees either way as he just does not have enough experience in the NHL to know for sure. To be claiming that he was signed to a good contract is a little premature, I think was a calculated risk by Gillis who I do trust but its a risk all the same.


The claim wasn't that Calgary was terrible - it was that they had and have a huge and glaring weak spot - specifically at center - where they lost Jokinen (who imo was actually a great cap) and added a left winger in Hudler, and a wild card in Cervenka. Yes, they added a top six forward - they also lost one who was a lesser cap hit - and the Flames don't exactly have cap space to burn.
I personally think they overachieved last year - the fact they were in the playoff race under the circumstances was very impressive. What was most disappointing was that Feaster called out his veterans - perhaps the most ludicrous thing I've heard out of a GM in a long time. Kiprusoff, Iginla and Jokinen (on one leg) were carrying that team and Calgary was riding them to exhaustion. Feaster's declarations that Cammalleri positioned them for a playoff run was delusional (I'm not merely hindsighting here - I blogged that at the time). Their truest weakness was Feaster himself. When they needed help up the middle and on the blueline, he went out and acquired a flashy, undersized, overpaid winger - ironically, and pinned them back up against the cap. Another player where Calgary was strongest..

Stajan, Bouma, Horak, Backlund, Kolanos, Jones, Nemisz - which one of those guys is a top six center? To top it off, everyone knew Jokinen was hobbling and playing injured - because they desperately needed him to. When you claim they have improved you have to remember they also lost their top line center (I don't care what people say - Jokinen's 115 points in two seasons was a serious bargain at 3 million - perhaps the best cap hit on that team - if not Glencross). They let Hannan and his reasonable 1 million cap hit walk to Nashville. To claim that they have improved is a stretch. Their best players, their veterans, are a year closer to 40 - and instead of calling them out, Calgary should have been praising them for carryiing a team that pretty much had no business competing for a playoff spot.

I don't agree that Garrison is a "total" risk - but I'd agree he is a calculated risk - that is true when you acquire anyone.

Edited by oldnews, 08 October 2012 - 03:04 PM.

  • 0

#54 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:26 PM

Saying that you sure would take Bouwmeester, and that you'd give up a handful of our "trash" for him, in addition to maintaining that he is very very good certainly implies that you think he's worth his cap hit - you don't get to separate a guy from his cap hit/contract when you take him king. That's not how things work in the NHL.


Are you saying that you'd rather have Keith Ballard or David Booth than Jay Bouwmeester?

Bouwmeester is worth $6.7M before either of those two are worth $4.25M, yes, that is what I'm saying.

By the way - we are still waiting on your Luongo proposal.


Check the Proposals board - and now it's your turn.
  • 0

#55 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:28 PM

I don't agree that Garrison is a "total" risk - but I'd agree he is a calculated risk - that is true when you acquire anyone.


Stated otherwise, you have said nothing.

In related news, the sun is hot.
  • 0

#56 bigpush

bigpush

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 673 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 08 October 2012 - 05:27 PM

Jokinen did score 54 points and 61 points during the last two years while making 3 million per season but don't forget this is the same guy who had 107 points over 2 season making with a 5.25 million cap hit. Over 4 years he averages 55.5 points a season on 4.125 million. Not bad but not amazing, it would be even better if he was a better two way guy and better at faceoffs but I agree decent contract for production. I don't mind Jokinen as a player but have never thought as him as a traditional Centre which is what Calgary really needs, so letting him walk and replacing his points by a guy 5 years younger is a move I would be okay with if I was a Calgary fan.
Hudler averaged 46.5 while making an average 1.945 a year over 4 season in the NHL not including his season in KHL in 2010.
Maybe he lives up to his new contract maybe he doesn't, same thing with Jokinen in Winnipeg. I am putting my money on Hudler putting up more points over the next two years than Jokinen does.

Calgary does need a legit Centre and have ever since they lost Gilmour and Nieuwendyk. Backlund and Stajan have a chance if they can emulate hardworking guys like Conroy and Langkow who have had success in the past. Cervenka is a big risk but apperently is a good playmaker and had 52% career faceoff % in KHL and 60% in playoffs but I don't put much faith in KHL stats translating to NHL.


The reason I got into this was because King made the point in the old thread that the nucks will be against stiffer competition in the NW division with Min, Edm and Cal all improving. I agree with this statement and especially in Edm case if we lose a whole season to lock out.
  • 0

#57 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:26 PM

Are you saying that you'd rather have Keith Ballard or David Booth than Jay Bouwmeester?

Bouwmeester is worth $6.7M before either of those two are worth $4.25M, yes, that is what I'm saying.


Check the Proposals board - and now it's your turn.


So this is your proposal...

To CHICAGO:
-Luongo
-Ballard

To VANCOUVER:
-Leddy
-Montador
-Beach

And after being schooled regarding the salary cap, edited to:

To CHICAGO:

-Roberto Luongo
-Chris Tanev

To VANCOUVER:

-Nick Leddy
-Michael Frolik
-Kyle Beach

NEW LINES:

Sedin/Sedin/Burrows
Booth/Kesler/Frolik
Higgins/Malhotra/Raymond
Beach/Lapierre/Hansen

Edler/Hamhuis
Bieksa/Leddy
Garrison/Alberts

After all your naysaying, this is what you come up with? Can you explain how you think this improves Vancouver? Leddy has a little upside, but he also gets pushed around very easily - not exactly what most of us have in mind when it comes to improving the blueline. By the way, your pairings are just plain nonsense - Edler and Hamhius - nope. Garrison on the third pairing - nope (of course you'd think Leddy would belong in the top 4 above him). Both Ballard and Tanev absent - or have you promoted Alberts over one of those guys? I realize you don't think it matters what side a guy plays on, but even disregarding that, you've effectively just mangled the blueline. And evidently you are one of those people imprudent enough to consider Tanev a throw in... Nope.
Frolik had an atrocious season last year (5 goals, 15 points in 63 games) - (you also managed to pick two of the three worst +/- on the Hawks in Leddy and Frolik). Frolik is a spare part in Chicago - behind Hossa, Kane, Stahlberg and even Shaw, he's disposable to them (actually, he'll be a cap dump for them) and regardless, certainly is not the answer to the top 6 RW.. You'll have to do better than that, particularly if you propose to include a second piece from Vancouver. Montador, uh why? Beach hasn't lived up to the hype - but regardless, he isn't ready to play in the NHL, but you already have him inserted on the fourth line. Nope. Hansen back on the fourth line? Nope.
Your proposal is a fail because the Canucks don't need the 'centerpiece' you have coming back this way - Leddy is not a good fit - is not what Vancouver needs (actually, the guy you are sending to Chicago is a better fit). Frolik is simply not going to get it done in the Canucks top 6 and taking his cap hit off their hands is not a favour I would do for them. Another left winger is not really what the Canucks need either.
Not surprisingly, your proposal improves Chicago significantly where they need it most.
Have you actually just revealed that you're a real Hawks fan?

Edited by oldnews, 08 October 2012 - 11:42 PM.

  • 3

#58 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:23 AM

After all your naysaying, this is what you come up with? Can you explain how you think this improves Vancouver? Leddy has a little upside, but he also gets pushed around very easily - not exactly what most of us have in mind when it comes to improving the blueline. By the way, your pairings are just plain nonsense - Edler and Hamhius - nope. Garrison on the third pairing - nope (of course you'd think Leddy would belong in the top 4 above him). Both Ballard and Tanev absent - or have you promoted Alberts over one of those guys? I realize you don't think it matters what side a guy plays on, but even disregarding that, you've effectively just mangled the blueline. And evidently you are one of those people imprudent enough to consider Tanev a throw in... Nope.


If it's Ballard in the deal, Tanev goes to the AHL. If Tanev's in the deal, Ballard is either the 6th/7th D, with Alberts.

It improves our team because we immediately get Nick Leddy, a 21 year-old who had 37 points last year. He becomes the new Christian Ehrhoff. "He gets pushed around very easily" - OK - Tanev doesn't?

Chris Tanev has really not proven anything. Are you aware that in the last 127 games of professional hockey that Chris Tanev has played (AHL & NHL), he has 1 goal? If you're that tiny, you better produce offense, which Chris Tanev has not shown an ability to do - unlike Nick Leddy.

Frolik had an atrocious season last year (5 goals, 15 points in 63 games) - (you also managed to pick two of the three worst +/- on the Hawks in Leddy and Frolik). Frolik is a spare part in Chicago - behind Hossa, Kane, Stahlberg and even Shaw, he's disposable to them (actually, he'll be a cap dump for them) and regardless, certainly is not the answer to the top 6 RW.. You'll have to do better than that, particularly if you propose to include a second piece from Vancouver. Montador, uh why? Beach hasn't lived up to the hype - but regardless, he isn't ready to play in the NHL, but you already have him inserted on the fourth line. Nope. Hansen back on the fourth line? Nope.


I've taken all of this into account. Frolik did have an atrocious year last season, but he was pretty good the year before, he's shown flashes in the past, and he was very good in the playoffs against us. He's still pretty young, and still has a pretty high ceiling, I would say.

We're not going to get any of the guys that you've suggested.

Montador is included in the original deal because I'm a lot more confident with him on the bottom-pairing than I am with Chris Tanev. He would be a nice addition. Solid player.

If Dale Weise, Guillaume Desbiens, Mike Duco, Byron Bitz, etc., can play on our fourth line, Kyle Beach can, too. And his potential is amazing. A fourth line with both Beach & Kassian on it would be very, very exciting - and no longer a line where careers go to die. And yes, I agree that something would need to be done with either Higgins or Hansen - preferrably Higgins - to make room for this to happen, and for Hansen to move up to the 3rd line.

Your proposal is a fail because the Canucks don't need the 'centerpiece' you have coming back this way - Leddy is not a good fit - is not what Vancouver needs (actually, the guy you are sending to Chicago is a better fit). Frolik is simply not going to get it done in the Canucks top 6 and taking his cap hit off their hands is not a favour I would do for them. Another left winger is not really what the Canucks need either.
Not surprisingly, your proposal improves Chicago significantly where they need it most.
Have you actually just revealed that you're a real Hawks fan?


Well, let's see your proposal.

You're again hinting at a very likely gross overvaluing of Roberto Luongo, who is effectively a cap dump from our perspective, and other team's know this. If Gillis can walk away with Nick Leddy, Michael Frolik, and Kyle Beach, I think he's making out like a bandit, in relation to the value that we'll receive from Luongo by being our backup goaltender.

And how is Leddy not a good fit? Who do we have that can run our PP? We don't have a defenceman with his instincts for offense. Yes, that includes your hero Jason Garrison.

If you're holding out for a guy like Patrick Kane or Marian Hossa, Roberto's going to be our backup, at $5.2M per year, until 2022.

But anyway, like I said earlier, IT'S YOUR TURN. Where's your Luongo proposal?

Edited by King of the ES, 09 October 2012 - 04:28 AM.

  • 0

#59 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:25 AM

Stated otherwise, you have said nothing.

In related news, the sun is hot.


Lol, thanks for making my morning!
  • 0
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#60 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:36 AM

If it's Ballard in the deal, Tanev goes to the AHL. If Tanev's in the deal, Ballard is either the 6th/7th D, with Alberts.

It improves our team because we immediately get Nick Leddy, a 21 year-old who had 37 points last year. He becomes the new Christian Ehrhoff. "He gets pushed around very easily" - OK - Tanev doesn't?

Chris Tanev has really not proven anything. Are you aware that in the last 127 games of professional hockey that Chris Tanev has played (AHL & NHL), he has 1 goal? If you're that tiny, you better produce offense, which Chris Tanev has not shown an ability to do - unlike Nick Leddy.



I've taken all of this into account. Frolik did have an atrocious year last season, but he was pretty good the year before, he's shown flashes in the past, and he was very good in the playoffs against us. He's still pretty young, and still has a pretty high ceiling, I would say.

We're not going to get any of the guys that you've suggested.

Montador is included in the original deal because I'm a lot more confident with him on the bottom-pairing than I am with Chris Tanev. He would be a nice addition. Solid player.

If Dale Weise, Guillaume Desbiens, Mike Duco, Byron Bitz, etc., can play on our fourth line, Kyle Beach can, too. And his potential is amazing. A fourth line with both Beach & Kassian on it would be very, very exciting - and no longer a line where careers go to die. And yes, I agree that something would need to be done with either Higgins or Hansen - preferrably Higgins - to make room for this to happen, and for Hansen to move up to the 3rd line.



Well, let's see your proposal.

You're again hinting at a very likely gross overvaluing of Roberto Luongo, who is effectively a cap dump from our perspective, and other team's know this. If Gillis can walk away with Nick Leddy, Michael Frolik, and Kyle Beach, I think he's making out like a bandit, in relation to the value that we'll receive from Luongo by being our backup goaltender.

And how is Leddy not a good fit? Who do we have that can run our PP? We don't have a defenceman with his instincts for offense. Yes, that includes your hero Jason Garrison.

If you're holding out for a guy like Patrick Kane or Marian Hossa, Roberto's going to be our backup, at $5.2M per year, until 2022.

But anyway, like I said earlier, IT'S YOUR TURN. Where's your Luongo proposal?

How do you get your shirts on with a head that big? Why is every second post yours? Is this where you live..in cyber land? Drop the freakin ego ES and join the club, rather than sit on the outside and spit into the inner circle cuz its nothing short of painful. get a life !
  • 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.