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

#691 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:49 AM

Talk about desparation and hockey withdrawl. There is no season yet, no hockey trades and everything in on hold, and yet this thread goes on adnauseum. Go out and play golf, get a life ! Wait and see where Lou goes . This all speculative and without substance, opinions upon opinions, without verification , and none of it matters. Its like pissing into the wind !
  • 0

#692 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,243 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:58 AM

Depends on your needs. if you think cracking the Oilers top 6 is easy you are clueless, and much like Schroeder with us, if he can't crack the top 6 he won't make it.
Most teams in the league Schroeder is an NHL regular, and if the Oilers did not have 4 guys 22 or younger in their top 6 last season, Paajarvi would likely be a regular as well.
Hall, Eberle, RNH, Horcoff, Smith, Gagner, Hemskey are not slouches.

Simple. Send Horcoff and Gagner to Van for Lou. Makes room for Paajarvi and their new Russian.
  • 0

#693 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,542 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:23 PM

Simple. Send Horcoff and Gagner to Van for Lou. Makes room for Paajarvi and their new Russian.

Who would become Edmonton's second line center if that happened? I would love to get Gagner and Horcoff but I just don't know who would replace them. Maybe Brule if the Oilers could turn his career around?
  • 0

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


#694 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:24 PM

Simple. Send Horcoff and Gagner to Van for Lou. Makes room for Paajarvi and their new Russian.


Horcoff @ $5.5M for the next 3 years is a virtually untradeable contract, IMO.
  • 2

#695 Dirt Nasty

Dirt Nasty

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:28 PM

Do not want Horcoff or any else of edmontons crap, but if there is any way to trick them into trading Yakupov i'd be estatic.
  • 1
Posted Image

#696 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,542 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:15 PM

Talk about desparation and hockey withdrawl. There is no season yet, no hockey trades and everything in on hold, and yet this thread goes on adnauseum. Go out and play golf, get a life ! Wait and see where Lou goes . This all speculative and without substance, opinions upon opinions, without verification , and none of it matters. Its like pissing into the wind !

You're not doing any better of a job with your life by complaining in this thread. And like your garbage opinions mean more than anyone else's in this thread

'Lu not a massive upgrade over Dubnyk'

ahahahahaha
  • 0

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


#697 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,217 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:03 PM

Last
  • 0

#698 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,243 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:00 PM

Horcoff @ $5.5M for the next 3 years is a virtually untradeable contract, IMO.

Just kidding. Went to school with his father. Shawn played in the old Rocky Mtn Junior A league at 15 with the Smoke Eaters so I saw him play a lot. To much money but I am happy a Kootenay boy is cashing in.
  • 0

#699 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,003 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

If that's the case, then how in the world does your proposal of Nick Bjugstad and Alexander Petrovic fetch the all-world, "legitimate franchise goaltender" that is Roberto Luongo?

Number 2, those "7 goals and 16 assists" (actually 18, must've been a Freudian slip on your part) occurred in 34 games. That's almost identical to Kassian's production of 26 points in 30 games - that same Kassian that you wouldn't even dream of trading for Paajarvi..

Gillis' only option is holding on to Luongo...


First - Luongo for Bjugstad, Petrovic and Upshall is very different than Luongo and Ballard for Paajarvi - you don't see me proposing Luongo and another roster player for Bjugstad, do you?

Second - you are absolutely terrible at math and ironic that you are correcting me - Frolik and Paajarvi combined for 7 goals and 16 assists - count again - Paajarvi 2 and 6 in 41 games - Frolik - 5 and 10 in 63 games - and let me do the math for you - that's 7 and 16 - and Paajarvi played 41 games and Frolik 63 games - that equals 104 games, not 34. Derp.

Gillis is holding onto Luongo - yes - it's called a lockout - in case you're oblivious despite many posts where people have clarified this - deals cannot be cut during a lockout (despite all the rumours that a deal with the Leafs is done - it would have to wait for the end of CBA negotiations....)
  • 0

#700 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,003 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:08 PM

If any team urgently wanted him, the deal would already have been done. It's not done because they're not offering anything that's motivating Mike Gillis to act. And they're not offering anything that's motivating Mike Gillis to act....


talking out your arse as usual.... and, see point above.
  • 1

#701 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:21 PM

First - Luongo for Bjugstad, Petrovic and Upshall is very different than Luongo and Ballard for Paajarvi - you don't see me proposing Luongo and another roster player for Bjugstad, do you?


OK, so in addition to the meager return of Bjugstad and Petrovic, we also have to absorb a terrible contract in Upshall. What a great deal!

And once again, Keith Ballard really shouldn't be referred to as a "roster player". If MG could get a 7th round pick for him, today, you can bet that he'd pull the trigger. $4.2M allocated to your 6th defenceman is not a winning strategy.

Second - you are absolutely terrible at math and ironic that you are correcting me - Frolik and Paajarvi combined for 7 goals and 16 assists - count again - Paajarvi 2 and 6 in 41 games - Frolik - 5 and 10 in 63 games - and let me do the math for you - that's 7 and 16 - and Paajarvi played 41 games and Frolik 63 games - that equals 104 games, not 34. Derp.


Thanks for the math lesson, but I hoped that you would've noticed that I was talking about his AHL numbers, since I was comparing him to the great Zack Kassian, for context related to your assertion that Paajarvi's basically a bust.

With Paajarvi's "awful" season last year, he had 8 points in 41 games in the NHL, which you've referenced. Kassian, meanwhile, had 10 points in 44 games - again, just like in the AHL, practically identical. Strangely, though, one's "fallen off the charts", and another one's "the next Todd Bertuzzi". Figure that one out.

Gillis is holding onto Luongo - yes - it's called a lockout - in case you're oblivious despite many posts where people have clarified this - deals cannot be cut during a lockout (despite all the rumours that a deal with the Leafs is done - it would have to wait for the end of CBA negotiations....)


Again, thanks for the news briefing, but I am aware that no deals can be made during a lockout.
  • 0

#702 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:26 PM

Getting rid of Ballard is a benefit to the Canucks - this way, they're not on the hook for $4.2M payable to their 5th - 7th defenceman over the next 3 seasons. The weakness of Edmonton's D might make them receptive to taking on Ballard.

Kassian does not "bring a lot more to the table" than MPS. They were drafted in the same year, MPS 3 spots ahead. Kassian's more physical, MPS is more offensively gifted. And now that Kassian's lost all this weight, they're basically even the same size (MPS listed at 204 pounds). So how does he "bring a lot more to the table", exactly? Because he's a Canuck?


No actually getting rid of Ballard isn't a benefit to the Canucks, if anything it destroys our defensive depth that we have spend time and effort over many season's trying to assemble.

Your trading a player who is capable of playing in the top 4 whenever needed, not to mention someone that has significant chemistry with another NHL defensemen who is young and still developing (obviously Tanev) and that Chemistry makes them both better players and makes our defense core and team much better, since we have 3 pairs we can rely on when needed something a ton of teams envy.

The worst part is your giving him away for nothing, Yes his cap hit is 4.2, we can handle is cap hit and still have room to makes other moves to add to the roster.

So we trade him for nothing, and we have 4.2 avalable. What are we gunna do with that money? Nothing really, it will just sit there, and why as a team trying to win a cup, would we not use up all our cap space to give us the best possible roster? so why would we just wanna clear cap space for the sake of clearing cap space, and making our team worse in the process?

It really makes no sense.

And I like Paajarvi don't get me wrong but I would take Kassian over him.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 04 November 2012 - 04:27 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#703 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:31 PM

OK, so in addition to the meager return of Bjugstad and Petrovic, we also have to absorb a terrible contract in Upshall. What a great deal!

And once again, Keith Ballard really shouldn't be referred to as a "roster player". If MG could get a 7th round pick for him, today, you can bet that he'd pull the trigger. $4.2M allocated to your 6th defenceman is not a winning strategy.



Thanks for the math lesson, but I hoped that you would've noticed that I was talking about his AHL numbers, since I was comparing him to the great Zack Kassian, for context related to your assertion that Paajarvi's basically a bust.

With Paajarvi's "awful" season last year, he had 8 points in 41 games in the NHL, which you've referenced. Kassian, meanwhile, had 10 points in 44 games - again, just like in the AHL, practically identical. Strangely, though, one's "fallen off the charts", and another one's "the next Todd Bertuzzi". Figure that one out.



Again, thanks for the news briefing, but I am aware that no deals can be made during a lockout.


Okay so you have managed to make the point that Paajarvi and Kassian's numbers are very similar but what you are forgetting is everything else Kassian has that Paajarvi doesn't. So if they have the same offensive ability (which according to these stats our always refer too is true) and Kassian has all these other components to his game that Paajarvi doesn't.

Doesn't that make him the better choice?? Think about it.


And I would take that Bjugstad + Petrovic trade anyday over your terrible Paajarvi trade.

And I'm not gunna go into how wrong you are about Ballard again since I just did.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 04 November 2012 - 04:32 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#704 Gally

Gally

    KJ's Butler

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,611 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:07 PM

What about someone like Randy Jones. Maybe add B.C. prospect Curtis Hamilton too.
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


 

my mom wouldn't let me touch the laptop because I have to stand after I eat....kinda stupid

 


#705 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:42 PM

So we trade him for nothing, and we have 4.2 avalable. What are we gunna do with that money? Nothing really, it will just sit there, and why as a team trying to win a cup, would we not use up all our cap space to give us the best possible roster? so why would we just wanna clear cap space for the sake of clearing cap space, and making our team worse in the process?


First of all, related to the rest of your post, Keith Ballard has been a total disaster in Vancouver, I'm not sure how that's even debateable. The depth of the disaster has gone largely unnoticed, given that we've won the President's Trophy in both of his two years with us, but, not even pointing out his awful production, this is the guy that the Canucks were prepared to fly Nolan Baumgartner in from a vacation on Muscle Beach before playing him in the SCF.

Related to the above, it gives us flexibility. You're always allowed to make trades, are you not? We can pick up expensive players on losing teams that might want to shed cap/expense. If there's a way that we could get Ballard off of this team, suddenly we have a lot of opportunity to use that cap space in far more productive ways.
  • 1

#706 VIC_CITY

VIC_CITY

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:53 PM

I'd trade Luongo, Ballard and Jensen for Eberle...not sure if Edm would?
  • 1

#707 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

First of all, related to the rest of your post, Keith Ballard has been a total disaster in Vancouver, I'm not sure how that's even debateable. The depth of the disaster has gone largely unnoticed, given that we've won the President's Trophy in both of his two years with us, but, not even pointing out his awful production, this is the guy that the Canucks were prepared to fly Nolan Baumgartner in from a vacation on Muscle Beach before playing him in the SCF.

Related to the above, it gives us flexibility. You're always allowed to make trades, are you not? We can pick up expensive players on losing teams that might want to shed cap/expense. If there's a way that we could get Ballard off of this team, suddenly we have a lot of opportunity to use that cap space in far more productive ways.


So we get rid of a "cap dump" in Ballard to pick up the exact same thing from someone else? Explain that cause really that doesn't change anything, it's still the same level of play at another overpaid contract.

Now about Ballard, I can debate it.

He was our best defensemen in the playoffs, and we both know it's true, him and Tanev were our best pair, they should have just benched Bieksa and Edler and played Ballard and Tanev cause they were much better, one of the only bright spots. And Ballard was the best. And Bieksa throughout the season, was just as inconsistent if not more so than Ballard.

Ballard was better this season, despite missing half the year, he still had a ton of fights, 62 mins in penalties and you can bet half of that was fighting so he fights the most of all our defense and plays a solid two way game, now with this chemistry with Tanev he has we are gunna see it in full effect finally when the lockout ends and it is only gunna make both of them better, and they will continue there stellar play from the playoffs you watch.

And obviously his production is gunna drop, he goes from playing 25+ mins a night and in every situation in Florida to the 3rd pair here with no PP time, what do you excpect? If they put him on the PP and utilized his exceptional skating ability on the breakout then we wouldnt have to resort to using that stupid drop pass that the other teams can see from a mile away.

And what are we gunna make trades with? We don't have alot of assets that are expendable, unless we are getting an overpaid and unpreforming player basiclly just another Ballard. So really if something comes up that would make us better and we need cap space then I'm all for moving Ballard, but if there is nothing close to a deal that makes us better then there is no sense doing it and down grading our defense.
  • 0

zackass.png


#708 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:34 PM

Bjugstad + Petrovic > > > > Paajarvi

I'd take Bjugstad alone. I don't understand the Paajarvi hype, he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
  • 2

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#709 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:01 PM

So we get rid of a "cap dump" in Ballard to pick up the exact same thing from someone else? Explain that cause really that doesn't change anything, it's still the same level of play at another overpaid contract.


A cap dump somewhere else might be a better fit here. Higgins & Lapierre are two examples. We don't have to use up that $4.2M in one player. It can be used to tweak the lineup here and there, or it can be used to bring in somebody more significant. Either way, it's a more productive use of the space than having it parked on the 3rd pairing of D.

He was our best defensemen in the playoffs, and we both know it's true, him and Tanev were our best pair, they should have just benched Bieksa and Edler and played Ballard and Tanev cause they were much better, one of the only bright spots. And Ballard was the best. And Bieksa throughout the season, was just as inconsistent if not more so than Ballard.


That playoffs where we got waxed in 5 games by the 8th seed, and he was benched in 1 of the games? You are reaching.

And obviously his production is gunna drop, he goes from playing 25+ mins a night and in every situation in Florida to the 3rd pair here with no PP time, what do you excpect? If they put him on the PP and utilized his exceptional skating ability on the breakout then we wouldnt have to resort to using that stupid drop pass that the other teams can see from a mile away.


He's gone to the 3rd pair and with no PP time because he's not good enough to play more. That's the part that you're missing. Do you think that Mike Gillis would've traded Michael Grabner, Quinton Howden, and Steve Bernier for a guy that he knew was going to be on the 3rd pair? Of course not. Gillis was expecting this 25 MPG guy, and Ballard has severely underwhelmed (which I expect Garrison to do next) and underperformed.
  • 0

#710 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:03 PM

I'd take Bjugstad alone. I don't understand the Paajarvi hype, he hasn't done anything to deserve it.


:lol:

Please, do tell me what Bjugstad has done to earn the hype surrounding him on these boards.

In the meantime, I'll just try and forget that Paajarvi's 15-goal, 34-point rookie campaign as a 19 year-old in the NHL happened.
  • 0

#711 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:07 PM

:lol:

Please, do tell me what Bjugstad has done to earn the hype surrounding him on these boards.

In the meantime, I'll just try and forget that Paajarvi's 15-goal, 34-point rookie campaign as a 19 year-old in the NHL happened.


Right and then he went on to miss the roster the next year. He has huuuge bouts of inconsistency. Bjugstad, the 6'5'' centre tearing up the NCAA, and Petrovic, the big d man with a mean streak are the far better package. Paajarvi might be 6'2" but he plays soft.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#712 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:14 PM

Right and then he went on to miss the roster the next year. He has huuuge bouts of inconsistency. Bjugstad, the 6'5'' centre tearing up the NCAA, and Petrovic, the big d man with a mean streak are the far better package. Paajarvi might be 6'2" but he plays soft.


So, Paajarvi "hasn't done anything to deserve the hype", yet your justification on wanting Bjugstad is that he's "6'5" and he's "tearing up the NCAA". Do you see the flimsy logic here?
  • 0

#713 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:21 PM

So, Paajarvi "hasn't done anything to deserve the hype", yet your justification on wanting Bjugstad is that he's "6'5" and he's "tearing up the NCAA". Do you see the flimsy logic here?


I do, but once again you're attacking the poster without supplementing your own argument. You state that we would be lucky to get Paajarvi from Edmonton, when he couldn't crack a roster which had guys like Hordichuk, Eager, Lander and Belanger as regulars. I was also correct in pointing out that his stock had sharply fallen. I'm not over the moon about 34 points from a soft winger, we have that in Raymond.

Bjugstad's choice to stay in college was in my opinion a bad one, as he should have signed an NHL deal and be tearing it up in the AHL right now. There isn't much to base the Bjugstad hype on but even if you watch his highlight package and see the shear dominance, you would understand why Florida is so high on him. Add in Petrovic and this is still a better package than soft Paajarvi. Do you really believe Paajarvi is the solution for this teams problems?
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#714 JimLahey

JimLahey

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:22 PM

So, Paajarvi "hasn't done anything to deserve the hype", yet your justification on wanting Bjugstad is that he's "6'5" and he's "tearing up the NCAA". Do you see the flimsy logic here?


The flimsy logic I see, is that you feel Paajarvi is better than Bjugstad because he had a good rookie season and a sub-par second season. If you are comparing Paajarvi to Bjugstad based on their NHL experience, then Paajarvi is better than Bjugstad. If you look at upside and their style of play, Bjugstad has the ability to greatly surpass Paajarvi.

Also, any hype regarding Bjugstad can be justified to an extent. Over a PPG player in the NCAA last year compared to an underperforming sophomore.
  • 0

hL9YqYN.jpg


#715 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:34 PM

A cap dump somewhere else might be a better fit here. Higgins & Lapierre are two examples. We don't have to use up that $4.2M in one player. It can be used to tweak the lineup here and there, or it can be used to bring in somebody more significant. Either way, it's a more productive use of the space than having it parked on the 3rd pairing of D.


Well what are gunna get?? We have those guys, already, all we would need is a Dman to replace Ballard an what a 4th liner? We wont get a top 6 forward, our wings in the bottom 6 are pretty much filled, what your suggesting doesnt make us better, it just creates a hole and adds depth where we already have depth really.

You gotta think about it, when I say better I mean an upgrade in current talent, not a few extras who will be sitting half the time and aren't any better than what we currently have.

That playoffs where we got waxed in 5 games by the 8th seed, and he was benched in 1 of the games? You are reaching.


:picard:

He was injured. He missed game 1 and came back in game 2.

I'm not reaching you just don't know what your talking about.

He's gone to the 3rd pair and with no PP time because he's not good enough to play more. That's the part that you're missing. Do you think that Mike Gillis would've traded Michael Grabner, Quinton Howden, and Steve Bernier for a guy that he knew was going to be on the 3rd pair? Of course not. Gillis was expecting this 25 MPG guy, and Ballard has severely underwhelmed (which I expect Garrison to do next) and underperformed.


How isn't he good enough? He's just not given opportunities, he dropped the ball in 10-11. no doubt but last season he had a fine season, he wasn't a weakness at all and show flashes of what he can be, and in the playoffs, he was one of the few players who showed up when it mattered most. And since we are aiming for a cup, those are the kind of players we want don't we?



And all that aside, you still haven't backed up why you think giving him away will help us, or make us better.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 04 November 2012 - 07:36 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#716 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

I do, but once again you're attacking the poster without supplementing your own argument. You state that we would be lucky to get Paajarvi from Edmonton, when he couldn't crack a roster which had guys like Hordichuk, Eager, Lander and Belanger as regulars. I was also correct in pointing out that his stock had sharply fallen. I'm not over the moon about 34 points from a soft winger, we have that in Raymond.

Bjugstad's choice to stay in college was in my opinion a bad one, as he should have signed an NHL deal and be tearing it up in the AHL right now. There isn't much to base the Bjugstad hype on but even if you watch his highlight package and see the shear dominance, you would understand why Florida is so high on him. Add in Petrovic and this is still a better package than soft Paajarvi. Do you really believe Paajarvi is the solution for this teams problems?


I would like to join your petition.



And um.. I agree with your post too.
  • 0

zackass.png


#717 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:48 PM

I do, but once again you're attacking the poster without supplementing your own argument. You state that we would be lucky to get Paajarvi from Edmonton, when he couldn't crack a roster which had guys like Hordichuk, Eager, Lander and Belanger as regulars. I was also correct in pointing out that his stock had sharply fallen. I'm not over the moon about 34 points from a soft winger, we have that in Raymond.


He still played 41 NHL games last season; not a matter of not being able to "crack the roster". Numbers were down, not a good sophomore season, but that's not exactly uncommon. You can maybe say that his stock had "sharply fallen", but only because his stock was so high after his very encouraging rookie season. A letdown? Yes. But it can't be ignored that he's younger than Zack Kassian and to think that his future is shaky because of a sophomore slump seems awfully premature.

34 points from a "soft" winger becomes more impressive when it's from a 19 year-old rookie, which you can hopefully agree upon. I'm very confident that if Zack Kassian had 34 points in the NHL last year, this place would be over the moon.

Bjugstad's choice to stay in college was in my opinion a bad one, as he should have signed an NHL deal and be tearing it up in the AHL right now. There isn't much to base the Bjugstad hype on but even if you watch his highlight package and see the shear dominance, you would understand why Florida is so high on him. Add in Petrovic and this is still a better package than soft Paajarvi. Do you really believe Paajarvi is the solution for this teams problems?


You concede that there's really nothing to base Bjugstad's hype on, besides the fact that he's 6'5" and thus automatically is compared to Eric Lindros (which is stupid). The NCAA is not close to the AHL - just ask another Golden Gopher, Jordan Schroeder, who also "dominated" the NCAA.

I don't believe Paajarvi is the solution to this team's problems. When did I say that? All I said was that in a deal with Edmonton, he should be the obvious target. If we got him, for Luongo, I'd personally call that a pretty major win. Lots of upside.
  • 0

#718 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

How isn't he good enough? He's just not given opportunities, he dropped the ball in 10-11. no doubt but last season he had a fine season, he wasn't a weakness at all and show flashes of what he can be, and in the playoffs, he was one of the few players who showed up when it mattered most. And since we are aiming for a cup, those are the kind of players we want don't we?


You are clueless. He's had plenty of opportunities. Every practice is an opportunity. He hasn't delivered. That's why he hasn't played. 3 goals, 14 points in 112 games played for the Canucks. Pretty simple.

And all that aside, you still haven't backed up why you think giving him away will help us, or make us better.


It will make us better because we can acquire other players with that cap space through trade, who will add more value than Keith Ballard will.
  • 0

#719 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:08 PM

You are clueless. He's had plenty of opportunities. Every practice is an opportunity. He hasn't delivered. That's why he hasn't played. 3 goals, 14 points in 112 games played for the Canucks. Pretty simple.


I'm Clueless? Yes it's obvious his stats don't show his play, but he has been better than that, he's been a + player here, he is +10 in his time here, see so he hasn't been a weakness.

And It doesn't seem like you even watched the games last year since you didn't know he was injured with a concussion before the playoffs. But anyways unlike you I watched all the games, and paid close attention and he was fine, he played well, I went to game 2 against LA, his first game back, watched him very very closely. he was our best player.

So there, he isn't a weakness, he is getting better, he has a good thing going for him with Tanev which we are gunna see, and which is gunn make both of them better, and yet you wanna trade him for nothing.

Even if we trade him for a player in the exact same situation as him, he would be bad because of the chemistry that Bally and Tanev have, and because AV finally has confidence in him, and is finally giving him quality icetime after his stellar playoffs.

It will make us better because we can acquire other players with that cap space through trade, who will add more value than Keith Ballard will.


Okay what do you have to back up that statement? Like I said we trade Ballard for a defensemen in the same situation (Say Komisarek) Then what? He comes here and plays just as bad?? Why? or else we trade him for a 3rd/4th line tweener forward or a 4th-7th round pick, according to your logic.


Neither of those add as much value as he does, now do you wanna start backing up what you say, cause unlike you I actually back up everything I say, and you don't that's why you have a bad rep around here cause you say stuff and you don't back it up.
  • 0

zackass.png


#720 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:22 PM

You're not doing any better of a job with your life by complaining in this thread. And like your garbage opinions mean more than anyone else's in this thread

'Lu not a massive upgrade over Dubnyk'

ahahahahaha

well you are 16..whats that...midget hockey. maybe 10 yrs of hockey no coaching experience...probably not a goaltender..compared to my 43 years of experience with goaltending....I;d think on that weight, my opinions on Dubnyk and Lou carry just a titch more value. I stated many pages earlier that I doubted if Lou was a better option if at all for the oilers. Few , on here have agreed with the "massive upgrade" opinion that you spouted. Its your opinion, welcome to it...but might not be an accurate assumption. Lou will go where destiny sends him but he won;t be in Vancouver.
  • 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.