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

#1411 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:43 PM

Derp.

"Vancouver Canucks defenceman Dan Hamhuis will have surgery early next week and may not be ready for the start of training camp.
Hamhuis left Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final early in the second period following a hip check from Boston Bruins forward Milan Lucic. It was later discovered that Hamhuis suffered a sports hernia, groin and lower abdomen injury."


This is exactly my point. Hamhuis was injured, and he thus could not play.

Kesler was not injured enough to not play, which is why he was playing. Pretty simple. No need to justify his poor performance by saying "he was injured". Not injured enough to avoid playing, he wasn't.
  • 0

#1412 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:47 PM

Luongo to Toronto:

To: Toronto
Roberto Luongo, Chris Tanev, and Kyle Okposo

To: Brooklyn
Nikolai Kulemin, Keith Ballard, Mason Raymond +3rd Pick from TO and Van

To Vancouver:
Josh Bailey, Jake Gardiner +2nd round pick from Brooklyn and Toronto.


Brooklyn would laugh. Both Bailey & Okposo are recent top-10 picks. They'd be getting back a cap disaster, and two inconsistent forwards that have badly fallen out of favour with their fanbases. Not happening.

Edited by King of the ES, 22 November 2012 - 01:53 PM.

  • 0

#1413 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:50 PM

I would much rather forget about Bailey and instead get Gardiner and Okposo


:lol:

When you wish, upon a star...
  • 0

#1414 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:52 PM

I think Galagher has had it in for Gillis ever since Gillis made it clear he wouldn't kiss his butt.


Not true at all. Gallagher has repeatedly praised Gillis and the way that this organization is ran on the radio. He was far more of a heel when Burke was running the team.
  • 0

#1415 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:57 PM

I believe what WiDeN meant to say was, "You mean players are allowed by their medical staff to play not at 100% because they have a chance at winning the Stanley frick'n Cup even though those trainers and coaches have reputations to uphold?" (see the bold part)


"Not at 100%" is far different than being injured. My simple rule is that if you're deemed healthy enough to play, you better go out there and do your job. Anybody who's playing is accountable.
  • 0

#1416 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:36 PM

Or you could ignore him - just a suggestion...

That would be to easy.
  • 0

Posted Image


#1417 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,710 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:44 PM

Ok there, ye who exclaims:

"Hodgson, you look so very pretty!"

You can call the stats "propaganda" if you want. It's funny how some people here love to complain about Vigneault and Gillis, endlessly, yet object so strongly to bringing up Hodgson's corsi stats, his plus/minus, the contexts in which he was successful... So you are in love with Cody Hodgson, and therefore that analysis is 'propaganda' to you... what I referenced were facts like Hodgson, while getting more offensive than defensive zone starts, had a -6.8 relative corsi - while his linemates - Hansen had 40.4% off zone and yet a better rel corsi nevertheless, and Higgins had 46.6% and a positive rel corsi. It makes perfect sense to use a player in situations that serve and take advantage of their strengths. For all the criticisim, in the end AV had been using Hodgson in a very appropriate way, and in as many situations as possible given his strengths. All the whining that he wasn't getting enough ice-time however, were very short sighted.

I also pointed out that Pahlsson, while an obvious shutdown guy, had 6 points in 19 games and a +4 against quality competition, while Hodgson had 8 points in 20 games and a -7 after the trade. People here maintain endlessly what a disaster these deals were, how terrible that decision was going into the playoffs, and yet the reality doesn't reflect anything resembing that. Where is the 'propaganda' exactly? I can see why people who can't let go, can't accept that Hodgson was traded, are so resistant to hockey analysis - it gets in the way of their sentimental fantasies about how important the young player was to the Canucks. He was a rookie - he is not yet a player who can handle the NHL game in his own end of the ice - he has great offensive skills with the puck on his stick - but he is and was not ready to be the force that some people were expecting. It's remarkable how much saviour status was put on his shoulder - he wasn't going to make a difference in last year's playoffs. It was much more likely that, as he did in Buffalo, he'd struggle significantly facing the type of matchups he would have in a series like the Canucks faced against the Kings. I think the real reason people respond so emotionally and defensively to these discussions of Hodgson's actual game is because they had put all their wholesale eggs in this faith that he was The Answer. Give it up folks - you can still love Hodgson all you want, but it's a done deal, and the reasoning behind it, even if there had been no additional controversies, made perfect sense.


That there was an element of truth in it still does not excuse it from being propoganda.

It was only when Gillis was getting roasted in the media and in public opinion (a time no politician ever engages in anything resembling media manipulation?) it was put out there that Hodgson's numbers were pumped up to increase his trade value. As he then got slaughtered he further threw CoHo under the bus saying (paraphrasing) that Hodgson was more trouble over three years than all the other players put together. No question Gillis was covering himself and he did not look good doing it.

It's not cool speaking down to people, even though your opinions are educated and have some substance behind them; your arguments still paint that anyone who writes on Hodgson is blind and perhaps a blithering idiot??? Oh you tree huggers, oh you CoHo lovers. Me, I said I enjoyed his play and thought he was helping us. And how many posts do you see buying wholesale as fact that Hodgson's numbers having been completely pumped up? Propoganda works...

I painted that he was being used in a role he could add offense, was helping the team and that it was perhaps good coaching. Something you appear to be softening to below. And I believe that is an excellent assesment. No he was not ready to replace Hank, nor Kesler (even injured) and needed the right grooming to round out parts of his game which were weak. But I've also seen him painted a liability and a poor player. Regardless of being a lover or hater, that he still needs work on the rest of his game to increase his role is a bottom line fair statement!

I'm a business manager. I also don't buy Gillis had to cave to a rookie's whining. Hodgson had a contract and still gets paid to do a job. "Shut up and play the best minutes we can give you and work on your defense" when push comes to shove! I'm in the camp that believes the trade was a mistake if we also wanted to win last year.

So that still does not resolve the question of timing. Pahlsson and a partially hobbled Kesler sharing defensive minutes with CoHo given mop up minutes would have been fine with me. He had a habit of breaking games in our favour. That might have been a better thing against L.A. than what we iced???

All those Corsi stats mean little in comparison to a game breaking talent. Hodgson, while not as effective as Hansen or others defensively was also not couphing up the puck or blowing games for us. Quite the opposite. You do not trade him just cause he's whining.



But forward to post 1384 again;

You were responding to If Kesler was really injured to the point we knew he would not be that effective... , if even CoHo knew it, then so did MG and AV. Your point was "show what a team guy he is by respecting the veterans and thriving in his role, and take advantage of the particular situation!" That is a perfect and fair sentiment.

But if Kess were injured? Well, maybe that would be real logic for a mini re-build (such as trading CoHo) because really our odd's of winning without Kesler at his best were not great. And it may have been dangerous to rebuild around a whiner. Unfortunately, you cannot tell the public that you have given up on the season? I, FTR, was never a guy who said Pahlsson was a failure or played poorly. I personally think it's possible he was brought in to make the public believe we were actually doing everything possible to win. Pahlsson was a propoganda statement to mask a mini re-build?

And I still think Gillis had no business throwing all that junk out there. Nor are you completely on base calling Hodgson a wash out based on Corsi when he had a knack for getting teamates going (at times Kesler could not) & a slapshot that can be blown past some of the world's best goalies!

As I said earlier; lets just hope Kassian now add's the physical elements we need to pay off Gillis's move!






Hey, for fun; how far back does Corsi go? Not that Coho would ever get that good, but I doubt a guy like Brett Hull would have had a good Corsi, particularly when he was young?

I agree with you - and in reality, the Canucks simply were not going to go on a run to the Stanley Cup with Daniel injured and Kesler hobbling - wishful thinking.

I also thought and still think Hodgson was and is a great young player - star at the WJC - and he has some serious upside - but as a rookie at his stage of development, he was essentially a role player - and all the over-rating and accolades were premature. AV was actually nailing it in terms of optimizing how he was used. That is not simply a "pump and dump" thing - it is what good coaches do, in the interests of the team and that player. He was very good in the 13 minutes he was getting, in appropriate situations - but he wasn't ready to take on a larger role, he doesn't have the two-way game to stand on it's own, and all the Gallagherian whining (and Hodgson's agent's whisper campaign) about his underutilization was pretty annoying.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 22 November 2012 - 03:31 PM.

  • 0

#1418 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,336 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:54 PM

Brooklyn would laugh. Both Bailey & Okposo are recent top-10 picks. They'd be getting back a cap disaster, and two inconsistent forwards that have badly fallen out of favour with their fanbases. Not happening.

Where there's a Wang there's a way. :bigblush:
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#1419 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:32 PM

:lol:

When you wish, upon a star...


?

I understand it's a comepletely unrealistic trade, I was just stating I would rather have both over Bailey.

I don't know what your point of replying to this was


Edit: BTW you didn't reply to my question? Do u understand the difference between playable and non-playable injuries.

P.S, your constantly sidetracking argument about us not being injured in the finals is pretty much dead and buried by now, everyone has shown your wrong.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 22 November 2012 - 04:36 PM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#1420 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:59 PM

P.S, your constantly sidetracking argument about us not being injured in the finals is pretty much dead and buried by now, everyone has shown your wrong.


Really? Because I don't see any of the Canucks' medical team posting on this site regularly.

The guys that were "injured", as you say (Kesler, Burrows, etc.) were playing. If you're playing, you're assumed to be healthy enough to do so. Harping about how "decimated" the Canucks were - who were playing, except for Hamhuis & Raymond - is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. Boston outplayed us, and they won. That's all there is to it.

Vancouver had a 2-0 lead, and Vancouver went on to lose 4/5 games and (thus) the Stanley Cup (at Rogers Arena). Calling it anything else is just sad. Never ask the barber if you need a haircut - and don't buy the tale that the GM tells you on the radio.

Edited by King of the ES, 22 November 2012 - 05:02 PM.

  • 0

#1421 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,075 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

Really? Because I don't see any of the Canucks' medical team posting on this site regularly.

The guys that were "injured", as you say (Kesler, Burrows, etc.) were playing. If you're playing, you're assumed to be healthy enough to do so. Harping about how "decimated" the Canucks were - who were playing, except for Hamhuis & Raymond - is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. Boston outplayed us, and they won. That's all there is to it.

Vancouver had a 2-0 lead, and Vancouver went on to lose 4/5 games and (thus) the Stanley Cup (at Rogers Arena). Calling it anything else is just sad. Never ask the barber if you need a haircut - and don't buy the tale that the GM tells you on the radio.

Buddy, you trying to prove yourself right is like bashing your head against a cement wall repeatedly. Just stop. As Smashian said everyone has proved you wrong many times about us being injured. Why you bother trying to prove other wise is beyond me.
  • 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


#1422 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

Really? Because I don't see any of the Canucks' medical team posting on this site regularly.

The guys that were "injured", as you say (Kesler, Burrows, etc.) were playing. If you're playing, you're assumed to be healthy enough to do so. Harping about how "decimated" the Canucks were - who were playing, except for Hamhuis & Raymond - is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. Boston outplayed us, and they won. That's all there is to it.

Vancouver had a 2-0 lead, and Vancouver went on to lose 4/5 games and (thus) the Stanley Cup (at Rogers Arena). Calling it anything else is just sad. Never ask the barber if you need a haircut - and don't buy the tale that the GM tells you on the radio.


Yes they out played our team when our team was at about 50-60%, if our team wasn't as depleted as it was and we had that extra 50% or even 20% do you think it would have made a difference? absolutely,

Your just blind to the fact that our team was injured, and that greatly affected our level of play, that's not MG lying on the Radio, its the clear facts.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 22 November 2012 - 05:14 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1423 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:23 PM

In the seconds it takes to fall off a cliff, there is a lifetime.
  • 0

#1424 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:18 PM

Not true at all. Gallagher has repeatedly praised Gillis and the way that this organization is ran on the radio. He was far more of a heel when Burke was running the team.


Boudrias was right - your claim that of not true at all is not true at all.
  • 0

#1425 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:19 PM

Yes they out played our team when our team was at about 50-60%, if our team wasn't as depleted as it was and we had that extra 50% or even 20% do you think it would have made a difference? absolutely,

Your just blind to the fact that our team was injured, and that greatly affected our level of play, that's not MG lying on the Radio, its the clear facts.


OK, yup, we were 50%. Like I said, if that's what you guys want to believe, go right ahead!

I prefer to reside on this planet called Earth, but Canuckland is a nice alternative, I guess.
  • 0

#1426 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:22 PM

Boudrias was right - your claim that of not true at all is not true at all.


Not sure how old you are, but I can guarantee you that Tony Gallagher was far, far, far more of a heel when Burke was our GM.

Gillis has had a ton of success during his reign, so there's really not been much for TG to whine about, unlike the mid-to-late 90s when Burke was at the helm.

Gallagher's article on Hodgson was a nice example of Jerry Maguire's famed mission statement: "the things we think, but do not say". He was not the only guy touting more ice-time for Cody, either, BTW. Was your CDC account not intact around that time?
  • 0

#1427 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,075 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:23 PM

OK, yup, we were 50%. Like I said, if that's what you guys want to believe, go right ahead!

I prefer to reside on this planet called Earth, but Canuckland is a nice alternative, I guess.

For the 5000th time. Its 'not what we want to believe', its a fact that's as clear as day. Interesting that once again you decide to ignore my post.
  • 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


#1428 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:27 PM

For the 5000th time. Its 'not what we want to believe', its a fact that's as clear as day. Interesting that once again you decide to ignore my post.


Yeah. Amazing that Kesler was able to skate at all, in his wheelchair. And despite being the first player playing with a halo around his neck, Burrows actually held his own quite well.
  • 0

#1429 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:31 PM

OK, yup, we were 50%. Like I said, if that's what you guys want to believe, go right ahead!

I prefer to reside on this planet called Earth, but Canuckland is a nice alternative, I guess.


What do u call missing two top 6 forwards, missing your top defensemen, your 2 all-star center's being injured, 5 of your 7 regular defensemen being out or injured.

I'm not sure what you call it but it's clear fact that we were nowhere close to 100%, or even 80% where I would say Boston was around.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1430 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:42 PM

What do u call missing two top 6 forwards, missing your top defensemen, your 2 all-star center's being injured, 5 of your 7 regular defensemen being out or injured.


Two top 6 forwards, like Horton and Savard?

Or your top defenceman, like Chicago was with missing Seabrook for 3 or 4 games?
  • 0

#1431 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:48 PM

Actually, Hamhuis was injured and therefore could not play.

I believe what WiDeN meant to say was, "You mean players are allowed by their medical staff to play not at 100% because they have a chance at winning the Stanley frick'n Cup even though those trainers and coaches have reputations to uphold?" (see the bold part)

Does this clear things up for you? :)


regards,
G.

Thanks for helping him understand.

Really? Because I don't see any of the Canucks' medical team posting on this site regularly.

The guys that were "injured", as you say (Kesler, Burrows, etc.) were playing. If you're playing, you're assumed to be healthy enough to do so. Harping about how "decimated" the Canucks were - who were playing, except for Hamhuis & Raymond - is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. Boston outplayed us, and they won. That's all there is to it.

Vancouver had a 2-0 lead, and Vancouver went on to lose 4/5 games and (thus) the Stanley Cup (at Rogers Arena). Calling it anything else is just sad. Never ask the barber if you need a haircut - and don't buy the tale that the GM tells you on the radio.

How the hell were we not injured? We had half a team, and several guys that were still playing had surgery after we lost. I am not sure why someone would have surgery if they weren't injured.
When Ryan Johnson was playing with a broken hand he could barely shoot, but he could still win faceoffs, and block shots.
If he was cleared to play, then is a broken hand not an injury?
You can't possibly be using a simple definition to try to plead your case.
  • 1

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#1432 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:50 PM

That there was an element of truth in it still does not excuse it from being propoganda.

It was only when Gillis was getting roasted in the media and in public opinion (a time no politician ever engages in anything resembling media manipulation?) it was put out there that Hodgson's numbers were pumped up to increase his trade value. As he then got slaughtered he further threw CoHo under the bus saying (paraphrasing) that Hodgson was more trouble over three years than all the other players put together. No question Gillis was covering himself and he did not look good doing it.

It's not cool speaking down to people, even though your opinions are educated and have some substance behind them; your arguments still paint that anyone who writes on Hodgson is blind and perhaps a blithering idiot??? Oh you tree huggers, oh you CoHo lovers. Me, I said I enjoyed his play and thought he was helping us. And how many posts do you see buying wholesale as fact that Hodgson's numbers having been completely pumped up? Propoganda works...

I painted that he was being used in a role he could add offense, was helping the team and that it was perhaps good coaching. Something you appear to be softening to below. And I believe that is an excellent assesment. No he was not ready to replace Hank, nor Kesler (even injured) and needed the right grooming to round out parts of his game which were weak. But I've also seen him painted a liability and a poor player. Regardless of being a lover or hater, that he still needs work on the rest of his game to increase his role is a bottom line fair statement!

I'm a business manager. I also don't buy Gillis had to cave to a rookie's whining. Hodgson had a contract and still gets paid to do a job. "Shut up and play the best minutes we can give you and work on your defense" when push comes to shove! I'm in the camp that believes the trade was a mistake if we also wanted to win last year.

So that still does not resolve the question of timing. Pahlsson and a partially hobbled Kesler sharing defensive minutes with CoHo given mop up minutes would have been fine with me. He had a habit of breaking games in our favour. That might have been a better thing against L.A. than what we iced???

All those Corsi stats mean little in comparison to a game breaking talent. Hodgson, while not as effective as Hansen or others defensively was also not couphing up the puck or blowing games for us. Quite the opposite. You do not trade him just cause he's whining.



But forward to post 1384 again;

You were responding to If Kesler was really injured to the point we knew he would not be that effective... , if even CoHo knew it, then so did MG and AV. Your point was "show what a team guy he is by respecting the veterans and thriving in his role, and take advantage of the particular situation!" That is a perfect and fair sentiment.

But if Kess were injured? Well, maybe that would be real logic for a mini re-build (such as trading CoHo) because really our odd's of winning without Kesler at his best were not great. And it may have been dangerous to rebuild around a whiner. Unfortunately, you cannot tell the public that you have given up on the season? I, FTR, was never a guy who said Pahlsson was a failure or played poorly. I personally think it's possible he was brought in to make the public believe we were actually doing everything possible to win. Pahlsson was a propoganda statement to mask a mini re-build?

And I still think Gillis had no business throwing all that junk out there. Nor are you completely on base calling Hodgson a wash out based on Corsi when he had a knack for getting teamates going (at times Kesler could not) & a slapshot that can be blown past some of the world's best goalies!

As I said earlier; lets just hope Kassian now add's the physical elements we need to pay off Gillis's move!






Hey, for fun; how far back does Corsi go? Not that Coho would ever get that good, but I doubt a guy like Brett Hull would have had a good Corsi, particularly when he was young?


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.
  • 1

#1433 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:54 PM

"Not at 100%" is far different than being injured. My simple rule is that if you're deemed healthy enough to play, you better go out there and do your job. Anybody who's playing is accountable.



Yeah, I got it. I was clarifying a point on your behalf. :)

Bobby Baun playing with a broken bone in his leg, or Kesler playing with his back all screwed up were playing "not at 100%", rather than playing injured, in your terminology. And if they were to be sat out, then they'd become "injured". I don't see why people don't get this.

For example, when Daniel Sedin took that head-shot from Duncan Keith, he dropped down to playing not at 100% for the one shift he played before leaving the game. This is when his status changed from not playing at 100% and he became injured with the concussion which sidelined him for the remainder of the season. Right?

regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#1434 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:55 PM

What do u call missing two top 6 forwards, missing your top defensemen, your 2 all-star center's being injured, 5 of your 7 regular defensemen being out or injured.

I'm not sure what you call it but it's clear fact that we were nowhere close to 100%, or even 80% where I would say Boston was around.

and don;t forget the goalie , who, in some games, couldn;t stop a beach ball !!!
  • 2

#1435 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:57 PM

Two top 6 forwards, like Horton and Savard?

Or your top defenceman, like Chicago was with missing Seabrook for 3 or 4 games?


Savard doesn't count as I said, that's a completely different situation. And Horton is the reason they were at 80%/

Seabrook was only out for 2 Games, and they were both games Chicago won. Plus he was good and ready to go for game 7, something the Canucks were not against Boston.



This is all just sidetracking by you again because you have no response to my point.

Just stop ignoring the clear fact that we were well below 100%.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 22 November 2012 - 07:00 PM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#1436 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:02 PM

Yeah, I got it. I was clarifying a point on your behalf. :)

Bobby Baun playing with a broken bone in his leg, or Kesler playing with his back all screwed up were playing "not at 100%", rather than playing injured, in your terminology. And if they were to be sat out, then they'd become "injured". I don't see why people don't get this.

For example, when Daniel Sedin took that head-shot from Duncan Keith, he dropped down to playing not at 100% for the one shift he played before leaving the game. This is when his status changed from not playing at 100% and he became injured with the concussion which sidelined him for the remainder of the season. Right?

regards,
G.

Hahahaha, you kill me. Hilarious.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#1437 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:02 PM

This is all just sidetracking by you again because you have no response to my point.

Just stop ignoring the clear fact that we were well below 100%.


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.
  • 0

#1438 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:03 PM

Not sure how old you are, but I can guarantee you that Tony Gallagher was far, far, far more of a heel when Burke was our GM.

Gillis has had a ton of success during his reign, so there's really not been much for TG to whine about, unlike the mid-to-late 90s when Burke was at the helm.

Gallagher's article on Hodgson was a nice example of Jerry Maguire's famed mission statement: "the things we think, but do not say". He was not the only guy touting more ice-time for Cody, either, BTW. Was your CDC account not intact around that time?


I am old enough to know that Gallagher was a heel when Burke was around - I agree with you there - it's just that I think he still is a heel. There may be a little truth to your claim that he has moderated somewhat, but that is intermittent - he still completely loses his mind on a regular basis, and is still the biggest grown-up whiner I can think of in the entire free world.

I also agree that there is not much for him to whine about - but he is extremely creative in this sense, and when he finds something he feels justified to whine about, he hits richter scale proportions with it.

Also true - Gallagher wasn't the only guy touting more ice-time for Hodgson - Botchford always manages to parrot him.

If you think my opinions are a little too stern, this kind of nonsense may have something to do with it: have a read - if this is the new, improved Gallagher, you might understand why I don't bother to remember much of his past - the old Gallagher made it necessary to format the old hard-drive - a complete, deep, clean sweep.

http://www.theprovin...l#axzz2D0UE6g5W
  • 0

#1439 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:04 PM

For example, when Daniel Sedin took that head-shot from Duncan Keith, he dropped down to playing not at 100% for the one shift he played before leaving the game. This is when his status changed from not playing at 100% and he became injured with the concussion which sidelined him for the remainder of the season. Right?


On that one shift, it became very clear that he was not fit to play in an NHL game.

...unlike a guy like Kesler, who was. Get it?
  • 0

#1440 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:05 PM

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.


As I said, with the line-up we had, we did choke.

But my point is that you can't excuse the fact that we were severely injured, and that if we were as healthy as Boston it would have made a huge difference. This is the clear fact you have not yet replied to and continue to deny.

Now I would like you to respond to that, and not sidetrack this time.
  • 0

zackass.png





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.