Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

My Official Roberto Luongo Proposal


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 07 October 2012 - 06:29 AM

I've been asked to propose a solution for Luongo. The way I see it, the ideal trade partner is the Chicago Blackhawks. Without further ado...

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

Schneider/Backup

EDIT: adjusted for Chicago's cap constraints.

ORIGINAL:

To CHICAGO:
-Luongo
-Ballard

To VANCOUVER:
-Leddy
-Montador
-Beach

Edited by King of the ES, 07 October 2012 - 10:02 AM.

  • 0

#2 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 07 October 2012 - 06:55 AM

Nick Leddy for Luongo as the centerpieces of a deal makes sense, in fact I proposed the same thing.

However, the Blackhawks are adding around 6 million in salary, when they would only be able to add about 2-3.
  • 0
Sig too big.

#3 CanucksFanMike

CanucksFanMike

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,632 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 11

Posted 07 October 2012 - 07:37 AM

Take out Ballard and Montador and get it done MG!
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#4 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 07 October 2012 - 08:07 AM

No thanks. Chicago doesn't want Ballard under any circumstances. As the other poster pointed out a lot more salary need to go back to Vancouver for any (highly unlikely) deal between Chicago and Vancouver for Luongo. This deal may work for Vancouver but it doesn't work for Chicago.
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#5 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,691 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:14 AM

Chicago wouldn't/couldn't make this trade.
They would have to shed a lot of salary to be able to take on both Ballard and Lu.
  • 0
Posted Image

#6 JimLahey

JimLahey

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:40 AM

The problem with dealing with Chicago, is that they probably aren't willing to move any of Seabrook, Keith, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Bolland or Sharp. So what Chicago is willing to offer doesn't address our main weak point (top six winger). So I personally wouldn't deal with Chicago unless we improve in areas we need to improve, which as it stands, is not our defense.
  • 1

hL9YqYN.jpg


#7 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:40 AM

No thanks. Chicago doesn't want Ballard under any circumstances.


Wow. Hear that, Canuck fans? Can I ask why you say that, though?

As the other poster pointed out a lot more salary need to go back to Vancouver for any (highly unlikely) deal between Chicago and Vancouver for Luongo. This deal may work for Vancouver but it doesn't work for Chicago.


The only thing missing on Chicago is goaltending. How does it not work for Chicago?

And RE: salary, I've made adjustments in the original for this.

Edited by King of the ES, 07 October 2012 - 09:46 AM.

  • 0

#8 JimLahey

JimLahey

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:44 AM

And RE: salary, they can make other moves to accommodate. The above deal is fair. If Ballard must be taken out, then Montador also must and Mike Frolik must be added.


They would have 1.5 million in cap space if they waive Emery.

EDIT: In the original Luongo + Ballard for Leddy + Montador + Beach, not the edited one.

Edited by JimLahey, 07 October 2012 - 09:50 AM.

  • 0

hL9YqYN.jpg


#9 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 07 October 2012 - 12:15 PM

A far better trade would be Lu+ for kane.
  • 0

Posted Image


#10 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 07 October 2012 - 03:33 PM

A far better trade would be Lu+ for kane.


Yeah, and the only roadblock to that happening is Chicago.
  • 0

#11 bigpush

bigpush

    Comets Star

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 05:54 PM

I would do it if Beach was replaced for a different prospect like Smith, Hayes, Danault or a draft pick.

I think Leddy has more upside than Tanev right now but really hard to tell what Tanev will develop into.
  • 0

#12 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 October 2012 - 06:05 PM

I would do it if Beach was replaced for a different prospect like Smith, Hayes, Danault or a draft pick.

I think Leddy has more upside than Tanev right now but really hard to tell what Tanev will develop into.


I am a huge Kyle Beach fan. I think he's absolutely got what it takes to be in the NHL. I get to see a lot of his games, living in Chicago, and he's really a combination of so many different things that it's almost hard to follow. He's massive, he's a pretty good skater, he's a major goal suck on the PP a la Kovalchuk (hangs around the far blue line when the puck's in his own end), but he's also a legitimately tough, mean, SOB. He engages everyone. He's always talking, always being annoying. He's Max Lapierre who should be able to score 20 goals or so in the NHL, on an annual basis. He's probably a 2nd or 3rd line player, but could also be used very effectively on the PP. Smart player. Can pass. Knows where to go. He also wants the puck, which I love. He's always banging his stick on the ice when he's open. I love his potential. Far more than any of the guys that you mentioned.

As for Leddy - yes. He's playing with the Ice Hogs right now, and even though it's only pre-season games, he's looked dominant. Joins every rush, insanely smart, makes excellent passes, PP QB, etc. Would be our Ehrhoff replacement.
  • 0

#13 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:33 PM

Wow. Hear that, Canuck fans? Can I ask why you say that, though?



The only thing missing on Chicago is goaltending. How does it not work for Chicago?

And RE: salary, I've made adjustments in the original for this.


1. Ballard - Sorry, but he's not any better than 8-9 defensemen we have in the organization, especially for that cap hit.

2. Why doesn't the trade work - part of the issue with goaltending was the team's defense. An improved defense combined with a bounce back year from Crawford then goaltending is not an issue. Sure, it's not certain Crawford will bounce back, but the talent is there (see 2010/2011) be there are lots of goalies that bounce back after poor 2nd year. So all things considered giving Crawford another shot and keeping a top forward is the better way to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Luongo fan but I don't think a deal can be made between Chicago and Vancouver that will realistically satisfy each team.
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#14 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,080 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:27 PM

Wow. Hear that, Canuck fans?


As opposed to you, who are a fan of whom?
  • 0

#15 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:03 AM

2. Why doesn't the trade work - part of the issue with goaltending was the team's defense. An improved defense combined with a bounce back year from Crawford then goaltending is not an issue. Sure, it's not certain Crawford will bounce back, but the talent is there (see 2010/2011) be there are lots of goalies that bounce back after poor 2nd year. So all things considered giving Crawford another shot and keeping a top forward is the better way to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Luongo fan but I don't think a deal can be made between Chicago and Vancouver that will realistically satisfy each team.


Interesting take. You're a Hawks fan, I take it?

The only thing that I would ask is why was there an issue with the team's D? That's pretty difficult to believe, given who they've got.

And in addition, like you, I was very high on Corey Crawford's hopes after the 2010-11 season. He badly outplayed Luongo in our playoff series. But this past season was a pretty significant pullback, which should be pretty discouraging for Hawks fans. The guy practically lost them the series against Phoenix. His numbers were worse than any goalie who started > 50 games. And this isn't a young guy going through a sophomore slump, this is a 28 year-old who was very clearly the weak link on this team. You might be right, that it's too early to give up on him, but this might be Chicago's only shot at getting a goalie like Luongo, so they might want to act.

I do agree that Gillis would be reluctant to move him to Chicago, for obvious reasons, but I think it's both the most logical destination for Luongo, and that Chicago has the most logical assets for the Canucks to be interested in. The potential is there, if these two factions can put the egos aside and realize that they're each other's ideal partner.
  • 0

#16 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:48 AM

Interesting take. You're a Hawks fan, I take it?

The only thing that I would ask is why was there an issue with the team's D? That's pretty difficult to believe, given who they've got.

And in addition, like you, I was very high on Corey Crawford's hopes after the 2010-11 season. He badly outplayed Luongo in our playoff series. But this past season was a pretty significant pullback, which should be pretty discouraging for Hawks fans. The guy practically lost them the series against Phoenix. His numbers were worse than any goalie who started > 50 games. And this isn't a young guy going through a sophomore slump, this is a 28 year-old who was very clearly the weak link on this team. You might be right, that it's too early to give up on him, but this might be Chicago's only shot at getting a goalie like Luongo, so they might want to act.

I do agree that Gillis would be reluctant to move him to Chicago, for obvious reasons, but I think it's both the most logical destination for Luongo, and that Chicago has the most logical assets for the Canucks to be interested in. The potential is there, if these two factions can put the egos aside and realize that they're each other's ideal partner.


When I say there was in issue with the team's defense I mean the overall team defense, not just the defensemen. Last year we had some excellent top level talent, but the depth wasn't there, especially on defense (i.e. Scott, Lepisto, and O'Donnell). Playing a full season with Shaw and Oduya will help defensively (overall) along with upgrading Scott, Lepisto, and O'Donnell to Brookbank and Rozsival. Leddy should aldo be better with another season under his belt, and hopefully Q plays him on the third pairing where he belongs at this point in his career (and top PP unit).

I hear you on your comments about Crawford and I don't disagree, but I don't think it's worth giving up a key roster player to get Luongo. When we won the cup in 2010 it was due to our incredible depth, which was torn apart during the great purge in the summer of 2010. While Niemi had some solid moments he wasn't a super star by any means, if we can win with Niemi we can win with Crawford if he gets close to his 2010/2011 form. As an organization we're just starting to rebuild the depth with lost, the "core" player (Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Bolland, Keith and Seabrook) aren't going anywhere and neither are the next wave of potentially great forwards we have in the pipeline - Teravainen, McNeill, Danault, and Saad (to name a few). Frolik, Hayes, Leddy and to a lesser extend Kruger could be available but that's probably not what Vancouver is looking for.

I'm not saying Luongo isn't worth what everyone is asking for in their proposals, I'm just saying Chicago won't pay it. The Bowman's don't like to pay a lot for goaltending, so Luongo's $5+ million cap hit (not to mention his actual salary) plus the players it would cost to acquire him would be far too much.
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#17 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:56 AM

I hear you on your comments about Crawford and I don't disagree, but I don't think it's worth giving up a key roster player to get Luongo. When we won the cup in 2010 it was due to our incredible depth, which was torn apart during the great purge in the summer of 2010. While Niemi had some solid moments he wasn't a super star by any means, if we can win with Niemi we can win with Crawford if he gets close to his 2010/2011 form. As an organization we're just starting to rebuild the depth with lost, the "core" player (Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Bolland, Keith and Seabrook) aren't going anywhere and neither are the next wave of potentially great forwards we have in the pipeline - Teravainen, McNeill, Danault, and Saad (to name a few). Frolik, Hayes, Leddy and to a lesser extend Kruger could be available but that's probably not what Vancouver is looking for.


Kruger is another guy that I'd be interested in, though not as much as Beach. Kruger's a good player, though it's difficult to see where he'd fit in on this team (though he may well be better than Schroeder, in the long run). Like I said, I get to see a fair bit of Ice Hog games, and the amount of promising youth that Chicago has at the moment is sickening. Kruger, Shaw, Leddy, all have been very, very impressive when I've seen them play in the AHL.

I see Leddy as an ideal fit for this team, and I think Frolik's a nice swing-for-the-fences play in light of a cool market for Luongo's services. Kyle Beach, too, who I'm obviously very high on, and who may be presently lost in the rich shuffle that is Chicago's young prospects.
  • 0

#18 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:44 AM

Kruger is another guy that I'd be interested in, though not as much as Beach. Kruger's a good player, though it's difficult to see where he'd fit in on this team (though he may well be better than Schroeder, in the long run). Like I said, I get to see a fair bit of Ice Hog games, and the amount of promising youth that Chicago has at the moment is sickening. Kruger, Shaw, Leddy, all have been very, very impressive when I've seen them play in the AHL.

I see Leddy as an ideal fit for this team, and I think Frolik's a nice swing-for-the-fences play in light of a cool market for Luongo's services. Kyle Beach, too, who I'm obviously very high on, and who may be presently lost in the rich shuffle that is Chicago's young prospects.


Frolik could do well with a change of scenary, but I'm hoping he re-discovers his scoring touch while playing in Europe and returns to the NHL with a renewed sense of confidence.

Where would Kruger fit in? He'd be a perfect 3rd line centre for the Canucks, he's far better than another other option you have right now (although that could change in the future with Gaunce). There's been a lot of discussion amongst Blackhawks fans about moving Bolland to the 2nd line and Kruger to the 3rd, but I think Bolland is just too good centre the checking line so that leaves Kruger for the 2nd or 4th line. I don't think he's ready (yet) for the 2nd line, and he's far better thana 4th line centre. He might end up on the wing with Bolland.
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#19 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:59 AM

OP, where is Kassian in your lineup for Vancouver? Zack provides what Kyle Beach does so getting him from Chicago could be redundant; I'd rather get Kruger, since he used to play on the 2nd line for the Hawks if I'm not mistaken. He can slot in very well as the 3rd line center for us and if Kes isn't back when the season starts Marcus can also slot up into the Top 6.

I also wouldn't mind the idea of Frolik, who could fill a Top 6 skilled winger role as well if he plays up to his potential (he could be another David Booth-type acquisition, who prices himself out in another market and can succeed given the right minutes; he's scored at an average of nearly a half-point per game during his career). Even at $2.3M he's not that expensive as a project player (though I'd really only want him of Kass or Hansen don't make it into the Top 6).

Just hope that if somehow this trade does happen Lu doesn't come back to burn his former team.
  • 0

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Jesus LOVES YOU!
2012, meet Matthew 24:36-47!

14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


#20 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:17 AM

Where would Kruger fit in? He'd be a perfect 3rd line centre for the Canucks, he's far better than another other option you have right now (although that could change in the future with Gaunce). There's been a lot of discussion amongst Blackhawks fans about moving Bolland to the 2nd line and Kruger to the 3rd, but I think Bolland is just too good centre the checking line so that leaves Kruger for the 2nd or 4th line. I don't think he's ready (yet) for the 2nd line, and he's far better thana 4th line centre. He might end up on the wing with Bolland.


The Canucks are already soft enough, I don't think Marcus Kruger would do anything to solve those (very real) problems on the 3rd line. Like you say, he's more suited to a top-six role, which he may not quite be ready for - if he can play wing, though, he might be more productive than Mason Raymond has recently been.

He is a good player, I'm just not sure that he'd be such a great fit on the Canucks.
  • 0

#21 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:23 AM

The Canucks are already soft enough, I don't think Marcus Kruger would do anything to solve those (very real) problems on the 3rd line. Like you say, he's more suited to a top-six role, which he may not quite be ready for - if he can play wing, though, he might be more productive than Mason Raymond has recently been.

He is a good player, I'm just not sure that he'd be such a great fit on the Canucks.


I wouldn't call Kruger soft, he may not be a bruiser but he doesn't shy away from being physical or parking himself in front of the net. Kruger is defensively sound and have a tremendous work ethic, he just needs to work on his face offs. If we didn't have Bolland I wouldn't have any issue with Kruger centering our 3rd line.
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#22 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:27 AM

OP, where is Kassian in your lineup for Vancouver? Zack provides what Kyle Beach does so getting him from Chicago could be redundant; I'd rather get Kruger, since he used to play on the 2nd line for the Hawks if I'm not mistaken. He can slot in very well as the 3rd line center for us and if Kes isn't back when the season starts Marcus can also slot up into the Top 6.


Ideally, something would be done with Chris Higgins, in the way of a trade, which would open up a spot for Kassian on the 4th line. Kassian/Lapierre/Beach would be an excellent 4th line. In any event, and to be frank, I don't think it'd be the worst thing for Kassian to spend some more time in the AHL. Vigneault is pretty ruthless with not giving any favors to young players, so he might be best served by doing that. Kassian's played 30 AHL games; Beach has played 101.

Beach and Kassian are really not that similar. Beach has far better offensive instincts/gifts. Kassian is more of a pure, brute force bodychecking type. Beach is the type to get under opponents' skin. Kassian is the type that they'll need to look out for in the corners.
  • 0

#23 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,592 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:30 AM

CHI: Luongo
CGY: Frolik, Olesz
VAN: Comeau, Backlund, Nemisz, Howse, Crawford
  • 0
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#24 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 12:06 PM

CHI: Luongo
CGY: Frolik, Olesz
VAN: Comeau, Backlund, Nemisz, Howse, Crawford


Deal (at least from a Chicago perspective).
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#25 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 12:15 PM

Deal (at least from a Chicago perspective).


LOL; I knew you would say that :P

Posted Image

You guys make off like bandits: Lu for Frolik, Olesz (cap dumps) and Crawford (expendable with Lu) and you add another star piece to add to your core... for that return? RIIIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT....
Calgary doesn't improve, they just get mediocre pieces; Vancouver gets Comeau (journeyman), Backlund/ Nemisz (OK young guys), Howse (don't know much about him) and Crawford (don't need another young starter), a.k.a. quantity for quality
  • 0

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Jesus LOVES YOU!
2012, meet Matthew 24:36-47!

14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


#26 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 12:57 PM

LOL; I knew you would say that :P

Posted Image

You guys make off like bandits: Lu for Frolik, Olesz (cap dumps) and Crawford (expendable with Lu) and you add another star piece to add to your core... for that return? RIIIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT....
Calgary doesn't improve, they just get mediocre pieces; Vancouver gets Comeau (journeyman), Backlund/ Nemisz (OK young guys), Howse (don't know much about him) and Crawford (don't need another young starter), a.k.a. quantity for quality


That's why I specified that the deal worked from a Chicago perspective, I wasn't about to comment on if it worked for Vancouver or Calgary. Although I suspected the deal wouldn't fly with Canucks fans.
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#27 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:12 PM

That's why I specified that the deal worked from a Chicago perspective, I wasn't about to comment on if it worked for Vancouver or Calgary. Although I suspected the deal wouldn't fly with Canucks fans.


Don't imagine that the Flames would have any interest.
  • 0

#28 Darth Kane

Darth Kane

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:39 PM

Don't imagine that the Flames would have any interest.


You're probably right about that.

But this proves my point, it would be almost impossible to find a deal for Luongo that would make both Chicago and Vancouver happy.
  • 0

rundblad3_zpsc5e56154.png


#29 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,190 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:10 PM

Won't lie, that top six sucks.
  • 0
Posted Image

#30 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,080 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:12 PM

The Canucks are already soft enough, I don't think Marcus Kruger would do anything to solve those (very real) problems on the 3rd line. Like you say, he's more suited to a top-six role, which he may not quite be ready for - if he can play wing, though, he might be more productive than Mason Raymond has recently been.

He is a good player, I'm just not sure that he'd be such a great fit on the Canucks.


The Canucks, you say, are soft, so you propose to bring in Leddy and Frolik!?! Wow. Would the Canucks pushback ever surge!!! You just swim and swim in contradictions king.
Your proposals fail.
And suggesting that Higgins be moved (to make room for an AHLer who aint ready) just goes to show how very little you know about hockey - the Canucks third line has two outstanding wingers - which is what allowed the pump and dump of Hodgson to work - those two guys made him look much better than he actually was.
The only problem with the 3rd line was that it had a slow, soft, defensively challenged guy playing center - thankfully, Gillis turned that softness into Kassian.
How exactly does your proposal help the third line?
Yeah, you missed the boat.

Edited by oldnews, 09 October 2012 - 08:18 PM.

  • 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.