Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

VAN - FLA


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#121 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:24 PM

Nope nothing embarrasing just tired of getting into it with adolescents.


Hmm, and yet it is you who are the one who has been behaving in an adolescent manner, as has been pointed out by several other posters.


Look for them yourself and look for posts where someone said those points and was attacked and is no longer on the board. That will give you enough. And maybe it was two years ago but it was before all the contraversy started.


Nah, I have other things to do with my time which are far more interesting than searching for posts which you may, or may not have made 2 or 3 years ago. If you aren't interested enough in what you previously may have said why should anyone else take anything you say as being serious.

Provide a name, link the post and then I'll be glad to read it.

Regards.


Was this a dig? Or is it an indication of flattery?

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#122 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:27 PM

Coho was given offensive minutes once he started complaining and wanting a trade to up his value. I am not blind you are. In fact Mike Gillis STATED IN AN INTERVIEW THAT THE CANUCKS HAD POSITIONED COHO TO LOOK GOOD FOR A TRADE. I am blind? really wow ok, so you know more than what came out of MG;s mouth now.

So that's now MG, Burke, Wilson and Eakins you know better than hey?

Coho not critisized? LMAO...WOW REVISIONIST HISTORY? Didn't AV say the kid lied about his back because he was scared that he had to admit he wasn't ready????

Offensive minutes means Tavares minutes buddy, first/second line. The leafs gave Kadri that, not 4 mins a game that CoHo got first year, then 3rd line 2nd year, and yet he couldn't do it.


That's what I said, Coho was put into offensive situations.

You went on a tirade for nothing, we both made the same point. Just more proof you are the retarded clam that can't read.


And when I said. "He was never critized when he turned the puck over or made a bad defensive play".

I think it was a clear clear clear indication I was talking about his on ice play, but again you just try to spin it in anyother way because you have no reply that makes you seem smart, and you can't admit you are wrong.

As for your Tavares point, I was already able to supply proof that Kadri was mostly used in 2nd/3rd line roles, and never with the top line aside from the odd shift/PP here and there. That is something you haven't been able to do for your point. so really there's no legitimacy behind what you say.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I feel like I am speaking to a retarded clam/


Ah the irony.

Case closed you lose.


Actually case close you lose.

Because not only did you spin the argument to make you seem less stupid.

You also conveniently "forgot" to explain my points about Kadri, that I wanted to hear your explanation too so badly. how odd.

Now I'll give you one more chance. Please explain:

#1.

why is it that he gets a PPG in the AHL, yet the only time he gets called up is when they are so badly injured, that everyone else in the AHL has been called up, so they have to call him up. Why is that? He plays better than players in the AHL, yet they get the call up to the big leagues first. explain how that's fair.


#2.

Then also explain why he was sent down when they were winning, he was one of there better players and he was a +.



Or else I'm just going to stop feeding into your pointless trolling.
  • 0

zackass.png


#123 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

When? 2022?

If you acquire Luongo, kiss that "somewhere down the road" scenario goodbye.


Certainly by 2018 (at the latest) the next team for which Luongo plays will be able to be rid of his contract. There are several ways they may accomplish this feat, These have been discussed quite thouroughly on these forums, and you have never really managed to successfully argue against a single one.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#124 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:42 PM

That's what I said, Coho was put into offensive situations.

You went on a tirade for nothing, we both made the same point. Just more proof you are the retarded clam that can't read.


And when I said. "He was never critized when he turned the puck over or made a bad defensive play".

I think it was a clear clear clear indication I was talking about his on ice play, but again you just try to spin it in anyother way because you have no reply that makes you seem smart, and you can't admit you are wrong.

As for your Tavares point, I was already able to supply proof that Kadri was mostly used in 2nd/3rd line roles, and never with the top line aside from the odd shift/PP here and there. That is something you haven't been able to do for your point. so really there's no legitimacy behind what you say.



Ah the irony.



Actually case close you lose.

Because not only did you spin the argument to make you seem less stupid.

You also conveniently "forgot" to explain my points about Kadri, that I wanted to hear your explanation too so badly. how odd.

Now I'll give you one more chance. Please explain:

#1.

#2.


Or else I'm just going to stop feeding into your pointless trolling.


Uh dude...why was coho put in offensive situations? bc they were trading him?????

you don't even know what you're arguing anymore
  • 0

#125 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:43 PM

Hmm, and yet it is you who are the one who has been behaving in an adolescent manner, as has been pointed out by several other posters.




Nah, I have other things to do with my time which are far more interesting than searching for posts which you may, or may not have made 2 or 3 years ago. If you aren't interested enough in what you previously may have said why should anyone else take anything you say as being serious.

Provide a name, link the post and then I'll be glad to read it.



Was this a dig? Or is it an indication of flattery?

regards,
G.


I already sent you the link
  • 0

#126 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:04 PM

Uh dude...why was coho put in offensive situations? bc they were trading him?????

you don't even know what you're arguing anymore


Ahh you failed :picard:

That wasn't the arugment, we agreed on that smart guy.

What I wanted you to reply too was:


#1.

why is it that he gets a PPG in the AHL, yet the only time he gets called up is when they are so badly injured, that everyone else in the AHL has been called up, so they have to call him up. Why is that? He plays better than players in the AHL, yet they get the call up to the big leagues first. explain how that's fair.


#2.

Then also explain why he was sent down when they were winning, he was one of there better players and he was a +.



Clearly that is too difficult for you, because you can't admit you are wrong. So unless you want to reply to those points and have an actually discussion then don't reply.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 10 December 2012 - 06:05 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#127 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:06 PM

I already sent you the link


Yup. I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote (then or now). You weren't the only person who was suggesting that scenario at that time.

Word of advice: don't enter a discussion looking to start a fight if you don't want to fight. In your original post you came out swinging rather than looking to start a conversation.

Mellow some.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#128 James van Riemsdyk

James van Riemsdyk

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:19 PM

Ahh you failed :picard:

That wasn't the arugment, we agreed on that smart guy.

What I wanted you to reply too was:


#1.

#2.


Clearly that is too difficult for you, because you can't admit you are wrong. So unless you want to reply to those points and have an actually discussion then don't reply.


I didn't want to butt into your discussion but I think I'll give Gollumpus a hand, I'm not 100% sure about my answers but I think they're reasonable.

He was put into the offensive zone so he could look more offensively talented and get a better +/- so he would be a better trading asset than putting him in the defensive zone and get scored on.

1. Brian Burke doesn't want to ruin Kadri's trade value if he gets injured playing in the NHL, he keeps him smothered so his trade value is still high, he knows if he gets injured his value will decrease dramatically which is why he is left in the AHL to develop, Also he's still quite a small guy and since he would be playing on the third or fourth line it would be easy for him to get injured.

2. Brian Burke thinks his team is a play off team and doesn't want a rookie on his team when the play offs come so he sends him back down to the minors when his players are ready to play again so they will be ready come playoffs.
  • 0
Posted Image
Edmonton Oilers CHL AGM
Edmontion Oilers SRHL Commissioner/GM

#129 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:23 PM

Ahh you failed :picard:

That wasn't the arugment, we agreed on that smart guy.

What I wanted you to reply too was:


#1.

#2.


Clearly that is too difficult for you, because you can't admit you are wrong. So unless you want to reply to those points and have an actually discussion then don't reply.


1. What's fair is he was given many opportunities and did not seize them. That says something to a coaching staff and GM, eventually your chances wear out. You see that with many players, especially if you are not doing the things the coaches are asking of you, that's why this happens no other reason.

2. One player who is not consistent in the NHL is not the cause of their winning. Clearly, he was given another opportunity and the coaches felt he was still not ready, not that he is being blacklisted.

I am not really sure why you don't get this. Its honestly very frustrating arguing a point with someone who just thinks is just simply that people have it out for this guy.

I'll ask you a question

Why is it that you cannot accept the reason he has not made the NHL has been because of his play, his committment to fitness and his commitment to the team concept?

Why is it that you want to give him the easy excuse out that the reason he is not successful is not because of things he isn't doing but because of someone else?

Why is that you can't accept that an individual's success is based on their efforts? Where do you get these views from?
  • 0

#130 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:25 PM

I didn't want to butt into your discussion but I think I'll give Gollumpus a hand, I'm not 100% sure about my answers but I think they're reasonable.

He was put into the offensive zone so he could look more offensively talented and get a better +/- so he would be a better trading asset than putting him in the defensive zone and get scored on.

1. Brian Burke doesn't want to ruin Kadri's trade value if he gets injured playing in the NHL, he keeps him smothered so his trade value is still high, he knows if he gets injured his value will decrease dramatically which is why he is left in the AHL to develop, Also he's still quite a small guy and since he would be playing on the third or fourth line it would be easy for him to get injured.

2. Brian Burke thinks his team is a play off team and doesn't want a rookie on his team when the play offs come so he sends him back down to the minors when his players are ready to play again so they will be ready come playoffs.


So do you agree that there are issue's there between Kadri and the Leafs? Because I don't see his size as an issue with him honestly.
  • 0

zackass.png


#131 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:25 PM

I didn't want to butt into your discussion but I think I'll give Gollumpus a hand, I'm not 100% sure about my answers but I think they're reasonable.

He was put into the offensive zone so he could look more offensively talented and get a better +/- so he would be a better trading asset than putting him in the defensive zone and get scored on.

1. Brian Burke doesn't want to ruin Kadri's trade value if he gets injured playing in the NHL, he keeps him smothered so his trade value is still high, he knows if he gets injured his value will decrease dramatically which is why he is left in the AHL to develop, Also he's still quite a small guy and since he would be playing on the third or fourth line it would be easy for him to get injured.

2. Brian Burke thinks his team is a play off team and doesn't want a rookie on his team when the play offs come so he sends him back down to the minors when his players are ready to play again so they will be ready come playoffs.


wowzers...ok I'm done with you

But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!

:picard:

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 10 December 2012 - 07:27 PM.

  • 0

#132 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:26 PM

wowzers...ok I'm done with you

But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!

:picard:


  • 0

#133 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:28 PM

So do you agree that there are issue's there between Kadri and the Leafs? Because I don't see his size as an issue with him honestly.


there's issues with the leafs and kadri not bc of a vendetta..bc of an attitude!!!!!

why don't you guys get that? lol
  • 0

#134 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:30 PM

there's issues with the leafs and kadri not bc of a vendetta..bc of an attitude!!!!!

why don't you guys get that? lol


I was just asking what he thinks about that, you and me have already been down this road and have disagreed every step of the way.
  • 0

zackass.png


#135 James van Riemsdyk

James van Riemsdyk

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:33 PM

wowzers...ok I'm done with you

But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!

:picard:


Well BuretoMogilny, you need to think about it this way, back during those times Schenn was a huge guy for his age. Also do you really want Andrew Raycroft? About the Gardiner issue I'm not too familiar with they're defense but i thought their defense was a bit thin which is why it was okay for the defensemen to come up.I do recall an interview or an article talking about how Kadri didn't really have a great commitment to the sport. One more point I want to address, The maple leafs have quite a bit of depth down the Center I don't really think they need Kadri at the time. Grabovski, Bozak, Lombardi, Connolly, Steckel, and now McClement.
  • 0
Posted Image
Edmonton Oilers CHL AGM
Edmontion Oilers SRHL Commissioner/GM

#136 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:45 PM

1. What's fair is he was given many opportunities and did not seize them. That says something to a coaching staff and GM, eventually your chances wear out. You see that with many players, especially if you are not doing the things the coaches are asking of you, that's why this happens no other reason.

2. One player who is not consistent in the NHL is not the cause of their winning. Clearly, he was given another opportunity and the coaches felt he was still not ready, not that he is being blacklisted.

I am not really sure why you don't get this. Its honestly very frustrating arguing a point with someone who just thinks is just simply that people have it out for this guy.

I'll ask you a question

Why is it that you cannot accept the reason he has not made the NHL has been because of his play, his committment to fitness and his commitment to the team concept?

Why is it that you want to give him the easy excuse out that the reason he is not successful is not because of things he isn't doing but because of someone else?

Why is that you can't accept that an individual's success is based on their efforts? Where do you get these views from?


Finally you reply with something. I'm actually happy about this, we can finally have a discussion.

1. I understand your point, and I think you are partially right, but there have also been times where perhaps he was good enough to stick with the leafs and they send him down and make up some excuse like "not responsible defensively" yet he is a + and they are winning hockey games and he is contributing.

2. See and why do they think that? He is doing all the right things, he is playing better than some of there regluars, the team is winning and he is contributing quite a bit, so why send him down? If he was struggling then I understand completely, but he was playing better than some of there regulars, and to me that just shows it was politics and contracts as to why those guys stayed up and he was sent down. And also that they had always had it planned for him to be sent down, regardless of how he played, which isn't a fair shot for someone like Kadri.

Now I will answer your questions.

A ) I think there has been times for sure when he wasn't ready, and that's all fine and good. The thing I have the problem with (and which is what this whole argument started about) was that they didn't have to treat him poorly about it, Kadri came in and didn't have the best camp, you can just say he needs more development, you don't need to ridicule the kid like they keep doing. And also like I have said, there are times when he was better than some regulars and they send him down. But for me the issue is the way they treated him. No reason for it, if it isn't ready that's fine but no reason to ridicule him and then send him down when he is one of the better players on the team later on. As for the fitness and team concept, he has had one issue with his fitness and everyone is acting like he eats cheese burgers and sits on the couch 24/7, yes he wasn't in shape but he is playing great now lets move by it. And as for the team concept, I don't see it. He plays the team concept, just because he has magic hands so he tries to do things offensively and turns the puck over time to time doesn't mean he doesn't play the team concept. It just is what is going to come.

B ) Isn't successful? The guy have put PPG numbers in the AHL his entire career, has came up to the Leafs at times and played very well, I don't think his play is the issue anymore I just think he needs to be given a fair shot to see what he can do without having to worry about being rediculed and sent down right away if he turns the puck over or is -1 on the night.

C ) This ties into B, but you realize that if that is the case, everything you said about him being lazy and not being committed is entirely false, the guy like I said has put up PPG #'s, he is only 22 yet, There is no reason for us expect him to make the first line, his production in the AHL is actually good and he has shown the commitment to get there, he just needs a good lenghty fair chance and I think we will see he has more to give and with MG's willingness to give young players the shots I think we could get the most out of him.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 10 December 2012 - 07:46 PM.

  • 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.