Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

whytelight

Past Canuck Talent Tearin' it up?

57 posts in this topic

I've many posts regarding MG, AV, and the Wolves. I've read many threads that point to the issue of our talent:

1) being traded away

2) under developed

3) not allowed to flourish

4) etc..

There are thousands of players out there playing for many different coaches. I believe that the coach does know what is best and the players job is to listen, learn, and develop their skills under their current coach. AV does the best he can with what he has.

Anyway, are there any examples of past Canuck players tearing it up in the NHL or other leagues? I'm looking for examples like "...darn, I wish we didn't trade him....look at his 80pts now!!!..." or "...too bad he was picked up when we sent him on waivers..cause he has 12pts in 15 games with the..." or "....boy, after he signed as a UFA with the *******, his post season production really helped them in the playoffs..."

Can you think of any players? Only one I can think of is Cam Neely...... and, maybe Trevor Linden.

Thoughts?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) being traded away

2) under developed

3) not allowed to flourish

4) etc..

Start with Shirokov.'Not allowed to flourish' best suits him.

Then go with Cody.All four fit his profile.

Grabner fits into all four categories.

Wellwood,Raffi and Sulzer all did well last season.

Tearing it up?Bure and Neely HHOF inductees say good bye.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In hindsight letting Shirokov go for nothing is one of the few things I'm not happy about, other than that I think we have been making the right moves with who we let go and who we sign. So I really don't have much of an issue with the rest, letting Mitchell go and picking up Hamhuis was a great move for us (Even though Willie was great in LA) and the jury is still out on the Ballard trade IMO (Since Grabner struggled and Ballard improved) So I don't really have any problems with those moves.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) being traded away

2) under developed

3) not allowed to flourish

4) etc..

Start with Shirokov.'Not allowed to flourish' best suits him.

Then go with Cody.All four fit his profile.

Grabner fits into all four categories.

Wellwood,Raffi and Sulzer all did well last season.

Tearing it up?Bure and Neely HHOF inductees say good bye.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Grabner issue, what was it about OUR team at that point that did not allow him to flourish? I agree on Mitchell...would great to have him in addition to our current D core....but, it's hockey.

Torres would still be good to have as well, IMO

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think Willie belongs in these conversations. At the time, there were pretty significant questions about him coming off the concussion, and most people seem to think a 1 year deal for about 1.5-2million would be reasonable, and I agreed. Willie made it very clear that his first priority was to goto a Stanley Cup contender, but he turned down both Washington and Detroit to goto LA, most likely because LA blew him away with a 2 year 7 million dollar deal that no other club was willing to offer. So in that way Vancouver didn't let him go so much as he chose LA.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Grabner issue, what was it about OUR team at that point that did not allow him to flourish? I agree on Mitchell...would great to have him in addition to our current D core....but, it's hockey.

Torres would still be good to have as well, IMO

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Hodgson not being able to flourish. Last season he was given every opportunity to put up points and as a result had a successful campaign. Now Shirokov is someone who was simply not given an opportunity, even when he performed well.

Letting go of Grabner was a mistake as well. Everyone could see the talent. He had the speed and a Naslundian wrist shot. I called that he would be a 30 goal scorer and he did just that. However I assume it would have been Vancouver's choice of Raymond or Grabner in the Ballard trade (which was the REAL mistake here) and with Raymond coming off a 25 goal season at the time Grabner was the obviouse choice.

I would have liked to retain Torres. If we had matched Phoenix's offer - which I think was not really steep at all - he would have stayed in Vancouver. I liked his grit and ability to change a game with a big hit or goal. And he was a major contributor in the Cup run and is one of those guys that can go on a crazy streak at the right time. Of course he always under controversy and that came under consideration.

Even if Gillis didn't want to do a massively front-loaded contract, he should have done it for Ehrhoff. Plain and simple. He fit our team like a glove, was a major catalyst for a lethal powerplay and would have helped us much more right NOW, which is our window for the Cup. The 4 million cap hit is very reasonable until he's around 35, 36 and by then our window will be closed and Gillis will likely be gone anyway and not have to deal with it. Just ditch Ballard any way possible for cap space.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Hodgson not being able to flourish. Last season he was given every opportunity to put up points and as a result had a successful campaign. Now Shirokov is someone who was simply not given an opportunity, even when he performed well.

Letting go of Grabner was a mistake as well. Everyone could see the talent. He had the speed and a Naslundian wrist shot. I called that he would be a 30 goal scorer and he did just that. However I assume it would have been Vancouver's choice of Raymond or Grabner in the Ballard trade (which was the REAL mistake here) and with Raymond coming off a 25 goal season at the time Grabner was the obviouse choice.

I would have liked to retain Torres. If we had matched Phoenix's offer - which I think was not really steep at all - he would have stayed in Vancouver. I liked his grit and ability to change a game with a big hit or goal. And he was a major contributor in the Cup run and is one of those guys that can go on a crazy streak at the right time. Of course he is always under controversy and that came under consideration.

Even if Gillis didn't want to do a massively front-loaded contract, he should have done it for Ehrhoff. Plain and simple. He fit our team like a glove, was a major catalyst for a lethal powerplay and would have helped us much more right NOW, which is our window for the Cup. The 4 million cap hit is very reasonable until he's around 35, 36 and by then our window will be closed and Gillis will likely be gone anyway and not have to deal with it. Just ditch Ballard any way possible for cap space.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitchell would be nice but we only get one of Hammer or Mitchell. I'd choose Hammer every time.

Torres was a good force to have on the ice but any guy that gets put on our 3rd line when no one else wanted him, then expects a raise right away isn't gonna stick around long. He also had locker room issues and only really seemed to connect with other guys who were on their way out (Glass, Samuelsson). So, much as I liked him on the ice, those relationships are also important if they fester.

Only other guy I miss is Ehrhoff, not because he's tearing it up now but because he was a perfect piece for us. Just a case of right guy on the right team. He was unpredictable and really had a visible effect on the Sedins by always doing things differently. Not an irreplaceable skill but not having that wild card element has had an effect on our offense. It's too bad that he mistook his being a great match for our team to mean that he was individually amazing and should take a payday over continuing his high level of play but we can't know his reasons fully.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shirokov should have been given a chance only game he played on canucks he was hungry and out worked dmen for that goal one of the reasons why i think a/v is a crapty coach never gives rookies a fair shake the day a/v is fired i will be so happy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shirokov should have been given a chance only game he played on canucks he was hungry and out worked dmen for that goal one of the reasons why i think a/v is a crapty coach never gives rookies a fair shake the day a/v is fired i will be so happy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adrian Accoin should have been part of the Van defence through his career.

Bobby Smaultz.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.