Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

sign Gomez and Redden


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#31 hockey is nice yes

hockey is nice yes

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:39 PM

Have you ever watched them play?????? why why why why why would we use either one when we have cam and jim, much better than redden. And gizmo pffff thats why we have schroeder.
  • 0

#32 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:49 PM

Ryan Getzlaf is an unrestricted free agent at the end of this year :bigblush: , MG make a trade!

as much as i love getzlaf i dont see him leaving the team he won a cup with

man he would be a beast here tho , him with the sedins wow
  • 0
Posted Image

#33 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:51 PM

Have you ever watched them play?????? why why why why why would we use either one when we have cam and jim, much better than redden. And gizmo pffff thats why we have schroeder.

not sure if your trolling me by acting like cam jim or schoeder are amazing or trolling me by acting like gomez and redden are better then them

either way im confused
  • 0
Posted Image

#34 Drakrami

Drakrami

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 04

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:53 PM

good thing u're not a GM.

let's treat it as a lucky draw, sign whatever players are out there, hope that they glue and turn out to be a team.
  • 0

#35 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:57 PM

good thing u're not a GM.

let's treat it as a lucky draw, sign whatever players are out there, hope that they glue and turn out to be a team.

glen sather???
  • 0
Posted Image

#36 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,380 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:03 PM

Just to be clear, whoever signs these two will NOT be responsible for their salaries? If so I'd P.T.O. Gomez and sign him, ONLY if he performs well, for near base salary for one year on a two-way deal to keep him motivated. On paper it would've looked okay several seasons ago and I hope he can recover that form, having won Cups with the Devils all those years ago.

With Kes and Booth out the team has question marks and could certainly use all the help it can get.

Twins - Burrows
Higgins - Arnott/ Gomez/ Schroeder - Kassian
Raymond - Lapierre - Hansen

not great, but the team can use any help it can get.
  • 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.


#37 mbal23

mbal23

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:56 PM

plus Gomez's dad said he would like scott to play in vancouver and is one of his reps.
  • 0

#38 Lundymaphone

Lundymaphone

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:08 PM

500k per on 2 way contracts, sure.


I would agree that cheap (even if more then 500k) contracts would be a good investment. That said making it a 2-way makes no sense, the Canuck's are not on a shoestring budget, just guarantee them their $XXX,XXX. The two way contract will save you less then 1 million and will just be off putting to the players. The worst that could happen is that you end up with a decent AHL team.
  • 0

#39 AllHailSmyl

AllHailSmyl

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,701 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:13 PM


  • 2

By the way learn how to spell SHIRIKOV who is this shirakov


Amazingly on his first shift Kassian would have had a breakaway if Kesler knew how to pass. And he still got switched with Weiss. And note it is "Weiss" not "Wise".


#40 TheRussianRocket96

TheRussianRocket96

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:14 PM

1 year 1 M gomez...do it
  • 0

#41 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,974 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:32 PM

I'd give Gomez a 1 year deal up to 2mill if he took a 2-way contract.

Like others said, hes not worth 7 mill but 2 is a number I'd go up to (hell, we signed Sundin for 10)
  • 0

Actually Vig don't Kill Dral, I believe him to mafia enough that I have dealt with him myself. 


#42 billabong

billabong

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,971 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:39 PM


  • 1
Posted Image

#43 BCNeckties

BCNeckties

    K-Wing Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 13

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:46 PM

Signing Gomez for anything below 2 would be great. He won't put the puck in the net like he used to, but he could make guys like Raymond, Higgins, Booth etc better. He's a good playmaker. We won't get the Devils era Gomez, but I don't think we get the Habs era Gomez either. NYR Gomez is worth 2-3 million and we could probably get him for 1-2. Why not?

1) He's better than any Kesler replacement we have. By a lot. Schroeder? ... he's skilled, but probably a career AHLer. Too small for the bottom 6, not good enough for the top 6. Hopefully I'll eat my words, but I doubt it. There's a reason he fell so far in the draft and has yet to do much in the AHL

2) He's better than any FA available. Arnott would be a great 3rd line center, but we need a guy to replace Kesler.

3) It's a short season. Going with a veteran is the right move.

4) Huge bargaining chip in Luongo dealings. Canucks don't need a guy like Bozak short term, so shoring up that hole gives Gillis more room to negotiate. With Gomez, we don't really even have to trade Luongo, or we could trade him for prospects that won't make the team. Without Gomez, it'll be a mediocre stop gap like Bozak coming back.

5) Our second line is currently Raymond - ? - ?

As for Redden...I doubt he'd even come here when other teams with less competition could offer him a job, but he's probably worth approaching.

Both of these guys were overrated when they inked their deals, and became underrated because of them. People say they suck because they aren't marquee players...but if they were making under 2 million the last few years you guys would be drooling over the prospect of them coming here. They're both worthy low risk, huge reward risks. Even if Gomez is a complete bust, he'd still probably be about as good as Lapierre.
  • 3

#44 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,583 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:30 PM


  • 0
Posted Image


CanucksSayEh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
When the playoffs come around, nobody is scared of getting in a fight, but every night, they get their mom to check under the bed for Raffi Torres.

#45 Kevin Biestra

Kevin Biestra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,869 posts
  • Joined: 31-October 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:21 PM

Anybody who wouldn't sign Gomez to a bargain basement contract given our injuries up front would be squandering a great opportunity at little risk.

It is quite possible that he is washed up like Cheechoo, but it's also quite possible that he isn't.

Plenty of players have had a garbage year or two, then come back to post great seasons. Even Ray "buy my Mexican Real Estate" Ferraro enjoyed a great unexpected comeback at a later age than Gomez.

If Gomez turns out to suck again this year, then we're out less money than we paid Rome last year (probably).

Gomez was about to spend the year trying not to go stir crazy on the treadmill. He will view this season in the NHL as a gift from god. If he's ever going to bounce back, these are the circumstances.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image


Biestra speaks. Biestra educates.

Let Canucks management know you want King Richard Brodeur in the Ring of Honour with no further delay! He's been retired for 25 years!

http://forum.canucks...e-king-richard/

#46 Mr. Logic

Mr. Logic

    K-Wing Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 13

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:25 PM

I strongly agree with BCNeckties.

Gomez is a decent playmaker and surprisingly effective defensively. He's slammed because he was signed by NYR to a massive contract despite only topping 20 goals once in his previous 7 seasons. Not surprisingly, he hasn't been able to surpass 16 goals in a season since being signed by the Rangers.

Also, having a pass-first center on the second line might be good for Raymond and Booth (once he's healthy). If all goes well, he could play on a line with Booth and Kesler to end the season.

There's no reason why the Canucks wouldn't sign him if the "price is right". Gomez might actually consider an inexpensive contract to rebuild his career. And MG has been known to make signings like this.

As for Wade Redden, I don't see how this would ever happen. The Canucks d-core doesn't have any room for him right now. He will most likely end up on a team making up its second pairing (depending on how he plays). There are several teams that can offer him far more ice-time and a larger salary.
  • 0

#47 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,009 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:27 PM

F#$K OFF!.........Really? go smoke another. I hate calling myself a canuck fan some days <_<


How astute of you .. pray tell us more??
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#48 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,986 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:30 PM

Signing Gomez for anything below 2 would be great. He won't put the puck in the net like he used to, but he could make guys like Raymond, Higgins, Booth etc better. He's a good playmaker. We won't get the Devils era Gomez, but I don't think we get the Habs era Gomez either. NYR Gomez is worth 2-3 million and we could probably get him for 1-2. Why not?

1) He's better than any Kesler replacement we have. By a lot. Schroeder? ... he's skilled, but probably a career AHLer. Too small for the bottom 6, not good enough for the top 6. Hopefully I'll eat my words, but I doubt it. There's a reason he fell so far in the draft and has yet to do much in the AHL

2) He's better than any FA available. Arnott would be a great 3rd line center, but we need a guy to replace Kesler.

3) It's a short season. Going with a veteran is the right move.

4) Huge bargaining chip in Luongo dealings. Canucks don't need a guy like Bozak short term, so shoring up that hole gives Gillis more room to negotiate. With Gomez, we don't really even have to trade Luongo, or we could trade him for prospects that won't make the team. Without Gomez, it'll be a mediocre stop gap like Bozak coming back.

5) Our second line is currently Raymond - ? - ?

As for Redden...I doubt he'd even come here when other teams with less competition could offer him a job, but he's probably worth approaching.

Both of these guys were overrated when they inked their deals, and became underrated because of them. People say they suck because they aren't marquee players...but if they were making under 2 million the last few years you guys would be drooling over the prospect of them coming here. They're both worthy low risk, huge reward risks. Even if Gomez is a complete bust, he'd still probably be about as good as Lapierre.


Great first post!

Posted Image
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#49 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,279 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:31 PM

Gomez had a really terrible year in Montreal, but I don't think that's enough to dismiss him as "washed up" already. He JUST turned 33.

They're buying him out because of his contract, not because of his attitude or lack of ability

For the right price, Gomez would be a great addition to a team in need of C depth, I think. Canucks should be one of them.
  • 2

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#50 **Pavel4Life**

**Pavel4Life**

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:47 PM

Signing Gomez for anything below 2 would be great. He won't put the puck in the net like he used to, but he could make guys like Raymond, Higgins, Booth etc better. He's a good playmaker. We won't get the Devils era Gomez, but I don't think we get the Habs era Gomez either. NYR Gomez is worth 2-3 million and we could probably get him for 1-2. Why not?

1) He's better than any Kesler replacement we have. By a lot. Schroeder? ... he's skilled, but probably a career AHLer. Too small for the bottom 6, not good enough for the top 6. Hopefully I'll eat my words, but I doubt it. There's a reason he fell so far in the draft and has yet to do much in the AHL

2) He's better than any FA available. Arnott would be a great 3rd line center, but we need a guy to replace Kesler.

3) It's a short season. Going with a veteran is the right move.

4) Huge bargaining chip in Luongo dealings. Canucks don't need a guy like Bozak short term, so shoring up that hole gives Gillis more room to negotiate. With Gomez, we don't really even have to trade Luongo, or we could trade him for prospects that won't make the team. Without Gomez, it'll be a mediocre stop gap like Bozak coming back.

5) Our second line is currently Raymond - ? - ?

As for Redden...I doubt he'd even come here when other teams with less competition could offer him a job, but he's probably worth approaching.

Both of these guys were overrated when they inked their deals, and became underrated because of them. People say they suck because they aren't marquee players...but if they were making under 2 million the last few years you guys would be drooling over the prospect of them coming here. They're both worthy low risk, huge reward risks. Even if Gomez is a complete bust, he'd still probably be about as good as Lapierre.


We can thank the Rangers again for over paying players that don't end up being worth their contracts.

NHL's Yankees.
  • 0
CFOO SIG FTW!


QUOTE (bugmo @ Jul 23 2009, 12:09 AM) And you are an idiot who can't see things for the way they are. It's people like you who make it seem okay for the canucks to have a non playoff making team every year. Gillis supporter go jump off the Patullo.

This was said to me and it makes me laugh everytime I read it.

#51 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,954 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:54 PM

Rather take a gamble with Brule than Gomez at this point.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#52 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,799 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:19 PM

Rather take a gamble with Brule than Gomez at this point.

I don't know about that. We know at least Gomez brings a lot of other good qualities (and has been a playoff performer in the past) where Brule has not been underrated because of his contract.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#53 uber_pwnzor

uber_pwnzor

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:46 AM

If we signed Gomez, wouldn't he be the only player on the team who's won a cup?
  • 0

#54 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,548 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:14 AM

4) Huge bargaining chip in Luongo dealings. Canucks don't need a guy like Bozak short term, so shoring up that hole gives Gillis more room to negotiate. With Gomez, we don't really even have to trade Luongo, or we could trade him for prospects that won't make the team. Without Gomez, it'll be a mediocre stop gap like Bozak coming back.


+1 to your entire post, but this especially. Shoring up perceived weaknesses is a very underrated tool in trades.
  • 0

#55 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,865 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:58 AM

Rather take a gamble with Brule than Gomez at this point.


Why?

Gomez is defensively responsible and a puck possession type player. He fits what the Canucks look for in a forward. Brule has never managed to put it all together and likely never will.
  • 0

#56 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:50 AM

On either player but especially Gomez, I would have said no way a week ago. However things have changed. We don't want to risk Kesler too early, Schroeder could bomb, and Booth is a bust (for now)

So unless we have other more likely irons in the fire and if these two are not looking for too much then I would say go for it. As for those who say we have enough defenders, the playoffs have taught us you can never have enough D if you want to go to the end of the line in the SC.

Who knows, Tanev may have been set back in Chicago, groin strains etc. Better being safe than sorry. Having said that, it's all about the money.


"Rather take a gamble with Brule than Gomez at this point."

Of course you're right, CDC is a great place to take gambles. Unfortunately MG has to perform and make decisions in the REAL WORLD.
Why would anyone in his right mind take a gamble on a low scoring, lightweight with little experience, when they could have a SC winning guy like Gomez who has proved he can cut it and can handle himself?

By the way "at this point"..............are you serious? A 48 game dash to the line with a team of notoriously slow starters, crippled with injuries and with an influx of "dodgy" prospects and you think this is the time to bring in a guy like Brule?

Edited by Bodee, 17 January 2013 - 04:02 AM.

  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#57 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:55 AM

Why is it that so many whine and moan about our prospects never getting a chance, yet when there is an opportunity panic sets in and we need to acquire a veteran to fill a temporary hole?
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#58 Sugar baby watermelon

Sugar baby watermelon

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:15 AM

I'd think Arnott would be worth signing, brings some grit, some scoring, and move down to the 4th line when Kesler comes back, Arnott can handle a month to month and a half of second line minutes, plus the idea of playing for a contender.... Gillis is working something out here
  • 0

#59 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:17 AM

Why is it that so many whine and moan about our prospects never getting a chance, yet when there is an opportunity panic sets in and we need to acquire a veteran to fill a temporary hole?


Probably because the people who moan about them not getting in are not the same people who have watched them down in Chicago. I gave up on the number of people pencilling Lack in as Schneider's backup while he was looking nowhere near NHL standard.
Schroeder I would say deserves a chance but not if we had Gomez (a risk is a risk whether they are our prospects or someone elses prospects) We don't have 82 games to play with.

Even Kassian's performances have been all over the place. I think that may be more down to Arneil but who can be sure. He certainly didn't look anything special compared to some of the opposition forwards, who frankly, I had never heard of.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#60 NP-4815162342

NP-4815162342

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 12

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:22 AM

D is fine and av already said he's passing on Gomez lets see how ebbett/Schroeder does first
  • 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.