Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 7 votes

6 players the Canucks miss.


  • Please log in to reply
197 replies to this topic

#91 cyacry

cyacry

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 11

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:15 PM

haha Ehrhoff was offered the same amount as Bieksa which was more than fair but he thought he was worth more. And he hasn't looked all that great in Buffalo since moving there, I am much happier with Garrison considering he can play both ways.

Samuelsson was awful, he always shot at the wrong time and wasted chances. And do I have to remind people when he use to play the point on the power play?

Raffi Torres: Everyone has to get off his nuts, he does provide engery I agree 100% but then again he can give momentum to the other team with a stupid hit. Look at the chicago series in 2011.

Sami Salo: he is a fan favourite no doubt but the guy was only injuried and the contract he got with Tampa Bay no thank you.

Cody Hodgson: He came off a little childish complaining that he wasn't getting enough ice time and asked to be traded. So the Canucks don't need that in their locker room.

Guess what, without all these players you mentioned. The Canucks has lost 6th straight playoff game on home ice, and in a hole of 0-3 at the moment. So think twice, Which roster would you have? The 2011 one or the 2012/2013 one?
  • 1

#92 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,121 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:16 PM

Gulumpus post:

While I whole heartedly agree with your points of those players but think of it this way

- yes, thay all had their flaws and we all threw our shoes at ours tv's as they made their errors....BUT.... The sum of all those parts made this team tops in the pp and tops in the pk.

We got rid of Samuelsson and his flaws.... Who did we replace him with? Has his replacement been a noticable improvement?

Ehrhoff.... Who was HIS replacement? Is HIS replacement doing the job better than Erhoff was?

Torres.....?

Salo.....?

Hodgson.....?

THOSE guys helped take us to the finals.... Has the sum of THEIR replacements taken us further....?


Well chum, yes they all contributed to (and in some cases often detracted from) team successes. They helped take the team to the finals? Salo, yes. The rest?

Hodgson provided nothing of any substance to the Cup run (12 games, 1 assist, -4).

Samuelsson had one good series in 09 - 10. He played only 11 games in the Cup run. Maybe Samuelsson added some intangibles and leadership in those seasons, or maybe his value is over-valued by some. I wasn't in the dressing room so I can't say, and neither can anyone else who wasn't there.

You suggest that the team hasn't replaced Samuelsson. Perhaps. This being said, what are the reasons to have kept him? I don't see any kind of strong argument to not have traded him, or to have re-signed him assuming he played out his first contract here.

Torres (then) was a loose cannon and as much of a liability as an asset. Higgins as 3LW is miles ahead of Torres at 3LW. If you want to suggest that Torres should be 4LW, then I'd probably be okay with that, but not at $1.75 million per season.

The team defense scored 35 goals the season before Ehrhoff got here. Bieksa and Edler each hit double digits in goals. In the two seasons Ehrhoff played here the team d-men got 42 and 42 goals. Ehrhoff got 14 goals in each of those seasons. Bieksa and Edler's goal production dropped to single digits. Since Ehrhoff was getting the better scoring opportunities (power play and playing with the Sedins 5 on 5) it's not too surprising that other guys' goal totals would go down.

The season after Ehrhoff left, the d-men scored 40 goals. Edler got 11, Bieksa got 8 and Salo 9.

Scoring from the blueline was not really a problem for this team. The thing that I will acknowledge that Ehrhoff seems to have brought to the table, which the team could use, is his chemistry with the Sedins. This being said, I do not value that quality enough to agree that Gillis should have given Ehrhoff the kind of contract he got from the Sabres.

There was never an issue of wanting to re-sign Salo, just the term of the contract. Garrison as replacement for Salo was not the goal. It was hopefully going to be Garrison IN ADDITION to Salo.

Hodgson. Yes, everyone believes that "Cody" would be the answer to all the Canucks' scoring problems.

So what line would he be centering if he was here this season, the first or the second? Who would be his linemates? You'd take Daniel and Burrows from Henrik and play them with Hodgson? What linemates would he have for the second line if you're going to bump Kesler to the third? I suspect that Higgins, Kesler, Hansen would outscore what-ever line Hodgson was centering and would be the de facto "2nd line".

Or would Hodgson be playing center and Kesler would be put to the wing? And Kesler would have to take all of the important faceoffs, and he and Higgins would have to do all of the defensive heavy lifting while Hodgson waited for the puck. I don't see him as being an asset.

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

#93 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,967 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:20 PM

I have said it since day 1 that not replacing Ehrhoff with another big-minute, puck-moving d-man effectively closed the Canucks' cup window. Great to see people finally waking up. Knew it would happen eventually.

The Samuelsson for Booth trade seemed like a decent deal at the time. Sucks that it turned out so badly.

Not re-signing Raffi was mind-boggling back in 2011, and it still is now. He provided so much energy to the Canucks squad. Huge loss and it still leaves an effect.

Salo seemed like a big loss as well but he was effectively replaced by Garrison. Both are great defensive d-men with a big shot. Not a huge loss in hindsight.

Trading Cody was a tremendous loss and all the Kassian apologists will realize it in a few years as well.

Everybody knew it when Ehrhoff chose not to re-sign. Why do you think so many people were upset?

Gillis offered him the same contract that Bieksa got, a 5-year, $23M contract w/ a full NTC and some decent signing bonus money, but Ehrhoff went for the 10-year, $40M contract w/ even bigger signing bonus money instead. We've struggled without him and he's playing for a team that has blown itself up and doesn't look like they'll be seriously competing anytime soon. Lose, lose for both parties, but win for his retirement fund.

Torres wasn't a big loss, IMO. What has our problem been? Energy? Did he provide that in the Cup Final? No, it's been 100% offense deficiency over the last 3 series and Torres never offered much in the way of offense past October 2010.

Edited by n00bxQb, 06 May 2013 - 10:23 PM.

  • 0

#94 cyacry

cyacry

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 11

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:25 PM

Well chum, yes they all contributed to (and in some cases often detracted from) team successes. They helped take the team to the finals? Salo, yes. The rest?

Hodgson provided nothing of any substance to the Cup run (12 games, 1 assist, -4).

Samuelsson had one good series in 09 - 10. He played only 11 games in the Cup run. Maybe Samuelsson added some intangibles and leadership in those seasons, or maybe his value is over-valued by some. I wasn't in the dressing room so I can't say, and neither can anyone else who wasn't there.

You suggest that the team hasn't replaced Samuelsson. Perhaps. This being said, what are the reasons to have kept him? I don't see any kind of strong argument to not have traded him, or to have re-signed him assuming he played out his first contract here.

Torres (then) was a loose cannon and as much of a liability as an asset. Higgins as 3LW is miles ahead of Torres at 3LW. If you want to suggest that Torres should be 4LW, then I'd probably be okay with that, but not at $1.75 million per season.

The team defense scored 35 goals the season before Ehrhoff got here. Bieksa and Edler each hit double digits in goals. In the two seasons Ehrhoff played here the team d-men got 42 and 42 goals. Ehrhoff got 14 goals in each of those seasons. Bieksa and Edler's goal production dropped to single digits. Since Ehrhoff was getting the better scoring opportunities (power play and playing with the Sedins 5 on 5) it's not too surprising that other guys' goal totals would go down.

The season after Ehrhoff left, the d-men scored 40 goals. Edler got 11, Bieksa got 8 and Salo 9.

Scoring from the blueline was not really a problem for this team. The thing that I will acknowledge that Ehrhoff seems to have brought to the table, which the team could use, is his chemistry with the Sedins. This being said, I do not value that quality enough to agree that Gillis should have given Ehrhoff the kind of contract he got from the Sabres.

There was never an issue of wanting to re-sign Salo, just the term of the contract. Garrison as replacement for Salo was not the goal. It was hopefully going to be Garrison IN ADDITION to Salo.

Hodgson. Yes, everyone believes that "Cody" would be the answer to all the Canucks' scoring problems.

So what line would he be centering if he was here this season, the first or the second? Who would be his linemates? You'd take Daniel and Burrows from Henrik and play them with Hodgson? What linemates would he have for the second line if you're going to bump Kesler to the third? I suspect that Higgins, Kesler, Hansen would outscore what-ever line Hodgson was centering and would be the de facto "2nd line".

Or would Hodgson be playing center and Kesler would be put to the wing? And Kesler would have to take all of the important faceoffs, and he and Higgins would have to do all of the defensive heavy lifting while Hodgson waited for the puck. I don't see him as being an asset.

regards,
G.

one important element you forgot is called chemistry. Move too many parts in your team, and this is what we get now. First round exit for 2 STRAIGHT YEARS
  • 0

#95 Ihatetomatoes

Ihatetomatoes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 06

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:26 PM

Looking at your sig, regarding the Ballard trade, the Canucks could sure use Grabners goal scoring ability.


Grabner last 3 years: 70 goals

D.Sedin last years: 83 goals
Kesler last 3 years: 67 goals
Raymond last 3 years: 35 goals
Higgins last 3 years: 41 goals
H.Sedin last 3 years: 44 goals
Burrows last 3 years: 67 goals
Hansen last 3 years: 35 goals


Stat line of the thread right there.....

I used to be a Gillis fan but his general hockey knowledge and player assessments are just downright Terrible......For Ballard....uhg
  • 0
Its hard to care when you don't

#96 shazzam

shazzam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,647 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:31 PM

Stat line of the thread right there.....

I used to be a Gillis fan but his general hockey knowledge and player assessments are just downright Terrible......For Ballard....uhg


lets not forget the 1 rounder that was attached
  • 0

#97 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,967 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:33 PM

Stat line of the thread right there.....

I used to be a Gillis fan but his general hockey knowledge and player assessments are just downright Terrible......For Ballard....uhg

And Dale Tallon put him on waivers, yet he assembled the best post-lockout team in the 2010 Chicago Blackhawks ... Must have fluked out as he clearly has no hockey knowledge, either.
  • 0

#98 MrsCanuck

MrsCanuck

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,629 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:56 PM

Out of that entire list, I'd say Salo should be the undisputed #1. When healthy, he held the entire d-core together.
  • 0
Posted Image

#99 Green Building

Green Building

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,064 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 09

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:59 PM

Considering it was a front loaded contract but it mightve helped the Sedins production for another few years. This is what i meant in an earlier post.... The sum of all parts made this team better. Ehrhiff alone doesnt make Buffalo or This team better. It was his chemistry and the trickle effect of making others better is the valuable part..... At a cap hit of 4mil a year.... Is still cheaper than everyone but Tanev.

As for the contract.... Its not you and me paying it so yes..... I would support it.


For me it isn't about who is paying it, it is about in year x when production slips and you have that cap to deal with. Look at how Booth, Ballard, and Luongo eat up cap space. There are 2 players on that list I actually like. But when the money becomes tight.

It isn't fair to judge the Ehrhoff contract based on the new CBA since it was signed before its existence. I think I just don't like long term deals.

Defenemens like him are harder find then defencemens like Bieksa. Ehrhoff ran the power play and also played offence better then any dmans we currently have BY FAR. Bar none. You know why our power play struggled this year? Nuff said.

Now I just hope one of our dmans in our system can develope into a Ehrhoff type of player.

I mentioned a few times about some Brian Campbell trade ideas.

I was not joking about it.


Now there is some money tied up in salary. Comparitively, I would rather have Ehrhoff for 10 years at less money than Campbell. Either way our powerplay would have been miles better, I would hope anyways.

yea his contract sucked, but also remember what he brings....also it's MG responsibility to find another D man that can bring what Hoff did, MG failed miserably at that.


As mentioned by Moneypuck, these guys are tough to come by. As I am defending my unsuredness towards the 10 year deal, I begin to waver towards retaining him a few years ago. Again, for me, it was never about the bad with Ehrhoff, we need a Dman with his skill set for our offence to shine.

You're right. Gillis failed when he let him walk and never found a replacement. At the time I'm sure that he was hoping Edler was going to have a bigger role than he has shown to date. Oops.

10 year contract. That is a no for me.

Lets take a closer look at his contract though

Year 1: 10 mill
Year 2: 8
Year 3: 4
Year 4: 4
Year 5: 4
Year 6: 4
Year 7 to 10: 6 mil all together

In the first 6 years of his contract, he make 34 million. 6 million in the last 4 years.

Now would you offer him a 6 year 5.6 million cap hit contract? If this was offered to Ehrhoff, I think he would have taken it. But MG wanted him to take what every other D was making and that is around 4.5 mill cap hit.

Definitely beats ballard at 4.2 lol.


I bet he takes it. Sure it beats Ballard. But had we retained Ehrhoff we likely would never have acquired Ballard and would be comparing his 5.6 to Edlers 5. Each with 22 points this year. Having said that, I would rather sign the long deal for cheaper, stress NOT having an NTC, than shorter term and greater money.

But yeah, it beats Ballard at 4.2. I like Ballard, he is just too costly. When you put it this way it's a no brainer:

Ehrhoff @ 4 mil > Ballard @ 4.2 mil

I'm almost hindsight reaching for the 40 million dollar pen.
  • 0

#100 sockeye

sockeye

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 08

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:00 PM

What about Malhotra? This was one of Gillis' best acquisitions - a solid third line defensive centre and a very good faceoff man. It is extremely unfortunate how this unfolded. The loss of Manny was a major blow. Losing Salo hurt too but his contract is too rich for his age.
  • 0
A Canucks fan since 1968 (before the NHL)

#101 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,967 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:05 PM

For me it isn't about who is paying it, it is about in year x when production slips and you have that cap to deal with. Look at how Booth, Ballard, and Luongo eat up cap space. There are 2 players on that list I actually like. But when the money becomes tight.

It isn't fair to judge the Ehrhoff contract based on the new CBA since it was signed before its existence. I think I just don't like long term deals.



Now there is some money tied up in salary. Comparitively, I would rather have Ehrhoff for 10 years at less money than Campbell. Either way our powerplay would have been miles better, I would hope anyways.



As mentioned by Moneypuck, these guys are tough to come by. As I am defending my unsuredness towards the 10 year deal, I begin to waver towards retaining him a few years ago. Again, for me, it was never about the bad with Ehrhoff, we need a Dman with his skill set for our offence to shine.

You're right. Gillis failed when he let him walk and never found a replacement. At the time I'm sure that he was hoping Edler was going to have a bigger role than he has shown to date. Oops.



I bet he takes it. Sure it beats Ballard. But had we retained Ehrhoff we likely would never have acquired Ballard and would be comparing his 5.6 to Edlers 5. Each with 22 points this year. Having said that, I would rather sign the long deal for cheaper, stress NOT having an NTC, than shorter term and greater money.

But yeah, it beats Ballard at 4.2. I like Ballard, he is just too costly. When you put it this way it's a no brainer:

Ehrhoff @ 4 mil > Ballard @ 4.2 mil

I'm almost hindsight reaching for the 40 million dollar pen.

Except we already had Ballard for a year before Ehrhoff hit free agency ...
  • 1

#102 Alex Burrows 14

Alex Burrows 14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,502 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:15 PM

yes, no, yes, yes, no
  • 0
Posted Image

#103 cyacry

cyacry

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 11

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:18 PM

What about Malhotra? This was one of Gillis' best acquisitions - a solid third line defensive centre and a very good faceoff man. It is extremely unfortunate how this unfolded. The loss of Manny was a major blow. Losing Salo hurt too but his contract is too rich for his age.

agree. Malhotra was one of the leagues best faceoff player+the leadership he brought in the locker room...I thought MG said he will still be involved in the organization, but turns out nothing happened since..
  • 0

#104 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:19 PM

OOOO! fresh idea! let's hug on c.h's nuts!!
:picard:
  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#105 Drouin

Drouin

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 13

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:21 PM

I miss Malhotra :(
  • 0

#106 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:22 PM

Well, ya can't keep everyone esp if they are offered a crazy contract elsewhere.

I'd say Hodgson, Torres and Mitchell not only could've stayed but were cheap and contributors as well.
  • 0
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#107 iinteenseee

iinteenseee

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 10

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:22 PM

There's a common trend that all those 5 players managed to bring to the Canucks: Secondary scoring. The problem right now is that the Canucks cannot generate any offence. During the playoffs, teams spend hours watching tapes on the Sedins and Burrows cycling the puck - they devote a lot of effort into shutting down our first line, even moreso than the regular season obviously. This is why secondary scoring is so crucial to going deep in the cup.

- Salo and Ehrhoff both had rocket shots and contributed offensively.
- Samuelsson was THE most playoff clutch player we had on our team (eg. 1st round LA 2010).
- Torres may not fall into this category entirely, but he was a huge physical force out there with the ability to turn a game around, like he has for the Sharks during this series.
- Hodgson.. well.. I'm sure I don't need to explain his offensive scoring ability any further.

Bottom line is, Gillis traded a lot of our major playoff impact players and got crappier returns in comparison. Kassian, Roy, Ebbett (lol), Booth.. what do these players really even offer? Kesler and Luongo will not win us the cup alone, no matter how beastly they are, unfortunately.
  • 2

#108 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,505 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:19 AM

Edler Bieksa, Kesler Henrik Sedin, also played injured.


to be fair Grabner plays with Tavares.


No, no, no.

Tavares has played with Parenteau, Moulson and Boyes ever since he's entered the league.
  • 0

CDCEHL - Edmonton
CFJfNyM.png


#109 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,505 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:35 AM

Ask yourself this...

Who has been the best line-mate for Kesler?

Higgins, Booth, Raymond, Kassian or Samuelsson.

Who has been the best offensive defenseman for the Canucks?

Bieksa, Edler, Ehrhoff or Hamhuis.

Who has been the best defense partner for Edler?

Ehrhoff, Bieksa, Tanev or Salo.

Who is the toughest player out of the bunch? (Gillis wanted toughness)

Sturm, Higgins, Kassian or Torres.

Who is the best point producer from the bunch?

Roy, Kassian or Hodgson?

Hear me out... Derek Roy was in the same spot Cody Hodgson was. Playing for the Sabres on the top line with Vanek and Pominville. He put up 44 pts in 80 games played. Hodgson put up 34 pts in 48 games, and played without Pominville for a period of time due to the trade to Minnesota. On pace for 58 points.

Hodgson had 33 points in 63 games for the Canucks when he was on the third line with Higgins and Hansen. (.52ptspg)

Roy had 6 points in 12 games for Canucks when he was on the second/third line with Higgins and Hansen. (.50ptspg)

Roy has 28 points on the year.
Hodgson has 34 points on the year.

Hodgson is a young, developing talent for many years.

Roy is a 30 year old free-agent rental.
  • 0

CDCEHL - Edmonton
CFJfNyM.png


#110 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,505 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:38 AM

Also all you Chris Higgins fan boys never look at this stat.

Higgins 2010/11 playoffs: 25gp/4g/4a/8pts

Primarily playing on the 2nd line with Ryan Kesler.

Torres 2010/11 playoffs: 23gp/3g/4a/7pts

Primarily playing on the 3rd line with Maxim Lapierre.

Once again, Higgins is a no-show in the playoffs, up head to head agaisnt Raffi Torres. Who's making the bigger impact?

Hell, in the regular season, Raffi Torres has 7g/11a/18pts in 39 games played and Higgins has 10g/4a/15pts in 41 games played....

Unfortunately both of these players could of been kept, but Gillis opted to sign Marco Sturm.
  • 1

CDCEHL - Edmonton
CFJfNyM.png


#111 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,505 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:57 AM

There's a common trend that all those 5 players managed to bring to the Canucks: Secondary scoring. The problem right now is that the Canucks cannot generate any offence. During the playoffs, teams spend hours watching tapes on the Sedins and Burrows cycling the puck - they devote a lot of effort into shutting down our first line, even moreso than the regular season obviously. This is why secondary scoring is so crucial to going deep in the cup.

- Salo and Ehrhoff both had rocket shots and contributed offensively.
- Samuelsson was THE most playoff clutch player we had on our team (eg. 1st round LA 2010).
- Torres may not fall into this category entirely, but he was a huge physical force out there with the ability to turn a game around, like he has for the Sharks during this series.
- Hodgson.. well.. I'm sure I don't need to explain his offensive scoring ability any further.

Bottom line is, Gillis traded a lot of our major playoff impact players and got crappier returns in comparison. Kassian, Roy, Ebbett (lol), Booth.. what do these players really even offer? Kesler and Luongo will not win us the cup alone, no matter how beastly they are, unfortunately.


Some great points. Samuelsson is so damn underrated. Vancouver's secondary scorers are so bad in the playoffs.


Samuelsson: 23gp; 9g/9a/18pts

Raymond: 29gp: 2g/7a/9pts
Hansen: 30gp: 4g/6a/10pts
Higgins: 30gp: 4g/4a/8pts
Booth: 5gp: 0g/1a/1pts

Booth hasn't had much of a chance, but I'm sure the trend would continue.
  • 0

CDCEHL - Edmonton
CFJfNyM.png


#112 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,505 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:04 AM

Also a piece on Ehrhoff, he didn't play with the best talent, with the exception of Edler, which was forced due to the Sami Salo injury. I recall his first year, he primarily played with Shane O'Brien. He played quite a bit with Andrew Alberts as well, and formed a decent pairing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlOg124Nq6Q


Samuelsson hattrick... Look what pairing was on the ice for all the goals?
  • 0

CDCEHL - Edmonton
CFJfNyM.png


#113 ChuckNORRIS4Cup

ChuckNORRIS4Cup

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,515 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:04 AM

I have to say nice post OP, I don't say that often, well written.

I can agree with you on just about everything, the only thing I wouldn't probably agree with is Samuelsson. Don't get me wrong he did put up some good numbers for his value, but he was already older and is getting older. He always seemed to cough up the puck at the blue line a lot, used to piss me off all the time. Although I wasn't to excited with getting Booth, especailly with seeing his numbers dropping playing in Florida, that's not a good sign. I was kinda hoping for a Rick Nash type of player, or even a Bertuzzi, a big power forward who can score to play with the Sedins.

Also mad about Mitchell, imo he is one of the best defensive shut down D in the game, and with him being a B.C. boy he had so much heart to play and win here, the Canucks need more players like that.
  • 1

Eh8NO.jpg

Trevor Linden Quote Nov. 29th 2012 [Asked if he would return to the game?]
"The game has been with me for a long time, if the right opportunity came about, you never know"


#114 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,505 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:19 AM

This again...

Cody is not Logan Couture. I'll leave it at that on the Cody subject.

I'll take Higgins over Raffi as a 3rd line LW.

Ehrhoff, whatever. I would rather Garrison. At the time Bieksa was the better guy to keep.

Salo, it just didn't make sense for us to offer him the contract Tbay gave him, we would have loved to keep him but we couldn't. No way that contract makes sense.

And we don't miss Sammuelsson. Check out his GP this year...


Quickly wanted to pull this up as I am shocked by the +9 it received.

You didn't even read the post, I never said Hodgson = Couture.

It wasn't Torres vs Higgins, it was Torres vs Sturm. Raymond was out for the start of the season, thus opening a LW spot. I'm sure these guys can switch to RW, didn't Higgins when the Canucks have the AMEX line?

Garrison is good, but lets not compare him to Ehrhoff. At the time, Canucks could of dealt Ballard for cap-space, but nope. Gillis needs to justify that trade.

Once again you didn't read the OP. Canucks likely had negotiations with Salo PRIOR to free-agency, where he wanted a 2 year deal, probably around 2-2.5m. Why do I think that? Because he signed a 1 year, 2m dollar deal, the year before. He thought he has more to offer, and it shows. Played 46/48 games this year. To think Salo demanded 3.5m + from the Canucks is insane. It was the term, and once again Gillis got scared. Canucks could of also dealt Ballard for cap-space, but once again Gillis needs to justify that trade.

And yes, Canucks miss Samuelsson. They miss his back-to-back 50 point seasons, and clutch playoff performances. He may not provide that now, but Gillis didn't do anything to replace him. Instead the Canucks are stuck with playoff no shows rotating in the top 6.

Raymond: 29gp: 2g/7a/9pts
Hansen: 30gp: 4g/6a/10pts
Higgins: 30gp: 4g/4a/8pts
Booth: 5gp: 0g/1a/1pts
  • 2

CDCEHL - Edmonton
CFJfNyM.png


#115 ChuckNORRIS4Cup

ChuckNORRIS4Cup

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,515 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:38 AM

This again...

Cody is not Logan Couture. I'll leave it at that on the Cody subject.

I'll take Higgins over Raffi as a 3rd line LW.

Ehrhoff, whatever. I would rather Garrison. At the time Bieksa was the better guy to keep.

Salo, it just didn't make sense for us to offer him the contract Tbay gave him, we would have loved to keep him but we couldn't. No way that contract makes sense.

And we don't miss Sammuelsson. Check out his GP this year...


Ya Cody will be a better player than Couture, you got that part right, they aren't the same.

Higgins 2nd/3rd line player, anyways I would take Torres over Raymond.

Ehrhoff 4M, Garrison 4.6M, Ehrhoff showed he could produce, big difference plus chemistry with the core group.

Salo huge, even though yes he would be injury prone, he was quick to heal and never missed a step when back. Should of let him finish his career here, and how useful he would of still been.

Luckily I agree with you on Samuelsson, but for other reasons.

Edited by ChuckNORRIS4Cup, 07 May 2013 - 01:38 AM.

  • 0

Eh8NO.jpg

Trevor Linden Quote Nov. 29th 2012 [Asked if he would return to the game?]
"The game has been with me for a long time, if the right opportunity came about, you never know"


#116 Toni Zamboni

Toni Zamboni

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,658 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:27 AM

ballard, booth, pahllson, sturm, m.schneider
5 players that the canucks wont miss.

gillis has to go.
  • 0

You can view all of my CDC artwork in this thread:

http://forum.canucks...f-toni-zamboni/

Follow me on Twitter:  @Toni_Zamboni


#117 infinitecarnage

infinitecarnage

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:17 AM

Willie Mitchell is the player I miss most. He's maybe the best shut down defenseman we've ever had. His career was in jeopardy yeah, but I'd take him over Ballard any day.


if we're gonna talk about the players that's left before the '11 run, then it's Ohlund no question. he had a great playoff run with the lightning in '11, and he would be crucial against the bruins without Hamhuis in the line up. sure his career is done now, but if we would've won the stanley cup, i could care less if they would miss the playoffs for the next 10 years.

Edited by infinitecarnage, 07 May 2013 - 08:18 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#118 infinitecarnage

infinitecarnage

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:22 AM

Yet we gave him a limited NTC... :picard:

Love Higgins but NTC (not just him) are going to be our kryptonite if it comes to a rebuild/retool/revamp/tweaking/change/blow up or whatever else everyone is calling it.


Mike Gillis the NTC fetishist
  • 0
Posted Image

#119 Green Building

Green Building

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,064 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 09

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:05 AM

Except we already had Ballard for a year before Ehrhoff hit free agency ...


Damn. I couldn't remember and couldn't be bothered to look it up. Ah well, value wise, Ehrhoff > Ballard.

If ownership looks at that list of secondary scoring losses versus replacements then Gillis might have some explaining to do...
  • 0

#120 missioncanucksfan

missioncanucksfan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts
  • Joined: 25-February 12

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:34 AM

G:

While I agree with your assessment of Samuelsson, I point out that his replacement (Booth) has NOT done a better job at bringing what Samuelsson did. Ya, Booth has crazy wheels, ya Booth is younger, but Booth hasnt come close to providing the offence that Samuelsson brought. Samuelsson scored more goals than Booths entire point production. Yes, Sammy was on the decline but his contract worth 2.5 was off the books by that seasons end. Where Gillis messed the bed, was that he traded Sammy for a player that was already deemed "damaged goods". Booth was a year removed from a serious concussion and i swear STILL hasnt fully recovered from. Not only that is that we are on the hook with his 4.5 contract for 4-5 more years. NOW all of us here and surely yourself is begging for him to be bought out. I dont know but is that just an example of poor pro scouting and bad example of being "fiscaly responsible"?

Torres and Higgins were brought in for and demanded of different roles. Torres has matched Higgins production while getting primarily 3rd/4th line minutes all while terrorizing the $hit out of opposing defences will nasty hit after nasty hit. Imo, Torres earned every penny and was also making half of what Higgins is making. Next year Higgins goes up to 2.5..... At that price.... Who would you pick next year?
And again, Torres only got a bad name mainly due to high ranking Chicago execs like Scotty Bowman barging into Bettmans office screaming rape n murder after Raffi would cleanly flatten one of their players.

I explained to you that Ehrhoff alone didnt make the difference but his chemistry with the Sedins and other defence core is what made his value that much important and STILL worth what his contract was. Surely he would still be a factor on this team for the first 5-6 years of his contract... Maybe longer, we dont know.

As for Hodgson.... He wouldve slotted in just perfect on the 2nd line all year until Kesler came back. Oh Im sorry, are you going to convince me that the combination of munchkins such as Schroeder and Ebbett, Burrows experiment, was head n shoulders a much better success? And again.... Heaven forbid that when Kesler DOES return that he get 3rd line role. Hodgsdon wouldve provided secondary scoring that this team lacked all year and maybe... Just may e take a bit of heat off of the Sedin line coz god knows.... They got the best defence match ups all year. So what if Hodgson wanted more ice time... I think he earned it and deserved it. You dont think Kesler isnt a pain in the ass and demanding ice time?
Roy was a waste of a 2nd and a half decent defence prospect. But Gillis HAD to provide something at the deadline but this just shows his eye for pro scouting
  • 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.