Niklas Jensen Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 He at least give us intimidation at the back end. Alberts don't scare any one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 He at least give us intimidation at the back end. Alberts don't scare any one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 People are talking as if we're gonna use him as a top 4. I would love to have Murray as a number 5 or six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Kicking tires as in not really interested, or at an extreme lowball, but genuine interest? No thanks. Can't skate. His hitting is also over-rated, because he, for the most part, is simply too slow to be the hitter he would be if he had the foot speed to get into position to hit people on a more consistent basis. His underlying numbers tell the story as well - he was unimpressive as a Penguin in their playoff run (they really overpaid for him imo) - faced weak competition and had some of the worst underlying numbers on the Penguins. Would prefer Fistric, Alberts, or even Hal Gill if he weren't a 35+ contract - and those guys probably won't be pricing themselves in the same range as Murray, who at 2.5 imo wasn't worth his cap hit. Crafty move by Doug Wilson to unload him, and get an overpayment in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Exactly. It's all about the role he would play here. He's not gonna be a top 4 anymore like he was on San Jose. Just a solid 6/7 D-man. If it's down to him or Alberts for around the same price, I think I'd go with Murray. Hamhuis Garrison (25 -30 minutes) Edler Tanev (15-20 minutes) Murray Bieksa (15 minutes) Fistric Weber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoreyPerry Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 id rather have montador or even hainsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 God no. This will be Keith Carney 2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 People are talking as if we're gonna use him as a top 4. I would love to have Murray as a number 5 or six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV. Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Not a lot of mobility but definitely a good defensive addition to shore up a bottom pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOB for MVP Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Would love Murray. Absolute tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Would love Murray. Absolute tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onions Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I think if he would sign cheaper, it would be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiangunner Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Murray would be a big upgrade on alberts...lets take off the rose colored glasses. Alberts does nothing better then murray. Murray has potential to play as a 3rd or 4th dmen on some nights. He would be a solid 5 or 6 guy on nucks if he comes in at the right dollar price (i.e. 2M per year max). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavel_Bure 10 Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Murray is way better than Fistric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 This means bye bye Tanev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
мeтpо Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Ya that's gotta be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Proof it's not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 That's true. And I think Torts is a smart enough coach to use him in situations he'll be successful in. It seemed like AV forced certain players into situations they wouldn't have success in, and set them up for failure. I just look at the Hawks D-core and how mobile it is, and think that's more the style the Canucks need to play to be successful. Our transition game is what made this team so great in 10/11. And I'm not sure we have the personnel to play a tighter more physical style, even with Murray. I guess time will tell. Maybe Murray could even end up finding his place with Hamhuis and have success, sort of the way he did with Boyle being the puck mover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Because us being interested in a 5th-6th defenseman to fill out our defense totally means we're losing one of our best dmen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Proof it's not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.