Archived

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

Strombone1

[Report] Canucks Declined Kevin Bieksa for Alexander Steen

101 posts in this topic

From Elliote's 30 thoughts

11. The Toronto trade always comes up whenever Steen is mentioned. But Vancouver was apparently another team the Maple Leafs targeted as a possibility. The ask? Kevin Bieksa. It's totally understandable why the Canucks didn't do it. While everyone was still figuring out Steen's potential - he had four points in 20 games at the time - Bieksa was en route to a 43-point season and a pivotal role on the club.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still would not make that trade. Bieksa is our snarl on the blue line. Steen is en route to a single career year and now has alrge contract to show for it.

No Bieksa, no clinching game 5 series winner against San Jose in 2011.

Agreed

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In before GMMG out GM'd yet again :lol:

At that time, why in the right mind would MG trade a player who was en-route to 40+ points for a guy who only scored 4 in 20...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still would not make that trade. Bieksa is our snarl on the blue line. Steen is en route to a single career year and now has alrge contract to show for it.

No Bieksa, no clinching game 5 series winner against San Jose in 2011.

Seriously? I understood why the Canucks said no at the time before Steen really reached his potential but to say you wouldn't trade Kevin "Giveaway" Bieksa for a guy whose scoring goals faster than anyone not named Ovechkin is just crazy.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Steen is alot older than I imagined.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad the trade was declined. Steen is having a career year, and I don't see him keeping up this 50 goal pace. Bieksa is part of our core and a great leadership

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All things aside.. would you make the deal today?

Nope. Steen is having a great year but nobody knows if he can keep this up for the rest of the year, and next year, and the year after that. If anything he's a 2nd liner at best if he was on the Canucks.

Seriously? I understood why the Canucks said no at the time before Steen really reached his potential but to say you wouldn't trade Kevin "Giveaway" Bieksa for a guy whose scoring goals faster than anyone not named Ovechkin is just crazy.

Still no. He's having a career year yes but is he gonna keep it up for the rest of the season and next year and the year after that? Maybe, maybe not. I much rather have a defenceman that can be relied on on most nights

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find this stuff interesting. Don't know why you commented if you don't care.

interesting how? the proposal was half a decade ago and the only reason the OP bring this up again is to try to stir up controversy against our gm. There are no content in this thread other than a copy and paste of part of an article. Ffs the op didn't even leave any meaningful comment when he paste the thing.

threads like this is an eyesore

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the point of this thread again?

What's the point of your comment?

I always find this stuff interesting. Don't know why you commented if you don't care.

quote's 2 and 3, well said!! Papayas, give your head a shake and grow up!

as for the original thread, no way would I do that deal.....GMMG got that one right!!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trade for Stempniak made little sense then and certainly looks bad now.

Elliott speculating that TO once asked for Bieksa accomplishes what, exactly?

Full hindsight dictates that they should not have put Steen on the table at all.

But whatever. Steen is a good player, but this season so far has led to him being massively overrated to star status.

But then again, TO thinks Kessel is in the elite superstar range, so it's all relative.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.