Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Yes or no to the Sedin’s next year?


Toyotasfan

Yes or No to 1 more year of the Sedins  

415 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want the Sedin’s next year?

    • Yes - 1 more year
      206
    • No - time to retire
      199

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 06/27/2018 at 07:00 AM

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, riffraff said:

Not true really.....Cooke toned it down and said so himself.....said he had to adjust his game.  There are quotes from him on it.

Cooker was a hero in VAN for a few seasons when the push back from the roster was pretty much zero. Lots of times he went to battle without any backup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Cooker was a hero in VAN for a few seasons when the push back from the roster was pretty much zero. Lots of times he went to battle without any backup. 

Yeah I respect what he did here for the most part.  But he was guilty of come cheap play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Baggins said:

He's simply an example for "or others like him". You seem to be avoiding the question. Third time: Did fighting ever discourage Torres or others like him?

Your so hung up on Torres, yes he was a good fighter so was Odjick.

th (4).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, captainhorvat said:

196 lbs average for tampa bay 

197 lbs average for Pitts 

202 lbs average for canucks

 

All 3 teams with same average height at 6'1

Nash has a enforcer, Pitt has a huge good forward and Reaves, Tampa has huge defenseman all thingswe have no real answer for, esp in a playoff series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am honestly ok either way, but voted yes because if I had to choose, that would be it.  

 

They have a profound impact on the rookies in relation to work ethic and attitude.  Especially when young guys come in who maybe are a little unfocused and like to party...guys like those two lead the way.  I'm sure their leadership isn't ever demeaning or arrogant and comes with the right kind of message. 

 

Besides, they still do produce at times when others aren't.  If we are focused on transitioning in a way that builds a culture that gives the new team the best chance to win, they stay.  Not sure what the "rush" is...it's really strange how we all are prepared for a rebuild but also want to win every single game starting now.  The Sedins are a huge part of why other teams respect us and the young guys are sliding into a great atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linden did not retire on his own but was told by Gillis he would not be resigned because he had slowed too much and team needed to get younger, this situation is no different,most pro athletes do not when to retire but try to hang for another year or longer. I say retire them because I doubt they are tradable and I agree with Hairy that we could and should bring in some size and grit. Be nice to have a team known for its push back instead of turn the other cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Nash has a enforcer, Pitt has a huge good forward and Reaves, Tampa has huge defenseman all thingswe have no real answer for, esp in a playoff series.

We have Fake Virtanen but unfortunately he plays small. Gudbranson could use his size more but doesn’t. Benning really needs to go out and find a Dorsett type player. I’m surprised we haven’t addressed that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, crobar said:

Linden did not retire on his own but was told by Gillis he would not be resigned because he had slowed too much and team needed to get younger, this situation is no different,most pro athletes do not when to retire but try to hang for another year or longer. I say retire them because I doubt they are tradable and I agree with Hairy that we could and should bring in some size and grit. Be nice to have a team known for its push back instead of turn the other cheek.

I’m pretty sure Linden already knew he was done and didn’t need to be told by Gillis. Healthy scratch for more than a quarter of the season playing limited mins and 12 points. How do you know linden wanted to play another season but was told by Gillis he wouldn’t be resigned??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Baggins said:

First you say goals then points. If you actually use 'points' it doesn't work so well.

 

Vanek - 35 pts -14

Henrik - 32 pts -13

Daniel - 30 pts -12

 

Why isn't Vanek getting complained about? They are 2nd, 3rd, and 4th on the team. You undervalue the playmakers.

Hey Baggins

 

I guess first off...........I don't hate the Sedin's..........they have been great, and gave us lots of thrills over the years

But I wonder about things and want to pull differing opinions out, such as yours

Which is a great point! I guess for me, I seen Vanek as a low budget temp, and hopefully he brings in a second at the TDL...who knows

The Sedin's will not be traded and I wonder if signing the Sedin's for 10 million has more value than spending it on

Tavares for 10 million...honestly....I take Tavares.............then there is Tryamkin, who I believe the Canucks should go after aggressively ...5 millionish

 

I question whether it is smarter to go back after Tryamkin and Tavares for 15 million than the Sedin's for 10 million?

 

I know I would rather have Tavares and Tryamkin.........short term and long term.........I think most fans would agree with me

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think so,.............of course there is no guarantees...........but there are educated guesses

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Does everybody know why Benning needs to know what the Sedin's plans are?

 

No, it doesn't affect the long term plan a bit.

 

If they retire, Benning has to replace them because no young players are ready to take their places.

 

If they stay, then Benning can feel free to move Vanek.

JB can just re sign Vanek in the off season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Baggins said:

First you say goals then points. If you actually use 'points' it doesn't work so well.

 

Vanek - 35 pts -14

Henrik - 32 pts -13

Daniel - 30 pts -12

 

Why isn't Vanek getting complained about? They are 2nd, 3rd, and 4th on the team. You undervalue the playmakers.

They are all vitually the same but Vanek is stronger and can hit and is a little younger. Plus the other 2 wear letters(need to move on). We don't need 3 of these type of players so I would go with Vanek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question:

If you had to choose between 1 (or 2) more years of the Sedins, or John Tavares, which would it be?




Remember, PK Subban was nearly a Canuck 2 years ago, and Benning had eyes on signing Stamkos, so he's not someone averse to making huge moves. 
This is also why the twins sitting on their hands isn't helping. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hesitant to say yes or no either way. They may be doing the right thing by letting management plan for the trade deadline but they have both slowed down considerably (especially Henrik) and my concern is that they may slow down even more in the last half of the season. After we have committed to them. Also, It's all well and good to be PP point scorers but their trend to both being minus players is a major red flag for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

In theory? 

 

We could sign Kane, he's good for 50 +/- points (and likely more actual goals). Add Gaudette and Pettersson who you can probably count on for 25 each conservatively while getting the Sedin's sheltered ozone minutes and some pp time.

 

Voila 100 points replaced +/-.

I don't see the harm in another year IF they close the year out strong/keep up their current level of play.

 

To play devil's advocate with what you mentioned.. Kane carries a lot of risk plus there is no guarantee he signs here for a competitive rate and IMO he isn't worth paying to the moon. If he will sign for a reasonable rate (6ish?) I am all in. No guarantee that Gaudette and/or Petersson are ready to step into facing top 4 NHL dmen either because those are the guys that the Sedin's face. The Sedin's will give those guys the opportunity to at least get christened against lower quality NHL defencemen. Again all depending on if they are willing to come back for cheap (3m or so). You can sign Kane with the saved salary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, darkpoet said:

If you had to choose between 1 (or 2) more years of the Sedins, or John Tavares, which would it be?

I am not sure which post you are responding to as you didn't quote, but what does that have to do with anything?  Tavares - if he goes to UFA, will be paid at least 12 million a year.  Sedins, if re-signed, would sign for less than half that.  The only issue with re-signing the Sedins is using up roster spots, but if they score more than average (which they do), that's not a huge issue.

 

Besides - do you really think Tavares would sign here?  Most think Benning hasn't done a good job and most don't believe the Canucks will be a decent team any time soon.  If that is general sentiment, I doubt Taveres or his agent would feel any differently. It's not true, but it's all about perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Sheltering them for another season is looking back,  we need to look forward,  and help protect Brock, Bo, and probably Petterson, add Gaudette.

Shelter the young guys now.

This is the thing

 

I can't help wondering if the addition of youth (Pettersson, Gaudette, Juolevi and probably Demko), won't make a much larger impact

I also wonder, as I stated later in this topic, that we would not be much more successful going after Tavares and Tryamkin with their money

With the addition of these 6 players, I think we would be much more entertaining and successful

 

There is not a lot of times a player like Tavares comes on the market, and we are in prime position  to take a serious run at an allstar center that is young enough to fit into our core, and be here for 5 to 6 years. He is 27 right now.

 

I honestly think that Tryamkin;s problems were money and management based, and he didn't want to make anymore noise than he already had ( no burning bridges )

He had already been loud enough! So I think there is a fix......with a Canuck investment in him, and his family.......something funny about Russia and how low the countries average income is (around $8000 to $10000 individual income). So a decent Russian contract buys a lot of Vodka, and the bonus is, he gets to live with his friends, so you have to pay him well, and take some precautions (Look after his wife) if you want him back..............just my opinion (5 cents)

 

Anyways, I digress.............

 

So we add those players..............trade away Vanek, a Dman, and Possibly another forward(Baertschi?) for picks, draft a couple of Dmen in the draft, and we should be, on our way short term and long term..........

 

Benning and I have discussed this, and he says it is a plan! lol...yeah right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...