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

[PGT] Chicago Blackhawks at Vancouver Canucks | Feb. 12, 2020

Rate this topic


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Remember how  it went from Gallant to Tochett for the all-star game?  I do.  The "fire Green" crowd will be quick to show how close it still is - and they are right. 

 

He's learning on the job as is our young core.  Boston is only leading the East because of their loser points - maybe they should fire their coach too.  Something's like 12 loser points!

 

TG should have been the guy representing the All-Star game.  That's pretty clear.  We are beating SJ - they were supposed to be near the top.   Ha ha guess not just as I preditcted.    Lots of games left, until we have 92ish points I will be nervous.   23 more to go... that requires a pretty decent record down the stretch- let's not jinx it.   Next up ANA - another has- been Cali team ... ahhhh life is good.  Thank you Markstrom for finding your inner Luongo.   We haven't had the best goaltending over the past 50 years ... a few more games like last night plus a playoff berth and both Markstrom and Green will be up with Hughes for some hardware at the end of the year.    If TG wins the Adams heads will explode ha ha - no I'm not jinxing it - just stating a fact.  V for Virtanen - might as well start laying the foundation for his expansion with his Church.   I'm already all for a wing for Markstrom, I'd be over the moon if we had to add one for Green too.  

 

Also inside joke and this is for you Alf - Babcock is a "Needle dick flee f!cker".   Anyone who speaks to themselves in the third person is in my books. 

The cool think about Markstromm is he seems to elevate his play in big games / emotional moments. Luongo was a better goalie for sure but he could get rattled.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, awalk said:

The cool think about Markstromm is he seems to elevate his play in big games / emotional moments. Luongo was a better goalie for sure but he could get rattled.

For sure.  I think Markstrom is mentally stronger than Luongo was, more of a battler.  Every day that we don't re-sign him, the price is going up!  The chance to keep it under 6 million is probably gone.  But sometimes you have to pay for what you get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'm not sure you're reading what I'm saying there.  It's not that Linden was a 'yes man'.  Benning was in no position to 'keep' Linden - Benning's job was below Linden's in the heirarchy.

What I'm saying is that it's possible that neither Benning nor Linden wanted to go that hard prematurely - with the possibility that ownership may not have shared that patience....in which case, when leveraged to 'speed it up' Linden stood between ownership and managment decisions - and became the fall guy.

 

Linden was given full autonomy over hockey decisions - and that was taken from him - by Aquilini.  That is simply the primary point here.  Now - for what reason we do not really know.  Linden allegedly walking amounts to the same thing imo, would result from renegging on his deal.

 

But here's the additional thing - I don't buy the story that Linden is the lesser hockey mind involved here.  He hired Benning - he hired Green - he hired Brackett - he hired Ryan Johnson, hired Henning, hired Scott Walker and Manny Malhotra.....I'm suggesting the Linden absolutely knew what tf he was doing - and did one hell of a job of it.  Which is also why I don't believe he would have put his job at stake over a few Beagle signings.  That to me sounds like the ignorance of smarmyouth stories - not necessarily Linden ( the attempts to speak for him, with little evidence) = that story does not sell imo.  And the bottom line = there is more to it than simply a Benning/Linden relationship - the reality is that this was an Aquilini decision in the end.  I find it as plausible that the compromise wound up being the move to sign a few depth veterans, as opposed to go guns blazing more prematurely.    For me there are still far too many missing pieces to form any hard assumptions/conclusions - and some of the pieces some people accept as part and parcel - don't make very much sense wadr.

Trevor Linden served as an adviser, for intents and purposes. When someone more useful comes up (ala Benning), that is when he got replaced. This doesn't necessarily have to do with what he did at the beginning. It's what he was doing THEN.

 

And under Linden's watch, the Canucks didn't do very well. Whether this was his fault or Aquilini's is kind of irrelevant because Aquilini owns the team. He can run it however he desires. And if Aquilini chose to make Linden to the scapegoat (not saying that he did), then that is his prerogative.

 

However, the fact that he SINGLED OUT Benning - and the fact that Linden didn't acknowledge Benning (as did Naslund), we can SPECULATE that Linden/Benning didn't have a good relationship.

 

No one seems to have mentioned that Linden was ABSENT for 90s night. This is a VERY CURIOUS absence. Linden WAS the center piece of the 90s era. Something is really fishy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bree2 said:

I have to admit I have never been  keen on Gaudette, but last night he scored a goal and I was so proud of him for stepping up, I think I am changing my mind

Just curious, not trolling. How could you not be keen on a 5th round pick, Hobey Baker winning centerman who plays high intensity hockey with a canon of a shot? 

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oldnews said:

Sorry Luo - but what the team needed in that Cup run....was a fighter like Jacob Markstrom.   Present version of Markstrom = Cup in 2011.

Sorry oldnews - Luongo > Markstrom.

That trade is looking good for us though. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

But I don't buy that underlying story - I don't believe that would be substantive enough to drive Linden to walk / or bring that decision to an either/or head.

It might have though given the vitriol in this market when it comes to how this team is constructed.  At the time, I got the sense the he wanted to take a more 'draft and wait approach' like WPG had done, maybe because of his own team-building reasons and maybe because he could hear loud and clear that there was a significant portion of the fan base/media thought it was the smart/only way to do it.  So if it came to a head with Aquillini/Benning as to which direction to go, then here we are I guess.  He stuck to his guns (and good on him) and was let go.  Im about 50% sure about any of this too haha- just spit=balling.  

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

It might have though given the vitriol in this market when it comes to how this team is constructed.  At the time, I got the sense the he wanted to take a more 'draft and wait approach' like WPG had done, maybe because of his own team-building reasons and maybe because he could hear loud and clear that there was a significant portion of the fan base/media thought it was the smart/only way to do it.  So if it came to a head with Aquillini/Benning as to which direction to go, then here we are I guess.  He stuck to his guns (and good on him) and was let go.  Im about 50% sure about any of this too haha- just spit=balling.  

 

 

I think thats exactly right. Where it became a problem, imo, is Linden didn't have an answer as to how that approach wasn't going to lose the team money. I really think this whole thing came down to two things: a lack of confidence that the next idea would work (the re-thingy sure didn't) and an unclear plan as to the business side. I don't think Jim had much to do with it, other than maybe not going to bat for Linden? but thats just a guess as to why the feelings are so hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

For a second I thought you were reffering to Ryan Miller after he stood up for Stetcher in TO.

 

Yeah because Benning absolutely sewered Linden.  

 

I disagree and you'll see why in the offseason. The team is very well coached(Linden hire), well scouted led by Brackett(Gillis hire, Linden's friend) - as said by Smyle Linden has his stamp on the team.  I doubt Brackett will re-sign and Benning has his work cut out for him thanks to the Free Agent signings that Linden was against.  

 

Well Naslund did do that on purpose.  Naslund and Linden, such pricks right?  :rolleyes:

why would Naslund do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

Just curious, not trolling. How could you not be keen on a 5th round pick, Hobey Baker winning centerman who plays high intensity hockey with a canon of a shot? 

I thought he was ok, but just not the hype that some were giving him.   he hasn't been the best on face offs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kragar said:

Would you rather win the shots and lose the game?  Would that make you feel better?

 

I think Green did just fine here.  Bailey made at least one absolute bonehead play last night. In a must-win game for the fans, given the festivities, he made the right call.

 

The team was flat, no doubt.  Perhaps due to the Sedin show messing up their pre-game routines while they watch from an awesome perspective?

"Bonehead" is an exaggeration to pad your case, it looked more like Bailey thought he was getting puck support from the forward coming back, the forward stopped skating as Bailey was leaving a soft outlet pass towards the boards.

 

And what were the other bad plays, you said "at least."

Edited by 6string
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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