• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

330 Excellent

About Canucklehead73

  • Rank
    Comets Star

Recent Profile Visitors

3,276 profile views
  1. Pretty obvious if you ask me... Green played it too safe. Went too far into the defensive shell... you have to at least TRY to make a play and transition up the ice. I'm sure the players realized Green gave up. Which is sad if you consider it a lesson learned by the team... "They are too good, why even try?" Like a boxer just covering up and taking it for 10 rounds.... Eventually you are going to get tagged once or twice and if you do not even TRY to punch back... Well even Ali couldn't pull off that kind of rope-a-dope...
  2. Again I think you have to get "NHL" players into the fold to mentor young players, at the time Ericksson was a good second line 2 way forward who was good for 20+ goals. If Ericksson was putting up 25 goals and 50 points on the second line there would be considerably less grumbling about his signing. Our team depth was terrible back then... But all speculation aside, Ericksson has been terrible... Pretty horrid post season for Myers, agreed, 6 goals and 21 points in the reg wasn't horrible tho... again hard to bring in a free agent for much less $$$ when the top defenders are making 8 to 9 mill... and again our depth on D isn't the greatest still... back before myers it was... pouliot, gudbranson, del zotto, schenn... kinda think myers is an upgrade. but that's just me. Hard to make up for poor drafting without buying UFA's... unless you want to suck for 10 years waiting for draft picks. imho
  3. Toffoli looked good as a Canuck, sometimes chemistry trumps everything... works both ways ala Ericksson Benning gets a lot of flack but he had to come in and replace AHL depth players with NHL players, how do you do that? "Hey come play for our last place team"... You have to over pay a bit to lure players, and you need NHL players to mentor our draft picks not AHL wannabees. And you can't really blame Benning for a guy like Ericksson coming in, taking 6 Million, and then proceed to mail it in for years... the NHL needs to have a performance arbitration process to get rid of these contracts
  4. Interesting but a lot of red flags... Risky to mover Virtanen who has improved every year and might be due for a break out after a taste of the playoffs.
  5. Well you missing the point I was trying to make, I don't think it's good business to let assets walk as per the OP's question, my personal take on it is to sign you assets and wait for offers on players you are willing to part with. Most GM's are looking to do the same and will publicly say whatever to keep their assets values as high as possible, in case... you guessed it, they get a trade offer. You like to put words into my mouth to make your points... Never said trade him the next day... Never said GM's are dumb, Markstom is hardly a free agent in the context you are using... never said to sign a free agent and trade him for a free asset... that's just you making up BS to agree with your self... How about we just agree to disagree, although your kinda just agreeing with your self because I never said anything along those lines... Peace bud...
  6. Whatever... you can spin it to your narrative however you like, I did not say anything about trading him the "next day", my opinion is your protect your assets first is all. Simple business imho, if you have a player who is good and you consider him an asset you sign him... if a team needing a goalie comes along with a good offer, there is no reason not to take it. Every player understands without a NTC or a NMC you are possibly getting shipped out at any time. Letting him walk for nothing is not good business unless you have agreed he is not a good player or an asset. Any of our signed players... Any team can come along with a trade offer, it's not considered disloyal to make the trade, or else there would not be any trades... As for "loyalty"... Ask yourself this, why didn't Markstrom sign this year? Why is he saying he wants to play here... but hasn't signed... it's because he wants to see what the offers are, yes from OTHER teams... Markstom is protecting his assets, his perceived prime playing years and wants to get the most he can, Sucks to be you but it's just business. Smart business.
  7. Didn't say anything about a sign and trade, or tricking Markstrom, if they feel he has value and can play you sign him. If someone offers you a good return there is no shame or ill will in doing what is best for the organization.
  8. Sure I see what your saying, but IF everyone agrees Marky is a player then signing him to a 5-6mill contract and then trading him for picks/prospect or a positional need while still freeing the cap space. That's what you call asset management.
  9. Looks like some of the veteran FA signings are paying some dividends, guess that is what they are here for. Need a nice mix of players to win in the playoffs. Exciting times!
  10. I think most of the problem stems from Green using zone structure as opposed to man to man. That and the zone being overly passive. If we played man to man our players would focus on their check instead of going to a spot. Everything has it's pro's and con's but man to man usually gets rid of the guy open in the slot scenarios.
  11. Dont forget myers joined the vaunted coaching trifecta that currently run the canucks bench... kinda hard to blame our defense for the offensive blackhole the canucks backend has been.
  12. We dont need to recoup a first for miller... miller was a first round pick... And if you trade boeser for a first... its a wash already because boeser was a first... you recoup nothing...