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

Baratheon

Members
  • Posts

    1,845
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Baratheon

  1. I think Acciari is the best fit for us. He's likely the cheapest option of the bunch and would instantly be one of our most physical forwards. (only Canuck to have more hits than him last year was Schenn) You might even be able to grab two of them if you sign Acciari. Acciari plus Rodrigues perhaps? Have some internal competition for the first time in forever. Keep Aman and Raty hungry and having to really compete for minutes.
  2. I hope we take a look at Noel Acciari. He's pretty good in the faceoff circle and he hits everything that moves. Shouldn't cost much but helps make our bottom 6 more difficult to play against.
  3. Do you think we’ll sign him to a “team friendly” deal? Or will he want top D type of money? Should be interesting to see what the cost of him and Petey will be. It’s why I’m so against giving up any type of asset to move Myers’s or Beau. We need to worry about the year after their contracts expire. No urgency to move an expiring contract, especially now that OEL has been bought out. They both likely have some value closer to TDL anyways.
  4. I like Garland as a player but I'm hoping that Hogz ultimately replaces him. RT seems to like Hogz.
  5. I'm holding out hope (especially because of the timing) that this was a move to facilitate trades and not UFA signings. The next 2 weeks are the key to this move imo.
  6. Yep I've already agreed with the majority of this. Cheers!
  7. May I ask why you feel this way? Moving Garland clears more cap for a longer period of time. Beau's contract will expire at the end of next season. If we make the playoffs and he's still on the team, he actually has a decent track record in the post-season.
  8. When "future considerations" became Doug freaking Lidster. I guess it's not the worst but I think it's worth mentioning. It likely cost us a cup.
  9. If you look at him play, he kinda reminds me of Henri Richard to be honest. Maybe that's not what we need but there's for sure some teams that would be more than happy with that.
  10. Yep agreed. It's the smarter move especially for us and in this particular draft. (again unless it's Michkov lol) Even if we got a home run smaller player it still makes things complicated for us. It requires more wheeling and dealing in order to address our weaknesses. Having a little feller like that guy who used to wear #10 for us would be fun though! Especially if he's a local boy. (and yes I understand that fun does not necessarily = smart)
  11. Yeah. As I said, I agree. (Unless Michkov falls lol) I'm more just playing devils advocate. With a small winger like Benson we have to know that he's an absolute lock. Draft a larger C or D and there's a higher chance that they become an effective player for us even if they don't become a super star. Some of my favorite players have been of the tiny sort. Kariya and Fleury come to mind. (Well Ronning too of course) St. Louis just after them. It would be cool to have one of those guys is all I'm saying.
  12. Meh. That's just a math thing isn't it? Most players will be closer to average. A few will be small and a few will be huge.
  13. I agree with what you’re saying to a degree but it’s not that black and white. There’s always a few small guys out there making the rest of the league look foolish. 4 of the last 8 Conn Smythe winners were sub 6 feet just as an example. Benson is not who I’m hoping for but I won’t be super bummed if it’s him. Makes the future more complicated though. Probably aren’t hanging on to Lekkerimaki and Hogz if they draft Benson.
  14. Hopefully this is a move to facilitate trades and not signings.
  15. The radio mentioned him as well. I’m hoping they’re trying to be sneaky via trade rather than UFA
  16. I don’t love it either but I guess it’s a “yolo” move lol. What the hey I say! Go Canucks Go! Lol
  17. Hope it's something like this. It relieves any trade pressure for this year as well. If any team wants our players then they'll probably have to pay. We don't need to add a sweetener at this point.
  18. This must mean that they want to be flexible heading in to the draft. That's interesting for sure.
  19. Well I don't like it and wish they'd made a more long term move but looks like we're going for it in the short term. Is what it is I guess. Hope it works out! Go Canucks Go!
  20. So that’s it then? Lucic, Reaves, Wilson (did I miss anyone?) or bust? If there are so few of them then maybe there’s a reason for it.
  21. Maybe (obviously not everyone agrees) but that wasn't my question. Does it have to be him or are there options?
×
×
  • Create New...