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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


EmilyM last won the day on March 16 2020

EmilyM had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,182 Gaming the system

About EmilyM

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,077 profile views
  1. Benning: ”With Adam Gaudette, with him we just felt it was time for a change of scenery” “we were expecting him to come in and take another step. We didn’t really feel like he did that” “we just felt like Matthew Highmore plays a more complete two-way game” These quotes from Benning don’t sound like they loved the way Gaudette was developing.
  2. Gaudette was in no position to ask for a trade. Even if he did, JB has no obligation to honour it. If Gaudette wanted out, JB would've either gotten more in return, or waited until there was a better deal on the table. But he didn't. There was urgency on management's end to take such a seeminglessly pointless deal. To only receive Highmore looks to me like the team simply gave up on Gaudette and had to move him before he becomes an RFA, have to waste expansion protection on him, or lose him to Seattle for nothing. The team lost faith in Gaudette. Highmore is better than nothing. T
  3. A chance at a playoff run and a showcase for a contract in the offseason will make Ben Hutton the biggest Leafs fan
  4. Would be a shame to burn a year of his ELC on this nothing season.
  5. That’s the same reasoning that got us a few other bad contracts on the team. We filled it with guys like Rous and Beags to insulate guys who may not be ready yet. But our young players, for the most part, seem to fill in admirably for them when needed. And that’s what I see will happen with Pearson. You’re telling me if Pearson isn’t there, none of Podz, Mac, Gauds, or any cheaper free agent or prospect in our system would be miles worse than Pearson? I see Pearson as a marginally better option than most of our young players right now, but not $3.25/3 times better. You say the team co
  6. Then I think we let a division rival eat the contract instead of us and let it be their problem/gamble. He could be another Toffoli (good), Tanev (okay), or Marky (so far not great) and Id rather have another team gamble. We don’t have the luxury of cap space to hope Pearson returns to form. Pearson isn’t going to be the difference between us taking a step forward next season or not. I can’t imagine Pearson is going to be such an upgrade over a $2-2.5m player. Or a prospect in the system. Sure we need experience to go with our talent, but what if Podz rolls in next year
  7. I generally try to see deals from all sides, but I’m having trouble coming up with why this signing is a good idea right now. $3.25 isn’t crazy bad, but it’s not such a bargain that it has to be done now before the big extensions are done. Sure, you might overpay in July, but we really can’t find a prospect or a sub-$3.25m player in the offseason? It’s not like Pearson is miles beyond a player who makes less. I could see arguments for “Its not the worst deal”, but can anyone stand up for JB and explain why this is the right call?
  8. Look past the emotional hyperbole and read into why the person may have posted that. "Half the team will be weakened for a long, long time" Well, right now more than half the team is weakened. Compound any possible lingering symptoms with the extended time off and, as a stat-lover like yourself, you'd probably agree that the chance that every player returns at 100% capacity is low. Some guys are going to be off. "This season is a full write-off" Many in the community were calling this season a write-off prior to covid hitting the team. So is it outside of the realm of possibility to su
  9. I just don't know what you hope to accomplish in this thread. There are a number of other active threads in this forum discussing UFAs, Ian Clarke's future, etc. I listen to 650, watched Donnie & Dahli, Sportsnet, and TSN. All of them mentioned concern for the Canucks players but all of them also discussed playoff implications and theories on how the NHL could/should proceed with the season. I don't think you are suggesting the Canucks should just play while they are positive (if so, we aren't just wired differently, we are different species). So, what coverage/content are you lackin
  10. I'm sure everyone agrees that the odds are they will recover, but if you can't understand why fans would be emotional over this, you have to do yourself a favour and move on because you aren't ever going to understand it. Yes, it's doubtful any of them will lose their lives. But if you can't be concerned for a team full of boys we watch grow up on the Canucks go down with this illness even with the possibility of death removed, I can't help ya. Sure, it sounds like many of them are already turning the corner, but we will never know the impact it had on their families, their loved ones, the
  11. I have to agree with him. The Canucks could potentially be off almost an entire calendar month in an already tight season. Where are the extra days going to come from? It's too risky for the players and staffs health to squeeze in a 56 game season in this scenario.
  12. For sure. I agree that the NHL should and will do whatever they can within the various regional guidelines provied to complete as many games as possible. But if the Canucks are sidelined for another 2 weeks on top of the bye week they just had, it's going to be a heck of a squeeze to complete the season. At that point, the health of the players and staff has to come before completing all 56 games. But, yes, the NHL will do what they can to play as many games as possible, but completing 56 games for the Canucks at this point looks like its on very thin ice and I'm just discussing backup plans
  13. I hope you asked yourself "Burrows pennant? Do we really need it?"
  14. For sure that's the goal. But I'd rather the league prioritize 21-22 being as pure as it can and not extend this season longer than need be at the risk of health or longterm scheduling issues by pushing out 21-22 further.
  • Create New...