EmilyM
Members-
Posts
4,847 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by EmilyM
-
[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson
EmilyM replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
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 and kills it? We have another bad contract in Pearson in our bottom 6? Every dollar is going to count in the off-season every year from here on out. I can’t agree that Pearson is more valuable than $3.25m in free cap space. -
[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson
EmilyM replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
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? -
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 suggest that the team not returning at 100% is a death sentence for a season that was already in peril to begin with? People are going to exaggerate when they're emotional. Give this thread a break for a few days and let people vent their emotions. There are other threads and other channels for discussion all things Canucks outside of covid implications.
-
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 lacking right now? What else can be discussed about the Canucks that isn't already being discussed on top of the messages of concern? The only thing bothering you (or worse, getting enjoyment out of) seems to be that other people are concerned about the Canucks. Otherwise you wouldn't continue returning to a thread titled "GetWellThread" and wondering why everyone is wishing the Canucks get well.
-
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, their friends/groups/communities outside of the Canucks. And if that doesn't give you any pause for concern, I can't help ya. I know millions of people have had covid, but I see this similar to when Tom Hanks was announced positive last year. Most of us didn't know of anyone who was sick personally, but when we can put a face to the disease, it's an eye opener for a lot of people. So, here we are with ~20 Canucks players/staff. 20 faces we know. 20 voices we know. 20 people who have access to high end facilities and testing and still brings an entire team to its knees. To hear that it can get these guys, most of who are in peak condition, laid out and it still doesn't give you any inward reflection, then I can't help ya. Some of us are wired differently and it's probably best to move on.
-
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.
-
I see where you’re coming from, but I would prefer we maximize our chances at a real run in 22-23 instead of 21-22. I’d rather have Holtby’s full salary next year and off the books completely for 22-23 even if it means we’re a playoff bubble team again next year. No more additional dead money in 22-23 when we are in our prime.
-
Author of Captain Underpants Pulls (Racist) Book
EmilyM replied to -DLC-'s topic in Off-Topic General
When you see classic tv shows, movies, and even Disney cartoons, they are filled with racist/homophobic jokes. But, that was normal in society at the time. But people fought to have these reference unacceptable to insert into media today. Isn't inclusivity in society better today than it was 50 years ago? If you agree that society is more tolerant now, it's that way because people fought for it. There were people back then (and I'm sure there are plenty of people still around now) who thought everything was fine back then. We can't be so arrogant to think things are perfect now because it's better than it was. I'm glad society has evolved from where it was 50-100 years ago, and that didn't happen by accident. It's not always about "cancel culture". Change only happens when people make the effort.