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

Josepho

Members
  • Posts

    398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Josepho

  1. I'm going to take the sample size of ~70 games over the sample size of 3, personally.
  2. You are completely ignoring the trajectory of these players at the time of their signings. Pearson's production has nosedived in the last year, Toffoli's hasn't -- that's why there's a difference.
  3. It definitely is fair to compare him to submit players given how bad he's played for a while.
  4. What do you think does a better job calming the media down? a) Saying "yes, management has been very good/supportive/etc". b) Not giving management any credit and essentially refusing to answer what was asked.
  5. What do YOU think it means that Horvat (someone who is normally pretty good at giving non-controversial answers) intentionally omitted talking about management? Do you not think it's extremely easy to give a response in support of management? Or are you naive enough to think it was completely accidental?
  6. Pretty much. Why wouldn't Bo just say "management has had our backs" or whatever? It's not hard, he clearly intentionally didn't mention them.
  7. "blake price is pathetic because he's suggesting something i disagree with"
  8. It's so &^@#ing embarrassing that he has to be the one to speak out instead of management. I'm sure the players just love that the organization agreed to do this.
  9. So because Sheary and Pearson were KINDA close to each other in points this season, Pearson deserves more than 2x the cap hit?
  10. There is no definitive way to win a cup. Teams like Pittsburgh or Tampa have won with highly skilled/speedy guys, while teams like the Blues or Kings won with a heavier style of play. The Blues won because their players (who happened to be big) were really good at hockey as well. Every team that wins a cup wins it because their players and coaches are really good, and they likely had some form of luck on the way. If Pearson's size made him a more valuable player than Sheary, it'd translate to obvious on-ice results.
  11. it's 2021 and people are still talking about how size has anything to do with actually playing hockey
  12. Who cares if Pearson is bigger? I can just as easily say "Sheary has the kind of speed that you win with". It's easy to just pick and choose which player's attributes you think is more important.
  13. Pearson isn't "slowly declining", his numbers have gradually declined dramatically since the start of February 2020. There is a large enough sample size to see this.
  14. why exactly are you excluding their production from this season, and only cherrypicking pearson's best year of his career?
  15. Pearson WAS a better player at one point, I won't deny that. And yes, there was a time where he was a great fit with Horvat. However, his trajectory has been awful. Since the start of February 2020, including the playoff bubble, Pearson has had 25 points in 68 games despite getting plenty of ice-time and getting many chances to get empty net points. Those numbers just aren't acceptable for a player in his role and you don't invest decent money into a player that has been declining like this. It seems like exhibit #500 of us playing a player for his past instead of his present or future.
  16. He did win a cup, I never said otherwise. But I've heard "cup-winner" as a justification for signings like Beagle/Pearson even though other players with cup pedigree have been signed to actual good contracts.
  17. I'd say the fact that Benning traded easily the most for a player who other teams/GMs consider to be worth late round draft picks makes him an idiot, yes.
  18. Washington gets a better, cheaper player who also has cup pedigree for a way better contract than Pearson. Neat.
  19. All three of those GMs did make a mistake, yes. Many NHL GMs are dumb -- Dorion in particular is horrendous. But if you can't understand the difference between giving McCann and a 2nd for a player and trading 5th/7th round picks for a player, I don't know what to say. It's pretty obvious that Benning whiffed harder than anyone else on Gudbranson.
  20. The last three GMs to acquire Gudbranson (Rutherford, Murray, Dorion) all got rid of him less than 12 months after acquiring him. They all realized he was an awful hockey player. Poile will also realize and not re-sign him.
  21. We could've made the playoffs in the old Pacific division, but who the &^@# cares? After Seattle is put into the league, 50% of the teams in the league make the playoffs -- it's hardly noteworthy. Many people seem way too complacent with being a middling playoff team and everyone was blowing their load over a 2nd round playoff exit (after the team went all-in) where we were dramatically outplayed by Vegas.
  22. A ) We could've weaponized our cap space to take on other assets. Look at how Detroit/SJ got extra picks for retaining salary on players this past weekend. B ) If they were spending to the cap, they were most likely trying to compete. It just indicates that they sucked at trying to compete.
  23. It's really interesting you didn't seem to think so before Benning traded him.
  24. There are a $&!# ton of guys who can be found in free agency for free that didn't cost picks like Gudbranson/Pedan.
  25. Either way it paints Benning in a horrible light. People only say the Canucks were rebuilding (and similarly say that cap space didn't matter) because the team sucked. But if they were rebuilding, they'd be accumulating picks and not making dumb moves like the Gudbranson/Larsen trades. People also say there was an ownership directive to make the playoffs (which I believe), but the problem there is that Benning did such a godawful job attempting to get his team to the playoffs and it doesn't bode well for his ability to enhance our current core.
×
×
  • Create New...