AB72

Really hoping that we can lock up petey to an 8 year this summer. Not worried that we won't pony up the money. Worried that petey decides to take his qualifying offer and then leave as a ufa thee next seaon so he can be on a team to win now.

That Nichushkin contract is going to really hamper them going forward. Wasn't very Sakic like to sign a a 27 year old to an 8 year 6.13 million dollar contract based on one good season. On top of that he gave him a NMC/NTC.

This is their idea of a starting goalie for the season? This seems like an oilers kind of strategy. I don't see this ending well.

Haha we don't want to upset Mr I failed grade 4 math! To your second point I feel like it's not as much as me liking you but your combatants were just so far off base it's by default. Don't let it go to your head.

The difference between 4500 or 4501 is a lot closer than does everything better or fights a lot. You should know that from your 3rd post after being coy. I will definitely try to avoid your comments. Thanks for the advice.

So you think they are nearly identical? So you don't know how they are different? So you say they aren't nearly identical and went into detail on how they are different? Have to love summertime on CDC.

If you stop feeding the troll he will go away.

The 4th line center that is second in time one ice among forwards. But the coach put the 4th line on for puck drop so they are the 1st line cause that's how hockey works.

2 goals in 2 games. Bo is making quite the 4th line center! Wish we had more ghosts like him!

It was obviously tongue and cheek. He chuckled as he said it.

Do any of you actually believe that BB wouldn't have scored a single goal in 20 games if he was healthy in his second season? Is BB that much worse of a player because he had 29 goals in 20 games less rather than if he had 30 in 82 games? Sorry if these questions sound silly but in my eyes a player that scores 29 in 62 is much more impressive than a player scoring 30 in 82.

They had a cinderella run and flopped on their face. The fact that after trading away their older talent they only went down 3 points in the standings the next season (and 5 the season after) should tell you as much.

He does get into hairy situations quite often though.

I re read your post about 4 times and I still didn't actually get any answers to any of my questions. In fact it raised even more, I will highlight the questions so you don't miss them this time. 1. I didn't see any poster used the words "tremendous value" when talking about Hansen's return. Only post I could find was coreyberg saying "We received a prospect and a pick when we moved on from him" and "gained assets instead of losing assets" Nothing tremendous about that. I've noticed a few times in this threat where you have miss quoted posters words to help sell your argument. Not to mention the fact that you keep trying to change the entire narrative of the discussion to a subject. Either way it seems like you are insinuating that there wasn't a cost to get rid of Loui's contract, I can't imagine that being true. As for the return on Hansen, you called the prospect borderline? I know hindsight is 20/20 and he is no longer with the organization but at the time it was a decent return. A 21 year old first round prospect who was putting up near point per game numbers in the AHL. Also a 4th round pick isn't the greatest haul but it's definitely currency. If you don't see that as positive value I don't know what to say. The next paragraph was really confusing to me. You referred to loui as "dead weight" and said he was traded for "actual NHLers". After that you talked about the heavy cost to dump a "dead weight" contract. It's all over the place and super confusing. Still, you never actually answered the questions. Do you actually believe that Loui had positive trade value and that a prospect and a 4th has negative value? 2.You gave a few excuses as to why Loui wasn't as good as Hansen was with the Canucks. He wasn't in his prime and his teams were worse. I added up the rankings over the 5 years and divided by 5. Hansen's teams averaged 20th place, loui's teams averaged 24th place. Doesn’t sound like the huge gap you describe. After all that I didn't actually get the answer to the question. Is that really a big difference? Enough to bridge the 41 point gap or the 20 million? Maybe both? 3.Wow so much anger. You managed to blame everyone from coaches to teammates for Loui's poor play. The idea that green and Willie D pushed loui down the lineup because they needed bottom 6 players just doesn't add up. These coaches want to win, Loui was a lemon and couldn't create offense so they made lemonade. You said that if coreyberg is going justify points to show that Hansen was a better canuck that you will use loui's points from previous teams. Everyone knows that once upon a time loui was a 30 goal scorer, the discussion was who was the better canuck. All that but no answer. How is this relevant in an argument of who was the better player for the Canucks? 4.Would be tough to fairly compare Loui and Hansen on the same team at the same time seeing as Hansen missed 54 games that year between fractured ribs, a knee injury and being traded. But for your sake let's take a look. Hansen had a .46ppg rate and was a +2 while averaging 16:21 in ice time. Loui had a .39ppg rate and was a -9 while averaging 18:41 in ice time. Crazy thing is even though loui played 2 minutes more per game and played 37 extra games that season they were both tied in even strength goals with 6 a piece. Give Loui credit though did manage to have 3 more even strength assists. Same team same time. This all begs the same question that you didn't answer. Did you not look at the stat lines you posted? 5.You say that Hansen climbed up an "injury filled AHL roster" and in the same sentence say Loui's team "couldn't produce" and "was horrendous in their zone". You confirmed the narrative but I still didn't hear the answer to, Isn't it weird that both played on bad teams but one rose while one sank? After that you start going off about loui signing with a 28th place team, then they became a 29th place team and how he was so hard done by. Hansen was on that 28th place team and that 29th place team as well as the 25th place team two years before. As everyone who has shared stats in this thread has shown including yourself, these two players are very much comparable. The two key differences is one was a slightly better player us at a 3rd of the cost. There are pages of stats proving this from a handful of posters including the ones you supplied. I don't know what you are holding onto besides pride.

So many questions. 1. Do you actually believe that Loui had positive trade value and that a prospect and a 4th has negative value? Looks like that's what you are insinuating but I can't imagine you actually believe that. 2. You say Hansen had the advantage of being on 2/5 playoff teams but Loui was on 1/5. Is that really a big difference? Enough to bridge the 41 point gap or the 20 million? Maybe both? 3. I already asked this days ago but once again you keep bringing up Loui's career before joining the Canucks and Hansen's career after leaving the Canucks. How is this relevant in an argument of who was the better player for the Canucks? Loui was a very good player before coming to Vancouver, everyone is painfully aware of the fact. I haven't seen a single poster say otherwise in this thread so I really have no idea why you keep going off on that tangent. 4. You say that coreybergs numbers were cherry picked. He literally took luoi's whole canuck tenure, that is not cherry picking. Looking at the Hansen side of the equation it looks like he used a lockout shortened season and his last season where he was injured and then traded. I don't see any cherry picking there. In fact if you canceled out the "big 22 goal scorer" season that he played with the twins and used the 5 seasons before that his point total would be actually be 7 points higher than the numbers that were provided. Did you not look at the stat lines you posted? 5. You say as the Canucks sank Hansen rose up the lineup. On the other hand as you pointed out the Canucks were a bottom feeder for 4/5 of Loui's years here. Isn't it weird that both played on bad teams but one rose while one sank? None of this is adding up.