dougieL
-
Posts
1,046 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by dougieL
-
-
I think it will become clear this season that we should have traded him instead of signing him.
-
We're going to regret this contract big time.
-
6 hours ago, Canuckfanforlife82 said:
Not a big deal but I am just wondering why they haven't tried this. If our home logo is the white orca, how come it isn't the big logo at center ice? It would make way more sense. I know it's white but if you look at the red wings logo it's also white and red. Why can't it be blue and white. I think it would look way better than a mix of colours the way it is now. Home logo should be at center ice. I also don't understand why they don't incorporate the Canucks logo into the red line. Always feels like they miss the bar on the little things.
This honestly wouldn't work for our huge logo? Be easier for whoever is painting it as well.
I've been wondering this for years. Posted something about it a few years ago but people seemed to not place great importance on colors matching...
-
37 minutes ago, Barnstorm said:
Listening to 650 I believe it was described as “ another year”.
Thanks...I thought I saw that too somewhere, but I wasn't sure if it meant it was actually a one-year deal.
-
1
-
-
Anyone know how long the contract is for?
-
5 minutes ago, EdgarM said:
There are small differences but over all they are comparable. Petey is a couple of more years in development but Hughes's 43 goals last year definitely sticks out.
Hughes at 8 mill for the next 7 years, its a no brainer, considering what Petey is going to ask for. That extra cap space would make the team behind him, that much stronger.
Well OP did say forget about the contract - but yeah, if you did factor that in, it's a no-brainer that it's Jack, and it's not even close.
-
1
-
-
For all those saying it's Pettersson by a mile, remember that Jack is two years younger. How much had Pettersson accomplished two years ago?
I love Pettersson, and I think he's more solid defensively (for now). But Jack looks more offensively dynamic to me (admittedly I've watched way more of Pettersson than of Hughes). But either way, there's no telling where Jack will be two years from now.
Who knows - maybe Pettersson absolutely takes off this season. No one would like to see that more than me. I love the guy. But again, keep in mind that Jack has two years to catch up.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:
First off, Petey won the Calder. Jack did not. Second, Petey has been playing on a much inferior team. If Petey was on that New Jersey team he is probably getting 120 points. Third, Petey is much better defensively and is at the same level as Hischier in that regard.
Petey is a complete centre. He is Jack and Hischier combined into one player. Nobody is taking Jack over Petey.
Wait...Calder trophy has zero bearing on trade value at this point in their careers...
Second, it's true that if Pettersson joins NJ, he'd probably score more points, mostly because he'd be playing on the same team as Jack. Similarly, if Jack joins the Canucks, he'd probably score more points, mostly because he'd be playing on the same team as Pettersson...or do you mean if Pettersson took Jack's place on the NJ team, he'd score 120pts?
I'd probably agree with you that Pettersson is more solid defensively at this point, though remember that Jack is 2 years younger. I could see a world though, where at their peaks, Pettersson is still the more complete player. But Jack is so young that I think it's hard to predict at this point.
But I still come back to...Jack's cap hit is only 8m. I highly doubt we'd get Pettersson for anywhere near 8.
-
13 hours ago, Codez27 said:
Van:
Petey
Hoglander
Boeser (50% retained)
2nd round pick
Njd:
Jack Hughes
Luke Hughes
Remember that Jack is locked up at one of the most efficient deals in the NHL. His trade value is through the roof. Pettersson will presumably be looking for a deal that is way more lucrative than Jack's. Even if you think Pettersson is a better player (which I think is debatable), Jack's actual trade value is much higher simply because of the contract.
Then even if you think Jack and Pettersson are a wash (which they aren't), then why would NJ trade Luke for Hoglander, Boeser (50% retained), 2nd round pick?
We'd have to include Willander and multiple unprotected 1st round picks for NJ to even sniff at it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:
I can’t wait until November 15 when the fans show BO their true feelings towards him. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty. This fake suck up crap isn’t going to work IMO.
I hope fans can show class. We cheered for Bo when he was a Canuck. As far as I can tell, he worked hard and did his job well as player and as captain - he doesn't all of a sudden become a piece of crap just because he's wearing a different uniform. He didn't screw us over or anything - we got good value for him in the trade. He had to do what he thought was right for him and his family. Let's respect that and be respectful.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, -DLC- said:
I want a captain that scares people.
I'm tired of polite and courteous...it gets us nowhere.Quinn has some great attributes and this is not knocking him. What he lacks in fire is offset by other traits. He is a phenomenal player and a sensible guy from what we've seen.
I just want a team with pushback and emotion. No settling. I might slam a stick or two myself this year.I'd be more concerned about our captain being respected by players and officials around the league. Whether or not he scares people is not particularly important in my eyes.
Why do you assume Hughes lacks fire?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, MeanSeanBean said:
I felt it was more hammering home how Toc feels we have a strong leadership group with multiple players who would be capable of captaining a team and helping lead
Agree - I just think they could have easily made that point without saying what they did.
-
1
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Devron said:
Yeah but don’t take it so literally. Quinn got the C, the letter. But they are all captains in their own way. A letter on a goalie doesn’t work, they can’t skate to Center and talk to the refs etc.
I think @BMorrison 7's point (which I completely agree with) is why repeat the statement over and over that "any one of Pettersson, Miller, or Demko could have been captain"? It almost makes it sound like they picked Hughes' name out of a hat containing the names of Hughes, Pettersson, Miller, and Demko.
The very first time Tocchet spoke, he literally says "it could have easily been one of those guys, Quinn knows that."
That is absolutely unnecessary. And to include Demko in that statement - that he could have easily been captain - given how poorly it worked out for Luongo as captain (no fault to Luongo at all), it's just idiotic.
It's the day they're announcing Hughes as captain. There were so many other ways to make it clear that the other players are part of the leadership group without saying that "they could have easily been the captain".
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Devron said:
No, it’s that he’s part of the leadership group. Happy for Quinn but a letter is just a letter. The team needs many leaders. Different players in different positions stepping up.
They literally said any one of Miller, Pettersson, and Demko could have been captain.
-
26 minutes ago, BMorrison 7 said:
Allvin and RT kept saying the captaincy could have been those other guys a little too often. It kind of took away from Quinn’s accomplishment. I think he was an excellent choice to be the captain and that it was the right choice. I don’t think it it could have or should have been someone else it would have. Super impressed with QH and I am very happy he is our captain
Agree. And Demko could have been captain??? Did they actually think that was a viable option???
-
Absolutely the right choice. Couldn't be happier for the team and for Hughes. Well-deserved.
-
2
-
-
He said in his presser that he hasn't drawn on the Sedin's much for advice so far during his time here, but that he will. It seems he's been doing absolutely great without them. I hope this was just something he was told to say. I really hope he continues ahead the way he has, forge his own way as captain, and be a better one than Henrik was. I see no reason and no need for every Canucks captain after the Sedin's to be advised by them.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:
I’m not irritated at all. I can just tell from your questioning that you probably don’t know a lot about construction and building in Vancouver. My buddy builds houses for a living so I know exactly what is entailed in getting permits from the City of Vancouver and my other buddy also owns a real estate company of which I work directly with him through my own company so I’ve had dealings with developers in the city for a long time.
Zoning bylaws and permit procedures are different depending on location. City of Vancouver is the worst, although the new mayor Ken Sim is trying to fix that. Burnaby is way easier to get a permit than Vancouver but still a pain in the butt.
All the land that Aquilini currently owns is already zoned for this type of use, or is in the process of rezoning. Going out and getting new land would restart the timeline, which is several years. SFU already has sports facilities on its lands, so correct zoning is probably already there.
In terms of Rogers Arena, most likely the land would need to be rezoned for a higher use and more density if you are wanting to build beneath a current structure. Plus, as someone already pointed out, that structure, i.e, Rogers Arena, will probably need to be shut down for several years while they are building underground.
I’ve never heard of a building being built below another building in Vancouver, however the transformation of Brentwood Mall included building several floors of new underground parking around an existing structure. That project took over 3 years just for the underground parking. They are doing the same thing at Oakridge Mall but are having challenges due to the soil and water levels around that area.
Thanks - that's what I was most interested in, actually - whether there was precedent for building beneath existing structures. Did they have to shut down Brentwood Mall for it?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, stawns said:
That hardly seems worthy of spending millions of dollars for a facility that will sit empty most of the time.
I can see that point of view. I'd point to Edmonton's arena as an example though. Obviously a very different situation, but they built a practice rink right beside the arena. Much easier to do, of course, than trying to build one below an existing arena, but they clearly thought it was worth the millions to put the practice rink there.
-
9 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:
You obviously are not familiar with how the zoning bylaws work and how long it takes to get a permit for new construction in the City of Vancouver. It takes up to one year just to get a permit to build a house. 4-5 years to get a permit to build a hi-rise. If you are talking about building a practice facility below the parking, then you are going 4-5 levels deep at least. That's the equivalent of a hi-rise in Vancouver. You most likely need to re-zone the land in order to do that. Re-zoning takes probably 3-4 years at least...
Why do you seem so irritated...I was just throwing an idea out and asking a few questions. It reminds of when Holden Caulfield was in a cab and asked the driver where the ducks go in the winter when the lagoon in Central Park freezes over. The cab driver got all sore at him for no reason and basically told Holden to buzz off...
Anyway...I indeed don't know anything about zoning bylaws in Vancouver, but I also didn't know from where you got your timeline estimates, which is why I asked. Even so, it seems to me they'd need to get a similar permit no matter where they built (below Rogers or elsewhere), unless they renovate an existing structure. I suppose that's where the SFU option comes in, but that is a horrendous idea. I wonder by how much players would even prefer the SFU option to the current arrangement, or if they would prefer it at all.
-
8 hours ago, 24K PureCool said:
Dude adding levels below existing structure is not easy to do. You are literally digging below the foundation. You are looking at closing down Rogers for like 3 seasons which is not feasible.
Yeah definitely agree - never said it would be easy to do. But if the options are 1) build a rink in SFU for relatively cheap, 2) buy new land to build a facility, or 3) build one beneath Rogers, I feel like (3) is not completely ridiculous given how desirable the outcome would be for the players (practice rink right where they play their games), how expensive (2) would be, and what a terrible option (1) seems to be.
I guess this relates to my initial question...has there been precedent anywhere for adding a structure beneath an existing structure? I honestly can't imagine that it hasn't been done before (e.g., adding additional levels of parking), and I wonder if the above structure would have to be shutdown for that long. I mean, couldn't you build additional temporary supports while you excavate below?
-
1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:
Yes, I'm aware there is a parkade under the building, I have parked there many times while attending games when my buddy had club seats. First off, you can't just eliminate the parking, that is basically VIP parking for everyone that is paying big bucks to go to a game. You can't ask those people to park on the street. Parking is attached to the club seats. Also, that is where the players, coaches and everyone else parks. Do you expect Petey to park his car at the impark lot across the street?
In order for your proposal to work, you'd have to dig deep to get underground parking below a second rink. There are zoning bylaws attached to that. You are looking at 4-5 years of dealing with the City of Vancouver to ever approve such a concept.
BTW...I suspect Petey would prefer having to park across the street over having to drive 30mins each way to and from practice at SFU...
-
53 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:
Yes, I'm aware there is a parkade under the building, I have parked there many times while attending games when my buddy had club seats. First off, you can't just eliminate the parking, that is basically VIP parking for everyone that is paying big bucks to go to a game. You can't ask those people to park on the street. Parking is attached to the club seats. Also, that is where the players, coaches and everyone else parks. Do you expect Petey to park his car at the impark lot across the street?
In order for your proposal to work, you'd have to dig deep to get underground parking below a second rink. There are zoning bylaws attached to that. You are looking at 4-5 years of dealing with the City of Vancouver to ever approve such a concept.
As I said, build it below the parkade.
As I mentioned, there is a building near Rogers that has a parkade that goes a few levels further below ground than the parkade at Rogers. I'm not sure where the 4-5 year estimate comes from, but that seems to be at least equal to the amount of time the Canucks have spent trying to decide on where to build it. If they had taken action 4-5 years ago, maybe it would be approved by now
-
1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:
I'm not sure how you are going to get a rink to be built underneath an already existing rink. How would that be possible? The building is almost 30 years old. I doubt it has the infrastructure to accomplish such a feat. I'm sure, Aquilini, as a developer, has already looked into this, as it would save him millions if he could actually do it...
There is a parkade below the rink. You'd build it below the parkade. I'm kind of spitballing here, but I'm sure there is precedent for adding a structure beneath an existing structure. There are buildings near Rogers that have parkades that extend farther below ground than the parkade at Rogers, so I would imagine the depth is not an issue.
I agree that Aquilini most likely would have looked into it. I'm wondering whether it's a cost or feasibility issue. Obviously, building it at SFU would be much cheaper than building it below Rogers Arena, as it would be far less complex of an operation.
Andrei Kuzmenko | #96 | LW
in Alumni
Posted
Best of luck with the new forum! I've had a great time here, but think it's time to move on.