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

Magnifier

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Magnifier

  1. Correct and i apologize. In a way excluding him from the idea was including him in the new team. If he sits out and becomes stronger it is good for the team, he is such an odd player, so Gretzky like except he is trying too hard to be physical at this time.
  2. Thats okay, i feel it is better to have an idea than to just complain about the weather or something equivalent. Knowledge is never something to be afraid of only thinking you know everything. Benning's days are done unless something miraculous happens, his contract runs out in 10 months, next June if they are in the finals, but at the end of next season in April if not before. I think Bo and Brock are winners too, but time is against the "team" becoming "winners" at the same time, you could say because they were not surrounded quick enough with other high end players they may become "adjusted" to accepting losing year after year and then become "pay for play" players, saving their business interests, their bodies, for future employment. Bo already has 5 out of 6 years of losing under his belt. Losing is hard for these guys, they were the best of the best, they worked harder than others to become the players that got them drafted where they were so learning how to lose is something really alien and hard to do, but years of losing will grind them down. And don't think losing looking good is enough, they know they are losing 50 games a year and some of their wins are in SO so even worse. Yes they are winners and the "team" needs more than them faster than they age, so trading two for 4 or 5 equally dedicated players with equal skill sets can have to be endured, the fans just put up with the Sedins playing out the string for nothing so having twice as many star to super star players coming up within two years or so is bearable. In 94 we had just come off a really good season before and when we started really hitting in the Calgary series and then against Dallas, well the Dallas players just stopped going for the puck, we were one of the biggest teams, we owned Toronto, the Rangers were a huge team too, but it was not fluke even though we squeaked into the playoffs, just a bad stretch
  3. You have to think in terms of a player's best years and in the "new" NHL that is now around 26, used to be around 29 but three years is a lot when an average player's career is only 5 years (generation). If done right with good players that can become 10+ years but the right guys have to sandwich the really good guys. Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kane, Doughty, Kopitar, Wheeler, Lucic, Marchand, Staal, Letang and Fleury all played or won a cup before they were 24 years old and they were the stars of the team but had many strong trades to hep them BEFORE the team was ready, trades for young players not FA signings of old players. Edmonton brought in up to 8 over 30 guys to "mentor" the young guns, see how that worked eh? They are still over coming the "retirement" or pay for play attitude years later, see something similar here in Vancouver? 5 to 7 over 30 guys, with big contracts and "clauses" so they are hard to trade just to "mentor" and show the team's 4 young players how to play hockey.
  4. No they don't catch fire, very few actually do but those that do are heralded for decades after. With the way the playoffs are constructed a finalist only has to be better than 16 teams in the conference and then only better than 8 teams. In 82 the Canucks made the finals with a sub .500 record, the better teams were eliminated each round to the end, they were one season and done. This year many good teams didn't turn it on until the last half of the season, who can possibly believe that St Louis is a fluke even though they were dead last January 1? Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, The team has to be solid from top to bottom to be a perennial threat, sneak in and see what happens? No, it takes thought and planning and a t some point a break or two unless the team is built right. History is just that history, Detroit didn't get lucky for 20 years and "sneak in and see what happens", neither did Chicago, LA, Pittsburgh of even Tampa though they haven't done anything, just look at Vegas, those are not flukes or "just see what happens". They are planned out teams with solid players and enough of them to make a consistent dent In 82 the Canucks were a bit of a fluke although they beat every team they were better than in the standings, in 94 Quinn had built a cup contender and they had to play the best teams every round, not a fluke and in 2011 they were the best team in the league, not a fluke as shown by the next year duplicating the feat. This is history and shows how to do these things. And yes trade Bo or Brock, Colorado traded Duchene, O'Reilly and others and receive in return even more good to better players that will make them a powerhouse in another year or two. If the team could trade both and get Alexis Lafreniere, Quinton Byfield, Justin Barron and Jaromir Pytlik combined with Elias, Hughes and Groot the team would set on the road to be a playoff team within 2 years and stick there for another 10+ depending upon how savy the GM is in trading assets before they age out. Yes there is pain but to get quality, quality needs to be traded, the teams making deals like this are strapped for time or marketing needs, the two players, Bo and Brock are guaranteed winners in marketing.
  5. Prove they were not tradeable? Not good enough?
  6. The Canucks OWN them, sure snap them up and PAY, if the Nucks let them. This team does not have enough young studs all at the right time. They need three Elias's and two more Horvats. They need to have THREE scoring lines to be a contender and at that they will only be able to keep them together for 3 years and then have to trade some away. It is the logistics of the contracts and players aging. They were almost pretenders this year, there are two types, the type that sells tickets because they are close catching the very last playoff spot, hence a playoff pretender or they can make the playoffs, that is the easy part as half the teams make the playoffs and in truth the Canucks only need to be better than 3 other teams for a divisional spot, so a playoff team that is a cup pretender. The Canucks should consider the final rebuild plan being trading away Boeser and Horvat for multiple first round picks over a two year period, each a pick(s), an A prospect and player. Turn two real good players into 4 or 5 over a two year period, maybe Hughes as well if he does show he has some jam. Tell me, what is more important, winning, the players or the team? What level of importance do you place on each? I don't have to say so, history says it is so. Over and over again. Bowman, pretty much the most hated coach/GM in hockey history and players can't wait to play for him., They hated him but wanted him as their coach, go figure, I guess winning is tops for the players too.
  7. Went off the reservation there for that comment eh? The Sedins were easily tradeable, a ready made top line, especially in the east where travel would have made playing better for them, let's say to Florida, both with retained 1/2 salary, so now it is two years to two Art Ross trophy winners for 7 mil a season, a ready made line that pretty much anyone could play with, for two 1rst round picks and a top prospect. They did finish their careers with 50+ points each. Two guaranteed years of making the playoffs. Remember the Sedins killed the eastern teams because they were so much smaller than out here and the Sedins were not tiny at 6'2". The Kelser trade ended up with the team having nothing, what a joke, a one liner. Tortorella, the guy whose team is playing in the playoffs again?
  8. Man Linden being here sure has twisted some concepts. The TEAM is made up of players, while these players do have rights the rules essentially make them in servitude to the team that signed them. The SECOND contract of any rookie is owned by the team, play and get paid or not. Elias, Brock and whoever should get a raise yes, but not these outrageous sums being doled out to true superstars. Brock hasn't enough uninjured games under his belt to own anything more than a very generous 6.5 mil a season for 6 years. Elias something similar but yet to be determined after another year of work. Hughes has to wait 7 years before his big payday. These three are not enough to make this a contender, they can make it a pretender though. If Pettersson stays or goes, at this time it makes no big difference, the team isn't ready to contend for a cup next year,
  9. Only the Sedins had NMC's from Gillis, the others came from Benning/Linden. Duchene was dealt for a 4th overall. Lucic was dealt for a 12th. Kesler was dealt for nothing, thats a one liner "The one liner" - The Joke.
  10. Sedins. Edler, Tanev, a Hamhuis/Garrison combination, do wht Boston did, retain salary to get better picks. Don't give that crap about "clause" contracts, the Sedins were never asked and Edler's thing was so marshmellowy, almost like an apology instead of a statement. Have you ever heard of a player with a clause contract saying no, EXCEPT here and the Sundin in TO thing? If so how many? And how many "clause contracts" are traded every year? The common statement from those players is if they aren't wanted they don't want to stay and moving while having the clause allows them more control, they could always be demoted to the AHL, across the country, to Utica to play while the family stays in Vancouver. sure that is hard ball but this isn't a knitting club and winning is the supposed goal. One player does not make a team and one player should not run a team or dictate how the team is run. Linden let the Sedins run this team by not doing what needed to be done years earlier, he played on his reputation to fill the arena while doing nothing to help improve the team. Gillis draft picks, what a tale, what about Benning draft picks from 5 years ago? How many other teams are better? Or got superior talent? Benning has signed more clause contracts with inflated contracts than all that Gillis has been accused of and where has he led the team? 4 years, the most ever by the Canucks, missing the playoffs, 4 years of losing over 200 games, 200 out of 328, 128 wins in four years, 32W - 50L - 0.390 win percentage over four years. And with a team that bad and drafting that high it is considered a win when 3 players are good? THREE? In 5 years? Gillis had it right, trade away the star goalies, go with the "cannon fodder" in net, lose an extra 8 games but keep the playoff defence pretty much intact, the Sedins still able to perform, a couple ot top ten picks, i heard Larkin and the next year, possibly a top three pick or better and a retool is done. But these guys got in there and wiped the heart out of the team. What makes anyone think Gillis would have traded Kesler to Anaheim? Why should he, Kesler was under contract, Gillis had some back bone, he could trade him anywhere. Linden was and still is (in his heart) the NHLPA president and all in for the players first and team second. "It would not be fair" You think Holland thought that as he rode his team to 20 playoff appearances, it would not be fair to Yzerman, or ?
  11. It is not hard to figure out how teams are matching up once the games start, to see how some teams are winning and some unexpectedly losing Winnipeg, a really big team lost to a really big defence and big team overall. StLouis defence is huge four guys over 6'4" and only two under league average they just outsized the Peg's forwards and great goaltending. The Pens lost because they are not only smaller the Islanders but older as well. The Islander's forwards owned the Pens defence. Tampa lost because they are simply the smallest team in the league, over 3/4 are under the league average and once they lost Hedman they couldn't come back, the BlueJackets consist of, just over 60% over the league average size and had larger dmen than Tampa forwards. The Hurricanes have only two dmen under the league average, but 3/4 of their team is over that is why they are hanging in there so far but Washington has experience and size at forward, they may have the smallest C core left in the playoffs but that is what makes this match up close, Carolina has many large forwards too. Vegas knew they lost the cup final because they were small, not anymore, they got much bigger, bigger dmen and bigger forwards, SanJose has many large players but some are just getting too old. Size is pretty much a wash and experience is close, pick em. Calgary lost because the got a single top player in Gaudreau and have very good defence. The danger the Canucks have to watch out for is too good too soon, but not good enough. Calgary had Gaudreau, the Avalanche had 3 Gaudreau's, MacKinnon, Landesklog, Ratanen, The Avalanche also had 8 top players from 4 drafts all under 24. Speed, youth and goaltending. Calgary will have to do what Colorado did, tank to get more top players. The Avalanche traded some to their first wave rebuild for more top picks in their second wave rebuild. The Canucks may have to do a second wave rebuild soon trading away some to the top young players for more picks so more top players are closer together in age. Surely they are facing a one and done, their current roster has them the second smallest team in the league and the smallest ever defence iced in the NHL. If the size says 6' it means 5'11" something, so 5'10" means 5'9" something and the Canucks have 3 of those, 3 dmen under 5'10". In fact the Canucks have only 3 dmen over the league average size, this is something that needs addressing. 19 players under the league average, 8 over and two goalies.
  12. Gillis is still being blamed, what a stretch to cover for incompetence. Benning had veteran assets he could have dealt to get multiple picks so players would be close to the same age. Now he has players that will soon be aging out one year after another without having all of them in the window for more than 3 years. One star player per year isn't enough, Boston got 3 in one year and two another with no more of "Benning's" Boston draft picks making the team at all. The team is loaded with UFA mentors, veterans to show how to play hockey, how to yak to the media about losing all the time and almost enough to get totally trashed in a single playoff round. More UFA'a only shows the dismal lack of evaluation skills by Benning and his long term plans for his own employment, the never ending rebuild, one player per year, 6 drafts = Virtanen, Demko, Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes. Virtanen could be in his 5 or 6 th year of being a pro like Horvat is in his 7th. If the team needs more UFA's it is because of FAILURE and not failure of the players.
×
×
  • Create New...