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

Dazzle

Members
  • Posts

    11,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. I think there's something to be said about the return and how GM Benning's good reputation around the league matters. This is not to say other GMs won't take advantage of a GM, but Winnipeg EASILY could've exploited the situation and made Benning cry. Instead, we got what we paid for. That's a hell of a deal for both sides. Relief for Canucks and Winnipeg gets the discount, though the Canucks did not profit from being the middleman.
  2. Fully agree with this, Provost. As good as Pettersson is, ANYONE is replaceable. If he makes unreasonable demands as deemed by the team that is beyond what market dictates, and/or he signs an offer sheet, there should be a consideration to let him walk. As you rightfully pointed out, Landeskog could produce an equivalent type of production. You just cannot 'give in' when there's a serious rift in a negotiation situation. This is how you get a bad reputation, and that's very bad. You'll get bullied, essentially.
  3. That doesn't explain why they took on dead salary in like Gothisbere and other players for draft picks. Sure, it's short term pain for long term gain, but the rebuild plan was what they were going for. They didn't even keep Garland, as valuable as he was.
  4. Rod's gonna rip the $&!# out of Jake and DeAngelo. Might as well throw in HoSang and Merkley.
  5. Or as we can spin this story - Benning is a master of extracting maximum value out of the poor remnants of Gillis' regime, including a disgruntled Kesler, a middling roster player in Bonino, and an overpaid Garrison.
  6. I can't speak about his playoff performances in the future, but check this $&!# out
  7. Not a math guy either, but according to Capfriendly: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks
  8. You're not wrong as a whole, so I wanted to clarify that I only agree with part of what AV said. I completely disagree with how he said we could get OEL for next to nothing. We got Garland out of it - I suppose Dvorak would've hurt them more, but Garland is far from a throw-in. Just to avoid having to write another post... This is what we're getting out of Garland.
  9. He may be small, but he plays bigger than his size. He's got the fire of Motte/Hoglander/Pod.
  10. His bag represents Vancouver. He's re-signing with Vancouver, folks. e5
  11. Minor point, but still worth mentioning; Hughes is an RFA but he's not eligible because he hasn't played enough games.
  12. Actually no. Garland is a PHENOMENAL player, a major loss for AZ. He's also a fan favourite as well. Lots of hustle and plenty of offensive acumen.
  13. There's really a lot of that happening in the game. The skill level is insane and the amount of time to make decisions is so little, in actuality. I think a special mention should go to Stamkos coughing up the puck in the D zone for Boeser to score on.
  14. I normally don't agree with AV - and I will clarify that I only agree with part of AV's statement. AZ really wanted to get rid of OEL. You're right though, I think, that they weren't SO desperate to get rid of him for nothing. As a side point, I think we've learned that the AZ owner isn't entirely cheap/poor because he's taking on heavy money for draft picks, so that should mean something. Here are some factors for why this trade took so long: - Arizona has been BAAAAAD for many years, so the plan to rebuild is next to impossible with OEL around. - OEL reallllly wanted out of AZ, so AZ was trying hard to give him a way out. - OEL's been eyeballing at Vancouver for quite sometime. He could've chosen other places, but his limited NTC really prevented AZ from getting the 'best' offers. - Truthfully, both sides had to give and take. Neither side really had more leverage than the other. Vancouver had three bad contracts anchoring them down. AZ had OEL, plus they lost a first round pick from the scandal, so the 9th overall was a MUST HAVE prize. AZ HAD to take the bad controls because Vancouver had no space. AZ had to take 12 percent because of cap. It was a classic trade where both sides won.
  15. Not ideal, but it's Aqua's money. I'm sure he just looks at it as part of the business.
  16. Taj on twitter i mean. I think the Taj on CDC is a different person, clearly
  17. Too bad. Would've liked him, but he's AHL material on the verge of maybe being an extra in the NHL.
  18. Rumour has it that Dhaliwal is Taj. Taj is Squam. Therefore Squam is Dhaliwal. Sup @Squamfan
  19. Um, no, it doesn't mean that at all. Quit trying to cook up a story. FWIW, Stecher was pretty bitter about being pushed out here too, and Boeser being friends with him wasn't overly happy either. But guess what? They both realize it's a business. Everyone involved also knows COVID/flat cap is in play here.
  20. Why the &^@# is this breaking news? I'm not meaning to knock Weekes because I like him, but this is a pretty mediocre deal.
  21. Lmfao.... So what does that have to do with him being unhappy if he's still willing to sign for 8M?
×
×
  • Create New...