EmployeeoftheMonth
-
Posts
4,347 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by EmployeeoftheMonth
-
-
There's no concern to what he brings as a player. The only concern is his $4.5 million cap hit
Why are you concerned about that?
I mean if that's you're concern than there's so many reasons to stop complaining. We aren't doing anything with the 750K that he's making over what he should be.
A player like Burrows should be making just under 4 mil. Having said that we also got an extremely underpaid Burrows for a lot of years. You think those two things might have something to do with each other?
If you're not worried about what he's doing on the ice and the "only" concern is his cap hit then you're just being nit picky because you need something to complain about.
-
Seems to be unique to other players who have been tried there though.
Taylor Pyatt did the same thing. It was about the only thing he was good for on that line.
-
Brashear.........no need to bold it.
LOL
I think it really depends on how you look at success. Many of those players did have success with the twins. Just because it didn't last multiple years doesn't mean they didn't have successful stints with the twins. After all now that Burrows is off that line were not going to write off his previous success because it didn't last forever.
King was in the rookie of the year talk the first half of the season he played with the twins (hit a bad stretch after, but he did have success)
Bertuzzi also had success, he was put on the third line with them, Shortly after he was moved up to the first line to play to create the WCE.
Klatt also had success with the twins and place 2nd line with them. Never forget him scoring that OT winner against the wild.
Adveson was really clicking with twins before he had that career ending knee injury
Linden played with them at the end of the year and in the 2007 playoffs, where they put up good numbers.
Kassian we saw have success with the twins
Kesler last year was put on the twins line up until christmas and the team hit the injury bug. They were having a great year together.
So again it's what you define as success. Burrows kind of success? only burrows can really say that.
Definition is certainly important. I would say my definition is maintained success.
IIRC King actually wasn't successful with the twins. He was moved up to the second line with them after doing pretty good and then didn't do much of anything. I believe the best thing to come out of that trio was a good name for a line.
I wouldn't call what Bertuzzi or Klatt were successful. Bert was a very good player and didn't see any real improvement. (some would argue it was an awful experiment really) The argument is that anyone can have success with the twins. My argument is that that is simply not true. By my definition 3 players have had real success with the twins. Arvedsen did look good with them and I would add him to the list. He looked legit with them.
-
Considering he's not playing with the Sedins (with which a pylon could score), I think he's been alright. Not as good as I thought he'd be, but unlike most of CDC who had written him off, I felt he would have a bounceback year.
I think he still has a fair amount to prove.
This statement has been proven to be false so many times it's not even funny.
The number of players successful on a line with the Sedins compared to the number of players who have played on a line with them is pretty low.
Trent Klatt
Jason King
Anson Carter
Markus Naslund
Mikael Samuelsson
Alex Burrows
Taylor Pyatt
Radim Vrbata
Todd Bertuzzi
Jannick Hansen
Jon Bernier
Mason Raymond
Jan Bulis
(Bold are the ones with any real success)
-
1
-
-
I want to know if at 11 this guy grows a new arm or has a horrible accident at a nuclear power plant and grows extra fingers.
-
this thread is still going? wow what an embarrassment.
C'mon wally. Don't be that guy.
-
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The owner of the Sabres was personally offering Miller a decent sized raise on the 6.25 million/yr. he was already making before he was traded to St. Louis. He declined the offer because he wanted to go to free agency and try to go to an immediate Stanley Cup contender. Now after a poor performance in St. Louis, Miller has lost out on millions and millions of dollars, and will end up retiring before he has a chance to get a cup. Had he stayed a Sabre he would have been playing for a team that in 3 years time will be a powerhouse.
Moral(s) of the story:
1. Owners should stay the heck out of negotiations and let their GM's decide who stays and who goes. A huge Miller salary would have come back to bite the Sabres.
2. If you're a player that's past your prime, take the freakin' huge pile of money that you are offered.
Now by the time that the Canucks are ready to seriously contend for a cup, Lack will be the starter. The Sabres dodged a serious bullet.
Miller is worth 3 yrs. @ 5 mill./yr. because he's a very serviceable goalie, but his hope of winning a cup died with St. Louis' first round exit.
What if that's not the important thing to him?
-
I'd rather spend the money on Stastny and Iggy then waste it on Miller.
Given what else you've said here Heretic this comment makes no sense at all.
-
So....did Miller win a cup with his last team? No? How about the one before that? No?
So....why do some people on here want him?
I want someone who can score goals not a goalie at the end of his career...
Hello???? Anyone remember some other guys the Canucks signed at the end of their careers and how well they did here? Messier? Sundin?
Good grief people.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Remember what Sundin did for the Sedins?
I do.
Also Trevor Linden never won a cup so why would we want him helping to build the team. Right?
-
Wait... People are silly enough to question Ryan Millers Talent?
Are you the same people who called Luongo a plug by chance?
I don't really want Miller but wow.
-
This deal is much more fair than some people think.
It doesn't exactly (or at all) address what Edmonton needs but it's seems like in Edmonton change is good, standings are secondary.
-
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=60628&blogger_id=128
This blogger is on the Hawks Payroll, so you can always count on him for Hawks deal posturing. Interestingly enough, the few sentences about Shaw have been removed since earlier today.
Either someone from the Hawks decided they didn't want that out there and had it pulled from the article, or I'm making the whole thing up,
and since this is CDC I'm pretty sure you'll opt for that later, c'est la vie!
The Ducks offer happened at the deadline and came from Bryan Murry himself addressing a group of season ticket holders who wanted to know why the Kesler deal didn't happen. They asked, he answered, he was very forthright and told them exactly what he had on the table and how amazed he was that the Canucks passed.
I'm not sure that's the actual reason in this case.
-
i honestly can't believe the hostility people shown here towards the op. I mean seriously, wat the frack is wrong with you guys?
I dont see what is wrong with a kid fresh out of college expecting himself to make certain amount of money a year.. no wonder there was a riot here a couple years ago... you people will find any chance you get to bash on anything until there is nothing left.
So what if he's expecting too much? at least the kid has a goal and you bet he will work his ass off to get to his goal. It's call ambition and expectation and there is nothing wrong with that..
I think reality sees a problem with that kind of thinking. Sooner or later it sets in for all of us.
-
Sorry you had to learn that it was all a big lie. Just like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
WTF bro. Spoilers.
-
1
-
-
yes but every single one of those teams with the exception of the Sens and us has won a cup before, that's the difference
Yeah but it's not one that means anything.
-
After seeing him play last season I haven't seen a good argument as to why they shouldn't.
In a world where they got Matthias though he may be the easier option to no sign rather than trade someone else. If they buyout booth I don't see a reason not to bring him back.
-
What are you talking about Gillis regime? The whole damn core, is still Nonises. In fact, if we go back. I wonder, if it just stayed as Nonis's, we'd maybe have a cup by now.
Willie Mitchell, might just be on his way to his 2nd cup ever since he's left. Why did Gillis let him go again? He had injuries, but none of it was career threatening.
I can't believe we kept Bieksa and Salo, over Ehrhoff and Mitchell.
With Mitchell it was because of injuries and they were career threatening. "We" tried to keep Ehrhoff he just wanted too much. He's showing now he's not really worth it.
-
Soooooo...same old team, only now the spin is coming from Linden and not Gillis.
Brilliant move by Aquaman.
Well at least the fans will still be able to bitch.
Jesus christ the playoffs aren't even over yet.
-
I think all 5 will likely stay and we add a PMD, Corrado 7th or minors.
I still like our D if coached better.
This will be what most likely happens.
-
uhm...Quinn had a little budget and he was way better than Gillis...Quinn will be in the hall of fame ..Gillis...not so much.
but that is beside the point ...in a money era you have to be able to play the home card...Minnesota is doing it quite successfully right now , and not with only homegrown talent but also talent that was developed there
We're going to agree to disagree on most of this but Quinn will not be in the Hall of fame based on being the GM of the Canucks. He was a mediocre GM at best for this team and a quick look at the moves he made look oddly similar to some of the bumbles gillis made over the last 3 years.
-
1
-
-
i believe Trevor is taking a bit of what Quinn captured in the 90's with a solid base of homegrowns accentuated by skilled euros
Hope not. Quinn wasn't a much better GM than Gillis really.Hopefully "Trevor" lets Benning run things and do things his way rather than try to copy a formula that didn't work. Don't care where a players from, just what he can do.
-
1
-
-
Bieksa can't play the game Hamhuis can play. Hammer (like many others) struggled last season, but I don't expect that to continue.
If I had to choose one or the other, it would suck, but sorry Kevin.
They're different players who bring different elements. In some weird world where we had to pick the better player I'm going with Hammer as well but neither are very likely to be moved. I think though in a world where they want to make a trade and it comes to putting one or the other on the block they may pick Hammer because of what he could bring back.
-
1
-
-
that would be setting a very bad precedent for future BC boys to take less and play at home.
I'm not saying either are being traded I just think Bieksa is safer than Hamhuis.
In no way is it even implied in my post that Hamhuis is/was the problem and should/would be traded.
Just that Bieksa is as safe or safer than Hammer. IMO Neither of them are going anywhere.
-
the more i hear about tading garrison or edler, and as some on here have even said Hamhuis, just no to that!!! i think we see what winnipeg ,toronto,montreal would give for bieksa and hope there is a TO deal to be had i i'd bet that bieksa would waive in the offseason when moving and stuff would have ample opportunity
I think Bieksa is safer on this team than Hamhuis is.
2 Dramatic Scenarios..Which Do U Pick?
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Knowingly walking right into an emotional punch to the nuts doesn't seem like an awesome choice to me...but god damn if I ain't a sucker for punishment. I'd go for option 2 but only under the hope that somehow someway this time the hand of fate doesn't ball up it's fist and go right for the giggle-berries.