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

kanucks25

Members
  • Posts

    10,930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by kanucks25

  1. Any official documents you got that claim you are the judge of who is a true fan and who isn't? Or is gatekeeping just a hobby that a lot of people on this board love to engage in?
  2. You should re-read my original post. People here are so quick to jump on anything that isn't full-out pom-pom waving all reading comprehension and logic goes out the window. Relax, and engage in discourse. It's supposed to be a discussion board, after all. Let's look at the facts: - 28 year-old with 120 NHL games - Nothing about his traditional or advanced stats suggest he's very good - Eye-test reports from Jets fans say that he's big with tools but may not have the toolbox; currently a depth player but perhaps a #4 ceiling - He has been deployed in a role tougher than what he can handle; with easier minutes he may/should perform better Tell me if anything above is inaccurate? I just don't see why a player like this deserves the contract we gave him. But again - if he finds his groove here in the role we probably have set out for him (3rd pair / 2nd PK DFD) then he'll earn the contract. This isn't an Eriksson, Beagle, Gudbranson or Sbisa type contract where you know it's stupid from day 1. It's just that the price seems high based on the resume.
  3. What are my assumptions? What is my bias? Again - what in that post did I say that was incorrect?
  4. I'm not a victim of anything. We are sports fans, it's not that serious.
  5. Is Poolman not a depth player (bottom-half of lineup)? Is this not a contract with "term" (mid-long?) Has Benning not gotten into trouble in the past giving depth players term? What did I say that was wrong? Or is it just that you are like many others here - the truth hurts your feelings?
  6. Don't worry about it. This is the Fox News of the online Canucks fan base. Tread carefully when you discuss the beloved leader.
  7. I said I'm willing to reserve judgement on this (Poolman) contract. Reading comprehension requires work.
  8. Sorry? Any rebuttal? Because every player on that list (except Edler - the only non Benning player) was either bought out or traded away as a cap dump.
  9. Yes, it's the logical fan's fault for not liking awful, buyout candidate from the second they are signed contracts. How dare us.
  10. Not sure why Benning is so in love with giving depth players term in free agency but it is what it is. Don't love this deal but willing to reserve judgement. If he and Rathbone can find chemistry on the 3rd pair it'll look good.
  11. Revised: Miller - Pettersson - Boeser Hoglander - Horvat - Garland Pearson - Dickenson - Podkolzin Motte - Sutter - Whoever wins a spot at camp OEL - Myers (godspeed) Hughes - Hamonic Rathbone - Poolman Juolevi - Schenn Demko Halak
  12. Considering G will be 38 when next season starts, costs 2M more, and them probably looking to shake up the roster a bit after several disappointments... the logic is pretty clear. Now whether they could/should have traded him elsewhere instead of letting him go for free, that's a different story. But we can agree to disagree.
  13. Both missed the point of the post... he was suggesting Bonino was brought in by Gillis lol.
  14. Giordano isn't what he was, otherwise they would have kept him. It's not rocket science.
  15. Actually the opposite. He played so well they decided to keep him in the expansion draft over their captain. Laughable.
  16. I'm willing to. Just don't see any legit answers in free agency and legit answers out of another team will come at a hefty price. No team is willing to give away defenders that can matchup against top-6 forwards so easily.
  17. Schmidt was plan B for Benning. Unless you think that trade came together only after Benning moved on from OEL. Which is possible, I guess, although that would say a lot about the lack of planning on Benning's part. I have no problem with the Schmidt trade, it was Benning's best and it'll never be topped. Just hilarious how the narrative has changed on it one year later.
  18. And Hakanpaa is a direct replacement for Tanev how? Why don't we trade Hughes for cap space because we're about to sign another OFD in Hunt?
  19. Not having space to re-sign Tanev because Schmidt took his money? Pretty direct result, IMO.
  20. Or you need to read more. Or understand that metaphors aren't literal. Honestly don't know how to educate you on this one.
  21. This trade has a lot more tentacles than just a 3rd out and a 3rd in. Think deeper and smarter.
×
×
  • Create New...