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. You have a B prospect slated to play a top-pair type role. Which is like saying you have Lind slated to be PPG player. Not to mention by the time Woo develops into that role, if he ever does, it'll probably be around when Tanev's current contract expires.
  2. Hamonic is more broken than Tanev and not as good. Woo hasn't even played an NHL game and you have him slated to defend effectively against the Kucherovs and McDavids of the world already?
  3. Yes, we need to draft better outside the top of the draft. We've been supplementing our top players/picks with players from other teams via trade or free agency which usually means older and less cost-controlled depth. It's just not the way you compose a team if your goal is quality depth (which it is for all teams).
  4. Only a 9 year leash? JB getting the short end of the stick here.
  5. Did you watch us attempt to play defense last year? And you don't miss our best pure defender? Who on this team/in the pipleline remains that you can count on to consistently play against top forwards? Are these players easily attainable through free-agency/trade?
  6. Nah. Management just wasn't able to identify a lost cause. Some would tell you he was a lost cause before he was even drafted.
  7. Well there goes the foundation. Might as well start the rebuild over.
  8. I doubt we have a chance but if we were to move on from Edler and sign Suter, Suter - Schmidt would be a great shutdown pairing.
  9. Assuming Edler takes a reduced role next year, we really only have 2 legit top-4 D-men and none that you can count on to be reliable against top forwards/teams in the playoffs. I would say Schmidt is one but he didn't show it last year and even if he bounces back next season (if he's actually still a Canuck) he needs a legit top-4 D partner. Priorities, in order of importance: 1) Top-end RDFD 2) 3C 3) Top-4 LDFD
  10. IMO the Kings and Blues you reference aren't the best example because they underachieved during the regular season in their respective years. The Kings especially were predicted to be a top team in the West before the season started. I see Montreal as a true Cinderella as most saw them as an average team overall, and one that wasn't supposed to be anywhere close to the SCF.
  11. Okay so it looks like we've got #4. Now to start the rebuild so we can get the rest.
  12. I, for one, think this is a genius move by the Oilers. As we've seen under Benning, there's no better use of the cap than overpaying bad and/or past their best-before date players in the name of veteran leadership and experience.
  13. You're right, but it's hard to say how long the good will would last from winning the Cup. People will eventually get tired of a good team that can't get it done in the playoffs, too. Look how quickly Gillis got run out of town after B2B Pres Trophies and a game 7 SCF loss lol. - Also, the thread says "you decide" not "Aqua decides". In the end, he does, but not for the purposes of this thread
  14. Winning makes money. Ask the Patriots, ask the Warriors, etc.
  15. Honestly have no idea what you're rambling on about. None of what you said has anything to do with my original reply to you. Go back and read if need be.
  16. They'll survive. At the end of the day it's a game and it's for fun/entertainment. If this creates a rivalry going forward, that's a good thing.
  17. Loved the Kucherov interview, hockey needs more of it. Crotchety whiners should go dust off their cobwebs.
  18. So what this tells me is that you wrote on essay on something you know was wrong to push a certain narrative (for what reason, I have no idea) and you were not expecting anyone to call you out any of any the asinine statements made in there. okay then lol
  19. You play to win the championship. End thread.
  20. Would love to see a quote for this. Otherwise this is just more verbal diarrhea.
  21. So the top D pair Benning has had for 90% of his tenure here did not benefit the future when he took the job? Or do the first 6 years not count? You'd think, especially for a GM who obviously prioritizes quality veterans, Tanev and Edler have been two of the most important players under Benning. Seemed as though they were not only vital on the ice, but also quality leaders especially for a guy like Hughes. Add in Markstrom and you have three inherited "vets" that kept this dumpster fire from becoming a full blown forest wild fire. I only scrolled through your post, 'cause nobody has time to read all that, but when I see completely asinine lines like the one I just quoted I'm glad I didn't waste my time.
×
×
  • Create New...