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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


wallstreetamigo last won the day on April 30

wallstreetamigo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,673 Gaming the system


About wallstreetamigo

  • Rank
    Canucks Franchise Player

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

15,311 profile views
  1. Would rather see Juolevi traded rather than lost on waivers though.
  2. Why do Benning supporters always go to this hyperbolic extreme excuse? If players pan out, Benning deserves credit (as does his pro scouting team). If players are overhyped to be something they clearly are not and then dont pan out, Benning deserves the blame (as does his pro scouting team). In case you havent noticed, I wasnt talking about any goaltenders as they have been thd leasg of the Canucks worries for many years. The only thing I didnt like about Holtby was the contract Benning gave him. The list of pro scouted players who have "panned out" or even
  3. So in your estimation its a good thing for a GM to get fixated on a player and paying a price for him based on what his faulty pro scouting ability tells him the player will be rather than relying on the actual evidence of what that player actually is? I know I dont want that in a GM.
  4. Funny, thats not exactly how Benning hyped him up to the fans. How well did all those "stable pros" and "foundational players" actually do in creating a winning culture, providing consistency, and helping the young players to become winners? The reality is they really didnt. The Canucks have been a bottom feeder team the whole time. The only real positive those players brought was the fact that they spectacularly failed to do what Benning promised they would do. That is the main reason the Canucks finished so low in the standings and were able to draft the
  5. And the ironic thing is that I think in this role and without the pressure of a big contract we might see a very effective Sutter. As long as he can stay healthy.
  6. I agree. Nothing wrong with Rathbone playing a big minute, all situations role with Abby. And I think Juolevi has shown enough to earn a real full time opportunity. He will have to win the spot at camp but he is rounding into the type of player we need on the left side like you say.
  7. I like Sutter for what he is (and always have). Now he is on a reasonable contract and hopefully a 4th line shutdown role and thats a net positive for the team.
  8. No I think Benning genuinely thought all the things he said about Sutter were true. He just happened to be absolutely delusional if you look at what he actually thought at the time. His "foundational" comment and rushed re-signing were to justify what everyone but Jim seemed to recognize was an absolute fleecing. He oversold Sutter as a result and that did Sutter no favors in terms of fans feelings about him. Look back at what Benning said. No chance Sutter was ever living up to that billing and had not done so even up until that moment. Benning has had some
  9. I am fine with Rathbone going to Abby. Still think he has shown he can play and be a good two way guy at the nhl level but the numbers dont look good for him at this point since he can be sent down without waivers. Juolevi needs to play. I think he is ready for full time 3rd pair duty and even some PK time.
  10. Lets see if I understand. Many people here wanted Schmidt gone and are glad he has been traded but are pissy that he pumped up his new team on the way out? Despite the homer view of many, he is not wrong if he did make a parting shot about the Canucks not taking winning overly seriously last year. The team was chock full of passengers and underachievers. Edler, Beagle, Eriksson, Roussel, Sutter, any of the waiver garbage Benning thought should be top 6 players, etc. The coaching was sub par at best. The team played like a minor hockey team defensively. Scrubs were regul
  11. Benning called him foundational 5 minutes after trading for him. Or 5 minutes after re-signing him to a terrible deal. I cant remember which. Either way it was a term used to justify getting absolutely fleeced in the trade.
  12. Sorry I cant read that table you posted. On my phone screen it just shows as a bunch of gobbledygook. I read an article the other day that took a very deep dive into this subject. And rather than post a bunch of out of context numbers it actually explained exactly what those numbers showed and compared the duo to others around the league in similar roles together. Hence the context showing they are not particularly good at the job. If Pearson is in our top 6 next year who do you take out to keep him there? Hoglander? Garland? Miller? I would say all 3 of themare better
  13. Canucks have no one to use one on anyway. Other teams might though.
  14. Being our best players at it doesnt mean they are actually all that good at it. Considering our actual team results the last several years, I would say it shows a serious issue shutting other teams down with any consistency. Horvat has NEVER been all that well suited as a shutdown player. I know people on here have created an urban legend that he is a selke shutdown guy but he really isnt. In many ways its fitting a square peg in a round hole. The fact he can still produce offensively even when saddled with that role is a testament to the fact he needs to center an actual 2nd scori
  15. As long as Pearson is on the 3rd line and nowhere near the top 6 or 1st pp unit we are a better team.
  • Create New...