-
Posts
11,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by kilgore
-
Most hated player in history amongst Canucks’ fanbase?
kilgore replied to Hindustan Smyl's topic in Canucks Talk
This is a bizzare idea. Lumping former Canucks that we "hated" being on the team with rats on other teams. Two very different questions. There is only one player in our history that might fit that bill for both questions though, and thats Mr. Lays chips. -
Benning on if there is a future for Tryamkin in Vancouver : "There sure is, I met his agent last week. We would love to have him back, look at the size and strength of the Blues blueline. He can be a big part of our group. We will keep talking to his agent." Please please please get this done. I wish there was a way to break his KHL contract and have him at the next training camp. I heard that in Putin's Russian mafia run county, anything is possible, if enough $ is involved. Pony up Francesco! I can't wait another whole season to find out if he's coming back.
-
How do you guys feel about Lucic playing for Vancouver?
kilgore replied to BoHorvatFan20's topic in Canucks Talk
If it was a year by year basis....sure. We have some cap space now before Hughes and Pettersson sign their next contract. But its not. So no. It shouldn't be a choice between Eriksson or Lucic. We shouldn't have either on the team at this point. -
[Report] Oilers name Dave Tippett as head coach
kilgore replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in General Hockey Discussion
Deadmonton. Where good coaches go to die -
Rebuild on the fly can work. You need luck as well as foresight. As long as you add the right players at the right time. Case in point Charlie Coyle. Boston has scouts that can foresee the potential of undervalued playoff performers like Coyle, while they let go softer playoff players like Eriksson to some green GM somewhere.
-
Poll: Should the Canucks sign Brock Boeser for 8 years
kilgore replied to Sedinyoureyesontheprize's topic in Canucks Talk
I don't see why both the Canucks and the Boeser camp would not rather want a 'bridge' deal. From the Canucks point of view, Brock has not quite proven himself, with injuries limiting his seasons, and I'm sure they see his defensive liabilities. I find his decision making in tight situations below average a lot of times. Not reaching 30 goals, especially since his potential is not a Bergeron but a Brett Hull. More of a pure sniper than a "200 foot" player. They may want to see more before such a long commitment. From Brock's point of view, if he's full of confidence about himself as any good young player would have, and thinks he's going to be a top player for over a decade to come, he'd probably be open to get more per year in dollars by keeping this first contract less in regards to term. And after any bridge, whether 3, 4, or 5, the prices would only rise. His price, the cap, and of course ticket buyers to pay for it all. Instead of "only" 7.5 x 8, he'd think why not 8.5 x 4, and THEN 10+ x 8 either for us or a team that will pay it? -
No way you can deny the force that his momentum from skating full speed down the length of the ice was the main force in the hit. And when his feet left the ice shouldn't matter as much as the fact that his feet DID leave the ice in the act of the hit. ie.. his body was projecting upwards in the hit, not square to the body. And its a different argument about whether having 'charging' in the rule books at all is 'softening' the game. Or any other rule. But this was clearly charging by the book, where leaving ones feet is only one option for infraction, and should have been called for two. Take your yellow glasses off and stop shining Marchands skates for a minute and look at it honestly.
-
I was willing to give the refs the benefit of the doubt. I only saw the one replay. But when I went back to find the actual rule it says: Rule 42 of the NHL rulebook dictates that charging "shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance travelled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A 'charge' may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice." It should have been a 2 minute penalty. Nothing more, but it meets the criteria for a charge. Especially considering their was recorded intent as he'd been manhandled onto the ice just before that. St. Louis is quickly learning, as we did, that all team are equal but some teams are more equal than others.