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

Goal:thecup

Members
  • Posts

    6,296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goal:thecup

  1. Ha Ha! Made me think that Safeway's "5 goals by a Canuck = a million $$ for a fan" might be gone next year. C'mon Booth! Make someone a millionaire! Neither you nor that fan will ever be forgotten. (And to the "fans" hoping for a loss, et cetera, haven't you been stomped on enough yet? Just drop it. Cheer for the team. = Fan.)
  2. Great idea and thanks for doing this but, why are there never estimates of expected date of return?
  3. Couple thoughts: 1. If Gillis were fired, how long do you think he would have to wait for another NHL GM opportunity? 2. I think Mike Gillis may be caught sometimes in a fault that is also one of his strong points, i.e. loyalty to and empathy with the players. This thought is supported by many examples, e.g. letting Naslund go where he wanted to go, signing Demitra, signing players who had lost their spot due to injury and giving them another chance, taking less or nothing in trades or letting guys go so they would not get stuck in the minors, e.g. Peters, O'Brian, signing "reward for past service above pay scale" contracts like Burrows (perhaps), not asking players to waive NMCs or NTCs because they have earned them; trading Luongo to the only team he said he would go to; all the staff he kept when he took over the team when most thought there would be a thorough house-cleaning. So I think he is a really good guy and his understanding of the players' issues and his loyalty can work against him sometimes. I am "on the bus" and Mikey's driving it the right way, drafting well, developing well, creating a better organization, keeping the team in contention (we are still in it), increasing (tripling) the value of the franchise for ownership, treating the players with respect and dignity, and trying to win the Stanley Cup.
  4. At least 3 times the team that lost the lottery, won it the next year. Bit outside the Bell Curve for me.
  5. As long as there is a chance, I hope we make the playoffs. It cannot be assumed that we will lose just because we will be the last seed drawing the first seed. I love playoff hockey and it is the only hockey with a chance to win the Stanley Cup. So here goes: Gillis gave the big "fire me or get off my back" speech. Torts hears the call and makes some positive changes. Hank comes back, healthy and ready to fire up Danny and Burr as our new totally-offense 2nd (in ice-time) line. Kess gets his pout off and centres the new 1st line with rejuvenated Booth on his left and "Happy Zach" Kassian on his right. Richardson centres Higgy and Hansen as the all-pro third line. And Tommy, Mathias, and Jensen get a fair amount of ice-time as a big, stiff, checking line that is still a threat to score. Edler gets back on track, Tanev returns from injury, and Corrado gets called up to fill out the D. Lack is stellar, Rollie finishes fine tuning Markstrum, and Eriksson waits in the wings in case he's needed. If, when the going gets tough, we've got Archie and Lain and Grenier and Mallet to fill out the fight card. Just win baby!
  6. It was a stupid idea from a dottering old reporter who likes to read CDC get their teats in a knot. TG has been beyond stupid lately; may want to get the Alzheimer's medical process started. There is no reason whatsoever to buy out Garrison. There is hardly any reason anymore to buy out any Canuck player.
  7. So, there's still a chance the Canucks can make the playoffs?
  8. A handy way to judge Mike Gillis is to think of him as a thermometer. (The old-fashioned analogue type with the bulb and the red fluid.) When he was locking horns with ownership near the trade deadline, he came out of the meeting beet red and looking like his bulb had been pressurized. The next day, after he had traded Luongo, he was on the golf course, showing no signs of pressure, and back down to normal white-guy skin colour. Note: I am trying to have a bit of fun here. What does this say about the Kesler trade rumours and the Luongo trade? Maybe that he stuck to his guns about not asking players to waive their NTCs and Kesler had not specifically offered? Maybe that Luongo had always offered to waive his NTC to go to Florida only? Since we have no video of the radio interview, we cannot test my thermometer theory but he did sound relaxed and comfortable as opposed to being told what to do and say. Maybe Gillis was coerced into hiring JT and had recently lowered his "temperature" by clearing up his position on the coaching with ownership?
  9. I liked it. Pretty straight forward and thoughtful answers. There are lots of things left in between the lines, like extent of ownership's involvement, but I think ownership knows where Gillis stands. All will be reviewed and even his position is in jeopardy. He doesn't see the need or impetus for a separation of his duties into president and gm. He will run the team the way he thinks is best and changes will be made. Changes include the coaching systems and objectives with a return to fast, pressuring hockey. Other coaches have adapted, JT will be given the opportunity to change. Free agents (and our own RFAs) will be added and the organization will spend to the cap. It sounded to me like he will not be wasting money on a shallow pool of top FAs, but more selectively like Santo and Richardson. Money could go to top players acquired by trading. Kesler is going to be accommodated if indeed he wants out. Other NTC-holding players (along with all players) are going to have their reviews and tough decisions will be made. The kids are alright; e.g. Markstrom a good talent that Florida proabably did not develop properly. Decisions will be made on players, prospects, and picks to exchange for players who can play the way he wants the team to play. I have always really liked Gillis and still do. I think management would be making a big mistake firing him or overriding his decisions. I was really surprised Torts was hired and shocked to find he was given a 5 year term (and also recently shocked that he makes the same $$$ as Gillis); this may have been an ownership contract. After the initial shock, Torts grew on me and I like him, but now he has to change, improve, or use play his "ownership relations" card. I think he will change. So, I think MG and JT will stay, change, and make the team change, all for the better.
  10. Yeah, Stanton and Sauve might not get it done. I was just thinking that, since it usually takes longer to develop defensemen, and Edmonton already has a handful of top-pick forwards, that one or two of the defensemen we have that we drafted before them might fit. I hate to suggest Corrado or Tanev, so who's left: Stanton, Weber, Sauve, Tommernes (sp?), Andersson (sp?)?? I also got to thinking I might like to change their second pick for our second pick. With Edmonton's second pick, we may get DeAngelo (sp?) or Honka. That's why I tried to get 2 D players/prospects into the mix; one for each pick swap.
  11. I have been wondering, if Edmonton needs D so badly, if they would take one of ours plus our pick for their first pick. If we end up with say 10th pick, and send our first and second along with maybe Stanton and Sauve to Edmonton for their first and second picks maybe.
  12. So, who do you have as your top five? (I'm guessing Ekblad, Reinhart, Bennet, Dal Colle, Draisaitl?) And what order for your top five? What order do you think 6 to 10 is? Me, I'm hoping we get a high pick that wins the lottery then Ekblad or Reinhart (really liked what I saw at the World Jrs.) Barring that, we should be 6 to 10 and I don't know the players well enough. I'm thinking that if we're closer to 10, and there are so few D in the list, that Fleury would make a good pick. If we're closer to 6, maybe Ritchie?
  13. Are we still in the hunt for a playoff spot? Have not heard anybody run down what has to happen and the odds. Warhippy said we could slide to the 5th pick. That would also yield about an 8% chance for number 1 overall. The stars align, and: a. We get in and win the Cup, or b. We get Ekblad, he's all he's trumped up to be, joins the Canucks right out of camp, becomes our long awaited defenseman saviour, and leads our young guys to win the Cup. Edit: trying to get it to say "b)" instead of the smiley face thing.
  14. Did Gillis make any changes to the drafting decision process and/or personnel before last year's draft? I'm still pulling for Subban, and Cassels, Shinkaruk, and Horvat all look really good to make the team one day. I think he kept almost everybody his first year and moved some scouts around like Smyl to US College or something like that the second year or so. We are starting to get way better and more Canadian picks as well. (This makes a big difference from my point of view when watching things like the World Jrs, Mem Cup, etc.) Couldn't be that last year's draft was that good, could it? Have we got better scouts/scouting?
  15. The old rule book was fine. They didn't need to change the rules. They just need to call the infractions. Overriding rules like Unsportsmanlike Conduct and Intent to Injure could be used in cases like Moore on Naslund and the whole "Bertuzzi Incident" would probably never have happened. All penalties can be 2, 4, 5, 10, major, game as applicable and all can be reviewable. All games can be reviewed and analyzed so that referee performance becomes measurable. All we really need is an honest attempt to be fair and protect the players.
  16. Thank you poetica! This is the way that I saw it too. The offender could have avoided the head (still don't know why Elvis has not answered on this but has on almost everything else). And this centre of contact or whatever it is, is clearly explained by Fraser, and you can see in the stills that Burrows body is angled and the hit is off-centre and slipping further so. (You can also clearly see the head disappearing into the stratosphere before there is any other contact.) I am also unclear on the efficacy of a system of rules that changes with any which way the wind blows, applies differently to different teams/players/situations, and acts without any equity or apparent avenue of appeal. (Rant: These cabalists are above everybody and making decisions with serious affects with no apparent aptitude, training, guidelines, or review and quite possibly with their own unfair agenda.) This is not a slur or an attack on you Elvis. As I said earlier I really appreciate the great content you add to the forum and you are one of my absolute favorites here. Just curious why you haven't addressed the "avoidance" question. Also a little befuddled, as you are coming across as somewhat of an apologist for this abhorrent bundle of seemingly-biased judgements. Do you really believe that they are correctly and consistantly interpreting a definitive set of rules with independence and equity?
  17. I just hope that the team and coaches learned something from this game: Make that fast and hard pass to the front of the net! Man did they make that look unstoppable. Need more goals? Learn that. (If we're not mathematically out, we're not out, imo.)
  18. And failing the franchises that are not in the inner circle. Seriously, if you had a franchise and the franchisor treated you as they do the Canucks, wouldn't you sue? Financially at least there are significant damages on the table. C'mon Gillis, you took on the league before and won; please find a way to crack these (expletive deleted) racketeers. (Maybe that's it: RICO!) The purpose of the referees is to protect the players. Fail. All franchises should have an equal opportunity to win the Championship. Fail. All players should receive an unbiased and fair treatment from the Gestapo of Player Safety. Fail. Etc.
  19. The "victim" in Kassian's last suspension wasn't hurt either. He also turned into the hit. None of that seems to apply when we do the hitting.
×
×
  • Create New...