nux_win

Go Canucks Go! Go Canucks Go! ...

OK, so they got one back. We just gotta keep on playing hard and score some more ourselves. GCG!

Yeah, like WTF? GCG!

I think you misunderstand the idiom "water under the bridge". It doesn't mean that nothing bad happened, it means that it happened, it's in the past, and there's nothing we can do about it now. We should learn as much as we can from the past but not dwell on it. I like the play of Burroughs, but we could use the extra depth of Hamonic and Poolman. Are they perfect? No. Would they make us a better team, healthy and in the lineup? Most likely. They are after all still Canucks players and useful ones at that. Do we need to make upgrades? Maybe. But right now we have to focus on winning games with what we have. GCG!

The NHL has a different set of rules for the Canucks and for the rest of the league. But of course nothing is written down, it's all done through backroom cliques and random attempts to appear like a sports league. The NHL is looking more and more like professional wrestling all the time. Wrestling actually used to be a real sport until marketing people got a hold of it. GCG!

As many as you like, especially if you make the league money. It's the NHL after all. GCG!

Yee-haw! BC cowboys vs NY city slickers. Go Canucks Go!

True, but that's water under the bridge now. It's all about what can he do for us now and/or until his contract expires. GCG!

Nobody really knows what's going on with Hamonic, it's all just speculation. I just wish that he can get back to the team as soon as possible. We need some grit on our D. From what JR says, he's on the way, so the reason why he missed so much time is moot now. GCG!

I'm not impressed with anyone working really hard to get a good draft pick. That's not the goal. I respect athletes who give their all every single game no matter what. All the rest is just fancy BS and rationalizing a bad attitude. GCG!

Did I miss the point or did you use a misleading headline? Frankly your comment here is an attempt at bait and switch. Tanking is always about losing on purpose no matter how people try to candy coat it. And you put it in large bold print in your headline so what am I supposed to think? People always seem to want their cake and eat it too. People get so enamored by the possibility of good draft picks that they forget that the concept of tanking is ALWAYS about losing on purpose. And I for one won't stand for that. I don't have respect for any professional athlete who loses on purpose. Fans can suggest whatever they want but I'm definitely not on board with that. Getting lucky in the draft can certainly help but trying to get a top pick on purpose is a fool's errand. There's lots of different ways to build a good team and we should try every possible avenue, except LOSING ON PURPOSE!! GCG!

The idea of losing on purpose is always going to be an insult to the very idea of sports. Maybe, just maybe, one could make an argument for it for business reasons, and who doesn't love talking business, but from the point of view of sports, tanking is always going to be moronic. The whole point is to try to win, each and every game. Always. There is honor in losing but only if one has given it a full effort. To give anything less than a 100% effort to win, and to do so on purpose, disrespects the game, the opponents, the fans, everyone, and worst of all it both requires and sustains a lack of self respect. It's just plain disrespectful to the idea of enjoying competition (even if you use a really big font). GCG! P.S. - Winning isn't everything, always trying to win is.

I think that we have enough skill players, and that's the most difficult part. What we really need is one or two physical defencemen and one or two big tough forwards to protect our skill guys. Or in other words I don't think we need a complete rebuild, just a few tweaks, mostly to improve our team toughness. I would actually prefer it if the NHL actually enforced the rules through proper officiating and supplemental discipline, but we know that that isn't going to happen so we have to bring in some enforcers to protect our skill guys. That shouldn't be too difficult. Take Petey for example. I think that he is really suffering from not only lack of confidence but having to constantly protect himself from cheap shots and "extra attention" from the opposition. Every relatively small skill guy gets the treatment but he seems to be particularly vulnerable to this and there's nobody out there to protect him. Sure, one of our guys sometimes steps up, and good for them, but we need someone who can actually make the other team pay when they touch Petey or Hughes. Gretzky had his Semenko. Bure had his Odjick. Where's Petey's protection? It makes a huge difference. The NHL is always evolving but some things don't change. So I don't think we need major changes, just some upgrades in team toughness and that should give the space and the confidence to our skilled players. We've got good goaltending and if we can just get Petey back his mojo we already have the skill it takes for a long run in the playoffs. We just have to buckle down and win some games. Now! Not later. GCG!

I admit that I don't know the finer points of the business side of things but I can't understand why we would trade away our highest scoring forward and our most intense player all around just in case he becomes too expensive. I mean other teams manage to keep and pay their superstars, why can't we keep good players here? It's not like he's going to earn top ten dollars in the league even in a worst case scenario. I think we need to focus more on winning games in the here and now rather than rearranging deck chairs. We need some stability not constant player turnover. Why should we be a doormat just to help anointed "contenders"? GCG!

Our guys are homers too but they're more subtle and have more class about it. GCG!

Doesn't everybody? GCG!

Unless they are offering a young superstar in return, which they likely aren't, I would hang up on those calls. He's a keeper. GCG!

Agreed. Even if it was a major on Myers, where's the retaliation penalty against the Flames? NHL refereeing is so random these days. It's infuriating. Or maybe that's what the NHL is selling these days. GCG!

Yet another obvious penalty against us conveniently ignored... GCG!

These announcers are shamelessly pro Calgary. It's embarrassing. GCG!

I think that Calgary is going to be in an ornery mood tonight. They're trying to re-establish themselves as a top tier playoff team while we're trying to catch up in the standings. I think we can still win if we play a hard checking disciplined game and cash in on the power plays (if the refs give us any). If we get dragged into the trenches, as Calgary will want to do, it might not be so good for us. We don't have that kind of a team right now. Anyway, if we keep our heads up and score some goals, we can pull out a much needed two points. Go Canucks Go!

Really, if one thinks about fairness, a team shouldn't be allowed to waive a suspended player. He should stay on the roster until he's finished his suspension. Otherwise what's the point of a suspension? It's supposed to hurt the team a little, not just the player. The NHL continues to be either completely clueless or entirely corrupt when it comes to officiating and supplemental discipline (more likely the latter). GCG!

I say keep them both and try to win some games on the ice now instead of constantly shuffling the deck chairs. GCG!

Won't they need him for when Kane inevitably gets suspended again? GCG!

This suspension was too little too late yet again. They waited until someone got hurt before they addressed the problem. And they had plenty of chances to get it right before that. The NHL continues to be a complete embarrassment/joke when it comes to officiating and supplemental discipline. The fact that no goalie has been suspended since 2007, especially Dell, is a joke if not a serious neglect of enforcing obvious rules. The fine system that the NHLPA insists on is also a joke. Goalies need to be protected in their crease, yes. Otherwise, can anyone really say why they should get special protection? I think that it gives them the idea that they can do whatever they want, and often they do. Like Dell. He's crossed the line many times. As far as I'm concerned outside the crease they are fair game if they want to play the puck (within the rules of the game). If they don't want to get hit like everyone else, then don't play the puck. And they most certainly don't have the right to cheap shot players who just happen to be passing by. GCG!