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

Kevin Biestra

Members
  • Posts

    5,764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Kevin Biestra

  1. Don't know much about this guy as a player but I understand he is one of the only GMs in NHL history with a perfect record.
  2. Yeah that 1982 team actually made it to the final with both of their top offensive defensemen (Lanz and McCarthy) out for the entire playoffs. Who knows what that lineup could have done with two 50-point defensemen not missing from the roster. It was actually pretty unreal that they made it to the final. No Canuck ever scored 100 points until the 1990s. Meanwhile in the 1980s, every single other team in the Smythe had at least one 130 point player, and all had multiple 100 point players. The Canucks' team record was a steady crawl from 86-91 points until Pavel Bure came along. The Oilers had three 130 point players and one 129 point player. Also every team the Canucks played in the 1982 playoffs had at least one 130 point player. The Canucks' team record at that point was Gradin with 86.
  3. You are also forgetting the third shot, where they got to the final in 1982 largely on the toughness of Snepsts, Smyl, Fraser, Tiger Williams, Rota, Delorme, Campbell and others.
  4. The Canucks were one of the toughest teams to play physically for the entire 1980s. Tiger, Snepsts, Smyl, Fraser and then right into Coxe, Odjick, Momesso, Hunter, etc. They were also fairly tough in the 70s and very tough in the 90s. That started to disappear with the Naslund and Sedin led teams and has stayed that way since, but the creampuff Canucks is a late appearance in their history and actually contrary to everything that came before.
  5. Rest in peace big man. Guy was a legend and rightfully so. Those Islanders legends are starting to get up there. Glad that Tonelli and Goring got to see their numbers retired while they are still around. Canucks have a few old alumni that are getting up there now as well and they already blew it with Boudrias for the ROH.
  6. Garrett was one of the best goalies in WHA history and also one of two goalies in Canucks history to be over .500 for his career before the Canucks actually became a consistent winning team in the 90s. He also carried the Nordiques for a while in the 1982 playoffs. Quite an underrated goalie actually. Rutherford... He was actually very good with the Penguins, decent with Detroit but stuck with the results any goalie gets on a crap team. Don Beaupre and Richard Brodeur would have been Hall of Famers if they had switched spots with Fuhr or Smith. Guys like Greg Millen were good goalies that just mostly played on junk teams for their whole career.
  7. 4-0-0 penalty kill is the way to go. Demko can handle the shots and just needs to work on his breakout pass.
  8. Gary Leeman, Ken Hodge Jr., Scott Bjugstad, Warren Young. Or the playoff versions Chris Kontos and John Druce.
  9. He's giving me Juneau / Jimmy Carson vibes.
  10. After his hold out for the big contract and then making poopie doo in the bed he kind of reminds me of Charlie Sheen in Major League 2.
  11. Lemieux, Coffey, Trottier, Francis, Murphy, Jagr, Barrasso, Mullen, Stevens, Tocchet, Recchi, Gordie Roberts... Those 90s Penguins were unreal in skill, experience and leadership.
  12. RIP. He got a great performance out of the guys in the 89 playoffs.
  13. At the same time, it was within Benning's power to wait out Kesler if he was willing to put up with annoying calls from his agent every other day. Benning chose to move quickly under those constraints. Kesler may have loosened his restrictions. Players and management have been in those kinds of situations before. Larmer holding out, Lindros refusing to join the team, Roy quitting on the team mid-season. Bure. Benning didn't do that poorly under the circumstances - he got something - but then oddly enough himself undervalued the primary return in Bonino.
  14. Bure led the NHL in goals twice for Florida. Then they got a first round pick for him...they didn't do much with the pick but that's kind of beside the point. Jovanovski was good and stuck around for a while, but the Canucks got literally nothing for him in the end. I'll take two Rocket Richard trophies and then a return for the player over a half dozen years of being maybe around the 15th best defenseman in the league and then walking for nothing. Jovanovski still had a good run and was definitely a significant return for Bure (the Canucks could have done a lot worse in the deal), but I wouldn't call it winning the trade. Mogilny achieved less as a Canuck than Bure did as a Panther, in a similar number of games, and look at how high Mogilny still rates in greatest Canuck of all time polls on here.
  15. The win/win on a trade like that is something like Nieuwendyk for a developing Iginla, Mogilny for a developing Peca. Or two lesser pieces that actually kind of add up to the big piece like Bernie Nicholls for Tomas Sandstrom and Tony Granato. Too often it is two good players for each other and one goes off a cliff immediately after the trade. Joe Thornton for Marco Sturm. Doug Gilmour for Gary Leeman. Or else a top player for stuff that just doesn't add up to his value... Bure (VAN) for package, Kesler (VAN) for package, Patrick Roy (MTL) for package, Steve Larmer (CHI) for package, Paul Coffey (EDM) for package (which included quality in Craig Simpson but still wasn't equivalent to a 100 point defenseman).
  16. You can make a good case for Lindros and Mogilny, but not Bure. The Bure trade basically boiled down to Bure and Hedican for Jovanovski, who the Canucks just lost to free agency with no return. I guess there are also some situations where teams both swap their best players - Denis Savard for Chris Chelios, Dale Hawerchuk for Phil Housley, Dino Ciccarelli for Mike Gartner (and Larry Murphy), Pierre Turgeon for Pat LaFontaine, etc. - and one team usually has to win, though sometimes both players just play a bit worse than before.
  17. Stan should have been respected to make those kinds of decisions all along. One of the greatest acts of Canuck leadership in the 50+ years was Stan insisting he shouldn't be captain anymore once he was reduced to a 4th liner in his final year or two. It's the complete opposite of what Messier did when arriving. Kevin McCarthy was a great player and great Canuck but he (quietly) asked for a trade once Smyl acquired the C from him in 1982. Guys in Smyl's position in his last couple years on the ice usually have the C taken from them. Even happened to Mike Modano. Stan made a decision about what was best for the team leadership on the ice and a couple years later they were in the Stanley Cup final again led by the guy wearing the "C" that Stan had torn from his own jersey.
  18. So by that, I take it you mean the three times? 1982, 1994 and 2011?
  19. The two times? Do you not know why Stan Smyl is sitting in that office right now...
  20. I think the plan is always to kind of keep Smyl around in roles where he can't wear out his welcome and be fired.
  21. Bring in Babcock + Quenneville + Graham James
  22. Matt Sekeres. A face for radio, a voice for silent film.
  23. I mean, Dan Quinn didn't really do anything wrong. You just can't make much of an impact as captain for a third of one season.
×
×
  • Create New...