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

The Lock

Members
  • Posts

    10,143
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by The Lock

  1. Nashville developed their own D core for the most part. They were lucky to have drafted players such as Weber, Hamhuis, Josi, Ekholm, etc. And yeah, forwards tend to be a lot easier. I agree with that.
  2. This is assuming Seattle would even want Holtby. They have a lot of goalie options so I don't know if I'm convinced on it. It would be a pleasant surprise though.
  3. While I understand what you are saying, the fact that this isn't the issue with just this team but also teams such as Toronto or Edmonton tell me that what could be thought of as a "horrendous" job could really be more of a situation of how the markets are deprived of such defensemen. It's easy to look at just the Canucks, but once you look outside and realise there's 31 other teams making deals, I think it really shows how tough of a task it is.
  4. I want to point out that aggressive does not necessarily mean things getting done.
  5. This is probably something we'll find out over the next couple of weeks really given that teams can't even negotiate with Seattle until after the lists come out.
  6. I doubt this changes any time soon. Some people have made up their minds and somehow think their opinion is the end all.
  7. Even if the past isn't idea, this doesn't give us an excuse to overpay for an Edler contract. If you are for signing Edler and think this is some sort of a disaster, how do you justify overpaying Edler instead of trading/signing a defenseman? Or do you think players just magically get signed to fair deals without walking away? I guess I just don't see the logic you seem to be presenting.
  8. I have questions: Why does Ottawa trade away Norris when he's just had a breakout season and is younger than Boeser? What does Norris bring us that Boeser doesn't? On top of the above questions, why would Ottawa throw in the 10th OA pick in with that? Also, why would Tampa trade away Cernak for an unproven Rathbone?
  9. I don't like this for us at all. The only good thing about it would be the 14th OA, not even Patrick. Overall though, this is a step backwards for us imo. For what it's worth, I'm glad you at least explained yourself and why you feel things would work, even if I disagree with them.
  10. Sorry, but this is simply a disrespectful post on your part and uncalled for.
  11. I'll believe most of this when I see it to be honest, especially the Schmidt part. Too many people talking out their butts at this point to believe anything.
  12. I mean more when it came to the decision making process. There was supposedly some agreement there since Benning had just come over from Boston. I don't know how true all of this is though, which is why I merely called it a "notion". It could have easily been just a rumour started by someone, but just because he was on the floor at that time and stating they wanted McCann, doesn't really disprove it as being merely a rumour either.
  13. Seattle has the pick of so many goalies in the expansion draft and some are arguably better than Holtby and less expensive. Why would they take Holtby or want to trade for another goalie in the first place given that?
  14. In terms of whether this is a blessing with Seattle or not, I personally feel it's kind of an odd question, perhaps in line with asking if Wellwood's a man possessed. lol But I will say a couple of things: 1) Seattle will be a good team. It doesn't really matter who they pick from us. They will be good given they're given the same start that Vegas got. 2) If we improve, I think there's a good chance for the start of a healthy rivalry, which is what we want. Us getting into the playoffs and being a good team along with Seattle can only good for everyone.
  15. I say good if true. It means we weren't willing to overpay him. I also wish him the best of luck in free agency.
  16. I like Buffalo Trace but there's almost some sort of spice taste in it that detracts from it for me. I still like it, it's just not my favourite bourbon as a result. I tend to prefer Wild Turkey 101 but I'm still exploring the bourbons really.
  17. True. There's even the notion that Benning wasn't allowed to be on the floor during that time and that he actually wanted Pastrnak
  18. Just because amateur scouts are looking at something doesn't make everything predictable. People act differently in interviews. People can also change, especially people going through their teens. Scouts can find some things, but it's completely unrealistic to expect them to be able to find everything. It doesn't happen. It doesn't matter how much they're throwing the prospect under the petri dish. Everything is about the scout's best guess in the end and that's the best they can do realistically. Anyway, I have nothing against trying for a player like McCann. I just wanted to get the point across that not everything's predictable especially when you're talking about the human brain.
  19. You're talking like everything is predictable though. How do you know that it would have been known that McCann would have had character issues in the first place? It's kind of a non-starter of an argument given how little any of this is based on in the first place. I don't know what the situation fully was with McCann, but it seems like a risk not really worth taking given how many other guys are out there that could fill a similar role.
  20. The way I see it though, it's easy to have a hyper-focus on the team you love. You see this with fans of other teams as well where we would look at them and it might not seem as big of a deal. I've heard so many fans of other teams at this point state how they feel our future looks bright given our drafting, so is nit-picking every little detail at that point worth it? Personally, I just don't have the time nor the energy to worry about every little detail that's gone on. It doesn't bring anyone any value. It's diminishing returns.
  21. Like I've said, I can see where the frustration comes in. I'm not anti-Benning though at this point as I haven't really seen anything lately that's made me question things so I guess I'm hopeful that he's learned. I guess I'm more on the fence than anything. It still goes to show though that Tanev didn't go for nothing, partially caused by a series of contracts that proved to be too expensive in the end. Although, perhaps it was more the term than anything as ideally if those contracts were over at this point they wouldn't even be a problem.
  22. Yeah, I think if anything, it confirms how I felt about having a green johnny canuck to begin with: I still think that the logo's too close to the Penguins logo as well. I can't unsee that.
  23. Yeah but my original comment was in reply to the notion of "letting a player go for nothing" being meaningless and how every player costs something; thus, letting a player go frees up cap space, which isn't nothing.
  24. I say good for Forsling. Why can't we just be happy for the guy? It's not like he would have stuck here long with his play earlier on anyway. Probably would have left in a similar way to Hutton at some point. Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised if the same people who would get upset over this contract would be the same people complaining about him and wanting him gone at some point had he not been traded and was playing like he was even a couple of years ago bouncing between the AHL and the NHL. I've really come to the conclusion that people complain on these forums for the sake of complaining.
  25. Doesn't matter if you're a contender or not, money is money in the end. We didn't have the money for Tanev. Simple as that. Unless if you somehow think being a contender completely coincides with your cap situation (which is clearly does not). I get wanting to keep Tanev, but it's not as simple as just resigning him when you're up against the cap like we have been. Some blame Benning's earlier contracts for that which I think is legitimate although I'm still not anti-Benning despite that.
×
×
  • Create New...