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

N4ZZY

Members
  • Posts

    8,775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by N4ZZY

  1. Yeah. But if cap construction is important, then I’d take Garland over Brock. Garland is cost controlled for the next four years. They know what they’re getting, and would get value for his production (assuming he produces).
  2. Faber still not signed? OOooh. I’d wait then.
  3. Yeah. The sentiment from me. If the Canucks are trading Miller to a divisional rival, no way they don’t get the &^@#ing moon coming back their way. L.A. better pay up big time, or else no way he goes there.
  4. I like Grans. Does LA even have interest in Garland? He can produce offense, and he comes cheaper than Brock would.
  5. I’d be open to trading Garland, if L.A. is interested in him, and wants him. But we’d need some prospects coming back our way. What about instead of a C and RD, we just swing for two RHD’s. Faber and Grans for Garland. The Kings get immediate NHL production and help, and Vancouver gets two RHD prospects.
  6. Probably not Clarke. I’d take Faber, but not Faber alone in a deal.
  7. That’s a tempting proposal. I’d probably do that if we could land a young RHD to play alongside Hughes for the next decade.
  8. Schneider is a good player. But everyone has their price, and for the right price, Schneider would be traded. If the Rangers are unwilling, that’s fine. We go to the Kings who have just as many RHD prospects…
  9. I mean, there's always a chance that he comes back now with Podkolzin in the fold, and potentially Kuzmenko too. But if he does come here, whatever leverage he did have when he was here, he doesn't have that anymore in Van. And throughout the league, he's an unproven player. Tryamkin for me has zero leverage when it comes to the finances if he wants money, he'll have to stay right where he's at.
  10. I remember that day very well unfortunately, and the collective disbelief that ran across Canuck nation.
  11. I think Brock’s going to want some security, especially what’s going on with his family with his dad, Duke, and how that would affect the rest of his family down the road. I think he’ll sign a longer ish term deal that’s fair for him and for the Canucks. I think he signs 3-4 years at 6, maybe 6.5M.
  12. Hahaha. Some players just don’t understand. Their case study is the Toronto Maple Leafs. Players that wanted their money. They’ve gotten it, but you know what they got in return? First round exits for 5 straight years. Kesler on the radio the other day was right. Take a discount to have the best chance at winning the cup. That 2011 team did not win, but they were pretty damn close to winning everything, and I’d say, during their time in Vancouver, they made good money, and after their time with the Canucks, they still made a pretty penny that would set them up for the rest of their lives.
  13. I think he’s gone. Interesting what Kesler had to say on radio the other day about the players back on the 2011 roster taking less than market value, to have the best chance at winning it all. They didn’t, but they’re still very much compensated very well. If there was one player who would set the example for the rest of the team to take less, so that they can add additional pieces to give themselves the best chance to win, it would be Bo, not JT. I’d be surprised if Miller gave the Canucks a discount, so as to maneuver more moves for the team. Not for his last pay day, no way. I think if we don’t hear a deal for Miller leading up to the draft, he’s as good as gone.
  14. I just want to say no, so that the Devils don’t have three Hughes brothers.
  15. This would be crazy if it happened. But management would have to also out bid other NHL teams that want to sign Forsberg. What advantage do we have, that no other team would/could have over us?
  16. Entitlement for sure. Well, going back to Russia in hindsight now looks like a bad decision for them. But you know what? I don’t feel bad for them one bit.
  17. I don’t think he signs for 5 years.
  18. Who's going to be in our top six next season? Petey, Miller (assuming he's back), Bo, Boeser, Podkolzin, and that last spot is kind of Kuzmenko's to lose isn't it? I can't see Pearson on it (assuming of course he's still around), and he might be better suited to be dropped down to the third line. Höglander hasn't done much to prove that he deserves that last spot in the top six.
  19. what would constitute as a crazy deal in your opinion, that would make the Canucks give it serious consideration?
  20. See. Under the old system where the last placed team is guaranteed to get the first overall. In this current system, the worst team only has an 18 percent chance. That’s not even that high. So there’s 78 percent chance that the worse team doesn’t get the first overall pick? The &^@#.
×
×
  • Create New...