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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

4,934 profile views

Barry_Wilkins's Achievements

Canucks Prospect

Canucks Prospect (7/16)



  1. So your argument is that Boeser, when they both played, was more banged up than Toffoli, according to some secret injury info you are privy to, but that the rest of us aren't? Face it, your arguments and speculations (Holtby better than Markstrom, e.g.) are just exposing you as a pom-pom waver. Nothing wrong with that -- it's great to be a passionate fan -- but as an objective analyst it's not a good look.
  2. You didn't answer my question. Your deflections are telling. When Boeser and Toffoli were healthy, Toffoli replaced him on the 1st line and on PP1.
  3. Yeah, that long-winded Canucks management apologia was the perfect example of the Covid "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Any bad decision, it's excusable because, hey Covid!
  4. Holtby better than Markstrom in the past 2 years? I'll give you credit for trolling. Not even the most homer-obsessed fan could think this otherwise.
  5. He was on our 1st line, replacing Boeser. He was a key component on our PP1 with great down-low passing, lwading to many PP goals/per chance. Did you follow the Canucks?
  6. Inferior to Markstrom. I thought that point was rather obvious, but apparently you'll read into it what you want.
  7. Also, you and canuck73 seem to be playing the "big picture" card here. This is a thread specific to Toffoli signing for $4.25X4 with another team -- a player at a position we need to fill, and will now have to hope to correct. Do you or do you not think it unwise that we couldn't/wouldn't match that same offer for Toffoli? And keep in mind that Toffoli, by all accounts, loved it here. And why wouldn't he, improving his stats on a dynamic PP with Petterson and Hughes. Plus, his wife liked the West Coast.
  8. You realize that you can use that same bogus "deferral" non-argument for any move or non-move, right? Even people who are angered by this trade still defer to Benning, as in, "there must be something up Benning's sleeve". I can only go by the moves he's actually made. And it's not shaping up very well, is it? Or do you think losing your elite goalie, top line RW, top 4 Dman, and #5 Dman, only replacing that with an inferior tandem goalie, is countered by "we can still make moves". Well, sure Benning can make moves, but, to be as objective as possible, do you really see any move he could make at this point recouping even a fraction of what he's given up?
  9. Hell yeah! A proven 25 goal scorer, and a key component on PP1 gone. But let's promote Lind, and sub him in automatically on the 2nd line. That should be great for the Canucks fortunes, plus for Lind's development! Or do you want Jake on line two, when Green didn't even trust him enough to start him in the playoffs, despite several injured forwards?
  10. I wanted Toffoli signed, but I thought it'd take $5 mil per, which the cap crunch wouldn't allow. The fact that Benning couldn't match $4.25 just speaks to his ongoing ineptitude.
  11. And of course our goaltending is likely to get worse, too. (Hard to see Demko/Holtby doing better than Markstrom's elite last regular season.) Benning must be filling his pants right about now. Jim: "Loui, great work on all those empty net goals last season! Hey, how would you like to have a job as our home games concession stand supervisor? We'll pay you $2 million a year for two years. You'd have to retire from actually playing the game, of course, but just think. No more awkward questions to duck post-game, no need to travel on all those brutal road trips any more. What do you say?" Loui: "My contract says $2.5 million per year." Jim: "OK, OK. We'll throw in all-you-can-drink beer. Overpriced for fans, but for you, FREE! ..... Hello? Hello? Loui?"
  12. People here continue to debate Vatanen's ability as compared to Stecher's, but cap- and term-wise the comparison should be Vatanen to Tanev. Those same posters are dreaming if they think Vatanen's signing for one or two years for $2 mil per. The guy's been a consistent point-producing top 4 D his entire career. That said, he's a terrible pick-up for us. Frail, small, and in the last two years, played 50 and 47 games. Also a big downgrade on defensive play in his own zone. And he won't get PP1 time here with Hughes on board. Not sure he'd even be much of an upgrade over Edler or Myers on PP2. Surprised if he doesn't get close to Tanev money and term, maybe a bit less term considering the past two years, but no way I want to see him here.
  13. Then you're not paying him for the best use of his abilities. Vatanen is a horrible choice for the Canucks to pick up, on multiple fronts.
  14. So, let's see ... let Tanev walk (no complaint there), only to replace him with another player who's even more injury prone (especially recently) to a cap hit/term that will rival Tanev's. Yeah, great plan.
  • Create New...