CupIsComing

After 20 games, teams not in the top 8 of their conference overwhelmingly do not make the second season. At least .500 hockey at that point or golfing in April! Canucks have 6 points in their first 10 games. They will need to gather 14 points in the next 10 games to be at .500. That's 7 wins out of 10! A turnaround that drastic, that quickly, is almost unfathomable to me. Still...I have not written off this season yet.

Burroughs...Do we really need him?

I tend to agree. Another thing that offsets tax disadvantages is the inevitable increase in value of the luxury home that they buy and live in while they are playing here (in one of THE hottest real estate markets in the world).

Yes, I had fun. But not enough to wash the disdain I have for this club for allowing Benning to mortgage the future for the sake of keeping his job...when all we had to do was endure ONE more season of cap-crippling contracts! Last summer set this club back years.

I picked sign him to longterm 6.5-7.0 Million. Then TRADE him.

Thanks, I was unaware.

Calgary Flames. I love a good underdog story... and...Tanev and Marky!

Truth regrading Eichel...sarcasm noted. He is still has a much higher ceiling than Pettersson, his recovery risk notwithstanding. And do you really think this is just one of those "bad games" for Pettersson...or is there something really wrong?

Could have had Eichel.

The pan of the camera along the bench just as they were outing to the intermission adverts... The whole bench looked resigned except for Miller who looked pissed.

Do NOT trade Miller...Canucks will be worse without him. If there is a locker-room rift, get rid of his opposition.

At the least, we can deduce that the police investigation did not exonerate JV, as the police have recommended charges to the Crown.

On pace for a 57 point season!

Well, the first (luck) is just a part of the game, all teams deal with and it isn't "what's wrong" with this team, although it may contribute. The second (skill)…that's on Management. Point is...can't pin this on one party. There is LOTS wrong with this team.

40% Ownership 30% Management 20% Coaching 10% Players Who do you think will be the first sacrificial lamb? Hint...NOT one of the top two above.

It was pretty pointless wasn't it? Why even bother? Both the interviewer and the player.

I blame them all! As I said...proportioned 40/30/20/10%. Can't fire the owners...I hope to see the management team replaced. However, I totally understand if the coach has to go too, but canning the coach alone will not fix this.

The Canucks have also played half of an AHL team (on defense) and it HAS sunk them. I am not saying that TG has wrung everything he can out of the players and clearly the forward talent is struggling, but I am saying that there are bigger issues than the coach and players. Sure, the players aren't living up either, but even at their best I don't believe it is enough to consistently make the playoffs, let alone win a round or two.

Who is to blame? 40% Owners, 30% GM, 20% Coach, 10% Players Can't change the owners, player changes will take significant time, that leaves management and/or coaching change. Changing coach will not alter the fact that this team just isn't built to compete. Until owners change (their ways, their hiring of managers, or their investment stake), this team is doomed to the mushy middle.

But...but...but...he was just a Black Ace! I wonder how Coach Q's (in)action would have differed if it was Kane or Toews? Obviously, and inexplicably, who was abused seems to matter. Kyle Beach was a nobody to this coach and organization. I love hockey...but sometimes I hate it.

Even with their present ownership situation, I can't feel too sorry for Buffalo. Joined the league same year as us...have now had four first overalls in the amateur draft. Perreault, Turgeon, Dahlin...not too shabby! Buffalo 4: Vancouver 0

certainly. And thank you for amending your original post.

Firstly, if you had bothered to read the subsequent posts, they were in a response to another poster, not that I felt I didn't say what I wanted to say well. And no, it is not my fault that you misquoted me...it's yours and it should be corrected. You say "then I wouldn't be the first it seems", but you were the first...and the only! YOU put in quotation marks something I did not say, and then left other crucial words in my post out to further bolster your point (which wasn't mine). It is the very textbook definition of a misquote, and it is egregious. Just move on?! HUH? How about you have some integrity and remove the post and apologize? Original post reported, and I am not going anywhere.

You misquoted me! Easy to see from the one post in question that you were disengenious in order to make your point. There were other posts that said what you attributed to me, but not mine. MODS? We allow misquotes now?

Hi OP...maybe make this thread a poll?