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

CupIsComing

Members
  • Posts

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CupIsComing

  1. 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.

  2. On 4/27/2022 at 10:54 AM, JM_ said:

    the tax thing is overblown. I think you're discounting the impact of bonuses and front loading a deal. Not every team interested in him is going to do that. 

    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).

    • Cheers 1
  3. 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.

    • Cheers 2
  4. On 12/24/2021 at 8:19 AM, grandmaster said:

    Just so you know. There are new guidelines in effect that if there is an allegation only, they have to send it to Crown. Police don’t have a say. Independent evidence doesn’t matter and the system is going to swallow up more of these sort of cases where it is just a he said / she said. 

    Thanks, I was unaware.

    • Cheers 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

    what about the 10% luck and 20% skill?

    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.

  6. 1 minute ago, Pears said:

    This is wrong. Good coaching gets the most out of the players. Look at Pittsburgh for example. They’ve had to play half of their AHL team most of this season and that hasn’t sunk them. This team on paper is way too talented to be this bad, and that’s on coaching. 

    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.

  7. 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.

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  8. 2 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

    Well if I misquoted you then I wouldn't be the first it seems since you did say you had to clarify what your originally posted. 

     

    If that is not what you meant then fine. But I am not apologizing for you not making your point across clearer. 

     

    Just move on 

    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.

     

  9. 7 hours ago, iinatcc said:

    If you felt you needed to clarify what you were trying to say then you should have corrected your first post. Not everyone is going to go through 14 of so pages of a thread. 

     

    So no you do not deserve or should expect an apology for me. 

    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? 

×
×
  • Create New...