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

Baggins

Members
  • Posts

    10,663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Baggins

  1. Drunk Alf? Which teams logo is stupid and doesn't make sense. Does Dallas having a D in their logo not make sense to you? Does the devilish NJ not make sense for New Jersey to you? Does Calgary using a flaming C not make sense? Does Detroit's Winged wheel not make sense for Motor City? Very few teams have a hockey reference in theirs logos. Very few. In my other post I said our team colors also represent where we play. Nowhere have I said I don't like our current colors. Representing where the team plays is far more common, and makes more sense to me for the franchise, than identifying what sport is being played. It ties the identity to the location. Personally I think representing the team name and where the team plays makes for the best team logos. A hockey refence can be a nice touch, but is not a critical element. Otherwise more than a handful of teams would actually have a hockey reference in their logo.
  2. Nonsense. Look at the leagues primary logos and count the ones with a reference to hockey. Then count the ones with a direct reference to where they play. Where they play wins in a landslide. The score = Where reference - 15, Sport reference - 4. You could add 6 more to the where total due to the team name being chosen to fit where the team plays (Hurricanes, Lightning, Senators and Predators). Obviously a logo representing where the team plays is far more important to NHL teams than indicating the sport played is.
  3. The Orca represents where the team plays. You know, the Orcas permanently off our coast and done in a Haida style. Very pacific northwest and more so because of the uniform colors. The Orca has history with this city. Many teams have logos that represent where their team plays. As a matter of fact there are more NHL logos with a reference to where the team plays than what they play. Ignoring the Orca jersey (and team colors) represents where the team plays doesn't make those facts go away. Plus it forms a 'C' for the team name. Saying a simple 'C' doesn't represent the team name also eliminates the SiR logo. We're not the Vancouver hockey rinks after all. If you don't like the Orca logo just say that. Saying it doesn't makes sense is just nonsense ignoring all the reasons it does make sense. If you count the Flying V as a logo it's the one that makes the least sense. It has no reference to the team name at all. It only refers to where the team plays. The simple truth is this: no matter what the logo or colors are, there will be those that don't like it and want something else. That's nothing more than personal preference. Then there are also those that want change purely for the sake of change. I've been a fan since the Canucks joined the NHL and the Orca was the first logo I truly liked. But I like a logo with a reference to where the team plays.
  4. Good for him. I really do hope he does well. Don't forget Boeser and Sutter were also out to start the season. Mac was rather likeable but the reality is he's a fringe player. I never worry about losing fringe players as it happens all the time with those who haven't established themselves as full time NHL'ers when hitting waiver eligibility. Imo it was more important to keep guys with some PK experience. I thought Petan played quite well in preseason. The problem with Mac is he doesn't really bring much more than fighting. He didn't look out of place, but he didn't exactly impress either.
  5. And MacEwen has been a force playing his 0 games in Philly. Disposal is part of asset management.
  6. We're 4 games in with 13 new players on the active roster. Plus Petey hadn't played in 7 months and we're starting with two key penalty killers out and an expected top four d-man a no show. At least give them 15 to 20 games before brining out the torches and pitchforks.
  7. Actually Gretzky was pretty specific in the areas of Petey's game that reminded him of the he played. Again, this isn't some proclamation that their careers will be the same. It's doing nothing more than comparing particular aspects of a players game.
  8. Some get pretty bent on such comparisons but they are often ignoring any context or limitation of the comparison. I made a Gretzky comparison early on but in just one regard. His shiftiness in stick handling. This isn't some proclamation that he's "the next Gretzky. It's just a comparison to one aspect of a players game. Which is quite valid as there are many aspects to a players game. For example: saying somebody skates like McDavid isn't saying they will have the same production or career. It's simply a comparison to one aspect of the player. Gretzky himself made comparisons on aspects of Petey's game to his own (broader than my own). So are you saying Gretzky is absurd?
  9. Nothing will change period. Did enforcers or scrappers deter Torres, Cook, Dorsett, Edler or any others from throwing big hits or even cheap shots? Nope. Players who play that way don't care if they have to fight. As a matter of fact, even suspensions don't deter players like Torres and Kadri. They all just rinse and repeat regardless of the other teams toughness. That "toughness" just makes some fans feel better about their player taking a big hit. It's never really deterred it though. I don't mind having a few "tough guys" on the team but they need to be able to contribute more than a handful of retaliatory fights per season.
  10. Particularly if your starting point is a team aging out with one player under 27 (Tanev) worth keeping and a farm team with nobody worth looking at. In my 50+ years of following the NHL I've never seen a GM take over a team in that bad of a situation. No matter how you slice it this wasn't going to be a quick rebuild when you need to replace the whole team. You'd need 4 NHL quality hits per draft (including star to elite talent in each draft) to turn that mess around in 5 years.
  11. Players are competing for a role on the team. You don't put the square peg in a round hole. If there's better than you for a needed role you get cut. Btw, Lockwood has already been assigned to Abby. This team needs to move forward and compete for a playoff spot. That means putting round pegs in the holes. Juolevi might be next because I think Rathbone has outplayed him. But I can also see Rathbone being sent down because he isn't a PK'er. If Rathbone stays OEL is the only left side PK'er. That one is a tougher call than Gadj.
  12. Gadj is 23 in about a weeks time. He is something of a project. If he can get his skating up another gear and improve his defensive game he may have a career. If not then he'll likely bounce around a few years and head over to the KHL. His skating was a known issue when he was drafted. Four years later it's still not great.
  13. Does it really make sense to move a guy that finished 1st and 2nd in points the last two seasons down to the third line? I could see it if a player is missing a game or two but that doesn't appear to be the case. How far do you go to protect a borderline prospect?
  14. You too are missing my point. Two primary Pk'ers are out. Does a slow net presence replace them? They are looking to cover for two penalty killers. I honestly couldn't see Gadj making the team.
  15. The needed role to fill is the two penalty killers missing the start of the season. If two primary Pk'ers are injured that's what you need to replace.
  16. He's 23 this month. That aside there's still plenty of depth. The biggest negative with Gadj is his skating and the defensive side of his game isn't great. That's an area his foot speed hurts him. Yes he's a good net front presence. But, and it's a big but, how much opportunity would he have to use it on a fourth line? Do his positives really outweigh his negatives for a fourth line role? Plus how much of a benefit is it to a team if your fourth line can kill penalties? Nobody likes to lose a player for nothing. But you don't worry about that if a player isn't the best choice for the available roles. Consider this: If he's the important piece you believe him to be why didn't the Kracken take him in the expansion draft instead of Lind? My guess, they couldn't see him making their team. Young players with shortcomings often end up on waivers. They even get picked up after final preseason cuts.
  17. Who is replacing Sutter and Motte on the PK? Both are primary penalty killers. You have a fourth line with a combined 96 NHL games. I think the odds of Podz being on the top line pushing Garland to third line is about the same as that fourth line of yours being a reality.
  18. Where does Gadj fit in and what is his role? Boeser- Petey - Miller Hogs - Horvat - Garland Pearson - Dickenson - Podz Motte - Sutter -??? Filling a needed role is key to staying on the team.
  19. How about sticking to one thing. Raymond actually instigated the contact and momentum carried them into the boards. There was no "attack" there. Purely looking through Canuck colored glasses. "What about" doesn't make something right. Otherwise you can justify anything and everything that happens. How about sticking to one incident and right or wrong. Did Rome violate the rules and injure a player? A simple yes or no is all that's needed.
  20. Would you say a Canuck player had it coming if the roles were reversed? If not it's homerism. Therein lies the problem for me. To me wrong is wrong no matter which side does it. You don't like getting manhandled you drop the gloves and take care of business. You don't sucker punch a player, or in this case sucker elbow, EVER. It's cowardly. There's no justifying a sucker punch. That's reality.
  21. Where did I say that Deb? Try harder to actually rationalize what I'm saying.
  22. He was roughing Bure up with contact but isn't that what good checkers do? Particularly in the playoffs. Burrows and Kesler both played hard and dished out extra digs and whacks and were hated around the league as "dirty players". They're the players you love on your team and hate on other teams. Welcome to hockey.
  23. The league standard for sufficient reaction time to change the course you're on is 5/10 of a second. Rome during his 8/10 actually changed course to make the hit whereas the league .5 is sufficient time to change an already chosen path. It doesn't matter that he hit chest first, and I did say it would have been a perfectly legal hit if timely, what matters is how late it was and that he actually changed direction to do it when he had more than enough time not to do so. He had the time to make a better decision is what it came down to. I don't understand how anybody could defend it. Rome chose what he did just as Bure did.
×
×
  • Create New...