Baggins
-
Posts
11,793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Baggins
-
-
3 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:
The heritage jersey is ugly af, but it's really awesome to see the skate, and the updated main jersey looks a lot better without the redundant 'Vancouver'.
It's amazing to see how many people are getting their panties in a twist over this. Just goes to show how fickle people can be.
Don't like the stripes
Don't like the font
Don't like the color
Don't like the logo
No matter what they do the above will be said.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:
Well it's only been two years..
We will revisit this in due time that's why I'm posting. The different route we have taken towards rebuilding is night and day compared to other clubs. We are rushing the process, clearly.
Look at what Detroit collected in two years compared to us in five.
Never would I have expected that when Benning took over we would actually trade away more picks than we would bring in. It's mind boggling, it's like we've been a contender trying to add pieces for a playoff push this whole time.
There lies the problem. We won't know for five years whether they did it right or not. Atlanta had top picks. No cups. Arizona has had top picks. No cups. I don't believe there is a right way. Just right timing combined with some draft luck.
-
1
-
-
On 6/6/2019 at 11:36 AM, The 5th Line said:
Draft picks for Detroit, no old and used roster players, no reclamation projects. Picks, picks, picks, stock the farm. The staggering difference is a reminder that we have sat around wasting valuable time, acquiring further down the road players in hopes of quicker playoffs. The amount of picks we have squandered during our rebuild is gross.
Red Wings since 2017;
Picks brought in via trade by round - Detroit - In: 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7. Out: 3, 5
Players brought in: 4 different players
Canucks since 2017;
Picks brought in via trade by round: In: 4, 6, 7. Out: 4, 7
Players brought in: 15 different players
Canucks since 2014;
Picks by round via trade In: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7. Out: 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7
Players brought in via trades: 32 different players
Since 2017:
Jurco for 3rd
B.Smith for 2nd + 3rd
Vanek for 3rd + Mcillrath
Ott for 6th
Sheahan + 5th for Wilson + 3rd
Wilson for 5th
Mrazek for 3rd + 4th
Tatar for 1st + 2nd + 3rd
Russo for 7th
Jensen + 5th for Bowey + 2nd
Nyquist for 2nd + 3rd
Sproul for Puempel
How many of those picks are making an impact in the NHL?
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:
Lol, Sutter and Pouliot. "Winning"
Like I said, the bar has been set pathetically low. Come on man
What do you expect to get for a Clendenning, or Pedan, or even a 3rd or 5th rounder in trade? You must be one of those Ballard, Raymond and a 2nd gets an elite player kind of guys. These were minor assets traded.
Compared to what was given up Sutter and Pouliot are wins. Just as Baertschi was a win. Granlund was even a win. Not every trade will be a homerun.
You seem to expect a huge return for minimal payout. Come on man
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Toews said:
Top 6 forwards and top 4 defenseman are available in later rounds of the draft. Maybe we might have found one or two more had we not been trading them for rejects from other organizations.
The lottery win pipedream. Would you base your retirement plan entirely on winning the lottery? The problem you see is there's far more than 6 forwards and 4 defensemen available in later rounds. There's 31 teams trying to figure out (guessing) which will be the good ones out of 186 options available.
Elite/good talent can be found in later rounds. But it's small odds. Just like a lottomax ticket you're more likely to get nothing than just something, never mind a big payoff. You still buy lottery tickets for that small chance but you can't rely on it alone for your future.
13 minutes ago, Toews said:I haven't checked but I don't think Flames fans are crying too much about Granlund and Baer. Leaf fans are too busy panicking about their D to have a care about Leivo. Similarly I don't think there are too many Sharks fans pining for Goldobin or Jackets fans for Motte. Thats the saddest part that we are touting these as successes while the fans of those teams have forgotten all about these guys.
There are also the players who we gave up assets for who are no longer in the NHL or have 0 value like Etem, Clendening, Pedan, Dorsett etc. If you want to call those clear cut wins then these should be called clear cut losses.
Clendenning was part of the deal that got us Sutter and Pedan got us Pouliot. Both on our roster. Winning! I'd make that trade for another Dorsett in a heart beat even today.
-
10 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:
Man giving Gagne $9.3M. That is embarrassing. Imagine having to keep explaining that to the boss, not to mention Eriksson.
Would be even more embarrassing if you gave millions to the likes of MDZ and Schaller.
None of them end of the world deals. Any ufa's signed by a rebuilding team would be bottom end desperate for a job, or overpaid.
-
8 minutes ago, ruilin96 said:
To me the biggest mistake JB made in his tenure as the Canucks GM are the 2 following moves:
1). Louie Eriksson signing.
2). Overvalue of Erik Gudbranson
I don't think JB envisioned Eriksson to declined this significantly after his 30-goals season in Boston. He probably expected atleast 20 goals and 50 points productions in the first few seasons of this contract and clearly it hasn't been the case. Right now Louie is taking up $6 million in cap space and clearly these money could be better spent else where to address either scoring at the top 6 level or offense from the back end.
I think JB overvalued Gudbranson right from the beginning. At the time we acquired him, Gudbranson was 24, RHD who plays physical/throw-back style of hockey. JB was trying to address both physicality and depth on the blueline by acquiring Gudbranson. He saw Gudbranson as someone who can be an anchored of the Canucks blueline going forward. He saw Gudbranson eventually develops into atleast a #3 D-man. Unfortunately, Gudbranson is better off as a #5/#6 D man. At the time JB didn't see the trend of the modern NHL D-man are trending towards speed and skill, and Gudbranson's play style just doesn't fit the current era of hockey. Gudbranson would of been great during the dead-puck era, and he just isn't suited for this new era of hockey nor can he be the go to guy on the blue line. He is better off as a depth and supporting D-man.
If anything, it has shown that JB has learned his lesson. Since Eriksson, JB has stop throwing around money/term on the big fishes at the UFA market, he just brings in depth guys in short to mid-range terms.
He realized his mistake with Gudbranson and in the 2018 draft, he shows that he understands the trends current NHL style D-man and drafted Quinn Hughes.
Eriksson is the only guy Benning has given term to. I see one to two years as the show me, bridge deals. Three to four years a typical deal. Five to six years the bottom end of long term. And anything over that as firmly in the long term that can possibly screw you down the road range. But considering we're well below the cap I don't see how it's money lost that could be spent elsewhere. It's pure hindsight it was a mistake. It's the kind of mistake that happens frequently in free agency. It's tough to predict when a players production will take a big downturn. And the way his contract is set up I see him as moveable in the final two years.
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:
? They are trading for playoff depth, we are not..well we shouldn't be
I'm referring to what Florida got for the oh so valuable McCann not what Pittsburgh is doing. Read my post again.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Tomatoes11 said:
Okay fair enough, I might have been off base on Kane since he is a special talent but Kopitars season was definitely an outlier. And Keith, seabrook, toews, doughty, quick etc are totally on point. Not a ridiculous statement at all.
Thats just how it is these days. They all start young now just like EP, Boeser, Tkachuk, chabot, other Tkachuk, Svechinikov, AHO, kokienemi etc. They all can play right away these days. Except goalies of course.
By the time they are 24 and still not on the nhl roster, they are already expired goods. Heck Benning himself dumps them before they expire like Dahlen, subban, Forsling, McCann.
Keith and Quick both finished junior and played two AHL seasons before making the NHL. They are the only ones you named selected outside the first round Doughty, Toews, and Kane were all top 3 picks. One would expect big things from them.
Forsling split this past season between the AHL and NHL. At 22 he must be in the reject pile by now as Clendenning, Baertschi and Granlund were all rejects we acquired at 22. Vey and Etem were both 23. Meaning all acquired before your 24 year old expiry date. But the Forsling whining makes me laugh as much now as it did when he was traded.
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:
Their farm system is stocked, creating competition and they have used prospects like Grundstrom in trade
Bad move. People freaked about trading Forsling and Shinkaruk here.
People freaked about trading McCann as well. Can you imagine how bad it would have been had we traded him for a 2nd and two 4th's? Then compound that freak out by adding another roster player with him. Then compound it again by taking two cap dump pending ufa's back on top of it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Tomatoes11 said:
Kane, toews, Keith, seabrook, doughty, kopitar all started competing young and slowed down extremely once they almost hit 30 or hit 30. Hence the kings and hawks sucking now.
You have a bizarre timeline. You know exactly what you got when they hit 24 most of the time. And if you don’t have a star yet, you have an disposable asset if you find a sucker for them. And that’s exactly what those gm’s did by disposing them to us for some
promisinglongshot picks.Fixed that for you.
-
1
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
13 minutes ago, Alflives said:What younger guys? The guys were all older. Vey, Baer, Dorset, Sutter, Guddy etc were all older guys who were pretty much already what they were going to be. I’d rather have the picks. With top picks there is always a chance we get an elite player
So why are people still mad about trading Forsling and McCann? Neither are impact players. At 22 they're obviously what they going to be. Vey and Etem were 23, Clendenning, Baer and Granny were all 22 when we acquired them.
Here's another thing we disagree on. I don't consider 2nd rounders "top picks". You have a much higher chance of nothing than just something. And really poor odds of elite. The vast majority will go through the same process as Vey, Baer, and Granny with the odds against getting as good as any of them. When you start with virtually nothing is it truly wise to put all your eggs into the longshot basket?
Sutter has been good for us, and a guy young guys could learn from. I wish to god we still had a healthy Dorsett. I'd make that deal again in a heartbeat.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
22 minutes ago, Alflives said:
I think the net sayers are not happy with the way JB tried to keep the team competitive by signing expensive UFAs and trading away draft picks for older guys, and we finished at the bottom anyway. Why not just accept we needed to rebuild properly in 2015?
again I think it was our owner and not JB pushing the retool idea.
How many draft picks actually went for "older" guys? I suspect you and I have a difference of opinion on what "older" is.
Really a "proper rebuild" is a matter of opinion as well and requires looking at the current team make up. For example: TO did a "proper rebuild" adding picks, yet the only picks needed to turn their team around were their top pick from each of three draft years. Would that have been enough to completely turn our team around?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:
Superficial thinker?
What I want to know is who is Joey LaPizza and what makes him an authority on anything?
Well, he does have two followers on twitter. He obviously has to be an expert.
-
1
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, Generational.EP40 said:Honestly made this topic for healthy discussion so people can come to realization of things. Appalled by how defensive and attached people were at the beginning of thread that they couldn’t even realize stuff which nearly the rest of league would agree on lol. And it’s not like I’m some random, I am a STH as well. Does it mean I can’t make constructive criticism? Hell no. People that think you have to nod your head are ones that enable bad trends to continue in organizations by not holding them accountable. I’m just stating a relatively fair resolution I’d be in favour of the team making for these (obvious) reasons. There’s literally no harm in doing this, at least not that I can think of atm
Are you some kind of Jim Jones? You figured if you say something everybody will follow?
Being a STH doesn't make you smarter than dirt. You're certainly free to criticize, but so is everybody else here. Which means there will be those that criticize your criticism.
-
1
-
4
-
1 minute ago, Canuckster86 said:
Let not forget he drafted Forsling and McCann, but traded both very quickly...our return on those trades is quite dissmal. Yet they are both contributing at the NHL at young ages.
Forsling, five years later, still hasn't established himself as an NHL regular with only 33 games this year. McCann was just traded. along with Bjugstad, for the hefty return of a 2nd round pick and two 4th rounders that came with a pair of cap dump pending ufa's. If those moves are considered Benning's 'big' trade mistakes we're in good shape.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, JamesB said:
4. We can try to subdivide the key management tasks: drafting, trades, UFA signings, re-signing players, prospect development, organization (coaches, minor league affiliate), and overall strategy, There is no way an objective observer could say the Canucks have been good in any area except drafting. I know that some people will say that the Benning has been good on trades. But which trade acquisition on the Canucks is actually moving the dial? I think the answer to that is no-one. Yes, the Canucks have picked some players who were not good enough to play for other teams but have helped or at least have played for the Canucks (Leivo, Granlund, Pouliot). But that just tells you how weak the talent level is on the Canucks. The UFA record is obviously a problem. And prospect development in Utica has been a problem.
The only way a trade "moves the dial" for a rebuilding team is trading for a star or elite player. Even at that one won't "move the dial" significantly on a team early in the rebuild. The problem with getting those guys in trade is you actually need quality available to move to get them. You won't get them for Ryamond, Ballard and a 2nd. The bulk of Benning's trades have been for unproven talent. Which of course carries the same inherent risk of a draft pick. He may prove to be an NHL player or he may not. You just find out faster. He hasn't made any high impact trades but it seems high impact results are expected. Probably the closest to a "move the dial" trade is the Gudbranson deal. But being young, and not an impact player, even that trade carried risk.
I keep reading Benning has been awesome drafting but who has he drafted that has actually made an NHL impact? Boeser and Pettersson certainly. Those two together haven't "moved the dial" other than the fan excitement meter. Pittsburgh went from intentionally being the worst team in the league to get Lemieux to the second worst team with him the following season. How much did an NHL legend "move the dial" other than fan excitement? Gaudette has made the team but has he "moved the dial"? Nope. It's premature imo to declare Benning a drafting god. Far too much of Benning's great drafting is still nothing more than bold fan predictions at this point.
There's this notion here "if we draft him he'll be a star". Like Shinkaruk is our future first line winger and the outrage at trading him. There's a history of it here. Benning does have a track record for scouting. It certainly doesn't mean all his draft picks will be impact players. Many, even ones fans are excitedly making bold predictions about, won't become impact players or "move the dial". Many *gasp* won't even have an NHL career or be more than fringe players. But hopefully that scouting track record pays off with some hits. Of that I'm optimistic.
I'll finish with this tidbit: it's been posted many times that only 25% of 2nd round picks play 200+ plus NHL games. Not good odds. Well Baertschi and Granlund are both well over 200 NHL games. Putting them firmly in the top 25%. What falls into that 25% isn't an indication of impact or 'dial movers'. Raymond was a 2nd round pick that played over 500 NHL games. Most would consider that a pretty successful career. But not a "dial mover". This certainly doesn't mean you can't get a high impact player in the 2nd round or later. It's just that they are actually a small percentage.
-
1
-
-
On 3/11/2019 at 6:54 PM, VancouverHabitant said:
He came over when he was ready for the NHL. He had confidence in himself and bet on himself with his contract. You think it's entitlement but I say it's confidence.
He didn't demand ice time and bolt because of it. He left because of his family. Everything else is people reading into his comments too much. So what if he didn't enjoy Willie's coaching? Does he have to lie now and pretend that Willie was god's gift to coaching?
Tryamkin is confident in his abilities, not entitled. You know who else strikes me the same way now? Elias, and that's a quality that we need more of on the Canucks.
If he was truly confident in his abilities he wouldn't have demanded a no AHL clause. Elias on the other hand didn't demand a no AHL clause and came in confident he'd make the team.
He didn't "demand" ice time but one one of his complaints after leaving was not getting 20+ minutes per game like he did in the KHL. That kind of screams 'entitlement'. Believing he should simply get those minutes rather than earning them.
Then of course there was the issue of not showing up to camp in shape. He didn't feel he should have been sat out because he felt his conditioning wasn't "that bad". It seems to me if you don't think you need to compete for your spot or ice time there's a sense of self entitlement involved there.
That said, I would like to see him back. But, if he wants guarantees to return, the answer is no thanks.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said:
Everyone should be okay with the picks as long as they don’t go completely off the board. The only thing you can do is research and due diligence. As long as they dotted theirs i’s and the statistics are sound you can’t complain.
I wasn’t old enough to follow the Nedved draft closely but a quick search would suggest that he was the safest and right pick. I mean you can’t 100% say that Jagr would have the same instant hall of famer career with us, without Lemieux rubbing off on him. I mean Neely learned jack from us and became a superstar after he left or crap hole organization. For all we know, Lemieux would have turned Nedved into Federov and we would have turned Jagr into Jake Virtanen or Hunter Shinkaruk.
I remember back then Quinn said during interviews they asked Nedved who he thought was the best player in the draft. He said hands down Jagr, he's an incredible talent. Quinn thought he was just being modest and liked that so he drafted Nedved. As we all know now, Nedved wasn't being modest he was simply being honest.
I don't think any coach could have misused Jagr. He simply had that kind of talent and skill that would come through. Much like Pettersson this year. I certainly didn't expect Petey to be as effective as he's been from the get go. But guys with that kind of innate talent it just shines through.
-
1
-
-
On 1/20/2019 at 10:38 PM, CanadianRugby said:
I think the goal of a rebuild is to be a Stanley Cup contender, not a playoff contender.
One step at a time....
-
10 hours ago, pgcanuck said:
Bo is the next captain. You've heard it from the fans, the media and the players. He has shown grit and determination leading the team when the chips have been down. 2nd in points playing a more defensive role. Taking on whatever role his team needs him to play. Staying in Vancouver when he could have taken bigger dollars elsewhere. He has been the engine and workhorse of this team for the past few seasons.
How? He was an RFA and nobody dropped an offer sheet on him all summer. Which the Canucks could have matched anyway. He got a little more than I expected.
-
1
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:
Here we go again. In Mtl..nothing called on that ugly little Finnish c**t, eh?
#riggeddeckleague doesn't care if Cdn markets drag each other down with injuries &/or dirty play. They'll call this illegal shyte a "regional rivalry", or some such crap.
Frenchie reffs didn't SEE that obvious f***ing call?! Oh..sure
You CAN'T beat TWO rulebooks.
Canucks have gotten away with similar interference behind the play. You just don't pay attention. You see that type of interference when the play turns the other way all the time. It rarely gets called.
This is what Canucks coach Travis Green told reporters in Montreal about the play: “I’ve watched it a lot of times. First of all, it’s not a dirty play by their player at all. (Pettersson) gets hooked a little bit. Petey actually pushes back on him, leans back and probably tries to give a little bit of a reverse hit, and two young guys fall to the ice. It’s not a penalty.”
“It was a pretty innocent play,” Sutter said of the Pettersson injury.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/takeaways-pettersson-incident-not-dirty-play-eyes-canucks/
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 12/23/2018 at 10:00 PM, lmm said:I am unsurprized by Schaller's lack of, well anything.
I thought "retirement contract" when he signed. It was a gut feeling.
I could not rationalise why he would sign here, other than he did not want to play the tough guy in Boston.
He is a doctor. I don't see CTE as an enhancement for his chosen career.
I bet he doesn't even try to sign another contract after this one and starts his Dr. career once its done.
Did you see the Morrissey interview last night?
His brother, also wants to be a Dr. says, I'd rather save lives than goals, (he's a goalie).
I'd certainly be interested in a Canucks in Cars segment on Schaller.
A two year deal for a 27 year old is a retirement contract? lol
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
13 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:
I agree. I am clearly not seeing what others are seeing. He's not outplaying anyone really, he's not world breaking, and he'd likely very much benefit more from potentially playing more in Utica than the usage he is getting in the NHL. Playing fewer than 10 minutes a game in 3 of the last 5 games (which include 2 games where he only played 6 minutes). Other two games played 10 and 11 minutes respectively. Even if his minutes only bump up to 14-15 minutes in Utica it's better than what he is getting here in Vancouver.
Exactly. I've said many times over these past few years being NHL capable (not looking out of place) is not the same as being NHL ready (actually contributing). It's the difference between filling a hole without hurting the team and actually helping the team win games.
-
3
-
Canucks reveal new jerseys for 50th season
in Canucks Talk
Posted
I've hated the stick in rink since they joined the NHL. This is the first time I haven't minded the logo. The C does seem more pronounced and without the white striping the logo stands out more. One big complaint from the time they introduced the stick in rink as an alternate was our primary and alternate looked too much alike. Leaving out the white striping does make it more distinctly different from the primary while retaining all three colors with the white numbers and a predominately white logo. Plus, despite being the same blue and green as the primary it seems darker without the white striping. This is the first stick in rink jersey I can say I don't mind. I don't love it, but that's a big step up from hating it.