Baggins
-
Posts
11,793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Baggins
-
-
When skilled players go down you need other skilled players to be there to pick up the slack. same for the grinders on the team, when they go down you need players that can step up and fill the hole. You are not going to win without scoring goals and we have all seen this in the playoffs especially. MG messed up the scoring ability of our team by targeting less skilled players. You keep bringing up particular trades but just like kass it's not booths fault that MG didn't do a good job of retooling. It's a combination of all the trades and lack there of that led us down the path we are on. I'm not adverse to the idea of a big strong team it's just that MG wasn't capable of building it and I don't understand why he even tried when we were a team that could compleat for the cup before the retool, it was a misjudgment on his part and we as fans are paying for it.
After the '11 finals I think a more balanced team of size, speed, and skill is superior to an average size team that relies only on skill. The way the game is defended and reffed now really favors bigger players and garbage goals.
Could anybody forecast the injuries to Booth? He was bigger, faster, younger and more physical than Samuelsson and on pace for 25 goals when the knee injury occured. Then it's been a string of injuries since. But that deal looked great in the beginning. Should MG have somehow known those injuries would happen and his productivity go with them? That's the chance you take in any trade.
-
1
-
-
All Gillis had to do was get a winger for the second line when Samuelsson left and he has failed to do it.
To make matters worse he signed a multiple brain injured player for four years and $19m dollars.
That loss of cap space ,along with the Ballard loss of cap space,effectively shut down the team core window.
Could have signed anybody in the league for the second line,made an offer sheet proposal,conducted a trade.......
and he signed Booth.
The team gave him cap space and the owner gave him cap space and he blew it.
Gillis didn't sign Booth he was already under contract when he traded for him.
Ballard was brought in to replace the "brain injured" Mitchell. With the addition of Hamhuis Ballard dropped to #3 on the left side depth chart and never seemed to adapt to a bottom pair role.
Btw, do we need to get rid of the "brain injured" Hamhuis?
-
2
-
-
The fact that Hodgeson is now the 1st line center for Buffalo is enough to say how weak their roster is. Its not that he couldn't help Buffalo into the playoffs, its because the whole team wasn't playing good enough. No one I know ever said Hodgeson would carry us to the cup, but all things considering I would personally say that Hodgeson would have contributed more to winning in the playoffs than Kassian could at the time. Yes Kassian is physical but at the time he was nowhere near as developed as Hodgeson was.
Buffalo was 3 wins out of the playoffs and played himself from the second line down to the fourth line that season. If Hodgson wasn't the difference between a cup and a first round exit for us what difference does the timing make? The result is the same either way: no cup. I honestly don't think keeping Hodgson would have even got us out of the first round. Sometimes you have to deal when what you are looking for becomes available. If you don't it will be gone. Unlike ea, the trade partner has a say as well and Buffalo was not going to wait.
-
Not really. It was Hodgson's productivity of course but it was mostly the timing of the deal and the role that Kassian could provide for us going into the playoffs. And to address another poster's claim, it also didn't matter whether Gillis thought Zack could help us immediately or not, fact is he didn't. Cody was, at the time, our third leading scorer, tops in playing rookies for ice time, with the club knowing Kesler was injured. In the Final the year before the criticism for failure was equal part Luongo and lack of scoring. Even Cody sounded surprised when it happened. We lost by one goal in two of those games and by two in the others. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that Cody may have potted one or two goals for us, maybe just the ones we needed to change momentum to get over the Kings, just as Daniel was coming back. I've watched enough playoffs to know that anything can happen if you get a little luck. This was only one year after our big run, we had been in a slump, but we were still the Presidents Trophy champions. Who knows how we'd react if we had just had those few goals needed to squeeze past the Kings?
All I'm saying is we missed even finding out if our hockey pundit praised rookie prize could shine when we needed him - like he did with the insurance goal in the statement game against Boston on the road that same year. You have to grab the brass ring for the SCP when you have the opportunity, because it may be harder to grab than you thought, look at this year.
Of course I'm 100% stoked about Kassian's development. He may even be ahead of schedule. I'm glad he's here. But that doesn't change the fact that Gillis traded away "immediate offense" just before we enter the playoffs with the other top scorers injured. There's a time to trade with a rebuild in mind (like now maybe) and a time to go for it (like 2012)
I've addressed the timing many, many times but I will yet again for you.
What difference did the timing make? Would Hodgson have put this team on his back and carried us to the cup? He couldn't help Buffalo make the playoffs, but he'd somehow get us to the finals? Sometimes you have to deal when what you are looking for is made available. That's the bottom line in this deal. Buffalo was a few wins out of a playoff spot but were in dire need of a center. That's the precisely reason Kassian was made available when he was. Buffalo wasn't going to wait until the off-season to make that move because they were still in the playoff hunt but needed help. Gillis had inquired about 6 young power forwards in the off-season and none of the teams, including Buffalo, were interested. That's why the deal had to be made when it was. Those thinking Hodgson would have saved our playoffs are dreamers. The timing simply didn't matter.
-
1
-
-
The reason why is not relevant or even important, even gritty teams have players that go down in the playoffs.
The important thing is the ability to win games in the playoffs, after he started in the new direction how many playoff games have we won? How many goals did we score? What's our position in the standings right now?
The bottom line is we don't have a second line anymore because MG didn't value scoring as much as he should have and this has hurt the teams chances of winning games. Some GMs have built teams with great success with gritty players but MG didn't and it's because he didn't do a good job with his retooling.
Again I'm not saying it was zacks fault that this retooling started just that it was the start of MGs plan that ended up destroying the Canucks.
Not sure how you can dispute this or why you would even want to.
It is relleveant. When skilled players go down you need big bodies that can muck out wins. You can't bury your head in the sand and ignore what happened in that playoff run.
And I don't buy into the "team has been destroyed" notion. Was trading Samuelsson really a bad idea? He played 54 games the season he was traded. Only 4 games in 12/13 and a whopping 26 games this season. He was traded for a bigger, younger, more physical player who came in and was putting up points. Nobody here was complaining about Booth until his knee injury marked a long series of injuries. You can't forecast that. That deal made sense when it was made. That's all you can really ask.
-
1
-
-
3 years is a dangerous term isn't it? Can someone clarify the CBA on age / experience when a guy can become UFA on expiry of his deal. I believe it's 26??
Ergo if we sign him 2 years or less we retain his rights. 3 or more he's UFA on expiry.
A 2 year bridge deal at $2 mill would be ok. A 3 year one, and if I'm Kassian I sign it as fast as I can.
Even if his deal expires at 26 he's either going to want a one year deal, or an offer that's worth extending well past his ufa year. Either way you're going to have to pay. A third year at a low rate could potentially more than make up for the next raise. Plus he could be offered an extension prior to playing that third year.
-
This is the Gillis record:
2013 #9 Hunter and #24 Shinkaruk (both first round picks and not NHL players)
2012 #26 Gaunce(1st round pick)-not an NHL player
2011 #29 Jensen (1st round pick)
2010 No NHL players
2009 #22 Schroeder (1st round pick) and #83 Connauton (played NHL games for Dallas in Roy trade)
2008 #9 Hodgson (1st round pick)
Six first round picks in six drafts.
38 players selected over six drafts.
4 picks playing in the NHL.
This record pales in comparison to successful organizations records.
How about an actual comparison to those successful organizations? Talk is cheap and I wouldn't take your word on anything.
-
The thing is - there are a paucity of good GMs out there
well managed teams - good drafting, good trades, respectable organization, make a profit, get good attendance, good on ice product
-CHI
-BOS
-DET
-LA
-SJS
-PIT
-STL
-CBJ - recently
up and coming
TB
PHX
(both good drafting and player development)
COL
mediocre
WSH - Mcphee is spinning his wheels
PHI
MTL
WIN
DAL
OTT
NSH
VAN - a fall from grace - Luongo, Coho, schneider, Erhoff, Torres - amazing how these guys left and we have almost nothing on our roster to show for these guys...
poorly run
CGY
EDM
TOR
NYI
FLA
NJ - gong show but they still managed to get schneider at a steal
NYR
CAR
MIN
most of these guys are imbeciles and so the only way Gillis would lose his job is if there is a great candidate waiting - I think Jason Botterill could be that guy - well trained, educated former player who is an assistant GM in PIT, most successful GMs come from Assit GM jobs
Gillis is thinking about hiring a GM and staying on solely as President like Kevin Lowe, that way Gillis has 2 lines of protection between himself and the street (coach and new GM).
Talk is cheap. How about supplying the evidence of this superior drafting. As this is a criticism of Gillis you can only use draft years of those teams since MG has been GM here. please include year, and draft position in your list of draft successes.
-
1
-
-
Excuse me??? what has he done to earn a big raise????
If you want to sign him for more than one year you'll have to give a decent contract. Wait till you see what ufa's are going for with this years cap increase. If you can get Kassian to sign a 3 year deal under $2m per it will be a bargain.
-
This it the quote pulled out of the story I posted on the next page back. What's all this bullcrap talk?
"Gillis intimated that the Canucks were a team that had to lean too much on its skill and its high-powered offence. He decided he was willing to surrender some of that offense"
Do you know why?
By the end of the 2011 playoff run....
Blue = playing injured / Red = out with injury / Black = no reported injury
Sedin/Sedin/Burrows
Raymond/Kesler/Samuelson
Higgins/Lappiere/Hansen
Edler/Ehrhoff
Hamhuis/Bieksa
That's why he decided we needed size, skill and speed as opposed to just skill and speed. Something that most on this board were saying after the physical beating we took in that playoff run.
-
As was stated, our prospect pool is one of if not the worst in the league.
MG has done some good, but I would like to see someone else take this team forward for the next few years.
We need an injection of fresh talented smart and bold people running the show. Gillis needs to go.
Well if somebody else took over now he'd certainly be inheriting a much better prospect pool than Gillis did when he took over. Talk about a bare cupboard. Gillis started out with a half decent core with no quality prospects to inject into the roster at a friendly elc cap hit.
-
1
-
-
Don't have a problem with trading Cody, have a problem with trading Cody for Kassian at the deadline when we have 2 injured centers and a lack of goal scoring.
Do you actually believe Hodgson would have led us to the cup in that playoffs? Did he manage to save Buffalo's season and make the playoffs? Nope. That's exactly why Buffalo wanted him. I don't think keeping him would have got us past LA any more than saving Buffalo's playoff dream. So what difference did the timing really make? None.
It take TWO teams getting what they need to complete a trade. Buffalo was not going to wait until the off-season to move Kassian. They were 3 wins out of the playoffs and in need of a center. Which is why Kassian was made available at the deadline. That deal wouldn't have been there come summer. Kassian was getting moved for a center at that time. I fully expected Hodgson to be moved at the end of the season but moving him at the deadline wasn't going to make much difference to our fate. It was a case of getting what you wanted for him when it became available.
-
1
-
-
I didn't change the subject I just thought it was interesting that booth was part of his fails master plan.
You must not have ready the full story
I don't think you "ready" the whole story. Or maybe you simply didn't comprehend what was actually said.
In the same post:
Your take: "but he did say he was going to help win."
Actually said: He still has a ways to go to develop I think into his full potential, but he is an NHL player now who is going to help us in a lot of different ways.
This really shows your objectivity.
People complain about Booth but that deal looked really good when he arrived. Big, fast, physical, and could put it in the net. He was on pace for a 25 goal season until the knee injury. Then it's just been injury after injury with him. How can that be predicted? It can happen with any trade. nucknit loves to go on about his history of concussions but his injuries here haven't had anything to do with concussions.
Those complaining about the Kassian deal is entirely about Hodgson being more productive. So they see it as a bad deal. I've asked this question several times and nobody has said yes: If you had a big physical 50 point young player with good speed and willing to drop the gloves would you trade me straight across for an average size 50 point young player who is an average skater, doesn't play physical, and doesn't drop the gloves? The obvious answer is you wouldn't. Which is why we got potential skill back instead of current equal skill. Kassian has attributes in his toolbox that Hodgson will never have. That's how trades work. Anybody thinking we were getting the exact same skill back immediately is a delusional idiot living in EA world.
-
3
-
-
No. I just said that if you earn your ice time. There is a reason that Hodgson plays more than Kassian.
Would that reason be that he's on the worst team in the league and they don't have anybody better?
-
It all sounds very good, but that's not how hockey works. Hodgson is playing on the worst team in the league. Crosby plays more than any other forward in the league and scores more than anyone. You earn your ice time. That's how hockey works. If you're good then you get to play more.
Hodgson was playing with the best players on his team in the best offensive situations with top line minutes. Can the same be said of Kassian?
-
If there is anyone in the league who needs incentive, its Kassian. He has a very strong tendency to go right to sleep without plenty of external stimuli.
Perhaps his contract should be structured around trying to keep him motivated as much as possible, he gets a very modest base salary and fantastic rewards if he gets 20 goals or 50 points or whatever.
He's neither old enough or young enough to have incentives in his contract. That's limited to entry level contracts and players over 35 on one year deals.
-
The Leafs game didn't even start until 4:45 because of pre-game crap. Expect it to run past 7pm.
*whining and crying may begin now*
-
I don't think any other NHL fanbase turns on their own players faster than Canuck fans. Chanting Eddie, Eddie, Eddie one game and then chanting we want Lou the next game.
That said, my first thought when I heard Lack was starting again was, he's being showcased to see what we could get for him by the trade deadline. He is one of the few valuable pieces without an ntc after all.
-
1
-
-
That's the stupidest argument I've ever hurt. Pain comes from injuries. Keith wanted to cause Daniel a lot of pain. It's the exact same thing as saying he wanted to injure him.
Are you saying he wanted to maybe just fracture his jaw, or break a few of his teeth, but not concuss him? You're just making excuses for an intentionally dirty play, it's ridiculous.
Does a person get injured on every hard hit? Does a hard hit hurt? You piss me off and I punch you in the arm and I cause you pain. I doubt I'll break your arm in the deal. If I did it certainly wasn't my intent.
I'm not saying it wasn't intentional, or that it wasn't dirty. I'm saying I doubt he intended to concuss him. Just as I doubt Bertuzzi intended to break Moores neck. In both instances I believe the intent was to teach a lesson. In both cases it turned out worse than intended.
-
I guess a gold medal makes everything alright..Kieth was one of the most hated guys on CDC for the last year,,,I saw the play, looked intentional to me.
Oh it was intentional. But there's a difference between intending to cause pain and intending to concuss a person. He did it in retaliation to Daniel's early hit on him in that shift where there was contact to his head. Did he actually intend to injure Daniel? I don't think so. Just as I believe Bertuzzi wanted to cause Moore pain as opposed to the actual result.
-
Lol right. No advantage at all being in the same division as 3 of the league's basement teams. So then here's a question with some new facts. If we were such an awesome team last year (and it had nothing to do our weak division as you state) how about this year? Look at our record with Calgary, Edmonton and then compare it to our record with the Pacific teams. Oh what kind of excuses will Old News have...
We play those weak teams from our former division one whole game less. We play Anaheim, SJ and LA one whole game more. But then we play Chicago, Detroit, and St Louis less. It kind of balances out. The real difference is instead of three teams getting a banner and guaranteed the top three playoff seeds, it's only two teams that get a banner and are guaranteed the top two seeds. People are making a far bigger deal out of the realignment than is warranted. Overall the number of games against stronger/weaker teams is basically the same. There will simply be much smaller chance ot "easy banners" to be had because only two are handed out in larger divisions.
-
Geez you love bringing this up. If I was you I would go back and listen to his comments on 1040 the other day. He actually says that the Sedins are the only untradable pieces and many, many, NTC's have been traded before. He wouldn't committ to saying it outright because everyone twists words but the impression he clearly gave me was that if the landscape dictated it these could be moved one way or the other. Whether we as fans are not aware of a loophole or simply have misconstrued his statements I think it's time to let this rest. Unless of course you just love to inform everyone that this crappy team is etched in stone for the next 4 years.
“It is a fluid business and there are circumstances where a player may choose to move on,” Gillis said on the TEAM 1040. ” Those discussions occur periodically and, no, I haven’t wavered on a basic principle that when we make a deal with somebody that we stick to it, so, no, I’m not wavering.
“When I make a deal with somebody and they have requested and are granted a no-trade clause, we respect that. In the event a player came to us and asked if things could be changed, then we’ll listen to it.”
However, Gillis says no player with a no-trade clause has come to him and asked to be moved.
“When you ask players to sacrifice in terms of dollars, they like some measure of guarantee that their sacrifices will be rewarded. That’s how these clauses come about.
“There are circumstances that are fluid. Teams trade players with no-trade clauses all the time. It’s part of doing business under this CBA. It’s part of trying to assemble a team and keeping it together. You have to make decisions on people that you believe are long-term people for your hockey club and that’s what we’ve done.”
-
So the general concensus is DO NOTHING.
Do you think this will net better results next year? Our players turn one year older while our rivals get better yet you want to stand pat?
Ok so I guess we are not like the Flames because they bought when they shouldn't have.
But we dont want to sell either?
Schroeder, Hansen? You think that would get a decent return? No with those guys we will end up with either a 2nd rd pick (which we usually throw in the garbage) OR an equivalent 3rd or 4th liner...
How would you expect different results without changing anything?
If the plan is to let it play out and let our team fizzle for the next 3 years creeping up the draft picks yearly so we draft around 10ish this year, 6 next year and then 3 the following year, wouldn't it be better to speed up that transition if we know we are going to fizzle?
Or by chance do you think we will all of a sudden be contender for the cup next year? Because THAT should be the ultimate goal. Not a division title or a plauyoff spot. We want a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup
Did anybody say do nothing for three years?
Gillis has stated again he won't ask players to waive their ntc. This proposing players with those ntc's being moved is pointless. It's a rather bad year for injuries resulting in down numbers across the team. The most valuable trade piece we have is Tanev. So it's either package Tanev with our first or wait until the offseason when Booth can be bought out, the cap will rise, and Lou possibly ask to be traded.
I think there's a good chance Lou may ask to be moved after this season as it's actually in his own best interest. In his contract this summer it's his right to ask to be moved. If he doesn't ask to be moved his ntc expires in two years and the team can freely move him anywhere. If he asks to be moved, and the team fails to move him in the offseason, the team then loses their right to move him anywhere in two years. Meaning his ntc continues through the life of the contract.
Higgins, Hansen, and Tanev are our most valuable trade pieces and they're not going to get the type of top six player you guys are clamoring for. So it's pointless looking to trade just to cross your fingers and hope it will save the season. There may be substantial cap space available this summer. So wait. Write this off as a bad year, buy out Booth and retool in the offseason. There's no point in panicking just yet.
-
Sorry for the bad news guys but seriously, lets not shoot the messenger.
Currently the Canucks are in 10th place with only 22 games left. The 2 teams we are chasing ahead of us for the final playoff spot has 2 games in hand.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE JR AND OLD NEWS
So say the team comes back from the Olympics and plays much better. We still have only 4 games before the deadline. If the Canucks are 3-0-1 heading into the deadline and fight back to 8th place while phx and Dallas are 9th and 10th with a game in hand what do you think the Canucks should do?
THIS WAS THE FLAMES SAGA FOR 3 years people...
hovering around a playoff spot with a chance.
So do u think the Canucks should buy?
Do you think they should sell?
Or do you think they should do nothing?
Nothing.
We have nothing to sell (pending ufa's), and a rental isn't going to put us over the top. Unless it's an actual trade, as opposed to a rental, there's no point in wasting assets this year. Just let it play out.
Kassian RFA year
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Pahlson was brought in to replace Cody. He scored 1 goal which about matches Cody's regular season goal production per game. But, and it's a big but, Pahlson with the third line took on a decent portion of the shutdown role from Kesler to allow him to take a more offensive role. That never would have happened with Cody on the third line. Would Kesler still have had his 3 points if he had to take on the full shutdown role?
I'll stick with my contention that keeping commander Cody wouldn't have changed the outcome of that series. What we got back for him is something that was seriously lacking on this team. In the long run I'm sure we'll come out ahead on the deal. I'd even say we're already ahead this season.