-
Posts
11,793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Baggins
-
-
I'd say it was explained quite well. Yes they got it right. What exactly don't you understand about it...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP13cRldd7E
-
Um....if he only hit the head it's not full body contact now is it. The hit on Burrows was full body contact. Does this seem consistent with the Edler hit.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5OFqmGgfk Note where he says, "This is not an otherwise full body check where contact with the head is unavoidable."
-
You do have to look at each angle Deb. Just as they do in reviewing a goal. One angle can be clearer than another what happened. You could say the exact same thing on your opinion: You're only choosing the angle that works for you, and you're slanting things to make your case. There's no doubt Burrows was hit in the chest as well. "Niederreiter makes full body contact. While there is contact to head, refer to rule 48 points (i) & (ii). In spite of some head contact, NN hits squarely thru the body. He does not "pick" the head as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension upward or outward. We believe that some head contact on this otherwise full bodycheck was unavoidable. The reverse angle shows this most clearly." http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/no-suspension-to-nino-niederreiter-for-headshot-on-canucks--alex-burrows-193315339.html
-
Actually I was surprised so I started searching for head shots that resulted in suspensions. What I found is Elvis and stawns are right. Each of the recent suspensions were direct hits to the head where the body is skimmed at most or missed completely. That was consistent in the six I just watched. The hit on Burrows was into the core of the body with contact to the head. Thus because the hit is into the core of the body the head isn't the principal target. Now I don't like the hit and see I it as a cheap shot. Cheap shots to me as intent to injure. There's a reason it's called a "cheap" shot. But the suspended head hits I watched were consistent in why they were defined as head shots and none were the same as the hit on Burrows. So as much as I don't like the hit, by definition it is legal. Here's a link that shows more angles of the hit: http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2014-03-26/nino-niederreiter-hit-alex-burrows-elbow-illegal-check-gif-video-minnesota-wild-vancouver-canucks
-
Well if you watch that slow-mo video Burrows body position doesn't significantly change. So he didn't put himself in a vulnerable position at that unavoidable last moment, he was in it when he was targeted. If anything he raises his head slightly at the last moment. Niederreiter on the other hand straightens his body upwards putting his shoulder more in line with Burrows head. He also leans into the hit and pushes upwards. I think the hit would have been much worse had Burrows not started straightening up. His head would have taken even more of the impact. To me the head was targeted.
-
I don't know. It sure looks like the head is the point of contact. What I don't get is why it was called an interference penalty. It wasn't interference because the puck had just left Burrows stick. It was either a head shot penalty or nothing at all.
-
The self righteous indignation on this board. I don't think Neiderreiter has been suspended before. A first offense without injury will likely be 2 games at most. I'd be fine with one game but it should be more than a fine.
-
I actually don't think he'd sign that. Last summer with the cap going down 40 to 50 point players were getting deals the were $4m+. Now those were UFA's but RFA's aren't as far behind any more because of the fear of offer sheets. I actually think he'll be asking for a one year deal.
-
He'd have to score more than one goal as that's what Pahlson provided. So he'd actually need to supply more than Pahlson to give us any hope of a better fate. Which means he'd need to double his regular season goal production rate in the playoffs to be a difference maker in that series. It could well be "out there" to believe he could do that. Possible - sure. Likely - I don't think so.
-
Actually it was Gillis that made the comment about Cody wanting to be traded the previous summer. His answer to Cody's agent was to let him play here that season to build his trade value first. Not quite the same as a random caller claiming to know the Canucks janitor. Which of us is the revisionist?
-
From you. I believe he was responding to your suggestion as opposed to anything Hodgson has said.
-
1 - Unless you believe Hodgson would put this team on his back and carry us to a cup victory the timing made no difference. I don't believe he'd even be the difference in that first round exit. My opinion. I think those that believe he would have him overrated. Again, my opinion. 2 - No Buffalo wouldn't have waited. They would have traded Kassian for a center from another team. They needed that center for their own playoff push. So unless you actually believe their GM would say "screw making the playoffs there's always next year" it wouldn't have happened. They needed a center in March, not July. Kassian was one of the six young power forwards MG had inquired about the previous summer. 3 - Cody being happy with his role or ice time is irrelevant to the timing of the trade. Like me, I'm sure he believed it would happen in the off-season. But like I said previously: when what you are looking for becomes available to have to make the move. There would be other teams very interested in acquiring a young power forward. You snooze you lose. That sound like he was willing to wait? Gillis got what had wanted for Hodgson, and Regier got what he needed for a playoff push. That's how trades happen.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
How about an actual comparison to those successful organizations? Talk is cheap and I wouldn't take your word on anything.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.