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

Baggins

Members
  • Posts

    11,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Baggins

  1. 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.
  2. 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. Would that reason be that he's on the worst team in the league and they don't have anybody better?
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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*
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. “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.”
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. So he's been asking players to waive their ntc since he was hired? More straw clutching. Btw, Edler has a couple of pucks deflect of himself into the goal = suckage. Hamhuis has the same happen in back to back games = nothing.said. You can always tell who the cdc whipping boy is.
  15. Asking a players agent is still asking to waive the ntc isn't it? He said he won't ask. He said he'll only consider the option at the players request. "The Canucks GM says he doesn’t regret giving out so many NTC’s, he won’t ask players to waive them, but would listen if a player with a no-trade-clause asked to be traded. But Gillis also stated that no player has asked to be traded." http://www.teamradio.ca/news/mike-gillis-on-henrik-hamhuis-and-no-trade-clauses/ That's from an interview 5 days ago.
  16. Who exactly are we "selling"? Tanev? Booth? Gillis has recently reiterated he won't ask players to waive their ntc. Sellers tend to move players who are pending ufa's they don't intend to re-sign. That would be Albert, Santorelli and Diaz. You may as well keep drinking.
  17. 1 - Local sports writers come on here frequently. I don't how many times I've seen articles directly related to active threads on here. Considering the number of moaning threads about MG and the number of trade everybody threads, it's not much of a stretch for a writer to make the leap fans have lost faith in the team. Nothing about fans is an absolute. Not everybody has lost faith, although many have. You don't have to look any further than this board to see more are calling for heads than defending those heads. It's really just a generalization. Life is full of them. 2 - There's nothing in the article about losing faith in Gillis whether you or anybody else has or not. Although I'm surprised he didn't mention that as well. He simply said Gillis hasn't lost faith in the team.
  18. Booth was a minor surprise. Higgins and Lappy were only a surprise in that they worked out better than expected. I knew Grabner would be traded. With the entire top six coming off a career year, Grabner being waiver elligible, and his penchant for coming to camp in poor shape, it was a no brainer he was going to be moved. I also fully expected Hodgson to be dealt in the offseason. For months it was no secret he was unhappy with his role and ice time. But when Buffalo offered up exactly what MG had been looking for at the trade deadline he was moved sooner. (And no Buffalo wouldn't have waited until the offseason as they were 3 wins out of a playoff spot and in desperate need of a center) Schneider was a surprise. Weise not so much given his comments just prior and his history with Torts. I agree GM's don't talk publicly about trade possibilties. Unless of course the player has made it public he wants to be moved. Other than that we'll never truly know what GM's have been talking or what pieces are being offered/asked for.
  19. He reading it incorrectly. "They lost the confidence their most-devoted fans had in them." "They have not, however, lost the faith of their general manager." "They" is reffering to "the team". What he's saying is "the team" has lost the fans confidence but "the team" has not lost MG's conficence. He mistakenly thinks the writer is saying MG hasn't lost the fans confidence. Reading comprehension.
  20. If he was the d-man many "imagined" he'd be, he'd be able to command $9m or more on the open market instead of $5m.
  21. HE said they were a bust the last two playoffs. HE brought up the past. I simply refuted it. A smidge of reading comprehension goes a long way.
  22. The past two playoffs: Daniel - 6gp 5pts Henrik - 9gp 8 pts Kesler - 9gp 5 pts Burrows - 9gp 3pts Raymond - 9gp 3 pts Hansen - 9gp 1pt Booth - 5gp 1pt Higgins - 9gp 0pts Kassian - 8gp 0pts I don't think the Sedins have been our playoff problem. Both are 1 point off a point per game.
  23. Word at the time it was Aquilini that wanted Torts, not Gillis.
  24. Actually you're helping the Canucks make money anyway. Every advertiser knows that everybody that sees their isn't going to buy their product. But what it costs the advertiser to advertise here is completely based on traffic. The more traffic the more the Canucks can charge for advertising. So it doesn't matter if you buy, read, or even see the ads as just being here helps the Canucks financially. /Lesson
  25. Ah, the infamous "sounds like he's making excuses" quote. A little perspective.... Prospect camp: Cody says back is fine, no problem. Main camp: back feels good Pre-season: backs not a problem, I'm good The day Cody gets cut: Oh my back! AV is asked what he thinks about Cody saying his back is still a problem. There's really only two answers: 1 - The kid lied to us for the past six weeks 2 - Sounds like he's making an excuse for a poor pre-season Which answer is better? AV went with making an excuse but obviously the correct answer was Cody lied about his back. There were million$ of reason$ on the line to lie. But that lie set him back a year (not to mention putting his health and career at risk) as he then went on a medical wander. His own doctor, his junior teams medical staff, and a highly regarded back specialist in the US. All came up with bulging disc. After a season long wander he returns to Vancouver still having back problems and the medical staff discover a muscle tear that's aggrivating the disc. Problem solved. But that wasted year and AV's comment is entirely on Hodgson for his lie in the first place. Had he been honest maybe the medical staff looks further at that time and the secondary problem gets solved right away. Hodgson has mismanaged himself as far as I'm concerned. Hodgson may say the right things to the press, but the fact he fired two agents and was onto his third before ever playing an NHL game just screams self entitled prima donna. Frankly, I liked the trade for Kassian from the day it happened. Hodgson is overrated here. He'll be a pretty good player but he's no Trevor Linden and never will be.
×
×
  • Create New...