Grape

Just tuning in but loved that powerplay. That's more shots on net than we had on any powerplay last year. Some really good chances too.

Don't forget that Lockwood was not a bottom six player in college! Lockwood was our best forward and Quinn was our best defenceman that year - so let's not make it too big of a deal that the top forward could "keep up" with the top defenceman haha

I don’t see the issue with having a life outside of hockey??? Are they not allowed to enjoy a game of football while not being under contract? You can talk about optics, but it’s not like they were posting about themselves. This was a photo from the UMich Hockey Instagram account. They’ve also been training here, and so I don’t see the problem with “optics” especially since all of you guys know why they’re here and what they’ve been doing. It’s also quite standard procedure for our athletic alumni come back for games. NBA/NFL players in the middle of the season just show up to a game when it’s convenient for them and they have contracts. Quinn and Petey don’t even have contracts yet so I find it odd that people are complaining? Also, for context: Quinn was also honored at the game as a former Wolverine (pretty cool to see 100k+ cheer for him), so that could be the reason he was here, and perhaps Petey just tagged along.

I was respectful!!! Just had to yell because it’s hard to hear over a crowd of 106,000 people even if they’re just a section away. I didn’t mean that I was yelling AT them. Just telling them Vancouver would love to have them back. As for if it’s real, I mean I’m just a guy on a message board so you can decide whether to trust me or not haha. I mean, what kinda proof do you want LOL. I’m a senior at UofM that has front row seats that was pleasantly surprised to see Quinn and Elias this afternoon. Also not that it matters, Maggie Mac Neil was honored at the game today too as she’s a fellow student which I found pretty cool!!!

There are many perks to having row A student section seats to Michigan Football games. Did not expect (politely) yelling at Quinn and Petey to sign their contracts to be one of them. They both gave me a look so my takeaway is that I either did my part or they’re never signing with Vancouver.

Umm Hughes has not talked to the media yet if I'm not mistaken? I'm not going to defend either Petey or Hughes because I'm pretty sure they're both extremely confident with perhaps a quiet arrogance to them, but Hughes not having spoken up about it means nothing. He literally hasn't had the opportunity to yet.

A 22 year old who hasn't seen meaningful NHL minutes will not be be a factor for Hughes' negotiation. Besides, Petey's negotiation is the one to focus on. Hughes cannot be signed until Petey gets signed. For all we know, a deal could be done with Quinn already.

"What did the Sedins, Edler, Tanev or Markstrom do to help the team out after they were treated with years and years of loyalty?" Unless I'm not understanding correctly, are you for real? You're going to cite the SEDINS as examples as to why we shouldn't try to re-sign our two best players to the best of our abilities? And you're going to say that we were loyal to the two greatest players in our franchise history, as if not being loyal was the rational choice? THEY were the ones loyal to us!!!. "I say offer them a fair deal and if they refuse, then move on and bring in someone who will play for just a little less for the team to succeed." Who are we supposed to find that can just come in and replace Petey and Hughes? You don't just find two franchise level talents in the UFA market, and if you do, you're going to have to overpay massively, more so than the RFA market. You don't just draft two generational talents just to move them away once their rookie contracts are up. Sure, don't give in to their demands and play the waiting game, but are you serious? Move on just to show them who's tough? Trust me, we won't be better off without Petey and Hughes for a long time. Is your point that we shouldn't have been so "loyal" to guys like the Sedins and Edler? Also, neither Petey nor Hughes are getting paid 10M nor 11M, you don't have to worry about that.

What's with the BS speculation going on here? Hughes cannot sign until Petey gets signed due to leverage issues. There could be a verbally agreed upon deal already for all we know. From reports, Hughes is the guy we're probably going to lock up long-term. Petey is the one whose contract talks aren't really close to being done yet, as reported by the agent himself. That's going to hold off the Hughes' talks for as long as it drags on for. Also, I'm just a guy on a message board, so obviously no need to take my word seriously. But I know for a fact that Quinn wants to stay in Vancouver long-term. I don't know anything else about the contract talks but that I'm sure of. You can take my signature or location as a hint.

Going to have to disagree on this one. Don't think any opposing offensive star is looking at 36 y/o Jay Beagle and thinking, "crap this might make things more difficult."

Lack of fans probably clouds judgement. But in general, I do agree. Teams just seem to be overmatched by Tampa.

I remember certain Canucks fans saying they wanted to lose game 6 to Boston to win at home. Ugh.

Don't think decline is the right word at all. I think Bo is around his peak and will be at his peak for the next couple of of years. His (very slight) decline in production was mostly the result of the team taking a step back. The same can be said for JT. Really hope we're opportunistic and take advantage of this within the next couple of years.

Well the news we were waiting for was either: 1. Beagle could play and would count towards our cap ($3M). 2. Beagle couldn't play and would be exempt. It turns out that the former was true, and some posters were happy with it as if it was preferential news for the cap-strapped Canucks, which was why I commented. And I'm not sure we can even really say he "plays unlike Loui." I mean, he'll be 36 next year!!! A lot of excellent players can't even play at 36, let alone a career role player in Beagle. You don't think we could find a younger and more productive player in that 4C role?

Bottom line is that there is ZERO chance a single team offers Beagle for a 1 year/3M dollar contract if he were a free agent, which is basically the contract the Canucks are left with. He is at the point in his career where if he were a free agent, it's unlikely he'd attract any teams for any money, and would either retire or sign overseas to finish off his career. He is an offensive zero which isn't ideal, and his defense is declining with age. There are positives, absolutely. Leadership is one of them. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that's worth 3M. I'm sure there's a lot of free agents out there who are excellent leaders but no one is paying them 3M unless they are worth around that on the ice. Glad for Beagle the person, but this contract hurts the Canucks and there's no argument around it. Hopefully we can still find enough money to sign a cheaper and far more effective fourth line centre, because I think Motte and Lockwood have a lot of potential as wings.

You do know that we're one of the worst defensive teams in the league right...

The "human side" of sports is why we're stuck with an ultra-expensive and yet possibly the worst bottom six in the league. We needed Sutter because he's "foundational." We needed Eriksson's "chemistry" with the Sedins. We needed Beagle because of his "experience and leadership." We needed Roussel because of his "grit." You just cited a completely different sport as a rebuttal. How is that any better? And to make a rebuttal on that, well, upsets happen. When you see Switzerland upset France, or Iceland make it far as they did in the last Euros, you can't just cite "heart and grit" and "the human side of things" as why it occurs. Sometimes sports are random and teams are opportunistic, and to make it seem like there's always a definitive reason for it outside of their performance on the field is a stretch. You also say that "what is on paper doesn't matter" as if there's no limit to the price you should pay for a veteran presence. Do you truly believe that some Canuck prospect is all of the sudden going to pan out because we're paying 35 y/o Jay Beagle 3M to be the fourth line centre and to give him pep talks? You don't think that money is better off being allocated to somewhere else that might help the performance side of our hockey team, which we sorely lack?

Sometimes things just happen in hockey. It's a very random sport. I think it's better that we don't try to replicate things and "learn lessons." A lot of moves by Gillis in his final years and in Benning's first few years stemmed from that 2011 loss, which got us nowhere. In this case, I think Price's contract is a prime example of what not to go for, despite current results telling us the opposite.

I watched the game. But just because we're sitting in front of TVs, doesn't give us access to a player's mind. I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that he was pissed contributed to him making the wrong decision, but this looks everything like a guy making an effort to try to separate player from puck. He literally stopped striding and started gliding before the hit, so I don't really understand how people think it's "charging." TBH I think he probably should have kept skating, which would've resulted in a clean play as he would've gotten to the puck faster. I do think the nature of the contact + the injury makes it suspension worthy though.

The hit was clearly to prevent the goal. Obviously he should have tried to poke it so not arguing that it was the wrong decision. Do you really think that in a situation where the team is down a goal with enough time to score a playoff game, that a guy as crucial as Scheifele would decide "hey I'll just injure somebody" rather than win the game? It was a desperate attempt to prevent the goal by separating the puck from the player that ended up in a really bad situation.

Do you really think that's the case? You've gotta be really out of touch with how teenagers think to believe that. Or you just don't want to believe that kids being stupid can hurt some people other than yourself. Would you also excuse a kid going around school calling people the n-word, and say that they might just be doing a social experiment? Given the very small chance that you are right, and the kid likes the book for academic purposes, then it's likely that the kid is also smart enough to know that putting it as his "favourite book" in an yearbook is extremely insensitive to those who are Jewish, given that it could be emotionally triggering. Of course context matters; a TV character who is racist shouldn't get the show cancelled for example. But this is far from a situation where that's the case, and quite frankly it's a bit disappointing to see so many people agree there is "context" to be considered here, and that this would be okay given a certain situation. It's an extremely insensitive move no matter what.

This one should be easy to tell. But in case some here fall for it, well, don't. It's fake.

I have so many things to say about this but I don’t have the energy to type too much atm. All that I’ll ask you is, if I told you back in 2014 about the results of the upcoming seven years and the team’s current outlook, would you be saying, “man, Benning really did a better than average job!” The bottom line is, no GM is ever brought in with the expectation that 7 years later something like this would be considered “better than average.” The examples you listed are teams that were also poorly managed and as a result had significant turnover. I find it hard to believe that if this happened to a rival team, you’d be claiming their GM has been doing a really good job.

He's basically already producing at 50 points per 82 games (when you factor in recency bias and that he barely plays on the PP). To say 50 points is his POTENTIAL is massively underselling things IMO. It's saying that he'll barely get better, if at all.' He's already producing at a fantastic pace playing primarily on even strength, and so 80 points down the line is absolutely attainable. Likely? No. But I don't think people would be that shocked based on what we know of Hog.

I'm pretty sure we did this in 2011. All our defensemen miraculously became healthy come playoff time LOL. I seem to recall a graphic that said that VAN didn't have a single game out of 82 that season where all defensemen were "healthy," so I think it's too much of a coincidence that they all became healthy before the 83rd game.