oeteman
-
Posts
73 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by oeteman
-
-
yup 1 game away and this team needs a few pieces...But why tarnish his word? In honouring the contracts he signs it shows to every player in the league that he is true to his word...You have family? If you were in the NHL and having 1 bad year would you want to be asked to waive? Would you not want to stay close so don't have to just packup and move them to a new team would you be happy with that? If you were a free agent looking to sign in Vancouver knowing their GM dishonours his word of NTC if have a bad year wold you go there?
I love how people argue "1 game away from stanley cup" to justify our team. 1 game or 100 games away, we didnt get it and its a loss.
-
2
-
-
No vendatta. I am season tickety holder. I travel many miles and spend a fair amount on money to watch Canucks play in Vancouver. This is my opinion. i just think this situation and approach is a huge mistake. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt it. It would be great if staying positive did the trick. I root for the Canucks and hope for the best. But I don't foresee anything positive arising from this mess. I am gald there is an Olympic break. Maybe that will be an opportunity for the Canucks to reevalaute and will give the team a break. It will also give us all something new to disagree about.
Now I'm confused! What "situation and approach" are you referring to? "Opportunity to reevaluate" what exactly? You still haven't made your point clear. It sounds like you're just a disgruntled fan voicing his distaste for the Canucks. If thats the case, make it clear what you're getting at and don't purchase tickets.
-
AV took you guys to game 7 of the SCF just 3 years ago - that's not something to overlook. And personally I thought you guys were a better and tougher team under him than under Torts. I know you said you are loving the new face of the Canucks but 3 years ago you guys played the game with skill and speed and I don't ever remember brute force being part of the game that made you guys successful - which is what Torts is trying to instill here.
3 years ago when our core was in their prime and healthy. The "brute force" is what won the cup that year.
-
The Canucks are self destructing. And most everyone is focused on how tough we are. Do we really want to go through 4 or 5 years of post Gillis and post Torts rebuilding? It's coming so save the entire 16 pages of this thread so we can remember the thinking that lead us there. While the franchise burns, the majority of folks fiddle a toughness tune.
Thus far, we are on the losing side of the scoreboard in every meaningful Division game. Burroughs is out forever for a meaningless blocked shot -- but that was then the flavor of the day -- -- "be tough block a shot". Now to be tough we have a line brawl and try to attack the opposing coach. What's next? Slap Shot?
Torts the most winning US coach in history. Here is what Wikipedia has to say
"Tortorella was also the assistant coach of the U.S. National Men's hockey team in 2008-2009[9] replacing Peter Laviolette, which included leading the squad at the 2008 IIHF World Championship, where they finished sixth."
Not even on the radar for the current US Olympic team. But as long as the fans are happy with tough who cares?
Tough works --- for about a week. But lets be happy for that week. A great week it was!!! But what do we do after we realize the week is over? Trade the Sedins so they get one last shot at a cup? A better Idea -- Let's just keep attacking the opposing coach so no one notices. That will keep Rogers Arena full. The worlds largest cage fight venue Our 1000th home sellout. And tickets will be much cheaper.
Credibility lost.
In your last paragraph it sounds like you have some sort of personal vendetta against the Canucks organization. Anyways, the Canucks actually look like a team with some heart lately and have a coach who fuels the fire. We are in a scoring slump but goals will come. So unlike you, I'm taking this as a good thing and remaining positive!
-
The point is that Torts automatically assumed that the 4th line was put out there by Calgary to beat up his 1st line so felt he had to counter with his own 4th line and went nuts about the whole thing. He had some other options:(1) - start his 1st line - yep with the twins and try to score on the opening shift. Most likely Calgary would have done a quick line change and the brawl would not have taken place(2)- start his 4th line but instruct them NOT to fight. That means NOT dropping the gloves when Westgarth decides to do so. The refs step in and bingo, Vancouver has a 2 min power play to start the game(3) - start his 4th line and instruct only ONE guy to fight Westgarth. From the looks of it and seeing Torts all fired up it appears that he ordered all 5 players on his 4th line to fight Calgary. It's easy for coaches to sit behind a bench and order someone else to go get hit in the face. This was an embarrassment.I took my 2 youngest kids to a day game this past Sunday (Chicago vs. Boston) - and I got to tell you I was thankful there was no fighting. It would scare them and if a 5-on-5 brawl broke out I would have taken them inside the concourse until it was over. The whole thing was excessive and unnecessary and I felt Torts was the instigator here and inflamed the situation. And then his attempt to start a fight by invading the Calgary locker room was pretty embarrassing. Dont' be surprised if Torts has a short tenure in Vancouver. I like coaches that keep a cool head and remain professional.
All hypothetical and there is still a huge risk of having a star player being injured. Having the Sedins out this stretch would be incredibly crippling, and worth more than a powerplay against Calgary or even 2 points. I'm going to read your post from the perspective of a father who probably has children in the minor hockey system. So yes, I see where you're coming from.
When/if your kids grow up and play hockey to the junior/pro level. You'll see where the majority of these posts are coming from. Canucks have been the kids on the block who are viewed as buckling under intimidation. The fact Calgary even dressed, let alone started that line up was a pretty good indication of what they had planned for that game. The risk far exceeds the reward = JT did the right thing.
We can completely agree on the hallway incident. Way out of line on JT's part.
-
We both know that there's plenty of guys that aren't fighters in this game. You guys have the Sedin twins and we have Patrick Kane. Great players, but not the guys we want dropping the gloves. None of them have the size and strength to match up with the enforcers of the league and it's not their game. But somehow Torts thought that if he played his first line with the Sedins out there they would have been forced to defend themselves in a 5-on-5 brawl. That's where I disagree with him - in that he drew a wrong conclusion. Now having said that I agree that Westgarth was definitely chirping before the opening faceoff and trying to start a fight. I don't know if he was trying to start a 1-on-1 or a 5-on-5. I recall about 5 years ago we had Adam Burish on our team who fought with a Vancouver player at the opening faceoff - Adam was part of our 4th line and there was no 5-on-5 brawl that ensued. So starting a 4th line by Calgary did not automatically mean that this had to be a brawl.
I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would start their best players against a 4th line of bullies. You would have started the Sedins against that Flames opening line up? What if Daniel or Hank got a concussion from a late hit or broken jaw from a sucker punched after a whistle? Great, a goon gets a 2minute penalty or a game... Calgary doesnt care and we're out a star players during a stretch to make the playoffs.
The risk was WAY too high. And could you imagine the backlash onto JT if that had happened? Give your head a shake and look at the end result.... We won the game and traded 4th line penalties.
-
I have a different perspective on this - probably cause I'm older and have changed with age. Here's my thoughts:
- I didn't like the incident, I didn't think it was funny, and I don't agree with what Torts did. We had a hot head coach in Chicago 20 years ago named Mike Keenan and he seemed to do some weird things and let his emotions get to him. I see a lot of similarities between Keenan and Torts.
- Coaches need to be leaders and rise about pettiness like this. And above all they should keep their cool and be professional. There was nothing professional about what Torts did - I think he made a fool of himself and embarrassed the organization. I know AV is not popular around here but I see him keeping a cooler head had he been behind the bench and not inflaming the situation as Torts did.
- When I was a teenaer and in my 20s I too loved the brawls and fights, and actually I only watched my team solely for the fights. Winning was secondary. The bigger the incident the more I enjoyed it. Fast forward 20+ years. Now in my 40s I enjoy the game first. I believe in fighting for 'cause' and not for show. And I detest the staged bouts liked dropping gloves at the drop of the puck. The whole incident was disgraceful IMO but I'm older and see it differently than many of the younger folks here.
- Torts overreacted. I don't believe that starting a 4th line for the opening faceoff automatically meant that the Sedin twins would be pounded if Torts put out his 1st line. That would be pretty unfair and unsportmanlike of Calgary to do that and I just don't see it happening. Torts didn't realize that the 4th line for Calgary had been good recently in what has been an abysmal season for them so far - so he rewarded them with starting a game. Unfortunately Torts perceived it as a direct intent to injure his skill players on the 1st line and went nuts.
- I think it hurts your team more to not have your coach at 6 games than to have him there - so I'm scratchng my head when I read posts here on why some think this was a great move by Torts.
That directly related to his actions following the first period. Which I don't think anyone believes was a good move. It does show that he's passionate about the game and our club though.
-
The problem is the extra stress that's put on our players when playing with a shortened bench. To me, that's the real injury risk. For most of the season we've overplayed our top players, why exacerbate that even further? Just to match up with what Calgary's coach wants us to do? I don't see the sense in that.
It was equal, was it not? Both teams played with a shortened bench, we got the win, we're still in playoff contention, they're still not... Don't see the problem.
The top players have to be playing top minutes because we need all the points we can get right now. The game was close, they would have logged absurd minutes anyways. This game (minus the JT hallway incident) was a great step forward for the Canucks. Dealing with adversity and not letting anyone take liberties.
-
Again, the risk of "something might have happened" if we start the first line does not outweigh the reality of going ahead with a line brawl and having too many of our own players ejected from the game.
And I don't buy the notion, even for a second, that if Torts starts our first line that they end up scrapping and getting ejected. It's a really absurd assumption. Just based on history alone, please tell me how many times the Sedins have been ejected for fighting. Of course Calgary's fourth line may try to come out hitting (checking), but that's part of the game. It's still a favourable match up for us. During regular play, wouldn't our coach LOVE to match up our top line to Calgary's fourth?
The Sedins would not have fought, and anyone thinking there would have been another "Marchand incident" is stretching things, a lot.
This was an emotionally cathartic moment for the fans, that's why it's being supported. But please don't try to rationalize it. It wasn't a rational thing, it was emotional. I highly doubt its efficacy in effecting any kind of real change, so in that sense I think the whole thing was a bit silly.
So we swapped 4th liners with the other team and had the same ejections as we did... I still don't see the problem. "A bit silly" - We got the win and were equally set back by penalties as the opposing team... ?
John Scott V.S. Phill Kessel as mentioned above... prime example of what could have happened. "Stretching things a lot" - still not worth the risk. Those are our best players! And its against Calgary! The whole reason teams think they can start their fourth line to rough up our first line is because of our history against rough teams. I'm glad JT is trying to change that image.
-
yes, because the way it actually unfolded really helped the Canucks image.
Had JT put out a different line, absolutely nothing would have happened, except for an immediate line change by Calgary to get a more favourable match up.
I don't really have an issue with JT starting his 4th, or the subsequent line brawl, but he knew what was coming so why did he make an absolute fool of himself after it happened? As I've said, this never had anything to do with "going to the wall for his [;ayers", or anything like it, it was another chapter in the Hartley-Torterella feud and that hand clearly went to Hartley.
"Nothing would have happened"? Again, that is not a risk that we can afford to take at this time. We are in playoff contention, and Calgary is not. Torts made the right decision. And yes, I have faith in our 4th line so theres nothing wrong starting them to match theirs. Plus the brawl on the ice is good hockey. I loved it!
Yes, JT acted a bit over the top in the hallway between the rooms. I agree, that was completely uncalled for. There was enough talk that went on ice level, no need for the extra off-ice dumb crap.
-
This is a team in very serious danger of missing the playoffs, they need to focus on winning. I would have done it for the PP.......mostly I would have recognized that BH was trying to goad me into something that my team didn't need to me to be goaded into.
It's funny, as a player I fought my way through the BCHL and WHL........just about every game, but as I coach, I'm very much a "you focus on hockey and let them take the penalties". and just hockey.
I don't agree with sending out our 2nd line to turtle and hope for a PP while getting jumped. Just puts our players at risk for the potential playoffs. Not worth the risk, and if you're a Canucks fan, you know the value of a healthy post season line up.
And it also looks awful. I don't want to send a message around the league that goons can go after our star players. That is the image we are trying to get away from. I'm so sick of players taking liberties with us and our powerplay being complete garbage making it impossible to capitalize. We sent a message that night that we cannot be pushed around any more. And obviously other teams/players saw it and took note.
-
MG has had some awful moves during his tenure here. We have the same issues we've had for the last 5 years!
-
We have the exact same issues we've had for 5 years now! Enough is enough, get a GM with some balls and brains
-
3
-
-
Agreed, I feel like this is a game we can build on. We finally looked like a team who supported each other and had accountability. Its a never ending process, the goals will come!
-
And that would have likely put us out of reach of both Horvat and Nichushkin, so Canucks fans wouldn't have been happy about Nichushkin and Gillis wouldn't have been happy since they were after Horvat.
Was it even Gagner and the 1st? I knew it was their 1st and another piece, but hadn't heard Gagner specifically, rather more someone like Paajarvi.
It was speculated to include Gagner and a 1st.
-
Just going through a few moves by Gillis:
Signings: Sundin for $20mil, Marco Sturm overpaid fresh out of surgery, Sammy Pahlsson... got nothing back for him, Mathieu Schneider 17gp with 1.5mil
Trades: Ballard for Grabner and a 1st rounder, Ryan Parent for Shane O'brien deal, Derek Roy's stint for Connauton and a 2nd rounder, Hodgson for Kassian trade, Luongo alienation and Schneider for a 1st ordeal that could have been prevented had we a competent GM
Also the fact that our most recent impact draftee are Ryan Kesler in 2003 and Alex Edler in 2004. What has happened in the most recent drafts? I think scouting is more of a concern than the trades/moves that are blatantly bad already.
-
-
MG has yet to build a "playoff team". I don't give a rat's ass who wins the President's Trophy or makes it into the playoffs every year. We want a god damn cup! It has been too long and our core has their best years behind them. We need to restructure the team from the ground up. I see all these other teams having impact players out of the draft and signing top tier free agents. *Sigh*
-
1
-
-
C'mon man it doesn't matter if we score goals. Our underlying numbers are great.
Duco Shiro was a wash. Your opinion on Shiro means nothing. It is what it is.
O'Brien sucks, good we got rid of him. Cost us nothing.
Roy was completely screwed over here. Shows you weren't paying attention. He was as stated constantly moved all over the globe of our line-up even when playing great. 100% not given a proper chance. He wasn't even playing Center and that's what he was brought in for.
Stexx just touched on 3 points i made from a previous post of about 10+ bad moves by MG. Shirokov and my opinion, sure you're right. O'brien is an NHL defenseman, Parent is an AHL defenseman. Roy was brought in and did not fit in any role, we can agree with that. But he was given a ****load of opportunities, he just didnt cut it.
-
your post is comical,
what was wrong with the ryan parent for obrien deal? we got a serviceable #6 defenseman for a player that never played in the NHL on a regular basis?
Shirokov for duco - shirokov hasnt played in NA since and probably wont Duco played a few games for us and was a serviceable player in the minors.
Derek roy was a good trade for a good player that was utilized horribly by the coaching staff. Roy played with what seemed like 12different linemates in a 12game span. No wonder he didnt develop any chemistry.
even the booth trade we gave up a broken samuelsson and a broken sturm for booth who has massively underachieved the only negative part of that trade at the time was booths term on his contract but that is why we got him for nothing. deal with it and moveon which is exactly what the canucks will do this summer with a buyout.
not sure what people try to accomplish by dissecting each move by a GM, they all make mistakes they all have their own strengths and weaknesses even the great ken holland. What matters is the body of work by a GM over a 5year span and for MG that 5year span has been better than most and worse than others.
Think of it this way what would people be saying about pete chiarelli if boston didnt win game7 and then lost again to chicago, instead because his team won one game he is regarded as one of the best GMs in the league.
And your rebuttal is even more comical.
Whats wrong with the O'brien/Parent deal is that Parent played 4 games for us and is NOT an NHL caliber defenseman. While Shane O'brien IS an NHL caliber defenseman who has stayed in the NHL as a regular. That deal was horrible.
Duco was a serviceable player in the minors? Ok, I did not know that because he barely played on the Canucks at all. So sure, you can have that one, but I still believe that Shirokov would've developed and kept his morale high if we gave him another year.
Ok no, Derek Roy was given every chance imaginable to make an impact for the Canucks and failed to do so. He was logging time with the Sedins and Kesler at some crucial points in games. Another bad move by MG.
Booth took up valuable cap space that could have been spent elsewhere. He was a complete bust coming over and repeatedly injured. Complete mess of a situation but was still an upgrade from Sturm (another bad signing by MG).
My point was in defense to your previous one that stated MG made good moves through his tenure with the Canucks. Chiarelli built a playoff team, they know how to play the game the way it is supposed to be played. They have players that fit all the roles necessary to win a cup. MG still has not figured this out and has not gone out to achieve this.
-
1
-
-
If you change the word "bold" to "stupid" I agree. I'll give you a few examples and then you can let the excuses for each one begin. If you could offer up 10 things he's done that are good at least we'd have a push. Over to you:
1. Offering Sundin 10M per year for 2 years,
2. Having 2 goalies making a combined 10M per year (with 1 obviously sitting on the bench each night) on the team and creating the worst goalie controversy I've seen,
3. Naming Luongo the captain of the team,
4. Trading for David Booth,
5. Trading for Ballard,
6. Resigning Burrows at $4M+ and giving him a NTC
7. Trading Schneider, after grooming him for years and telling Luongo he's our starter with a shot gun to your head on draft day for Horvat,
8. Hiring sleep doctors (fluff doesn't mean you're doing a good job, it just means you want to sound like you are)
9. Hodgson trade
10. Giving NTC's or LTC's to anyone old enough on the team to chew gum.
This^
-
Thanks for the comic relief.
The Florida trash includes:
1) a top pairing defenseman in Garrison (at a tweener cap hit), 16th in NHL defense scoring, only 45% offensive zone starts. A great case for dumpster diving lol. No assets lost.
2) a league minimum contract (Santorelli) playing in the top 6 and outperforming more than half of the top 6 forwards in the NHL - he's tied for 81st in NHL scoring among forwards, which actually puts him in the class of top line NHL production. Very good faceoff efficiency, and again, producing what he has with 44% offensive zone starts whereas top 6 forwards typically demand far higher situational advantages. Trash indeed. No assets lost.
3) an elite two way forward in Higgins, who also produces top 6 offensive output, has outstanding two way underlying numbers, and is among the best puck hounds and takeaway producers in the NHL. Third line cap hit. Marginal asset cost.
Those three players at a grand total of Evan Oberg and a 3rd round pick.
Combined cap hit: $7.65 million.
Is Luongo also "Florida trash"?
Was Jovanovski?
People sure try to get way too much mileage out of whining about the David Booth deal.
1) Free agent signing! I was pointing out our trade history with Florida, not a offseason FA signing.
2) Another hometown hero free agent signing... See point 1.
3) The one bargain we made with Florida that worked out! We can agree on one.
Hm, since you like to address signings more than trades lets dabble in some: Sundin for $20mil, Marco Sturm overpaid fresh out of surgery, Sammy Pahlsson... hell of a deal coming back for him, Mathieu Schneider remember him? 17gp with 1.5mil?
Now for trades under Gillis era (im sure im missing some): Ballard for Grabner and a 1st rounder not only was he grossly overpaid but MG couldn't even unload him, not a lot of people remember the Ryan Parent for Shane O'brien deal, how about Shirokov for Mike Duco, how about Derek Roy's stint in a Nucks jersey for Connauton and a 2nd rounder, then we all know Hodgson trade and the whole Luongo alienation and Schneider for a 1st ordeal that could have been prevented had we a competent GM.
-
Gillis is a master at manipulating the fanbase (and Aquilini apparently) that the team's woes are related to SCF hangover, the league not enforcing the rules, changing the identity of the team. tougher division, AV going stale, injuries, reffing, difficulty in making trades these days etc. Nothing is his fault.
He hung out Cody Hodgson. who knows what really happened but rather than take the heat, he dumped the timing and outcome of that trade on Hodgson's shoulders.
He never even talked to Cory Schneider about a trade possibility after anointing him #1 and then trades him at the draft after screwing up the Lu deal and alienating him.
Chicago lost a number of key players after their SC win but only needed a year to recover and within 3 years won again and may win this year as well. Boston remains a fairly dominant team in the race for the SC as well. The Nucks fall from 2011 is a disgrace. To have the core talent this team had and to completely destroy the confidence, structure and identity to where it is now is all that needs to be known about MG as GM. He should have stayed a player agent.
This^
I'm so tired of Gillis and his excuses. The guy has completely tarnished his image in the league and now takes on the trash from other clubs (Florida). There have been countless questionable moves that have not added to the "direction" of the club. I think he had the right idea a few years back but he never followed through, and now he has lost his way and has been exposed.
He never really executed the plans he preached about and now Vancouver is NOT a destination for other players. This relates back to the his tarnished reputation and horrible way of dealing with delicate (players' personal) situations.
His shelf life has expired, stop the bleeding
-
1
-
Mike Gillis Re: Canucks "We're Going to be all Right"; Aquilini "2014 Canucks are NOT the REAL Canucks"
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Extremely troubling to hear that the ownership feels the same way.