We Are All Cucks

I was looking for this list on my old iPod, but since it doesn't charge at all, I kind of didn't have any success. Then, lo and behold it showed up as I was doing a computer cleanse. I'm actually going to post it without looking at it (or any others), then see what 2 years ago self had to say: Sedins - Steamer Nazzy - Sundstrom - Bert Mogilny - Linden - Bure Adams - Kes - Tanti Burr Hughes - Jovo Reinhard - Lumme Ohlund- Salo Snepts Luongo McClean Brodeur Coach: Willie Desjardins Roger Neilson GM: Pat Quinn

McKinnon become a hand model or something?

Seems like a lose-lose-lose-lose. Think about it this way: Canucks trade a first to get Miller, but lose Toffoli for nothing. So, it's back to square one: Canucks get their 1st for Miller back, and the initial Toffoli trade stands. Habs lose Toffoli (like they never signed him), but basically trade JK for Miller and a third. That one's up for debate, but it's not the move the Habs had planned for. Toffoli leaves Mtl, where he has played great and enjoyed his time. Miller leaves his linemates here, who have seriously advanced his career. I dunno. Don't think anybody gets what they want, really. The trade proposal here just shows how this whole thing is forcing the Habs to make a move that they don't really want to (to state the obvious). Even if they find a way to trade the picks from Car to replace JK, it just forces them down a road they never meant to go on. I mean, the lack of positional depth is their fault, but at least they had an idea of how they expected things to play out. Do they let Danault walk if they see this coming? No way. Carolina has bent them over in so many ways it's kind of funny.

It's the Dragon Slayer for me, without a doubt. For honorable mention, and much more memorable than some of the others listed, is Nazzy to Cooke, who stuffs it in with the jersey on the ice and Jovo exploding in the box. (apologies/kudos to anybody else in the past few pages who mentioned/posted this...don't have time to read)

Wait. You are 100% right. That would be my bad. It's for a full calendar year.

Another option, of course, is for the Habs to match, then trade him at the deadline if he doesn't re-sign for less. Of course, if he is unwilling to re-sign for less, then his trade value goes down. To think of it this way: would they get a 1st and a 3rd for him at the deadline if he expects 6.1+ going forward? I doubt it. Surely Mtl. can suss out this info prior to matching, but trade value in-season +/- 1st and 3rd has to way heavily into their decision making process.

Haha. Came here to post this. Beat me to the punch. Some of these are certainly tempting, and a combo of some of the lists (the three proposals) might do it. I hear you about the futures, particularly, considering where Hughes is at in his development, I'd like a dominant payer back, too. But some of the prospects listed may be ready to break out.

I'm gonna go with the flow:

As has since been mentioned, if Bure had done that in 2011, he would've been out for good, and that's pretty much it for the 1994 run. The 2011 powerplay was so dominant that incidents like Marchand's should have been a gift. Instead, ridiculous stuff wasn't called, the PP dried up, and Tiny Tim took some sort of ridiculous magic goalie pills. Of course the 1994 team faced adversity and poor reffing, too, but my argument is against the notion that the 2011 team - especially the Sedins - didn't have heart. When that rat was swinging and biting and licking and chirping, you don't think every player on the Canucks' squad didn't want to cheap shot him? It takes composure and heart NOT to hit back, knowing you have the better team. Yes, game 3 got out of hand - partly because Rome wasn't aware of the fraction of a fraction of a second rule - and you could question the resolve of the team game 7, but they were clearly just done and had nothing left. Every player on that team laid their body on the line and did what they could to win. That's heart. In the the end, yeah, it was beyond a letdown, but looking back, the Sedins and I think everybody else can hold their heads high.

Worse things can still happen to that organization? That's just unfair.

double post

So do they get their money back if Eichel is dealt to Vegas?

Just read this article: https://thehockeywriters.com/flames-news-rumors-eichel-kylington-captaincy-more/ about the Flames having interest. What struck me was the asking price being so high. I mean, is it realistic at this point that Buffalo can still be asking what they are? Does anybody here still think Sabres are getting the equivalent of four 1st rounders, as mentioned? It seems absurd. This is from the article mentioned:

Gees, I thought this was a simple competition between BMo and the Shrimp at first. Of those two, I went with Ronning simply because he was a more dynamic player. Obv, Morrison gets less credit than he's due because of who he was playing with, but he was a perfect fit for a perfect line. After looking more closely at the list, though, it became trickier. As others have posted, Pederson was a great player for another team, but I'm not gonna vote for him because of a certain trade. Even Quinn had some good numbers before his Canuck years, though he doesn't really stick out for me in my memory. Boudrias, I am not as familiar with as I should be, but it seems like he was pretty important to the Canucks as an offensive player early in their NHL tenure. He played an important role for the Canucks, as evidenced by his captaincy. That's it, I've sold myself on him. Changing my pick to Andre. On another note: no love for Booth?

Obviously the 1994 team had tons of heart. Nobody can debate that and win. What I don't like is the suggestion that the 2011 team didn't have heart. They had plenty of it. What about the Dragon Salyer? He bled our colours. Bieksa? Come on! A couple years later he was begging to go down with the ship. The Sedins were timid, but fierce. Don't buy into the BS "sisters" narrative - not only for its misogyny, but also for its total falseness. I think the whole "1994 team had more heart" thing comes from the fact that they were underdogs, whereas the 2011 team was so dominant. 1982 was magical. 1994 was inspiring. 2003 was aggravating. 2011 was devastating. 2011 had the best team and also tons and tons of heart.

I wish I could recall where, but I read an article outlining the odds of an NHL team winning a cup, considering a number of statistical categories, if they were legitimately the top team. Because hockey is a sport with a high random variance, the chances are actually quite low. With that in mind, let's put it this way: if the 2011 playoffs were re-done 10 times, I'm betting on the Canucks to win every time. There's no way they don't pull it off 5, 6, 7 + of those 10 retries. So, according to my math, they should have won 3/4 of time, 100% of the time. The fact that they didn't win just demonstrates what it means to be a Canucks fan. Honorable mention to the 2003 team. They had as much business losing to Minnesota as I have business being obsessed with hockey rn when I'm supposed to be working.

Is there a thread somewhere with Canucks all star teams? Hard to turn it into a poll, but would be interesting to see people's takes.

Exactly. So, the detractors might say the Yzerman/Federov comparison isn't entirely fair because Stevie > Trevor and Bure > Fedorov. True, but it's still a cogent argument because the principle is the same. These are two sets of similar players, and we're choosing between the types of players you want. Given that both players are incredible at what they do, do you want an Yzerman type of player, or a Fedorov type of player? I take the Yzerman type of player (and GM, let's be honest), just as I take the Linden type of player. I'm not saying Bure wasn't amazing, just that his value to the team was less than Linden's value to the team, in his prime. One type of these two gets to be captain, the other doesn't.

I'm sure similar arguments have been made in the 7 pages prior, but honestly, who do you want (a) to build your team around and (b) to have on your team when the game/series/cup is on the line: the insanely skilled game breaker, or the less skilled (but still very talented) leader who gets the most out of every single other player on the team? It's not meant to be an easy answer, really, but - for both (a) and (b), I personally take the guy who's going to make the entire team better, in addition to putting his own body on the line - not to mention slotting more than a few pucks in the net. Pavel was a magic player. Pavel is the popular answer. Pavel is a good answer. Trevor is the right answer.

That salary must be the only way BJ's can keep their players. Geeeees.

Classic Sabres. Can't even make a trade with themselves without getting ripped off.

Only once in his career has he not achieved the numbers required for all his bonuses, so just call it a 3 million contract. A bit more than was hoping, but as is being said, compared to Holtby, this is a massive improvement in net.

The Canucks' goalie of the future announcing our future goalie. Love it.

Missed that rumor, but it seems like a decent fit. Honestly, though, if they weren't going to sign Bernier or Mrzk, and were just going to wait for Anderson, why in the hell did the Nedeljkovic thing have to be done so quick? It's absurd.

Basically, if the total of Halak + buyout of Holtby = same or less than Holtby's prior salary, that's a huge win.