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

Bissurnette

Members
  • Posts

    2,500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Bissurnette

  1. Unless there's a fundamental error in the way one views things - such as one-sided blame and no acknowledgement of positive accomplishments. It extends to players, coaches, management, along with everything else including non-hockey related items.
  2. Thank you Judd. Just curious, in your books does Benning get any credit for the signing? I think I know the answer to that, so I'm going to go ahead with a follow up question: Would Benning get all the blame if Rathbone had walked? Something to think about...
  3. I've been waiting for this day for 2 years!!! WELCOME TO THE TEAM RATHBONE
  4. I think you're confusing "engineered" with "guided/materialized/substantiated" by AV. Engineering implies building. AV didn't build the team. This is Gillis' recipe, he's the engineer (along with Burke and Nonis). AV guided the ship. EDIT: Sorry maybe I misunderstood the point you were making... care to elaborate?
  5. Great pick by the Habs. I was still out East when they picked him and I saw some analysis of his play shortly after. Good defensive prospect with untapped offensive potential. Handles his own end very well before thinking about offense, which in a day and age where everybody is obsessed with points and bottom line stats, it is refreshing to see. A defenseman has to be able to play defense.
  6. Agreed for the most part. We were a physical team but we didn't have any true heavyweight fighters that can stand up to the Thornton/Lucic/Chara/McQuaid/and the rest of their damn team. We could do everything well except that and again that style flourishes in the playoffs. If you recall, the LAK made a historical run in 2012 to take the cup and they were similarly built in the same style as the 2011 Bruins. Except the Bruins actually had a bit more firepower. The Kings were winning games 1-0 or 2-1 their entire run to the cup because nobody could score on them. Same as the Bruins, they were a huge physical team with lots of defensive awareness and they played a defensive system where they clogged up the middle of the ice and collapsed to the net. All the shots were from the outside and Quick was playing god-like when they got a grade A scoring chance against. Funny enough, I actually think Markstrom would fit that play style to a T, and much like Quick in 2012, he'd play his way to a Conn Smythe and a Stanley Cup. Speaking of TBL, yes 100% we would have matched up way better against them. If you listen to Bieksa's last interview on Spittin' Chiclets - he says so himself. The Canucks were watching the ECF in 2011 and hoping Tampa would win because the Bruins were just too heavy and too big for the Canucks to handle. What ifs...
  7. Well firstly it wasn't AV who built that team it was Gillis. AV actually typically coaches his teams to play physical and stand up for each other. It took some doing for Gillis to convince AV to switch up and buy into the team style. AV was a really good coach, but it was just time to move on when he was let go. Players start to tune out the coaches after a while, it doesn't matter who is coaching, and you start seeing the same pitfalls that lead to losses. It was just time to move on. Secondly, it's like Heffy said, you will always need toughness in the playoffs. It's not just prevalent in hockey, it's the same concept in all sports. Hockey brings it to the forefront due to the already physical nature of the sport. But look at any other contact sport and you'll find this to be true. I sincerely hope that never changes, and I genuinely think it never will. It's a war of attrition in the playoffs, and typically low scoring affairs. That's why I believe the best way to build a winner in the playoffs is 2way physical hockey. That's the style of play I've been wanting the Canucks to adopt since I first started following this team. I believe we finally have a team that resembles this style of play and I couldn't be more excited about it. 2 years of playoff experience, and I think we can really start making deep runs with this group.
  8. We got Boston's permission before we could make that move. Is that right? If that's true, then this dispute must have been bigger than I imagined.
  9. That's true but the logic holds true because he can see that we are trying to shed cap (and that's something that management can bring up with him during negotiations) so having him on ELC in the NHL is in everyone's best interest. Plus, if he doesn't make the NHL then a cool 750K to play overseas would be a pretty good option - apparently we would be paying his salary. The only thing that would put a wrench in his plans is if he doesn't want to play so far away from his brother. That said, it seems like he doesn't have many options. I'd want to move away from ELC as soon as I can, a signing bonus is great, but his next contract would be even better and if my ELC can be 2 years instead of 3, signing bonus be damned. But that's just me...
  10. Congratulations to Judd, wish him the best of luck. BUT I still feel like this shouldn't have been allowed to happen before the 2020 draft is carried out. He knows all our draft pick preferences and the order of our draft picks... that's invaluable knowledge to a conference rival. The staff's contracts should have been extended, just like the players' contracts, until this season has concluded and the draft was conducted.
  11. No signing bonus is my understanding. But if he signs in the first 53 hours when the new CBA is announced (I'm not entirely sure when that would be) he gets to burn a year off his ELC. Which I'm sure the Canucks don't mind - his reward for not costing them money to develop over 2 years. A Harvard education would be a great achievement, but so would signing a contract that pays him 750K/year as a 21 year old. Say what you will - that's still living large while he can continue his education online. It's not like he loses his status as student when he turns pro. He just loses his scholarship which he would more than make up for with his new salary.
  12. Really? That's the icing on the cake. The cake is a 2-way, hard-hitting, defensively solid and offensively gifted redhead.
  13. Read it over quick, not quite sure I understand the logistics but there you go. Could be good news for the anxious Canuck fan - which seems like pretty much everyone on here...
  14. I'm afraid it's one of Seth Jones or PLD that EP would fetch Nux. Cheers for attempting the GM name I wouldn't do 1 for 1 though. EP > PLD and if you deal EP for Jones then you're just creating a black hole for 1C. We have plenty of dmen that can supplement Hughes' ability. No need to go out and trade for one.
  15. Fair enough. But just unfounded speculation no? Personally, I'm not ready to trade him based on that. He's not that type of person. I'm willing to bet money that he's not waiting until he hits FA and bolting. I believe the reason he's holding out is because he's not sure whether or not the AHL will actually play out the 20-21' season next year. It's tough competition to crack the Canucks lineup, and if he signs a professional contract he can't return to NCAA. That means he could potentially sit idle next year and he doesn't want to do that so he's waiting to see how things unfold. Smart plan imo. I will try to find the source later but I believe it might have been an interview of his or something coming out of Canucks camp... I'm at work now so cannot research but will try to find later. it's worth noting that Utica is also fairly close to his family.
  16. Might not be as bad as Hall for Larsson but I certainly wouldn't want that trade. Rathbone is a gamer who will contribute to the Team on a cheap deal which will be much needed soon. Only thing we agree on in that comment is that I'm not quite as sold on Rafferty either
  17. Oooooh I was with you there until Risto I'm not a huge fan of his, although I haven't really seen him play lately. Just from what I heard, he's not defensively reliable which was an issue earlier in his career as well when I was watching him a bit more (I was on the east coast). So I don't know if he rectified that, but from what I've heard he hasn't, which is a deal breaker for me. But yes the idea is to get a fairly young (U28) top 4 dman. Doesn't have to be a right shot, as long as they can play the right side. Well to be fair Boeser alone doesn't get you that either. Virtanen is due for a new contract, so not only do you get his $$ off the books, but if we can actually package him with a Beagle/Sutter/Baertschi and not get cap in return, that would give us cap flexibility to re-sign Tanev. There's your top 4 dman. No argument there about the unbolded part. As for the succession plan, I don't see any issue with what you're suggesting even if we kept Boeser. Also agreed, I think in about 2-3 years time we would have at least one of Pods and Hogs in our top 6, which means more trade chips (Pearson and/or Toffoli). The beauty of strong drafting and development
  18. Agreed for the most part. Toffoli is different than the others you mentioned in the sense that he is much more of an offensive threat aside from Miller, plus he has their 2way ability (more or less). Miller is a different style of player though, he's more power forward than 2-way forward. I think there's room for Toffoli, Boeser, Pearson and Miller as our top 6 wingers. Although that might be a little expensive. Virtanen is the odd man out for me. I'd look to package him with a Juolevi/Woo and see what we can get back in terms of a top 4 Dman. Or package Virtanen with a cap dump and that would allow us to re-sign Tanev. Either one works for me, but I do think we need Boeser's gamebreaking ability.
  19. I thought it was the same thread that gets moved from Prospects to Roster Players sub-forum? I could be wrong...
×
×
  • Create New...