Darcy Rota Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 MG will not likely carry 5 dmen at 3+ million next year when there are more reliable and cheaper defensive options already available and his offensive production has been replaced by Ehrhoff and Edler. Salo is not back next year and Juice signs for less money. Probably in the 2 - 2.5 range. Clearly Juice is leadership material ( C ) that is why is wears the A right now. JUice is a leader on the team no matter what you as a CDC poster feel about him. I trust AV opinion on Juices leadership more than an mystery poster on an internet forum. YoU HEARD IT HERE FIRST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Salo is not back next year and Juice signs for less money. Probably in the 2 - 2.5 range. YoU HEARD IT HERE FIRST. Neither Salo nor Bieksa will be back next year. Bieksa will not sign for less money. And then your loyalty theory goes out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darcy Rota Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Neither Salo nor Bieksa will be back next year. Bieksa will not sign for less money. And then your loyalty theory goes out the window. Why do you not think that players with declining production sign contracts for less dollars ? There is no way that Juice does not take a pay cut next year no matter what team he plays for. Of course Juice resigns here as he is a loyal Canuck and loved by his teamates. Plus the Canucks offer him the C if he signs . A pretty cheesy move but heh it worked to sign Luongo. Of course that deal did not work out too well for us but the intention was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Was Luongo an A before he got the C? Oh, there goes the theory about the A meaning you are next in line for the C.It doesnt always work that way and Bieksa will not likely be a Canuck after this season, so there is not much chance he will ever be captain. Congratulations on winning the stupidiest post of 2010 award, well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brahma Bull Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Congratulations on winning the stupidiest post of 2010 award, well done. oh man i need to sig this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Clearly Juice is leadership material ( C ) that is why is wears the A right now. JUice is a leader on the team no matter what you as a CDC poster feel about him. I trust AV opinion on Juices leadership more than an mystery poster on an internet forum. Not everyone who wears an A is considered as captain material, just like not everyone who doesnt have a letter is not a team leader. Having the C or an A is one of the most overrated aspect of sports. I have no doubt he is a leader on the team though and have never argued that. I prefer leaders who can lead by example though. Not ones who are given chance after chance and dont take advantage of or appreciate that opportunity by never improving on their weaknesses. A fine example that is to our team. Leadership is and has been a weak point on this team for the past few years. Leadership was missing against the Hawks two years running. The old guard is slowly being moved out. Ohlund, Mitchell, Naslund, Morrison, etc. All those guys had letters on their chest too. To think Bieksa is untouchable because he currently wears an A is ludicrous. I am happy to see the leadership changing over a bit. Hopefully we will get some leaders who can lead by example rather than by talking about what needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJAL Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Good thing you don't coach the Canucks as they clearly see him as potential Captain material thus the A stitched on his jersey.<br /><br />Juice would be a great Captain on our team. He is a true leader and an inspiration to him teamates.<br /> Its called they want a better trade return bad, and while do anything to up his mediocre ante. Here is an A did other teams see this he is valuable he is worth your assets, please give them up, please please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Congratulations on winning the stupidiest post of 2010 award, well done. What is so stupid about it? Looking at the entire situation provides plenty of compelling evidence suggesting that it is far more likely Bieksa will not be here next season than there is supporting that he will. The stupidest posts on CDC are ones like yours, which add nothing to the conversation and dont actually justify your opinion at all. So, actually, well done to you on a stupid post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 What is so stupid about it? Looking at the entire situation provides plenty of compelling evidence suggesting that it is far more likely Bieksa will not be here next season than there is supporting that he will.The stupidest posts on CDC are ones like yours, which add nothing to the conversation and dont actually justify your opinion at all. So, actually, well done to you on a stupid post.<br /><br /> because you attacked the other cdc'r about his theory on captains and the only person you could name to become a captain without haveing an a first was a goalie... what theres been about 3 goalie captains in 100 years...thanks for being obvious... more so go and find the history of captains currently getting that honour in the nhl... you'll find there are way more that wore an A at somepoint in their career before they got the C, rather than ones that have came out of left field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darcy Rota Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 What is so stupid about it? Looking at the entire situation provides plenty of compelling evidence suggesting that it is far more likely Bieksa will not be here next season than there is supporting that he will. The stupidest posts on CDC are ones like yours, which add nothing to the conversation and dont actually justify your opinion at all. So, actually, well done to you on a stupid post. I think it was the spelling error .............. stupidiest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Why do you not think that players with declining production sign contracts for less dollars ? There is no way that Juice does not take a pay cut next year no matter what team he plays for. Of course Juice resigns here as he is a loyal Canuck and loved by his teamates. Plus the Canucks offer him the C if he signs . A pretty cheesy move but heh it worked to sign Luongo. Of course that deal did not work out too well for us but the intention was good. I really hope you are joking here. Luongo is (or at least was at the time for the naysayers) a franchise type player. Bieksa is not and never will be. So, he will sign for less because of declining production, but he is so valuable that the team is going to strip their newly named captain and franchise star Henrik Sedin as a negotiating tactic to re-sign their overpaid #5 dman? And others are saying my post was stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I dont care much about the fighting aspect, to be honest. That has never been his true value to the team, nor is it now. He is just another middleweight guy and we already have a few of those anyway. Your argument about the hitting does not hold water though Baggins. There are plenty of veteran D in the league who manage to hit a ton more than Bieksa does without putting themselves out of position. Look at Alberts this season. He is hitting like crazy and has rarely put himself out of position going for a hit. Bieksa is just poor positionally and defensively, and as a result gets himself out of position anyway. Bieksa used to run around looking for hits, which contributed to his lackluster defensive play. Now he doesnt go looking for hits, doesnt take the hits that are offered to him, and still plays poorly defensively. Thanks for proving my point that he is not adding anything that he needs to this season. He hasnt ought. He rarely hits. He has no points. He has taken some costly penalties. What exactly is he adding for 3.75 million per year? If you honestly think he is better at any aspect of his game than he was 4 years ago, well........you are entitled to your opinion, I guess. Saying his hitting and fighting are better now is pretty ridiculous though. Combine that with declining offensive production and the same old terrible defensive game, and there is not much left to support Bieksa about. Give me Alberts for 1.05 million any day. He hits a ton more, is much more sound defensively, and even looks better offensively this season by keeping it simple. I tire of the Bieksa adventure.......as in every time he touches the puck or is forced to play defence, it is an adventure. I'm sure you'll agree though that chasing hits isn't a good plan. Among all the D three years ago he was 3rd in hits despite playing only 34 games. Two years ago (the last time he was close to a full season) he led the D in hits. Last year he was 3rd in hits despite only playing 55 games. Currently he's sitting 3rd in hits after a mere 9 games. It's only NINE GAMES into the season!!!! Yes Alberts has been a hitting machine, but then that is his forte isn't it? Nine games in is a tad early to be passing judgment on offense as only the Sedins have mounted any offense consistently from the beginning of the season. Thus those on behind the Sedins (mainly Ehrhoff and Edler) have reaped the benefits. If we're to pass judgment after nine games perhaps we should be discussing moving Keslers $5m cap hit as he's on pace for a 36 point season. Sound stupid? Of course it does. But then so does a lot of the Bieksa bashing after just nine games. Honestly, when it come to the PP, given options would you be more inclined to put Bieksa and his 28g 125pts in 290 career games out there or Alberts with his 6g 46pts in 348 career games? Yes, things can change but a mere 9 games in I'd go with the historical evidence and put Bieksa out there unless Alberts went on a real scoring tear. BTW, I didn't say his hitting and fighting was better now, I was referring to his decision making regarding hitting and fighting being better. I haven't proven anything for you. I've said all along Bieksa isn't much different from when he was voted best D-man. You've simply proven you see what you want to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darcy Rota Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I really hope you are joking here. I was joking........ but still Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 <br /><br /> because you attacked the other cdc'r about his theory on captains and the only person you could name to become a captain without haveing an a first was a goalie... what theres been about 3 goalie captains in 100 years...thanks for being obvious... more so go and find the history of captains currently getting that honour in the nhl... you'll find there are way more that wore an A at somepoint in their career before they got the C, rather than ones that have came out of left field. And are there any guys who have worn an A who have not gone on to captain a team? And all I said was it is not ALWAYS that way, which is a true statement, which even you admit. The other guy said having an A made him next in line for the C by default, right? Well, since teams generally have more than one A, how do you determine which one is actually next in line for the C? Wouldnt that mean that at any point in time there is at least one other A who is not next in line? In turn, doesnt that make his original theory false? If you guys really believe that Bieksa is next in line for the C, then so be it. I highly doubt that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJAL Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 <br />I was joking........<br /><br />but still Do you have any more substance then posting pictures trying to make up for your lack of linguistics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Why do you not think that players with declining production sign contracts for less dollars ? There is no way that Juice does not take a pay cut next year no matter what team he plays for. Of course Juice resigns here as he is a loyal Canuck and loved by his teamates. Plus the Canucks offer him the C if he signs . A pretty cheesy move but heh it worked to sign Luongo. Of course that deal did not work out too well for us but the intention was good. lol you now have the top 2 stupidest posts of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darcy Rota Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 LOL - some posters just have no sense of humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darcy Rota Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Do you have any more substance then posting pictures trying to make up for your lack of linguistics? LOL - great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Being a moderate has nothing to do with taking a middle of the road approach to each individual aspect of a players game. It has to do with being able to fairly assess his overall game without being predisposed either way. To me, the negatives outweigh the positives with Bieksa. If you see that as being one extreme or the other, so be it. So moderate means calling Bieksa one of the worst D men in the leage. I know you'll probably hide being the "I said statistically" but even then it's just dumb. The stats clearly show that 5 on 5 is an area where he is terrible. Is he overall a terrible player? No. But 5 on 5 he is consistently terrible. Just because that does not agree with your take on him doesnt make it wrong or an extreme argument. So you actually believe that the stats tell the entire story? My man crush on you may be ending. As well statistically...prove it. Bring it all together for me. Let me rephrase for you then. He is below average defensively overall. He is average physically (only because he is far less consistent with it and therefore worse than he used to be). He is high risk offensively and when he actually puts up points, it helps the team at least somewhat. When he doesnt put up points, it magnifies all the other things he is not good at that much more. and allow me to say again that this season he's been fine offensively, he just doesn't have any points. If 0 points is fine offensive production in your mind then there is probably no point in discussing it with you (production means actually generating some points in this context after all). He is still playing a high risk offensive minded game, and it isnt helping the team on the scoresheet. If the value of an offensive dman is not actually offense, then what is it?Points certainly have something to do with offensive production but anybody with even the slightest bit of hockey IQ knows that creating chances also plays a big part. If you think that it only takes a maximum of 3 players to be in on a goal then there is probably no point in discussing it with you. Production means producing, which includes producing chances. He is still making some good pinches, but his shots have not been very good, he has been a lot slower in making decisions even offensively, and his passing has not been very good so far this season. IMO of course. He's always made good and bad pinches, that's part of his game and several other players who play a similar style. His shots have been ok for the most part. Some very questionable ones however I have a feeling you're addressing his decision making when he's in a situation that calls for a very quick decision. Sometimes that decision is going to be to try to fire it through rather then take an even bigger risk. Very seldom this season have I seen him make a bad shot or pass when it's not a high pressure situation. Furthermore more often than not I would also say that more often than not he does ok in those situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Its called they want a better trade return bad, and while do anything to up his mediocre ante. Here is an A did other teams see this he is valuable he is worth your assets, please give them up, please please... Yeah but sadly Mike Milbury is no longer has a GM position available so this little theory doesn't pan out. I love that as soon as Bieksa was given an A this has been the go to to counter that. Didn't make sense before and it doesn't make sense now. Unless...did Bettman create an all blind expansion team over the summer I didn't know about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.