Rey Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 It's sad that you get defensive about that but not about your terribly flawed logic being pointed out. Somehow I doubt you're laughing, but I know I sure as hell have had fun ant hill. Defensive about what? The only person being defensive is you and your defense to Bieksa. This all started, because you couldn't handle the Bieksa comments and decided to respond with something completely irrelevant comment, "Patrick White" for your argument. Everything after that, made absolutely no sense. Go ahead, try to be the big man. Say that your laughing at me, and even post it on my profile. Take it personally. Posting, and actually doing are two different things. I find, it so funny that you are trying so hard to say that your having a blast. Hey, your having a blast. Good for you. So am i. Not exactly having a erection like you are at it, but in a comic book kind of way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 I like Beks. Not enough to go through all 161 pages of this thread, but enough to contribute my $0.02's worth; "Kevin Bieksa, you are really......" under the microscope when you're on the ice and you know it. I don't know how the responsibility of the "A" given you by Hank affects you and your play on the ice; how the constant criticisms, obviously in CDC and/or in the media, plays out in your head; if you're getting any grief from the coaches....I don't know. I just don't know and it's not for me to know. None of my business! You've been a core member of the Canucks for some time now; a team "veteran," as it were. You represent the Canucks defence with the "A" now bestowed upon you. Everyone else on the team has got an "A" for different reasons, but you alone wear the "A" for our defense. That's gotta mean something. More importantly, it's gotta mean something to you. Does it? When you came into the league a young buck, you shined; you shone brightly! You came out and played the game of defense the way we hockey lovers love to see that position being played. You're a feisty, aggressive, off with the gloves, in your face, smart, point producing player that we all love. That greatness has always been there with you. It's a gift; a talent that all us mamby pamby amateur players can only dream of having. We know it and Hank knows it too. That's why you got the "A!":towel: +1 Agreed. He gives us good depth and brings some "feistiness" to the backend, which we don't have a lot of. Canucks have a great mix of different talents on the backend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Defensive about what? The only person being defensive is you and your defense to Bieksa. This all started, because you couldn't handle the Bieksa comments and decided to respond with something completely irrelevant comment, "Patrick White" for your argument. Everything after that, made absolutely no sense. Go ahead, try to be the big man. Say that your laughing at me, and even post it on my profile. Take it personally. Posting, and actually doing are two different things. I find, it so funny that you are trying so hard to say that your having a blast. But Rey you're the one who said you were laughing? If you are honestly going to sit here and say that with all you're direct insults and all your angrily typed logic free posts that you haven't been defensive well that's the biggest joke of all. Posting and actually doing are two different things? What does that even mean in regards to this conversation? I'm off to work for a bit. I'm looking forward to see what else you come up with. Nice edit...way to prove my point genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 The Canucks took on 4.667 mil of Cap hit in that trade. Blake's Cap hit 3.5 mil. Rob Blake signed for 1 year/5M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hank&dan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 You're both being defensive. Bieksa should take lessons from the both of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Defensive about what? The only person being defensive is you and your defense to Bieksa. This all started, because you couldn't handle the Bieksa comments and decided to respond with something completely irrelevant comment, "Patrick White" for your argument. Everything after that, made absolutely no sense. Go ahead, try to be the big man. Say that your laughing at me, and even post it on my profile. Take it personally. Posting, and actually doing are two different things. I find, it so funny that you are trying so hard to say that your having a blast. Hey, your having a blast. Good for you. So am i. Not exactly having a erection like you are at it, but in a comic book kind of way. No, this all started because your making things up and have no logic. And when people were calling you out, your defence to your idiotic posts was insulting others. Heatley wasn't the reason sj got rid of ehrhoff, so get your facts straight. It was rob Blake but your saying a young 40 point defenseman couldn't get a solid return? A 2nd round pick, 2 Years later? Get a clue. Really?? In one post you claim SJ is an intelligent organization and good at developing prospects and then the next post you are claming that SJ chose a 40+ year old Blake over a young emerging Ehrhoff. Make sense to you?? I think your the one that needs to get a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbllpp Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 <br />Rob Blake signed for 1 year/5M.<br /> 1 year 3.5 for 09/10. source nhlnumbers.com Furthermore, why did they have to make room to sign Blake? Because they went out and got Heatley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 But Rey you're the one who said you were laughing? If you are honestly going to sit here and say that with all you're direct insults and all your angrily typed logic free posts that you haven't been defensive well that's the biggest joke of all. Posting and actually doing are two different things? What does that even mean in regards to this conversation? I'm off to work for a bit. I'm looking forward to see what else you come up with. Nice edit...way to prove my point genius. I said i was laughing, after a response from you, saying that "omg your a clown, this is funny". Trust me, I take none of this seriously. All you've ever done, is talk about what a big man you are trying to be. None of your response had anything to do with hockey. Just, the childish "OMG YOU DAT AND YOU DAT. YOUR GRAMMA BAD. YOU SAID THAT. WAH WAH". The only thing to take out of it is.. you mad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 No, this all started because your making things up and have no logic. And when people were calling you out, your defence to your idiotic posts was insulting others. Really?? In one post you claim SJ is an intelligent organization and good at developing prospects and then the next post you are claming that SJ chose a 40+ year old Blake over a young emerging Ehrhoff. Make sense to you?? I think your the one that needs to get a clue. Making t hings up, no logic? Find the post. Defense to what? Patrick White? A prospect that isn't even in the Canucks organization? A prospect, that the Canucks traded to acquire Ehrhoff? Am i Unhappy with that? Why would i be unhappy to get Ehrhoff? Honestly, you didn't know that SJ moved Ehrhoff to keep Blake? They felt that ehrhoff was still developing, and they could contend with a veteran like Blake. How could you be so unaware. It has nothing to do with Heatley. I mean, of course. Why would you know? Your a canuck fan. Not a Sharks fan. Why don't you go find a Shark fan and ask them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buttock Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Heatley wasn't the reason sj got rid of ehrhoff, so get your facts straight. It was rob Blake but your saying a young 40 point defenseman couldn't get a solid return? A 2nd round pick, 2 Years later? Get a clue. This is BS Rey. SJ signed Rob Blake in the summer of 08. Then re-signed him in 09. Then after weeks of speculation that Heatley will be traded to San Jose, the Sharks give us Ehrhoff for two no-name prospects and then go out and get Heatley, having just freed up enough cap space. By moving Ehrhoff. There's no way they do that trade if Heatley doesn't demand a trade and then refuse to go to Edmonton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Making t hings up, no logic? Find the post. Defense to what? Patrick White? A prospect that isn't even in the Canucks organization? A prospect, that the Canucks traded to acquire Ehrhoff? Am i Unhappy with that? Why would i be unhappy to get Ehrhoff? Honestly, you didn't know that SJ moved Ehrhoff to keep Blake? They felt that ehrhoff was still developing, and they could contend with a veteran like Blake. How could you be so unaware. It has nothing to do with Heatley. I mean, of course. Why would you know? Your a canuck fan. Not a Sharks fan. Why don't you go find a Shark fan and ask them? If you were gm, would you take a 40 year old Blake or a young emerging Ehrhoff. With your logic, maybe Detroit could trade Modano for Toews. I don't even understand your first paragraph, none of it makes sence. The SJ deal wasn't so much about White, it was about the 2nd round draft pick they got becaue White wasn't going to sign. Everyone knows that the Ehrhoff trade was about Heatley, which is why Lukowich came too. They already had Blake signed when the trade happened but they never had Heatley yet. Comeon man, you can't be this ignorant/dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 This is BS Rey. SJ signed Rob Blake in the summer of 08. Then re-signed him in 09. Then after weeks of speculation that Heatley will be traded to San Jose, the Sharks give us Ehrhoff for two no-name prospects and then go out and get Heatley, having just freed up enough cap space. By moving Ehrhoff. There's no way they do that trade if Heatley doesn't demand a trade and then refuse to go to Edmonton. Trading for Heatley, only added 500k to the Sharks payroll. The option was to either keep Blake or Ehrhoff. They choose to re-sign Blake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hank&dan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 If you were gm, would you take a 40 year old Blake or a young emerging Ehrhoff. With your logic, maybe Detroit could trade Modano for Toews. I don't even understand your first paragraph, none of it makes sence. The SJ deal wasn't so much about White, it was about the 2nd round draft pick they got becaue White wasn't going to sign. Everyone knows that the Ehrhoff trade was about Heatley, which is why Lukowich came too. They already had Blake signed when the trade happened but they never had Heatley yet. Comeon man, you can't be this ignorant/dumb. Why do you guys care WHO they were making space for? They were just making space in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 If you were gm, would you take a 40 year old Blake or a young emerging Ehrhoff. With your logic, maybe Detroit could trade Modano for Toews. I don't even understand your first paragraph, none of it makes sence. The SJ deal wasn't so much about White, it was about the 2nd round draft pick they got becaue White wasn't going to sign. Everyone knows that the Ehrhoff trade was about Heatley, which is why Lukowich came too. They already had Blake signed when the trade happened but they never had Heatley yet. Comeon man, you can't be this ignorant/dumb. Change the question. If you were a "CONTENDING" team. Would you take a 40 year old Blake? or a young emerging Ehrhoff? This isn't even close to Modano/Toews. If Ehrhoff had more value, than why would he only fetch a 2nd round draft pick, 2 years after the trade? People thought Ehrhoff was moved because of Heatley because of the timing of the deals. Ask any San Jose fan about the trade, and they will tell you that it was a decision between Blake and Ehrhoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Why do you guys care WHO they were making space for? They were just making space in general. I'm asking myself the same question. I'm also wondering, what this has to do with Kevin Bieksa but it's not my fault. They're asking me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buttock Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Trading for Heatley, only added 500k to the Sharks payroll. The option was to either keep Blake or Ehrhoff. They choose to re-sign Blake. Two and a half months prior to acquiring Heatley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 I said i was laughing, after a response from you, saying that "omg your a clown, this is funny". Trust me, I take none of this seriously. All you've ever done, is talk about what a big man you are trying to be. None of your response had anything to do with hockey. Just, the childish "OMG YOU DAT AND YOU DAT. YOUR GRAMMA BAD. YOU SAID THAT. WAH WAH". The only thing to take out of it is.. you mad? Lol did you really just post all this and then end with "you mad"? Classically proving my point. Thanks. You may continue squirming now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 I like Beks. Not enough to go through all 161 pages of this thread, but enough to contribute my $0.02's worth; "Kevin Bieksa, you are really......" under the microscope when you're on the ice and you know it. I don't know how the responsibility of the "A" given you by Hank affects you and your play on the ice; how the constant criticisms, obviously in CDC and/or in the media, plays out in your head; if you're getting any grief from the coaches....I don't know. I just don't know and it's not for me to know. None of my business! You've been a core member of the Canucks for some time now; a team "veteran," as it were. You represent the Canucks defence with the "A" now bestowed upon you. Everyone else on the team has got an "A" for different reasons, but you alone wear the "A" for our defense. That's gotta mean something. More importantly, it's gotta mean something to you. Does it? When you came into the league a young buck, you shined; you shone brightly! You came out and played the game of defense the way we hockey lovers love to see that position being played. You're a feisty, aggressive, off with the gloves, in your face, smart, point producing player that we all love. That greatness has always been there with you. It's a gift; a talent that all us mamby pamby amateur players can only dream of having. We know it and Hank knows it too. That's why you got the "A!":towel: ..........................Okay. That's enough fanboy profiling for now. Uh..........erm.................GOTTA GO! Cheers. A fine post indeed Sir. Well thought out, well worded and well phrased. Good first post and initial showing in this thread. Beware though...I sense a niceness in you...it will be your undoing. This place doesn't suffer weakness nor fools well. Fools we have plenty of and their weak arguments too. Just a word of caution...expect to wield arms and wit. With that said, allow me to scrape of the excrement from my boots from these last couple of pages and come and shake your hand for your, nugget of gold in a field of feces, post. Wow...Rey certainly makes a mess around here....all this **** everywhere. Well at least H&D will have someone to roll around in it with now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 A fine post indeed Sir. Well thought out, well worded and well phrased. Good first post and initial showing in this thread. Beware though...I sense a niceness in you...it will be your undoing. This place doesn't doesn't suffer weakness nor fools well. Fools we have plenty of and their weak arguments too. Just a word of caution...expect to wield arms and wit. With that said, allow me to scrape of the excrement from my boots from these last couple of pages and come and shake your hand for your, nugget of gold in a field of feces, post. Wow...Rey certainly makes a mess around here....all this **** everywhere. Well at least H&D will have someone to roll around in it with now. Haha, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hank&dan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Edler>Bieksa Hamhuis>Bieksa Ballard>Bieksa Erhroff>Bieksa Alberts(so far)>Bieksa Bieksa>Rome?? Probably Of coarse as a 5th or 6th defenceman Bieksa is suitable. But at 3.75 million he's certainly a waist of valuable cap room. An offensive defencmen with points in 1 game this year. What does he bring to the table for his price tag? Is he 3 times the player Rome is? The bottom line is if Bieksa was making 750k a year this thread would not exist. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.