Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The only people with a sense of humour on this thread are the anti-Bieksonians. It's also funny that Bieksa's biggest supporter, sharpshooter, thinks that Bieksa would take a pay cut from 3.75 per to stay with the Canucks (as if they'll want to re-sign him anyway). As much as I dislike #3's play, I guarantee that he'll easily receive (perhaps from more than one team) over $4 million a year. It's all wishful thinking. Bieksa is gliding into his Canucks swan song. Inevitable that a few loveydoves get ruffled feathers. The simple minded often find the unfunny, funny. lol? Us Bieksonians are a bit more selective and eclectic with what we find humourous. However, we find you pretty knee slappingly funny. And in regards to Bieksa's paycut...if it's offered and he doesn't take it....then so be it. He can move on, and our team will move on. I just think that the Canucks won't move him. I'm sure they will make an offer. My thoughts are that it'll work for both parties. It is a wishful thought and a realistic hope. What's wrong with that? I'm sure you're hoping the opposite, right? And while I don't go out on an obvious limb in order to set myself up by saying I can guarantee anything, I'll certainly give you all the rope you need, while you make guarantees. Let's see if that works out for you or bites you in your crystal ball seeing ass. You don't have to remind us.....CANUCKLELION being unfunny and your dislike of Bieksa's play....are both painfully obvious and something that the rest of us, in this thread on a regular basis, sadly, must endure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The simple minded often find the unfunny, funny. lol? Us Bieksonians are a bit more selective and eclectic with what we find humourous. However, we find you pretty knee slappingly funny. And in regards to Bieksa's paycut...if it's offered and he doesn't take it....then so be it. He can move on, and our team will move on. I just think that the Canucks won't move him. I'm sure they will make an offer. My thoughts are that it'll work for both parties. It is a wishful thought and a realistic hope. What's wrong with that? I'm sure you're hoping the opposite, right? And while I don't go out on an obvious limb in order to set myself up by saying I can guarantee anything, I'll certainly give you all the rope you need, while you make guarantees. Let's see if that works out for you or bites you in your crystal ball seeing ass. You don't have to remind us.....CANUCKLELION being unfunny and your dislike of Bieksa's play....are both painfully obvious and something that the rest of us, in this thread on a regular basis, sadly, must endure. although humorous, I was serious when I suggested Bieksa would need a salary shave vs. a haircut to stick on the Nuck's roster, If I was trying to be funny I would have said he'll need a shave and some serious manscaping. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c0medyClub Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Okay, so I bought Canucklion a Bieksa jersey and poster for Christmas. As well as one of those mini figurine dealies. Also, I made a personal request to Canucks management that Canucklion is to receive Bieksa's game worn jersey at the final Canucks game; a late Christmas present. I know you're a huge fan of the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 although humorous, I was serious when I suggested Bieksa would need a salary shave vs. a haircut to stick on the Nuck's roster, If I was trying to be funny I would have said he'll need a shave and some serious manscaping. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 For months, it's been widely assumed Vancouver Canucks defenseman Kevin Bieksa would be dealt as soon as Sami Salo returned from injury in order to clear sufficient cap space for Salo's $3.5 million salary. The Vancouver Province, however, recently claimed the Canucks may try and find a way to keep both blueliners. Bieksa's offensive numbers are down this season, but his overall defensive game – especially his physical play – has improved, which explains why Canucks management would prefer to retain him for the rest of the season. Doing so would still leave the Canucks with the difficult task of clearing sufficient cap space for Salo's return. They could trade Keith Ballard, but given his contract (which has another four years at $4.2 million per season with a no-trade clause), that appears unlikely. One reader suggested peddling Christian Ehrhoff as he'll be an unrestricted free agent next summer and would prove difficult to re-sign. Ehrhoff currently makes $3.1 million, so dealing him would clear most of that required cap space. It's believed, however, the Canucks wish to retain him as they value his puck-moving skills. http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/37184-Rumor-Roundup-Which-Canucks-Dman-will-go.html As someone else stated, if both are kept...then the area that pays for it, may be from the forwards. I still think it might be a combo of trading Alberts, Rypien/Glass, Samuelsson.....or waive Alberts, Rypien, Glass, Parent, Rome. Chances are we lose 1 or 2 dmen, but I think Rome will make it through, possibly Parent as well....with his stats. Glass could very well make it through as well, since most teams have more than enough Glass like players....and Rypien will probably make it through as well, just cause most teams may not want to deal with Rypiens personal problems on their club....the one that I really see us losing is Alberts....but that wouldn't be a terribly huge loss, i don't think. I think both of those scenarios are doable. I'd hate to lose Samuelsson, but he's not really playing all that well, and Hansen seems to be more suited on the second and third line, moreson than he. Although I will never discount Sammy's uncanny ability to turn his game around and his talent and experience. So, maybe the waiver option is the better choice....less costly choice going into the playoffs perhaps as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c0medyClub Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Bieksa with a goal tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 although humorous, I was serious when I suggested Bieksa would need a salary shave vs. a haircut to stick on the Nuck's roster, If I was trying to be funny I would have said he'll need a shave and some serious manscaping. lol I think KB's going to need to take a huge, Brazilian man-waxing to stay in Vancouver. I guess that man-waxing would be our "hometown discount"? Ewww... I would like to see him stay but, I bet he will sign elsewhere for close to or more than he is being paid right now, much to Canucklelion's chagrin. If MG can get Bieksa to stay for between $2-3 million per season, I say say do it! Not the man-waxing, the contract signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Bieksa with a goal tonight. Huh, Volpatti, Kesler + Tambi were the snipers tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 another solid game by Bieksa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAILED-BY-THE-HAMMER Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Huh, Volpatti, Kesler + Tambi were the snipers tonight. damn you just got no love for bieksa do you your worse then a hater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 another solid game by Bieksa Agreed, quite the solid game indeed. +1 tonight and the second most TOI and just 29 seconds behind Edler. Actually all our D played well tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAILED-BY-THE-HAMMER Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Agreed, quite the solid game indeed. +1 tonight and the second most TOI and just 29 seconds behind Edler. Actually all our D played well tonight. you should change your name to straightshooter you have lots of respect for bieksa and i admire that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike27 Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 As someone else stated, if both are kept...then the area that pays for it, may be from the forwards. I still think it might be a combo of trading Alberts, Rypien/Glass, Samuelsson.....or waive Alberts, Rypien, Glass, Parent, Rome. Chances are we lose 1 or 2 dmen, but I think Rome will make it through, possibly Parent as well....with his stats. Glass could very well make it through as well, since most teams have more than enough Glass like players....and Rypien will probably make it through as well, just cause most teams may not want to deal with Rypiens personal problems on their club....the one that I really see us losing is Alberts....but that wouldn't be a terribly huge loss, i don't think. I think both of those scenarios are doable. I'd hate to lose Samuelsson, but he's not really playing all that well, and Hansen seems to be more suited on the second and third line, moreson than he. Although I will never discount Sammy's uncanny ability to turn his game around and his talent and experience. So, maybe the waiver option is the better choice....less costly choice going into the playoffs perhaps as well. I don't think those ideas would work. Lets assume Alberts, Rypien, Glass, Parent and Rome are all waived. That is five players, and Salo is only one player. So, four more players have to be added in at a minimum cap hit of $500k each, or $2m. So the Canucks would be saving around $3.2m with the waived players, and adding $2m with the replacements. The net savings of $800k will not be enough to get them under the cap when Salo comes off the LTIR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 damn you just got no love for bieksa do you your worse then a hater. I especially liked the play late in the 3rd, where BXa head butted his own stick to draw a penalty. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 I especially liked the play late in the 3rd, where BXa head butted his own stick to draw a penalty. lol And gosh darn if we didn't score! That Bieksa is always thinking about details. Who else would have butt-ended themself in the eye to help the team win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master 112 Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Anybody else see the tear streaming down his face after he highsticked himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 I don't think those ideas would work. Lets assume Alberts, Rypien, Glass, Parent and Rome are all waived. That is five players, and Salo is only one player. So, four more players have to be added in at a minimum cap hit of $500k each, or $2m. So the Canucks would be saving around $3.2m with the waived players, and adding $2m with the replacements. The net savings of $800k will not be enough to get them under the cap when Salo comes off the LTIR. Well, if we brought Salo off of LTIR and waived, Glass - $625k Alberts - $1.05 mill. Rome - $750k Rypien - $550k Parent - $925k We'd be waiving $3.9 million in cap. That would allow us to bring Salo of LTIR and give us $621k under the cap and allow us to bring up Desbien, Bliznak, Perrault, Oreskovich OR Glass to fill in on the 4th line. We'd have 21 roster players and if any of those got hurt, then we could put them on LTIR as well, if they were out with something serious or if they were a multimillion player, which would then allow us to bring up a range of players, including those that weren't picked up on waivers. I think they only two in any real danger of being picked up is Alberts or Glass, but Glass is not that much of a commodity as he's a 4th liner, which most teams are chock full of anyways. The rest are not going to help any cup contending team in the playoffs, even if they did get picked up. Come playoffs, if they are sent down to Manitoba, we can recall Rome, Alberts, Glass, and anyother number of players we wanted to. I think this scenario could work. Nothing is guaranteed....but it is workable. Rypien is on the books, but if push came to shove and we need the capspace to bring up a guy, MG would have to waive him despite all the touch feely stuff. Losing the rest, besides Alberts is meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Well, if we brought Salo off of LTIR and waived, Glass - $625k Alberts - $1.05 mill. Rome - $750k Rypien - $550k Parent - $925k We'd be waiving $3.9 million in cap. That would allow us to bring Salo of LTIR and give us $621k under the cap and allow us to bring up Desbien, Bliznak, Perrault, Oreskovich OR Glass to fill in on the 4th line. We'd have 21 roster players and if any of those got hurt, then we could put them on LTIR as well, if they were out with something serious or if they were a multimillion player, which would then allow us to bring up a range of players, including those that weren't picked up on waivers. I think they only two in any real danger of being picked up is Alberts or Glass, but Glass is not that much of a commodity as he's a 4th liner, which most teams are chock full of anyways. The rest are not going to help any cup contending team in the playoffs, even if they did get picked up. Come playoffs, if they are sent down to Manitoba, we can recall Rome, Alberts, Glass, and anyother number of players we wanted to. I think this scenario could work. Nothing is guaranteed....but it is workable. Rypien is on the books, but if push came to shove and we need the capspace to bring up a guy, MG would have to waive him despite all the touch feely stuff. Losing the rest, besides Alberts is meh. You think carrying one replacement player on the roster for the regular season is a better solution than simply trading Bieksa to bring Salo back? Doing this kind of thing has never worked out well for ANY team. Think of all the times already this season that the Canucks have had 2 or 3 guys out with minor injuries at the same time. Under your scenario, the team would have to place guys that become injured on LTIR regardless of how long they will be injured for OR be forced to play with a less than full roster. Inflexibility like that is never a good solution. This also speaks nothing about what the team would then look like with even one injury on the D. Baumgartner or a not even close to being ready rookie as the #7 dman waiting to step in when an injury happens? Arguing for this as a solution you must also believe that in the event of injury the #6 spot is not too important if you are okay with any of those guys stepping in as our first D replacement in the playoffs. If you are arguing that this would be okay, then why would we need a 3.75 million dman in that spot in the first place? It is obviously not an important spot on the team in your estimation. I don't care how much of a Bieksa homer you are, he is not better than Alberts, Rome, Parent, Glass, and Rypien combined. I would rather have 3 guys like Alberts, Parent, and Rome than one Bieksa. All 3 are comparable to Bieksa defensively and provide much better depth in the event of injuries. Decimating the entire depth of the defense just to keep Bieksa is not a good solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aixtek Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The perfect solution for the Nucks cap space situation when Salo comes back is for someone to break a bat over K.B's knees during practice, sending him on LTIR. Honestly, for the life of me, I don't know why no one else thought of this already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 I'd rather ship Salo for a pick instead of the following situation occuring; 1. Bieksa gets trade for a couple picks 2. Salo gets injured doing who the frack knows 3. Rome plays in Salo's spot and fracks everything up. 4. Knew this would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.