Champions of Nothing Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 There was no Malhotra on the ice tonight....are you watching reruns? Who said anything about Malhotra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Yeah Bieksa looked phenomenal out there tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquiace Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 So glad HamJuice is back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 You could hardly even tell Bieksa missed 15 games tonight. Him and Hammer just fit so well together! I have a feeling they're going to be huge for us in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 You could hardly even tell Bieksa missed 15 games tonight. Him and Hammer just fit so well together! I have a feeling they're going to be huge for us in the playoffs. Totally agree.....and that's why they will be the #1 pairing in the playoffs irregardless(yeah it's a word mofo's) of Edler coming back....that's right, I said it. Hamhuis - Bieksa.......#1 pairing of the Canucks in the playoffs. Suck it haters! EDIT - And wicked sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 You make some valid points.....but I think Tanev makes rookie mistakes and can skate his way out of most trouble....Rome is essentially a veteran and makes rookie mistakes, and is flat footed in his own zone. I think Tanev makes Rookie mistakes but stays reasonably solid unless he really gets caught up. Rome is a veteran who makes mistakes but is pretty good in his own zone and is overall a solid depth D man who tends to make better decisions than Tanev night in and night out. Rome > Tanev for now. If the choice is between the two I would say until Tanev either gets much better and more confident or gains about 30 pounds Rome is the better player to put on the ice. In any case when either Edler or Alberts comes back Rome is out. There's no AV love fest with him just like there's no hate fest with Ballard. They are simply doing what's best for the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Totally agree.....and that's why they will be the #1 pairing in the playoffs irregardless(yeah it's a word mofo's) of Edler coming back....that's right, I said it. Hamhuis - Bieksa.......#1 pairing of the Canucks in the playoffs. Suck it haters! EDIT - And wicked sig. Yeah but so is "bling bling"... think about it... think about it... Now pick up your mind as it has been blown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Great first game back - now all that needs to happen is for Edler to come back and we will have the best defence in the league. In fact, we may already have the best w/o Edler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I think Tanev makes Rookie mistakes but stays reasonably solid unless he really gets caught up. Rome is a veteran who makes mistakes but is pretty good in his own zone and is overall a solid depth D man who tends to make better decisions than Tanev night in and night out. Rome > Tanev for now. If the choice is between the two I would say until Tanev either gets much better and more confident or gains about 30 pounds Rome is the better player to put on the ice. In any case when either Edler or Alberts comes back Rome is out. There's no AV love fest with him just like there's no hate fest with Ballard. They are simply doing what's best for the team. I agree, he's solid depth and has become so, with the extra games he's logged over the season due to injuries. Hw was alright last night as well....no real complaints from me either. I do think that Tanev will get better....and I kinda see him walking the path that Edler did when he was called up as a filler and showed some promise and ended up sticking with the club. If Tanev can put on a little more weight this offseason and come back with a lttle more refinement in his game, he could be something else next year, and perhaps the first guy we call up, as opposed to the 3rd. I just sure hope to hell that we re-sign Bieksa though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Yeah but so is "bling bling"... think about it... think about it... Now pick up your mind as it has been blown. You're such a 'cracker'....of the wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I agree, he's solid depth and has become so, with the extra games he's logged over the season due to injuries. Hw was alright last night as well....no real complaints from me either. I do think that Tanev will get better....and I kinda see him walking the path that Edler did when he was called up as a filler and showed some promise and ended up sticking with the club. If Tanev can put on a little more weight this offseason and come back with a lttle more refinement in his game, he could be something else next year, and perhaps the first guy we call up, as opposed to the 3rd. I just sure hope to hell that we re-sign Bieksa though. Tanev will probably be 1st on the depth chart. Alberts, Ehrhoff, and Bieksa are all UFA. I'd be surprised if we sign 2 of the 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Great to see Bieksa back in tonight. He was the best defender on the ice for either team, IMO. If the "HamJuice" pairing is able to play consistently as they did tonight, the Canucks will have their first ever true "Shutdown" pairing in team history. 23+ minutes and a +1 in his first game back is more than I was expecting. Wait until he's 100%! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks_dynasty Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Tanev will probably be 1st on the depth chart. Alberts, Ehrhoff, and Bieksa are all UFA. I'd be surprised if we sign 2 of the 3. In all honesty...I wanted Bieksa traded in the offseason (due to salary cap reasons after Ballard was acquired). But after a stellar year of finally being defensively responsible...I want him back. Hopefully a long term contract 20M/5years (4M cap hit). That would give Canucks a solid shutdown pair for 5 years (Hamhuis and Bieksa contracts would expire at the same time). I don't think Ehrhoff will stay at a reasonable price (ie. $5M or less). He's shown he can quarterback a PP and will undoubtedly get a lot of suitors willing to pay top dollar (hopefully in the Eastern Conference). Pair up Ehrhoff with a defensive defenceman and you're good to go. I think Alberts is on his way out due to the emergence of Tanev. Tanev may not be as big and physical as Alberts but he's younger and cheaper. I think Salo would retire. Re-sign Bieksa $4M cap hit for 5 years. Hamhuis Bieksa Edler X Ballard Rome/Tanev Tanev/Rome X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laberta Wolongo Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Wow theres a lot of love going on for the guy hey. I remember saying he was going to have a good year this year. I didn't know he was going to be put into a shutdown role but I'm glad the guy has embraced it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 In all honesty...I wanted Bieksa traded in the offseason (due to salary cap reasons after Ballard was acquired). But after a stellar year of finally being defensively responsible...I want him back. Hopefully a long term contract 20M/5years (4M cap hit). That would give Canucks a solid shutdown pair for 5 years (Hamhuis and Bieksa contracts would expire at the same time). I agree about keeping Bieksa, and it may take a 4 x 5 deal to keep him - BUT, it would still scare me. So far in his career, he has only really shown up in a contract year. The injuries were part of it, sure...but I'm not 100% sold that they were ALL of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Kent Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I agree about keeping Bieksa, and it may take a 4 x 5 deal to keep him - BUT, it would still scare me. So far in his career, he has only really shown up in a contract year. The injuries were part of it, sure...but I'm not 100% sold that they were ALL of it. I don't get it. When Bieksa had his 43 point season everyone was saying he wasn't defensively responsible to it doesn't even out. But now, Ehrhoff is doing well offensively, but is a liability in his own zone, and not only is it fine, but he is do for a raise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmbpm Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Nice to see bieksa back & a plus 27 defenceman doesn't hurt,hehe.GO CANUCKS GO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I don't get it. When Bieksa had his 43 point season everyone was saying he wasn't defensively responsible to it doesn't even out. But now, Ehrhoff is doing well offensively, but is a liability in his own zone, and not only is it fine, but he is do for a raise.... I don't understand how you addressed my point. Bieksa's best years - by FAR - have been his past two contract years. Does that not concern you in the least? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks_dynasty Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I don't get it. When Bieksa had his 43 point season everyone was saying he wasn't defensively responsible to it doesn't even out. But now, Ehrhoff is doing well offensively, but is a liability in his own zone, and not only is it fine, but he is do for a raise.... I think it has to do with Ehrhoff being really effective quarterbacking the PP and Canucks being #1 in PP. Rose-colored glasses and all. Bieksa isn't a puck-moving defenceman. He certainly doesn't have a better shot than Ehrhoff. That said...I wouldn't be upset at Ehrhoff leaving. I get upset at his defensive lapses like I used to get upset at Bieksa. I think Edler can fill his role on the PP since it seems he's the Canucks future #1 D man. Canucks can't have so many D men making $4M+. So something's got to give. And like they say...defence wins championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks_dynasty Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I don't understand how you addressed my point. Bieksa's best years - by FAR - have been his past two contract years. Does that not concern you in the least? To me...not so much. Mainly cuz now he has a defined role (shutdown) and is paired with a reliable Dman (Hamhuis) that he's found chemistry with. Going forward...I can see him becoming consistent (ie. 8g 22a 30pts +20) defenceman. He won't be a 40+ Dman anymore. If he tries...I think his old habits will creep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.