Kevin Bieksa you are really...

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Yeah, something about getting called a retard at 9 in the morning really gets under my skin. So I did get involved afterwards. It is not something I normally do.

Who the hell are you anyway?

If I wanted to battle this many trolls I'd go play Dungeons & Dragons.

YOU'RE ON A DISCUSSION BOARD IN A TOPIC. If you want to talk to one person about something try MSN and go away.

Who the hell are you to think you can troll into a topic, say some random garbage about what a knowledgable fan is and not expect people to come back at you?

Grow up.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Its funny because every team has people on their team who are overpaid. In Vans case the only person who is overpaid would be Bieksa, by about 1.5-2 million. Other teams have way worse problems than a guy overpaid by that much. (Rolston, Thomas come to mind).

People don't really appreciate that conversely we have Sedins, Luongo, Burrows, Ehrhoff, Samuelson, all making less than they could be. Thats about 7 million in savings right there from those players. As far as player salaries go, we are extremely fortunate.

I disagree but we're only 3 games into the season and that;s not enough time to make a judgement.

Other teams also don't have the west coast mentality. Especially in a hockey centric city like Vancouver where everyone is the coach and GM.

[RUPERTKBD]

Look, buddy. I don't need to be personally insulted for having an opinion that is shared by plenty of other Canuck fans.

Why don't you climb down off your high horse. When you were forgetting more than I'll ever know did you also forget to watch the games? Bieksa is a liability and not worth the money the Canucks are paying him.

I watch all the games, and the view from my high horse says you don't know what you're talking about. (despite what "plenty" of other Canuck fans say)

Instead of offering "your opinion" which isn't quantifiable, why don't you try and refute my earlier post as to why Bieksa was not at fault for the Perry goal.

[malHOEtra]

I disagree but we're only 3 games into the season and that;s not enough time to make a judgement.

Other teams also don't have the west coast mentality. Especially in a hockey centric city like Vancouver where everyone is the coach and GM.

Valid point. For all we know Hamhuis, Malhotra, Raymond could all have garbage seasons and not be deserving of their new contracts. It is too early to tell.

At this point and time I feel as if Vancouver does well when it comes to not overpaying for their players. Its a desirable place to play, so players re-sign here for discounts, and free agents tend to like coming to Vancouver it seems. Our good contract/bad contract ratio is pretty good IMO.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Valid point. For all we know Hamhuis, Malhotra, Raymond could all have garbage seasons and not be deserving of their new contracts. It is too early to tell.

At this point and time I feel as if Vancouver does well when it comes to not overpaying for their players. Its a desirable place to play, so players re-sign here for discounts, and free agents tend to like coming to Vancouver it seems. Our good contract/bad contract ratio is pretty good IMO.

Forgot Kesler...and really if Malhotra can win faceoffs the way he has during his career and pump in 15-20 goals I'm happy with him.

Other than that I agree completely and couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Li'l Fra]

YOU'RE ON A DISCUSSION BOARD IN A TOPIC. If you want to talk to one person about something try MSN and go away.

Who the hell are you to think you can troll into a topic, say some random garbage about what a knowledgable fan is and not expect people to come back at you?

Grow up.

You schmuck! I took exception to some douche calling me a retard. Now you're weighing in after the fact thinking you know everything about it. You need to grow up. If someone wants to "come back at me" that's fine. I am here to talk hockey.

And...I never said boo about the Perry goal. But if you'd like an example of a Bieksa mistake I'll point out the stick-breaking slash when we were already down a man. That led directly to a goal.

If you'd like other examples just go ahead and watch some tape.

I don't even dislike Bieksa that much, I just think he needs to get better. It's you I don't like.

[Hax]

You'd think that after a combined total of seven thousand pages on Bieksa, CDC would be running out of things to say about him.

[Sharpshooter]

Yeah, something about getting called a retard at 9 in the morning really gets under my skin. So I did get involved afterwards. It is not something I normally do.

Who the hell are you anyway?

If I wanted to battle this many trolls I'd go play Dungeons & Dragons.

He's the guy that could decimate your arguments with one lobe tied behind his back.

I suggest you not provoke him...lest he undress you and your argument bare....and send you running from here in a dizzy and embarrased shell of your former self.

That's who he is.

[malHOEtra]

Forgot Kesler...and really if Malhotra can win faceoffs the way he has during his career and pump in 15-20 goals I'm happy with him.

Other than that I agree completely and couldn't have said it any better myself.

MG has constantly emphasized bringing in "character guys", and has really done a good job making this a desirable organization. Things such as trading Hordi so he could stay in the NHL, and going public with Mannys fabled "discretely giving the homeless woman money" story.

I think that one of the things that made O'Brien expendable over Bieksa was character. The guy is obviously a presence in the room if Hank gave him and A, and SOB (I liked the guy lots) was a bit of a distraction it seemed.

Anyone want to start a new religion with me? I call it "Gillisism"

[Li'l Fra]

He's the guy that could decimate your arguments with one lobe tied behind his back.

I suggest you not provoke him...lest he undress you and your argument bare....and send you running from here in a dizzy and embarrased shell of your former self.

That's who he is.

Are you freakin' serious? I'll talk Canucks with anybody. How's your man crush going?

[malHOEtra]

Sooo....how bout that Kevin Bieksa?

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

You schmuck! I took exception to some douche calling me a retard. Now you're weighing in after the fact thinking you know everything about it. You need to grow up. If someone wants to "come back at me" that's fine. I am here to talk hockey.

And...I never said boo about the Perry goal. But if you'd like an example of a Bieksa mistake I'll point out the stick-breaking slash when we were already down a man. That led directly to a goal.

If you'd like other examples just go ahead and watch some tape.

I don't even dislike Bieksa that much, I just think he needs to get better. It's you I don't like.

Oh princess no.

This all started because you "talked hockey" didn't like someones response and got all wound up.

Stick to the hockey talk then oh enlightened one and stop acting like a 6 year old girl.

Did I bring up the perry goal? Musta missed when I did that.

Nice deflection btw.

You bashers shure R knowleded.

SO lets talk hockey superstar. Lets start with the breaking stick....Prove it. If you're just gonna say Bieksa broke the stick and they scored a goal allow me to laugh at you ahead of time. Ha ha ha ha....................ha ha...... ha ha.

I'll be back in a few hours for more lols.

[wallstreetamigo]

Giving Bieksa the A could easily have been a MG decision, not a Henrik decision. It makes sense if you think about it. If MG publicly gives Bieksa the A (ostensibly to boost his trade value), then trades him, he is seen as an a-hole. If Henrik gives Bieksa the A then MG trades him, it is all just the business of the game. Deniability or MG and he gets the best of both worlds.

I am not saying this is the way it is (none of us actually know anything about the situation), but it is certainly one possible scenario. Much like giving him the A because he is considered the most valuable dman on the team is certainly one possible scenario.

My point here is that all of us have to admit that no matter how we look at any situation there is an ability to skew the facts to support whatever argument we want to make.

Bieksa is a polarizing argument either way. He is good but not great and he does seem to lack certain fundamental skills that smart hockey players all seem to have. But he also brings a lot of positives when he plays his game and is used properly. He is a classic inconsistent but good hockey player, no better and no worse than many others who have trouble with their consistency game in and game out.

He deserves a chance, but they should give him a fair chance that puts him in the best position to succeed. The 1st pairing shutdown role is unfortunately not the right place for him to be and exposes his weaknesses rather than showcases his strengths.

If that makes me a hater, so be it.

[Li'l Fra]

Oh princess no.

This all started because you "talked hockey" didn't like someones response and got all wound up.

Stick to the hockey talk then oh enlightened one and stop acting like a 6 year old girl.

Did I bring up the perry goal? Musta missed when I did that.

Nice deflection btw.

You bashers shure R knowleded.

SO lets talk hockey superstar. Lets start with the breaking stick....Prove it. If you're just gonna say Bieksa broke the stick and they scored a goal allow me to laugh at you ahead of time. Ha ha ha ha....................ha ha...... ha ha.

I'll be back in a few hours for more lols.

You hardly make sense. I don't think you even read my original post.

Anyway you ask me to talk hockey and bring up the Perry goal, then when I talk hockey you conviently forget what you wrote and get back to insulting me.

Are you denying that Bieksa's slash last game led to a 5 on 3 that led to a goal? I don't need to prove it. It happened. If you watched the game like you say you did, you would know that.

And, yeah, when somebody's response to my post is to personally insult me in an extremely rude fashion sometimes it pisses me off.

Get lost!

[Sharpshooter]

Are you freakin' serious? I'll talk Canucks with anybody. How's your man crush going?

Yes, to your rhetorical first question.

I would switch 'respect for him' with 'man crush', for accuracy's sake....and answer, just fine....to your asinine and final question.

[Li'l Fra]

Yes, to your rhetorical first question.

I would switch 'respect for him' with 'man crush', for accuracy's sake....and answer, just fine....to your asinine and final question.

Get over yourselves already.

[RUPERTKBD]

You schmuck! I took exception to some douche calling me a retard. Now you're weighing in after the fact thinking you know everything about it. You need to grow up. If someone wants to "come back at me" that's fine. I am here to talk hockey.

And...I never said boo about the Perry goal. But if you'd like an example of a Bieksa mistake I'll point out the stick-breaking slash when we were already down a man. That led directly to a goal.

If you'd like other examples just go ahead and watch some tape.

I don't even dislike Bieksa that much, I just think he needs to get better. It's you I don't like.

The stick breaking did lead to a goal. However, it was one of two penalties. Why is it a mistake by Bieksa and not Ballard?

Perhaps you didn't say anything about the Perry goal. However, several other of your fellow "knowledgeable" fans did. Since you talk about how you are all on the same page in finding fault with Bieksa, I would have thought you'd agree with their sentiments.

Are you saying they're incorrect? If not, the challenge to prove me wrong remains.

I don't want to "go watch tape". I have already done so. If your argument is as valid as you seem to think, it should be easy for you to find something and post it.

You don't like me? I suppose that's a cross I'll have to bear.

[hank&dan]

Sigh, just when you were starting to seem reasonable.

It is the general consensus among those arguing against him that Bieksa is a very mediocre defenceman. Just going to use a quick quote of someone who literally just responded to me, Canucklelion "Bieksa should be in the 3rd pairing at best.." There are COUNTLESS examples of labels far less complimentary than this, supporting sQuish's assertion that most people on this board consider him less than a good NHL defenceman.

Out of curiosity, what do you think Bieksa's play warrents? I would say he's the offensive component on our second line, and that's what he was always projected to be. Surprise surprise, he's pretty good at it!

In all honesty Bieksa COULD be a good top pairing defeceman. On a different team. The Canucks don't need a happy go lucky type guy on their back end. They have an abundance of guys who can put up points from the back end already AND play solid D. He doesn't bring anything to the table that the Canucks don't already have other than his mistakes. His only saving grace is that he's a right hand shot (the other top nucks are all lefties) and his big salary makes him hard to move.

[Sharpshooter]

Giving Bieksa the A could easily have been a MG decision, not a Henrik decision. It makes sense if you think about it. If MG publicly gives Bieksa the A (ostensibly to boost his trade value), then trades him, he is seen as an a-hole. If Henrik gives Bieksa the A then MG trades him, it is all just the business of the game. Deniability or MG and he gets the best of both worlds.

I am not saying this is the way it is (none of us actually know anything about the situation), but it is certainly one possible scenario. Much like giving him the A because he is considered the most valuable dman on the team is certainly one possible scenario.

My point here is that all of us have to admit that no matter how we look at any situation there is an ability to skew the facts to support whatever argument we want to make.

Bieksa is a polarizing argument either way. He is good but not great and he does seem to lack certain fundamental skills that smart hockey players all seem to have. But he also brings a lot of positives when he plays his game and is used properly. He is a classic inconsistent but good hockey player, no better and no worse than many others who have trouble with their consistency game in and game out.

He deserves a chance, but they should give him a fair chance that puts him in the best position to succeed. The 1st pairing shutdown role is unfortunately not the right place for him to be and exposes his weaknesses rather than showcases his strengths.

If that makes me a hater, so be it.

I'm going to stop you right there...at the first sentence.....we know it was a Henrik Sedin decision. There is no conspiracy beyond the one and only decision maker.

I will say that you aren't a hater....from the many exchanges and discussions you and I have had. We've kept things pretty civil between us and you have kept your views frank but balanced, for the most part. So, I would disagree with anyone who said or suggested that currently, you are or what you say reflects, a hater

[Dirty Al]

The stick breaking did lead to a goal. However, it was one of two penalties. Why is it a mistake by Bieksa and not Ballard?

Perhaps you didn't say anything about the Perry goal. However, several other of your fellow "knowledgeable" fans did. Since you talk about how you are all on the same page in finding fault with Bieksa, I would have thought you'd agree with their sentiments.

Are you saying they're incorrect? If not, the challenge to prove me wrong remains.

I don't want to "go watch tape". I have already done so. If your argument is as valid as you seem to think, it should be easy for you to find something and post it.

You don't like me? I suppose that's a cross I'll have to bear.

because the Ballard call was crape. and what juice did although I don't agree with the call. is called EVERY time.