allkill326 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Chicago: Chicago may not want Luongo for his inconsistencies playing in a competitive environment, as well as during VAN-CHI rivalry. Edmonton: Vancouver does not want any of Edmonton's defensive assets, where defense is the priority for return from handing over Luongo. (To support Schneider.) Would we want Bryzgalov, instead of Luongo? The former is more expensive and less competent playing in NHL. 2. Assessing Value - Value is determined by the highest bidding team. With that being said, every team would be offering the least possible return. Potential Luongo trading partners are going to see a limited market combined with a likely lowering and Luongo's big contract as Luongo being a burden. - What would Gillis being looking for? Would he want to strengthen the Canucks team now or get cap relief with assets that are future based? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Grit is an issue, yes. We're a pretty easy team to play against, really. That said, the biggest concern facing the Canucks right now is decline risk. Sedin's are already showing signs of decline, and if they nose-dive like Naslund did in his last 2 years here, this team could be in for some pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I'm not really sure how we are easy to play against when we have won back to back PT's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Toughness factor. The Canucks are relatively soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 There's factors you have to take into consideration. For the first time seemingly in his career Henrik had a major injury, we went a long way in the playoffs which naturally is going to a toll on your recovery process, training process and your surley not going to have the same success you did the year prior, then you also factor in the injuries to Daniel & Burrows, and how our overall team was going through the same hangover, making the powerplay less successful and offensivley making us less successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I'm not really sure how we are easy to play against when we have won back to back PT's. And if you think this is serious decline, there's nothing to worry about, even at last year's pace (which was rittled by injury for Daniel) they are still capable of being 80-100 point players and carrying this team offensively. (As shown by the back to back PT's) Hank's goal total's really? for a player who is lucky to average 20 goals a year, and usually gets atleast 60+ assist's a year. That's really not a huge deal. If you said Daniel that would be a good argument, but for Henrik it really doesn't mean much with the way he plays. You say Kesler's 10-11 season may have been anomaly, (and maybe the 40 goals are) but people don't realize that 10-11 wasn't his best season statistically, 09-10 was, after back to back 70 point season's and then a 20 goals, 50 point where he missed games and was plagued by injuries the entire time, I'm not all that worried about him being able to return to atleast around 60-70 point form again. Hamhuis is only 29 Bieksa is only 31, Bieksa will be able to continue this rate of play for atleast 2 more season's at the very very least before any reduction in play should occur, probably long for Hammer, I would say he can go through 3 or 4 more years of this level of play. again at the least. Booth might be a question mark, but I'm not worried, he really found his niece on this team, was playing very well, starting to produce well and become the winger he once was, then he got hurt and it derialed his season and all his momentum. Then when he got back, after a few games he continued the solid play. He is a question mark to and extent but if you look between the lines and past the stats and actually watched him play, I'm not too worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 We're not easy to play against in the regular season, it's the playoffs that this team seems too soft for. This may account for why the Canucks get so injured every postseason and cant close the deal quickly or at all, they're easy to pound down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 This sounds like drivel straight from a Mike Gillis Team1040 interview. When was Henrik injured? He hasn't missed a game since 2004. And the "long way in the playoffs" crap is just an excuse. Patrice Bergeron's numbers got better. So did David Krejci's. Lucic's production did not suffer. Marchand's got better. Chara's got better. Etc., etc. That is not reality, just a Gillis-ism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 What do you think is less biased - hard numbers, or a Canuck fans' point of view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I was refering to the hip injury in the playoffs, as a fellow "fan" I thought you would have known what I was talking about. And how injured were the Bruins? Aside from Horton, and then the regular bumps and bruises they were very healthy, I'm not surprised really that they did that, if we were more healthy we would have had some players having great years aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Sorry, I don't really consider it an "injury" unless it prevents you from playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Well then that just makes you even more ignorant. There's no denying the fact that Vancouver's roster was decimated. If you choose to ignore that fact you are really blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Injured players don't play - like Hamhuis & Raymond. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Don't buy the explanations from management. This is part of why the Canucks are so universally hated. There's always some sort of excuse, whether it's the refs, whether it's injured players, whether it's too much travel, etc. Injured players don't play - like Hamhuis & Raymond. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Sorry, I don't really consider it an "injury" unless it prevents you from playing. "The regular bumps and bruises" that you suggest Boston had are no different than what we had. I don't buy for a second the notion that we lost the Cup "due to injury". Mason Raymond and Dan Hamhuis were injured. Boston didn't have Nate Horton or Marc Savard. We lost because we choked, basically, couldn't handle the pressure in Boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Are you really that simple? I suggest you look up Steve Yzerman's 2002 playoffs, including what kind of surgery he ended up needing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Injured players like Hank, Kesler, Edler, Ehrhoff, and Salo play in the biggest game of their lifes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 So you're saying that Hamhuis and Raymond just don't have enough heart? I'm not sure that you're understanding the difference between being "injured" and "playing not at 100%". Hamhuis and Raymond were injured - they couldn't play. Same with Nate Horton and Marc Savard. Injured. Sedin's, Kesler, and probably 95% of participants in the SCF were not playing at 100%, after the war of attrition to get to that point. Blaming the loss on "injury" is a flat-out excuse. They didn't get it done. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Blaming the loss on injury isn't a 'flat-out excuse', you're just too blind to see that when our team was 100% healthy, we were dominating every single team. And then when injuries hit that affected their play big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 So you're saying that Hamhuis and Raymond just don't have enough heart? I'm not sure that you're understanding the difference between being "injured" and "playing not at 100%". Hamhuis and Raymond were injured - they couldn't play. Same with Nate Horton and Marc Savard. Injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.