Barry_Wilkins Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 I'm not being cheerful. I was being realistic. I didn't even say anything like "we will make the playoffs". I know that this team is not that great. YOU were the one who said this isn't a lunchbucket team, implying that this team is more skill than will. You contradict yourself by NOW saying this team is on the decline and start babbling about rebuild plans (are you ok?), and you fail to understand that this team is undoubtedly more blue collar than any of the past we've seen for many a year. If you can't agree, then stop posting, because you are making no sense. You're full of assumptions and misinterpretations. I didn't say the team was on the decline and should rebuild. I said that if YOU think the Sedins are on the decline, then the Canucks are in obvious trouble. Do you really think that without the Sedins and Kesler producing at near the clip they've previously been on, that the Canucks are going anywhere with their "hard work"? And what happens to teams with a lack of talent who nevertheless work hard for a while? Tom Watt's Canucks could outsweat any team in the league. They lost a lot of 2-1 and 3-2 games though. Eventually, the team gave up. Rick Lanz eventually quit on the team. Hard work, by itself, only makes you hard to play against, not successful. Columbus, many years, and especially the one playoff year under Hitchcock, were all about hard work. Swept four straight in the first round. Is that the team you want? Proud of their work ethic, but no playoffs or bounced quickly? Sorry, I've had my fill of hard-working but talent-short Canucks teams throughout much of their history. Gimme the formula one racer over the Volkswagen Bug any day. It might need more pit stops but at least it gives you a shot at finishing first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silfverberg Snipes Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 When the kings won the cup they were poor for most of the season, surged towards the end, and peaked the whole playoffs, They underachieved mostly the whole year, anything can happen once you make the playoffs. They also made key acquisitions in Carter and Richards who were catalysts on that team. I don't think Gillis is ballsy enough to make those types moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzy Desjardins Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 They also made key acquisitions in Carter and Richards who were catalysts on that team. I don't think Gillis is ballsy enough to make those types moves. We will see at the deadline. History says you are right though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck or Die Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 They also made key acquisitions in Carter and Richards who were catalysts on that team. I don't think Gillis is ballsy enough to make those types moves. Richards was playing for them since the start of that season, though. Carter didn't come in till the deadline. That was also around the time they went on a tear and never looked back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerbera Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 They also made key acquisitions in Carter and Richards who were catalysts on that team. I don't think Gillis is ballsy enough to make those types moves. Where do we find some Simmonds or Jack Johnson to trade? We just don't have the depth to trade with them. If we gave up good pieces, which we have to in order to obtain good pieces other than a lopsided trade, who fills the vacant spot(s)? People just go on and say Gillis is not ballsy but is more like we don't have the pieces to trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzy Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Where do we find some Simmonds or Jack Johnson to trade? We just don't have the depth to trade with them. If we gave up good pieces, which we have to in order to obtain good pieces other than a lopsided trade, who fills the vacant spot(s)? People just go on and say Gillis is not ballsy but is more like we don't have the pieces to trade. Victims of our own 'success'- drafting late 20s every year has hurt us by not having the pieces to trade for these substantial deadline deals. LA sucked for quite a few years and stockpiled a few assets to get Carter et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silfverberg Snipes Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Where do we find some Simmonds or Jack Johnson to trade? We just don't have the depth to trade with them. If we gave up good pieces, which we have to in order to obtain good pieces other than a lopsided trade, who fills the vacant spot(s)? People just go on and say Gillis is not ballsy but is more like we don't have the pieces to trade. We have a surplus of defensive minded defenseman and two way forwards. All the ones that have a smidge of value are locked in with NTC's. I guess you could say Gillis was ballsy enough to assume that this core would be a Cup contender year after year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugli Fruit Posted November 19, 2013 Author Share Posted November 19, 2013 You're full of assumptions and misinterpretations. I didn't say the team was on the decline and should rebuild. I said that if YOU think the Sedins are on the decline, then the Canucks are in obvious trouble. Do you really think that without the Sedins and Kesler producing at near the clip they've previously been on, that the Canucks are going anywhere with their "hard work"? And what happens to teams with a lack of talent who nevertheless work hard for a while? Tom Watt's Canucks could outsweat any team in the league. They lost a lot of 2-1 and 3-2 games though. Eventually, the team gave up. Rick Lanz eventually quit on the team. Hard work, by itself, only makes you hard to play against, not successful. Columbus, many years, and especially the one playoff year under Hitchcock, were all about hard work. Swept four straight in the first round. Is that the team you want? Proud of their work ethic, but no playoffs or bounced quickly? Sorry, I've had my fill of hard-working but talent-short Canucks teams throughout much of their history. Gimme the formula one racer over the Volkswagen Bug any day. It might need more pit stops but at least it gives you a shot at finishing first. What are you trying to prove to me...? I didn't, at any point, claim the reality is otherwise. Actually, most readers inferred that I was implying that our core is aging. What you're talking about was never relevant to my main point so your post, while substantial, brings nothing to my OP. Though on that topic, yes. We agree on that. It is the reality. Our core, even in 2011, was a 2nd round team at best without a very strong bottom 6 and bottom D pairing. We are now basically a 2nd round playoff team if our bottom 6 performs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.