Senpai Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Did Farhan tell you that? There were also reports that it was Sutter, Pouliot, and a 1st. It's all which insiders you believe. It makes no sense to not be buyers or sellers. Looks to me like we're just staying right in the middle again. Every single insider has reported that Pouliot was NEVER apart of the deal. Every. Single. One. EDIT: Hell, even Pittsburgh's PLAYER DEVELOPMENT STAFF has stated that they "do not want Ray Shero to trade Pouliot." That's why the trade never fell through, because they refused to add Pouliot. That's so logical, how can anyone not believe that? There wasn't any of this nixing business going on. We, as Canucks fans, just like to think the worst. They refused to add in Pouliot, and Gillis refused to trade him for just Sutter, 1st, and a 3rd. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Aquilini wants more money just like any greedy owner. If you think that he`s any different, think again. Making the playoffs this year won`t hurt our chances at rebuilding now. A 15th or a 20th pick doesn`t really make a huge difference in the scheme of things. A Kesler trade in the summer will be the starting point for a rebuild. And I`ve got a feeling it will be made by a new GM. I'm sure Aqualini has been around long enough to know that short term greed won't beat long term success..He hired Gillis (I believe MG still has 4 years to go on his contract). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Maybe Gillis was gonna trade Kesler for that deal but Aquilini stepped in and nixed potentially the worst trade in Canucks history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Pittsburgh was offering garbage, maybe ownership has plans to can gillis and move the Sedins and make Kesler the Captain and center of the first line. I would be good with that. Where are you going to trade two players, making 14 M combined, who had underachieving years? They go as a package, I can guarantee you that, or they would probably just walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Fail is not realizing that if we are indeed shopping Kesler we'd get way more for him at the draft when's there's more than just 2-3 contending teams biddin on him. How people don't see this? It's mind blowing you're wrong about this. you trade him in the offseason, he can play no more than 2 playoffs for you, and you may want to trade him before the last one, so you'd only get one. You get him today and he plays 2 playoffs for you and then you have a choice about trading him or taking him for a third run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I'm sure Aqualini has been around long enough to know that short term greed won't beat long term success..He hired Gillis (I believe MG still has 4 years to go on his contract). Like signing Luongo to a 12 year contract? Greed of wanting Luongo signed led to that ridiculous contract. That definitely didn't lead to long term success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Like signing Luongo to a 12 year contract? Greed of wanting Luongo signed led to that ridiculous contract. That definitely didn't lead to long term success. Such a terrible post for such an experienced poster. That "ridiculous" contract helped lower his cap hit and allowed us to acquire other pieces with the extra ~2M cap space. Without that 2M we might not have made it to Game 7 in the finals. He was looking for approximately 7.5M on a shorter term deal, MG found a legitimate loophole to the salary cap, which was again OK'd by the NHL. This contract was a brilliant contract before the new CBA came along that targeted teams who made these cap circumventing deals. You have no insight to anything that went down. His contract was about icing the best possible roster for a cup run, nothing to do with greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Like signing Luongo to a 12 year contract? Greed of wanting Luongo signed led to that ridiculous contract. That definitely didn't lead to long term success. At the time of the Luongo signing it was considered a good contract..and legal by NHL rules..Then the league decided to move the goalposts around and change the rules..Blame the NHL ..not Aqualini. Anyway ..the player and contract are gone..time to move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Like signing Luongo to a 12 year contract? Greed of wanting Luongo signed led to that ridiculous contract. That definitely didn't lead to long term success. One thing I gotta say: that contract paid Lu a lot of cash. The 12 year term was for cap circumvention. If ownership is more interested in making money than winning the Cup, they wouldn't have given him that back diving contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senpai Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Such a terrible post for such an experienced poster. That "ridiculous" contract helped lower his cap hit and allowed us to acquire other pieces with the extra ~2M cap space. Without that 2M we might not have made it to Game 7 in the finals. He was looking for approximately 7.5M on a shorter term deal, MG found a legitimate loophole to the salary cap, which was again OK'd by the NHL. This contract was a brilliant contract before the new CBA came along that targeted teams who made these cap circumventing deals. You have no insight to anything that went down. His contract was about icing the best possible roster for a cup run, nothing to do with greed. Exactly. Without that contract, we probably would have not had the cap space for the likes of Higgins/Lappy/Torres.. Maybe even Ehrhoff. Team would have looked completely different. EDIT: DeNiro, you're just talking hindsight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Did Farhan tell you that? There were also reports that it was Sutter, Pouliot, and a 1st. It's all which insiders you believe. It makes no sense to not be buyers or sellers. Looks to me like we're just staying right in the middle again. So unbelievably ignorant. You don't sell for the sake of selling. Six years in CDC with nearly 20k posts and really hasn't learned much? I sympathize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 "Well the obvious position from the Vancouver Canucks and Mike Gillis was that 'they weren't offered enough' yet teams were grinding right up until the 3 o'clock eastern deadline and we're told that there was some very good offers on the table. A few teams in the mix right up until that deadline. If you want to look back to a week ago, we're told there were as many as six teams that were vying for the services of Ryan Kesler. This is a story that will continue to give because we will continue to pick the carcass of the Vancouver Canucks at least until the draft when, perhaps, Ryan Kesler is ultimately moved." I had a great day not bothering to listen to a word of this babble. What you get from Dreger there is the clear delusion that he thinks his sideshow actually matters. It's not the responsibility of the Canucks to make their coverage - a marathon snore btw - worth tuning into by providing the blockbusters that might make Darren Dreger in some way relevant. The Canucks will trade Kesler if and when it's worthwhile to the Vancouver Canucks. Dreger's impotent protests that the Canucks won't meet their timelines and devaluations brings a certain measure of pleasure. They can prattle in all the coercive tones they want - the fact that Gillis' patience drives them mad is the only real value in the broadcast. The interference that all the Kesler rumours ran muted a lot of other action in a buyers market - and Gillis managed to move Luongo under the radar - for a good return - to the one market Luo and the Canucks were looking to work with. That must have really tasted like carrion crow to the carcass munchers at TSN. Was Luongo ever truly willing to go to Toronto? I doubt it. Maybe you got played Toronto. Would Kesler ever consider going to Toronto? Pfft. Does that stop Toronto from trying, rather sadly, to be players nevertheless? Would Kadri, Gardner/Reilly and a 1st be enough? Does it matter when he wouldn't play for you regardless? But do call with your offers anyway lol, and report it in a desperate attempt to somehow make Toronto relevent. I must have missed the part where Toronto did something to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senpai Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 So unbelievably ignorant. You don't sell for the sake of selling. :' ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 So unbelievably ignorant. You don't sell for the sake of selling. Six years in CDC with nearly 20k posts and really hasn't learned much? I sympathize. Wow what do you have dual accounts? Just sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Maybe Gillis was gonna trade Kesler for that deal but Aquilini stepped in and nixed potentially the worst trade in Canucks history. I honestly cannot see Gillis accepting that deal..the perameters were made quite clear what the Canucks were after Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senpai Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Wow what do you have dual accounts? Just sad. Yes DeNiro, i am so against your opinion that i created two accounts to tell you how wrong you are. I actually took a time machine back to 2006. Pretty neat, huh? ?????????????????????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Yes DeNiro, i am so against your opinion that i created two accounts to tell you how wrong you are. I actually took a time machine back to 2006. Pretty neat, huh? ?????????????????????????????????????? Right I'm sure a poster just happened to jump in and start attacking my posts in the same manner as you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millerdraft Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I had a great day not bothering to listen to a word of this babble. What you get from Dreger there is the clear delusion that he thinks his sideshow actually matters. It's not the responsibility of the Canucks to make their coverage - a marathon snore btw - worth tuning into by providing the blockbusters that might make Darren Dreger in some way relevant. The Canucks will trade Kesler if and when it's worthwhile to the Vancouver Canucks. Dreger's impotent protests that the Canucks won't meet their timelines and devaluations brings a certain measure of pleasure. They can prattle in all the coercive tones they want - the fact that Gillis' patience drives them mad is the only real value in the broadcast. The interference that all the Kesler rumours ran muted a lot of other action in a buyers market - and Gillis managed to move Luongo under the radar - for a good return - to the one market Luo and the Canucks were looking to work with. That must have really tasted like carrion crow to the carcass munchers at TSN. Was Luongo ever truly willing to go to Toronto? I doubt it. Maybe you got played Toronto. Would Kesler ever consider going to Toronto? Pfft. Does that stop Toronto from trying, rather sadly, to be players nevertheless? Would Kadri, Gardner/Reilly and a 1st be enough? Does it matter when he wouldn't play for you regardless? But do call with your offers anyway lol, and report it in a desperate attempt to somehow make Toronto relevent. I must have missed the part where Toronto did something to improve. I found myself in a near state of disbelief when I heard that soundbyte by Dreger. The disdain was thick, the animosity evident and the obsession with trying to tear down anything and everything Canuck was obvious. All that was missing was some foaming at the mouth: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senpai Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Right I'm sure a poster just happened to jump in and start attacking my posts in the same manner as you were. Get a life. The mature posters are trying to have real hockey conversations here. I'm just trying to have a discussion about hockey, and that's why i signed up. Isn't what this place is for? Sorry if it seemed like i was "attacking" your posts, i was just simply discussing what I think of the situation. Jeez, no need to go all defensive by telling me to "get a life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Right I'm sure a poster just happened to jump in and start attacking my posts in the same manner as you were. Get a life. The mature posters are trying to have real hockey conversations here. I and Honky Cat did too... and my account opened in 2003... "Attack" is not the right word though, more like constructive critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.