soshified Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Please god no. Let our young players shine, aka Archibald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rawkdrummer Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 no thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure010 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 the only "tough guys" we have are Sestito and Kassian, we need more guys like this. he'd be a good 4th line energy guy throw your Canuck/Bruin butthurtness out, Thornton is obviously over it if he's willing to come here. if we can get him for under a mil then go for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 No thanks to 36-year-old him (or Sestito, for that matter, though I would say Shawn > Sestito, even at this point). I'd go with Archibald, Zalewski, Mallet and maybe Costello, just whoever rises to the surface and takes the reins on those 4th line wing spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks155 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 He's 36 and all he can do is hit. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 the only "tough guys" we have are Sestito and Kassian, we need more guys like this. he'd be a good 4th line energy guy throw your Canuck/Bruin butthurtness out, Thornton is obviously over it if he's willing to come here. if we can get him for under a mil then go for it We need a guy who can't play hockey and completely disgraced the sport by assaulting Brooks Orpik? There's no "butthurt" about it. This guy would be a complete cancer in the room, which is a risk we shouldn't even be taking if he was a good player. There's lots of guys who can play his role better and actually are worthy of some degree of respect. No point in taking the risk that he's completely altered his personality since the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Thornton is one of the worst forwards in the league. He would not help our 4th line at all. It will be a huge red flag if Benning signs him. I honestly can't believe we're even talking about this. He is just so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure010 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 We need a guy who can't play hockey and completely disgraced the sport by assaulting Brooks Orpik? There's no "butthurt" about it. This guy would be a complete cancer in the room, which is a risk we shouldn't even be taking if he was a good player. There's lots of guys who can play his role better and actually are worthy of some degree of respect. No point in taking the risk that he's completely altered his personality since the end of the season. Bruins put him in the lineup for game 3 and we all know how the rest of that series went, don't act like this guy can't make a difference. even if it may not be on the scoresheet "cancers in the room" don't bring energy to the lineup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Get useful players on the 4th line not goons, not Sestito either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Bruins put him in the lineup for game 3 and we all know how the rest of that series went, don't act like this guy can't make a difference. even if it may not be on the scoresheet "cancers in the room" don't bring energy to the lineup He worked in the Boston room because that franchise is full of classless douchebags like Chara, Lucic, and Marchand. He wouldn't fit in with guys like the Twins, Hamhuis, and Bieksa. Messier made a difference against us and was considered a "great leader", but he was the biggest cancer in the room we ever had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheXFactor Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Seems to have a bad temper that's easily lost on the ice. The Canucks are FINALLY just getting out of the diver/whining rep from a few seasons ago. We don't need a player who would give us an even worse rep from the refs. As many of us know refs CAN determine who wins the game. We're also in the process of rebuilding/retooling so I don't know why we should go for a 36 year old player. Really hope JB doesn't try to get him just because they worked together for a long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Love him or hate him, my laundry list of questions to having Thornton put on the Canucks jersey would be: (1) Could he elevate the team's collective courage? For example, guys like Krejci and Bergeron probably wouldn't play with as much sand paper if they weren't on the Bruins...how much of a factor was Thornton in all this? I'm sure JB would know the answer to this. (2) Could he make the working environment better/safer for the likes of the Sedins and other flyweight/middleweights on the roster so that they can do what they do best? (3) Could he bring a winning, Bruins-like mindset to the Canucks, who seem to have a long history of being fragile when push comes to shove? (4) Does he still have enough in the gas tank? For me, being classy or not is sort of a non-relevant matter, and hockey players are professionals so IMO, they don't hold grudges like us fans do...my bottom line question is, would Thornton make the Canucks better? For the most part, I think he would...so even though he's hated, is a thug (e.g., Orpik incident), is old, would be good to save roster spot for one of the prospects, etc., under the right cap hit (<$1.1M), I'd bring him in. EDIT: I should also add that bringing in Thornton would be predicated by what the team wants to achieve in the next couple of years...do we think we can get into the playoffs (at which time, as many of the hockey insiders say, "anything can happen"...which I find hard to believe, but what do I know?) or do we want to bring in young players to learn the NHL culture and the game, under the watchful eye of the Sedins, Bieksa, etc. (which I'm sure will spur a whole new debate about whether our current core is capable of ushering in the next generation of players...but that's another debate to be had) so that we can build for the future? If it's the former, then yes, bringing in a guy like Thornton would help the cause. My two cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Love him or hate him, my laundry list of questions to having Thornton put on the Canucks jersey would be: (1) Could he elevate the team's collective courage? For example, guys like Krejci and Bergeron probably wouldn't play with as much sand paper if they weren't on the Bruins...how much of a factor was Thornton in all this? I'm sure JB would know the answer to this. (2) Could he make the working environment better/safer for the likes of the Sedins and other flyweight/middleweights on the roster so that they can do what they do best? (3) Could he bring a winning, Bruins-like mindset to the Canucks, who seem to have a long history of being fragile when push comes to shove? (4) Does he still have enough in the gas tank? For me, being classy or not is sort of a non-relevant matter, and hockey players are professionals so IMO, they don't hold grudges like us fans do...my bottom line question is, would Thornton make the Canucks better? For the most part, I think he would...so even though he's hated, is a thug (e.g., Orpik incident), is old, would be good to save roster spot for one of the prospects, etc., under the right cap hit (<$1.1M), I'd bring him in. This is the same sort of argument that was made before Messier (a far better player than Thornton) was brought in. He proceeded to be a huge problem for us both on the ice with his lazy play, and off it with the disgraceful way he conducted himself. Why the hell would you take a risk like that with Thornton when there are many other players who bring these benefits without the baggage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 He worked in the Boston room because that franchise is full of classless douchebags like Chara, Lucic, and Marchand. He wouldn't fit in with guys like the Twins, Hamhuis, and Bieksa. Messier made a difference against us and was considered a "great leader", but he was the biggest cancer in the room we ever had. The thing is, Heff, team sports is all about pack mentality...Chara, Lucic, Thornton, Marchand, et. al. are classless d-bags from our perspective, but, love them or hate them, they stick up for each other and have a collective hate-on for their opponents. I think that's one of those intangible elements that was missing from the Canucks...the only time I saw this was when Sestito went after Jordan Nolan...there was no push back in PHX when Hanzal singlehandedly run amok the team without any consequence. I'm not condoning violence or hockey thuggery, but the Canucks lacked that pack mentality that winning teams seem to possess. I'm of the opinion that a guy like Thornton will go through the wall for his teammates, no matter who they are, and no matter what the history may be. The fact that he's 37 isn't ideal, but if he's got something left in the gas tank and can make the Canucks braver and tougher to play against (and maybe teach Sestito how not to be a punching bag), I'd have no qualms about having him on the team. BTW, that's a killer sig...I'm not much of an Edler fan as a player, but I used to run into him at Trees Organic Coffee Shop on Richards in Yaletown quite regularly and he was the nicest and classiest/polite person around...he hasn't contributed to bringing us the Cup so the hockey animal in me says class is overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 We don't need more bottom 6 guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 This is the same sort of argument that was made before Messier (a far better player than Thornton) was brought in. He proceeded to be a huge problem for us both on the ice with his lazy play, and off it with the disgraceful way he conducted himself. Why the hell would you take a risk like that with Thornton when there are many other players who bring these benefits without the baggage? I agree...it's a risk in bringing in someone like Thornton. So is trading Kes, signing a UFA, etc. So presuming, JB knows Thornton well enough as a player and a man, I'm inclined to think he could help the Canucks IF he were signed. If he isn't signed, then we'll know that JB thinks Thornton's best days are in his rear view mirror. Though I didn't say so in my previous post, I'm going on the assumption that if Thornton were signed, he would have passed JB's smell test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Stammer- Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 hah no thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Up to Canada like Parros. Thornton's done pretty quick here, but will still be good for sillyass postgame media scrums, and we like that crap up here. Moral victory time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 The thing is, Heff, team sports is all about pack mentality...Chara, Lucic, Thornton, Marchand, et. al. are classless d-bags from our perspective, but, love them or hate them, they stick up for each other and have a collective hate-on for their opponents. I think that's one of those intangible elements that was missing from the Canucks...the only time I saw this was when Sestito went after Jordan Nolan...there was no push back in PHX when Hanzal singlehandedly run amok the team without any consequence. I'm not condoning violence or hockey thuggery, but the Canucks lacked that pack mentality that winning teams seem to possess. I'm of the opinion that a guy like Thornton will go through the wall for his teammates, no matter who they are, and no matter what the history may be. The fact that he's 37 isn't ideal, but if he's got something left in the gas tank and can make the Canucks braver and tougher to play against (and maybe teach Sestito how not to be a punching bag), I'd have no qualms about having him on the team. BTW, that's a killer sig...I'm not much of an Edler fan as a player, but I used to run into him at Trees Organic Coffee Shop on Richards in Yaletown quite regularly and he was the nicest and classiest/polite person around...he hasn't contributed to bringing us the Cup so the hockey animal in me says class is overrated. Uh, how much of that "pack mentality" was permitted, because these particular "douche-bags"....felt entitiled by the league to play that way, because they are on the perennial BOG Chairman's team. Funny how that game-plan seemed to fail during their series versus MON,... who was able to use their O-6 trump card - by not having won the Cup, as recently. Class is everything! It gives you those long-term heroes that you can hang your hat upon...like Gretzky, Lidstrom, Selanne, Yzerman, Sakic, & Linden. The Messiers, Tigers & Lance Armstrongs of the world,...eventually, fall off their pedestals & the map. I vote for bringing in more players of quality to this team,... the kind that I would want my kids, & the next generation of hockey players to emulate....that's tough-playing, but with honor. Sure some players cross the line of propriety at times through mere exuberance, but that's different from having a pattern of behavior that includes blind assaults, bullying & excessive chirping for the sake of egotisitical-bravado or media-hype. I say NO to players ...like that. Thornton should just re-tire out & make a few bucks with the WWE... or in the movies. He could put his uber-dramatic-schtick to better use in those places. Maybe the Rock, Arnold & Cam (Sea Bass) Neely could give him a few pointers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Love him or hate him, my laundry list of questions to having Thornton put on the Canucks jersey would be: (1) Could he elevate the team's collective courage? For example, guys like Krejci and Bergeron probably wouldn't play with as much sand paper if they weren't on the Bruins...how much of a factor was Thornton in all this? I'm sure JB would know the answer to this. (2) Could he make the working environment better/safer for the likes of the Sedins and other flyweight/middleweights on the roster so that they can do what they do best? (3) Could he bring a winning, Bruins-like mindset to the Canucks, who seem to have a long history of being fragile when push comes to shove? (4) Does he still have enough in the gas tank? For me, being classy or not is sort of a non-relevant matter, and hockey players are professionals so IMO, they don't hold grudges like us fans do...my bottom line question is, would Thornton make the Canucks better? For the most part, I think he would...so even though he's hated, is a thug (e.g., Orpik incident), is old, would be good to save roster spot for one of the prospects, etc., under the right cap hit (<$1.1M), I'd bring him in. EDIT: I should also add that bringing in Thornton would be predicated by what the team wants to achieve in the next couple of years...do we think we can get into the playoffs (at which time, as many of the hockey insiders say, "anything can happen"...which I find hard to believe, but what do I know?) or do we want to bring in young players to learn the NHL culture and the game, under the watchful eye of the Sedins, Bieksa, etc. (which I'm sure will spur a whole new debate about whether our current core is capable of ushering in the next generation of players...but that's another debate to be had) so that we can build for the future? If it's the former, then yes, bringing in a guy like Thornton would help the cause. My two cents worth. So basically your questions are "Is Shawn Thornton magic?" I can save you some time. The answer is no. He didn't do any of those things on the Bruins, and he wouldn't do any of those things on the Canucks. Bergeron and Krejci and Chara and Marchand and Lucic are good because they're talented hockey players. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Shawn Thornton, who is one of the worst forwards in the league. Believing otherwise is magical thinking. You have to ignore all evidence to the contrary. I pray that Benning doesn't think that way. Edit: Just for a little more detail, when Matt Cooke ended Savard's career, Shawn Thornton was on the Bruins. He didn't make the game any safer for Savard, because goons don't do that. There is literally not a single shred of tangible evidence to make one believe that Thornton would make the Sedins safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.