homersexual Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 How many copies will Tony Gallagher buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicCop Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 http://www.amazon.ca/Ice-Storm-Greatest-Vancouver-Canucks/dp/1771641312 You can preview the book here if you click on "look inside." And by preview I mean read most of the book. Thanks for that. I read what was available, and I there was only one thing in there that I hadn't heard or knew beforehand: Apparently Bruce Dowbiggin's mouth is big enough to fit the penises of Mike Gillis and the entire Aquilini family in there simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Inflatable Beaver Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I don't give an article written by a Mike Gillis fanboy one bit of credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Just waiting for his next interview, the one where he tells us why Dave Nonis is the greatest GM in the history of this franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockhart Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Is Vancouver still a destination? Not at the moment. It’s toxic. If you’re a player or agent right now there’s major questions about what this ownership wants out of the team, what kind of team they’re going to have going forward. Everybody sees that he just threw the local hero at the situation to placate everybody. Right now people don’t want to come here. Ummmm we just signed both Radim Vrbata and Ryan Miller... What exactly is this guy smoking and where can i get some? We overpaid both players and it's not like we were Miller's first choice anyway, he wanted to play in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACanuck Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 This author sounds like MG's voicebox... I wouldn't even waste my money on this crap. MG you and your author buddy can go take a flying leap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 He doesn't exactly sell me on wanting to read the book, but a lot of what he says is truth I think. Is anyone here actually surprised that Vancouver might not be the hottest destination in the NHL given what went down last season? Or that Trevor Linden was brought in first and foremost as a familiar face for ticket buyers to rally around? These aren't terrible things. Linden made good choices in Benning and Desjardins imo, and it won't take long to repair the reputation amongst players after only a year of chaos. For now though ... it's like that, and that's the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeena1 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 In this thread: A bunch of people who think they can comment on an entire book because they read a short article. Weak. Very weak. Read the book , and if you still hold the same opinions, flame away. Honest literary discourse is not based on newspaper articles. You're just embarrassing yourselves right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 This must be the Dowbiggen whose articles(periodically) I used to enjoy in the 'Globe & Mail'..That supposed "national paper" is a Leaf-lackey rag, & a boil on the butt of humanity; however I found BD's articles balanced, objective & willing to ask the hard ?'s(of the NHL). Also, he was no Leafer-shill. Has anyone here read the late 90's book, Home Game(or, Home Team?..forgot the title), by Ottawa based, Roy McGregor ? One of the more enjoyable hockey reads I've had-recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Yes you are correct, the 2011 team was miles better statistically than the '94 team, in the regular season that is. The difference was that unlike '11, '94 had a collection of playoff performers, not just a group of guys who padded their stats against the Calgary's and Edmonton's of the world and rode those career seasons to a presidents trophy. '94 had guys like Linden, Bure, Courtnall, Ronning, McLean, Brown, just to name a few. All guys who were big contributers. '11 had Burrows who of course helped the Canucks survive the dragon, Kesler who went "beast mode" for one series in his whole career against the mighty Predators, Luongo who when he wasn't spectacular was imploding, and our leading scorers the Sedins with their combined 42 points and -20. Despite the great regular seasons, the division titles and presidents trophies, during the Gillis era the Canucks were a .500 hockey team in the playoffs. What does that mean? Great regular seasons are meaningless if your'e only average in the postseason. '94 was better. I can't believe there are actual humans running around who believe this shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Only Hank won the Hart. He and Danny both won the Art Ross, back-to-back no less. you are correct.. but the point still stands. everything about the '11 team was better than the '94 team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I think a lot of people are confusing '94 with '82. The '82 Canucks were definitely a Cinderella team that got hot at the right time and were helped by the surrounding upsets in the Campbell Conference. The '94 team was basically the same team that finished in first place in their division in the two seasons prior. They also defeated higher seeded teams in all previous rounds before the final. Had the Canucks not blown Game 4 when they were up 2-0 and Pavel had his penalty shot, Vancouver wins the Cup in six...at the Coliseum. Unfortunately, the '94 Canucks were disabled by player greed, Quinn stepping down and replaced by the inept Rick Ley, Jeff Brown creating team drama off the ice, and Quinn's horrible drafting. The part that i underlined kind of proves that not much was expected of that team. I was there i watched it that team was not expected to go as far as it did. The '11 team got just as far in the finals, was the best team in hockey for two full seasons and had far more decorated personel.. the '11 team was better period.. There is literally no meaningful metric by which you could say the '94 team was better. Really really loving Linden isn't meaningful by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Yes you are correct, the 2011 team was miles better statistically than the '94 team, in the regular season that is. The difference was that unlike '11, '94 had a collection of playoff performers, not just a group of guys who padded their stats against the Calgary's and Edmonton's of the world and rode those career seasons to a presidents trophy. '94 had guys like Linden, Bure, Courtnall, Ronning, McLean, Brown, just to name a few. All guys who were big contributers. '11 had Burrows who of course helped the Canucks survive the dragon, Kesler who went "beast mode" for one series in his whole career against the mighty Predators, Luongo who when he wasn't spectacular was imploding, and our leading scorers the Sedins with their combined 42 points and -20. Despite the great regular seasons, the division titles and presidents trophies, during the Gillis era the Canucks were a .500 hockey team in the playoffs. What does that mean? Great regular seasons are meaningless if your'e only average in the postseason. '94 was better. '94 had playoff preformers and '11 didn't?? based on what.. neither team ended up winning. You guys all realize that the '94 team didn't win the cup right?? cause it seems you may be confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I can't believe there are actual humans running around who believe this crap. What about that was inaccurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Not too sure why so many of you are writing this off. 1. It is the author's opinion. 2. He definitely seems to have far more insight than the average CDCer. And in regards to Linden and Gillis: He isn't anti Linden, nor pro Gillis. He is simply stating a fact that hiring Linden as the President was largely for publicity stunt (ticket sales, "change", "new era")... a quick remedy to a badly damaged reputation due to poor performance as well as management antics over the past 2 years. This has certainly proved successful in the ownership's short term business goal as it regained the majority of the fans attention through curiosity and "hope", but whether it will hold or sink is still left to be answered. You're choosing to ignore the tone in which he spoke of Linden, which is obvious to anyone who reads it. Only an idiot could miss it and I know you are not an idiot. Especially since every criticism as far as inexperience goes could be levied at Gillis as well. That is a clear indication, that there is some resentment at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 '94 had playoff preformers and '11 didn't?? based on what.. neither team ended up winning. You guys all realize that the '94 team didn't win the cup right?? cause it seems you may be confused The main cast of the 2011 team didn't perform nearly as well as their '94 counterparts, the numbers show that. Linden and Bure alone combined for 28 goals in 24 games as an example. Both Sedins, Burrows, and Kesler combined for the same total in 25 games. McLean's 2.29 GAA and .928 Sv% were way better than the numbers Luongo posted. These recent Canuck players have won individual awards, helped the team win division titles and presidents trophies, and yet what have they done in the playoffs with many advantages the '94 team didn't have? Not much. We know the '94 team didn't win, but they overcame the odds and won 3 series without home ice advantage and pushed the presidents trophy winners to seven games before losing the cup by 1 goal. Did 2011 do that? No, they did nearly the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 '94 had playoff preformers and '11 didn't?? based on what.. neither team ended up winning. You guys all realize that the '94 team didn't win the cup right?? cause it seems you may be confused You cam't measure 94' in terms of wins, player stats or anything else like it. They connected with people in a way I haven't seen before or since. Their story inspired a lot of people in non-hockey related areas of life, I know several people who made positive life changing moves, after being inspired by watching that team fight to the bitter end. Most of those people weren't even sports fans. 2011, was a sports team trying to win a championship, great fun for all, but that's what it was. Nothing else. 94' was something more then that, and that "something more" was was better than any cup win. You have to look beyond the "Sports team winning" thing to see why 94' is so revered, and why, every though the team didn't win, all of us did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Most hockey critics list the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals as one of the most entertaining, hard fought series in recent times. The fact we lost by a single goal, is how close we were to either tying the game or winning. The Canucks in 94' was a team peaking. What sunk the team is we didn't have depth in centre, (Almost always an Achillies Heel with Vancouver) and lack of depth on defence. The Rangers had Brian Leetch, Kevin Lowe, Doug Lidster, and Zubov on defence. Plus Mike Richter in net. Game 3 was a turning point with Bure hitting Jay Wells in the face and getting a game misconduct. New York won that game 5-1. The 2011 team might have had more top end talent. But they had a team that stopped scoring, and a goaltender who was brilliant at home most games, then a nightmare on the road, and in game 7 when it counted. As B-Mac said (And it's in my sig): "The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I like how the reason he's not sold on this move is because our President and GM have no prior experience in their position, but it was the same way when they hired Gillis as the GM. At least Benning has a ring as an assistant GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 What a joke. You nailed it, looks like a middle school book report on the nucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.