Monty Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Imagine if: Kept Erhoff Kept Schneider Kept Hodgson - all key players, nothing to show for themRemember cap issues, future of the team as it stands now, and in Hodgson's case behavioural issues before typing down your thoughts. - Ehrhoff, who was eventually bought out of his ludicrous contract, didn't want to be apart of an orgnizaton where players took less to succeed. If he didn't buy into that culture, you don't keep him around. - Schneider: Yeah, it would have been great to still have him. However, if you take off your homer glasses and accept the fact that, even with Schneider, this team is nowhere near competing and should be in a rebuilding phase, having Horvat is significantly better for the franchise long term. With Schneider, the Canucks would just be doing what Calgary did for years with Kipper. Finishing middle of the pack when, for all intents and purposes, they should have been rebuilding ended up setting their franchise back years. I will agree that I miss Schneider; however, the Canucks recognizing that they are no longer a contender and face rebuilding will not be something that they regret in the long run. - Hodgson: Long story short, good riddance. His bad attitude would have only gotten worse. Let's just say he would have been around right now, taking over Kesler's role as #2 centre. To be honest, the Canucks would have had someone who would put up the same amount of points as Bonino, but would now be p*ssed off because he believes he should playing first line minutes over Sedin; which, as we can tell by his play in Buffalo, is not something he is capable of anchoring. Gillis got rid of a player with character issues no matter what situation you put him in. Didn't want to be a 3rd line centre on the best team in the league, wouldn't have been happy playing second fiddle to Henrik, and would have most likely b*tched and moaned about having to play a responsible two-way game. Hodgson gone is a blessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill 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. Dasein does it again! EDIT: to add All those progressive things Mike Gillis was doing – the sleep monitoring and other stuff – have Linden and Benning scrapped it? It’s a cruise of the newbies right now. Trevor Linden has never done this job. It appears to me that Benning wants to emulate the Boston model – a more physical model – and I think if the NHL is going to insist this is the style they want, it might be a good idea. Our team is not more physical now under Benning. It's more skilled (at least it wants to be more skilled), more emphasis on puck distributing centres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 So if he created such a great atmosphere for players to be in, why did the greatest goalie and the greatest defensive forward this team has had in a decade want out? I wouldn't say that Vancouver was a preferred destination at the end of last year due in part to Gillis' inability to build a four line forward corps which Benning seemed to have no problem doing. That and not being able to find real complimentary pieces for key players in both the forward and defense positions was truly his undoing. He started out well but crashed and burned.As well, Gillis seemed to not have control on news leaking out of the organization at all. Kesler wanted out cuz we are on our way down. It happens. Ask so many others who requested to leave their long term team for a chance to win a Cup else where. Luongo... well that's far more complicated. No one saw the Coho trade coming. No one saw the Schneider trade coming. No one saw the Luongo trade coming. And these were huge trades. HUGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 When Dowbiggin and/or Gillis get 20 years of NHL experience under their belt, then I'll listen to their criticism of the Linden hiring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Remember cap issues, future of the team as it stands now, and in Hodgson's case behavioural issues before typing down your thoughts. - Ehrhoff, who was eventually bought out of his ludicrous contract, didn't want to be apart of an orgnizaton where players took less to succeed. If he didn't buy into that culture, you don't keep him around. - Schneider: Yeah, it would have been great to still have him. However, if you take off your homer glasses and accept the fact that, even with Schneider, this team is nowhere near competing and should be in a rebuilding phase, having Horvat is significantly better for the franchise long term. With Schneider, the Canucks would just be doing what Calgary did for years with Kipper. Finishing middle of the pack when, for all intents and purposes, they should have been rebuilding ended up setting their franchise back years. I will agree that I miss Schneider; however, the Canucks recognizing that they are no longer a contender and face rebuilding will not be something that they regret in the long run.- Hodgson: Long story short, good riddance. His bad attitude would have only gotten worse. Let's just say he would have been around right now, taking over Kesler's role as #2 centre. To be honest, the Canucks would have had someone who would put up the same amount of points as Bonino, but would now be p*ssed off because he believes he should playing first line minutes over Sedin; which, as we can tell by his play in Buffalo, is not something he is capable of anchoring. Gillis got rid of a player with character issues no matter what situation you put him in. Didn't want to be a 3rd line centre on the best team in the league, wouldn't have been happy playing second fiddle to Henrik, and would have most likely b*tched and moaned about having to play a responsible two-way game. Hodgson gone is a blessing. Yawn.. and once again this tripe gets typed out with zero evidence for any of it. You are making an accusation that goes against the experiences of every team this player has played for including the statements of the guy that was so stoked to draft him after i'm sure doing much due diligence. After Keslers antics this past year I and his general ego throughout his career there is far more credence to the idea that Hodgson was shipped out to placate Ryan Kesler. Ryan Kesler was me me me on and off the ice and he wasn't going to get demoted because of the new baby brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 When Dowbiggin and/or Gillis get 20 years of NHL experience under their belt, then I'll listen to their criticism of the Linden hiring Was Gillis criticizing Linden's hire? As far as Linden's hire, it's not just 100% for or 100% against, like all things there is grey area with it. People have reason to question whether or not it is was the best choice. Honestly stawns, if you had heard that the Canucks had hired an ex-NHL player as their President, who had no experience in any level of the organization except on the ice, you wouldn't ask the question "What makes him qualified?" The fact that he's Trevor Linden, who we all like and respect, shouldn't give him an automatic pass from rightful criticism by anybody. I hope he succeeds, but his complete lack of any experience (pick any area in the organization) should raise questions about his legitimacy to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE CANUCKS. I'm not saying Naslund would have been a great choice, but at least the guy has experience running a team, Linden's hockey experience after retiring from the NHL is literally nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Yawn.. and once again this tripe gets typed out with zero evidence for any of it. You are making an accusation that goes against the experiences of every team this player has played for including the statements of the guy that was so stoked to draft him after i'm sure doing much due diligence. After Keslers antics this past year I and his general ego throughout his career there is far more credence to the idea that Hodgson was shipped out to placate Ryan Kesler. Ryan Kesler was me me me on and off the ice and he wasn't going to get demoted because of the new baby brother. Um, I think the fact that Kesler was coming off a career year and a Selke, while also playing a better all-around game (both offensively and defensively) than Hodgson means he probably shouldn't have been demoted to the third line. But whatever. To end what I'm sure would be a meaningless debate, you're right and I'm wrong. You win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 When Dowbiggin and/or Gillis get 20 years of NHL experience under their belt, then I'll listen to their criticism of the Linden hiring haha Gillis has a lot more than 20 years nhl experience.. he was drafted 5th overall.. played in the NHL, and an NHL agent for almost 20 years followed by 6 years as a GM. .. and the other guy is a writer.. Do you generally expect war corespondents kill someone before reporting on a war?? CDC circling the stupid wagons because someone might have said something that didn't involve fellating Linden.. I think Trev will be ok guys.. he knows he's a newbie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stackin'ThePads Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Honestly my first impression on this author is that he's bias and firmly set on his opinions. It could be an interesting read, or it could be filled with speculation. I'm gonna wait for some reviews from other Canucks fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Honestly my first impression on this author is that he's bias and firmly set on his opinions. The Rise AND FALL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 And your not embarrassing yourself by trying to school posters on a hockey website message board? Give it a rest, pal. Also, how do you know who has read the book and who hasn't? Have you? People on this thread are proudly saying that they won't read it. because its a "highschool book report" "the author fits x# of penises in his mouth" "didn't like the tone with which Linden was written" Along with the ridiculous '94 (best team ever.. it cured cancer and stopped wars) "golden age" revisionism. Lots of irrational thinking going on ITT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stackin'ThePads Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 The Rise AND FALL. Just because I said bias doesn't mean I meant bias for just the Canucks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Were you waiting for the end of Gillis’s tenure to publish the book? No. We thought the book would come out halfway through his tenure with the Canucks. This was the sad thing about it – had they won Game 7, the whole hockey world would have looked at what the Canucks were doing and said, ‘That’s the model.’ Because of one game, everybody said ‘Boston, that’s the model.’ They would have had a legacy and the book would’ve talked about it and how other people had picked up on it. This shows he planned to release it right after Vancouver won the SC, to take advantage of the anointment of Gillis as the greatest GM ever if it had happened. Then they lost, and Gillis started making bad reactionary moves in his last years, and the book turned out to be an apologist PR piece to try and rescue a few shreds of respectability for Gillis. Still looks like it would be worth it to read. You just hit thr nail right on the head. It's pathetically comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Are All Cynics Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 For those saying Trevor Linden is green, new and has no NHL organizational experience, he was elected President of the NHLPA, a position he held for eight years. I'd say he does come in with some experience. Again, people on CDC seemed absolutely terrified of the prospect of having unproven people here. If those that are unproven like Schneider or Linden don't actually get the chance to prove themselves, there are plenty of other NHL teams that would (and have won btw) and we'd have only ourselves to blame. Besides having proven people here still hasn't resulted in Stanley Cups for this franchise so why not take that chance once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 For those saying Trevor Linden is green, new and has no NHL organizational experience, he was elected President of the NHLPA, a position he held for eight years. I'd say he does come in with some experience. Again, people on CDC seemed absolutely terrified of the prospect of having unproven people here. If those that are unproven like Schneider or Linden don't actually get the chance to prove themselves, there are plenty of other NHL teams that would (and have won btw) and we'd have only ourselves to blame. Besides having proven people here still hasn't resulted in Stanley Cups for this franchise so why not take that chance once in a while. Because it MUST be A or B, dammitall! & if you choose to seek out other letters, then you're one of 'THEM', & likely a freedom-hating COMMIE! So settle down! & choose A or B. PS..Your point is valid/significant, & I quite like the new course(with some fresh-faced, UNjaded hierarchy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACanuck Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 People criticizing others for NOT wanting to read the book. What is this a dictatorship? Who cares if someone doesn't want to read the freak'n book. If you want to have at it. No one is stopping you from spending your money. And oh yeah, I won't be reading it so what. I'm sure the book will do just fine without some of us dropping our coin in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzy Desjardins Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I think the book is a joke and an embarrassment to the team. Publicity Is publicity.. we have to stop glorifying losing.. write books about winning cups when it happens. I don't have to read it, horrible book. So we won the pres trophy and choked in the finals and fell to mediocrity. It happens all the time in all sports. This book makes the canucks organization fans and just the entire canucks brand sound like whiners. What a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 When Dowbiggin and/or Gillis get 20 years of NHL experience under their belt, then I'll listen to their criticism of the Linden hiring Not sure about Dowbiggin, but Gillis started his NHL career as a player in 1978, retired in 1984, became an agent in 1990 and then a GM in 2008 and was canned in 2014. That's well over 20 years of NHL experience. I guess the criticism of the Linden hiring is that he's been completely away from hockey since retiring as a player in 2008. It's valid. But I can see why Aquilini did it. We fans absolutely love Linden, for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 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. Consider the author's reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.