VanIsleNuckFan Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Bieksas the man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 There is zero chance Bieksa will sign a cheap contract as a UFA to stay here. Someone like Toronto will offer him multiple years at the same or more money than he makes now and he will take it. ANd I won't blame him but I will certainly blame management for not getting anything for him in return. The Canucks will continue to pretend he is still top 4 calibre and as such they will price him out of keeping him at a fair cost. The good news for us is that next year is a contract year so Bieksa should have a great season offensively. His going down with the ship comments make me wonder if he would sign like a 2 year/6 million dollar deal. I can live with that but probably no more. I know his play has declined but I love the guy, one of my all time favorite Canucks. He carries himself well, plus he's intelligent and well spoken- all things a leader needs in a hockey crazed market needs. I don't think you could ever doubt he's been giving all he's got to the organization and I respect that. If he were to sign at a reasonable price I'd be thrilled to have him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 His going down with the ship comments make me wonder if he would sign like a 2 year/6 million dollar deal. I can live with that but probably no more. I know his play has declined but I love the guy, one of my all time favorite Canucks. He carries himself well, plus he's intelligent and well spoken- all things a leader needs in a hockey crazed market needs. I don't think you could ever doubt he's been giving all he's got to the organization and I respect that. If he were to sign at a reasonable price I'd be thrilled to have him back. It is easy to say you will go down with the ship when you make a ton of money (more than your present play dictates you are worth) and also have a full NTC to not HAVE to move your family to get the big bucks. Assuming that the Canucks manage to actually improve the top end of their defence in the next year (which should push Bieksa to 3rd pairing status as he is pretty much already there) it will be interesting to see if he alters his stance on "going down with the ship". I mean, right now going down with the ship means status quo of big money. What if going down with the ship to Benning means a 3rd pairing salary and term with no NTC next time around? I bet Bieksa bolts faster than anyone here would even imagine once his actual job security and financial future are on the table. Someone will pay for his reputation and intangibles. But it should not be the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Buzzsaw* Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I think he returns tomorrow against the Leafs. Question is, what type of Bieksa shows up. Do we get that 2011 Bieksa back, who would make smart defensive plays and use his ways to intimidate opponents, or will we get the lazy Bieksa. It's going to be interesting now with our defence finally healthy. So what do you guys think, will Bieksa make our team better or worst for the remaining games. Also, let's not forget that Bieksa is coming off a injury which will probaly take him longer to get back into the gist of things. I do hope we do get the old school Bieksa back because at this moment our defense has been pretty much invisible on the offensive side of the game. What do you guys think, which Bieksa shows up for the Canucks'? What I think is that you seem to be a hypocrite... dump all over others who start threads... turn around and churn out twenty of your own. There's a double standard around here... there is a clique of entitled 'regulars' who seem to think they have the monopoly on posting. By the way, you need to work on your grammar: Its "...better or worse." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It is easy to say you will go down with the ship when you make a ton of money (more than your present play dictates you are worth) and also have a full NTC to not HAVE to move your family to get the big bucks. Assuming that the Canucks manage to actually improve the top end of their defence in the next year (which should push Bieksa to 3rd pairing status as he is pretty much already there) it will be interesting to see if he alters his stance on "going down with the ship". I mean, right now going down with the ship means status quo of big money. What if going down with the ship to Benning means a 3rd pairing salary and term with no NTC next time around? I bet Bieksa bolts faster than anyone here would even imagine once his actual job security and financial future are on the table. Someone will pay for his reputation and intangibles. But it should not be the Canucks. I question this. I think that Bieksa's credibility is beyond reproach, He has proven over and over again, that he is a team guy first and foremost. He has never shown any reason to question his commitment to the team, actually it is quite the contrary, he has given every indication that his commitment to the team is unquestionable. I really feel that the only reason Bieksa would not be a Canuck after the 2015 season is if the team doesn't want him anymore, or he wants to retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 There is zero chance Bieksa will sign a cheap contract as a UFA to stay here. Someone like Toronto will offer him multiple years at the same or more money than he makes now and he will take it. ANd I won't blame him but I will certainly blame management for not getting anything for him in return. The Canucks will continue to pretend he is still top 4 calibre and as such they will price him out of keeping him at a fair cost. The good news for us is that next year is a contract year so Bieksa should have a great season offensively. NTC + "going down with the ship" = won't waive said NTC. How the heck can our management get something for him in return? Spock complains that your viewpoint is illogical. We will be better with Bieksa. The great Hamhuis was a -3 against LA. That's ok because he is not Edler or Bieksa. I like Hammer, I'm just saying that different players are held to different standards. If you always look for negatives in a player, you will see mostly negatives and will usually ignore the positives. Our d-bag media and certain sheople fans have been doing that for a long time now. Remember when everyone hated Raymond but Jeff Tambellini could do no wrong?? Where are they now?? Bieksa is much better than the haters claim. Go Bieker!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Yes & Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It is easy to say you will go down with the ship when you make a ton of money (more than your present play dictates you are worth) and also have a full NTC to not HAVE to move your family to get the big bucks. Assuming that the Canucks manage to actually improve the top end of their defence in the next year (which should push Bieksa to 3rd pairing status as he is pretty much already there) it will be interesting to see if he alters his stance on "going down with the ship". I mean, right now going down with the ship means status quo of big money. What if going down with the ship to Benning means a 3rd pairing salary and term with no NTC next time around? I bet Bieksa bolts faster than anyone here would even imagine once his actual job security and financial future are on the table. Someone will pay for his reputation and intangibles. But it should not be the Canucks. As for the money you could say that about pretty much any highly-paid player but I really don't think the twins would simply bolt for more money (unless of course it was like 5mill/year more, then maybe) and I'd group Bieksa in with them too. He doesn't strike me as a guy to be primarily motivated by money. If he felt the offer from JB was a slap in the face then yeah he'll bolt but I'd be willing to bet this won't be the case. KB will take a paycut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 BTW, I can't tell if the thread title was an honest typo / grammatical error, or if it was a cleverly disguised jab at Bieksa (worst D in league with him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 lol, worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzy Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Better. 100% better. This team is better with Kevin in the lineup rather than not in it. That's a fact... No clue why people bash him constantly Because he continually was making bonehead plays before his injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It's time to part ways with Bieksa. If he doesn't want to move then just let him play out his contract. I don't doubt is a good leader in the room but on the ice he looks like a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 NTC + "going down with the ship" = won't waive said NTC. How the heck can our management get something for him in return? Spock complains that your viewpoint is illogical. We will be better with Bieksa. The great Hamhuis was a -3 against LA. That's ok because he is not Edler or Bieksa. I like Hammer, I'm just saying that different players are held to different standards. If you always look for negatives in a player, you will see mostly negatives and will usually ignore the positives. Our d-bag media and certain sheople fans have been doing that for a long time now. Remember when everyone hated Raymond but Jeff Tambellini could do no wrong?? Where are they now?? Bieksa is much better than the haters claim. Go Bieker!!! When did I say Hamhuis has not been a bag of hot garbage lately? There is no double standard from me. Bieksa has been terrible most of this season. Hamhuis has been terrible an awful lot too. The reality for me is that Bieksa is no longer the player he once was. He has lost a step for sure. I am hoping the long layoff has focused him on his game because if he comes back the way he was before the injury we are in no better shape defensively. Bieksa on a decent contract with no ntc would be worth keeping for the third pairing. But as a top 4 with a ntc he needs to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Without KB there's not much bark, let alone bite, from the blue line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 There is zero chance Bieksa will sign a cheap contract as a UFA to stay here. Someone like Toronto will offer him multiple years at the same or more money than he makes now and he will take it. ANd I won't blame him but I will certainly blame management for not getting anything for him in return. The Canucks will continue to pretend he is still top 4 calibre and as such they will price him out of keeping him at a fair cost. The good news for us is that next year is a contract year so Bieksa should have a great season offensively. thanks for nothing ws easily not your best post the prophecy here is a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawndy Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Worse He's a pylon like Phaneuf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawndy Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I question this. I think that Bieksa's credibility is beyond reproach, He has proven over and over again, that he is a team guy first and foremost. He has never shown any reason to question his commitment to the team, actually it is quite the contrary, he has given every indication that his commitment to the team is unquestionable. I really feel that the only reason Bieksa would not be a Canuck after the 2015 season is if the team doesn't want him anymore, or he wants to retire. He should retire. He plays like a bitter old man now with a scowl on his face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 When did I say Hamhuis has not been a bag of hot garbage lately? There is no double standard from me. Bieksa has been terrible most of this season. Hamhuis has been terrible an awful lot too. The reality for me is that Bieksa is no longer the player he once was. He has lost a step for sure. I am hoping the long layoff has focused him on his game because if he comes back the way he was before the injury we are in no better shape defensively. Bieksa on a decent contract with no ntc would be worth keeping for the third pairing. But as a top 4 with a ntc he needs to go. You didn't as far as I know. I was responding to your opinion that our management has to get something in return for a player with a NTC who has basically stated that he won't waive. My other point was a generalization of certain media and fans who hold different players to different standards. Are you saying that we should buy out Bieksa. If not then, you are missing logic once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 You didn't as far as I know. I was responding to your opinion that our management has to get something in return for a player with a NTC who has basically stated that he won't waive. My other point was a generalization of certain media and fans who hold different players to different standards. Are you saying that we should buy out Bieksa. If not then, you are missing logic once again. Would Bieksa waive his ntc if the team upgraded and it pushed him to the third pairing though? That is the unknown at this point. The only standard I hold 30 plus year old players to is to have some consistency to not make mind numbing defensive mistakes especially when you also don't add anything to the offense with your risk taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 thanks for nothing ws easily not your best post the prophecy here is a bit much. Bieksa always brings it in contract years. That is not prophecy it is reality. And why would a guy his age not take a big final contract if it is offered to him over taking a low value short term one to stay here? How many UFA players have actually made that particular choice and why would anyone think Bieksa is any different than them? Lots of lifetime one team players took the money. To say he is not about money at least partially is incredibly naive. He had to make 100k per more than Hamhuis made on his current contract so being the highest paid an at that time was most certainly important to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.