Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Poll] [Value of] Expendable Canucks


  

101 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I kinda felt a bit bothered when the name first in line of expendable Canucks that you chose was Hamhuis. Not a bad thread OP but Hammer is usually our second most consistent defenceman behind Tanev. I diagree about him being expendable, at least not quite yet anyways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

A little over 2 hours and you bump this?

Are you sure you aren't Tiger Singh or something?

Was going to say that it's more likely a prepubescent teen that has the attention span of a gnat and who needs instant gratification.

So yeah, it's probably Tiger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who is voting 1st round picks needs to jump off of the homer wagon.

The 29 other teams will know they aren't crucial cogs for the Canucks and will bid accordingly.

Expendable (dictionary definition) - of little significance when compared to an overall purpose, and therefore able to be abandoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who is voting 1st round picks needs to jump off of the homer wagon.

The 29 other teams will know they aren't crucial cogs for the Canucks and will bid accordingly.

Expendable (dictionary definition) - of little significance when compared to an overall purpose, and therefore able to be abandoned.

they can be replaced is what i mean... sbisa clendening and corrado all getting older, markstrom, jensen and baertschi + grenier replacing vey higgins and burrows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they can be replaced is what i mean... sbisa clendening and corrado all getting older, markstrom, jensen and baertschi + grenier replacing vey higgins and burrows

I know what you meant. That still puts them square into that definition. They will soon be no longer significant to the team and will be traded (i.e. abandoned).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you meant. That still puts them square into that definition. They will soon be no longer significant to the team and will be traded (i.e. abandoned).

yeah i didnt mean they are crap and old, they just are replaceable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who is voting 1st round picks needs to jump off of the homer wagon.

The 29 other teams will know they aren't crucial cogs for the Canucks and will bid accordingly.

Expendable (dictionary definition) - of little significance when compared to an overall purpose, and therefore able to be abandoned.

Shoulda given that advice to your own GM before he traded for Kane and Bogosian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i didnt mean they are crap and old, they just are replaceable

I understand. You gave a pretty good selection of choices. The only name(s) there that could possibly get 1st round picks are Hamhuis and Lack if there are 2 or 3 teams bidding for his/their services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...