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

[Report] Kevin Bieksa wants to stay in Vancouver


Recommended Posts

As for Wiercioch, I have to wonder if his usage (or lack thereof) has anything to do with Karlsson already being on the team and (rightly so) commanding big minutes?

With how tightly coaches defend these days, I can imagine that while they like the idea of one offense driving d-man in the lineup...they cringe at the thought of two of them making "risky" offensive plays. One guys ok but the rest of you need to DEFEND! :lol:

Other than that he's a lefty, that's the EXACT type of player Benning should be targeting in trade though. Young, mobile, good size, top 4 capable guy on a team that already has an established OFD. He (or someone like him) likely still wouldn't be traded for "cheap" but it's a glaring hole in the current lineup and our prospect pool that needs to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah he's the 'heart and soul' of the team.

He was horrific in his own end up before Christmas. Turnover machine. He was slightly better after Christmas.

It is laughable that people want to keep him here for his presence in the changing rooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheHitman

That's just it. Trading Bieksa is as much about the cap space as anything.

He might be attractive to a budget, cap floor team because his salary will be 2.5 while his cap hit is 4.6.

Maybe a team will trade for Bieksa too guarantee a top 3 pick for next year #tankforChychrun :bigblush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Canucks trade Bieksa who is going to bring the grit??? The Canucks are softer than 3-ply. I'm embarrassed being a fan of this soft team, I'd rather cheer for losing team with grit, character and passion. The Canucks are soft physically and mentally, which was also said by Benning on 1040 yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep saying that, but it isn't really backed up by the facts.

Bieksa has signed two contracts since he started as a rookie with the Canucks. The first was in June of 2007 and came after what most would call his "breakout season.

People are quick to point at the 2008 season as a poor one and use it to back up the "contract year" theory, but it ignores the fact that Bieksa suffered a severe calf laceration and missed half of the season.

The following season, Bieksa played 72 games and put up 43 points. Not a contract year.

In '09-10, Juice suffered a second skate laceration and played only 55 games. Still, he managed a respectable 22 points....

The sheeple don't check facts, they simply regurgitate what others throw out there without even verifying it.

Thanks for being a voice of reason...exactly. I remember back then, at the time, calling people out for not having patience through what was a severe injury that takes time to recover from. I got my jersey back then when everyone was calling for him to be gone. Then, as happens, they climbed back on the bandwagon shortly thereafter.

This is a city of short term memories and an inability to think for themselves at times (or people new to the dance who simply recite the story...a fairy tale at that). He's had his struggles...most (human beings) players will have ups and downs but you look at the big picture in determining whether it's a matter of "this too shall pass" or a long term forecast.

I personally want to see Juice show up at every Muppet's house who wants him gone and knock them out so I don't have to hear it anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sheeple don't check facts, they simply regurgitate what others throw out there without even verifying it.

Thanks for being a voice of reason...exactly. I remember back then, at the time, calling people out for not having patience through what was a severe injury that takes time to recover from. I got my jersey back then when everyone was calling for him to be gone. Then, as happens, they climbed back on the bandwagon shortly thereafter.

This is a city of short term memories and an inability to think for themselves at times (or people new to the dance who simply recite the story...a fairy tale at that). He's had his struggles...most (human beings) players will have ups and downs but you look at the big picture in determining whether it's a matter of "this too shall pass" or a long term forecast.

I personally want to see Juice show up at every Muppet's house who wants him gone and knock them out so I don't have to hear it anymore.

Oh, I'd buy the pay-per-view between Bieksa and Wallstreet.

Wayyyyyyy more entertaining than Pacquiao - Mayweather.... B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd happily keep him on and re-sign him to a 2 year deal at around 1M per year, playing as our 6th or 7th defenceman. As long as he's not in our top-4 making mistakes, and on the PK or PP.

At the end of next season we'll have some real decisions to make. Here's our defence assuming we make no additions:

Edler - Tanev

Hamhuis - Clendening

Sbisa - Corrado

Bieksa

And here's our defence at the end of next season assuming we sign Franson cheap and draft Kylington.

Edler - Tanev

Hamhuis - Franson

Sbisa - Clendening

Corrado

Bieksa

Kylington

Lol what, with what cap? You know he turned down a contract for 4.8 for like 5 years (whatever TOR offered, don't know the years)..

You want Franson for like 5.5? That is what it will take to get him. Yuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're spending north of $5m on a d-man, I highly doubt it will be Franson. He has a largely redundant skill set to Edler and Benning went out of his way to cap dump an equally similar, redundant Garrison, with an NTC, just last summer. I just don't see it happening.

We either break the bank and get a fast skating, offensive D with size who can move the puck (Green) or we largely roll with what we have. Maybe we make some depth changes like picking up McQuaid.

not sure where garrison is redundant he gets 30 points a season and had a great plus minus this yr both of which would have led our d corps if anything hamhuis is redundant for getting paid 4.5 mill a hr to score one goal all season and be a turnover machine the guys a bum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure where garrison is redundant he gets 30 points a season and had a great plus minus this yr both of which would have led our d corps if anything hamhuis is redundant for getting paid 4.5 mill a hr to score one goal all season and be a turnover machine the guys a bum

Garrison was/is a poor man's Edler and had a redundant skill set on our team.

We kept the better player (Edler) and cap dumped the lesser to allow us the space to sign Vrbata who netted 31G and helped us get in the playoffs.

Garrison, (still a good player) has found success (as he should) on offensively deeper team in a more wide open conference.

Garrison staying here does not reach the point totals he did in Tampa with more offensive players in a more open conference and with more complimentary partners/usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope we sign Mcquaid. We really need a tough, stay at home type D that could clear the crease and strike a little fear into opposing forwards crashing the crease

If we're spending north of $5m on a d-man, I highly doubt it will be Franson. He has a largely redundant skill set to Edler and Benning went out of his way to cap dump an equally similar, redundant Garrison, with an NTC, just last summer. I just don't see it happening.

We either break the bank and get a fast skating, offensive D with size who can move the puck (Green) or we largely roll with what we have. Maybe we make some depth changes like picking up McQuaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Canucks trade Bieksa who is going to bring the grit??? The Canucks are softer than 3-ply. I'm embarrassed being a fan of this soft team, I'd rather cheer for losing team with grit, character and passion. The Canucks are soft physically and mentally, which was also said by Benning on 1040 yesterday.

Yup. Winnipeg lost in 4 but were far more impressive in their effort and passion than the Nucks who got to 6. Watching a team like Winnipeg with young, fast and physical players, improve and compete would be such a treat.

Vancouver has a tendency to hang on to players too long until their value is NIL. Kev has been really good for us but he is definitely slower and less physical than a few years back. If he could garner some young promising talent, then you move him out. It's not as though he is Lidstrom who retires on top or is a Norris cup winner. Rewarding him and other players for past contributions is handcuffing the next generation of players and delaying/prohibiting a faster and more effective re-build..

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...