FireGillis Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Agreed. Lack > Talbot. Perhaps there is an east coast bias? I think it's stats biased more than east coast bias in this case since cal/oilers are hot for talbot. His stats are really good and better than lack's but the rangers are also a lot better than the canucks. Finals last year and ecf this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Talk about living in the past. This mentality is why the Canucks have been mediocre for the last few years A couple years ago yes, then the Canucks would be making a huge mistake. But now Bieksa is an aging declining player and can no longer provide the same impact he was able to a couple years ago. It's better for the team to give Corrado or Clendening a chance with the big club. Not to mention the cap savings. Cap saving is THE ONLY benefit. My opinion is a whole lot of our players would be coming back strong next season and Bieksa would be one of the strongest. Add to the fact he is a leader and frankly I don't understand moving him OTHER than for cap space. I would rather see, Higgins, Burrows and Hansen moved for cap space. I would hate to lose the latter two but they are not leaders. It's ironic we feel able to oust one of our best players with a NTC and yet we are going to start next season with these 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I don't understand moving him OTHER than for cap space. Asset management. He's leaving next summer regardless. You either get something for him and make space for young guys or you don't get anything and lose a young guy for peanuts. Again, this is not about being better next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyLow_ Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Cap saving is THE ONLY benefit. My opinion is a whole lot of our players would be coming back strong next season and Bieksa would be one of the strongest. Add to the fact he is a leader and frankly I don't understand moving him OTHER than for cap space. I would rather see, Higgins, Burrows and Hansen moved for cap space. I would hate to lose the latter two but they are not leaders. It's ironic we feel able to oust one of our best players with a NTC and yet we are going to start next season with these 3. One of our best players? There is literally not one stat to back up your statement since 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Asset management. He's leaving next summer regardless. You either get something for him and make space for young guys or you don't get anything and lose a young guy for peanuts. Again, this is not about being better next year. Some people can't seem to wrap their heads around that. We're not competing next year. There's absolutely no point keeping around veterans who are pending UFAs if we don't plan on re-signing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Am.Ironman Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Cap saving is THE ONLY benefit. My opinion is a whole lot of our players would be coming back strong next season and Bieksa would be one of the strongest. Add to the fact he is a leader and frankly I don't understand moving him OTHER than for cap space. I would rather see, Higgins, Burrows and Hansen moved for cap space. I would hate to lose the latter two but they are not leaders. It's ironic we feel able to oust one of our best players with a NTC and yet we are going to start next season with these 3. True.. but if adding KB3 gets us another 1st rounder (a top 10 at that), then you gotta do it. Give value to get value etc.. The thing about the 3 players you mentioned was that they won't be able to garner that in a trade.. you could maybe argue burrows - definitely not hansen or higgins. I think you missed a benefit outside of the cap space gained.. Trading Bieksa also opens up a spot for one of our young dmen. It will be sad to see him go but business is business. He will always be a Canuck at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 well with the cap space and when we trade a goalie it is about getting better as we can sign an UFA,or make a bigger deal to get us better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Some people can't seem to wrap their heads around that. We're not competing next year. There's absolutely no point keeping around veterans who are pending UFAs if we don't plan on re-signing them. So you start with our best vet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 So you start with our best vet? Nobody said anything about moving either Sedin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soshified Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 So you start with our best vet? Our best vets are the Sedins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Cap space is one thing, picks are another, but so is not losing waiver-eligible players, which we stand to do with 5 RD in the system as of now. Something has to be done, and as great a Canuck as Bieksa has been, this makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestlockWarrior Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I think Benning plans to be competitive every year while obtaining prospects at the same time and developing them. This I feel as well is the best retool blueprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 So you start with our best vet? Define "best". It doesn't matter who goes first, the point is that we need to get future assets for them while we can. Hamhuis and Vrbata will also likely be traded at the deadline if we're not in a playoff position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Bang Boogie Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Define "best". It doesn't matter who goes first, the point is that we need to get future assets for them while we can. Hamhuis and Vrbata will also likely be traded at the deadline if we're not in a playoff position. True I can see us trading Hamhuis at the deadline as lots of teams will give up more then a 1st for him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 True I can see us trading Hamhuis at the deadline as lots of teams will give up more then a 1st for him! Yeah, first and a prospect no problem. Same with Vrbata if he has another good season. We could really re-stock next year, 3 first rounders would be sick. But I think we will re-sign Hamhuis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Has twitter gone silent? Where are all the rumors churning out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Lunch Break? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I hope the delay is because another team has jumped into the negotiations. Dallas or Edmonton perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Has twitter gone silent? Where are all the rumors churning out? Yeah it's real quiet... Calm before the storm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.