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

[Waivers] Clendening on waivers


Mackcanuck

Recommended Posts

I'd only claim him if we were right away packaging him up with Prust or Vrbata for another trade. Clendening shows some promise but he's not an improvement over Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Biega, Bartkowski, Hamhuis, or Sbisa. That's what we need. Not another 5-7 d man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd only claim him if we were right away packaging him up with Prust or Vrbata for another trade. Clendening shows some promise but he's not an improvement over Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Biega, Bartkowski, Hamhuis, or Sbisa. That's what we need. Not another 5-7 d man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd only claim him if we were right away packaging him up with Prust or Vrbata for another trade. Clendening shows some promise but he's not an improvement over Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Biega, Bartkowski, Hamhuis, or Sbisa. That's what we need. Not another 5-7 d man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Boddy604 said:

I'd only claim him if we were right away packaging him up with Prust or Vrbata for another trade. Clendening shows some promise but he's not an improvement over Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Biega, Bartkowski, Hamhuis, or Sbisa. That's what we need. Not another 5-7 d man.

We get it, no need to say it over and over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.R. said:

Not really. Subban's playing the role of OFD in Utica with arguably a higher skill set and ceiling. We could use a potential NHL top 4 RHD prepping in Utica on their top pair but that's not Clendening.

Amen.  Get one of those too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, LateNightBus said:

So has Clendening as much upside as Pedan and Nikita Tryamkin ?it is reported Clendening needs a skating coach and takes penalties because of his mobility

No.  He is a medium size D man who can shoot, but he does play with an edge.  36th overall pick in 2011. Not a bad skater or puck mover, but not as good as Biega or Hutton. Not going to help the big club unless you have another spate of injuries and he needs to fill in. An upgrade to Fedun but not by a wide margin. A depth hire. In Utica we have Fedun, Sautner, Landry, Earhardt, Pedan, Subban, Negrin and Shields. Clendening is an upgrade to several of those. I suppose we could wait and see who else shows on the waiver wire closer to deadline as moves are made.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aladeen said:

Look we can come back to this thread in 5 years and you can all say we told you so if Forsling never pans out. I think he has some upside and I think he will make the NHL as a regular one day putting up decent numbers. 

2 hours ago, Aladeen said:

I never liked the trade from the get go, I never said he was waiver fodder at the time, but my role isn't evaluating talent for a trade that's JBs and he didn't see the fact that he DID end up as waiver fodder now did he? Plus I said the mistake was corrected, so fracking drop it already. 

And if Forsling never ends up in the NHL? Yup, hindsight.

I for one don't have high hopes that he will. I just think his skillset is more suited to a softer, more open game and I question if he'll be able to do it consistently enough against men on the smaller ice surface, let alone against NHL quality competition. Clendening was a good gamble for me in that regard, basically trying to sell high on Forsling in the hopes that we could get something from Clendening.

It didn't turn out that way, so all that's left to do is see what comes of Forsling before we can really be that hard on Clendening not making it (which at 23 he might still do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RWMc1 said:

Seriously? It was obviously a humorous response to a triple post.

Fair enough. I've just noticed in other posts around the site, certain posters having an ultra critical attitude and attempt to skewer those who offer there opinion. 

Then again, this is the CDC....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Fair enough. I've just noticed in other posts around the site, certain posters having an ultra critical attitude and attempt to skewer those who offer there opinion. 

Then again, this is the CDC....

Where opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Fair enough. I've just noticed in other posts around the site, certain posters having an ultra critical attitude and attempt to skewer those who offer there opinion. 

Then again, this is the CDC....

And then there is the annoying spelling and syntax police. You misspelled a word so they can no longer comprehend the point you were trying to make.

On topic, I think it was more the idea that we over-paid in the deal rather than Clandenning was going to be great. Some people were miffed that we gave up Forsling for Clandenning. We have a shortage of right shooting d-men and losing one in a perceived over-payment was what was criticized the most. Sutter was touted as our future match-up/shutdown guy, but has been used in a more offensive role. The past is the past, but stating that it was all about just losing Clandenning is an over-simplification of the opinions in the Sutter trade thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Who are you speaking for outside of yourself? Boddy604 makes good points, without needing your hackneyed critique. 

Well anyone else who doesn't feel the need to read the exact same post 3 times in a row. And really,  again with name calling? Once again proving this is the only way you can attempt to get a point across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

Well anyone else who doesn't feel the need to read the exact same post 3 times in a row. And really,  again with name calling? Once again proving this is the only way you can attempt to get a point across.

most likely a laggy connection caused the triple post

And PB didn't name call. He used an adjective to describe your critiquing skills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

Well anyone else who doesn't feel the need to read the exact same post 3 times in a row. And really,  again with name calling? Once again proving this is the only way you can attempt to get a point across.

  Name calling is an absolute sign of immaturity.  The simpler the insult, the more immature the person.

you are a  poopoo head! :lol:  Some of us enjoy reading the same stuff over and over again, or why would we be on CDC?  :o

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...