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

[Waivers] Clendening on waivers


Mackcanuck

Recommended Posts

10 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.

Pull things out of thin air, shayster. Whatever works, I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If benning was reluctant to include him to get Sutter but did so to get the deal done I could see him making a claim. With lost corrado and haven't replaced him.

Weber is a free agent and won't be back. Shelter adam and get horvats skating coach to sspend time working with him.

Trade weber for a conditional pick

Adam has solid ahl stats and is only 23,  looks a lot older tho.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

So Bonino and a 2nd for Sutter and a 3rd?

No one is still actually arguing with that trade are they?

So, pretty much Bonino for Sutter?  I don't know the name of the Pittsburgh GM, but he got seriously bent over on that one.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Alflives said:

  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

Bahaha know your getting the hang of it Alfy. In a past thread it was concluded that this wise Mr. 'Blunt'  was in fact a meany head. So I'll be sticking with that until/if the evolution past name calling takes place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aladeen said:

Yup, you're such a hockey knowledge man it's amazing how you have time to talk down to us on CDC when your NHL scouting/Gming job must keep you so busy. 

You cant say this in one breath and then say our GM has mad mistakesin another. Cause you would have to be the paid GM to make that judgment wouldn't you?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clendening's a guy who needs a longer term opportunity to really settle into his game and grow into his potential, even if it's in the minors again. If he gets a chance on a roster for a full season, he'll likely do well. He's caught between immediate production and longer term potential. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yotes said:

If benning was reluctant to include him to get Sutter but did so to get the deal done I could see him making a claim. With lost corrado and haven't replaced him.

Weber is a free agent and won't be back. Shelter adam and get horvats skating coach to sspend time working with him.

Trade weber for a conditional pick

Adam has solid ahl stats and is only 23,  looks a lot older tho.

 

This obviously makes him meaner and tougher ;)  Just Sayin' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TheOgRook said:

You cant say this in one breath and then say our GM has mad mistakesin another. Cause you would have to be the paid GM to make that judgment wouldn't you?  

So just say what you mean... JB is perfect and makes zero mistakes. If that's what you believe then own it and don't pussyfoot around.

Saying that it is my opinion that he made a mistake doesn't mean he did, or that I think I know better than him (as obviously I don't have access to all the information that he does) All I was saying is that as far as asset management went IMO Forsling for Clendening was a loss for the Canucks and a win for Chicago. JB rectified that by trading him to Pittsburgh which was a win for the Canucks IMO. 

I am not talking down to people saying why they are absolutely wrong, so yes I can say that in one breath and say he made a mistake in another quite easily. Did you have a point further than that? I doubt it but I'm willing to listen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hairy Kneel said:

We can't claim him and waive Weber because nobody's going to pick up Weber and we need to keep contract spots open.

I don't expect the Canucks to claim him, but the limit of 50 contracts shouldn't be a problem.  They have a few to get through the season with and Clendening, Weber, Bartkowski, Biega and Hamhuis are all on expiring contracts.  They could easily keep him through the end of the season and then sign those that are worthwhile to extensions.  Depending on his recovery there could be interest in Hamhuis but as for the others, I don't imagine teams will be beating down agents' door with multi-million dollar offers for all of our #6 through #8 defencemen.

How to clear current NHL roster space having the cap space to make it through this season are other potential issues, not to mention the question of whether the Canucks consider Clendening good enough to be worth a contract, having had a half season last year to see him.

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...