Gollumpus Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Davathor said: If they tried to move burrows and Hansen before the TDL, sure. If they didn't sign Eriksson, sure, if they didn't trade for Gudbranson, OK. they called it a retool and that's what it was. What made this a rebuild 3 years ago? Some bottom 6 trades? Well, first of all I'd call a "couple of years only two years ago, not three, so I'm talking this season and the last. The team was still looking to put butts in the seats, and Hansen and Burrows (a couple of fan faves) helped in that regard. Signing Eriksson also speaks to this. Moving Burrows and Hansen at this TDL (rather than last season) speaks to the team wanting to make cash (look at reports of ticket sales going down), and other teams (in the case of Burrows' deal) perhaps not wanting to take on $4 million for an extra season. Moving Hansen and Burrows this season also speaks to the team wanting to draw on their experience to help the younger players along. Yes, that's something which is not relevant to some folks unless the player in question is also scoring 50+ points a season. How is acquiring Gudbranson a bad thing? If not for injuries I suspect that a lot more people would be on his bandwagon, except for all the folks who expect that he should be the second coming of Larry Robinson. As to trades, Granlund was viewed by many as a bottom-6 trade. Sutter, who I like, was also considered a bottom-6 trade. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, HomeBrew said: So you are trying to make a historical fact based on what is only now important to "today's game"... That right there is an oxymoron. Semantics... you know exactly what I mean. Let me put it as simply as possible: D-men with significant NHL experience (300+ games) with obviously limited ability do not generally break-out in their mid 20's. Kronwall, Streit and even Rafalski are not good examples because they all entered the league in their mid 20's. The only good example is Souray because he didn't do much for his first 300 games in the NHL before breaking out into a quality offensive D-man. Based on this, expecting Gudbranson to magically break out is ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM24 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 4 hours ago, messier's_elbow said: Yeah cause he had a lot to work with. Ignorance is bliss. He didn't but he also didn't make due with what he had very well. Megna and Chaput getting the treatment Vey did is ridiculous. I'm sick of having glorified plugs in important roles over others. Waste of time and development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Boudreau Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, stawns said: People who only crawl out of the sewers when they deem there is something to cry about and never, ever engage in actual discussion deserve to be called out. I thought youd figured that out after your "bad day" So I cant comment my opinion on the Canucks if I haven't been posting for a while? Ok then boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, CeeBee51 said: lol is that all you got It's enough, and a lot. Especially when the team says they want to compete and their transactions reflect that goal (at least until this past deadline). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeBee51 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: You implied I should not have came out of retirement, yet provided no substance to support any claims or arguments. "lol is that all you got" is definitely an appropriate statement. kinda cute, ain't they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Just now, kanucks25 said: Semantics... you know exactly what I mean. Let me put it as simply as possible: D-men with significant NHL experience (300+ games) with obviously limited ability do not generally break-out in their mid 20's. Kronwall, Streit and even Rafalski are not good examples because they all entered the league in their mid 20's. The only good example is Souray because he didn't do much for his first 300 games in the NHL. Based on this, expecting Gudbranson to magically break out is ignorant. Gudbranson is a mediocre at-best defenseman. He's a Sbisa+ Eye test and analytics support this. If Gudbranson was a 5th round draft pick, he would not have the same reputation. Based on his actual hockey abilities, he's a depth defenseman and nothing more. He doesn't fit the modern day NHL that requires puck abilities and skating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odjicks Tooth Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Sutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Sutter fired in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeBee51 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: Gudbranson is a mediocre at-best defenseman. He's a Sbisa+ Eye test and analytics support this. If Gudbranson was a 5th round draft pick, he would not have the same reputation. Based on his actual hockey abilities, he's a depth defenseman and nothing more. He doesn't fit the modern day NHL that requires puck abilities and skating. Wow, do you ever sound like The Guardian's brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Chip Kelly said: So I cant comment my opinion on the Canucks if I haven't been posting for a while? Ok then boss. Of course you can, but expect to be challenged when you make claims that aren't backed up by facts. That's where you, and others cut from the same cloth, fall apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davathor Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: Well, first of all I'd call a "couple of years only two years ago, not three, so I'm talking this season and the last. The team was still looking to put butts in the seats, and Hansen and Burrows (a couple of fan faves) helped in that regard. Signing Eriksson also speaks to this. Moving Burrows and Hansen at this TDL (rather than last season) speaks to the team wanting to make cash (look at reports of ticket sales going down), and other teams (in the case of Burrows' deal) perhaps not wanting to take on $4 million for an extra season. Moving Hansen and Burrows this season also speaks to the team wanting to draw on their experience to help the younger players along. Yes, that's something which is not relevant to some folks unless the player in question is also scoring 50+ points a season. How is acquiring Gudbranson a bad thing? If not for injuries I suspect that a lot more people would be on his bandwagon, except for all the folks who expect that he should be the second coming of Larry Robinson. As to trades, Granlund was viewed by many as a bottom-6 trade. Sutter, who I like, was also considered a bottom-6 trade. regards, G. Sutter is statistically one of the worst PP regulars in the league. We traded a promising young forward for Okbranson (if you didn't notice, we have a weak forward group). Eriksson was a HAIL MARY signing to try to return the twins to glory. Granlund was a steal. still waiting to hear how those moves were rebuilding? Sure looks like desperately trying to pump another year or two of playoff revenue out of the Sedins. If you want to keep regurgitating those moves as part of a rebuild I'm afraid I'm done argueing. Can't make a horse drink right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: Gudbranson is a mediocre at-best defenseman. He's a Sbisa+ Eye test and analytics support this. If Gudbranson was a 5th round draft pick, he would not have the same reputation. Based on his actual hockey abilities, he's a depth defenseman and nothing more. He doesn't fit the modern day NHL that requires puck abilities and skating. Whose eye test? Florida fans, and Gallant, loved him so it can't be them. He was a 3rd overall pick, so can't be scouts. Enlighten us, great swami Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Davathor said: Sutter is statistically one of the worst PP regulars in the league. We traded a promising young forward for Okbranson (if you didn't notice, we have a weak forward group). Eriksson was a HAIL MARY signing to try to return the twins to glory. Granlund was a steal. still waiting to hear how those moves were rebuilding? Sure looks like desperately trying to pump another year or two of playoff revenue out of the Sedins. If you want to keep regurgitating those moves as part of a rebuild I'm afraid I'm done argueing. Can't make a horse drink right? How did McCann do this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 I'd be good with Sutter. We could do alot worse. He would get our D into shape and get the young guys buying into a two-way game. He's a coach that roles four lines as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Boudreau Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Just now, stawns said: Of course you can, but expect to be challenged when you make claims that aren't backed up by facts. That's where you, and others cut from the same cloth, fall apart. I don't think I have really exaggerated anything much of what I have said here in that post giving an overview of the last 3 years in Canucks related player transactions. Rather than just writing a snide remark or a gif or rolling eyes or facepalm emoticon it would be nice if you guys actually discussed a topic instead of ignoring an opinion because it doesnt jive with company rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, stawns said: Whose eye test? Florida fans, and Gallant, loved him so it can't be them. He was a 3rd overall pick, so can't be scouts. Enlighten us, great swami Florida fans had very mixed reviews on Gudbranson, just like we do. And there's a reason for that. 1 minute ago, stawns said: How did McCann do this year? McCann is still a prospect, so why does it matter? Benning almost ruined him, which is ironic 'cause he was actually a good pick by Benning. Even if Benning is correct in thinking that McCann won't turn out, he still had solid value and Gudbranson still was the wrong target. That would also make McCann a bad pick in the end. Don't forget that high 2nd we gave away, too, which was essentially another late 1st. Asplund has looked good so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohoforpresident Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 22 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: I applaud you for trying to bring some sense into Canucks fans. I haven't posted for years but this thread has been so cancerous I had to come out of retirement. Number one problem outside of management/ownership, is the fans that blindly support this management group no matter what. This management team has set the bar so low and fed the sheep with baseless statements to essentially brainwash the fanbase. I applaud you for seeing through this, but it's just a waste of your time trying to explain the truth. There will still be fans that support the Gudbranson trade(paying 2 late firsts for a bottom pairing "tough, pushback, traditional" dman is a travesty), and will not change their minds no matter what. The thing that's most disappointing for me is that you have experienced, knowledgeable posters who still blindly support management and it really is just pathetic. Benning's best moves have generated minor surpluses, whereas he has no shortage of terrible moves resulting in negative impact. That's why we are a 29th team despite the high cap number. There are still people who will say Benning has done a great job... 2 years of being a CAP team resulting in 2 BOTTOM FIVE finishes. The Canucks are the anti-moneyball; overpay bad players and neglect acquiring impactful players. Benning's been nothing short of terrible outside of this TDL. If we traded Vrbata and Hamhuis last year we might tanked harder and landed a Matthews/Laine. Let that sink in, you sheep. baa. 24 minutes ago, JohnTavares said: I applaud you for trying to bring some sense into Canucks fans. I haven't posted for years but this thread has been so cancerous I had to come out of retirement. Number one problem outside of management/ownership, is the fans that blindly support this management group no matter what. This management team has set the bar so low and fed the sheep with baseless statements to essentially brainwash the fanbase. I applaud you for seeing through this, but it's just a waste of your time trying to explain the truth. There will still be fans that support the Gudbranson trade(paying 2 late firsts for a bottom pairing "tough, pushback, traditional" dman is a travesty), and will not change their minds no matter what. The thing that's most disappointing for me is that you have experienced, knowledgeable posters who still blindly support management and it really is just pathetic. Benning's best moves have generated minor surpluses, whereas he has no shortage of terrible moves resulting in negative impact. That's why we are a 29th team despite the high cap number. There are still people who will say Benning has done a great job... 2 years of being a CAP team resulting in 2 BOTTOM FIVE finishes. The Canucks are the anti-moneyball; overpay bad players and neglect acquiring impactful players. Benning's been nothing short of terrible outside of this TDL. If we traded Vrbata and Hamhuis last year we might tanked harder and landed a Matthews/Laine. Let that sink in, you sheep. you said you haven't posted in a couple years...have you not read the forum in a couple years??? the cdc does not blindly support management. the posters in this forum are very critical.. and rarely give anyone any support at all also regarding gudbranson... if you go through a gameday thread you will see that the fans are sick of having their goalies ran and players blindsided without any pushback from our team...and certainly no help from the league. guddy has cinder blocks for hands (which has pros and cons).... and he is one of a handful of our players who would actually answer the bell. there's no reason for calling everyone sheep like you're george carlin or something here buddy. mgmt has made mistakes but they have also added alot of promising prospects.. so many prospects...we have to build a cupboard to keep some of these suckers in. development takes time. come back in another couple years and it will be alot easier to see what benning is building! the sheep will remain here because thats what sheep do. baa baa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirotashi Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 I would love Sutter coaching this team. Please god yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 18 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: Didn't make it tough for Toronto to trade guys like Phaneuf and Kessel. Good GMs make things work. Bad GMs make excuses. Well, what did the Leafs get back in their trade? Maybe Lindberg, a pick and Phaneuf's caphit/seasons left on his contact. People around here complained that Benning did a similar thing with Garrison's contract. This deal was done by Dave Nonis. He made a lot of excuses. The Kessel deal was somewhat better for the Leafs, but I'd say it was still not enough of a return. He made fewer excuses. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.