[Signing] Canucks sign F Sam Gagner [3 year x $3.15M AAV]

[Gaudette Celly]

21 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Yes, there's risk he plays like he did in Philly becomes unmovable. aka chris higgins.  3 years isn't the end of the world but 2 years would have been better. Is it really that hard to admit that two years would have been more ideal for canucks situation, when it clearly is. 

He's back trending in the right direction, and Higgins didn't fall off until after his injury in his 30th year.  There's risk with any UFA signing.  "4 years of Eriksson would have been better than 6" too, but you weren't going to get him for that.  That's the way UFA works, and again, 3 years is NOT the end of the world.  The alternative is you do not sign UFAs, or you get bottom-of-the-barrel quality scrubs.

 

21 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

There's no straw involves just stating hard facts.  People take anything suggested in the slightest way differently than JB has done as spiteful hate towards him and can't handle it.

Yeah, that's pure straw, especially when you try to frame it in what you call "hard facts".  McDavid at $10mil would have been better, too.  If you want to talk "spiteful", why not comment on all the complaining when he "throws away picks" or "signs for too much" when time and the FACTS end up proving he did well in assessing value?  Of course then comes the perfectionism, where if he doesn't acquire and sign every single player to absolute market value or less he needs to be mocked, roasted, called incompetent, and fired.

 

22 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No what else would have been more ideal, is signing gagner to a 2 year, 900k deal.......

Translation: don't sign him at all.  Again, you have your choice -- either sign UFAs or you do not.  That or sign pure scrubs at minimum.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I think we had more to gain without signing Gagner than with.. 

Without him players like Burmistrov, Rodin and Goldy had a chance to prove themselves as NHL players.  With Gagner they are now waiting/hoping on an injury for that shot, they will spend the year in and out of the line up getting limited minutes.  Hopefully their confidence doesn't disappear our else we will never know the players we are losing out on. 

Already projected Rodin and Burmistrov make the opening night roster, with Gagner in the fold.  Goldy goes down, and will be one of the first call-ups.  Same with Virtanen, Molino, and Holm.  And yes, part of that is waivers eligibility.  Just the reality of the business.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

32 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

He's back trending in the right direction, and Higgins didn't fall off until after his injury in his 30th year.  There's risk with any UFA signing.  "4 years of Eriksson would have been better than 6" too, but you weren't going to get him for that.  That's the way UFA works, and again, 3 years is NOT the end of the world.  The alternative is you do not sign UFAs, or you get bottom-of-the-barrel quality scrubs.

That's exactly what I said.  That statement is what started this convo.  2 years is ideal, 3 is not the end of the world. 

 

The alternative is we sign someone else... It's not like gagner had any power over canucks since we realistically don't need him.  He doesn't make us a contender and it's arguable if he even makes us more competitive than some of the other UFA options. 

 

32 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Yeah, that's pure straw, especially when you try to frame it in what you call "hard facts".  McDavid at $10mil would have been better, too.  If you want to talk "spiteful", why not comment on all the complaining when he "throws away picks" or "signs for too much" when time and the FACTS end up proving he did well in assessing value?  Of course then comes the perfectionism, where if he doesn't acquire and sign every single player to absolute market value or less he needs to be mocked, roasted, called incompetent, and fired.

 

I do.  People on this board have no problem dissing other teams with far more successful rebuilds, but when someone criticizes the errors made with this franchise, they can't handle it.  Again this whole convo is me simple stating that 2 years would have been better....That's it. and 4 people couldn't handle it and had to come to the rescue of JB.  Do you not see that? Do you not see people being hypocrites?  Most people here can't name 5 mistakes made by JB over the last 3 years......I dare you to try...because as soon as you do.  someone is bound to fly in to the rescue and come to JB's defense.

 

32 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Translation: don't sign him at all.  Again, you have your choice -- either sign UFAs or you do not.  That or sign pure scrubs at minimum.

I clearly stated before that Ididn't want canucks to sign anyone.  I felt we had enough depth.  Burmistrov type deals is all we needed to get.  Why because we aren't going to win the cup next year, all we needed was stop gaps for the youth...plenty of stop gaps available in the UFA.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

36 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Already projected Rodin and Burmistrov make the opening night roster, with Gagner in the fold.  Goldy goes down, and will be one of the first call-ups.  Same with Virtanen, Molino, and Holm.  And yes, part of that is waivers eligibility.  Just the reality of the business.

Gaunce, Megna, boeser, Boucher, Chaput not in the line up either?

 

[teepain]

Whoever shows the best work ethic will make it the rest will be waived/sent down , may the best men win

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

That's it. and 4 people couldn't handle it and had to come to the rescue of JB.  Do you not see that? 

I don't see anyone 'coming to the rescue of JB'. Nor does he need anyone to 'rescue' him. 

 

I see people trying to explain why 3 years is just fine, not a problem, could actually be ideal and there's no reason for fretting over it. Yet here you are, umpteen pages later, still fretting.

 

I was arguing the merits of signing Gagner for 3'ish years, days before we even signed him, was I 'protecting JB'? No, I was discussing a move I thought would be beneficial for the Canucks. You're free to disagree with that (though I think countless posters have presented evidence as to why you'd be wrong). But this whole weird victim complex thing you've had lately isn't very becoming Forsy.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, J.R. said:

I don't see anyone 'coming to the rescue of JB'. Nor does he need anyone to 'rescue' him. 

Haha...good one...... I dare you to start a thread listing 5 mistakes that JB made.   

 

Just now, J.R. said:

I see people trying to explain why 3 years is just fine, not a problem, could actually be ideal and there's no reason for fretting over it. Yet here you are, umpteen pages later, still fretting.

I was arguing the merits of signing Gagner for 3'ish years, days before we even signed him, was I 'protecting JB'? No, I was discussing a move I thought would be beneficial for the Canucks. You're free to disagree with that (though I think countless posters have presented evidence as to why you'd be wrong).

But this whole weird victim complex thing you've had lately isn't very becoming Forsy.

 

You think to highly of yourself, I wasn't referring to you.  You didn't join the convo till 2 pages later.  And no countless posters aren't providing any evidence, unless that's what you call what you did stating baer and bo would play with each other last year...haha how'd that work out for ya?

[aGENT]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Haha...good one...... I dare you to start a thread listing 5 mistakes that JB made.   

 

 

You think to highly of yourself, I wasn't referring to you.  You didn't join the convo till 2 pages later.  And no countless posters aren't providing any evidence, unless that's what you call what you did stating baer and bo would play with each other last year...haha how'd that work out for ya?

 

See this is what I mean, irrational lashing out with off tangent/borderline straw man comments. Who said anything about making a thread about mistakes? What the hell does what I do or don't think of myself have to do with any of this? What does Baer and Horvat playing together have to do with any of this?

 

Maybe you should go for a nice walk outside and get some fresh air bruh. It's a nice sunny day...I'm concerned.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

 

See this is what I mean, irrational lashing out with off tangent/borderline straw man comments. Who said anything about making a thread about mistakes? What the hell does what I do or don't think of myself have to do with any of this?

 

 

If you can't draw the conclusions together i gave you more credit that you deserved.

 

I stated why a two year deal was better (aka a minor mistake). People couldn't handle it and needed to feel the need to try and justify it. Hence if you started up a thread listing the mistakes, you'd see how many white knight come to the defense.

 

You think people provide factual evidence? People provide an opinion based on best outcome/ hopeful scenarios. 

 

The homerism is getting out of hand on this board, you'd have thought we've won back to back cups or something, not have bottom finishes in 3 of the last 4 years.  This mgmt group is more than worthy of it's fair share of criticism, it seems like people just can't handle it.

 

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

What does Baer and Horvat playing together have to do with any of this?

It shows how your opinion tends to be wrong.  Feel free to argue page after page again in the off season.

 

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

Maybe you should go for a nice walk outside and get some fresh air bruh. It's a nice sunny day...I'm concerned.

nah i'd rather teach you some wisdom of the sport.  eventually you'll get there.

[aGENT]

[Gaudette Celly]

7 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I clearly stated before that Ididn't want canucks to sign anyone.  I felt we had enough depth.  Burmistrov type deals is all we needed to get.  Why because we aren't going to win the cup next year, all we needed was stop gaps for the youth...plenty of stop gaps available in the UFA.

And that's where those of us who tired of watching Megna and Chaput all year very much disagree.  The way it stands now, if we were to again lose several guys (Dorsett, Rodin, Gudbranson) to serious injury we'd be seeing the likes of Goldobin/Virtanen/Holm take their place.

 

7 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Gaunce, Megna, boeser, Boucher, Chaput not in the line up either?

Megna, Boucher, and Chaput waived to Utica.

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

You're wasting your time, he will defend every signing, draft pick and any decision JB will ever make.  

Not actually true. 

[Rob_Zepp]

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

gagner isn't barely going to have an effect on our PP

 

If he "isn't barely" then he will significantly?    

 

[Rob_Zepp]

7 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

T

I clearly stated before that Ididn't want canucks to sign anyone.  I felt we had enough depth.  

Yeah, every 29th place team says that with conviction.   Um, yeah.   

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Yeah, every 29th place team says that with conviction.   Um, yeah.   

And gagner makes us what as 27th placed team 

 

13 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

If he "isn't barely" then he will significantly?    

 

Oh I forget the reason our PP sucked is because we needed another soft perimeter play maker......

[ForsbergTheGreat]

27 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

You're wasting your time, he will defend every signing, draft pick and any decision JB will ever make.  

Oh I know, they will defend everything, the best is when they defend something even when it contradicts what the stance they were defending before.  

 

"Don't trade lack he's the future, miller is old and washed up" JB trades lack and keeps miller, "Miller is awesome, so glad we kept him"

"Canucks shouldn't sign a lucic player, we don't need the big long term contract" JB signs LE to a big long term contract "good job JB he will get 40 goals next year playing with the twins"

"WD shouldn't be fired he's a good coach", WD gets fired, "Awesome job JB, we needed a new coach"

"BO should be on the forth line it evens out everything"  the next game WD takes bo off the 4th line "Bo is a 2nd line player, the coach knows what he's doing"

"Larsen is a low risk move it only cost a 5th. Moving Kassian and adding a 5th was worth it for prust, 5th's never turn out"  JB drafts Gaudette and Forsling with a 5th round pick "JB is a god at drafting in the 5th round"

 

It goes on and on.  A bunch of sheep

[aGENT]

20 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Oh I know, they will defend everything, the best is when they defend something even when it contradicts what the stance they were defending before.  

 

"Don't trade lack he's the future, miller is old and washed up" JB trades lack and keeps miller, "Miller is awesome, so glad we kept him"

"Canucks shouldn't sign a lucic player, we don't need the big long term contract" JB signs LE to a big long term contract "good job JB he will get 40 goals next year playing with the twins"

"WD shouldn't be fired he's a good coach", WD gets fired, "Awesome job JB, we needed a new coach"

"BO should be on the forth line it evens out everything"  the next game WD takes bo off the 4th line "Bo is a 2nd line player, the coach knows what he's doing"

"Larsen is a low risk move it only cost a 5th. Moving Kassian and adding a 5th was worth it for prust, 5th's never turn out"  JB drafts Gaudette and Forsling with a 5th round pick "JB is a god at drafting in the 5th round"

 

It goes on and on.  A bunch of sheep

Apparently you think all of CDC is one person. 

[Rob_Zepp]

34 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And gagner makes us what as 27th placed team 

 

Oh I forget the reason our PP sucked is because we needed another soft perimeter play maker......

Gagner is a place holder so younger players can develop.   What part of that don't you understand?   

 

You didn't get second part at all - YOU said "isn't barely going to help" - well, if he isn't barely, then you must mean he is a lot - so you seem to be arguing with yourself.   I have stated no opinion to what Gagner will or will not do for the Canuck's PP but you seem to say that he will help and then you face palm your own conclusion.

 

Are you high?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

57 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

You're wasting your time, he will defend every signing, draft pick and any decision JB will ever make.  

Here's one for ya.

 

one poster once said.

Quote

If he didn't play such a light game, perhaps he'd be an option as the Sedin's winger - bringing some speed and playmaking so that line could pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, the puck.....  But that would naturally involve displacing Goldobin or other - and is Spooner a viable forechecker, cycler, defensive supplement for them?   Probably not.

 

He could make a decent playmaking winger for the Sutter line with Eriksson - would weaken it's shutdown impact slightly but would bring speed and some threat to the wing.  Would naturally mean leaving Granlund up with the Sedins displacing Goldobin again, or to the Horvat wing, in which case Boeser goes somewhere else.

 

Not sure he's a good fit for the Horvat Baertschi line - ideally they have a better two way winger imo, and one that provides a bit more support to Horvat - and would involve moving Boeser of course, and the trickle down displacement effect.

 

Not really a 4C type, although maybe that's something worth entertaining - an unconventional fourth line, but again someone is displaced and is it worth the value of acquiring him when we can go out and sign a John Mitchell - great faceoff guy, gritty, a little upside under the right circumstances.  An alternative fourth line though may be interesting if the third is a very effective shutdownmatchup line.

 

But of course, none of this addresses the fact he'd remain exposed in the ED - which is perhaps the point and might make this acquisition worthwhile for the right price.  If LV were to take him, it might be a win vs losing Sbisa.

 

With Goldobin, Boeser, Granlund, Baertschi in the lineup though - it would necessarily mean that someone like Goldobin is bumped down/out of the lineup - and creates even more of a bottleneck with guys like Virtanen, Dahlen, Molino, Gaunce, (perhaps Rodin).

Incase you thought he was talking about Gagner he's talking about spooner......I know the description on playing style are quite similar, one could easily assume this was about Gagner.  but That's 5 paragraphs on why he doesn't fit with our team.  Despite putting up 18 pp points (same as gagner) he doesn't fit because of the depth we have..  

 

JB signs Gagner, (a player who we can almost intertwine with the description above) and some how it's a great signing...In fact even I gave the almost identical logic (as the bolded) as to why he doesn't fit depth wise...But because JB made the choice it's a great move, those old beliefs states less than a month ago go out the window.  Now we that we signed gagner it's because we needed the depth, because we needed the powerplay points, because players like goldy are better off developing in the minors...........

 

haha funny how that all works out now isn't it.

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

5 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Gagner is a place holder so younger players can develop.   What part of that don't you understand?   

 

We have enough place holder as someone else once said...

 

With Goldobin, Boeser, Granlund, Baertschi in the lineup though - it would necessarily mean that someone like Goldobin is bumped down/out of the lineup - and creates even more of a bottleneck with guys like Virtanen, Dahlen, Molino, Gaunce, (perhaps Rodin).

 

5 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

You didn't get second part at all - YOU said "isn't barely going to help" - well, if he isn't barely, then you must mean he is a lot - so you seem to be arguing with yourself.   I have stated no opinion to what Gagner will or will not do for the Canuck's PP but you seem to say that he will help and then you face palm your own conclusion.

 

Are you high?

I'm sorry didn't realize you weren't smart enough to figure the meaning of that on your own?

Are you 10 years old?