[Signing] Canucks sign Micheal Ferland

[ForsbergTheGreat]

9 hours ago, The Lock said:

And yet, despite all of those stats you've provided, we're still a competitive team. This whole "cop out" notion is just one side of the argument refusing to see the other side.

 

No it’s a cop out because it’s subjective and not measurable. Canucks could loose 6-0 and only have 10 shots on net and someone could still claim that we were competitive.  

 

People seem to have short term memory, go back to the PGT’s. Very little talk about the team putting in a good effort. Sure the odd nigh but that’s the same with every bottom feeding team.  It’s easy to forgot and look back at on the past few years with some misplaced light but in the moment no one was talking about us showing up a whole bunch. There’s a reason why WD got fired. 

 

Quote

And yet here, the term "cop out" is being used as if having this pride is some swear word, like staying competitive shouldn't be a thing. Is this really how petty we're going to go in all of this? What's wrong with staying competitive? I honestly don't get it. I'm being genuinely honest about this. I don't get your stance despite my attempts to.

I never said being competitive wasn’t a good thing. Im pointing out that anyone who thinks this team the last four years is mistaken. There has been very little difference between what we’ve been in the last four years to what the oilers, Av’s, Sabre’s, panthers, totes were like in there bottom feeding years. Inconsistent effort night in and night out.

 

The only different is a few try to pretend like we’re above them by stating the “oh but we were competitive” despite not having watch any of the other teams games.  If your not watching the other teams games regularly how would you were more competitive.

 

A losing culture is built by losing. And in the last 4 years no team has done more. Jim understands this. It’s why again his definition is based on playing meaningful games late in the season. It’s also why he disregards a players performs in the last few months when the season basically over for that team. 

[-DLC-]

23 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

No it’s a cop out because it’s subjective and not measurable. Canucks could loose 6-0 and only have 10 shots on net and someone could still claim that we were competitive.  

 

People seem to have short term memory, go back to the PGT’s. Very little talk about the team putting in a good effort. Sure the odd nigh but that’s the same with every bottom feeding team.  It’s easy to forgot and look back at on the past few years with some misplaced light but in the moment no one was talking about us showing up a whole bunch. There’s a reason why WD got fired. 

 

I never said being competitive wasn’t a good thing. Im pointing out that anyone who thinks this team the last four years is mistaken. There has been very little difference between what we’ve been in the last four years to what the oilers, Av’s, Sabre’s, panthers, totes were like in there bottom feeding years. Inconsistent effort night in and night out.

 

The only different is a few try to pretend like we’re above them by stating the “oh but we were competitive” despite not having watch any of the other teams games.  If your not watching the other teams games regularly how would you were more competitive.

 

A losing culture is built by losing. And in the last 4 years no team has done more. Jim understands this. It’s why again his definition is based on playing meaningful games late in the season. It’s also why he disregards a players performs in the last few months when the season basically over for that team. 

I've read a few posts and find some hard to follow.

 

What, exactly, is your point?  In a line or two so I can understand it.  There's another, lengthy response post that ends in clowns and homers.

 

Can you please sum up what it is you're trying to say - just the gist?  I just honestly am having a hard time extracting it and would like to respond in a fair way.

[ilduce39]

21 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

No it’s a cop out because it’s subjective and not measurable. Canucks could loose 6-0 and only have 10 shots on net and someone could still claim that we were competitive.  

 

People seem to have short term memory, go back to the PGT’s. Very little talk about the team putting in a good effort. Sure the odd nigh but that’s the same with every bottom feeding team. 

So you’re saying the team put forth a poor effort and underperformed?  

 

Because this group has been picked to come dead last the past few seasons, absorbed multiple critical injuries and still kept out of the basement.  

 

This team had a ton of holes the past few seasons but “effort” wasn’t one of them.  Not even during the WD years.

[Alflives]

28 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

No it’s a cop out because it’s subjective and not measurable. Canucks could loose 6-0 and only have 10 shots on net and someone could still claim that we were competitive.  

 

People seem to have short term memory, go back to the PGT’s. Very little talk about the team putting in a good effort. Sure the odd nigh but that’s the same with every bottom feeding team.  It’s easy to forgot and look back at on the past few years with some misplaced light but in the moment no one was talking about us showing up a whole bunch. There’s a reason why WD got fired. 

 

I never said being competitive wasn’t a good thing. Im pointing out that anyone who thinks this team the last four years is mistaken. There has been very little difference between what we’ve been in the last four years to what the oilers, Av’s, Sabre’s, panthers, totes were like in there bottom feeding years. Inconsistent effort night in and night out.

 

The only different is a few try to pretend like we’re above them by stating the “oh but we were competitive” despite not having watch any of the other teams games.  If your not watching the other teams games regularly how would you were more competitive.

 

A losing culture is built by losing. And in the last 4 years no team has done more. Jim understands this. It’s why again his definition is based on playing meaningful games late in the season. It’s also why he disregards a players performs in the last few months when the season basically over for that team. 

This is exactly why Loui Eriksson cannot come back to our room.  

[Zigmund.Palffy]

26 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

No it’s a cop out because it’s subjective and not measurable. Canucks could loose 6-0 and only have 10 shots on net and someone could still claim that we were competitive.  

 

People seem to have short term memory, go back to the PGT’s. Very little talk about the team putting in a good effort. Sure the odd nigh but that’s the same with every bottom feeding team.  It’s easy to forgot and look back at on the past few years with some misplaced light but in the moment no one was talking about us showing up a whole bunch. There’s a reason why WD got fired. 

 

I never said being competitive wasn’t a good thing. Im pointing out that anyone who thinks this team the last four years is mistaken. There has been very little difference between what we’ve been in the last four years to what the oilers, Av’s, Sabre’s, panthers, totes were like in there bottom feeding years. Inconsistent effort night in and night out.

 

The only different is a few try to pretend like we’re above them by stating the “oh but we were competitive” despite not having watch any of the other teams games.  If your not watching the other teams games regularly how would you were more competitive.

 

A losing culture is built by losing. And in the last 4 years no team has done more. Jim understands this. It’s why again his definition is based on playing meaningful games late in the season. It’s also why he disregards a players performs in the last few months when the season basically over for that team. 

Um its time to build a winning culture here ... i think 4 years of a losing culture is good enough..

 

the kids need to be surrounded in a winning culture now. 

 

This whole roster is revamped for them.

 

now you see players who are FAs are coming here because they see whats being built here in Vancouver and now they seeing a rising star in Petersson.

 

good things are coming now for canucks 

 

just take a chill pill, sit back and watch canucks kick ass next season

[Goal:thecup]

Just now, Alflives said:

This is exactly why Loui Eriksson cannot come back to our room.  

From SN:

 

Benning finally spoke this week to Eriksson about comments the winger made in Swedish at the world championships that he and Green “don’t really get on 100 per cent.” Benning said it was a positive conversation and he doesn’t think Eriksson’s remarks were as egregious as some people think.

“We’ll continue to talk and work things out,” Benning said. “We’ll continue to look at our options and see if something makes sense for us, and talk to Loui and see where he’s at and kind of just go from there.”

 

I think there is still a chance to mend fences and get Louie back on the team.

 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Goal:thecup said:

From SN:

 

Benning finally spoke this week to Eriksson about comments the winger made in Swedish at the world championships that he and Green “don’t really get on 100 per cent.” Benning said it was a positive conversation and he doesn’t think Eriksson’s remarks were as egregious as some people think.

“We’ll continue to talk and work things out,” Benning said. “We’ll continue to look at our options and see if something makes sense for us, and talk to Loui and see where he’s at and kind of just go from there.”

 

I think there is still a chance to mend fences and get Louie back on the team.

 

 

What would JB say about a player he’s trying to trade, bad stuff?  Loui is exactly the type of player @ForsbergTheGreat Is writing about.  We can’t have Loui back here, and he won’t be.  

[Bissurnette]

On 7/10/2019 at 4:43 PM, fecklund said:

If Babs and Dubas had an illegitimate child?

[smithers joe]

JB said he is trying to trade 2 players. didn’t say which ones. 

[Borvat]

2 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

JB said he is trying to trade 2 players. didn’t say which ones. 

My guess would be Goldobin and Eriksson.

[stawns]

5 minutes ago, Borvat said:

My guess would be Goldobin and Eriksson.

goldy isn't under contract........they can just walk away.

[ilduce39]

6 minutes ago, Borvat said:

My guess would be Goldobin and Eriksson.

I think it’s Schaller with Loui.

[Pickly]

13 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

JB said he is trying to trade 2 players. didn’t say which ones. 

Loui for sure and my 2nd guess would be Sutter. 

[Goal:thecup]

 

I think, that with Benning having spoken directly with Louie, that the puck is now on Louie's stick.

If he wants to make a new committment to the team, and work with Travis in a positive and forthright manner, then we can fit him in and make good use of his skills.

If he truly wants out, JB has shown that he is willing to take a hit to remove players who no longer want to be here.

 

I agree that those 2 players mentioned are most likely Louie and Goldie, or as ilduce39 says, perhaps Schaller.

We can still use Sutter and Tanev and I don't think management wants to trade Jake.

 

We still have lots of time and things can change but unless they do we may have to accept nothing or "less than zero" (E Costello) for any of those three.

For example, if a huge offer comes in for Jake, it may be impossible to resist.

 

[Brovat]

I think it’s more like “Hey Lou if you want to stay in the NHL you can go to these 2 teams, you can go to the AHL, or if you’d like we can figure out a way to send you home to the SHL”. 

 

I just don’t see the guy playing another game as a Canuck. 

 

I also think its Sutter. Schaller doesn’t make enough money to be worried about. 

[73 Percent]

28 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

JB said he is trying to trade 2 players. didn’t say which ones. 

Where are you hearing this?

[smithers joe]

even if they pay 1 mil a yr of louie’s salary, there will be 5 mil in cap space saved. louie at 2 mil a yr, in actually cash might interest some team. 

[stawns]

7 minutes ago, Brovat said:

I think it’s more like “Hey Lou if you want to stay in the NHL you can go to these 2 teams, you can go to the AHL, or if you’d like we can figure out a way to send you home to the SHL”. 

 

I just don’t see the guy playing another game as a Canuck. 

 

I also think its Sutter. Schaller doesn’t make enough money to be worried about. 

they still need sutter, I don't see him going anywhere

[Brovat]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

they still need sutter, I don't see him going anywhere

I’m pretty high on Gaudette maybe that’s clouding my judgement. 

[Gaudette Celly]

54 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I've read a few posts and find some hard to follow.

 

What, exactly, is your point?  In a line or two so I can understand it.  There's another, lengthy response post that ends in clowns and homers.

 

Can you please sum up what it is you're trying to say - just the gist?  I just honestly am having a hard time extracting it and would like to respond in a fair way.

Deb, once you engage there is no end to the argument.  And once the "walls of text" start (which inevitably always do), I don't even bother reading because typically nothing is said that couldn't be said in a few lines.  a.k.a. "elephant hurling", often done with the intent of tiring the opponent so they stop responding and ostensibly "give up".  Your choice is either walk away or else engage for pages on end, going round and round in circles in an ultimate time-waster.