[Signing] Canucks re-sign Brock Boeser

[EdgarM]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I see Boeser and Garland are very different players.  Boeser (I think) is a guy who can score, from distance, with a wrist shot, and not need a screen.  He’s a pure goal scorer.  

Garland is a nifty little winger who is great below the dots.  

IMHAO replacing what Boeser can do is much more difficult than replacing what Garland can do.

Garland is going back to Arizona for two seconds.  Where’s my bottle? 

And Brock!  You’re a far better player under 200 pounds.  Lose some weight!

That wrist shot you speak of Alf is not the same. He seems like a mere mortal in that department the last few years. Yes they are different in that respect as Garland is a bit more of a play driver when entering the O zone. 

The similarities I was speaking of had to do with their grit and strength at retrieving the puck along the boards or on a one to one basis and points they produce. Neither are going to fight off checks single handedly or come out of the corners with the puck most times. Garland does have that "Ronning" ability to slip out of tricky situations though. 

They both throw checks although I don't know how effective they are.

Maybe this is Brocks year where he has no distractions and that wrist has healed to where he can show us that sniper ability he showed us when he first came here.

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Right beside the skeletons? 

We don't talk about them.

 

I feel like our takes on Brock aren't based on a good solid footing. With injuries and personal trauma, he's stayed afloat but it's likely not the best we've seen of him (yet). I feel like he's going to play a really inspired game, knowing Duke's up there watching. When a parent is struggling and you're watching that decline, it's really hard to focus on anything else. Knowing his Dad is at peace may also bring some for him. I hope he proves all the doubters wrong (one in particular).

 

No, he isn't the fastest but he can snipe and that's what matters most. 

[spur1]

7 hours ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-gm-benning-on-markstrom-we-want-him-back

Ok so pull some article out from a year before Markstrom left as proof. Also if you read the whole article it mentions the expansion draft and only being able to protect 1 goaltender. 
You can do better. 

[BPA]

I thinks some posters are jealous of his flow.

 

I am.

 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

37 minutes ago, spur1 said:

Ok so pull some article out from a year before Markstrom left as proof. Also if you read the whole article it mentions the expansion draft and only being able to protect 1 goaltender. 
You can do better. 

I think you're confused. Here's the timeline:

• Article was from September 8, 2020.
• Markstrom signed with Calgary October 9, 2020. That means that article is 1 month before Markstrom left.
• Expansion draft protection list for the Canucks was released July 18, 2021. 
• Expansion draft happened July 21, 2021.

You're saying that we still had Markstrom during the expansion draft??? Markstrom was in the Calgary Flames' expansion protection list. We're on the Canucks' forum here. Are you a Flames fan?

Edited July 3, 2022 by Vinny in Vancouver

[Pavel the Bure]

4 hours ago, R3aL said:

 

 

id also prefer garland value at 4.9 over Gallagher at 6.5 

 

 

I agreed 100%, Garland and his contract is a Great value

[spur1]

39 minutes ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

I think you're confused. Here's the timeline:

• Article was from September 8, 2020.
• Markstrom signed with Calgary October 9, 2020. That means that article is 1 month before Markstrom left.
• Expansion draft protection list for the Canucks was released July 18, 2021. 
• Expansion draft happened July 21, 2021.

You're saying that we still had Markstrom during the expansion draft??? Markstrom was in the Calgary Flames' expansion protection list. We're on the Canucks' forum here. Are you a Flames fan?

Please we all know Markstrom was gone before the expansion draft and because of the expansion draft. Marky wanted to be #1 with a NMC. To heck with Demko. Canucks chose youth.

No expansion draft the Canucks would have probably kept Markstrom to battle it out with Demko another year or two. 
Which takes us back to my original statement: Markstrom was lost due to the expansion draft. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

25 minutes ago, spur1 said:

Please we all know Markstrom was gone before the expansion draft and because of the expansion draft. Marky wanted to be #1 with a NMC. To heck with Demko. Canucks chose youth.

No expansion draft the Canucks would have probably kept Markstrom to battle it out with Demko another year or two. 
Which takes us back to my original statement: Markstrom was lost due to the expansion draft. 

Maybe you can show us your sources for your claims below:

1. Markstrom leaving had nothing to do with Markstrom's salary demands.
2. Canucks didn't actually try to sign Markstrom due to the expansion 

I suppose if you say that you are Jim Benning; then, I will immediately concede.

I can only go with what Jim Benning said - which was he wanted to sign Markstrom all throughout that off-season. https://www.hockeyfeed.com/nhl-news/canucks-gm-jim-benning-makes-up-his-mind-on-markstrom-vs-demko-dilemma

Edited July 4, 2022 by Vinny in Vancouver

[spur1]

4 minutes ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

Maybe you can show us your sources for your claims below:

1. Markstrom leaving had nothing to do with Markstrom's salary demands.
2. Canucks didn't actually try to sign Markstrom due to the expansion 

I suppose if you say that you are Jim Benning; then, I will immediately concede.

I can only go with what Jim Benning said - which was he wanted to sign Markstrom all throughout that off-season. https://www.hockeyfeed.com/nhl-news/canucks-gm-jim-benning-makes-up-his-mind-on-markstrom-vs-demko-dilemma

First off I claimed neither of the above. That is simply what you read into it. Yes both of the above were factors however the bottom line is that the expansion draft was the biggest factor. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

Just now, spur1 said:

First off I claimed neither of the above. That is simply what you read into it. Yes both of the above were factors however the bottom line is that the expansion draft was the biggest factor. 

And your source or proof that the expansion draft was the biggest factor and not Markstrom's salary demands? You know what - we've thread-crapped enough here. And for every quote or article I put out, all you respond with are your own thoughts which while plausible are completely based on unsubstantiated claims. You gotta put out some sources. Otherwise, this is what makes for a completely unproductive conversation.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Pavel the Bure said:

I agreed 100%, Garland and his contract is a Great value

Which is why Garland can return us a young (22-27) top four D. 

Trade the Elf!  

[bad alice french]

On 7/1/2022 at 3:30 PM, TheCammer said:

Solid signing. I think we are going to see 30+ goals, maybe 40+ if he stays healthy. He looked like a different player under Boudreau

This young man has been through so much in his life.

I really feel he is going to turn it on now. He will come through the clouds of grief and mourning better than ever.

Great signing for all . Let's go Brock!

[spur1]

2 hours ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

And your source or proof that the expansion draft was the biggest factor and not Markstrom's salary demands? You know what - we've thread-crapped enough here. And for every quote or article I put out, all you respond with are your own thoughts which while plausible are completely based on unsubstantiated claims. You gotta put out some sources. Otherwise, this is what makes for a completely unproductive conversation.

Lol…most of my sources are right here in this community. 

[EddieVedder]

7 hours ago, R3aL said:

Well Gallagher looked awful last year and if you compare boesers bad last year with Gallagher with the reasons / factors boeser still showed more.

 

id prefer boeser over the next three years. I’d be bold as to say he will our score gally in both goals and assists if he is healthy.

 

id also prefer garland value at 4.9 over Gallagher at 6.5 

 

im not sure about Gallagher going forward the way he plays his body. Hard to imagine him in his 30s ever getting 40 goals.

 

boeser has 35-40 goal potential in an out. But i am concerned about his back. I’ve talked to some sports doctors and they all are worried how his back will hold Up when he’s older.

he needs to stay healthy. And three years was ideal term for him in the situation. I’m happy about the signing and he’s very tradeable if needed

Gallagher is a better hockey player and offers much more to a team. 

[komodo0921]

This is a great deal for both sides and really demonstrates how much BB loves Vancouver.

It also demonstrates the skills of our new negotiating staff and their ability to gain rapport with agents and players.

This bodes well for the future.

Now, lets get Bo extended.

Great deal.

Welcome back Brock.

[tas]

15 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

Gallagher is a better hockey player and offers much more to a team. 

you're imagining a player that no longer exists while simultaneously selling brock way short. 

[R3aL]

39 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

Gallagher is a better hockey player and offers much more to a team. 

Friendly bet me and you. Who has the better 2022-2023 boeser be gally. Can review end of next szn

 

hows that sound

[Mo Grit]

In signing Brock I sense the first tremble from our new management.

He's a good kid no doubt, and his signing makes the young core (country club) happy for sure.

But he's nowhere near as overall effective as Garland, and we can't carry more than one small forward.

In our desperate need for some size and grit we've missed a huge opportunity to upgrade with Brock's freed up cap.

Who's now gonna create the space for our smaller, skilled guys to operate?

We'll soon see I suppose, how JR has this all planned, but I'd not thought him such a gambler.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[spur1]

45 minutes ago, Mo Grit said:

In signing Brock I sense the first tremble from our new management.

He's a good kid no doubt, and his signing makes the young core (country club) happy for sure.

But he's nowhere near as overall effective as Garland, and we can't carry more than one small forward.

In our desperate need for some size and grit we've missed a huge opportunity to upgrade with Brock's freed up cap.

Who's now gonna create the space for our smaller, skilled guys to operate?

We'll soon see I suppose, how JR has this all planned, but I'd not thought him such a gambler.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just who would fill that freed up cap space? Easy to say lose the cap space…however you still need to replace the roster spot. 

[Mo Grit]

18 minutes ago, spur1 said:

And just who would fill that freed up cap space? Easy to say lose the cap space…however you still need to replace the roster spot. 

Yes Spur, but we do have wingers of our own - I'd like to see them given decent opportunity to develop.  Brock's 20 goals from pp and favorable shifts should easily be replaced for a lot less than the 7.5m he's getting next year.  I'm not crapping on Brock per say, just that his money could have gone toward a crease-clearing defender we so desperately need.