I'd be okay with 21 and 25 in the draft.
- manvanfan

I'd also be okay if the first round pick was moved in the right package.

So we are trading JTM for Cal Foote and 35 games experience

Holy F_ _ K

I know it's a tough subject for some people, but no shame in needing a refresher:

I'd also be okay if the first round pick was moved in the right package.
- VanHockeyGuy

If Van doesn't pick in the first round this year inside the top 10 or twice in the first round.

I honestly can't imagine a GM making a deal with Benning that would under any circumstance make me like any trade that would have Van not picking in the first round this year.

So we are trading JTM for Cal Foote and 35 games experience

Holy F_ _ K
- VANTEL

Don't rage quit again on us now.

Don't rage quit again on us now.
- manvanfan

I won't . You neither.

Mind you if these talks about trading Miller for a bottom pair guy that has played 35 games I don't know how much more I can read.

I wonder if Prof. Lordy has any room in his math and counting classes. Maybe they give discounts to geriatrics?

While they're there maybe they can take a reading and comprehension class because they're clearly misses things and don't grasp nuance.

I won't . You neither.

Mind you if these talks about trading Miller for a bottom pair guy that has played 35 games I don't know how much more I can read.
- VANTEL

Rick Bowness says you need guys like Hughes, Makar, Fox, Heiskanen on defence now a days. Still need the right mix of players like that and other types of D.

He also just used covid and injuries as reasons why the season didn't go the way they wanted.

Rick Bowness says you need guys like Hughes, Makar, Fox, Heiskanen on defence now a days. Still need the right mix of players like that and other types of D.

He also just used covid and injuries as reasons why the season didn't go the way they wanted.
- manvanfan

wait... other team's facts are not excuses

Rick Bowness says you need guys like Hughes, Makar, Fox, Heiskanen on defence now a days. Still need the right mix of players like that and other types of D.

He also just used covid and injuries as reasons why the season didn't go the way they wanted.
- manvanfan

So go get the other pieces. It is total BS about can't do it this year because Petey and Hughes and next year Brock and the year after JTM and Bo.

Foote is a very slight upgrade on Juolevi. You are not trading a top forward for that.
You are not also trading a top 9 pick for a 21 and 25 . Foote will not be on TB next year.

This is how dumb that proposal is, we traded a first and fourth to get a top forward and we trade him back to the same team that has no cap space for a bottom pair Dman. What do we do after that? Trade again for JTM and another first and fourth ?

wait... other team's facts are not excuses
- NuckUp

Nope, they are excuses as well.

I'd also be okay if the first round pick was moved in the right package.
- VanHockeyGuy

Whatever it takes to get 1 of these RSD in play. UFA big spend is fine too. They're not going to be able to draft 1 in time for window. It's their biggest hole.

Canucks needed to improve on Tanev. Myers and Hamonic are not it. Woo at best is at their level. This draft don't see as the top tier RSD solution. At best they get a top 6 forward.

So go get the other pieces. It is total BS about can't do it this year because Petey and Hughes and next year Brock and the year after JTM and Bo.

Foote is a very slight upgrade on Juolevi. You are not trading a top forward for that.
You are not also trading a top 9 pick for a 21 and 25 . Foote will not be on TB next year.

This is how dumb that proposal is, we traded a first and fourth to get a top forward and we trade him back to the same team that has no cap space for a bottom pair Dman. What do we do after that? Trade again for JTM and another first and fourth ?
- VANTEL

TB would he smart to work a deal around Foote for OJ or Rathbone. Trade a guy needing protection for one that doesn't. We have a spot avail to protect Foote.
Win/Win

Nope, they are excuses as well.
- Marwood

Are you excusing your opinion for facts?

TB would he smart to work a deal around Foote for OJ or Rathbone. Trade a guy needing protection for one that doesn't. We have a spot avail to protect Foote.
Win/Win
- Retinalz

That makes sense but not a top forward.

Are you excusing your opinion for facts?
- NuckUp

I'm not excusing your nonsense.

So we are trading JTM for Cal Foote and 35 games experience

Holy F_ _ K
- VANTEL

Pod for Cal Foote?

Pod for Cal Foote?
- VanHockeyGuy

TB would he smart to work a deal around Foote for OJ or Rathbone. Trade a guy needing protection for one that doesn't. We have a spot avail to protect Foote.
Win/Win
- Retinalz

Does that not still leave Bolts short on exposing a qualified D?

If so, Bowey and a B forward prospect and/or low draft pick might do the trick.

Squeezed teams shed low value like Nucks got Schmidt for a 3rd.

So go get the other pieces. It is total BS about can't do it this year because Petey and Hughes and next year Brock and the year after JTM and Bo.

Foote is a very slight upgrade on Juolevi. You are not trading a top forward for that.
You are not also trading a top 9 pick for a 21 and 25 . Foote will not be on TB next year.

This is how dumb that proposal is, we traded a first and fourth to get a top forward and we trade him back to the same team that has no cap space for a bottom pair Dman. What do we do after that? Trade again for JTM and another first and fourth ?
- VANTEL

I have no idea what you are even babbling about right now. I skim read your post to see that you think the Canucks traded a 1st and 4th for Miller.

Even Marwood knows the Canucks traded a 1st and 3rd for Miller.

If you don't like the trade, honestly no one cares.

So go get the other pieces. It is total BS about can't do it this year because Petey and Hughes and next year Brock and the year after JTM and Bo.

Foote is a very slight upgrade on Juolevi. You are not trading a top forward for that.
You are not also trading a top 9 pick for a 21 and 25 . Foote will not be on TB next year.

This is how dumb that proposal is, we traded a first and fourth to get a top forward and we trade him back to the same team that has no cap space for a bottom pair Dman. What do we do after that? Trade again for JTM and another first and fourth ?
- VANTEL

Jesus I'm just going to respond to this directly. No one said trade him for Foote. My direct quote is (emphasis added):

Not proven proven, but not a draft pick made in the last year or so. Someone they have more confidence in projecting... like a Fabbro or Bean or Foote. Developed more.

If you can follow the conversation and comprehend, it means trading for someone LIKE ONE OF THOSE PLAYERS, ie. a player that's not a recent draft pick that's been developed a bit and has a good ceiling. Not trading for exactly one of the players named.

Earlier you talked poop about people who just make things up because that's what they're best at: ta-da, you played yourself.

Now, why don't you just walk us back to your proposal to get Landeskog signed to a UFA contract that somehow isn't 7 years, because no one signed a 7 year deal last year... expect the players who signed "6 year deals" that were actually 7 year deals.

TB would he smart to work a deal around Foote for OJ or Rathbone. Trade a guy needing protection for one that doesn't. We have a spot avail to protect Foote.
Win/Win
- Retinalz

I'd trade Joni Jurmo for Foote straight up

I'm not excusing your nonsense.
- Marwood

Bravo admitting your opinion has no excuse for not having any sense.

I have no idea what you are even babbling about right now. I skim read your post to see that you think the Canucks traded a 1st and 4th for Miller.

Even Marwood knows the Canucks traded a 1st and 3rd for Miller.

If you don't like the trade, honestly no one cares.


- manvanfan

Do you think this is a compliment to one of your buds? I read something like that I take it as even a twit like Marwood .

You need to apologize to your pal.

Much better , not exactly that player just some other bottom pairing