Wanna blog? Start your own hockey blog with My HockeyBuzz. Register for free today!
 
Forums :: Blog World :: Carol Schram: Markstrom spectacular, Pettersson has shootout winner for Canucks vs Flames
Author Message
LordHumungous
Vancouver Canucks
Location: Greetings from the Humungous. Ayatollah of rock and rolla!
Joined: 08.15.2014

Feb 11 @ 1:10 PM ET
Book it.
- VanHockeyGuy

lol true.

We spent the entire 2nd period vs Calgary in our own end if it wasn't for Marky it would have been 6-2.

Between Guddy's and Pouliots give aways and now Biega looks lost out there yikes.

We'll be on the PK 5/5 for two full periods vs SJ lol...

1970vintage
Seattle Kraken
Location: BC
Joined: 11.11.2010

Feb 11 @ 1:12 PM ET
im not saying he is a bad player, or doesn't bring those things, again, its about optics. The SJ sharks can afford to give up a first round pick and a prospect to win now, given where they are at. The Canucks giving up a 1st round pick for Kane would have been the equivalent of what OTT did with Duchene, and how COL might be getting a top 5 pick in return out of it. How would you have felt giving up potentially Petey or Hughes for Kane, because that would have been the ask from Buffalo.
- Codes1087


It would have been Hughes(and probably a plus), AND, Kane was a UFA at the end of the season, and might not have signed in Van...

Glad they stayed the course.
1970vintage
Seattle Kraken
Location: BC
Joined: 11.11.2010

Feb 11 @ 1:14 PM ET
Yep
- VanHockeyGuy


He’s the guy on the beer league team who bitxhes at you after every shift because he was open and you didn’t get him the puck. Then, when you do he whiffs...
Codes1087
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 09.24.2014

Feb 11 @ 1:17 PM ET
It would have been Hughes(and probably a plus), AND, Kane was a UFA at the end of the season, and might not have signed in Van...

Glad they stayed the course.

- 1970vintage


trying to flex on these boards saying "look at what Kane is producing in SJ, and how we passed on him is stupid" is just ridiculous. We would have lost Hughes, plus a prospect, plus another pick. We already have a LE and his cap hit to deal with, if Kane starts to fizzle out in year 2 or 3, you are stuck with him, much like we are with LE. Again, Kane was traded to a contender because the 1st round pick was the ask, and it was a late one going back. Canucks trading for Kane is the equivalent of OTT trading for Duchene, and look at what COL potentially has coming at this draft.
RealityChecker
Vancouver Canucks
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund
Joined: 04.18.2010

Feb 11 @ 1:26 PM ET
trying to flex on these boards saying "look at what Kane is producing in SJ, and how we passed on him is stupid" is just ridiculous. We would have lost Hughes, plus a prospect, plus another pick. We already have a LE and his cap hit to deal with, if Kane starts to fizzle out in year 2 or 3, you are stuck with him, much like we are with LE. Again, Kane was traded to a contender because the 1st round pick was the ask, and it was a late one going back. Canucks trading for Kane is the equivalent of OTT trading for Duchene, and look at what COL potentially has coming at this draft.
- Codes1087

dbot
Vancouver Canucks
Location: Auckland -Burn it all down
Joined: 10.22.2008

Feb 11 @ 1:32 PM ET
trying to flex on these boards saying "look at what Kane is producing in SJ, and how we passed on him is stupid" is just ridiculous. We would have lost Hughes, plus a prospect, plus another pick. We already have a LE and his cap hit to deal with, if Kane starts to fizzle out in year 2 or 3, you are stuck with him, much like we are with LE. Again, Kane was traded to a contender because the 1st round pick was the ask, and it was a late one going back. Canucks trading for Kane is the equivalent of OTT trading for Duchene, and look at what COL potentially has coming at this draft.
- Codes1087


I don't think we would have given up our 1st for Kane last year.
Van's 1st >>> SJS 1st.

comparing Kane to Eriksson is stupid.
Codes1087
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 09.24.2014

Feb 11 @ 1:34 PM ET

- RealityChecker


people have preached and prayed that Benning acquired picks, started a rebuild instead of trying to remain competitive. Could you imagine if we traded a bunch of assets for Kane last year, and tried to push to the playoffs with the Sedins?? That is essentially what people are saying when they are trying to push the "we should have acquired Kane last year based off his overinflated numbers on a powerhouse team this year" narrative.
Codes1087
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 09.24.2014

Feb 11 @ 1:35 PM ET
I don't think we would have given up our 1st for Kane last year.
Van's 1st >>> SJS 1st.

comparing Kane to Eriksson is stupid.

- dbot


the ask was a 1st. Even if it wasn't a first, could you imagine Benning spending picks and assets and prospects to remain competitive, while we had the Sedins, instead of rebuilding? Kane was a UFA, and technically, when he was traded, he was regarded as a rental due to his status. We would have paid a heavy price for him, and there is zero garuntee he would have re-signed in the off-season.

Kane was offered a 6 year deal after he was traded. Committing 6 years at 7 million aav is the comparable to LE.
dbot
Vancouver Canucks
Location: Auckland -Burn it all down
Joined: 10.22.2008

Feb 11 @ 1:38 PM ET
the ask was a 1st. Even if it wasn't a first, could you imagine Benning spending picks and assets and prospects to remain competitive, while we had the Sedins, instead of rebuilding?

Kane was offered a 6 year deal after he was traded. Committing 6 years at 7 million aav is the comparable to LE.

- Codes1087



I guess, except Kane is like 6 years younger.

I'd happily have a 26 year old Kane locked up on the Canucks.

All i'm saying is that he is having a good year, playing well, his team is doing well and maybe he wasn't the rotten apple that so many made him out to be last year.
Codes1087
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 09.24.2014

Feb 11 @ 1:41 PM ET
I guess, except Kane is like 6 years younger.

I'd happily have a 26 year old Kane locked up on the Canucks.

All i'm saying is that he is having a good year, playing well, his team is doing well and maybe he wasn't the rotten apple that so many made him out to be last year.

- dbot


i remember people in here questioned his character, but more-so, people thought the timing of acquiring a player like him, what it would cost, and given the stage of which the Canucks were at, was the main reasoning for not wanting to acquire him. Again, Kane being traded to a contender, give his age, was the ideal scenario for him. IF we spent a bunch to acquire him, he still would have demanded a good size contract like what he received. If its between spending a ton to acquire Kane, and having him and LE at 3 more or 4 more years tying up 13 million, or the Canucks staying the course, well I take the latter any day of the weak.
RealityChecker
Vancouver Canucks
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund
Joined: 04.18.2010

Feb 11 @ 2:05 PM ET
people have preached and prayed that Benning acquired picks, started a rebuild instead of trying to remain competitive. Could you imagine if we traded a bunch of assets for Kane last year, and tried to push to the playoffs with the Sedins?? That is essentially what people are saying when they are trying to push the "we should have acquired Kane last year based off his overinflated numbers on a powerhouse team this year" narrative.
- Codes1087

neem55
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 02.02.2012

Feb 11 @ 2:20 PM ET
im not saying he is a bad player, or doesn't bring those things, again, its about optics. The SJ sharks can afford to give up a first round pick and a prospect to win now, given where they are at. The Canucks giving up a 1st round pick for Kane would have been the equivalent of what OTT did with Duchene, and how COL might be getting a top 5 pick in return out of it. How would you have felt giving up potentially Petey or Hughes for Kane, because that would have been the ask from Buffalo.
- Codes1087

So it would have cost us more than SJ? Doesnt seem ti be true. But they soent more to get him than i would have liked. That being said, looks like a great deal by wilson to me.
Codes1087
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 09.24.2014

Feb 11 @ 2:23 PM ET
So it would have cost us more than SJ? Doesnt seem ti be true. But they soent more to get him than i would have liked. That being said, looks like a great deal by wilson to me.
- neem55


if the ask was a 1st round pick, which is what BUF got, then even if we (Canucks) made it conditional (if its a top 10 pick in 2018, then it can be our 2019 first). Then we are giving up whoever we draft at Vancouvers 2019 draft, another mid round pick, and a prospect for Kane. Would you have been ok with that?
neem55
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 02.02.2012

Feb 11 @ 2:24 PM ET
i remember people in here questioned his character, but more-so, people thought the timing of acquiring a player like him, what it would cost, and given the stage of which the Canucks were at, was the main reasoning for not wanting to acquire him. Again, Kane being traded to a contender, give his age, was the ideal scenario for him. IF we spent a bunch to acquire him, he still would have demanded a good size contract like what he received. If its between spending a ton to acquire Kane, and having him and LE at 3 more or 4 more years tying up 13 million, or the Canucks staying the course, well I take the latter any day of the weak.
- Codes1087

Buyout loui. Cant just group them and say look at this. Look at each individual. Is kane worth that number? Yes. In fact, he’s worth more atm. If canucks could have done it for a 1st and 2nd I’d have been a bit sour because we’re rebuilding but him with petey and boeser is exactly the type of line id love to have.
RealityChecker
Vancouver Canucks
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund
Joined: 04.18.2010

Feb 11 @ 2:24 PM ET
So it would have cost us more than SJ? Doesnt seem ti be true. But they soent more to get him than i would have liked. That being said, looks like a great deal by wilson to me.
- neem55

and the larger point is that just because it's been a good deal for sj (so far), it doesn't mean that it would have been a good deal for van.
Codes1087
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 09.24.2014

Feb 11 @ 2:24 PM ET
Buyout loui. Cant just group them and say look at this. Look at each individual. Is kane worth that number? Yes. In fact, he’s worth more atm. If canucks could have done it for a 1st and 2nd I’d have been a bit sour because we’re rebuilding but him with petey and boeser is exactly the type of line id love to have.
- neem55


I am too lazy to write out how his contract is essentially buyout-proof, and i would have thought you would have known that...
neem55
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 02.02.2012

Feb 11 @ 2:26 PM ET
It would have been Hughes(and probably a plus), AND, Kane was a UFA at the end of the season, and might not have signed in Van...

Glad they stayed the course.

- 1970vintage

It was sj pick this year... pretty sure it could have been the same for us. We might have finished higher. I like hughes and i agree in that sense, i just always liked kane and wanted to point out hiw that tirned out a year later.
neem55
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 02.02.2012

Feb 11 @ 2:27 PM ET
I am too lazy to write out how his contract is essentially buyout-proof, and i would have thought you would have known that...
- Codes1087

Oh is it? I did not. I know the length doubles and so it wouldnt be an option for a year. But we don’t have to resign petey for another year anyhow. Far from cap issues.
Codes1087
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 09.24.2014

Feb 11 @ 2:29 PM ET
It was sj pick this year... pretty sure it could have been the same for us. We might have finished higher. I like hughes and i agree in that sense, i just always liked kane and wanted to point out hiw that tirned out a year later.
- neem55


you're missing the point here Neemer. No one is disputing his skills, his attributes, what he brings. But Flexing on these boards about "look at Kane, imagine if we had bought low or acquired him and how good it would have been" is totally leaving out the fact that the Canucks would have lost valuable assets, were in a complete different state than SJ, and would have paid an arm and a leg for a rental UFA who may or may not have signed in the summer.
neem55
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 02.02.2012

Feb 11 @ 2:29 PM ET
if the ask was a 1st round pick, which is what BUF got, then even if we (Canucks) made it conditional (if its a top 10 pick in 2018, then it can be our 2019 first). Then we are giving up whoever we draft at Vancouvers 2019 draft, another mid round pick, and a prospect for Kane. Would you have been ok with that?
- Codes1087

Absolutely. What a bargain price for a top line winger. Would you pay that for Stone? Panarin?
neem55
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 02.02.2012

Feb 11 @ 2:30 PM ET
and the larger point is that just because it's been a good deal for sj (so far), it doesn't mean that it would have been a good deal for van.
- RealityChecker

I love the idea of him playing with EP and Boeser. What a combo!
Codes1087
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 09.24.2014

Feb 11 @ 2:31 PM ET
Absolutely. What a bargain price for a top line winger. Would you pay that for Stone? Panarin?
- neem55


i wouldn't pay a dime for Panarin who has stated that he wants to test the free agent market.

And imagine the outcry from fans and the media, if the Canucks finished bottom 10, but gave up a future 1st round pick for Kane to stay competitive.
neem55
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 02.02.2012

Feb 11 @ 2:35 PM ET
you're missing the point here Neemer. No one is disputing his skills, his attributes, what he brings. But Flexing on these boards about "look at Kane, imagine if we had bought low or acquired him and how good it would have been" is totally leaving out the fact that the Canucks would have lost valuable assets, were in a complete different state than SJ, and would have paid an arm and a leg for a rental UFA who may or may not have signed in the summer.
- Codes1087

Well the first only came if he resigned. Otherwise it was a 2nd and 2 players. I honestly see that as a bargain for any team. Sure hypothicals, but look many of thought he would play well on the coast and he’s killed it. Like it or not, that was a massive buy low for SJ. Anyway, do we trade picks and/or prospects for Saad? I would be willing to trade as high as a second as he is kinda young.
RealityChecker
Vancouver Canucks
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund
Joined: 04.18.2010

Feb 11 @ 2:35 PM ET
I love the idea of him playing with EP and Boeser. What a combo!
- neem55

and i love the idea of going after a top tier free agent when EP and Boeser start hitting their primes which is probably about 4 years off.

let them set the salary cap for the canucks going forward and fill out the pieces from there.
neem55
Vancouver Canucks
Joined: 02.02.2012

Feb 11 @ 2:39 PM ET
i wouldn't pay a dime for Panarin who has stated that he wants to test the free agent market.

And imagine the outcry from fans and the media, if the Canucks finished bottom 10, but gave up a future 1st round pick for Kane to stay competitive.

- Codes1087

Sure. But he stated he wanted to play on one of the coasts, Vancouver was clearly an option and he could have resigned as easily as not(considering he did especially). I agree on panarin, the goal is to resign/find a top6 winger.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next