Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
Moderator: Referees
- tantalum
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
- Location: Carl Junction, MO
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
Nah, they'd be complaining about AV having him in the pressbox and how unfair it is etc etc etc.
-
- CC Rookie
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:19 pm
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
Okay, I guess now we can move to the semantics of determing the divergence between "not gritty enough" and "too soft". I don't know about the rest of you but what I saw in those two series evidenced an absence of heart and an absence of toughness. They are gritty enough to do well in the regular season when penalites are getting called, but don't seem to be nearly as effective when the play turns more gorilla style (which it always does in the playoffs). If we really want to debate the usage of the term "soft" an argument could be made that no NHL player actually fits that description given their fitness levels, strength and the willpower utilized to make it to the bigs. In fact the individuals more suited to that description are probably the ones typing on a message board rather than playing (myself included). But whether I am right or wrong using the term "soft", the team does not have the grit or toughness to win the only trophy that actually means anything. You can argue that until you are blue in the face but the facts say otherwise.FAN wrote:There's a difference between not having enough grit and toughness and being a soft team. The Canucks lost to the eventual Cup champions the past two years. The fact that the Canucks were outmatched in the grit and toughness department (injuries aside) suggests that the Canucks can improve in those areas and doesn't prove that the Canucks are a soft team that "fold[ed] like a cheap tent."Gino's Knuckle wrote:given the performance against gritty teams in the past two playoffs, the last two years i.e. folding like a cheap tent, I am not convinced that we aren't a soft team. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and at this point eating pudding in the playoffs results in the Canucks losing teeth.
Potatoe1 wrote:So the Sharks, Hawks, and Preds weren't gritty?Gino's Knuckle wrote: given the performance against gritty teams in the past two playoffs, the last two years i.e. folding like a cheap tent, I am not convinced that we aren't a soft team. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and at this point eating pudding in the playoffs results in the Canucks losing teeth.
Soft teams simply do not get to game 7 of a cup final, it just doesn't happen.
I never said those teams weren’t gritty. And sure we were able to get by them, but it wasn’t by grit or toughness (you could argue that on an individual level Kesler was a beast last year against the preds and I would agree with that but on a whole it wasn’t the case). Okay, let me rephrase a "not gritty enough" team made it to game 7 of the stanley cup final. I don't know what games you guys were watching but the lack of gritt and toughness has been endemic in the last two seasons' playoffs.
I definitely agree if all we want to continue winning are those nice and shiny President's Trophies. So far the strategy has worked perfectly.FAN wrote:Personally, I don't like it either, but it's a strategic decision that has merit. Case in point, when Martin Hanzal crushed Dustin Brown from behind, the Kings didn't end up retaliating. Both the Kings and the Devils did a great job of not taking retaliation penalties and were reasons why both teams went to the SCF. You can make a case for the Canucks to add more toughness in the form of fighters, but given the makeup of the team the past two years, not taking retaliation penalties is the best strategy for the Canucks don't you agree?RoyalDude wrote:I do not like the fact that this team does not stand up for each other when liberties are taken out on their star players... we are not a tough team that will go to war for each other.
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
It seems like you are talking about a team that hasn't been having playoff success in recent years....Gino's Knuckle wrote: They are gritty enough to do well in the regular season when penalites are getting called, but don't seem to be nearly as effective when the play turns more gorilla style (which it always does in the playoffs).
This is a Canuck board right?
The Canucks went to game seven of the finals last year right?
And again why does a poster who thinks the canucks Lack, Grit, Heart, toughness etc. give 2 shits about trading Grabner?
He is a downgrade over all of our forwards in all of those areas. Even Mason Raymond plays with more grit then Grabner.
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
Yikes...Potatoe1 wrote:It seems like you are talking about a team that hasn't been having playoff success in recent years....Gino's Knuckle wrote: They are gritty enough to do well in the regular season when penalites are getting called, but don't seem to be nearly as effective when the play turns more gorilla style (which it always does in the playoffs).
This is a Canuck board right?
The Canucks went to game seven of the finals last year right?
And again why does a poster who thinks the canucks Lack, Grit, Heart, toughness etc. give 2 shits about trading Grabner?
He is a downgrade over all of our forwards in all of those areas. Even Mason Raymond plays with more grit then Grabner.
-
- CC Rookie
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:19 pm
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
Interestingly enough, there are many dimensions to the skillset of a hockey player. Sometimes players who lack gritt make up for it with other dimensions. I think I have been pretty clear in my statements that a speedy goalscorer with good upside would be a beneficial dimension to have IMO. I don't really feel like reiterating all of my comments with respect to same over and over, but, should you be interested, you are welcome to go back and read them.Potatoe1 wrote:It seems like you are talking about a team that hasn't been having playoff success in recent years....Gino's Knuckle wrote: They are gritty enough to do well in the regular season when penalites are getting called, but don't seem to be nearly as effective when the play turns more gorilla style (which it always does in the playoffs).
This is a Canuck board right?
The Canucks went to game seven of the finals last year right?
And again why does a poster who thinks the canucks Lack, Grit, Heart, toughness etc. give 2 shits about trading Grabner?
He is a downgrade over all of our forwards in all of those areas. Even Mason Raymond plays with more grit then Grabner.
- tantalum
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
- Location: Carl Junction, MO
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
From what I saw of Grabner this past year it's true. Raymond may suck along the boards in the offensive zone but the guy does tend to try to help out (if he hasn't already button hooked himself into the ice and given the puck away on the offensive zone entry). Grabner seems to float around waiting for a pass.Jovocop wrote: Yikes...
I guess I see Grabner as one of three possible things:
A perennial 30 goal scoring short handed threat on a middling team
The 20/20 Afinogenov guy I mentioned earlier. It's not much different than what Raymond may be to be honest.
Spending long amounts of time in the pressbox when the other aspects of his game haven't improved and the deficiencies are no longer acceptable as the young player label is gone (it has to be concerning to see him get demoted from the first line on the Islanders down to the 3rd line and at time stapled to the bench or in the pressbox as the season progressed..it's the Islanders for goodness sakes it's not like they have a bunch of good forwards) .
I lean towards the second one but think all three have a shot of happening.
-
- CC Rookie
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:19 pm
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
I would tend to agree with your analysis tant, except that for several years now I have been leaning towards the first of your options. I still see last year a a sophomore slump and expect to see a rebound year this year (time will tell whether I am correct or out to lunch on that one). I agree that his definsive play isn't on par with Raymond's, I just think his offense (and potential) is much better and sufficiently offsets that definiciency along with his lack of grit etc..tantalum wrote:From what I saw of Grabner this past year it's true. Raymond may suck along the boards in the offensive zone but the guy does tend to try to help out (if he hasn't already button hooked himself into the ice and given the puck away on the offensive zone entry). Grabner seems to float around waiting for a pass.Jovocop wrote: Yikes...
I guess I see Grabner as one of three possible things:
A perennial 30 goal scoring short handed threat on a middling team
The 20/20 Afinogenov guy I mentioned earlier. It's not much different than what Raymond may be to be honest.
Spending long amounts of time in the pressbox when the other aspects of his game haven't improved and the deficiencies are no longer acceptable as the young player label is gone (it has to be concerning to see him get demoted from the first line on the Islanders down to the 3rd line and at time stapled to the bench or in the pressbox as the season progressed..it's the Islanders for goodness sakes it's not like they have a bunch of good forwards) .
I lean towards the second one but think all three have a shot of happening.
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
Gino's Knuckle wrote:
I don't really feel like reiterating all of my comments with respect to same over and over, but, should you be interested, you are welcome to go back and read them.
The problem is that your comments don't make a lot of sense.
First you bemoan the loss of Michael Grabner, then you go off on a tangent about the Canucks not being gritty and tough enough to win in the playoffs.
If we aren't gritty enough why on earth would we swap out a bigger and more physical player like Higgens, Booth, Hansen, etc, to bring in a smaller softer forward who actually scores fewer points over all.
As poster with your opinions on our playoff failings should want absolutely nothing to do with Michael Grabner who might I add is making 3 mill per for the next 4 seasons.
It's just not a logical argument and comes across as just more of the bellyaching we have been reading the bulk of the summer.
-
- CC Rookie
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:19 pm
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
I didn’t realize we were limited to discussing one dimension at a time. I guess a multi-facetted argument dealing with various critiques is unacceptable. Let me do a quick summary:Potatoe1 wrote:The problem is that your comments don't make a lot of sense.Gino's Knuckle wrote: I don't really feel like reiterating all of my comments with respect to same over and over, but, should you be interested, you are welcome to go back and read them.
First you bemoan the loss of Michael Grabner, then you go off on a tangent about the Canucks not being gritty and tough enough to win in the playoffs.
If we aren't gritty enough why on earth would we swap out a bigger and more physical player like Higgens, Booth, Hansen, etc, to bring in a smaller softer forward who actually scores fewer points over all.
As poster with your opinions on our playoff failings should want absolutely nothing to do with Michael Grabner who might I add is making 3 mill per for the next 4 seasons.
It's just not a logical argument and comes across as just more of the bellyaching we have been reading the bulk of the summer.
a) I would have preferred to have kept Grabner;
b) Someone indicated he was too soft;
c) I indicated the team was soft anyway (which led to a side argument on whether the team was “soft” or just “not gritty enough” ad infinitum);
d) I indicated that I felt Grabner’s skillset and potential (speedy goal scorer) outweighed his softness and deficiencies (i.e. the trade-off was worth it).
Just because I think the team needs to get tougher does not equate to my requiring that every movement of the team be about toughness. I think we all understand that you can have a general movement toward something (i.e. increasing toughness), without making every move solely on the basis of that goal (i.e. making a trade that might not get you closer to that specific target but one which you feels increases your overall talent etc.). Every move a team makes is in some senses a trade-off. In my opinion keeping Grabner would have been trade-off that I would have preferred (that is not to say I wouldn’t have made other moves to compensate for toughness).
Lay off the pejoratives and let’s keep the discussion civil. It seems we disagree on the upside of Grabner, that’s fine. Time will tell.
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
Quick question, what would we do with all our free time should the Nucks ever win the SC?
I guess we can always discuss the Whitecaps
I guess we can always discuss the Whitecaps
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
So pointing out the massive discrepancy in your arguments is uncivil?Gino's Knuckle wrote: Lay off the pejoratives and let’s keep the discussion civil.
Pejoratives?
Give me a break I never insulted you, sometimes people can feel "insulted" when their the weakness of their position is exposed, but that's more about you then anything I said.
Multi-facetted arguments are fine as long as they are connected by some sort of logical flow.I didn’t realize we were limited to discussing one dimension at a time. I guess a multi-facetted argument dealing with various critiques is unacceptable. Let me do a quick summary:
Like I said, bemoning the loss of Grabner and then going into a diatribe about the teams over all lack of grit and inability to win in the post season makes no sence.
a) I would have preferred to have kept Grabner;
Yes you have said as much. You do understand however that Grabner is not waiver exempt which means he has to stay on the roster, which means that he has to play. If he does play it is at the expense of one of our other forwards all of whom are either far better (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows) or a lot grittier then Grabner (Hansen, Booth, Higgens, Lappy, Kassian, etc).
Do you not agree ?b) Someone indicated he was too soft;
Again the point made no sense from the start. If the team is soft, why on earth would they want to be any softer. (again I would like to note that soft teams do not get to game 7 of the final, a point you avoided entirely)c) I indicated the team was soft anyway (which led to a side argument on whether the team was “soft” or just “not gritty enough” ad infinitum);
He had 32 points last season.d) I indicated that I felt Grabner’s skillset and potential (speedy goal scorer) outweighed his softness and deficiencies (i.e. the trade-off was worth it).
That is absolutely terrible production for a guy getting top6 minutes. You want to give up grit, and defensive play for a guy who produces less then our other top9 forwards?
And as for Grabners upside, that isn't really the point. Perhaps he can improve but the problem is you have to keep him on the roster and a team with cup aspirations isn't going to want to waste a roster spot on a player that doesn't help them win in the here and now.
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
LOL Spud
You just made me realize, Coho was Grabner.
Where were you when I was pointing that out........... oh yeah.........
You just made me realize, Coho was Grabner.
Where were you when I was pointing that out........... oh yeah.........
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
-
- CC Rookie
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:19 pm
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
I never stated that you insulted me. But your condescension isn’t appreciated.Potatoe1 wrote:So pointing out the massive discrepancy in your arguments is uncivil?Gino's Knuckle wrote:Lay off the pejoratives and let’s keep the discussion civil.
Pejoratives?
Give me a break I never insulted you, sometimes people can feel "insulted" when their the weakness of their position is exposed, but that's more about you then anything I said.
Think I made it pretty clear that my discussion with respect to the team’s softness/lack of grit was in response to someone else’s commentary – that isn’t discrepant, it is just a side topic. Not sure how much more clear I can be with that. I guess we can have separate threads for every different thought, but that seems a little excessive to me.
And like I said, my discussion regarding the “softness” or “lack of grit” was in response to another poster. i.e. side argument. Would you see more logic were I to, as noted above, immediately start a new thread dealing with that side-topic rather than debating it in the same thread in which it was brought up?Potatoe1 wrote:Multi-facetted arguments are fine as long as they are connected by some sort of logical flow.I didn’t realize we were limited to discussing one dimension at a time. I guess a multi-facetted argument dealing with various critiques is unacceptable. Let me do a quick summary:
Like I said, bemoning the loss of Grabner and then going into a diatribe about the teams over all lack of grit and inability to win in the post season makes no sence.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I understand. And as I have pointed out over and over, in my opinion the trade-off would have been fine. It's not as if keeping Grabner would have resulted in the exclusion of any moves to address the issue of toughness.Potatoe1 wrote:Yes you have said as much. You do understand however that Grabner is not waiver exempt which means he has to stay on the roster, which means that he has to play. If he does play it is at the expense of one of our other forwards all of whom are either far better (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows) or a lot grittier then Grabner (Hansen, Booth, Higgens, Lappy, Kassian, etc).a) I would have preferred to have kept Grabner;
I agree he is soft. My point was and is and will continue to be that the dimension I feel he brings is worth the trade-off on a team which is already “soft” or “not gritty enough”. You can work on the grit in other moves.Potatoe1 wrote:Do you not agree ?b) Someone indicated he was too soft;
Since you didn’t seem to get it the first time, let me repost:Potatoe1 wrote:Again the point made no sense from the start. If the team is soft, why on earth would they want to be any softer. (again I would like to note that soft teams do not get to game 7 of the final, a point you avoided entirely)c) I indicated the team was soft anyway (which led to a side argument on whether the team was “soft” or just “not gritty enough” ad infinitum);
As for the “avoided” point, did you actually watch the beating they took from Boston? Or from LA? Maybe they weren’t “soft” but they sure as hell weren’t gritty enough.Gino's Knuckle wrote: Just because I think the team needs to get tougher does not equate to my requiring that every movement of the team be about toughness. I think we all understand that you can have a general movement toward something (i.e. increasing toughness), without making every move solely on the basis of that goal (i.e. making a trade that might not get you closer to that specific target but one which you feels increases your overall talent etc.). Every move a team makes is in some senses a trade-off. In my opinion keeping Grabner would have been trade-off that I would have preferred (that is not to say I wouldn’t have made other moves to compensate for toughness).
His production for the Canucks may have been better, and given what seemed to be really good chemistry with Kesler, likely would have been. As indicated prior, my opinion regarding the last season was that it was an anomaly. His season before was 33 goals – you don’t think that would have been more helpful than a defenseman who the coach won’t play?Potatoe1 wrote:He had 32 points last season.d) I indicated that I felt Grabner’s skillset and potential (speedy goal scorer) outweighed his softness and deficiencies (i.e. the trade-off was worth it).
That is absolutely terrible production for a guy getting top6 minutes. You want to give up grit, and defensive play for a guy who produces less then our other top9 forwards?
And as for Grabners upside, that isn't really the point. Perhaps he can improve but the problem is you have to keep him on the roster and a team with cup aspirations isn't going to want to waste a roster spot on a player that doesn't help them win in the here and now.
His upside does remain a point, as does Kassian’s, Tanev’s, et al. I, again, see the dimension he brings to the team as something that could help now as well as in the future. Now maybe I am wrong on that, but that doesn’t make said argument illogical it just means that the facts upon which the argument is based are incorrect (if I am wrong).
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
It boggles my mind that some people get pissed off whenever they think they're in a semantics discussion (not saying you), it's as if words have no meaning but I digress...Gino's Knuckle wrote: Okay, I guess now we can move to the semantics of determing the divergence between "not gritty enough" and "too soft". I don't know about the rest of you but what I saw in those two series evidenced an absence of heart and an absence of toughness... But whether I am right or wrong using the term "soft", the team does not have the grit or toughness to win the only trophy that actually means anything. You can argue that until you are blue in the face but the facts say otherwise.
I agree with your point that the team did not have the grit or toughness to win the only trophy that actually means anything (as they were overmatched in those departments compared to the teams that won the Cup the past two years), but you were suggesting that the Canucks were devoid of grit and toughness not just "too soft" or "not gritty enough" which is what I disagreed with. This isn't semantics. It's logic. The Boston Bruins of last year could go up against the Broad Street Bullies in their primes and not be tough enough to win. But that doesn't mean that Bruins were soft does it?
Regardless, Canucks management had made tremendous efforts to address the grit and toughness problem.
Sorry to break it to you bud but that's Potatoe. He thinks only his opinion is the right one and writes like he's some sort of expert that everyone should listen to.Gino's Knuckle wrote: I never stated that you insulted me. But your condescension isn’t appreciated.
-
- CC Rookie
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:19 pm
Re: Canucks Acquire David Booth & Parts + Various Rumours
Fair enough, FAN. Maybe "semantics" is minimizing a point that is actually there. If I implied that there was no toughness on the team at all or hyperbolized same, then I will agree that, in that sense, I was/am wrong. I doubt very many would call Bieksa or Kesler soft (at minimum). I just haven't seen and don't see the team on a whole as being tough or even medium (not to say they don't have a few tough players). On a balance I see them as being a softer team. So whether one prefers "soft", "too soft" , "not gritty enough" for my purposes, those definitions are basically the same.FAN wrote:It boggles my mind that some people get pissed off whenever they think they're in a semantics discussion (not saying you), it's as if words have no meaning but I digress...Gino's Knuckle wrote: Okay, I guess now we can move to the semantics of determing the divergence between "not gritty enough" and "too soft". I don't know about the rest of you but what I saw in those two series evidenced an absence of heart and an absence of toughness... But whether I am right or wrong using the term "soft", the team does not have the grit or toughness to win the only trophy that actually means anything. You can argue that until you are blue in the face but the facts say otherwise.
I agree with your point that the team did not have the grit or toughness to win the only trophy that actually means anything (as they were overmatched in those departments compared to the teams that won the Cup the past two years), but you were suggesting that the Canucks were devoid of grit and toughness not just "too soft" or "not gritty enough" which is what I disagreed with. This isn't semantics. It's logic. The Boston Bruins of last year could go up against the Broad Street Bullies in their primes and not be tough enough to win. But that doesn't mean that Bruins were soft does it?
FAN wrote:Regardless, Canucks management had made tremendous efforts to address the grit and toughness problem.
I wouldn't say "tremendous".