Yeah, that's the ticket.I must say I am most pleased with the overall boards demeanor..
Next year is our year, not last nor this but next...trust me on that.
Or the year after that.
Or maybe the next one.
The year after that???
Moderator: Referees
Yeah, that's the ticket.I must say I am most pleased with the overall boards demeanor..
Next year is our year, not last nor this but next...trust me on that.
Not this season, last season.Jovocop wrote:Why didn't Raymond get more PP time? Was he surpassed by others on the pp depth chart? Henrik, Daniel and Kesler were fixtures on the powerplay. Would you rather have Booth, Higgins, and Burrows on the powerplay than Raymond? He was given every chance to succeed but failed to do so. Unlike Kesler, Raymond was not expected to carry a line. He was just there to compliment a line but still failed miserably.Larry Goodenough wrote:You're taking a risk offering Raymond a new contract as you might get this years model again. You're taking a risk letting him walk away if he returns to the model from the 2 previous seasons after a proper off season of training.Eddy Punch Clock wrote:These two comments are as much about retaining as much trade value possible afaic.
I'll also point out last year, Raymond had just as many even strength points as he did the year before. The reduction in points came from less time on the PP and no kelser on the 2nd unit. I assume that means Gillis saw more value in his previous season than most fans.
I would think what Gillis does depends on how the team feels his injury affected him this season. These comments might shed some light on his thoughts.
I don't see a lot of downside in qualifying Raymond if the cap increases as expected.Larry Goodenough wrote: You're taking a risk offering Raymond a new contract as you might get this years model again. You're taking a risk letting him walk away if he returns to the model from the 2 previous seasons after a proper off season of training.
It's what must be done .....donlever wrote:Yeah, that's the ticket.I must say I am most pleased with the overall boards demeanor..
Next year is our year, not last nor this but next...trust me on that.
Or the year after that.
Or maybe the next one.
The year after that???
Couldn't agree more, talk about single-handedly making this board worth reading, not that there aren't others as wellTopper wrote:Gillis confirmed much of what HW passed along to us after the trade deadline. We need something better than Velcro to make sure HW does not leave us. Hmmmm I've got a set of handcuffs and stocks in the basement.......
It was, much as Tant regularly does, a number thrown out off the top of his head to show the point and most of us were not too thick to miss the point.Potatoe1 wrote:Unfortunately zone starts are tracked and Gillis was less then truthfull with his comments on that.Hockey Widow wrote:One thing I meant to say, MG said that Cody was built up for a trade. He didn't use those words. By design he took fewer than 5% defensive zone face offs and was put in the best position to succeed.
My ears are burning...ukcanuck wrote:Couldn't agree more, talk about single-handedly making this board worth reading, not that there aren't others as well
All it means to me is that he hasn't talked to the boss yet and that there is a due process for these things.Larry Goodenough wrote:Finally heard the comments.
Gillis did say good things about Vigneault but refused to say he'll be coming back.
Vigneault was also not there, like he has been in the past.
Refusing to say he's coming back for sure means something.......
Gillis doesn't strike me as a guy who throws around numbers flippantly, he's typically very measured.Topper wrote: It was, much as Tant regularly does, a number thrown out off the top of his head to show the point and most of us were not too thick to miss the point.
Yep, getting Zack for the playoffs was a gamble, it didn't work out. (although I'm not sure Cody would have made a difference)Potatoe1 wrote: Fairly obvious Gillis is saying some of this stuff in response to the heat he is taking for the trade.
If Zack had come in and killed it, he likely wouldn't have said anything about Cody.
The downside is that if you can't or don't move BobbyLou, then cap space is an issue.Potatoe1 wrote:I don't see a lot of downside in qualifying Raymond if the cap increases as expected.Larry Goodenough wrote: You're taking a risk offering Raymond a new contract as you might get this years model again. You're taking a risk letting him walk away if he returns to the model from the 2 previous seasons after a proper off season of training.
Give him another year at 2.5 to see if he can get his shit together and if he cant then let him walk as a UFA.
If the Canucks move Luongo there is a very good chance they will be well below the cap next year.
It was, much as Tant regularly does, a number thrown out off the top of his head to show the point and most of us were not too thick to miss the point.[/quote]Topper wrote:
Unfortunately zone starts are tracked and Gillis was less then truthfull with his comments on that.
Potatoe1 wrote:Unfortunately zone starts are tracked and Gillis was less then truthfull with his comments on that.Hockey Widow wrote:One thing I meant to say, MG said that Cody was built up for a trade. He didn't use those words. By design he took fewer than 5% defensive zone face offs and was put in the best position to succeed.
Clearly he was getting sheltered ice time but what Gillis said was a major exaggeration if not fabrication.
Cody was getting slightly more offensive zone draws then defensive, he was playing with 3rd and sometimes 4th liners, and getting second unit power play time (Which was well deserved BTW he was very, very good on the power play).
That said I do believe him when he says that Cody was a PITA.
donlever wrote:...Yeah I believe he has to be qualified at his existing contract value or he is free to go as a UFA.
So 2.5 or the road as I understand it.