Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

the Dogsalmon wrote:
you cant use the words "Canucks scouts" and professional in the same book...worst scouts in the league...

No they aren't. Not even close to the worst in the league......middle of the pack probably.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:

the Dogsalmon wrote:
you cant use the words "Canucks scouts" and professional in the same book...worst scouts in the league...

No they aren't. Not even close to the worst in the league......middle of the pack probably.

in my opinion they are the worst...since we both live in Canada we can both have different views...

Hey we can all have opinions but the facts are that they aren't the worst scouts......professional or amateur.

It's a free country and your opininion might also be that Rosie O'Donell is better looking than Scarlett Johannsen .

How large of a core do you propose and at what point does the core become the periphery?

Topper wrote:How large of a core do you propose and at what point does the core become the periphery?

I'm just looking for some legitimate core type talent to play with Kesler Topper, instead of seeing Space Cadet Booth, Fall Down Raymond and Journeyman Higgins playing with him. He is all by himself on the 2nd line. I feel bad for the cat. We could use core type talent at the 3rd line centre position, sorry but Yappy Lappy and Manny Cyclops do not cut it. We could use more core type talent on D IMHO.

So there you have it, 4 more core type players needed for this team that Gillis seems to really struggle at solving,not too mention the fact that he has been unable to solve our 4th line situation as well.

Why do you cats want to go down on Gillis all the time? This whole man crush thing is crazy.

So there you have it, 4 more core type players needed for this team

nice pipe dream.

2 questions:

1) how do you pay them? -- we will presumably be close to the cap once the union is crushed.
2) who are they? -- you always name needs, but rarely offer soluttions. name some player names for your core additions.

Madcombinepilot wrote:

So there you have it, 4 more core type players needed for this team

nice pipe dream.

2 questions:

1) how do you pay them? -- we will presumably be close to the cap once the union is crushed.

Home town discount, obviously.

2) who are they? -- you always name needs, but rarely offer soluttions. name some player names for your core additions.

Shane Doan, Shane Doan, Shane Doan, Shane Doan

Lineup looks like

Sedin, Sedin Burrows
Doan, Kesler, Doan
Doan, Doan, Higgins
Kassian, Lappy, Booth

This GM thing is simple. I can't figure out why only one GM a year seems to get it right.

Topper wrote:How large of a core do you propose and at what point does the core become the periphery?

Well he's got about 12-14 guys that he expects to be part of his core. Third liners, 5th and 6th d-men. All the guys on his revamped 4th line would likely be core guys as well.

In fairness to the dude I agree that Kesler needs at least one better winger than they have provided him with in the recent past. I feel Kassian will be a top 6 player but it may take two seasons to get there.

The wheels on the shortbus go round and round, round and round...

Blob said:

The reality is today's core is Schneider, Hamhuis, Garrison, Bieksa and Edler on the back end. Up front the core is the twins, Kesler and Burrows and potentially Kassian.

So basically the only changes in core are on the back end since Gillis took over? I agree and think that the back end is weaker than when he came in.. Luongo, Mitchell, Ohlund, Salo,Bieksa and Edler plus rookie Luc Bourdon..

Not much change on the top 6 forwards.. Maybe Booth instead of Samuelsson? Raymond is playing worse .. Higgins is ok but not great ..Kessler coming back off injury .. The only chance of an improvement is Kassian.. With the twins production inevitably declining as they slow down its time for that " BOLD MOVE" Gillis was touting a couple months ago..

RoyalDude wrote: LOL...Higgins my friend is not a core player. If that is what you consider a core player then you have very low standards. He's s fucking journeyman. You do not build around the likes of Higgins.

That's why I only said arguable. It depends on your criteria. Do they have to be "franchise" type players in order for them to be core players? Do they have to have a long-term contract or past seasons playing for the Canucks? Do they have to be a certain age? Play on the top 2 lines/defensive pairings? Gillis called Burrows a core player. Do you disagree? Do you build around a guy like Burrows?

I do use a looser definition of core player. I take into consideration the player's age, role, contract status and history. For me, there's a strong argument that a player is a core player if he has an important role on the team and has a full NTC/NMC. But it really comes down to what that player means to the team. Once Lapierre signs an extension, I too would consider him a core player (the team have tried to built the 4th line around him). I think Malhotra was a core player before he got injured. I don't know what Gillis' plans are as far as Higgins is concerned, but Higgins has been an important forward for the Vancouver Canucks, ranking right behind the Sedins, Burrows, and Kesler in ice time among forwards and if he signs an extension (more than two years) I consider him a core player alongside Hansen if both of them are used in the way they have been used.

RoyalDude wrote: Mitchell was a big loss for this team, IMO. As you could see how important a player like Mitchell could be in the playoffs, with L.A. He was huge for the Kings. Sure would have loved to have had him in the finals against the Bruins.

Between Hamhuis and Mitchell, I pick Hamhuis. Mitchell wasn't going to be part of the Canucks' long term plans. The Canucks needed to get younger, quicker, and healthier. Personally, I feel Bieksa and Hamhuis are a better pairing than Bieksa and Mitchell were.

FAN wrote:

RoyalDude wrote: Mitchell was a big loss for this team, IMO. As you could see how important a player like Mitchell could be in the playoffs, with L.A. He was huge for the Kings. Sure would have loved to have had him in the finals against the Bruins.

Between Hamhuis and Mitchell, I pick Hamhuis. Mitchell wasn't going to be part of the Canucks' long term plans. The Canucks needed to get younger, quicker, and healthier. Personally, I feel Bieksa and Hamhuis are a better pairing than Bieksa and Mitchell were.

No kidding, but it wasn't between Mitchell & Hamhuis, it was between a 1 or 2 yr deal. Willie wanted 2 and Gillis wouldn't budge off 1. Mitchell deserved 2 and could have been the difference in the Cup run that year. The D core was never the same after he left, we didn't have that defensive type back there who could play tough, block shots etc. Instead we got Rome/Alberts/Tanev etc. Why did we need to get "younger"? Mitchell can *still* play as far as I'm concerned. Bieksa & Hamhuis could have been a pair and Mitchell would have been the no.5.

Guys who I see as core players.....

Hank, Dank, Burrows, Kesler, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Luongo, Schneider, Lapierre.

Guys who should be.....

Edler

Guys who may become.....

Garrison, Kassian, Hansen.

Guys who were core players.....

Malhotra.

I see the core as players who play with confidence and don't take shifts off. Now Bieksa does take shifts off, but there is no question he is a key guy on the core of this team. Lap makes it because he never quits. He isn't a guy you build a core around, but he definitely brings it every night and slots in all over the lineup. He is a downgraded Burrows, but he plays with an edge, and he is probably the best 4th line center this team has seen in a long time.

Edler should be a core player. I would imagine the guys in the room see him as part of the core, and I do see him as a guy that would be an important part of it if he played with a high degree of confidence even as much as 85% of the time, my question mark on Edler is that I sometimes get the sense that he doesn't see himself in that role yet, but he has the tools, just needs to become consistent and then it's a no brainer.

Garrison may become an important part of the core of this team, or he may be another Ballard. Kassian should develop into a core player, that is clearly the hope of management and coaching, and the reports on him from the room seem to support that. Hansen brings it every night, he may be replaceable but I think he's among the best bottom 6 skaters out there when it comes to hustle and effort. On a team where AV is coach that goes a long ways to making you part of the core.

Manny was part of the core for sure last year. After his injury he still has that place in the room, but he sure doesn't have that place out on the ice.

After looking at the roster I'm not at all happy with our blueline right now. Too many question marks.

ClamRussel wrote:

FAN wrote:

RoyalDude wrote: Mitchell was a big loss for this team, IMO. As you could see how important a player like Mitchell could be in the playoffs, with L.A. He was huge for the Kings. Sure would have loved to have had him in the finals against the Bruins.

Between Hamhuis and Mitchell, I pick Hamhuis. Mitchell wasn't going to be part of the Canucks' long term plans. The Canucks needed to get younger, quicker, and healthier. Personally, I feel Bieksa and Hamhuis are a better pairing than Bieksa and Mitchell were.

No kidding, but it wasn't between Mitchell & Hamhuis, it was between a 1 or 2 yr deal. Willie wanted 2 and Gillis wouldn't budge off 1. Mitchell deserved 2 and could have been the difference in the Cup run that year. The D core was never the same after he left, we didn't have that defensive type back there who could play tough, block shots etc. Instead we got Rome/Alberts/Tanev etc. Why did we need to get "younger"? Mitchell can *still* play as far as I'm concerned. Bieksa & Hamhuis could have been a pair and Mitchell would have been the no.5.

Would have been great to have both Hamhuis and Willie on the back end.. instead Gillis lowballed Willie with a 1 year 1.8 million offer and brought in Ballard at more than double that..
for Fan .. quote from wiki
"On August 25, 2010, Mitchell signed a two-year deal worth $3.5 million per season with the Los Angeles Kings.[56] He had interest from several other teams, including the Washington Capitals and San Jose Sharks.[57] The Canucks were also offering a one-year contract between $1.8 and $2 million, but were not willing to match the Kings' deal"

Tiger wrote:
Would have been great to have both Hamhuis and Willie on the back end.. instead Gillis lowballed Willie with a 1 year 1.8 million offer and brought in Ballard at more than double that..
for Fan .. quote from wiki
"On August 25, 2010, Mitchell signed a two-year deal worth $3.5 million per season with the Los Angeles Kings.[56] He had interest from several other teams, including the Washington Capitals and San Jose Sharks.[57] The Canucks were also offering a one-year contract between $1.8 and $2 million, but were not willing to match the Kings' deal"

...the horror, the horror, the horror...

Not only that, the fact that Gillis would not have to have give up anything for the services of Mitchell, is that we gave up some pretty good assets for the much more expensive yet much more useless Ballard.

So instead we are left with an expensive porky American when we good have had a good ol B.C. boy who plays his heart out every shift. BTW, is Lord Stanley still in Tofino?