Arnott

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

The_Pauser
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: Arnott

Post by The_Pauser » Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:37 pm

ClamRussel wrote:Apparently there's an offer of $1.2 on the table for Arnott to ponder.
The "source" you read that from is about as connected as a newborn cat. Seriously, go back and read his previous tweets. I got sick of his "it's all about me[ow]" posts and how he's trying to prove to everyone that he's connected. He's a joke!

User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Arnott

Post by ClamRussel » Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:13 pm

The_Pauser wrote:
ClamRussel wrote:Apparently there's an offer of $1.2 on the table for Arnott to ponder.
The "source" you read that from is about as connected as a newborn cat. Seriously, go back and read his previous tweets. I got sick of his "it's all about me[ow]" posts and how he's trying to prove to everyone that he's connected. He's a joke!
No doubt Pauser, but he's been fairly on the mark on quite a few developments this summer. Better than reading another Botchford article.

We shall see.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17138
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Arnott

Post by Strangelove » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:31 am

Mondi wrote:Ah but aren't Botchford's columns the perfect balance of cynicism, negativity and guess work. With a healthy dash of incendiary suggestion...
Yeah..... he's just like...... YOU!! :wink:

(minus the incendiary suggestions of course)

CLAM, PAUSER: great to see you fellas posting again!!

I must say I'm really loving Pauser's posts over at HF these days.....
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 9667
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Arnott

Post by Topper » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:05 pm

Shepherds have too much curve on their staffs. Hampers both shooting and puck handling.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

The_Pauser
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: Arnott

Post by The_Pauser » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:20 pm

ClamRussel wrote:
The_Pauser wrote:
ClamRussel wrote:Apparently there's an offer of $1.2 on the table for Arnott to ponder.
The "source" you read that from is about as connected as a newborn cat. Seriously, go back and read his previous tweets. I got sick of his "it's all about me[ow]" posts and how he's trying to prove to everyone that he's connected. He's a joke!
No doubt Pauser, but he's been fairly on the mark on quite a few developments this summer. Better than reading another Botchford article.

We shall see.
Well I know my Pittsburgh Parise jersey and my Detroit Suter jersey are coming in the mail. How's your Luongo Leaves jersey? You know...he was confirmed to have been dealt at the draft, funny I didn't hear about it. I guess our local media dropped the ball on that one.

User avatar
Canuck-One
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:49 am
Location: Living the Life

Re: Arnott

Post by Canuck-One » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:36 pm

The offer of 1.2 is just about right for a 37 year old player who has slowed somewhat. He brings a 50% FO average, he's big and strong and he has offensive smarts. He won't score 50 points in a season again but he could serve us well in the third centre position and provide some 2nd line duty until Kesler gets back. All in all he would be a nice fit if he should choose to come here.

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11509
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Arnott

Post by RoyalDude » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:09 pm

Just another classic example of the Vancouver Canucks not being a prospect/kid/rookie friendly environment. Bring in the old men to take valuable developmental time away from our kids, brilliant stuff Gillis. It's really great for the long term health of this franchise.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Arnott

Post by Fred » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:36 pm

RoyalDude wrote:Just another classic example of the Vancouver Canucks not being a prospect/kid/rookie friendly environment. Bring in the old men to take valuable developmental time away from our kids, brilliant stuff Gillis. It's really great for the long term health of this franchise.
Here's the question that has to be asked is the club in a position to challenge for the SC if so that goal is not synonymous with development. If you have a young club building then heck go with the youngsters. Tell me is the club type "A" or "B" ?

IMO apart from the lucky run with Linden & Co this is as close as we've been. Having said that Philly usually throws some youthfull enthusiasim into their line uo every year, or so it seems
cheers

CFP!
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:22 pm

Re: Arnott

Post by CFP! » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:58 pm

RoyalDude wrote:Just another classic example of the Vancouver Canucks not being a prospect/kid/rookie friendly environment. Bring in the old men to take valuable developmental time away from our kids, brilliant stuff Gillis. It's really great for the long term health of this franchise.

When did Holland and co ever let a young forward develop in the NHL? It could be to our benefit for our Fippula, Hudler, Abdelkader to develop and kickass prior to feeling the pressure and are ready to provide that second push to keep this in contention for another 5yrs while only adding spare parts (ie: Doan/Arnott) to supplant the "new core".



Just saying....

User avatar
CaptainTrev
CC Veteran
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Re: Arnott

Post by CaptainTrev » Sat Aug 04, 2012 7:50 am

CFP! wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:Just another classic example of the Vancouver Canucks not being a prospect/kid/rookie friendly environment. Bring in the old men to take valuable developmental time away from our kids, brilliant stuff Gillis. It's really great for the long term health of this franchise.

When did Holland and co ever let a young forward develop in the NHL? It could be to our benefit for our Fippula, Hudler, Abdelkader to develop and kickass prior to feeling the pressure and are ready to provide that second push to keep this in contention for another 5yrs while only adding spare parts (ie: Doan/Arnott) to supplant the "new core".



Just saying....
And it's not like we've got a bunch of prospects kicking in the door. Whose path, exactly, would Arnott/Doan be blocking at this point?

The only guy I can see who is maybe knocking on the door is Kassian, and his development would hardly be crippled by another year of shuttling between Chicago and Vancouver. Schroeder is still a big maybe, and anyway he can play center or wing. Jensen is probably a couple of years away. Gaunce? Friesen? Mallet? Rodin? That's not exactly a group that makes me believe there will be a big push coming that requires MG to clear the decks.

The following season would be a different story, at least I hope so anyway. Malhotra, Lapierre, Raymond and theoretically, Arnott would be on expiring contracts and by then I would expect AV and MG to leave more of a clear path for the guys I mentioned.

If MG and co. think Arnott can still play, and he is willing to sign a reasonable 1-year deal then I say go for it. But only if they strike out on Doan, of course :mrgreen:
"Perhaps there is no moral to this story."

"Exactly! It's just a bunch of stuff that happened."

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Arnott

Post by Fred » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:31 am

CFP! wrote:

When did Holland and co ever let a young forward develop in the NHL? It could be to our benefit for our Fippula, Hudler, Abdelkader to develop and kickass prior to feeling the pressure and are ready to provide that second push to keep this in contention for another 5yrs while only adding spare parts (ie: Doan/Arnott) to supplant the "new core".



Just saying....

Going to be interesting to see how Detroit does in the immediate future, their draft and development has for the most part been over rated because of their "lucky" late draft picks. There ain't much there these days .... which conform their scouts were 2 parts luck and 1 part astute choices in the past...or they'd be pumping out quality picks every year
cheers

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11509
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Arnott

Post by RoyalDude » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:32 am

CaptainTrev wrote: And it's not like we've got a bunch of prospects kicking in the door. Whose path, exactly, would Arnott/Doan be blocking at this point?
Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.

But according to you guys, ya don't mind Gillis continuing on after 5 drafts and having zero representation from kids he has drafted in the starting roster come next season. Worst in the league in this category, btw.

But hey lets play it safe....what I don't get, with Vancouver having the worst travel schedule in the league and a team who notoriously battles the injury bug which is most likely due to hours spent cramped up on planes and in airports and hotels...why are we filling the team with old guys who take away valuable time away from the kids? Ya know there will be a lot of times where you will be saying "where is Doan, where is Arnott". It's because they are coasting/resting due to body maintenance from the Canuck grind. Why did Boston beat us? we were beaten down, and they were young and healthy not to mention having a nice geographical location when it comes to travel. The Canucks don't have that luxury so why are we filling the team with old guys, ass backwards if you ask me.

Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
the Dogsalmon
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:12 am
Location: in the ainus

Re: Arnott

Post by the Dogsalmon » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:43 am

RoyalDude wrote:
CaptainTrev wrote: And it's not like we've got a bunch of prospects kicking in the door. Whose path, exactly, would Arnott/Doan be blocking at this point?
Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.

But according to you guys, ya don't mind Gillis continuing on after 5 drafts and having zero representation from kids he has drafted in the starting roster come next season. Worst in the league in this category, btw.

But hey lets play it safe....what I don't get, with Vancouver having the worst travel schedule in the league and a team who notoriously battles the injury bug which is most likely due to hours spent cramped up on planes and in airports and hotels...why are we filling the team with old guys who take away valuable time away from the kids? Ya know there will be a lot of times where you will be saying "where is Doan, where is Arnott". It's because they are coasting/resting due to body maintenance from the Canuck grind. Why did Boston beat us? we were beaten down, and they were young and healthy not to mention having a nice geographical location when it comes to travel. The Canucks don't have that luxury so why are we filling the team with old guys, ass backwards if you ask me.

Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere.


BING fucking GO!!!

User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Arnott

Post by coco_canuck » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:51 am

RoyalDude wrote: Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.
The only year all those guys played on the same team, the Canucks missed the playoffs.

Bieka, Kesler and Burrows got some experience, but other than Kesler, neither Bieksa nor Burrows played the full year with the Canucks.
RoyalDude wrote: Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere
They have to be adequately ready to play.

Just throwing players to the wolves doesn't work if they're not up to the fight.

I'm not sold on what Arnott has left in the tank, but on a reasonable 1 year deal, he'd be adequate, veteran insurance if he can keep the pace on this team.

Last year Sturm was brought in as a veteran project, and as soon as they realized he couldn't do much for this team, he was shipped out.

The Sturms and Arnotts are very expendable if they don't fit properly, or if a young player can win a job.

For the most part, rookies go through ups and downs, and usually fade towards the end of the year as the grind of the NHL, and the playoffs really wear down youngsters. This is precisely why a team needs veteran depth, even if they're planning on bringing young players along.

So far, Gillis' drafting hasn't produced enough dividends, but Hodgson became a regular, and the book hasn't closed on the rest of this system.

Also, Gillis has been on record saying Connauton, Corrado, Schroeder, and Jensen will be given very long looks in camp.

If those guys show enough in camp, they'll make the team. But if they don't, I really do not understand why they should be rushed and given spots on a top team in the NHL.

wienerdog
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Arnott

Post by wienerdog » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:56 am

coco_canuck wrote:
RoyalDude wrote: Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.
The only year all those guys played on the same team, the Canucks missed the playoffs.

Bieka, Kesler and Burrows got some experience, but other than Kesler, neither Bieksa nor Burrows played the full year with the Canucks.
RoyalDude wrote: Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere
They have to be adequately ready to play.

Just throwing players to the wolves doesn't work if they're not up to the fight.

I'm not sold on what Arnott has left in the tank, but on a reasonable 1 year deal, he'd be adequate, veteran insurance if he can keep the pace on this team.

Last year Sturm was brought in as a veteran project, and as soon as they realized he couldn't do much for this team, he was shipped out.

The Sturms and Arnotts are very expendable if they don't fit properly, or if a young player can win a job.

For the most part, rookies go through ups and downs, and usually fade towards the end of the year as the grind of the NHL, and the playoffs really wear down youngsters. This is precisely why a team needs veteran depth, even if they're planning on bringing young players along.

So far, Gillis' drafting hasn't produced enough dividends, but Hodgson became a regular, and the book hasn't closed on the rest of this system.

Also, Gillis has been on record saying Connauton, Corrado, Schroeder, and Jensen will be given very long looks in camp.

If those guys show enough in camp, they'll make the team. But if they don't, I really do not understand why they should be rushed and given spots on a top team in the NHL.
BING fucking GO this.

Post Reply