Page 12 of 30
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Tue May 28, 2013 12:46 pm
by Island Nucklehead
Per wrote:Rödin is returning home and has signed a two year contract with Brynäs.
Oh Well.
I wonder how much Brad Richards would cost once the Rags buy him out? Hank-Kes-Richards for under $15M would help the C depth.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 6:30 am
by Topper
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 8:27 am
by Eddy Punch Clock
Topper wrote:
As Spudley said last night...
I don't get it.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 8:38 am
by Blob Mckenzie
Personally I think a jap bike would have been more appropriate.
RIP Luc.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 8:49 am
by donlever
Eddy Punch Clock wrote: As Spudley said last night...
I don't get it.
I'm gonna guess he is referring to the pace at which Brad Richards gets around the ice these days.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 8:50 am
by Orcasfan
Here's a radical thought - one way of changing the roster and improving the scoring is to move players around. I don't mean the line juggling that AV was in love with, either.
So, here is the new 1st line: Sedin - Sedin - Kesler
With this, you have potentially made changes/improvements to the top nine. Kesler is probably an upgrade on Burr on the first line; he's younger; he shoots right; he is a shooter, not a passer. This could be the only way to get Kesler onto the 1st line while he is still at his (theoretical) peak. I think it would also mature him as a player, under the influence of the twins.
The 2nd line could be: Burrows - Schroeder - Kassian/Jensen
Burr would be the leader on this line. Schroeder would have a chance to develop and show his true talent in a niche that he would be suited to. Kassian or Jensen would add size and either toughness or more scoring skill. Again, Jensen seems to be a shooter more than a passer. Burr would mentor that young line well defensively.
And then the 3rd line could be: Higgins - New guy/Gaunce - New guy/Gaunce/other prospect
Obviously, in one sense, the key to this line would be acquiring a good, experienced C, with good face-off skill. The rest speaks for itself. If we give Gaunce a good chance to make the roster on this line, he has time to develop his defensive skills even more. At the same time, with a good C, he could also contribute offensively. Putting Gaunce at the C position immediately would not be wise. That position has too much responsibility for a young rookie to bear. But it might not take too long for him to take over those duties in a couple of years.
It seems to me that a new coach might be willing to try stuff like this. I hope this is the type of brainstorming that is going on with GMMG & Co. And certainly should be discussed with the new coaching staff. Of course, there are a couple of "questions", that might derail this scheme. First, is Schroeder going to be ready come September (shoulder surgery). Then, would Kes work with the Sedins? Also. are Jensen and Gaunce able to make the team. I'm assuming that the answers to all these questions is "Yes", but it is only an assumption! I'm also asuming that GMMG is able to find a 3rd C (and that shouldn't be an assumption, but is..
).
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:10 am
by Topper
A hole in the Canucks youth you can and someone did, drive a truck through.
...................on this day in history..........
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:18 am
by Eddy Punch Clock
Topper wrote:A hole in the Canucks youth you can and someone did, drive a truck through.
...................on this day in history..........
Thats what I first thought... but for some reason I thought that happened later in the summer.
Probably because back then by late May the Canucks had been almost two months separated from hockey.
I like Levers explanation though.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:23 am
by donlever
Eddy Punch Clock wrote:
I like Levers explanation though.
So did I.
Never in a billion years would I have remembered when Bourdon died.
Man I used to really care about this stuff to the point of recalling finite details on everything Canuck.
Now?
Meh.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:28 am
by Eddy Punch Clock
donlever wrote:Eddy Punch Clock wrote:
I like Levers explanation though.
Now?
Meh.
Don't you mean blech?
----------------------
Officially: 12, 16, 19
Unofficially: 11 (or so you'd think) 28, 37
What a rich history we have. Only one number should be up there.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:55 am
by donlever
You mean 10 right?
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:59 am
by sagebrush
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 10:17 am
by Topper
Blob Mckenzie wrote:RIP Luc.
I always laugh at the irony of that statement.
Letting 'er rip was his demise.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 2:44 pm
by Spock
donlever wrote:Eddy Punch Clock wrote:
I like Levers explanation though.
Never in a billion years would I have remembered when Bourdon died.
Man I used to really care about this stuff to the point of recalling finite details on everything Canuck.
Now?
Meh.
Donnie - sounds like you have come to the end of your personal tolerance for the NHL and the Canucks. Why are you still riding this bus? Are you in the process of getting off? Or trying to hang on and see what happens? Just curious.
Re: Roster Questions
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 2:56 pm
by Arachnid
Spock wrote:donlever wrote:Eddy Punch Clock wrote:
I like Levers explanation though.
Never in a billion years would I have remembered when Bourdon died.
Man I used to really care about this stuff to the point of recalling finite details on everything Canuck.
Now?
Meh.
Donnie - sounds like you have come to the end of your personal tolerance for the NHL and the Canucks. Why are you still riding this bus? Are you in the process of getting off? Or trying to hang on and see what happens? Just curious.
Neither, Alzheimer's do to too much StarBucks...