2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

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

Moderator: Referees

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Benjo » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:39 pm

And so it begins, kassian with back spasms Booth/Hamhuis with groin strains.
Benjo
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:39 pm

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby SKYO » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:27 pm

Benjo wrote:And so it begins, kassian with back spasms Booth/Hamhuis with groin strains.

Yeah good thing we signed Barker! :look:
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Strangelove » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:04 pm

Vader wrote:
coco_canuck wrote:You know hockey is back when people are pissed off over a depth signing.


You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent

I find it funny people will justify any move Gillis makes yet I think one of Gillis' best moves was the subject of ridicule on boards like this- that being finding Aaron Rome. Rome was an extremely solid depth player. I don't think Barker will give them anywhere near the stability that Rome provided.


The Great Strangelove always said Rome was a great depth defensemen.

It seemed as though... half... the folks at old CC thought the same?

True the rest kicked him real hard in the proverbial groin on a regular basis.

The good thing about signing Barker is that soon he will be everybody's whipping boy!

.... which means Raymond might start getting a little slack.

BTW from Day One the Great Strangelove always kicked Raymond real hard in the proverbial groin.

Folks like my buddy RD were always quick to provide first-aid to dat dere

... until about 2 years ago.

The Great Strangelove is NOT saying the Great Strangelove is always right.

For example, the Great Strangelove kicked GMMG real hard in the proverbial groin on a regular basis for 2 full seasons.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7335
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Strangelove » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:08 pm

SKYO wrote:
Benjo wrote:And so it begins, kassian with back spasms Booth/Hamhuis with groin strains.

Yeah good thing we signed Barker! :look:


Yeah. :look:

BTW did Barker get cut from an AHL team this season? :look:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7335
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby herb » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:22 pm

Vader wrote:You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent.


Totally agreed that your #7 guy needs to be decent, but to be fair, and I hate this signing, Barker is #8 on the defensive depth chart at this point. Unless he has a great mini-camp and start to the season (and assuming to trades involving d-men are made), he'll start the season as a depth player.

Unless there are injuries out of camp, I'd be surprised if he is on the opening night roster, and he could very well be a guy who doesn't play more than a handful of games for us this season.
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby coco_canuck » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Vader wrote:You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent


You're assuming Barker is going to be the #7 D-man on this team for the full season.

Luongo hasn't been dealt and the season has yet to begin. Barker has been brought into the mix to see what he has but considering how fluid everything is and how unpredictable a short season is, there could be more moves to be made and the waiver wire could be really busy.

Lots still up in the air...no one has guaranteed Barker anything.

Vader wrote:I find it funny people will justify any move Gillis makes yet I think one of Gillis' best moves was the subject of ridicule on boards like this- that being finding Aaron Rome. Rome was an extremely solid depth player. I don't think Barker will give them anywhere near the stability that Rome provided.


I don't know who you're referring too when it comes justifying Gillis' every move...but I've defended Rome quite a bit and we really don't yet know if Barker is going to be the Rome replacement.

The NHL officially came back yesterday and today was day 1 of camp.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:50 pm

herb wrote:
Vader wrote:You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent.


Totally agreed that your #7 guy needs to be decent, but to be fair, and I hate this signing, Barker is #8 on the defensive depth chart at this point. Unless he has a great mini-camp and start to the season (and assuming to trades involving d-men are made), he'll start the season as a depth player.

Unless there are injuries out of camp, I'd be surprised if he is on the opening night roster, and he could very well be a guy who doesn't play more than a handful of games for us this season.


That's just it.... I would have preferred Vandermeer and i'd say this is the end of the line if Barker craps the bed. That said he was in demand 2 1/2 years ago......wtf happened to the guy ? He will be # 8 d man if he stays here and if he plays for the Wolves big deal. I guess MG wanted some cheap insurance with NHL experience. I probably was feeling the effects of a hangover when i said he could replace Ballard. Cam Barker would have to do a complete 180 for that to happen.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:54 pm

Furthermore, Rome was really only carved up when his dad kept feeding him PP time and playing him in the top 4 all the while sandbagging a superior asset in Ballard who his GM had recently acquired. I don't think anyone had a big problem with Aaron Rome as a 6/7 guy ..... I know i didn't. I do know that I was upset that AV had a huge crush on the guy but that's about it. He could seemingly do no wrong on this team while Ballard could apparently do nothing right. I'd take Rome at 1.25 million or whatever he's getting over Ballard at 4.2..........especially considering who's coaching the team.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Topper » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:26 am

The not so great strangelove said fans would not miss a game this season.

Barker replaces Tanev on the Wolves.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Lloyd Braun » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:17 am

I'm going to choose the unpopular route and say that I like this signing.

The reality is that he's competing with Connauton for the #8 spot on the depth-chart behind Alberts. Worst case scenario, he's a depth guy with NHL experience who plays for the Wolves and we feel really lucky to have in the case of a ridiculous (but not unprecedented) run of 3-4 defensive injuries. Best case scenario, he's a guy with fantastic potential who has thus-far had his career derailed by immaturity and injuries, but who figures it out in Vancouver and becomes an important part of the team for years to come. Is the worst case scenario more likely than the best? Hell yes, by a HUGE margin, but it's a classic low-risk, high-reward option.

... Okay, worst case scenario is that he's a headcase who disrupts the room, but I think it's a highly unlikely possibility. He seems to understand that he's out of chances, so I'd be shocked if he burns this (potentially final) bridge to the NHL. Even if it does happen, we drop him without much cost.

I don't have an educated opinion about the question of him vs Vandermeer, because I haven't watched either player extensively. What I do know, however, is that this organisation places a big emphasis on having all 18 guys able to play in both ends. This means defensively responsible forwards, and quick, puck moving defensemen. I'm not trying to start a debate about this philosophy (though personally, I like it), but there's no question that Barker fits the team's ethos better than Vandermeer.
Lloyd Braun
CC Rookie
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby tantalum » Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:44 am

I don't like Barker but if anything he's going to be the #8 guy sitting in the press box who isn't going to see much ice. We all know Gillis likes to have 8 D-men available to him and in a condensed schedule flying someone back and forth like they often did with Tanev isn't a great option (if they even have that guy). And well in order to have a guy sit in the press box you need to pay him somewhere around the league minimum.

I'd be concenred if they were looking at Barker as being any sort of solution in the top 6 but that isn't the case. I'd love to have 8 top 4 D-men on the roster but it simply isn't going to happen. At some point a #7 is going to be a #7 and a #8 is going to be a #8.

And hey maybe it's simply a teaching moment for Connauton. A this is the type of crap play you can expect in your future if you don't figure out the defensive side of the puck type of thing.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby RoyalDude » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:33 am

Lloyd Braun wrote:I'm going to choose the unpopular route and say that I like this signing.



...and so it begins
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4458
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:29 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Furthermore, Rome was really only carved up when his dad kept feeding him PP time and playing him in the top 4 all the while sandbagging a superior asset in Ballard who his GM had recently acquired.


I really think this Rome talk is blown out of proportion.

Lots of talk about a guy who played in 43 games last year, averaging 15:13 of ice-time and played a whopping 22 minutes total on the PP last season.

Ballard played in 47 games but missed significant time with injuries last year, and in the playoffs Ballard dressed over Rome as soon as he was healthy.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Uncle dans leg » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:37 am

RoyalDude wrote:
...and so it begins

:rofl:

Edit: Not at u or LLoyd but at the perception of homerism. I agree that sometimes we seem to get behind everything MG does but I don't think that's the case here at all. I don't think he's endorsing Barker as much as the addition of depth players with some potential.
nobody forks with...the jesus
User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Lethbridge AB

Re: 2013 Canucks Short Preseason/Training Camp

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:53 am

coco_canuck wrote:
Blob Mckenzie wrote:Furthermore, Rome was really only carved up when his dad kept feeding him PP time and playing him in the top 4 all the while sandbagging a superior asset in Ballard who his GM had recently acquired.


I really think this Rome talk is blown out of proportion.

Lots of talk about a guy who played in 43 games last year, averaging 15:13 of ice-time and played a whopping 22 minutes total on the PP last season.

Ballard played in 47 games but missed significant time with injuries last year, and in the playoffs Ballard dressed over Rome as soon as he was healthy.


I was referring to the season before when AV played Rome ahead of Ballard. I probably should have mentioned that. Last year , especially in the 2nd half of the season and playoffs Ballard was given a bit more of an opportunity.

As I said I have zero problem with Aaron Rome as a 6th/7th guy but he will probably get a better chance in big D.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lloyd Braun, rats19 and 2 guests