... and timely.mathonwy wrote:Thanks Hdub.Hockey Widow wrote:
Now that you know the plan, whether you agree with the plan or not, try evaluating the moves.
This snarkiness side of you is kinda interesting.

Moderator: Referees
... and timely.mathonwy wrote:Thanks Hdub.Hockey Widow wrote:
Now that you know the plan, whether you agree with the plan or not, try evaluating the moves.
This snarkiness side of you is kinda interesting.
ClamRussel wrote: The weight of the franchise he could handle.
I agree with you. And I'm not basing my views on his stretch there, just that I have my doubts that he's a starting goalie at this point.Whipping him like a rented mule for 19 straight is not reasonable or conducive for evaluation.
Because some of us don't agree with the side that likes this trade?Strangelove wrote:... and timely.mathonwy wrote:Thanks Hdub.Hockey Widow wrote:
Now that you know the plan, whether you agree with the plan or not, try evaluating the moves.
This snarkiness side of you is kinda interesting.
I do believe HW stated a lot more than dat dere.mathonwy wrote: Because some of us don't agree with the side that likes this trade?
Boo hoo. Deal with it.
Yes, and the media want to sell papers and create shit when by all accounts Miller and Lack have never even met and the Canucks haven't even discussed workload. Miller's workload was scaled back last year in Buffalo, with Enroth getting more starts.Hockey Widow wrote: So to recap:
We are not tanking
We want to be a playoff team
We don't want to be in the lottery race
We are re-tooling, not re-building.
Ryan Miller wrote:“It’s an Olympic year. We’re factoring in the possibility of more travel and playing time for maybe both of us. So the idea is to balance (playing time) out a little bit more and looking at the trend in the NHL.“The season started thinking more about making playoffs and how that all shapes up and adds up. It means that both guys have to carry a load. You need energy to win games. You want to sustain that all year.”
As per yer modus operandi, you can't help but insult the other side. It really is hard to take you serious at times.Strangelove wrote:It's all good Mat, it's your constant state of confusion that endears you to so many.mathonwy wrote: I don't like this one bit and further confuses me on whether or not we're rebuilding or retooling or aiming for the last playoff spot to go out in round 1 and draft 18th overall.
Rummys place is filled with bongs and Pavel Bure postersStrangelove wrote:RD promoting SHUT DOWN hockey and talking about Canucks coming close to, perhaps making the P/Os??![]()
Hey Rummy, which way is the smoke blowing from your place?
RoyalDude wrote:The Canucks will have solid D and efficient goaltending and Desjardins strikes me as a coach that the unit will buy into his system. I fully expect this team to be better than last seasons team. I am anticipating more of brotherhood chemistry with Luongo and Kesler out of the picture, I'm actually looking forward to this season just because I get the sense that it will be the first time in a long while that the guys will play for one another. Here's the problem, there are 8 teams ahead of us that will make the playoffs, IF we do make the playoffs, we won't have the horses to bulge the twine but I believe we will be able to shut teams down. Our first line will be 34, 34 and 33 years of age at the start of the season, they won't have their legs to handle the rigors of the playoffs against the dominantly younger teams of the western conference. Trust me, it's a rebuild here.
Millers signing is just an olive branch to show that they want to make the playoffs when we all know that we will be a lottery team. All smoke and mirrors baby
Yes, and the even more insidious thing about Botchford's column is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. He's one of the major Canucks writers; he will MAKE it a controversy and then say, see, just as I said, it's a controversy. Then again, it helps him out because he already knows the narrative for most of his columns all year long....nice work if you can get it.ClamRussel wrote:BotchfordSKYO wrote:Yup, and why's this miller talk in the media thread?
St. Louis might beg to differ.Strangelove wrote:Yeah no, there's no question marks with Miller, he's a proven number one.ClamRussel wrote: I don't think anyone here thinks poorly of Miller, it's just that's a big cap hit for a guy who comes w/ question marks...
Didn't he turn them down when the trade occurred? I think Miller had his eyes out west from the get go.ClamRussel wrote: St. Louis might beg to differ.
Yes, which is exactly why he ended up there.Blaster86 wrote:Didn't he turn them down when the trade occurred? I think Miller had his eyes out west from the get go.ClamRussel wrote: St. Louis might beg to differ.