Wisp
Registered User
- Nov 14, 2010
- 7,167
- 1,271
there's a double standard going on here.He's allowed to be positive about the team, you know
because he's being blindly optimistic he's allowed to disparage dissenters as 'chicken littles' ?
there's a double standard going on here.He's allowed to be positive about the team, you know
there's a double standard going on here.
because he's being blindly optimistic he's allowed to disparage dissenters as 'chicken littles' ?
one final year of league average-to-above-average goaltending from Eddie is worth more in this third.
not sure this team deserves to be saved, though.
I now firmly believe that they chose to trade Lack over Markstrom because they thought they couldn't sign Lack next summer for two reasons:
1. Lack believes he deserves a shot at being a #1 and he's not going to get it while Miller is still here.
2. Lack will be asking north of $4M as a UFA (and he'll get it from some team) and the canucks will not pay that when they're paying Miller $6M. They also may not believe Lack is worth >$4M.
I thought this before but today's comments from Linden pretty much confirmed it in my mind.
Which is even more concerning since Bennings alleged strength is drafting and his trading/signings have been ho hum at best.Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.
Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.
Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.
Ok but you guys are acting like the offseason is over and no more trades are to be had. We could still see a few players shipped off or a couple cheaper guys come back for someone like Bieksa.
But who says it's blind optimism? There are things to be positive about. Just because you dont think there is, doesnt mean it's just blind optimism.
they would have to dramatically reformat this team to save it from its demise. Benning's trading ability leaves a lot to be desired. allegedly the bieska trade will only return a 2nd round pick. i don't think that's going to cut it.
they are a bad defensive team made the playoffs by grace of unsustainable goaltending. their best bet to repeat that is gone. Miller is an unlikely savior - he was below average last year and coming off surgery. it sucks to say, but... being positive about the canucks situation is not being objective.
Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?
Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?
But who says it's blind optimism? There are things to be positive about. Just because you dont think there is, doesnt mean it's just blind optimism.
The management don't want to tank, so they might do something even more stupid and trade away picks for short term fixes.
Im still holding on to false hope. My thought is maybe benning wants to keep the team competitive, but at the deadline next year if the Canucks are out of it, we would have a great opportunity to get a haul of picks and prospects going into 2016 from bieksa, hamhuis, and vrbata. Then if things continue to go downhill (which im sure they will) they could have the option to flip the sedins for the last year of their contracts somewhere they can compete with 1 @ 50% retained salary (dont say its nuts stranger things have happened). Its not nuts to think a contending team could take on 10 million in cap space, especially if we took a cap dump back. By then, we should be getting close to having top 5 picks for at least a couple years, and some pretty good prospect depth already.
Thats totally what benning is thinking...right?....Right?
Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?
Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?
What? You're the one that initiated this entire discussion. There's no problem. You asked a question, and people have answered it. We are engaging in discussion on a discussion forum.
See there appears to be a problem though, because people seem to be upset. Most of the people want them to blow it up and tank, but are upset we got rid of the goalie that would help us win more. So chances are we lose more and blow it up at the deadline. Which people want. But are upset about it possibly happening. So I just dont get it.
People are upset because we just traded away the better asset than what we kept for scraps. Tank or not, that is absolutely awful asset management, particularly when you inherited the initial, better asset. That and he managed to negotiate against himself by setting an initial lower target for a trade. Literally zero people I know thought Lack would go for less than a 2nd, and I live in Calgary, where they crap on every Canuck asset.See there appears to be a problem though, because people seem to be upset. Most of the people want them to blow it up and tank, but are upset we got rid of the goalie that would help us win more. So chances are we lose more and blow it up at the deadline. Which people want. But are upset about it possibly happening. So I just dont get it.
See there appears to be a problem though, because people seem to be upset. Most of the people want them to blow it up and tank, but are upset we got rid of the goalie that would help us win more. So chances are we lose more and blow it up at the deadline. Which people want. But are upset about it possibly happening. So I just dont get it.
You don't see a difference between management actively making a decision to rebuild the team, and weather some rough times in the interim, versus management trying to remain competitive and just plain doing a bad job of it? And you don't understand why people who would prefer the team take the first route are upset when it becomes apparent to them that the second situation is the one that is unfolding?
And, as an aside now I guess, since I forgot to ask earlier: could you explain how the team doesn't need to fill six roster spots?
It all goes back to signing Miller in the first place. I believe Benning himself said something to this matter when talking about the return on Lack today, that teams in the East don't watch the West as much and may undervalue guys that play here, as seen with Talbot vs Lack. And as seen when he took over the team likely didn't pay any attention to what anyone in the organization said about Lack and signed Miller to that horrible contract.
Back to the point, Lack wants to be a starter and has UFA rights next season. The way the new management and coaching treated him last season: remember he was on pace for 19 starts in a pure backup role before Miller got injured, and in the playoffs they rushed Miller back in and stuck with him the moment Lack faltered... why the hell would would Lack resign here? Regardless of how Lack plays they would still start Miller first believing he has this mystical 'veteran presence'. Lack would just be a backup again which doesn't help his negotiating stance as a UFA.