Former Canucks Thread (Dan Hamhuis retires)

[MS]

While not being very good, he was better than 2 players Travis used ahead of him last year. I think he was better than Gudbranson and Pouliot easily, so he would've/should've been the 5 or 6 last year.

And if he'd been used with Biega instead of giving Pouliot and Gudbranson those minutes, they very well may have scraped enough points to get that final wild card in a down west last year.

Yeah, Del Zotto was an OK #5-6 type who struggled when forced into top-4 minutes in his first season but was fine as a depth guy and then had the coaching staff sour on him in his 2nd season after a couple dumb penalties, despite the fact that two clearly worse players continued to play.

 

[4Twenty]

Yeah, Del Zotto was an OK #5-6 type who struggled when forced into top-4 minutes in his first season but was fine as a depth guy and then had the coaching staff sour on him in his 2nd season after a couple dumb penalties, despite the fact that two clearly worse players continued to play.

I don't even think the coaching staff soured on him. To me it seemed completely circumstantial. If you go back after they pulled him from the lineup last year, they started putting a few wins together, so it was the "can't change the winning lineup" type thing going on. That and Travis was locked into that terrible Hutton/Gudbranson pairing and giving the former Winterhawk every chance to prove he was an NHLer (and he failed). Travis seemed to really like the "hitz king" the previous year.

 

[MS]

I don't even think the coaching staff soured on him. To me it seemed completely circumstantial. If you go back after they pulled him from the lineup last year, they started putting a few wins together, so it was the "can't change the winning lineup" type thing going on. That and Travis was locked into that terrible Hutton/Gudbranson pairing and giving the former Winterhawk every chance to prove he was an NHLer (and he failed). Travis seemed to really like the "hitz king" the previous year.

He was playing regularly and took an absolutely idiotic penalty late in a game against Montreal November 17 that ended up costing us the game. Green was clearly ticked off in his post-game comments but kept him in the lineup. On December 4, he took more two dumb minor penalties in a game against Minnesota, and he was basically finished - played 1 game in the next two months before being traded.

 

[4Twenty]

He was playing regularly and took an absolutely idiotic penalty late in a game against Montreal November 17 that ended up costing us the game. Green was clearly ticked off in his post-game comments but kept him in the lineup. On December 4, he took more two dumb minor penalties in a game against Minnesota, and he was basically finished - played 1 game in the next two months before being traded.

Yeah I vaguely remember those, but both of those games were in the 13 game winless streak, thereafter they started winning a bit more and Travis never went back to it. Then they traded him. Probably 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. It's just shocking that they liked him enough to dress him for all 82 the previous season.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

 

[vanuck]

Acquiring Gudbranson was a masterful tank move by ANA. RealGud in fact.

 

[I am toxic]

Acquiring Gudbranson was a masterful tank move by ANA. RealGud in fact.

Pales in comparison to WPG acquiring Sbisa

 

[M2Beezy]

Hope we play the Ducks soon to lite up Gudbranson

 

[F A N]

Looks like Nic Dowd has spent some time as a healthy scratch this season. I guess it doesn't matter to the posters who think it was somehow a big mistake to let him go.

 

[Scorvat]

Looks like Nic Dowd has spent some time as a healthy scratch this season. I guess it doesn't matter to the posters who think it was somehow a big mistake to let him go.

No one said that and you know it

 

[ErrantShepherd]

No one said that and you know it

Multiple posters asserted that we should have held onto Dowd over taking on Beagle last season.

Did you really not see those posts?

 

[Jyrki21]

Looks like Nic Dowd has spent some time as a healthy scratch this season. I guess it doesn't matter to the posters who think it was somehow a big mistake to let him go.

Multiple posters asserted that we should have held onto Dowd over taking on Beagle last season.

Did you really not see those posts?

No one said it was a "big mistake" to let Dowd go. In fact, the point was precisely the opposite – that players like this are a dime-a-dozen and therefore it's nonsense to sign Beagle to a huge contract when you just as well could have re-signed Dowd on the cheap. No one was pining for Dowd per se, we were objecting to pouring a lot of money into replacing him.

 

[4Twenty]

Multiple posters asserted that we should have held onto Dowd over taking on Beagle last season.

Did you really not see those posts?

Yup Jyrki already said it better than me, but that's BS and you know it.

"should have held onto Dowd over taking on Beagle" is not suggesting "it was a big mistake to let him go".

And the hilarity of this take while Tim Schaller who was healthy scratched 30+ games here last year gets paraded around like a major victory is just priceless.

I can't believe after years of following the sport and being a member of the sport related message boards like this, that people like F A N, still don't understand what they're even arguing against.
NOT A SOUL WAS SAD TO LOSE DOWD.
People were annoyed they went from investing a near league minimum salary on a one of the worst forwards on the roster and instead paying 3-4x that salary on a marginal upgrade who is still one of the worst forwards on your roster.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

You gentlemen further established F A N 's and my own point. So thank you for that. The argument was whether said event ever took place. It clearly did, hyperbole over whether people actually referred to it as a "big mistake" or not.

That people didn't actually care for Dowd as a player doesn't actually matter to this particular point.

They saw not signing Dowd or keeping some other lower paid player, Gaunce in particular, over Beagle as a huge mistake. To pretend that didn't happen or doesn't matter because the focus was not entirely about Dowd is disingenuous.

 

[I am toxic]

Nic Dowd $750K

Jay Beagle $3M

We made a huge mistake.

Because contrary to popular belief, cap. space. matters.

 

[Jyrki21]

They saw not signing Dowd or keeping some other lower paid player, Gaunce in particular, over Beagle as a huge mistake. To pretend that didn't happen or doesn't matter because the focus was not entirely about Dowd is disingenuous.

Right... so to say "Dowd is getting healthy scratched right now so you're wrong" is irrelevant, because the discussion was never "Dowd is the player we need!"

 

[ErrantShepherd]

Looks like Nic Dowd has spent some time as a healthy scratch this season. I guess it doesn't matter to the posters who think it was somehow a big mistake to let him go.

No one said that and you know it

Multiple posters asserted that we should have held onto Dowd over taking on Beagle last season.

Did you really not see those posts?

You can go on with whatever you want to argue about hyperbole, semantics and specific contexts that do or do not disprove Dowd's value. I'm not particularly interested in that discussion aside from the point already made here, that to say "no one said that" not having Dowd was a mistake is objectively not true. Your posts are delving into something completely different.

...its a little bizarre to be honest how you guys are latching onto this. But you do you.

 

[ekimbo]

You gentlemen further established F A N 's and my own point. So thank you for that. The argument was whether said event ever took place. It clearly did, hyperbole over whether people actually referred to it as a "big mistake" or not.

That people didn't actually care for Dowd as a player doesn't actually matter to this particular point.

They saw not signing Dowd or keeping some other lower paid player, Gaunce in particular, over Beagle as a huge mistake. To pretend that didn't happen or doesn't matter because the focus was not entirely about Dowd is disingenuous.

Nothing you've said is evidence that Beagle's contract wasn't a mistake. Nic Dowd is fighting for the 4th line center spot with a guy who makes $1,050,000. Paying an aging veteran 3 times that amount and locking it in for 4 years is a very questionable move. I'm still scratching my head.

 

[ekimbo]

You can go on with whatever you want to argue about hyperbole, semantics and specific contexts that do or do not disprove Dowd's value. I'm not particularly interested in that discussion aside from the point already made here, that to say "no one said that" not having Dowd was a mistake is objectively not true. Your posts are delving into something completely different.

...its a little bizarre to be honest how you guys are latching onto this. But you do you.

The point is F A N's statement was disingenuous by specifically bringing up Nic Dowd and how he was scratched recently. Nic Dowd was just a placeholder for any other borderline NHL centerman. Nic Dowd happned to be on the Canucks the year prior and also happened to be Signed by Washington to fill Beagle's role so it made for a good comparison at the time.

 

[Jyrki21]

...its a little bizarre to be honest how you guys are latching onto this. But you do you.

1. Disingenuous point is made in an effort to make posters look foolish.

2. Poster told that point does not, in fact, do what it says and does not make them look foolish.

3. Disingenuous point is reinforced with yet further disingenuousness.

4. Poster shown, again, this is incorrect.

5. Poster insists on sticking to point that has not made its case.

Who is “latching on” here, exactly?

People are naturally not going to enjoy being told how silly they look with a complete strawman. The entire point of those who supposedly wanted Dowd was that “fourth line center gets healthy scratched” is not a surprising outcome and exactly why they didn’t want big cap space invested in the position.

 

[4Twenty]

You gentlemen further established F A N 's and my own point. So thank you for that. The argument was whether said event ever took place. It clearly did, hyperbole over whether people actually referred to it as a "big mistake" or not.

That people didn't actually care for Dowd as a player doesn't actually matter to this particular point.

They saw not signing Dowd or keeping some other lower paid player, Gaunce in particular, over Beagle as a huge mistake. To pretend that didn't happen or doesn't matter because the focus was not entirely about Dowd is disingenuous.

No, you're and F A N's assertion that "should've held on to Dowd over Beagle" meant it was a "big mistake" is the disingenuous part dude. Find me a single post that lamented losing Nick Dowd. Not that they'd prefer a cheap player in that position, but one that lamented Dowd as some kind of loss. Please, you should be able to find ONE if that's your point. That's what F A N put out there, so prove it occurred.

How does it not matter that Dowd was the player? That's some mental gymnastics there, this is the former Canuck player thread where he was specifically brought up. Why would it not matter that it was Dowd? I think it's pretty convenient and also laughable that F A N brings this up this season, after seeing how dreadful Beagle was last year and how Dowd doubled his production.

Thanks for the laughs though, seriously funny tracking the mental gymnastics.

 

[4Twenty]

...its a little bizarre to be honest how you guys are latching onto this. But you do you.

It's a little bizarre you've latched onto incorrect hyperbole and are doubling down on it.

Spending money on the 4th line is the bloody point, it doesn't matter who the person is, if you're paying $3m+ for a "4th liner" (or the bottom 25th percentile of league forwards), you're not spending wisely.

Funny you don't want to talk semantics but were content with F A N's pathetic attempt to dunk on anyone who doesn't think signing 33 year old 4th line C's to 4 year deals at $3m per with a NTC is wise.

 

[MS]

You gentlemen further established F A N 's and my own point. So thank you for that. The argument was whether said event ever took place. It clearly did, hyperbole over whether people actually referred to it as a "big mistake" or not.

That people didn't actually care for Dowd as a player doesn't actually matter to this particular point.

They saw not signing Dowd or keeping some other lower paid player, Gaunce in particular, over Beagle as a huge mistake. To pretend that didn't happen or doesn't matter because the focus was not entirely about Dowd is disingenuous.

Signing Beagle to the contract they gave him over some cheap WAS a huge mistake.

How is it that people still don’t understand the salary cap after 15 years?

 

[4Twenty]

Signing Beagle to the contract they gave him over some cheap WAS a huge mistake.

How is it that people still don’t understand the salary cap after 15 years?

Because they wanted to make it about Dowd, not wasting money. Why do you think Dowd wasn't mentioned in here until F A N saw he was healthy scratched?

And you want to know what's even more disingenuous? He's not healthy, he left last game with a lower body injury and was healthy scratched 23 days ago. What a time to bring it up LOL.

And this is the same F A N who posts at me about my Schaller takes. (30+ healthy scratches last year) at almost triple the caphit to Dowd.

 

[I am toxic]

Signing Beagle to the contract they gave him over some cheap WAS a huge mistake.

How is it that people still don’t understand the salary cap after 15 years?

There are two kinds of people in this world.

Those who understand opportunity cost, and those who don't.