Post-Game Talk: GAME #72: Canucks 3 @ Stars 2 (S/O) (Schaller x2, Leivo S/O winner)

[me2]

fascinating

rosé

It took me about 20 seconds to work out what he meant. There was no rose in the picture, why he was bottling roses?

 

[VanJack]

As inconsistent as he is, with Baertschi out, Goldobin and Boeser are virtually the only 'skilled wingers' the Canucks have. And that says a lot about the cast this GM has assembled. I doubt that Goldy plays much with virtually any other team in the NHL. But with the hackers, whackers and plumbers the Canucks are using up-front, they don't have much choice to use him.

I know it's been beaten to death.....but if they'd drafted Tkachuk (instead of Juolevi); Ehlers or Nylander (instead of Virtanen); and Pastrnak (instead of McCann); the conversation about Canuck scoring would be a lot different. I guarantee they wouldn't have been shut out 10 times.

 

[CherryToke]

Greens comment is spot on. Goldy needs to get better or say good by to the NHL.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Green is a bad coach. Problem solved. There's nothing he does that is above average in any way.

Gotta believe he gets the axe in summer. Along with the other 2 clowns in over their heads. Baumgarner and the other guy.

 

[Fire Benning]

Just can't bring myself to care about these lineup decisions at this point of the season, the games are meaningless, the season has dragged on long enough and I'm ready for it to be done.

All of this stuff seems pretty trivial until we have smart people running the team who are capable of assembling an adequate roster with over 2 good players.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Greens comment is spot on. Goldy needs to get better or say good by to the NHL.

He will score 30 on a different team with a proper coach / system.

 

[Melvin]

FWIW I do think the team has failed Goldy, not because of the benchings but because they should have been working on him developing his offensive game more so that it can be good enough to play even with his defensive short-comings. Instead they have him so hyper-focused on trying to be better defensively that he's basically being developed into Markus Granlund, a "versatile" guy that is essentially of no value.

Focus on what the player is actually good at, and try to develop that skill to an elite level.

 

[valkynax]

It's not hypocrisy. He does other things that green values, like killing penalties.

It absolutely is hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

Green claims that Goldobin is bad because he doesn't put up points. Eriksson scores even less and gets paid 6 times as much is stapled on the 2nd line plus way more undeserving opportunities and longer leashes for mistakes.

Expectations are different for different players. Saying one holds the same standard for every player while not acting to show one's holding every player to the same standard is the very definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Melvin]

It absolutely is hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

Green claims that Goldobin is bad because he doesn't put up points. Eriksson scores even less and gets paid 6 times as much is stapled on the 2nd line plus way more undeserving opportunities and longer leashes for mistakes.

Expectations are different for different players. Saying one holds the same standard for every player while not acting to show one's holding every player to the same standard is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Moral standards, lol.

Green literally said "you have to bring something to the table."

Eriksson brings PKing and defensive play to the table. Goldobin does not, thus he is judged based on his offensive output.

That might be poor judgement but it is not hypocrisy.

Of course players aren't judged by the same standards, that would make zero sense. Players play different roles.

 

[Jimnastic]

I am going to make the same point I have for ages. Why not pair Jake with Petey. It may not work, but it might elevate Jake significantly with no downside. Petey has the brains and playmaking ability. Jake has toughness, speed, and good hands (and no brains or playmaking ability). Maybe I missed it, but I don't think he ever really got a chance to work with Petey.

 

[valkynax]

Moral standards, lol.

Green literally said "you have to bring something to the table."

Eriksson brings PKing and defensive play to the table. Goldobin does not, thus he is judged based on his offensive output.

That might be poor judgement but it is not hypocrisy.

Of course players aren't judged by the same standards, that would make zero sense. Players play different roles.

Then Green should come out and say so, "Goldobin needs to bring more of both defense and offense to the team, he needs to up his game overall."

And tell me, where did I say players should be judged based on the same standards? What I said was if someone makes a claim that he holds every player at the same standards but does not act accordingly, that's hypocrisy.

In fact, Eriksson should be held at a MUCH higher standard, the useless walking zombie is being paid 6 million a year to PK and score 25 points? No, just no.

 

[mossey3535]

I am going to make the same point I have for ages. Why not pair Jake with Petey. It may not work, but it might elevate Jake significantly with no downside. Petey has the brains and playmaking ability. Jake has toughness, speed, and good hands (and no brains or playmaking ability). Maybe I missed it, but I don't think he ever really got a chance to work with Petey.

I like Jakey but he looked lost with EP before. I don't think Jakey is smart enough right now to play with him.

 

[Melvin]

Then Green should come out and say so, "Goldobin needs to bring more of both defense and offense to the team, he needs to up his game overall."

And tell me, where did I say players should be judged based on the same standards? What I said was if someone makes a claim that he holds every player at the same standards but does not act accordingly, that's hypocrisy.

In fact, Eriksson should be held at a MUCH higher standard, the useless walking zombie is being paid 6 million a year to PK and score 25 points? No, just no.

Green has zero reason to care about salary. Players aren't paid based on how much ice time they get. It is literally not a factor for Green nor should it be.

And where did he "claim that he holds every player at the same standards?" He is basically saying the very logical thing that Goldobin needs to produce offense to stay in the league. That's who he is. It doesn't make sense to judge every player by their point totals but it makes perfect sense to judge Goldobin that way, since his role on the team will always be defined by how much he contributes to offense.

Look, I am against scratching Goldobin in favor of Schaller. I think it's a poor choice, but this nonsense about Green being some mustache-twirling villain who hates teh youth and hates teh skill players is just rubbish. Green wants players that either contribute on the offensive side or the defensive side. Brock Boeser is probably about as bad defensively as Goldy, and he's a young talented player. Guess what? He gets to play; why is that? Because he puts up points. It's as simple as that. Goldobin's job is to put up points and he hasn't done it well enough. Playing Schaller over him is poor judgement but it's not "hypocrisy" so just drop that narrative and we will be in agreement.

 

[me2]

People to stop comparing Goldy to Schaller. Goldobin has 62 games this year and Schaller has 37. He's within 5-6 games of guys like Motte and Granlund. He's been given plenty of opportunity. The way people talk you''d think he'd player 37 on the 4th line and Schaller has 62 in the top 6.

5v5 Goldobin has spent 350 mins with Petterson and 240 with Horvat. He spent 21 with Beagle and 14 with Sutter. He gets prime PP time Horvat and Petterson.

People need to stop crying about him not getting a fair go.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

I am going to make the same point I have for ages. Why not pair Jake with Petey. It may not work, but it might elevate Jake significantly with no downside. Petey has the brains and playmaking ability. Jake has toughness, speed, and good hands (and no brains or playmaking ability). Maybe I missed it, but I don't think he ever really got a chance to work with Petey.

1) Jake is not tough.
2) you think EP40 would be helping JV18 but in reality JV18 would be hurting EP40.


You remember that awesome pass JV18 made the other night?


Me neither.

 

[valkynax]

Green has zero reason to care about salary. Players aren't paid based on how much ice time they get. It is literally not a factor for Green nor should it be.

And where did he "claim that he holds every player at the same standards?" He is basically saying the very logical thing that Goldobin needs to produce offense to stay in the league. That's who he is. It doesn't make sense to judge every player by their point totals but it makes perfect sense to judge Goldobin that way, since his role on the team will always be defined by how much he contributes to offense.

Look, I am against scratching Goldobin in favor of Schaller. I think it's a poor choice, but this nonsense about Green being some mustache-twirling villain who hates teh youth and hates teh skill players is just rubbish. Green wants players that either contribute on the offensive side or the defensive side. Brock Boeser is probably about as bad defensively as Goldy, and he's a young talented player. Guess what? He gets to play; why is that? Because he puts up points. It's as simple as that. Goldobin's job is to put up points and he hasn't done it well enough. Playing Schaller over him is poor judgement but it's not "hypocrisy" so just drop that narrative and we will be in agreement.

If a 6 million dollar player and a 1 million dollar player can both score 30 points and do pk and no one cares, what motivation does the 6 million dollar player have to work hard at all? Outside of professional responsibility, which I don't know how much Eriksson has at this point.

And again, where did I claim Green hates young players? I don't think I ever said or thought about that, ever. What I am saying is that Green's language and action are inconsistent with one another, and if you REALLY wanna stretch it you might say that I am hinting that Green hates Goldobin. But nowhere had I ever spin the dumb ass narrative that Green hates young players in general. No.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Green has zero reason to care about salary. Players aren't paid based on how much ice time they get. It is literally not a factor for Green nor should it be.

And where did he "claim that he holds every player at the same standards?" He is basically saying the very logical thing that Goldobin needs to produce offense to stay in the league. That's who he is. It doesn't make sense to judge every player by their point totals but it makes perfect sense to judge Goldobin that way, since his role on the team will always be defined by how much he contributes to offense.

Look, I am against scratching Goldobin in favor of Schaller. I think it's a poor choice, but this nonsense about Green being some mustache-twirling villain who hates teh youth and hates teh skill players is just rubbish. Green wants players that either contribute on the offensive side or the defensive side. Brock Boeser is probably about as bad defensively as Goldy, and he's a young talented player. Guess what? He gets to play; why is that? Because he puts up points. It's as simple as that. Goldobin's job is to put up points and he hasn't done it well enough. Playing Schaller over him is poor judgement but it's not "hypocrisy" so just drop that narrative and we will be in agreement.

You said BB6 is as bad as NG77 but he’s not, he’s worse.

 

[Melvin]

Neither do the people comparing Goldy to Schaller. Goldobin has 62 games this year and Schaller has 37. He's within 5-6 games of guys like Motte and Granlund. He's been given plenty of opportunity. The way people talk you''d think he'd player 37 on the 4th line and Schaller has 62 in the top 6.

5v5 Goldobin has spent 350 mins with Petterson and 240 with Horvat. He spent 21 with Beagle and 14 with Sutter. He gets prime PP time Horvat and Petterson.

People need to stop crying about him not getting a fair go.

And in those 240 minutes with Horvat he has one point. He has become a player who is basically only playable with one specific centre. That is not an NHL palyer.

 

[Melvin]

If a 6 million dollar player and a 1 million dollar player can both score 30 points and do pk and no one cares, what motivation does the 6 million dollar player have to work hard at all? Outside of professional responsibility, which I don't know how much Eriksson has at this point.

And again, where did I claim Green hates young players? I don't think I ever said or thought about that, ever. What I am saying is that Green's language and action are inconsistent with one another, and if you REALLY wanna stretch it you might say that I am hinting that Green hates Goldobin. But nowhere had I ever spin the dumb ass narrative that Green hates young players in general. No.

I didn't say "no one cares" I said "Green doesn't care." You are warping my argument. Travis Green's job is to ice the players he thinks will give him the best chance of winning each game. Salary is 100% not a factor in that decision, or shouldn't be. Obviously, Eriksson's salary is relevant in the context of other discussions, just not this one.

Tell me what language Green has used that he is belying with his actions. What he said today is completely consistent with benching Goldobin, "you have to bring something to the table." In his mind, when Goldobin isn't bringing offense then he's bringing nothing. Do you disagree?

 

[Jimnastic]

rosé

It took me about 20 seconds to work out what he meant. There was no rose in the picture, why he was bottling roses?

The effing Aquilinis made their money ripping of Vancouverites (i.e. as slum landlords); I will never buy an effing product they make money off of. (well, other than Canuck tickets)

 

[valkynax]

I didn't say "no one cares" I said "Green doesn't care." You are warping my argument. Travis Green's job is to ice the players he thinks will give him the best chance of winning each game. Salary is 100% not a factor in that decision, or shouldn't be. Obviously, Eriksson's salary is relevant in the context of other discussions, just not this one.

Tell me what language Green has used that he is belying with his actions. What he said today is completely consistent with benching Goldobin, "you have to bring something to the table." In his mind, when Goldobin isn't bringing offense then he's bringing nothing. Do you disagree?

Of course, if a player like Goldobin doesn't score, he's really about as useful as a toilet paper roll.

But with what Green is saying and doing, the sense I'm getting is that he is favoring Eriksson and giving him WAY more chances to f*** up because the latter is a 6 million dollar man.

 

[Jimnastic]

I didn't say "no one cares" I said "Green doesn't care." You are warping my argument. Travis Green's job is to ice the players he thinks will give him the best chance of winning each game. Salary is 100% not a factor in that decision, or shouldn't be. Obviously, Eriksson's salary is relevant in the context of other discussions, just not this one.

Tell me what language Green has used that he is belying with his actions. What he said today is completely consistent with benching Goldobin, "you have to bring something to the table." In his mind, when Goldobin isn't bringing offense then he's bringing nothing. Do you disagree?

I didn't say "no one cares" I said "Green doesn't care." You are warping my argument. Travis Green's job is to ice the players he thinks will give him the best chance of winning each game. Salary is 100% not a factor in that decision, or shouldn't be. Obviously, Eriksson's salary is relevant in the context of other discussions, just not this one.

Tell me what language Green has used that he is belying with his actions. What he said today is completely consistent with benching Goldobin, "you have to bring something to the table." In his mind, when Goldobin isn't bringing offense then he's bringing nothing. Do you disagree?

I disagree with "the best chance of winning each game". When the team is clearly not making the playoffs, his job should be to develop the team for the next season, and possibly be concerned about entertaining the fans. Clearly, as seen in here, people want to look to the future, not watch washed up players struggle to make a game semi-competitive. And then there's the tank argument.

 

[TruGr1t]

We have a terrible PP (and are the lowest scoring team since Christmas) and we're arguing about stacking our middling PK with more marginal "defensive" players (i.e. average defensive guys who can't score). I feel like this has been the case for the past 3 years.

PK's not even that good. Jeeze.

 

[Jimnastic]

1) Jake is not tough.
2) you think EP40 would be helping JV18 but in reality JV18 would be hurting EP40.


You remember that awesome pass JV18 made the other night?


Me neither.

We will obviously disagree. I think Jake has constantly displayed toughness. And, he needs to be receiving passes more than making them. And, my primary argument is that there is a good chance it would not have a downside on Petey. I would like to see it and find out if I would be eating my words.

 

[me2]

Of course, if a player like Goldobin doesn't score, he's really about as useful as a toilet paper roll.

But with what Green is saying and doing, the sense I'm getting is that he is favoring Eriksson and giving him WAY more chances to **** up because the latter is a 6 million dollar man.

Of course he is, Eriksson has an enormous buyout proof contact that goes on for 3 more years. If Green/Canucks could walk away from that I'm sure he wouldn't give a crap about Eriksson but he has to try and salvage something.