Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
the toucan kid wrote:Difference being of course dr. dork that both of those guys were still putting up big numbers even when the team wasn't winning.
Yzerman had about half the number of points the first year he won the cup (in his 14th season !) than he had at the peak of his career. He was on a clear downward trajectory when he won his first cup. Detroit could have given up on him, but they didn't and it turned out to be a smart move. And of course Yzerman had some pretty good players on his lines... so of course he was going to put up decent numbers (albeit at about half of his peak).
But Thornton, yes, he was putting up big numbers. But are you suggesting that Boston trading Thornton was a good idea ?
Not at all, it was a terrible deal. However, it's entirely different than our cases because we were dealing over the hill stars like Naslund and Bertuzzi whose play here had a large factor in why they were moved out. As for Yzerman? He went from being all offense to a two-way player who still put in around a point a game at that time, no way you can knock his game at that time.
ClamRussel wrote:Any other GM/coach combo and we'd probably still have Linden, a different coach and Naslund would still be here imo.
I really think it was AV and his system that drove Nazzy away. AV was not a fan of TL (anyone remember the year end press conference?) no matter how he performed (was top shelf down the stretch and in the playoffs) and bringing in MG and his animosity towards Trev's side of the union (and he being president at the time) just cemented it.
Great and maybe we could have kept Morrison, Cooke and Bertuzzi as well. How many games has nostaligia won ? Linden was a washed up scrub long before Vigneault got here. His fate was sealed when the Crow never gave him a chance to play with the twins when he was re-aquired. Are you telling me he couldn't have done better than Fat Klatt ? I never understood Crawford's fetish for playing beer bellied Klatt with the twins.
Trevor Linden had one decent playoff run two years ago, but the game passed him by three years ago.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
dr.dork wrote:
Sure, there is a guy named Yzerman who Detroit kept for 12 odd years. He had the label "couldn't win anything" but still something of a fan favourite. Boy, that was dumb of Detroit to keep him, they should of shipped his sorry butt out of town long before he could lead Detroit to a cup or 3. San Jose will probably win a cup in the next few years, and Thornton will then shake his label and Boston is going to be looking really dumb for letting a franchise player go for next to nothing.
Some call it coddling while other would call it respect and trust. Call it whatever you want but it isn't a one way street.
You gotta be kidding me right? Naslund is nowhere near the same class as Yzerman, let alone a comparable.
Linden Is God wrote:
You gotta be kidding me right? Naslund is nowhere near the same class as Yzerman, let alone a comparable.
That is not what is comparable, I agree. The comparable is "long time leader", "far less productive than he was at his peak", "long time captain", "hadn't won a cup in 12+ years as a member of the team".
I am going to drop out of this thread, but I don't think it is completely obvious that you want to can your long term captain, especially if what you replace him with nothing AND you had oodles of cap space. Was the Sundin gamble worth it ? Maybe that is a reasonable argument, but the usual response around here when players fall out of favour is a knee jerk "just get rid of him, I don't care what we get back".
dr.dork wrote:
Yzerman had about half the number of points the first year he won the cup (in his 14th season !) than he had at the peak of his career. He was on a clear downward trajectory when he won his first cup.
Yzerman also changed his style of play as per Scotty Bowman.
To Scotty Bowman, an arch tactician, the writing was on the wall. If the Wings were to win a Stanley Cup, they'd have to play better defense. And if the Wings were going to buy into his system, he'd need the Captain on board.
After the 1993 season, Bowman approached Yzerman and told him what he needed to do. The Captain, one of the league's best offensive players, was going to have to change his style of play. Instead of focusing on scoring, Bowman wanted Yzerman to set the defensive tone for the team, a job typically reserved for the lower skilled players on the the third and fourth lines of the team. As Bowman pitched it, Yzerman's personal stats and glory would diminish, but the team's prowess would improve. In an age of mega-agents and lucrative endorsements, Bowman was asking Yzerman to sacrifice a lot. But if the Captain didn't sign on, Bowman's plan had no chance. Without hesitation, Yzerman told Bowman he'd do whatever it takes to win the Cup.
With Bowman's new system in place, Yzerman's scoring totals dropped. Instead of scoring over 100 points a season, he was down in the 80-90 range. But the Wings' fortunes took off and they became the juggernaut of their conference, going 62 and 13 and falling just short of the Stanley Cup finals.
He learned that you have to play two sides of the ice in order to win and he did that. Naslund came across a defensive coach and didnt like the style of play which is pretty clear I think to most observers and Markus himself.
"Maybe I didn't have as much fun playing last year as I used to, and that was always the reason I played and the reason I play now. There were a number of reasons for that. I wasn't playing as well as I should have been and had in the past and that bothered me, and the style we played wasn't something I enjoyed particularly."
Naslund is 1/4 the player that Yzerman ever was. Yzerman was a HUGE part of beating us on one knee in 2002. Even in Decline he had a leadership I dont think Naslund ever had. He was and still is one of the greatest leaders of all time.
ClamRussel wrote:Any other GM/coach combo and we'd probably still have Linden, a different coach and Naslund would still be here imo.
I really think it was AV and his system that drove Nazzy away. AV was not a fan of TL (anyone remember the year end press conference?) no matter how he performed (was top shelf down the stretch and in the playoffs) and bringing in MG and his animosity towards Trev's side of the union (and he being president at the time) just cemented it.
Great and maybe we could have kept Morrison, Cooke and Bertuzzi as well. How many games has nostaligia won ? Linden was a washed up scrub long before Vigneault got here. His fate was sealed when the Crow never gave him a chance to play with the twins when he was re-aquired. Are you telling me he couldn't have done better than Fat Klatt ? I never understood Crawford's fetish for playing beer bellied Klatt with the twins.
Trevor Linden had one decent playoff run two years ago, but the game passed him by three years ago.
True about Crow not playing him w/ the Twins....I never understood that either. Those 3 could have really gelled imo. Klatt was a flash in the pan. Another guy who's probably happy he left the Sedins for UFA money elsewhere...right.
I disagree about Trev only having that "decent" playoff run. All season long he was getting squat for ice time, barely playing...opportunity only presented itself when our PP was so pathetic that AV thought he'd try anything and put Trev w/ the Twins only because he was a big body/right hand shot. From that point onward Trev gained momentum and scored quite a few PP goals actually. He had very good momentum heading into the playoffs and elevated it there. How can being our BEST forward get him only a "decent" description from you? He was unreal, considering the icetime he got early in the season...he was a force working his ass off at BOTH ends of the ice and cleaning up on the PP. No one else except he, Mitchell & Luongo decided to show up. Where was Naslund? What about everyone else? Linden look rejuvenated and was playing the body. He did all he could. What does he get for his troubles? Anyone remember the press conference where it was obvious AV didn't want him back? ...he would even say he'd 'like him back' instead said blah blah blah back pedaling political rhetoric mumjo jumbo....but never once said he like Trev back. You could see it in his eyes....wonder what vibe he gave off on the room...on the bench? But Trev came back out of loyalty to the team...and AV put him through a BS season of little to no icetime and kept him benched just enough so his performance bonus didn't kick in. 59 games played when your contract pays out at 60 = A-hole coach. That was crap and everyone knew it. Nice way to treat the real captain of the team and face of the franchise. Great how when he finally couldn't take it for another season (w/ AV being rehired and didn't have it in his heart to leave the city) and retired...there was no head coach or GM there to speak at the podium. Action speaks louder than words.
All I'm saying Blob, is Trev was better than that...if he had been given proper ice & linemates he would have shown it. He could still be on the team today...and the team could use the leadership (as proven by naming your goalie captain) in the dressing room. He'd be a great guy to have on the 4th line w/ guys like Johnson & Brown or Hordichuk. He wouldn't put up numbers but could definitely be a contributer in other ways.
I would have liked to have seen Nazzy back only if AV was gone. If Sundin does indeed decide to come it would have been something to have seen the possibility of those 2 together. As it is I'm glad Markus is gone, his routine had gotten old but I think alot of that had to do w/ the choice for head coach.
mattola wrote:Naslund is 1/4 the player that Yzerman ever was. Yzerman was a HUGE part of beating us on one knee in 2002. Even in Decline he had a leadership I dont think Naslund ever had. He was and still is one of the greatest leaders of all time.
Remember how Yzerman had to lean his stick across his knee and push himself back up everytime he had to get back up to his feet? His knee was KILLING him, yet after being down 2-0, he came out and played game 3 like his life was at stake. The one-legged man turned that series around. For all his goals, Naslund never, ever, displayed anything like that. Winning just wasn't as important to him as it was to Stevie Y.
mattola wrote:Naslund is 1/4 the player that Yzerman ever was. Yzerman was a HUGE part of beating us on one knee in 2002. Even in Decline he had a leadership I dont think Naslund ever had. He was and still is one of the greatest leaders of all time.
Remember how Yzerman had to lean his stick across his knee and push himself back up everytime he had to get back up to his feet? His knee was KILLING him, yet after being down 2-0, he came out and played game 3 like his life was at stake. The one-legged man turned that series around. For all his goals, Naslund never, ever, displayed anything like that. Winning just wasn't as important to him as it was to Stevie Y.
It took Yzerman 14 odd years in the NHL to shake the "can't lead" and "can't win it all" label.
ClamRussel wrote:I disagree about Trev only having that "decent" playoff run. All season long he was getting squat for ice time, barely playing...opportunity only presented itself when our PP was so pathetic that AV thought he'd try anything and put Trev w/ the Twins only because he was a big body/right hand shot. From that point onward Trev gained momentum and scored quite a few PP goals actually. He had very good momentum heading into the playoffs and elevated it there. How can being our BEST forward get him only a "decent" description from you? He was unreal, considering the icetime he got early in the season...
Please Clam... to say Linden was our best forward and was unreal in that playoff run a couple years back is a gross exaggeration. You forget the fact that Linden played the last half of that season with the Sedins on the power play and was hardly dominant in those games even with all that power play time. You seem to have a hate on for AV for not playing him last season but he didn't deserve it because other teams were able to expose his lack of foot speed. I find it interesting that many people on this board never noticed the amount of times Linden got burned by faster opposition or took a bad penalty because of his lack of foot speed since the lockout. Our team is much faster, tougher and more skilled up front this year than the last few years because we have a g.m. and a scouting staff that did a great job in the off-season. Linden doesn't fit in on this team.
ClamRussel wrote:All I'm saying Blob, is Trev was better than that...if he had been given proper ice & linemates he would have shown it. He could still be on the team today...and the team could use the leadership (as proven by naming your goalie captain) in the dressing room.
I don't buy this theory one little bit, Clam. Did we name Luongo team captain because he is our only good leader or is it just because he is just that good of a leader? I believe it is because he really is that good of a leader but you will read into it the way you want to.
I'm with Blob 100%. Nostalgia doesn't win hockey games. It was long overdue for both parties to move on.
Yeah both Naslund and Bertuzzi are off to shitty starts. Good thing the over the hill gu7ys are gone cause neither one has donew shit yet this year. God Canuck fans are stunned.
I agree with Clam A.V is an asshole and is a crappy coach who plays a boring style.
If I remember the offensive Canucks were kicking on the defensive Redwings when the weak link in the Canucks chain broke. Defense sucks! It sucks to play and it sucks to watch.
To be fair our young guys like Kesler, Burrows and Raymond are putting up numbers quite similar to Naslund and Bertuzzi under Vigneault. Bertuzzi is playing with one of the best players in the game and Naslund is surrounded by talent, credit to both guys for rebounding, but I still say they would be a detriment to us at this point.
the toucan kid wrote:To be fair our young guys like Kesler, Burrows and Raymond are putting up numbers quite similar to Naslund and Bertuzzi under Vigneault. Bertuzzi is playing with one of the best players in the game and Naslund is surrounded by talent, credit to both guys for rebounding, but I still say they would be a detriment to us at this point.
Where to start... Bert didn't play under AV (assuming I read you first sentence correctly). You contradict yourself in the second sentence because the problem with Naslund the past few years is he had no talent to play with. Yes, you can bag on him all you want for not being a playmaker and he isn't able to carry a team all by himself. Nobody can, not even the exhaulted leader Yzerman who had... ummm... some other stiffs named Federov, Larionov, Shanahan, Kozlov, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Hull, Hasek, and Lidstrom (among other CERTAIN hall of famers) on his teams when he won it all. It is a bit easier to lead a bunch of hall of famers...
Anyway, I think it's fair to say that both Bertuzzi and Naslund are playing in situations and systems more favorable to offensive production than they would be here. Now we have guys producing at their level, above Naslund's level when he was here, under AV's system. Naslund can produce in an offensive system surrounded by talent, but we have guys who are producing in the system at Naslund's rate while playing defense, we needed to move on in order to get these guys room and time to play.
Todd didn't play under Vigneault, of course, but he's abysmal defensively and wouldn't have fit in at all, I assume that's a consensus view. If things were ugly under Crawford they would have been violent under AV.
I guess if I'm trying to make a point here it's that when the organization went a different way under Nonis, if you think Naslund and Bertuzzi could ever excel in that environment, I believe you're wrong. They can be useful to other clubs, but not to us as we're configured at the moment. Couple that with diminished abilities, they aren't elite talents anymore no matter where they play, and I'm pretty happy having our younger players getting a chance instead of an ineffective WCE, which even under Crawford hurt the team.
Now Joe Rockhead raised the point that defensive hockey is boring and that it sucks, I agree completely, I've nodded off an awful lot during the last two seasons. However, this year it is a little more fun with the young, fast, players taking control of the team. These guys wouldn't be getting an opportunity if we were still trotting out the WCE for 20 minutes and the Sedins another 20 like in 05/06. We're better off without them, but other than one season, I hold no malice for them. In fact I enjoyed Naslund and Bertuzzi's prime more than any other hockey era I've experienced, but it is gone,gone,gone.
randymeeks wrote:Please Clam... to say Linden was our best forward and was unreal in that playoff run a couple years back is a gross exaggeration. You forget the fact that Linden played the last half of that season with the Sedins on the power play and was hardly dominant in those games even with all that power play time. You seem to have a hate on for AV for not playing him last season but he didn't deserve it because other teams were able to expose his lack of foot speed. I find it interesting that many people on this board never noticed the amount of times Linden got burned by faster opposition or took a bad penalty because of his lack of foot speed since the lockout. Our team is much faster, tougher and more skilled up front this year than the last few years because we have a g.m. and a scouting staff that did a great job in the off-season. Linden doesn't fit in on this team.
A) He WAS our best forward in the playoffs that year...and even if he wasn't no.1 (who was better then?) he was clearly in our top 3. Gross exaggeration? What *you* forget is Trev was only getting PP minutes w/ the Sedins but then playing 4th line minutes which brings me nicely to my next point.
B) You have misquoted me. I said Trev "was unreal, considering the icetime he got early in the season..." I think he did did the best that could be expected out of him under the circumstances. Linden was taking bad penalties? I think your memeory has him mistaken for Bertuzzi.
randymeeks wrote:I don't buy this theory one little bit, Clam. Did we name Luongo team captain because he is our only good leader or is it just because he is just that good of a leader? I believe it is because he really is that good of a leader but you will read into it the way you want to.
Well it does prove that no one else was even close doesn't it. To go off the charts that much clearly shows there was no other option. I never said Luongo isn't that good of a leader but who else could possibly be the team captain? Lets see how Luongo's play is handling this additional weight when the playoffs come around. Oh but Canucks history has shown that we should be *very* concerned about how things usually turn out when caution is thrown to the wind.
