rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am
Why you trying to convince?
Don’t try and convince us ....
Well it's not like i wrote this article. It's brand new.
It's facts, so none of you will like it or understand it.
We lost a Stanley cup because of .... non existent brutality. Brutality that was not called, brutality that was allowed.
Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist... that’s f.. ing bullshit
You lost the playoffs because of this:
25 25 16 9 51 849 798 .940 1.98
Tim Thomas was unstoppable in the playoffs. If he's even slightly worse, you have the cup. It had nothing to do with brutality and physicality. You outshot Boston in the series! LOL. Get out of here with that.
Thomas' 2011 playoffs, and particularly the finals goes down in the history books. He allowed 7 goals in 7 games total. Keep telling yourself it was physicality. You could not put the puck in the net because the goalie in the other end played historically great.
Sometimes I go through some of the comments on here and wonder if anyone even watches hockey.
rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am
Why you trying to convince?
Don’t try and convince us ....
Well it's not like i wrote this article. It's brand new.
It's facts, so none of you will like it or understand it.
We lost a Stanley cup because of .... non existent brutality. Brutality that was not called, brutality that was allowed.
Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist... that’s f.. ing bullshit
You lost the playoffs because of this:
25 25 16 9 51 849 798 .940 1.98
Tim Thomas was unstoppable in the playoffs. If he's even slightly worse, you have the cup. It had nothing to do with brutality and physicality. You outshot Boston in the series! LOL. Get out of here with that.
Thomas' 2011 playoffs, and particularly the finals goes down in the history books. He allowed 7 goals in 7 games total. Keep telling yourself it was physicality. You could not put the puck in the net because the goalie in the other end played historically great.
Sometimes I go through some of the comments on here and wonder if anyone even watches hockey.
Uncle dans leg wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:53 am
It was Luongo more than Thomas. The letting in of beach balls deflated the team.
That and injuries. The Bruins dragged they series into the ditch. There was no reason to join them there. That was a battle that never would have been won. That said maybe Bieksa, Glass and Torres could have provided sone pushback. And maybe Eye Bags could have added some more sandpaper. He had all year to do it.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:45 pm
By your very own logic Doc, the big payout decreases cap hit, and dumps real dollar value later in the contract making it a much easier trade with a cap floor team down the line.
Every contract is different.
The lowest amount Nylander makes in real dollars over the course of this contract is $6M-per
... with a $6.9M cap-hit.
Yeah so, unlike say Eriksson, Nylander doesn't get easier to trade in this respect.
(although after his bonus is paid this summer he is only owed $700K in real dollars for 2019-20)
Nylander is 22. So yes, it does get easier. He's not a mid 30's aging forward. Huge difference. It's rare a young player gets less $ starting in year 2 of the deal.
"in this respect"
BTW Willy gets $9M next season counting his signing bonus...
rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:27 am
Ok tuna here it is we lost due to:
Reffing
Injuries
Thomas
Not necessarily in that order but t if anyone of those three things were different we’d have a cup....anyone of those three
I would like to add an item:
Tragedy
Of course we'll never know how good Bourdon could have been, but we can be fairly certain that the Canucks would have won in 2011 if they had drafted Kopitar in 2005.
As we head towards another important draft I wanted to emphasize the point that championships are won and lost at the drafting table.
Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:45 pm
By your very own logic Doc, the big payout decreases cap hit, and dumps real dollar value later in the contract making it a much easier trade with a cap floor team down the line.
Every contract is different.
The lowest amount Nylander makes in real dollars over the course of this contract is $6M-per
... with a $6.9M cap-hit.
Yeah so, unlike say Eriksson, Nylander doesn't get easier to trade in this respect.
(although after his bonus is paid this summer he is only owed $700K in real dollars for 2019-20)
Nylander is 22. So yes, it does get easier. He's not a mid 30's aging forward. Huge difference. It's rare a young player gets less $ starting in year 2 of the deal.
"in this respect"
BTW Willy gets $9M next season counting his signing bonus...
rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:27 am
Ok tuna here it is we lost due to:
Reffing
Injuries
Thomas
Not necessarily in that order but t if anyone of those three things were different we’d have a cup....anyone of those three
I would like to add an item:
Tragedy
Of course we'll never know how good Bourdon could have been, but we can be fairly certain that the Canucks would have won in 2011 if they had drafted Kopitar in 2005.
As we head towards another important draft I wanted to emphasize the point that championships are won and lost at the drafting table.
The Canucks probably had the leagues best top 2 centre combo in the game in 2011 in Sedin and Kesler. Kesler was a beast in that 2011 cup run. Centre ice was the least of the Canucks problem for losing the 2011 cup
The bigger question - why did Gillis draft another centre in Hodgson when we had a 23 year old Kesler and a 27 year old Sedin solidifying the top 2 C positions when after just losing top Defence prospect - Bourdon a month prior to the Hodgson draft with Tyler Myers and Erik Karlsson sitting right there to draft instead of a centre we didn’t need?!?!?
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:17 am
The Canucks probably had the leagues best top 2 centre combo in the game in 2011 in Sedin and Kesler. Kesler was a beast in that 2011 cup run. Centre ice was the least of the Canucks problem for losing the 2011 cup
Because Kesler wasn't playing hurt, the Canucks did not have trouble scoring goals in the finals, and Kopitar would not have been an offensive upgrade on Lapierre. OK, sure.
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:17 am
The bigger question - why did Gillis draft another centre in Hodgson when we had a 23 year old Kesler and a 27 year old Sedin solidifying the top 2 C positions when after just losing top Defence prospect - Bourdon a month prior to the Hodgson draft with Tyler Myers and Erik Karlsson sitting right there to draft instead of a centre we didn’t need?!?!?
If Gillis had drafted Karlsson instead of Hodgson, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because Gillis would still be coasting on the success of back-to-back Stanley Cups. That does speak to my larger point, though, that in the 21st century, Stanley Cup Championships are won and lost at the drafting table. It seems we agree there.
Recal the Sedins had and the rest of the Canucks had great chance early in nearly every game. Thomas was amazing in that series. As Cunuck frustration built, Boston confidence grew. Tampa would have been a much more favourable opponent.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
