Waiver draft pick up?

membleypeg
10-02-2003, 08:24 AM
If the season goes as expected for the Canucks this year, then we will see playoff action again next spring. The one area of the team that could use shoring up is scoring and intensity from the right wing. If someone could provide a spark, and click with the Sedin's, then we would have a secondary scoring threat that would prevent other teams from loading up defence against the Nas/Bert/Mor line.

I think the perfect person to fill that role is a healthy Theo Fleury. His energy, grit, intensity, experience, and clutch scoring ability could be an inspiration to this team heading into the playoffs. I also think that a Theo Fleury who is not healthy, would be a monumental disruption to team chemistry.

Does anyone have an update on Fleury's rehab, and does anyone else out there think he is worth the risk of pulling off waivers? He is probably facing his last chance to play hockey, and this might help steer him on the road to recovery.

I am not sure of the size or length of Theo's contract however, he is currently on NHL suspension, and would only get paid after being reinstated by the league. This might allow the Canucks to fit him into their budget (recent lottery funds would also help).

It would not be a typical move for Brian Burke to pick up a player with character issues. For this reason, I would not expect Vancouver to take this chance. If a commited Theo was given a chance however, I can't help but wonder how he might benefit the Canucks. The price is right and the talent is there. Should the Canucks role the dice and choose Fleury? I would take the chance, room him with Linden on the road, and pay for special rehab practices while in Vancouver. He might help himself and the team in a big way.

NFITO
10-02-2003, 08:32 AM
1) he isn't completely rehabbed, and therefore would be a risk...
2) he does present chemistry problems... even a rehabbed Fleury would be a risk in this area... he was supposedly healthy last season, and look what happened!
3) don't forget his salary.... he's making $4.5mill this year!

Even with the extra revenues that doesn't fit our payroll, let alone fitting our payroll structure... before Burke even takes that risk on him (which he is already unlikely to do), he would have to change his views on trying to stick to a strict structure with the team...

do you think there is even a 1% chance he's going to do that in a season where they are dealing with Bertuzzi, Morrison and Ohlund - all up for new contracts next year?

I wouldn't bet on it.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 08:42 AM
1) he isn't completely rehabbed, and therefore would be a risk...
2) he does present chemistry problems... even a rehabbed Fleury would be a risk in this area... he was supposedly healthy last season, and look what happened!
3) don't forget his salary.... he's making $4.5mill this year!

Even with the extra revenues that doesn't fit our payroll, let alone fitting our payroll structure... before Burke even takes that risk on him (which he is already unlikely to do), he would have to change his views on trying to stick to a strict structure with the team...

do you think there is even a 1% chance he's going to do that in a season where they are dealing with Bertuzzi, Morrison and Ohlund - all up for new contracts next year?

I wouldn't bet on it.

I'd do it in a New York minute.

I'm not sure he's even allowed to play this year anyway, didn't he get a mandatory 1 year suspension for his latest offence? Burke and Co cry poor but they could afford him easily, even at 4.5.

What I would do is talk to Theo now and say "we'll pick you but only if you renegotiate your deal", say 1mil base with easily reachable incentives to take him to 4.5 if healthy and productive.

Even at $4.5 he fits the payroll structure perfectly. He makes less then Nazzy and probably less then Bert with the incentives added on to his base thanks to the last 2 years production.

Who cares if Bert/Mo/Ohlund are up after this season? So too would Fleury's deal. If he plays well and stays out of trouble, he's worth bringing back if he keeps his $ demands reasonable, if not, he signs elsewhere and we're out nothing.

I see it as realtively low risk/very high reward.

That being said, no frigging way does BB do this to the tight dressing room we have currently.

NFITO
10-02-2003, 08:52 AM
I'd do it in a New York minute.

I'm not sure he's even allowed to play this year anyway, didn't he get a mandatory 1 year suspension for his latest offence? Burke and Co cry poor but they could afford him easily, even at 4.5.

What I would do is talk to Theo now and say "we'll pick you but only if you renegotiate your deal", say 1mil base with easily reachable incentives to take him to 4.5 if healthy and productive.

Even at $4.5 he fits the payroll structure perfectly. He makes less then Nazzy and probably less then Bert with the incentives added on to his base thanks to the last 2 years production.

Who cares if Bert/Mo/Ohlund are up after this season? So too would Fleury's deal. If he plays well and stays out of trouble, he's worth bringing back if he keeps his $ demands reasonable, if not, he signs elsewhere and we're out nothing.

I see it as realtively low risk/very high reward.

That being said, no frigging way does BB do this to the tight dressing room we have currently.

how is this a low risk move??

there is a HUGE risk bringing in someone like Fleury... he could have a terrible impact on team chemistry.

as for the salary situation - it makes a lot of difference having a player making $4.5 mill when you have key players up for new contracts... Morrison's agent for example has a lot of leverage, rightfully so asking for him to be the 3rd highest paid forward on the team.

this is why Burke, since day 1, has not only tried to reduce the payroll, but also and more importantly set up a strict payroll structure - you can not have $4.5 mill underperforming players on your team, and then expect your stars to sign for less, or even comparable salaries.

and the whole thought about going to Fleury and asking him to renegotiate is also a pipedream... why would he?? he's got ties in Calgary already, and has in the past shown that he has ties with Gretzky - and was close to signing in Phoenix... why would he sign in Vancouver instead??

remember it's not about winning a Cup, or playing with a good team with Fleury - it's about being in the most stable situation he can to help him get on with his life (with or without hockey)... and Vancouver isn't the best place for that... there is a lot of media pressure here, while not having a crutch to support him (like the familiarity he would have in Calgary, or the ties with Gretzky - or the reason he went to Chicago - Sutter!)...

Fleury to Vancouver IMO is as far fetched as Bure's return to this city and being reunited with Mogilny.

but even if he wanted to, I'd stay away.... too much potential risk, and too high a probability to hit that risk, to take the chance.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 09:03 AM
how is this a low risk move??

there is a HUGE risk bringing in someone like Fleury... he could have a terrible impact on team chemistry.

as for the salary situation - it makes a lot of difference having a player making $4.5 mill when you have key players up for new contracts... Morrison's agent for example has a lot of leverage, rightfully so asking for him to be the 3rd highest paid forward on the team.

this is why Burke, since day 1, has not only tried to reduce the payroll, but also and more importantly set up a strict payroll structure - you can not have $4.5 mill underperforming players on your team, and then expect your stars to sign for less, or even comparable salaries.

and the whole thought about going to Fleury and asking him to renegotiate is also a pipedream... why would he?? he's got ties in Calgary already, and has in the past shown that he has ties with Gretzky - and was close to signing in Phoenix... why would he sign in Vancouver instead??

remember it's not about winning a Cup, or playing with a good team with Fleury - it's about being in the most stable situation he can to help him get on with his life (with or without hockey)... and Vancouver isn't the best place for that... there is a lot of media pressure here, while not having a crutch to support him (like the familiarity he would have in Calgary, or the ties with Gretzky - or the reason he went to Chicago - Sutter!)...

Fleury to Vancouver IMO is as far fetched as Bure's return to this city and being reunited with Mogilny.

but even if he wanted to, I'd stay away.... too much potential risk, and too high a probability to hit that risk, to take the chance.

Well, first off, let's see if anyone is remotely interested before saying renegotiation is a pipedream. Also, it's low risk if he renegotiates as you just buy out the mil if he becomes a problem. If he doesn't renegotiate, he doesn't come here.

IMO, it makes no difference on the renegotiation of contracts. Mo will be the 3rd highest paid forward on the team, 2nd if the CBA makes Bert a FA and he leaves. My scenario was to bring in Theo for one year, next year has no bearing.

Lets face it, no matter where Theo plays there will be huge media pressure given his past, it's not going away and will be there in Cal/Pho/Van/NY wherever.

Please, if you're addressing my post, let's throw out the 4.5 figure because I said I'd only bring him in if we threw that out the window. At that cost, I'm not interested, at a mil plus bonuses I am. To the Canucks, a million US just is not that much for the potential reward if he can keep himself out of the bottle.

I never said it was likely, in fact, I posted that BB won't do it. Just my $0.02, they're worth what you paid for them :)

Peter Griffin
10-02-2003, 09:07 AM
I agree with NFITO on this one. Fleury at $4.5 mil is a HUGE risk. If he come's back and stinks, then the Canucks are out the balance of what he's owed, handcuffing them from making any deals for the rest of the season.

Peter Griffin
10-02-2003, 09:10 AM
IMO, it makes no difference on the renegotiation of contracts. Mo will be the 3rd highest paid forward on the team, 2nd if the CBA makes Bert a FA and he leaves.

Bert won't be a FA for at least two seasons(if the CBA lowers the UFA age). Bertuzzi's contract expires at the end of the season, the Canucks will qualify him, thus retaining his rights, and the CBA doesn't expire until September 15th.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 09:13 AM
Bert won't be a FA for at least two seasons(if the CBA lowers the UFA age). Bertuzzi's contract expires at the end of the season, the Canucks will qualify him, thus retaining his rights, and the CBA doesn't expire until September 15th.

Unless they lower the UFA age to 28 in order to get a salary cap. If that's the case, a qualifying offer means nothing.

Not saying that will happen but it's been floated around in the papers and such as something the players may want if they are to bend on the cap issue.

NFITO
10-02-2003, 09:18 AM
Well, first off, let's see if anyone is remotely interested before saying renegotiation is a pipedream. Also, it's low risk if he renegotiates as you just buy out the mil if he becomes a problem. If he doesn't renegotiate, he doesn't come here.

IMO, it makes no difference on the renegotiation of contracts. Mo will be the 3rd highest paid forward on the team, 2nd if the CBA makes Bert a FA and he leaves. My scenario was to bring in Theo for one year, next year has no bearing.

Lets face it, no matter where Theo plays there will be huge media pressure given his past, it's not going away and will be there in Cal/Pho/Van/NY wherever.

Please, if you're addressing my post, let's throw out the 4.5 figure because I said I'd only bring him in if we threw that out the window. At that cost, I'm not interested, at a mil plus bonuses I am. To the Canucks, a million US just is not that much for the potential reward if he can keep himself out of the bottle.

I never said it was likely, in fact, I posted that BB won't do it. Just my $0.02, they're worth what you paid for them :)

the pipedream on the renegotiation comment was made, not on the possibility of him renegotiating, but for him renegotiating his contract for the Canucks.

he has absolutely no ties with this city or any of the players... it makes no sense for him to come here... there are no players here that he has really played with (for any significant time or in any significant moment, unless you count the WJC with Linden).

and if you think that there isn't going be a difference in media pressure in Vancouver compared to Phoenix, you aren't too familiar with how much hockey coverage differs from region to region... in Phoenix hockey coverage is nothing compared to Vancouver... he could walk around in Phoenix and not even get recognized - and that for a player like Fleury who will get recognized pretty much anywhere in Canada... hockey is low on their priority list of sports there... there isn't the same amount of media attention or coverage - Baseball, Football and Basketball are bigger... the NCAA is much bigger... hockey is low on their list....

in Vancouver that wouldn't happen... Fleury would be eaten alive here.

even if we throw out the $4.5mill salary, and say that he signs for the league minimum with no bonuses I still don't pick him up.... our chemistry is just way too important a part of our success to be messing around with Fleury, and after last season's meltdown after game 80 and in the 2nd round, we have to be very careful how we address any player moves.... this is why for me Fleury is a HUGE risk and not worth taking.

as for the Bert comment... he becomes a RFA after this season - we need to qualify him by July 1st, and that date still falls under the current CBA (which doesn't expire until September 30, 2004)... the only way I see him becoming a UFA is if he doesn't get a qualifying offer by the Canucks by that time (impossible!), or if he decides to sit out a whole season AND the CBA lowers it's age by 3 years for Group II free agency - which is also very unlikely.... I am not worried in the least that we'll lose Bert to free agency... the chances of that happening IMO are smaller than both him and Naslund retiring after this season - in other words, something that isn't worth worrying about.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 09:24 AM
You win, I know nothing. :rolleyes:

Jewelly
10-02-2003, 09:27 AM
If any teams takes the risk with Fleury, it would be Calgary imo. Fleury has close family there, a son I think.

I can't see him in Van; too much of a headcase for the likes of Burkey & Crow.

Impossibles
10-02-2003, 09:30 AM
This is one time where I am exetremely happy Burke doesn't pick up players like this.

If you recall, the hawks were something like un-beaten in 14 games before that 'incedent' at a columbus strip club. After that, i don't think they won 10 games. The chemistry completely blew up in that room, turning the entire franchise around and sent them almost into rebuilding mode.

We don't need that for our team.

Good idea in principle, but potentially horrible consequences.

MVP
10-02-2003, 09:34 AM
.

as for the Bert comment... he becomes a RFA after this season - we need to qualify him by July 1st, and that date still falls under the current CBA (which doesn't expire until September 30, 2004)... the only way I see him becoming a UFA is if he doesn't get a qualifying offer by the Canucks by that time (impossible!), or if he decides to sit out a whole season AND the CBA lowers it's age by 3 years for Group II free agency - which is also very unlikely.... I am not worried in the least that we'll lose Bert to free agency... the chances of that happening IMO are smaller than both him and Naslund retiring after this season - in other words, something that isn't worth worrying about.



First off you are probably right on the Bertuzzi situation but the only one to confirm such scenario is Dave Nonis, and he did not sounded 100% sure that would work after the potential holdout. In fact there is no way to know whether what would happen after the potential holdout since the owners are well aware that they will have to make some scarfices as do the NHLPA. If there are 23 owners and Gary Bettman that are willing to make the UFA age to 28, and make it takes effect immediately, there are nothing Burke and McCaw can do about it. So i guess the whole scenario of Bertuzzi becoming UFA does exist although unlikely, but it is pointless to ignore it just because it is a unlikely scenario.

Peter Griffin
10-02-2003, 09:43 AM
Unless they lower the UFA age to 28 in order to get a salary cap. If that's the case, a qualifying offer means nothing.

When the Canucks offer Bertuzzi a qualifying offer after this season, it will be under the current CBA. A change in the CBA won't change that as the Canucks would own his rights under the old CBA. All contracts that are under the old CBA will be "grandfathered" into the new CBA, and Bertuzzi's qualifying offer will be one of them.

NFITO
10-02-2003, 09:47 AM
First off you are probably right on the Bertuzzi situation but the only one to confirm such scenario is Dave Nonis, and he did not sounded 100% sure that would work after the potential holdout. In fact there is no way to know whether what would happen after the potential holdout since the owners are well aware that they will have to make some scarfices as do the NHLPA. If there are 23 owners and Gary Bettman that are willing to make the UFA age to 28, and make it takes effect immediately, there are nothing Burke and McCaw can do about it. So i guess the whole scenario of Bertuzzi becoming UFA does exist although unlikely, but it is pointless to ignore it just because it is a unlikely scenario.

the reason why I don't see such a situation happening is that this league, like all others, works on a very strict legal basis... it's a professional organization (the NHL in general), and the CBA is a strict rules guideline for it.

For the NHL to say that all those players that were qualified under the current CBA - which is still in effect until Sept 2004, are now suddenly vetoed, it puts the credibility of the league and the CBA in general, in question.

When the CBA is negotiated, the rules that it sets forth are negotiated to last within certain dates.... I don't see that being over ridden... it'd be a huge legal headache IMO that the league and owners would not deal with.

Until Sept. 2004, the current CBA rules have to be law in the NHL... if a player under those rules is retained by a team - even if only in rights - that rule should stand.

Even if they lower the UFA age to 25, the players that were retained as RFAs, and thus the team continues to hold their rights, that shouldn't change when a new CBA comes into effect.

You win, I know nothing. :rolleyes:

why even bother with this remark?? :mad:

Hi-wayman
10-02-2003, 09:53 AM
What I would do is talk to Theo now and say "we'll pick you but only if you renegotiate your deal", say 1mil base with easily reachable incentives to take him to 4.5 if healthy and productive.

I see it as realtively low risk/very high reward.


Low risk? Fluery is a walking timebomb in the dressing room. Add to the fact that the Vancouver fans & media would be on his back constantly. Other than experience, Fleury brings very little that Reid, King or Kesler could bring too.

Also, the Canucks cannot talk to Fleury or his agent in regards to renegotiating his contract. That would be tampering.

MVP
10-02-2003, 09:53 AM
When the Canucks offer Bertuzzi a qualifying offer after this season, it will be under the current CBA. A change in the CBA won't change that as the Canucks would own his rights under the old CBA. All contracts that are under the old CBA will be "grandfathered" into the new CBA, and Bertuzzi's qualifying offer will be one of them.


Again maybe you are absolutely right, but during the new negtiation between NHL and NHLPA, they have to power to change a lot of stuff in order to acheive a solution. Much like the wavier draft yesterday where 98% of the Canucks posters are so sure about and ultimately get it all wrong. i could understand your point since it has a lot of good points to back it up, but CBA is very complex so i would not be so sure about a certain aspect of it before i READ the current CBA and the soon to be new CBA. Anything can happen, immediately shot down the possbility of Bertuzzi becoming a UFA after this season is a little immature. i mean it been brought up by Bertuzzi' agent which know the business more than anyone on this board, and there are couple articles in the US that mentioned about the possbility as well.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 09:56 AM
Low risk? Fluery is a walking timebomb in the dressing room. Add to the fact that the Vancouver fans & media would be on his back constantly. Other than experience, Fleury brings very little that Reid, King or Kesler could bring too.

Also, the Canucks cannot talk to Fleury or his agent in regards to renegotiating his contract. That would be tampering.

Yeah, little other then a point a game.

Peter Griffin
10-02-2003, 10:01 AM
Again maybe you are absolutely right, but during the new negtiation between NHL and NHLPA, they have to power to change a lot of stuff in order to acheive a solution. Much like the wavier draft yesterday where 98% of the Canucks posters are so sure about and ultimately get it all wrong. i could understand your point since it has a lot of good points to back it up, but CBA is very complex so i would not be so sure about a certain aspect of it before i READ the current CBA and the soon to be new CBA. Anything can happen, immediately shot down the possbility of Bertuzzi becoming a UFA after this season is a little immature. i mean it been brought up by Bertuzzi' agent which know the business more than anyone on this board, and there are couple articles in the US that mentioned about the possbility as well.

Once again, it wil have to be a wait and see thing, but it is almost a given that the NHL will "grandfather" all of the current NHL contracts into the new CBA, so why not qualifying offers as well? Unless the NHL tells the league that they will not accept qualifying offers under the old CBA, it's not fair to go into the new CBA not honouring the agreements of the old CBA that have already been rectified, Bertuzzi's qualifying offer being one of them. Like Nuckfan stated, I can't see the league going to the trouble to dis-honour all of the agreements that had been made in the past CBA, it would be far too big of a headache to deal with.

MVP
10-02-2003, 10:05 AM
the reason why I don't see such a situation happening is that this league, like all others, works on a very strict legal basis... it's a professional organization (the NHL in general), and the CBA is a strict rules guideline for it.

For the NHL to say that all those players that were qualified under the current CBA - which is still in effect until Sept 2004, are now suddenly vetoed, it puts the credibility of the league and the CBA in general, in question.

When the CBA is negotiated, the rules that it sets forth are negotiated to last within certain dates.... I don't see that being over ridden... it'd be a huge legal headache IMO that the league and owners would not deal with.

Until Sept. 2004, the current CBA rules have to be law in the NHL... if a player under those rules is retained by a team - even if only in rights - that rule should stand.

Even if they lower the UFA age to 25, the players that were retained as RFAs, and thus the team continues to hold their rights, that shouldn't change when a new CBA comes into effect.






i hope you are right because Bertuzzi is very valuable to the Canucks and even if Canucks cannot afford to sign him, he still has a lot of trade value.

As far as the rules of current CBA goes, again those rules are in the book, but there is a again a "POTENTIAL" where they will change a particular rule where the previous rule would be overwritten. And keep in mind that by the time that the negotitation between NHL and NHLPA takes place in next summer, i know they started yesterday but it will probably take awhile to solve this thing, the current CBA would be expired and no longer take effect. So if you look at it that way, you can see the potential loop-hole. And like i mentioned before if there are 23 owners very determine and Bettman, it is possible for them to screw Burke and McCaw since it is a one owner one vote system. And i admitt i have not pay such attention to the FA lists in 2004, but i am totally guessing if there is not too many 28 years old players on without a contract, than it would actually make sense for the 23 owners who vote in favor of it. Again i don't want this scenario nor am i making what i been saying a fact since the element of change is so great since the negotiation with the CBA is so complex, i am such passing along my view on this situation as possibility.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 10:06 AM
why even bother with this remark?? :mad:

Because the original poster asked for our opinions on Fleury. I gave mine and you start acting like you're Fleury's agent by saying, no way he comes here, he doesn't know anyone, he'll never renegotiate.

You know what? You're probably (99.99999%) right, but you don't know for sure, so why act like you do?

Jewelly
10-02-2003, 10:21 AM
Because the original poster asked for our opinions on Fleury. I gave mine and you start acting like you're Fleury's agent by saying, no way he comes here, he doesn't know anyone, he'll never renegotiate.

You know what? You're probably (99.99999%) right, but you don't know for sure, so why act like you do?Nuckfan in TO is a very thorough poster. He generally gives long-winded essays on others' comments. :p

Seriously though, he's a great poster who takes the time to analyze comments rather than criticize people. That's all he was doing with your comments.

Be nice to him... he's hard to replace. ;)

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 10:23 AM
Nuckfan in TO is a very thorough poster. He generally gives long-winded essays on others' comments. :p

Seriously though, he's a great poster who takes the time to analyze comments rather than criticize people. That's all he was doing with your comments.

Be nice to him... he's hard to replace. ;)

Fair enough, I wasn't trying to be a jackass. It just really sits the wrong way with me when people present their opinion as fact.

:) for Nuckfan in TO

NFITO
10-02-2003, 10:23 AM
Because the original poster asked for our opinions on Fleury. I gave mine and you start acting like you're Fleury's agent by saying, no way he comes here, he doesn't know anyone, he'll never renegotiate.

You know what? You're probably (99.99999%) right, but you don't know for sure, so why act like you do?

I gave my opinion as well.... I tried to back it up with reasoning... if you think that I'm presenting it as fact, that's your problem.

when I say that there is no way he comes here - I didn't say that without backing up that statement with my reasoning... saying things like he doesn't know anyone here and he'll never renegotiate WITH THE CANUCKS - I again backed that up.

that is an argument (when you backup your assertions with your reasoning)... if you don't like it and can't debate it, ignore it! :teach:

NFITO
10-02-2003, 10:28 AM
Fair enough, I wasn't trying to be a jackass. It just really sits the wrong way with me when people present their opinion as fact.

:) for Nuckfan in TO

never tried to present it as fact... it's my reasoning on the issue... rather than making comments like you did though, personally I'd appreciate it that if you don't agree with my comments, argue your point - present your reasoning against mine.

When I said that Fleury doesn't have the connections in Vancouver, or the media here isn't comparitive to Phoenix - if you disagree, then argue it...

MVP did the same thing on the Bertuzzi and CBA issue... just because we don't agree doesn't mean it has to get nasty.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 10:46 AM
never tried to present it as fact... it's my reasoning on the issue... rather than making comments like you did though, personally I'd appreciate it that if you don't agree with my comments, argue your point - present your reasoning against mine.

When I said that Fleury doesn't have the connections in Vancouver, or the media here isn't comparitive to Phoenix - if you disagree, then argue it...

MVP did the same thing on the Bertuzzi and CBA issue... just because we don't agree doesn't mean it has to get nasty.

It sure read like it.

I did present my case and you said it would never happen. Why beat my head against a brick wall?

Personally, I don't care where he has connections. It sure doesn't seem like people are chomping at the bit to sign him from where I sit but I'm hardly privy to all the info.

Sure, the media is harsh here but Burke, has, and will protected his players before. It's not as though Fleury would be the media pointman, we have Nazzy/Bert/Linden/Jovo/Cloutier to do that.

NFITO, what I posted was hardly nasty, I was getting frustrated with you telling me all the reasons why Fleury isn't going to sign here when you really don't know anything more then me on the situation.

Again, will he come here, No, almost certainly not.

Would I welcome him with open arms if he did? You're ******* right I would. Other then the top line, we have noone who can touch this guys skill if he's sober. A huge huge IF.

Is it worth a phonecall to find out and an offer of an incentive laden deal if he says yes. I certainly believe so, you don't. Let's let it go.

Peter Griffin
10-02-2003, 10:50 AM
Is it worth a phonecall to find out and an offer of an incentive laden deal if he says yes. I certainly believe so, you don't. Let's let it go.

But that would be tampering.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 11:04 AM
But that would be tampering.

Since he's in the waiver draft, I'd say it's a safe bet Chicago isn't going to kick up a fuss :)

NFITO
10-02-2003, 11:05 AM
It sure read like it.

I did present my case and you said it would never happen. Why beat my head against a brick wall?

Personally, I don't care where he has connections. It sure doesn't seem like people are chomping at the bit to sign him from where I sit but I'm hardly privy to all the info.

Sure, the media is harsh here but Burke, has, and will protected his players before. It's not as though Fleury would be the media pointman, we have Nazzy/Bert/Linden/Jovo/Cloutier to do that.

NFITO, what I posted was hardly nasty, I was getting frustrated with you telling me all the reasons why Fleury isn't going to sign here when you really don't know anything more then me on the situation.

Again, will he come here, No, almost certainly not.

Would I welcome him with open arms if he did? You're ******* right I would. Other then the top line, we have noone who can touch this guys skill if he's sober. A huge huge IF.

Is it worth a phonecall to find out and an offer of an incentive laden deal if he says yes. I certainly believe so, you don't. Let's let it go.

I think the misunderstanding here is "how" you read my post...

I admit that I don't come across well to a lot of fans... you'll get used to me in time though.... I've butted heads with many new posters in the past... that's just me though...

but I don't think we need to let the discussion go... you believe he's worth it, I don't... why not argue it?

I want to know why you think that this is a low risk move? Do you not think that Fleury in Vancouver - forget the salary at this point - could be potentially damaging for the chemistry of this team?

do you not think that this has a high probability of happening?

and this has nothing to do with skill... no doubt the guy's got a lot of skill, he may be the most skilled guy here, if he was here - including the top line!

but skill isn't a factor if there are other things that work against it IMO...

the most skilled teams rarely ever are the best teams in the league... it takes a team to win, and unfortunately with Fleury since he left Calgary a few years ago, he's had a hugely negative effect on teams.... do you not agree with this?

we do agree that Burke will never make this move... but I don't think that this is a move that Burke should even look at doing...

in the end where we see differently is that IMO this is a HUGE risk for the team.... you've said that it's a low risk/high reward situation... I've presented my points as to why it's a big risk.... why do you say it's low risk?

also with the media comment... we could have a team of 20 stars here, but there will still be media pressure on the other 3 players on the roster... that's just Vancouver and hockey coverage in a Canadian market.

The difference is that in Vancouver, there are a lot of hockey fans... there isn't a public place where Fleury could go where most people wouldn't recognize him... that's the price you pay for playing in a hockey market... in a place like Phoenix, this isn't the case... there would be many places where he wouldn't be recognized, or swarmed by fans... there are usually a few articles in the papers about the team during the season.. in Vancouver there are many, every day... we hear more about guys like Mojzis and Nolan here than you'd get in Phoenix about their 3rd or 4th line guys... this is why IMO there is much more pressure from the media which players have to deal with - and a guy like Fleury wouldn't be in the shadows, he'd be a central focus... imagine one bad streak by the team - where would the fingers point to first?

Also don't forget that last offseason there were 2 teams which Fleury expressed interest in joining... he mentioned that he wasn't crazy about going to Calgary because he felt there would be more pressure there, but said that he had a solid relationship with Gretzky so Phoenix was a choice, but ultimately choice Chicago because of his relationship with Sutter - and he did say last season that this was an important consideration because he was just coming out of rehab during the previous season in New York, and wanted to be in a situation where he felt he had support.... this season this becomes even more magnified, wouldn't you think?



ps. as for the "nasty" comment... it was where I was seeing this debate going... thankfully we can avoid that.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 11:35 AM
And I think it was in how you "typed" it. Maybe if this happens with lots of new guys it's you and not them?

Why not argue it?

Because we've both stated our postions, you keep asking me to restate mine which is frankly a waste of my time, but one more go around.

Do I think he could potentially damage the chemistry?

If you let him yes. Hire a babysitter, let him know up front he gets 1 chance and 1 chance only. If he ****s up, cut him. Chicago never severed ties with him after the stripclub incident and that was a mistake. Also, why didn't anyone on the club tell him he wasn't coming along? What kind of teammates take Theo out to a bar? I honestly don't think that would happen here. If he went to the Roxy, I think he'd be alone, if that's the case, good bye. BB can drive you to the airport.

Do I think it has a high probability of happening?

I have no idea what shape Theo is in and neither does anyone here, there is no point in commenting. Who am I to say if he's kicked the bottle or not?

Most skilled teams rarely win?

True, if you had last years Rangers in EA hockey, you'd trounce the league.

He's had a hugely negative effect on teams, do I agree?

Last year in Chicago yes, but only the once. If he doesn't go to that strip club, who's to say what happens. If he's clean (and I'm not interested any other way) I don't think he would be. In New York he was too but I think that was mostly because his problem finally came out, he's been a partier for years but it never came out in Calgary and he was an important part of that team. The NY spotlight didn't agree with him.

I say it's a low risk for the same reasons I've posted numerous times. Short money, short leash, he doesn't toe the line and he's gone. Where is the risk in that?

BS on the media comment, how much pressure does Langdon/Keane/Slegr/Allen/Hedberg get as the 21st to 23rd players on the roster?

Most of the players can walk through Vancouver unmolested because we have mature smart hockey fans in this city. I've read numerous times how much Nazzy loves it here as he can go to the park with his kids and he doesn't get hounded by people. I was in the Starbucks on Marine in North Van last year and Bert walked in, everyone looked, then went back to their lattes. It's been mentioned many times how respectful our fans our to players privacy.

Yeah, we hear more about Nolan and Mojzis because it's training camp and the mediots are looking to write about something, let's see how often it happens in season ok?

It really isn't up to Theo anymore where he plays. Well, it is I suppose in that he can refuse to go somewhere he doesn't want to. Let's not pretend people are knocking down his door to sign him up though.

I guess the need for support becomes more magnified but again, I won't speak for Theo.

NFITO
10-02-2003, 12:00 PM
And I think it was in how you "typed" it. Maybe if this happens with lots of new guys it's you and not them?


I agree it's me... never argued that... but that's who I am, and I have no reason or desire to change.


Why not argue it?

Because we've both stated our postions, you keep asking me to restate mine which is frankly a waste of my time, but one more go around.

Do I think he could potentially damage the chemistry?

If you let him yes. Hire a babysitter, let him know up front he gets 1 chance and 1 chance only. If he ****s up, cut him. Chicago never severed ties with him after the stripclub incident and that was a mistake. Also, why didn't anyone on the club tell him he wasn't coming along? What kind of teammates take Theo out to a bar? I honestly don't think that would happen here. If he went to the Roxy, I think he'd be alone, if that's the case, good bye. BB can drive you to the airport.


because you give a guy just 1 chance and hire him a babysitter (which Chicago did), doesn't mean he won't affect chemistry.

all it takes is adding a guy to the room that the players in the room don't want there, and the chemistry is affected... it's a very fragile thing, and we could lose it as quickly as we got it... I don't see the point in taking the risk.

and severing ties with a player isn't as easy as BB driving him to the airport... it affects the lineups, the way the coaches have planned their team, and it affects the payroll and budget off the ice... buying him out for a $1mill (assuming he renegotiated his contract) isn't chump change... remember how hard and difficult it was for the Canucks just to secure this lottery money - and how much time they spent on it - for a possible $2mill a season.


Do I think it has a high probability of happening?

I have no idea what shape Theo is in and neither does anyone here, there is no point in commenting. Who am I to say if he's kicked the bottle or not?

Most skilled teams rarely win?

True, if you had last years Rangers in EA hockey, you'd trounce the league.



you're right no one knows what kind of shape he's in... therefore the term I've used - which I think is justified - is *risk*.... calling him up and talking to him on the phone doesn't tell us what kind of shape he's in either... the only thing that tells us that is seeing him actually play, and how his teammates accept him.

the other comment I don't understand?? what does EA hockey have to do with anything being discussed here??

my comment wasn't that most skilled teams rarely win - it was that the most skilled teams in the league rarely are the best teams in the league.... skill is just one part of a lot of other things which determine success, and Fleury has that one part, but is missing most others... his character is in question, his desire, commitment to the team goals - basically his heart - and that IMO is more important than skill, if I had to choose one or the other.


BS on the media comment, how much pressure does Langdon/Keane/Slegr/Allen/Hedberg get as the 21st to 23rd players on the roster?

Most of the players can walk through Vancouver unmolested because we have mature smart hockey fans in this city. I've read numerous times how much Nazzy loves it here as he can go to the park with his kids and he doesn't get hounded by people. I was in the Starbucks on Marine in North Van last year and Bert walked in, everyone looked, then went back to their lattes. It's been mentioned many times how respectful our fans our to players privacy.

Yeah, we hear more about Nolan and Mojzis because it's training camp and the mediots are looking to write about something, let's see how often it happens in season ok?

It really isn't up to Theo anymore where he plays. Well, it is I suppose in that he can refuse to go somewhere he doesn't want to. Let's not pretend people are knocking down his door to sign him up though.

I guess the need for support becomes more magnified but again, I won't speak for Theo

most of those players you mentioned haven't had a negative effect on this team, nor have had problems that the media can focus on...

if say the Canucks sign Fleury, and they have a bad October, how much of the blame do you think Fleury would shoulder? no matter how's he's playing, he's still the new guy on a team that has gelled in the past... that's pressure IMO.

there's no point in arguing about the media focus in Vancouver compared to Phoenix... it's not even close IMO... and I'm just using Phoenix as an example, but it's not close to any American city really (with the possible exception of Detroit)... even in New York hockey gets low coverage (comparitively to other sports), but because of their sheer mass there is still lots to print... but pick up the NY Times and see how much hockey news is in there, and compare it to the Sun or Province... the most hockey coverage in a NY paper is in the Post - and they usually get page 6 or 7 after the NFL, NBA and various other things (during hockey season when baseball isn't around)... even offseason baseball news is higher priority.

that's just the way that the media is in the States compared to Canada... when it comes to focus on hockey, it's not even close.

anyways... we've both made our points, and we won't agree... IMO it'd be a terrible move to acquire Fleury - and why I don't think that Burke would even consider it.... we're a team that's just too reliant on the effectiveness of our chemistry to be making such a move... a few years ago it would have been different, but not anymore.

membleypeg
10-02-2003, 12:00 PM
I think the misunderstanding here is "how" you read my post...

I admit that I don't come across well to a lot of fans... you'll get used to me in time though.... I've butted heads with many new posters in the past... that's just me though...

but I don't think we need to let the discussion go... you believe he's worth it, I don't... why not argue it?

I want to know why you think that this is a low risk move? Do you not think that Fleury in Vancouver - forget the salary at this point - could be potentially damaging for the chemistry of this team?

do you not think that this has a high probability of happening?

and this has nothing to do with skill... no doubt the guy's got a lot of skill, he may be the most skilled guy here, if he was here - including the top line!

but skill isn't a factor if there are other things that work against it IMO...

the most skilled teams rarely ever are the best teams in the league... it takes a team to win, and unfortunately with Fleury since he left Calgary a few years ago, he's had a hugely negative effect on teams.... do you not agree with this?

we do agree that Burke will never make this move... but I don't think that this is a move that Burke should even look at doing...

in the end where we see differently is that IMO this is a HUGE risk for the team.... you've said that it's a low risk/high reward situation... I've presented my points as to why it's a big risk.... why do you say it's low risk?

also with the media comment... we could have a team of 20 stars here, but there will still be media pressure on the other 3 players on the roster... that's just Vancouver and hockey coverage in a Canadian market.

The difference is that in Vancouver, there are a lot of hockey fans... there isn't a public place where Fleury could go where most people wouldn't recognize him... that's the price you pay for playing in a hockey market... in a place like Phoenix, this isn't the case... there would be many places where he wouldn't be recognized, or swarmed by fans... there are usually a few articles in the papers about the team during the season.. in Vancouver there are many, every day... we hear more about guys like Mojzis and Nolan here than you'd get in Phoenix about their 3rd or 4th line guys... this is why IMO there is much more pressure from the media which players have to deal with - and a guy like Fleury wouldn't be in the shadows, he'd be a central focus... imagine one bad streak by the team - where would the fingers point to first?

Also don't forget that last offseason there were 2 teams which Fleury expressed interest in joining... he mentioned that he wasn't crazy about going to Calgary because he felt there would be more pressure there, but said that he had a solid relationship with Gretzky so Phoenix was a choice, but ultimately choice Chicago because of his relationship with Sutter - and he did say last season that this was an important consideration because he was just coming out of rehab during the previous season in New York, and wanted to be in a situation where he felt he had support.... this season this becomes even more magnified, wouldn't you think?



ps. as for the "nasty" comment... it was where I was seeing this debate going... thankfully we can avoid that.

I would agree with you that the media attention would be greater in a Canadian city than in most US counterparts (NY,Chi, Bos, Philly excluded). Why do you think however, that the media would play against him. I believe that if Theo Fleury decided to dedicate himself to playing hockey and rehabilitating himself, then he would be a media darling. It all comes down to whether this is the time when Theo decides to stick to rehab. If he can make it, he would be the toast of the town. I am willing to bet that if Theo decided to give Van a try, that the city would be on his side (not try and eat him up). As for temptation to get off of the wagon, he would find that in any hockey town to an equal degree.


I also believe that the fans would go nuts for his courageous play. Remember back to the Olympics, when a dedicated Theo was one of the best players on the Canadian squad. This guy turned it up in all the big games, against the best players in the world. I truly believe, that if we would have had a healthy Theo on our squad for the playoffs last season, that it would have made a huge difference. This is the kind of player that does not allow a team to lose a big game without giving it everything he has (again when healthy).

As for the salary situation not sitting well with the players, I think that you are off base with your thoughts. I think that every player on the team would be thrilled to have a healthy Theo on the team for 4.5 million. His performance would be head and shoulders above Brendan Morrison (on this team he would rack up 80-100 points again if healthy), and his salary would fit in exactlly where his skill level and importance to the team would rank him.

Another statement that I disagree with you is the one that winning a cup is not important to Theo. This is a player that has strived to win the big games at every level he has played in. He has shown up to play for his country internationally, and has been a big part of a Stanley cup victory in the past. I think that this is the reason that he could possibly want to come to Vancouver, if Burke were to pick him in the waiver draft.

If Theo Fleury is dedicating himself to rehabilitation, then he will get picked up in the waiver draft. You can bet that every GM in the league will be checking closely on his progress. I think that he would be the perfect fit to this team if his troubles are behind him. I think that he would be a great team leader. I hope that Vancouver picks him in the waiver draft, and gives him perhaps his last chance.

TonyTanti
10-02-2003, 12:27 PM
I would agree with you that the media attention would be greater in a Canadian city than in most US counterparts (NY,Chi, Bos, Philly excluded). Why do you think however, that the media would play against him. I believe that if Theo Fleury decided to dedicate himself to playing hockey and rehabilitating himself, then he would be a media darling. It all comes down to whether this is the time when Theo decides to stick to rehab. If he can make it, he would be the toast of the town. I am willing to bet that if Theo decided to give Van a try, that the city would be on his side (not try and eat him up). As for temptation to get off of the wagon, he would find that in any hockey town to an equal degree.


I also believe that the fans would go nuts for his courageous play. Remember back to the Olympics, when a dedicated Theo was one of the best players on the Canadian squad. This guy turned it up in all the big games, against the best players in the world. I truly believe, that if we would have had a healthy Theo on our squad for the playoffs last season, that it would have made a huge difference. This is the kind of player that does not allow a team to lose a big game without giving it everything he has (again when healthy).

As for the salary situation not sitting well with the players, I think that you are off base with your thoughts. I think that every player on the team would be thrilled to have a healthy Theo on the team for 4.5 million. His performance would be head and shoulders above Brendan Morrison (on this team he would rack up 80-100 points again if healthy), and his salary would fit in exactlly where his skill level and importance to the team would rank him.

Another statement that I disagree with you is the one that winning a cup is not important to Theo. This is a player that has strived to win the big games at every level he has played in. He has shown up to play for his country internationally, and has been a big part of a Stanley cup victory in the past. I think that this is the reason that he could possibly want to come to Vancouver, if Burke were to pick him in the waiver draft.

If Theo Fleury is dedicating himself to rehabilitation, then he will get picked up in the waiver draft. You can bet that every GM in the league will be checking closely on his progress. I think that he would be the perfect fit to this team if his troubles are behind him. I think that he would be a great team leader. I hope that Vancouver picks him in the waiver draft, and gives him perhaps his last chance.

A frigging men to that.

My comment about EA sports was that the Rangers in a video game would kick ass but when you add in the "chemistry" and personalities of a locker room, the result is less then the sum of the parts.

To chemistry, my honest belief is that if a team is winning, generally the chemistry is good, if it's losing the chemistry is bad. It's more an effect then a cause imo.

Without skill chemistry isn't worth anything.

I in the Eye
10-02-2003, 12:29 PM
I would agree with you that the media attention would be greater in a Canadian city than in most US counterparts (NY,Chi, Bos, Philly excluded). Why do you think however, that the media would play against him. I believe that if Theo Fleury decided to dedicate himself to playing hockey and rehabilitating himself, then he would be a media darling. It all comes down to whether this is the time when Theo decides to stick to rehab. If he can make it, he would be the toast of the town. I am willing to bet that if Theo decided to give Van a try, that the city would be on his side (not try and eat him up). As for temptation to get off of the wagon, he would find that in any hockey town to an equal degree.


I also believe that the fans would go nuts for his courageous play. Remember back to the Olympics, when a dedicated Theo was one of the best players on the Canadian squad. This guy turned it up in all the big games, against the best players in the world. I truly believe, that if we would have had a healthy Theo on our squad for the playoffs last season, that it would have made a huge difference. This is the kind of player that does not allow a team to lose a big game without giving it everything he has (again when healthy)... etc.



I agree 100%... And I do NOT think that he would pose a chemistry problem in the dressing room... The guy is a recovering alcoholic, not a pedophile trying to **** the younger players (now that would pose a dressing room problem).

NFITO
10-02-2003, 12:35 PM
I would agree with you that the media attention would be greater in a Canadian city than in most US counterparts (NY,Chi, Bos, Philly excluded). Why do you think however, that the media would play against him. I believe that if Theo Fleury decided to dedicate himself to playing hockey and rehabilitating himself, then he would be a media darling. It all comes down to whether this is the time when Theo decides to stick to rehab. If he can make it, he would be the toast of the town. I am willing to bet that if Theo decided to give Van a try, that the city would be on his side (not try and eat him up). As for temptation to get off of the wagon, he would find that in any hockey town to an equal degree.

.

I think that the media would play against him because the media adds pressure on people (not just players, but people in general)... this is their job! it's the pressure that would hurt Theo...

true if he dedicated himself and turned it around, and helped the team win games and become a better overall team, then he could have the support of the media... but all it would take is one bad stretch and that disappears... I don't think that Fleury is strong enough yet to handle that kind of pressure... he's given us no reason to think otherwise the last couple years...

the temptation to get off the wagon is not IMO equal in any city... stress, pressure, among other factors trigger temptation... drinking for him is a way to handle stress - he's said as much - and Vancouver is in the top 10 of cities in the NHL where hockey has a spotlight on it throughout the season... this is why I think it would be more difficult for him here.


I also believe that the fans would go nuts for his courageous play. Remember back to the Olympics, when a dedicated Theo was one of the best players on the Canadian squad. This guy turned it up in all the big games, against the best players in the world. I truly believe, that if we would have had a healthy Theo on our squad for the playoffs last season, that it would have made a huge difference. This is the kind of player that does not allow a team to lose a big game without giving it everything he has (again when healthy).



again we go back to "if we had a healthy" Fleury... this isn't the topic as I see it... the question is do we pick up this guy off waivers... he has given us absolutely no reason to believe that he is healthy... he's had problems now for 2 straight seasons, and his current team, backed by a very supportive coach, who's been in Fleury's corner for a while now, have put him on waivers...

I agree with you that if we know that Fleury has a clean bill of health, then this is a different situation - but then again, would you expect him on waivers, and also then expect him to fall to us, if he did have a clean bill of health?

As for the salary situation not sitting well with the players, I think that you are off base with your thoughts. I think that every player on the team would be thrilled to have a healthy Theo on the team for 4.5 million. His performance would be head and shoulders above Brendan Morrison (on this team he would rack up 80-100 points again if healthy), and his salary would fit in exactlly where his skill level and importance to the team would rank him.



I never said that Morrison or Bertuzzi wouldn't be thrilled to have a $4.5mill player on their team... the opposite actually!

I think that they would love it... they would love having Strudwick on this team making $6mill a year!

it's Burke who wouldn't like it, because it gives guys like Morrison and Bertuzzi more leverage to work with...

if Fleury is making $4.5 mill a year, what are the chances that he has a better season than Morrison?

don't suggest that *if* he's healthy, or *if* he plays motivated... given the circumstances right now - his questionable health, and motivation (will talk about this down further), combined with Morrison playing healthy on the big line and has been improving every year (while Theo has been digressing, and isn't getting any younger)... what are the chances that Fleury would have a better season here?

If Morrison ends up even being close to Fleury in points, it gives his agent significant leverage in negotiations... of course Morrison would love it, but Burke would avoid being in such a situation.

He keeps talking about the Naslund cap... but it's not as simple as just a cap on one player... .it's a structure... just because Naslund is making $5mill doesn't mean that you structure is fine if you have 10 other players making less - at $4mill!... if Fleury is making $4.5mill in our system, then guys like Morrison have leverage to get at least that much, if not more, in their next negotations... this is why his salary is a problem.

Not to mention that Burke has already taked about a ceiling for the entire payroll, and we're already there... eclipsing that ceiling by $4.5mill is very significant.

Another statement that I disagree with you is the one that winning a cup is not important to Theo. This is a player that has strived to win the big games at every level he has played in. He has shown up to play for his country internationally, and has been a big part of a Stanley cup victory in the past. I think that this is the reason that he could possibly want to come to Vancouver, if Burke were to pick him in the waiver draft.



It's not that Fleury wouldn't want to win another Cup... but do you really think that this is a priority for him?? do you think that he would at this stage in his career *and his life!* would put the Cup higher than being in a place which he knows he can get support??

he's won a Cup... he's won championships elsewhere as well, the Canada Cup, the Olympics, WJC, world championships, etc... right now this isn't the most important thing for him - it can't be!!

last season he wanted to go to Chicago because of Sutter... he wasn't going there because of a chance to win a Cup, but because he felt he had someone there that he could lean on, and get support from...

this season he's in an even worse situation as of now... 2 years ago in NY he went to rehab, and in the offseason, despite the concerns, it wasn't like it is now... but after what happened in Chicago, the concerns are even bigger this offseason... support I would think is an even bigger priority now, then it was last season.

there are bigger things in focus right now for Fleury than winning a Cup... he knows it, and he's commented on it... Vancouver can't provide him with any of those answers... we have a notoriously tough GM here, a tough, vocal coach, a media that has taken more than its share of shots at various people on the team, and a team that has the expectations placed heavily on their shoulders of winning the Cup... this is city has pressure, there's no escaping that.

If Theo Fleury is dedicating himself to rehabilitation, then he will get picked up in the waiver draft. You can bet that every GM in the league will be checking closely on his progress. I think that he would be the perfect fit to this team if his troubles are behind him. I think that he would be a great team leader. I hope that Vancouver picks him in the waiver draft, and gives him perhaps his last chance

I doubt that he gets any interest in waivers this year... $4.5 mill is a significant chunk for teams to add... most teams have already hit their payroll ceilings (if not all now), and teams will be desperate to cut payroll further as the season rolls along... adding a $4.5mill question mark is probably not a thing that teams will be doing this year.

I also think that he'd be a perfect fit on this team, if we can ignore the problems he's had the last 2 years and his salary and how that affects our payroll structure and our flexibility to make moves during the season...

the fact however is that neither of these two things can be ignored... this is why I have to go back to what I had felt from the beginning - this being a high risk move.

remember also that committing $4.5mill of our payroll right now takes away the flexibility to correct any problems that the team may see come up during the season... this is why IMO Burke has left himself such options every year, rather than just load up in the offseason.

NFITO
10-02-2003, 12:36 PM
I agree 100%... And I do NOT think that he would pose a chemistry problem in the dressing room... The guy is a recovering alcoholic, not a pedophile trying to **** the younger players (now that would pose a dressing room problem).

so you don't think that he had a negative effect on the Hawks last year?

I in the Eye
10-02-2003, 12:53 PM
so you don't think that he had a negative effect on the Hawks last year?

IF he had a negative effect on the Hawks, he was a symptom of a much larger problem. To blame the Hawks chemistry problems all on Fleury is pretty short sighted. They were pretty fragile to begin with if one incident at a strip club forced them to collapse!

NFITO
10-02-2003, 01:07 PM
IF he had a negative effect on the Hawks, he was a symptom of a much larger problem. To blame the Hawks chemistry problems all on Fleury is pretty short sighted. They were pretty fragile to begin with if one incident at a strip club forced them to collapse!

never said once that I'm blaming all the chemistry problems the Hawks had on Fleury...

my question was just as it was worded:

do you think that Fleury had a negative effect on the Hawks chemistry last year?

not putting all the blame on his shoulders - but I am saying that he did have a negative impact on the team's chemistry.

and don't you think that our situation is also a concern?? our team last year proved to be fragile when it comes to chemistry... we lost the division last year on our own - it's not the Avs that took it from us... we were beat by mediocre teams down the stretch because we played horrible... we lost the 2nd round of the playoffs after leading 3-1 ....

these events show that when the pressure's on this team folded... that to me is fragile, and IMO it wouldn't take much to disrupt the chemistry we have.

add to it that we lost 2 players that were *key* in our lockerroom as well, and we have some question marks to address, when it comes to really how strong our chemistry is this season.

I in the Eye
10-02-2003, 02:28 PM
never said once that I'm blaming all the chemistry problems the Hawks had on Fleury...

my question was just as it was worded:

do you think that Fleury had a negative effect on the Hawks chemistry last year?

not putting all the blame on his shoulders - but I am saying that he did have a negative impact on the team's chemistry.

and don't you think that our situation is also a concern?? our team last year proved to be fragile when it comes to chemistry... we lost the division last year on our own - it's not the Avs that took it from us... we were beat by mediocre teams down the stretch because we played horrible... we lost the 2nd round of the playoffs after leading 3-1 ....

these events show that when the pressure's on this team folded... that to me is fragile, and IMO it wouldn't take much to disrupt the chemistry we have.

add to it that we lost 2 players that were *key* in our lockerroom as well, and we have some question marks to address, when it comes to really how strong our chemistry is this season.

Yes, I think Fleury had a negative effect on the Hawks chemistry last year. I also think that Fleury had a negative effect because the Hawks had severe player chemistry problems in general.

No, I don't think our situation is a concern. Our team last year proved to be fragile when it comes to MENTAL TOUGHNESS not chemistry. The situations you outline are because of MENTAL TOUGHNESS. The Canucks do not have a chemistry problem. The Canucks are one of the better teams in the league because of player chemistry. I'd say pretty much EVERY player is on the same page and follows the system. I'd say that the Canucks have a definite identity and EACH player has a definite role on the team that adds to the whole.

The Canucks choked because of mental toughness - Canucks are a young team and you only get mentally tough through dealing with adversity. Fleury is a warrior whose been through the terrain and has a history of scoring big goals in big games. Fleury is a mentally tough hockey player who would only add to the Canucks team mental toughness.

I give Fleury the benefit of the doubt. Yes, he's had problems. Yes, he's a recovering alcoholic. Yes, it's a long, bumpy road to recovery.

If he's putting in the effort to get himself better, he's worth a chance. High reward player.

He would fit perfectly in a 2nd line role. The pressure isn't on him to be the top point producer. He'd be asked to chip in secondary scoring and fit in with the Sedins. What are you so scared of? That big bad little Fleury is going to somehow convince the Sedins that they should get drunk and go to Swedish Touch?

And, Fleury will be EVEN MORE mentally tough once he beats the bottle. I assume he will, because it's my nature to assume that human beings can change and get better. What an inspiration to all the hockey players with substance abuses he will be! And the fans who are battling alcohol themselves.

Do I think that Brian Burke should look into getting Fleury? Yes.

Do I think Fleury will be coming to Vancouver? No. Because of reasons discussed in other posts above...

LaVal
10-02-2003, 02:35 PM
I agree 100%... And I do NOT think that he would pose a chemistry problem in the dressing room... The guy is a recovering alcoholic, not a pedophile trying to **** the younger players (now that would pose a dressing room problem).

did you forget what happened with the Hawks last season? Fleury, along with Arnason and Housley were involved in an altercation with bouncers in a strip club last season. it tore the chemistry apart and after that the team tanked it.

saying Fleury is not a chemistry risk is like saying having unprotected sex with a prostitute on Hastings St is not an STD risk.

I in the Eye
10-02-2003, 02:43 PM
did you forget what happened with the Hawks last season? Fleury, along with Arnason and Housley were involved in an altercation with bouncers in a strip club last season. it tore the chemistry apart and after that the team tanked it.

saying Fleury is not a chemistry risk is like saying having unprotected sex with a prostitute on Hastings St is not an STD risk.

Read above for my point-of-view... And having unprotected sex with a Catholic school girl is more an STD risk than a prostitute on Hastings St.

Yammer
10-02-2003, 02:49 PM
It's something when a hockey player can be dissed for too much fondness for beer. Where would the NHL be without its alcoholics?

LaVal
10-02-2003, 02:51 PM
It's something when a hockey player can be dissed for too much fondness for beer. Where would the NHL be without its alcoholics?

if it was just a fondness for beer there wouldn't be a problem. alcoholism is a nasty disease. unfortunately with this disease comes too many complications for the NHL.