HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Langdon, Baumgartner gone

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-03-2003, 09:45 AM
  #1
Castor Troy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 141
vCash: 500
Langdon, Baumgartner gone

TSN is reporting that Montreal picked up Langdon and Pittsburgh picked up Baumgartner in the waiver draft today. TSN Article

Castor Troy is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 11:56 AM
  #2
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,911
vCash: 500
no big loss...

I'm just glad we didn't lose Bouck on waivers... and now he can move up and down through the season without having to go through waivers again.

the only thing losing Baumer does is give Mojzis, Koltsov, Vydareny and Grenier a chance to work hard to be the first call up this season... a positive IMO.

losing Langdon was a good thing... he wasn't going to play much, and now we have a spot for our younger players to come up.

My guess is that Keane is going to get signed now though?

NFITO is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 12:07 PM
  #3
Hobo
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
The Canucks will miss Langdon's grit - even though it does open up ice for players like King and Keane. Looks like Martin Grenier should be the happiest guy in Winnipeg today. Brad May needs to stay healthy too.

 
Old
10-03-2003, 12:18 PM
  #4
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,196
vCash: 500
I'm actually glad that the Canucks 'lost' these two players as it opens up a spot for some of the younger guys. Langdon was pretty much replaced by May when Brad was re-signed and Martin Grenier can provide some extra toughness when needed. Langdon's spot can now be filled by Mike Keane, who should be signed now to play as the 13th/14th forward. That leaves an open spot for call-ups from the minors. Baumgartner's spot can be filled by guys like Mojsis, Grenier, Koltsov(if he improves), Jokela etc.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 12:20 PM
  #5
Peter
Registered User
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobo
The Canucks will miss Langdon's grit - even though it does open up ice for players like King and Keane. Looks like Martin Grenier should be the happiest guy in Winnipeg today. Brad May needs to stay healthy too.
No big losses IMO.

Losing Baumgartner simply means Grenier or Mojisz now coming up to play. And losing Langdon means we can now sign Keane and probably keep King up.

I too am very, very glad not to lose Bouck.

All in all a very interesting waiver draft day.

*I am a little disappointed that Burke did not grab Simpson, if he was even still available for Canucks to pick.

Peter is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 12:25 PM
  #6
MVP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,627
vCash: 500
i look at it as that Canucks have close to extra 1 millions dollars to spend now.

MVP is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 12:29 PM
  #7
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
*I am a little disappointed that Burke did not grab Simpson, if he was even still available for Canucks to pick.
I'm pretty sure that Anaheim picked a couple spots ahead of the Canucks. If he had fallen, I'm sure Burke would've thought about taking him and exposing Slegr, as Slegr likely would've been picked up.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 12:30 PM
  #8
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVP
i look at it as that Canucks have close to extra 1 millions dollars to spend now.
Not really. They have Langdon's spot to fill(saved $500,000) and most minor league players would make around that much when called from the minors. Baumgartner was also on a two-way deal which would've paid him around $50,000-75,000 when in the minors.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 12:33 PM
  #9
incawg
Registered User
 
incawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,009
vCash: 500
I would have liked to have kept Bomber as he provided some useful depth even at #8. That being said, it's MUCH better for him to be in pittsburgh. He will be a top 4 defender there. We don't really need him, but you can never have to many NHL-caliber defenders.

I'm actually happy to see Langdon go. I'm certain that this paves the way for Keane to be signed, who will be much more useful come playoff time. Langdon was pretty much a one-dimensional goon, something that is easily replaceable either inside or outside the organization.

incawg is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:10 PM
  #10
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,921
vCash: 500
Good for Baumgartner. Hopefully he will get an opportunity to play an entire season in the NHL.

Agreed about Langdon. Grenier and May more than make up for his loss.

What exactly is this fascination with Bouck? He plays hard, which is admirable, but he has no hands and no finish. I doubt he gets any games this year. King, Reid and Kesler are all well ahead of him on the depth chart. Bouck gets lumped in with the Kavanagh's and Komarniski's as far as a callup is concerned, and choosing between those three is a tossup. They all bring the same thing - intensity, hitting, and no offense. In fact, those 2 both had more goals last year

Komarniski - 15 goals (1st year playing forward as a pro)
Kavanagh - 15 goals (leader in playoff scoring for the Moose, I think)
Bouck - 10 goals

Like I said, if there is a callup it is a tossup between those 3. Neither one stands out above the other but for some reason Bouck gets talked about all the time while those other 2 are ignored. What gives?

maruk14 is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:16 PM
  #11
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by incawg
Langdon was pretty much a one-dimensional goon, something that is easily replaceable either inside or outside the organization.
I hope he will be replaced though...even though he didn't play much, it was nice knowing we had someone on our NHL roster who could hang with the real heavyweights in the league. Don't forget that we have Worrell in our division now, as well as Laraque and Johnson. Sorry but May and Allen aren't going to cut it with those guys. I give Allen credit for being willing to go, but let's face it the guy is a punching bag with size and not much else. Heck I think the only guy he beat last year was Clark Wilm. May can throw em pretty good but he's not big enough to take on the heavies out there...see his fight with Reed Low last year :p. Who's going to deal with Johnson next time that punk-ass decides to take a run at Ohlund or Naslund?

I guess within the organisation we have Grenier, but it seems to me that dressing a defenseman who's only out there to throw punches is a bit more costly than doing the same with a forward. Also he'd have to be called up from Manitoba, which is a bit more of a pain then just sticking Langdon into the lineup was.

I guess we'll see how things go at the start of the season...I remember last year we started without an enforcer too, and we had guys running Cloutier left right and centre...seems to me that didn't happen nearly so much when we had Langdon out there...

colonel_korn is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:22 PM
  #12
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn
May can throw em pretty good but he's not big enough to take on the heavies out there...see his fight with Reed Low last year :p. :
In fairness to May, that fight against Lowe was after he had already taken on Salvador and was at the end of his shift when Lowe came fresh off the bench and challenged him. He was tired, and admitted so after the game, but said he felt obligated to give Lowe a scrap.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:25 PM
  #13
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14
What exactly is this fascination with Bouck? He plays hard, which is admirable, but he has no hands and no finish. I doubt he gets any games this year. King, Reid and Kesler are all well ahead of him on the depth chart. Bouck gets lumped in with the Kavanagh's and Komarniski's as far as a callup is concerned, and choosing between those three is a tossup. They all bring the same thing - intensity, hitting, and no offense. In fact, those 2 both had more goals last year

Komarniski - 15 goals (1st year playing forward as a pro)
Kavanagh - 15 goals (leader in playoff scoring for the Moose, I think)
Bouck - 10 goals

Like I said, if there is a callup it is a tossup between those 3. Neither one stands out above the other but for some reason Bouck gets talked about all the time while those other 2 are ignored. What gives?

I think a lot of people remember the success Bouck had with the Prince George Cougars and the WJC for Canada. He's not as dominant a player, but he was a workhorse then and still is. It's always nice to have depth as well, and Bouck provides that. Bouck also has the most NHL experience of the three which is always nice to have. I do agree though that all three are similar players and when it comes down to calling one of them up, the guys who is playing the best at the time will likely be the first guy recalled.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:28 PM
  #14
incawg
Registered User
 
incawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn
I guess we'll see how things go at the start of the season...I remember last year we started without an enforcer too, and we had guys running Cloutier left right and centre...seems to me that didn't happen nearly so much when we had Langdon out there...
Although I didn't notice it, if it did happen it was more correlation that causation. Langdon may have won some fights, but he's hardly an "intimidating" presence out there. Guys that can knock your lights out or nail you with a huge hit are going to stop you from running players. Those are two qualities that Langdon failed to bring.

incawg is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:29 PM
  #15
MVP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin
I think a lot of people remember the success Bouck had with the Prince George Cougars and the WJC for Canada. He's not as dominant a player, but he was a workhorse then and still is. It's always nice to have depth as well, and Bouck provides that. Bouck also has the most NHL experience of the three which is always nice to have. I do agree though that all three are similar players and when it comes down to calling one of them up, the guys who is playing the best at the time will likely be the first guy recalled.

I am sure Kavanagh has couple regular NHL games of experience and one playoff game experience too. i don't see that as too much different between Bouch and Kavanagh if you are talking about experience alone.

MVP is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:29 PM
  #16
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn
I hope he will be replaced though...even though he didn't play much, it was nice knowing we had someone on our NHL roster who could hang with the real heavyweights in the league. Don't forget that we have Worrell in our division now, as well as Laraque and Johnson. Sorry but May and Allen aren't going to cut it with those guys. I give Allen credit for being willing to go, but let's face it the guy is a punching bag with size and not much else. Heck I think the only guy he beat last year was Clark Wilm. May can throw em pretty good but he's not big enough to take on the heavies out there...see his fight with Reed Low last year :p. Who's going to deal with Johnson next time that punk-ass decides to take a run at Ohlund or Naslund?

I guess within the organisation we have Grenier, but it seems to me that dressing a defenseman who's only out there to throw punches is a bit more costly than doing the same with a forward. Also he'd have to be called up from Manitoba, which is a bit more of a pain then just sticking Langdon into the lineup was.

I guess we'll see how things go at the start of the season...I remember last year we started without an enforcer too, and we had guys running Cloutier left right and centre...seems to me that didn't happen nearly so much when we had Langdon out there...
If the Canucks need a no talent goon, they can pick one up anytime during the season for nothing. They'll stick with "team toughness" for the first part of the season, and if that doesn't work, someone may be brought in. Langdon was a solid fighter, but he was a waste of a roster spot IMO. If the Canucks could get another guy like Brashear(top fighter and can play a regular shift) without the drama, I'd be happy, but that is unlikely to occur.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:31 PM
  #17
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVP
I am sure Kavanagh has couple regular NHL games of experience and one playoff game experience too. i don't see that as too much different between Bouch and Kavanagh if you are talking about experience alone.
Bouck played close to 50 games a couple years ago with Dallas. Kavanagh has 6 NHL games total. Bouck was able to stick on with a top team, Kavanagh hasn't, albeit he hasn't been given much of a chance.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:32 PM
  #18
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,921
vCash: 500
Langer is gone, but if the Canucks need an enforcer and they don't feel a May/Grenier combo will work there are still some UFA's available that can scrap.

Jim McKenzie
Jeff Odgers
Rob Ray
Cliff Ronning ..... just kidding

This came off TSN so if these guys have already signed on somewhere I missed it. Point being Langdon is easily replaced.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:33 PM
  #19
MVP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin
Not really. They have Langdon's spot to fill(saved $500,000) and most minor league players would make around that much when called from the minors. Baumgartner was also on a two-way deal which would've paid him around $50,000-75,000 when in the minors.

I don't know, as of right now the money is available. When Burke actually use the money on Keane than it is another story. Even assume the money save up is 575000$, there might be enough to acquire a guy likes Adam Graves.

Not saying Burke is going to do that, but the free up salary do create more option for him.

MVP is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:34 PM
  #20
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,926
vCash: 500
Agree Hobo - either we pick up a heavy weight like Roy, through free agency or trade, or we bring up Grenier and play him as 7th Defenseman when needed.

To - Bouck is below Ready on the depth chart. Ready is a better player as he demonstrated in Manitoba last year. Better scorer, tougher and better leadership. The Canucks will not be making any undue effort to adjust the roster so Bouck can be brought up and down.

Overall a bad day for the team. Lost depth on defense. Lost our only true enforcer and saw potential rival Anahiem beef up their defense by acquiring Simpson. None of which could have been avoided.

Peter G. This does not open up roster spots. If the players where better than those lost they would already be here. Maybe its no great disaster losing Langdon and Baumgartner but it certainly is never a good thing to lose organizational depth. Why try unnecesssarily to find the silver lining. It was a loss poor and simple.

This thing is a little out of order because I tried to poat but the board is so gummed up that it wouldn't post.

orcatown is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:34 PM
  #21
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin
I think a lot of people remember the success Bouck had with the Prince George Cougars and the WJC for Canada. He's not as dominant a player, but he was a workhorse then and still is. It's always nice to have depth as well, and Bouck provides that. Bouck also has the most NHL experience of the three which is always nice to have. I do agree though that all three are similar players and when it comes down to calling one of them up, the guys who is playing the best at the time will likely be the first guy recalled.
True, but that group will be behind the Reid, King, Kesler group so a callup is a possibility, but not a great one. I just see him over-hyped, IMO, on this board and was wondering aloud what the big deal was.

He didn't even have a very good camp and was sent down pretty early, but he is being mentioned as thankfully not being taken in the waiver draft.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:35 PM
  #22
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
The Modfather
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,409
vCash: 50
Langer and Baumer gave us depth, but losing them is no big, really. I was never a big fan of Baumgartner myself--one good game and everyone loved him. But Langdon was great for his tenure with the team--good team guy, always willing to scrap. But it looks as if the "team toughness" is back...we'll see how long that lasts before Burke addresses it again. Of course we can always call up Martin Grenier. :p

I'm glad to see Baumer go, little sad about Langdon, but he'll have fun in Montreal.

~Canucklehead~

__________________
Please visit my Official Facebook Page Mike Forward Writing for information on current and future releases.
Mr. Canucklehead is online now  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:39 PM
  #23
MVP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin
Bouck played close to 50 games a couple years ago with Dallas. Kavanagh has 6 NHL games total. Bouck was able to stick on with a top team, Kavanagh hasn't, albeit he hasn't been given much of a chance.

The thing that is disappointing about Bouck is that he had very good opportunity to make the Coyo team couple seasons ago, but he failed the test, but sometime grit player likes that take awhile to develop. i still think that Burke might bring in someone from the outside if King or Keane cannot do the job.


i mean Steve Thomas, Adam Oates, Adam Graves plus other are still available for probably a very cheap price.

Or maybe to acquire an enforcer altogether.

There are a lot of possibility at this stage, but if Canucks just need a player for couple games due to injury emegerence, i prefer to call up Kesler and give him couple games of experience.

MVP is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:40 PM
  #24
MVP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14
He didn't even have a very good camp and was sent down pretty early, but he is being mentioned as thankfully not being taken in the waiver draft.


Agreed

MVP is offline  
Old
10-03-2003, 01:45 PM
  #25
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown
Peter G. This does not open up roster spots. If the players where better than those lost they would already be here. Maybe its no great disaster losing Langdon and Baumgartner but it certainly is never a good thing to lose organizational depth. Why try unnecesssarily to find the silver lining. It was a loss poor and simple.
This definitely opens up at least one NHL roster spot IMO. With May re-signed and playing a regular shift and Burke stating that Grenier was going to see a handful of NHL action this year, Langdon was going to find it hard to see NHL action, quite possible only 10 games or so. At $500,000 and on a one-way contract he was wasting a roster spot that could've been better used as a call-up spot for players from the farm. Baumgartner's spot always the Canucks to use some of their younger players and give them a chance to play. I'm less pleased about losing Baumgartner as he was an ideal 8th d-man IMO(knew his role and accepted it. I'm glad he'll get a chance at regular NHL action with the Pens now!), but how can you argue that this doesn't open up a spot, as it cleary does! I see the loss in losing Baumgartner, that happens with teams with as much depth as the Canucks. But I really don't see the loss by losing Langdon. IMO, he wasn't going to see much NHL action anyway, why not use his spot to give some of the young guys NHL time?

Peter Griffin is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.