HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Scott Gomez

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-03-2008, 03:59 AM
  #26
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
I'm suggesting we'll need more guys like Bernier to compensate if we're going to assemble a soft and/or diminutive top 6.
Well idealy we'd get someone like Jonathan Cheechoo...but someone mentioned in another thread that San Jose is looking to keep their forward core together, which, based on their lack of movement, is probably true.

Still, Brian Gionta when compared to someone like Markus Naslund, looks like Donald Brashear.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2008, 04:14 AM
  #27
David Booth Fan
Registered User
 
David Booth Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David Booth Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Well idealy we'd get someone like Jonathan Cheechoo...but someone mentioned in another thread that San Jose is looking to keep their forward core together, which, based on their lack of movement, is probably true.

Still, Brian Gionta when compared to someone like Markus Naslund, looks like Donald Brashear.
The good thing is we wont be hoping on players like Isbister for offensive contribution, even if Sundin doesnt come here ( i dont think he will ) we are gonna get something good with out remaining cap space.

David Booth Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2008, 01:12 PM
  #28
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasualty View Post
The good thing is we wont be hoping on players like Isbister for offensive contribution, even if Sundin doesnt come here ( i dont think he will ) we are gonna get something good with out remaining cap space.
Exactly, which is why I am baffled that people were upset at the loss of Nonis.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2008, 10:47 PM
  #29
Angelo25
 
Angelo25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Exactly, which is why I am baffled that people were upset at the loss of Nonis.
Exactly, Atleast now we're trying to make changes. Good or bad, we need to change the make up of this team.

Angelo25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 12:27 AM
  #30
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottjose View Post
Exactly, Atleast now we're trying to make changes. Good or bad, we need to change the make up of this team.
And some of the changes include bringing in players with talent or have an actual purpose (Wellwood, Johnson, Hordichuk) instead of plugs like Isbister and Ritchie who really didn't do much of anything.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 04:03 AM
  #31
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasualty View Post
The good thing is we wont be hoping on players like Isbister for offensive contribution, even if Sundin doesnt come here ( i dont think he will ) we are gonna get something good with out remaining cap space.
What a pathetic and disingenuous strawman. A 600K player was brought in for offensive contribution? People can criticize Nonis all they want, and often rightfully so, but they shouldn't have to insult everyone's intelligence doing it.

I'm curious, though, if Sundin doesn't come here, what exactly are we gonna get with our cap space? Nothing that doesn't cost a lot of assets.


Last edited by FruityPants3*: 08-04-2008 at 04:12 AM.
FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 07:57 AM
  #32
Blane Youngblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
I'm curious, though, if Sundin doesn't come here, what exactly are we gonna get with our cap space? Nothing that doesn't cost a lot of assets.
For some reason, I really think its going to be Martin Havlat.

I imagine it'll cost us a pick + prospect. Maybe Hansen + 2nd.

Overall I'd say its great, if he stays healthy (and I believe that the fact that it's a contract year would help the guy stay healthy). As I've said in other threads, if he goes down, we're just back in the same position (we have cap space and need a 1A/1B centre).

Blane Youngblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 02:06 PM
  #33
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
What a pathetic and disingenuous strawman. A 600K player was brought in for offensive contribution? People can criticize Nonis all they want, and often rightfully so, but they shouldn't have to insult everyone's intelligence doing it.
I'm curious, though, if Sundin doesn't come here, what exactly are we gonna get with our cap space? Nothing that doesn't cost a lot of assets.
Actually it would be Nonis insulting everyone's intelligence. Offense was identified as a problem, and the only thing he did to address that issue was bringing in Byron Ritchie and Brad Isbister. No other forward was brought in.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 04:41 PM
  #34
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Actually it would be Nonis insulting everyone's intelligence. Offense was identified as a problem, and the only thing he did to address that issue was bringing in Byron Ritchie and Brad Isbister. No other forward was brought in.
Don't be stupid. You know Nonis didn't bring Ritchie or Isbister in to address the offense issue. They identified grit and toughness as an issue and that's why he targeted them, right or wrong.

Nonis failed miserably to upgrade the offense. He was gambling he'd be able to upgrade midseason and couldn't. But suggesting Isbister and Ritchie were brought in on near league minimum to upgrade the offense is over-the-top idiocy. There are lots of efficient, practical criticisms of Nonis. These rants just discredit the people making them.

FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 05:20 PM
  #35
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
Don't be stupid. You know Nonis didn't bring Ritchie or Isbister in to address the offense issue. They identified grit and toughness as an issue and that's why he targeted them, right or wrong.

Nonis failed miserably to upgrade the offense. He was gambling he'd be able to upgrade midseason and couldn't. But suggesting Isbister and Ritchie were brought in on near league minimum to upgrade the offense is over-the-top idiocy. There are lots of efficient, practical criticisms of Nonis. These rants just discredit the people making them.
Now grit and toughness may be what the intended purpose should have been and what everyone assumed, it is fair to say Nonis had some leading statements when Isbister came to camp.

Quote:
For the well-travelled Isbister, mired in the minors until recalled for the second time Feb. 21, it was a vote of confidence from the New York Rangers coach. It piqued the Vancouver Canucks' interest in the big winger even more.

"You have to have some ability to play with those players," Canucks general manager Dave Nonis said Tuesday. "We've had some interest in him for a couple of years. He can fill a lot of roles and played with a little more edge the last few years.
Brad Isbister contributed five points (1-4) in 19 regular-season games for the New York Rangers last year.View Larger Image View Larger Image
Brad Isbister contributed five points (1-4) in 19 regular-season games for the New York Rangers last year.

"He has played at a pretty high level in this league, just not consistently and that's his biggest downfall. He's going to get every chance here to excel."
from http://www.canada.com/theprovince/ne...8-6b4823efc5df

IN the end though Nonis said going into the off season the first order of business was offence and his only action was Isbister, RItchie and Sanford so I completely understand why people assume Isbister and Ritchie were brought in to contribute to that aspect of the team.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 06:49 PM
  #36
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,201
vCash: 500
As opposed to "We're not going to give him any chances to succeed."

If anyone thought those signings were meant to address the offense at the time they have a very isolated knowledge of hockey players playing outside of Vancouver. I thought it was common knowledge then, as it is now, that veteran players signed for minimum salary are usually being penciled into the bottom 6.

Neither player is an offensive player. You might as well point to Sanford as evidence of Noni's inability to upgrade the offense, it holds as much weight.

Of course Nonis is going to try and sell people on his minor signings, but it should be blatantly obvious to any sensible person that Nonis wanted to upgrade the offense and that these 2 players weren't his solution. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Nonis either had an agenda to prepare an impotent team or was a complete idiot with zero hockey knowledge.

FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 07:06 PM
  #37
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
Don't be stupid. You know Nonis didn't bring Ritchie or Isbister in to address the offense issue. They identified grit and toughness as an issue and that's why he targeted them, right or wrong.

Nonis failed miserably to upgrade the offense. He was gambling he'd be able to upgrade midseason and couldn't. But suggesting Isbister and Ritchie were brought in on near league minimum to upgrade the offense is over-the-top idiocy. There are lots of efficient, practical criticisms of Nonis. These rants just discredit the people making them.
Okay, so Nonis didn't bring in Isbister and Ritchie for scoring help, which means that he didn't do anything to address this teams major need, which means that Aquilini was justified in firing Nonis who clearly did not do his job.

Thank you!

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 07:09 PM
  #38
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
As opposed to "We're not going to give him any chances to succeed."

If anyone thought those signings were meant to address the offense at the time they have a very isolated knowledge of hockey players playing outside of Vancouver. I thought it was common knowledge then, as it is now, that veteran players signed for minimum salary are usually being penciled into the bottom 6.

Neither player is an offensive player. You might as well point to Sanford as evidence of Noni's inability to upgrade the offense, it holds as much weight.

Of course Nonis is going to try and sell people on his minor signings, but it should be blatantly obvious to any sensible person that Nonis wanted to upgrade the offense and that these 2 players weren't his solution. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Nonis either had an agenda to prepare an impotent team or was a complete idiot with zero hockey knowledge.
In short...it was blatantly obvious that Nonis failed to do his job.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 07:27 PM
  #39
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Okay, so Nonis didn't bring in Isbister and Ritchie for scoring help, which means that he didn't do anything to address this teams major need, which means that Aquilini was justified in firing Nonis who clearly did not do his job.

Thank you!
See, there you go, arguing with logic and reason. It's a refreshing change.

FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 07:44 PM
  #40
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
See, there you go, arguing with logic and reason. It's a refreshing change.
Actually you failed to grasp at what I was getting at. I just had to spell it out for you.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 08:04 PM
  #41
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Actually you failed to grasp at what I was getting at. I just had to spell it out for you.
I never argued about Nonis's failure to upgrade the offense. The only thing I argued was the disingenuous suggestion that Isbister and Ritchie were Nonis's attempts to upgrade the offense, which you seemed to endorse.

FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 08:07 PM
  #42
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Actually it would be Nonis insulting everyone's intelligence. Offense was identified as a problem, and the only thing he did to address that issue was bringing in Byron Ritchie and Brad Isbister. No other forward was brought in.
Here, Nonis brought in said players to "address the issue [of a lack of offense]."

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Okay, so Nonis didn't bring in Isbister and Ritchie for scoring help, which means that he didn't do anything to address this teams major need, which means that Aquilini was justified in firing Nonis who clearly did not do his job.

Thank you!
And here, you acknowledge Nonis didn't bring them in for scoring help.

Maybe you should "spell it out" for people more often, it works better as a means for argument than contradicting yourself.

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 08:34 PM
  #43
Kmaz
Registered User
 
Kmaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
So Nonis didn't bring in enough offense, that is clear, but he didn't fail as bad as many people say.

From what I've seen so far, Nonis and Gillis havn't shown who is the better GM. Nonis recognized goaltending as a weakness much like Gillis has recognized offense. Nonis traded for Luongo, Gillis traded for Bernier. Two great moves that either GM would've made if given the chance. Gillis brought in Demitra while letting Nazzy and Mo walk and will allow some of Nonis' prospects (+ easy gamble Wellwood) a shot at giving us some offence.

Now, Gillis has said he will trade for some offence if we don't get Sundin, but as of right now nothing has been done. Cap room doesn't mean squat if we can't trade for a player. And until we actually see what we have to give up, we can't laud Gillis for improving our team.
To me, Gillis hasn't proven that he's better than Nonis. However, he appears competent and likely a good GM (I thought that about Nonis too.)

Oh yeah, Gillis says we need better player development so he spends some cash. Nonis realized we needed better scouting and so brought in some new guy(s?) and it seems with Tambellini in charge of that, we managed to find some good players..

Kmaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 09:17 PM
  #44
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlrsr View Post
Here, Nonis brought in said players to "address the issue [of a lack of offense]."



And here, you acknowledge Nonis didn't bring them in for scoring help.

Maybe you should "spell it out" for people more often, it works better as a means for argument than contradicting yourself.
Well I was under the impression that he was one of those Nonis supporters who still feel that he never should have been fired.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 09:49 PM
  #45
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Well I was under the impression that he was one of those Nonis supporters who still feel that he never should have been fired.
Maybe he is, what difference does that make?

That causes you to make arguments which have no basis in reality (ie. R&I were brought in to fix the offense) ?

Frankly, I'm not surprised.

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 10:35 PM
  #46
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlrsr View Post
Maybe he is, what difference does that make?

That causes you to make arguments which have no basis in reality (ie. R&I were brought in to fix the offense) ?

Frankly, I'm not surprised.
By Nonis's own word, the Canucks number 1 priority last offseason was to address the problems they had offensively.

This gives us two paths of thought:

1) Ritchie and Isbister were brought in to help our offensive woes

2) Dave Nonis didn't do his job

It really is that simple. And if you don't do your job you should be fired should you not? I know if I go to work for a whole year and sit around and do absolutely nothing and don't produce financial statements and whatnot I will most definitely be fired. Nonis sat around on his hands and did not address this teams problem up front. Either he attempted to by bringing in Ritchie and Isbister, or he didn't even attempt to at all by not bringing in anyone. Which ever way you look at it (I'm not saying I look at it either way, I'm presenting the facts), Nonis didn't get the desired results.

The player that this thread is about was available as a FA last offseason, and Nonis failed to sign him. Yeah it was a good thing that he didn't based on what he went for, but now people are suggesting bringing him in a year later?

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 10:44 PM
  #47
Flinch*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Actually it would be Nonis insulting everyone's intelligence. Offense was identified as a problem, and the only thing he did to address that issue was bringing in Byron Ritchie and Brad Isbister. No other forward was brought in.
I'm pretty sure Mason Raymond didn't play for the Canucks last season...

Nor Matt Pettinger or Kris Beech, for that matter, FWIW.

But you're right, he totally should've thrown $7M at Scott Gomez since he could have.

Flinch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 10:51 PM
  #48
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flinch View Post
I'm pretty sure Mason Raymond didn't play for the Canucks last season...

Nor Matt Pettinger or Kris Beech, for that matter, FWIW.

But you're right, he totally should've thrown $7M at Scott Gomez since he could have.
Mason Raymond made the team out of camp due to a good camp. Nonis got lucky that Raymond was able to step up without having to spend a single full season in the AHL.

Matt Pettinger and Kris Beech were brought in to solve our scoring woes? First off, they weren't brought in during the offseason...but nevermind that, are you suggesting that those are top 6 forwards?

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 10:55 PM
  #49
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
By Nonis's own word, the Canucks number 1 priority last offseason was to address the problems they had offensively.

This gives us two paths of thought:

1) Ritchie and Isbister were brought in to help our offensive woes

2) Dave Nonis didn't do his job

It really is that simple. And if you don't do your job you should be fired should you not? I know if I go to work for a whole year and sit around and do absolutely nothing and don't produce financial statements and whatnot I will most definitely be fired. Nonis sat around on his hands and did not address this teams problem up front. Either he attempted to by bringing in Ritchie and Isbister, or he didn't even attempt to at all by not bringing in anyone. Which ever way you look at it (I'm not saying I look at it either way, I'm presenting the facts), Nonis didn't get the desired results.

The player that this thread is about was available as a FA last offseason, and Nonis failed to sign him. Yeah it was a good thing that he didn't based on what he went for, but now people are suggesting bringing him in a year later?
You're deflecting from the issue here. What I pointed out was that you made two completely contradictory statements and then blamed someone else for not understanding you. Then you attributed making said statements to "well I thought he was a Nonis supporter" as though you resort to different, nonsensical, non-factual arguments to help support your claim that Nonis should have been fired. Like I said, I'm not surprised.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Nonis "did his job" (like 29 other GMs.) I'm not going to fire up the Nonis debate in detail again because, especially with you, it's not worth my time. You've already demonstrated in this thread alone you are willing to skew facts and "opinions" to get your point across.

And now I'm reading that he got "lucky" with Mason Raymond.. but of course we can't consider how horribly unlucky he was with all the injuries and the Luongo situation. Can't win.

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2008, 10:59 PM
  #50
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlrsr View Post
You're deflecting from the issue here. What I pointed out was that you made two completely contradictory statements and then blamed someone else for not understanding you. Then you attributed making said statements to "well I thought he was a Nonis supporter" as though you resort to different, nonsensical, non-factual arguments to help support your claim that Nonis should have been fired. Like I said, I'm not surprised.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Nonis "did his job" (like 29 other GMs.) I'm not going to fire up the Nonis debate in detail again because, especially with you, it's not worth my time. You've already demonstrated in this thread alone you are willing to skew facts and "opinions" to get your point across.

And now I'm reading that he got "lucky" with Mason Raymond.. but of course we can't consider how horribly unlucky he was with all the injuries and the Luongo situation. Can't win.
I was playing devil's advocate, what can I say?

And yes, he got lucky that Raymond developed. Last time I checked Luongo wasn't a goal scorer, and teams don't rely on their defense to be their primary source of scoring.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:10 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.