Jason Garrison: Compliance Buyout Candidate?

Dimitri Filipovic
April 29 2014 11:22AM

Nov2613_btl11_slide
Photo via Jeff Vinnick

There are a boatload of things that converged into one horrific perfect storm for the Vancouver Canucks this past season. Somewhere smack dab in the middle of that list was the play of Jason Garrison, whose tumble may not have necessarily been the most damning of them all, but deserves mentioning because of how it virtually mirrored what happened to the team as a whole.

It seems difficult to believe given what we know now - the way the human mind works in terms of memory repression is a hell of a thing - but there was a time near the start of the 2013-14 season where the Canucks were winning games, and Jason Garrison was not only eating up big minutes, but producing admirably as well. 

Suffice it to say, none of those things lasted. Considering that much of his blatantly extensive and worrisome struggles in the 2nd half of the season were excused due to reports of a pair of injuries he was labouring through, it came as something of a surprise that he'd be representing his country overseas for the World Championships set to be played in Belarus in the coming month. 

All of which leads us to needs to be addressed, regardless of how unpleasant it may be: should Jason Garrison be in consideration for the final compliance buyout the Canucks have at their disposal this summer? 

The Track Record

By now we're all familiar with Jason Garrison's unusual path to the NHL as a player that took longer than his peers to fully blossom into what he has eventually become. After the Panthers rolled the dice on him as a 24-year old NCAA player, he rewarded them by producing quite handsomely with their AHL affiliate in Rochester the following season. The next year, he split time between Rochester and Florida, before finally nailing down a spot as an NHL regular in 2010-11.

ATOI Corsi Rel QoC OZ Start % Corsi Relative
10-'11 22:18 1.412 42.2 -0.8
11-'12 23:42 1.015 53.7 10.8
12-'13 21:41 0.652 51.4 5.9
13-'14 20:54 0.386 46.5 -6.8

Playing on a cap hit of $675,000, he was quite the revelation on a shutdown pairing with Mike Weaver that season. The pair of unheralded defensemen led the Panthers in ice-time, and managed to come out looking pretty given the type of minutes they were being charged with handling. 

That summer the Panthers took advantage of a Blackhawks squad that needed to shed salary, pouncing on the opportunity to bring Brian Campbell into the fold for next to nothing. Kevin Dineen, who took over from Pete DeBoer, split up the previously successful combination of Weaver and Garrison, instead pairing up Garrison with Campbell.

Garrison's role became somewhat cushier (due in part to a far more talented running mate, and in turn a softer deployment pattern), but he still crushed it on all fronts. His underlying numbers were great, and with Campbell teeing him regularly, Garrison managed to score 16 times (with 9 of them coming on the power play). 

Defensemen that produce like that offensively without being complete liabilities on the other end often get paid quite a bit when they hit the open market, and that's exactly what Garrison did when he signed a 6 year, $27.6 million deal with the Canucks this summer (which was somehow considered a "hometown discount", as if it wasn't a boatload of money for a relatively unproven guy to begin with). 

After getting off to a slow start last year, Garrison finished the year playing quite well on the top pairing with Dan Hamhuis, as the two controlled 54.2% of all shot attempts at 5v5 together, and 60% of all goals scored. He even chipped in with 8 goals in just 47 games, which had him tied for 7th best. While his on-ice shooting percentage of 10.54% was elevated, the other underlying numbers checked out, in what was generally speaking a successful first campaign with the team. 

The Down Year

All of that is why Garrison's struggles this year were as puzzling as they were, considering what he'd been able to accomplish in the 3 previous seasons. Back when his issues first started emanating in November, I wrote an article titled "What is going on with Jason Garrison this season?"

"I made a bet with Cam Charron about Garrison's goal total before the season, in which we set the over/under at 14.5 I honestly couldn't take the over quickly enough. Based on the reaction from my followers on Twitter, I certainly wasn't the only one that thought he was poised for a huge season. I still think my rationale behind it was solid - he scored 16 in 77 games back in '11-'12, and despite a very slow start to his career as a Canuck, he wound up with 8 in 47 last year (a 14 goal pace). In addition to that, he had only scored 3 PP goals in his limited time on the man advantage last season, and I figured we'd see a heavy dose of bombs from the point this year like the one from the video above. .. But roughly a quarter of the way into the season, it just hasn't happened for him."

And months later, it *still* never really happened for him. He finished the year with just 7 tallies in 81 games, due in large part to the 3.9% shooting percentage; which was unfortunately for him, much closer to the ~5% league average for defensemen than the ~9% he'd shot the previous two years.

For whatever other issues he may've had, he certainly wasn't shy about firing the puck; his 181 shots on goal were 11th amongst all blueliners. The most disappointing part of it all was what he managed to do (or not do, more aptly) with the man advantage -- he scored just 4 times in those situations despite leading the league in shots/60 (and being 3rd in raw number of shots behind Ovechkin and PK Subban).

Heading into the year the thought was that the team - which had finished 22nd in power play efficiency in '12-'13 - would revolve its top unit around Garrison's bomb from the point. Given what we'd seen from his days in Florida, and the type of passing that we knew the Sedins were capable of, it seemed like a great idea on paper.. until we actually started seeing it play out before our very eyes. 

Be careful what you wish for. The blueliner had 34 more shot attempts on the power play than anyone else on the team this season, so he's as good a place as any to start pointing fingers at for the 26th ranked man advantage the team had. They generated a ton of shots, but weren't able to convert much, probably in part because of where they were coming from.

At 5v5, Garrison was moved away from the successful partnership he had enjoyed with Hamhuis the previous season, to play with Alexander Edler (which is also something I thought would work prior to the season, and didn't, so feel free to throw rocks at me). The two were negative possession players, and their goals for rate was horrifically low (which as Cam outlined recently, was all part of Edler's forgettably unlucky campaign). Interestingly enough, Edler's corsi for % actually jumped up from 49.8% with Garrison to an impressive 53.9% without him. 

Which sort of speaks to the larger problem, because aside from Hamhuis, Garrison didn't really work with anyone else. He and Bieksa were even worse together, posting a 47.6% corsi rate. Same goes for with Yannick Weber, and he was only just slightly better next to Ryan Stanton. The fact that Garrison only put up decent numbers this past year when strapped to Hamhuis' hip is worrisome; Hamhuis is known for making everyone he plays with better, so his success with him doesn't exactly give us much insight.

The.. Buyout?

The elephant in the room, of course, is that we tend to preach sample size and refraining from making panicky, over-reactionary decisions on this platform. What we have to work with is 3 straight years of strong play, followed by one largely subpar one. Down years are hardly a novel concept; everyone has them, and will continue to have them. It's an unfortunate part of the business. When it happens, though, you need to figure out whether there's some underlying systemic issue causing it, or whether it's something that's easily fixable moving forward.

In Garrison's case, it's proving to be difficult to erase from the mind just how truly abhorrent Garrison looked for large stretches of games, as he glacially moved around the ice while everyone and their grandmother blasted past him towards the net. His campaign was one of those instances where the eye test and the numbers synced up perfectly, backing each other up. 

From watching him closely he looked like a guy that was being hampered by something, and as the year we went along, we learned that he was in fact struggling with a groin injury. I'm reluctant to simply dismiss everything that we saw as something that'll improve once that ailment is healed because of two particular hang-ups:

I understand that getting the chance to represent your country in International play is a very cool moment that would probably mean a lot to a guy like Garrison (particularly since he has never had a chance to do it before), but if that aforementioned injury was so bad that it was responsible for his decline in play, then wouldn't he be using the offseason to sort it out? That's a question I'd be inclined to ask myself were I the one responsible for signing his cheques.

Another question I'd be asking myself, is whether it'll get better. After all, this is something that has plagued him for years now, yet was something he seemed to be dealing with rather aptly. Three words (amongst many others, I suppose) that you don't want to hear regarding one of your investments: "managing", "chronic", "soft tissue injury".

I have my concerns. Which in part, is why I'm in the camp that believes using the compliance buyout on Garrison come July is something that at the very least needs to be discussed internally by whoever it is that happens to be in charge of making such decisions by then. Were the team to do so they'd be due to pay him $8.4 million total over the next 8 years, which is more of an inconvenience than an albatross. 

Purely from a value perspective, that route seems like a more fruitful long-term endeavour than blowing your load on buying one year of Booth out as most fans of them have been clamouring for. I imagine an $4.6 million worth of cap space in the years to come is something that a savvy GM would be able to make something happen with. 

Then again, this is all just a hypothetical as we're filling time in the summer by hucking things at the wall to see what sticks. There's no way the team, under this ownership, is going to set themselves up to be on the hook for yet another expense like this. And considering that Garrison isn't likely to waive his No Trade Clause to leave his hometown anytime soon, it looks like the Canucks and their fans will have to pray that the "chronic groin issues" don't get worse over the next 4 years for a player that's entering his 30s, and coming off of a season filled with red flags. Or they'll be wishing they gave this some more open-minded thought.

7482b25b962fb1661ea9028fb4e0db36
Dimitri Filipovic writes about hockey on the internet, and is the Managing Editor of Canucks Army. You can follow him on Twitter @DimFilipovic, and email him at dimitri.filipovic@gmail.com.
Avatar
#1 van
April 29 2014, 11:52AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
9
props

Can we also talk about the ~1800 mins Edler has played at 5v5 without Henrik since Erhoff left? ~35 GF%.

Finding a partner for Garrison and Edler has to be high up the GMs list of things to do. Tanev could be the answer for one of them and guys like Weaver and Fayne are UFAs in the summer. Still think getting Garrison back to his strong side would help.

Avatar
#2 Fred-65
April 29 2014, 12:21PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
5
props

If Garrison stay with the club next season it will be because Aqua man is spending to much money on condo's in the Olympic village. I know I'm going on about Garrison ad nausea but he was a bad signing in the first place. We didn't need him....we needed a play making centre to set up Kesler on the second line, but wasted money and Cap space on Garrison, that's been my belief since the day we signed him. The point is rarely raised but this is right up there with the Ballard signing IMO.

Man does Vcr ever have need of Pro scouts who can find player to trade for. Ballard, Booth and Garrison are not the sort of names a Pro scout should have on his resume

Avatar
#3 Ralphy
April 29 2014, 01:52PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
5
props

Who gets on a plane and rips his shoes and socks off and slaps his stinky feet on the headrest? Seriously?

Avatar
#4 EVT
April 29 2014, 02:05PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
4
props
Ralphy wrote:

Who gets on a plane and rips his shoes and socks off and slaps his stinky feet on the headrest? Seriously?

Yup. That's gross. Hockey player feet have no business being near anyone's head.

He should get bought out just for that. :p

Avatar
#5 acg5151
April 29 2014, 02:10PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
15
props

I think it's a poor idea to dump Garrison. Seeing as how he was injured, I can understand why he had a rough season. In the past he has had good stats and has been good in his own end. He can also rip a hard slapper which is always nice.

The Canucks on paper have a deep blueline. It seems like the only d-men who work with each other well are Hamhuis and Garrison, Hamhuis and Bieksa, Hamhuis and Tanev. The problem is that Edler can't work with anyone not named Ehrhoff, and Bieksa doesn't really work next to anyone not named Hamhuis.

If we just had one guy who could work next to either Garrison or Edler other than Dan Hamhuis, I feel like we would have the deepest blueline in the NHL.

It's annoying how almost every single player on this team had an awful season and bad luck. I don't see how it can continue for another season.

Avatar
#7 Omar49
April 29 2014, 04:59PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
9
props

It seems to me that all the defense men, including Hamhuis, had an off year. One of the things I noticed, particularly with Edler and Garrison, was they seemed to be unsure what to do when they had the puck. I wonder if part of the problem is the coach and/or the new systems that were implemented.

Avatar
#8 acg5151
April 29 2014, 06:54PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
10
props

Also has anyone ever noticed that there is someone who goes through every single Canucksarmy article and trashes each comment once, every time?

Avatar
#9 JFR
April 29 2014, 06:55PM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
2
props

I think that Booth and Garrison are the top buyout options. This is where having a GM and a coach in place sooner rather than later will help.

I tend to think that a shot like Garrisons deployed on the PP by a good coach should be a weapon for years while Booth seems to string 5-10 good games together once a season.

Garrisons deal is longer, but the Canucks are going to try and retool on the fly so long term isn't a huge option......

I go with Booth and take his many unproductive years and chalk up Garrisons one to bad team play and a possible injury or two. As far as playing for Team Canada?? That is a life long dream for every Canadian and maybe his only chance.

Avatar
#10 Lemming
April 29 2014, 07:19PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
15
props

No offense, but I think this article is really stupid.

Edler had a horrific year. Bieksa has had almost the same problem finding a defenseman to work with. Garrison is hardly the only defenseman to get beaten on the rush this year.

I don't think Garrison is really great or anything, but the reasons given for the buyout could apply to any number of the players on the team this year. You could pull jersey numbers out of a hat of players who underperformed this year and have a 1/15 chance or whatever of pulling Garrison out.

It just seems asanine and so full of tunnel vision to just target Garrison. How many times do you see players who have an off year let go, only to sign somewhere else and play fine? How many times do we have to spend a ton of money on a player who got lucky only to watch them regress a year or two later?

As you pointed out, Garrison was shooting at around 9% for the season before here came here and his first season here. Could Garrison have been one of those luckier players who is now just regressing back towards the league average of shooting% for defenders? How about an article on that instead of asking asanine questions that Tony Gallager could be out asking and then hyperbolically answering for us?

Avatar
#11 PB
April 29 2014, 07:34PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
9
props

@Lemming

I'm not as outraged by the article but I also think that saying we should buy out Garrison makes little sense to me. We're not exactly in a cap crunch, even with raises likely due to Tanev and Kassian (though likely not huge ones) and a qualifying offer to Schroeder probably. On the basis of actual performance and potential Burrows and Bieksa are just as worthy as Garrison of a buyout. Since I'm not paying any of their salaries and we're not up against the cap I don't see the point of a buyout for the sake of a buyout. Bieksa has been much more inconsistent, makes a lot of seemingly lazy plays but never really takes much heat for it, I don't know if it's because of his generally entertaining character or toughness or what.

Avatar
#12 DrChill
April 29 2014, 07:48PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
10
props

Why would he be bought out? Makes no sense, a team would trade something for him.

Avatar
#13 andyg
April 29 2014, 08:11PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
6
props

All of the veteran D were a mess this year. (take your pick)

For me they all look a little unsure of what to do. As if they were over thinking the game instead of just reacting.

Avatar
#15 NM00
April 29 2014, 08:45PM
Trash it!
12
trashes
Props
4
props

Is it just me, or do the Canucks have a lot of fringy-at-best buyout candidates without any one particular contract that really needs to be terminated?

The number one buyout candidate should be Burrows.

Unfortunately, since his contract was signed after the new CBA, he isn't eligible for a compliance buyout.

The organization is paying quite a bit of money to Ballard, Luongo & Gillis with zero return and Tortorella may be added to that list soon enough.

Methinks Aquillini won't consult a bunch of clueless 20 year old kids for business advice...

Avatar
#16 Lemming
April 30 2014, 01:16AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
5
props
NM00 wrote:

Is it just me, or do the Canucks have a lot of fringy-at-best buyout candidates without any one particular contract that really needs to be terminated?

The number one buyout candidate should be Burrows.

Unfortunately, since his contract was signed after the new CBA, he isn't eligible for a compliance buyout.

The organization is paying quite a bit of money to Ballard, Luongo & Gillis with zero return and Tortorella may be added to that list soon enough.

Methinks Aquillini won't consult a bunch of clueless 20 year old kids for business advice...

I would reply seriously to you in agreement, but instead your last line just reminds me of an exchange between Moe and Flanders:

Flanders: You ugly, hate-filled man! Moe: Hey, hey, I may be ugly and hate-filled but uh...what was that 3rd thing you said?

Avatar
#17 Jezu-it
April 30 2014, 03:57AM
Trash it!
11
trashes
Props
3
props

That picture of Garrison on the plane..a perfect example of why the country club Canucks have never won anything.

Avatar
#18 clutch fan
April 30 2014, 05:57AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
0
props

Garrison was horrible this year. I thought he was a real weak link on the blue line, soft on the puck (no edge), and seemed to be on the ice a lot when the nucks were hemmed in their zone. If money is no issue, I would jettison him. The fact that he is playing in the worlds suggests he isn't injured, and reinforces my hope that he gets deep-sixed for occupying too much payroll.

I appreciate all of the other d we have, though if there was ever a chance to get Shea Weber... we can dream, right?

Avatar
#19 Da Bears
April 30 2014, 06:46AM
Trash it!
10
trashes
Props
2
props

Canucks give out NTCs,never hold any "star" players accountable, pamper their players, never trade those same lazy heartless players and paint themselves into a corner at every turn.

Luongo was a prime example. The guy couldn't cut it, they wouldn't trade him earlier ( cause no one wanted him) then he wanted to be traded because he wasn't pampered anymore but the Nucks couldn't trade him because of his NTC and his contract which they gave him.

In the end they had a player who was in a no lose situation, he could care less if he played bad cause he got his money and a threat of a trade wouldn't have worked because he wanted out.

It's a great combo the Canucks have all over their line up. From the Twins to Burrows to Kesler to Edler etc, a great list of lazy pampered players who could care less if they were here or not. when you give all the power to the players you get nothing but spoiled self entitled losers.

I guess I'm way off base. All the problem players know they are in a win win situation no matter what they do on the Canucks team. Twins, cashed in a checked out. Anyone ever mention that? Nope. Certainly not the 5 Cliff Clavens that reside here.

Avatar
#20 Has-bro
April 30 2014, 07:14AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
3
props

@clutch fan

Put yourself in Shea Weber's shoes. Why would you want to come to a team so disorganized, where slack players are never held to account and where player development and winning is held by the management and Van sports writers in the same regard as a toe wart?

If you were Weber I think you would stay a good distance away from this circus. the Canucks have never recovered from the Quinn and Mcphee matrix of mediocrity era. Management and those involved have realized that losing makes money here in Vancouver.

Ever wonder why Ric Flair never lost many matches? The fans hated his character so much they would dearly pay every time to see them win. The Canucks operate the same way The fans come to see them win but leave with nothing but broken promised and next years marketing BS.

Don't think any good player wants to be a part of this NHE.

Avatar
#21 NM00
April 30 2014, 10:40AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
7
props

@Lemming

A noble spirit embiggens the smallest "man"...

Avatar
#22 PB
April 30 2014, 11:20AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
8
props

Has this blog always been this troll-heavy or is this just a result of all those without their own hockey teams to watch during the playoffs being bored?

And yes, it's completely true, the picture of Garrison on the plane is more proof that the Canucks are lazy, lucky and have never ever been successful. Because no other players in the league have ever EVER put their feet up on a plane or bus, always travel in full gear READY TO WORK, and literally every single player in the league except for the Sedins and Luongo have won the Stanley Cup.

I did not realize any of this until I came onto this blog and had it pointed out to me by the helpful trolls who had helpfully come out from beneath their bridges.

Avatar
#23 Mantastic
April 30 2014, 12:02PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
1
props

@PB

wrong kind of troll. trolling on boards/forums refer to the fishing term, to lure and catch by dragging a line through water with a bait.

Avatar
#24 NM00
April 30 2014, 12:03PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
11
props

@PB

This is probably the best time in history to be a Vancouver Canucks hater.

The contention window has seemingly closed on this current core.

And even though the Canucks have been one of the most successful NHL franchises in the last 15 years, that success never resulted in a Stanley Cup.

Hence, the "playoff choker" narrative will live on until this organization proves otherwise.

And the tree rings on the cupless streak continues to grow in number.

On the bright side, the full time trolling has somewhat allowed my part time trolling to fly under the radar...

#moralvictory

Avatar
#25 headspacej
April 30 2014, 12:18PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props

Everyone looks bad when a team collapses like the Canucks did this year. I don't believe they've all forgotten how to play hockey, especially guys like Edler and Garrison who have pretty good records overall. I liked the analysis in the article -- nice mix of brain (stats) and heart (eyes) and I think it's probably true that Garrison wasn't 100% for most of the season. A longer off-season and a new coach might be just the thing to get the Canucks' blueline back on track.

Avatar
#27 PB
April 30 2014, 01:46PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
5
props

@Dimitri Filipovic

I like the work ethic of whoever goes on here and thumbs down every single post

Avatar
#28 Strate Goods
April 30 2014, 03:54PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
2
props

@PB

That is a long way of saying the Canucks aren't losers because they are not the only ones who haven't won the cup.

You again rely on the same tired excuses and finger pointing.

Now I don't know about the trolls but picture this... if there weren't any "trolls" this site we would be treated to the daily useless corsi banter and delusions of one resident Cliff Claven00 VS the five mouth pieces for the franchise.

How exciting indeed it is to read the very same 6 people argue over how the Canucks should cook with lousy ingredients day in and day out. It's like listening to a group of 6 delusional anti social teenaged boys in a hallway arguing over how to travel back in time to kill the Terminator.

You know you have an angle or an axe when you try and defend Edler, -39, WORST in the league. There used to be a time when Canuck apologists and mouth pieces were somewhat reasonable in their arguments, while trying to divert attention away from the real problems. You don't even bother trying anymore, do you?

"Oh, I'll just defend Edler, the WORST in the league and if anyone dares criticize my Canucks why then I'll simply divert the attention by calling them trolls or Oiler fans or whatever I can think of."

Nice try but don't blame others just because you are not able or "willing" to see the forest through the trees.

Avatar
#29 LYB
April 30 2014, 04:07PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
2
props

@NM00

"And even though the Canucks have been one of the most successful NHL franchises in the last 15 years, that success never resulted in a Stanley Cup."

Most successful? Define success. Successful at branding? Yes. Successful at making money? Yes. Successful at doing well against lower tier competition? Yes. But successful in beating the best teams when it counts? No. That's why they don't have a championship. not everyone is impressed with 2nd, 13th and 28th place finishes.

"The contention window has seemingly closed on this current core."

That implies that there was a door Many people will ell you that the finals run was a fluke perpetuated by Burrows lucky goal in OT on a rolling puck. Otherwise, the best they ever got was to second base.

" currently closed " that sort of implies that the door could be open in the future. Not likely, unless the players start aging backwards.

My two cents.

Avatar
#30 clutch fan
April 30 2014, 05:23PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props
Has-bro wrote:

Put yourself in Shea Weber's shoes. Why would you want to come to a team so disorganized, where slack players are never held to account and where player development and winning is held by the management and Van sports writers in the same regard as a toe wart?

If you were Weber I think you would stay a good distance away from this circus. the Canucks have never recovered from the Quinn and Mcphee matrix of mediocrity era. Management and those involved have realized that losing makes money here in Vancouver.

Ever wonder why Ric Flair never lost many matches? The fans hated his character so much they would dearly pay every time to see them win. The Canucks operate the same way The fans come to see them win but leave with nothing but broken promised and next years marketing BS.

Don't think any good player wants to be a part of this NHE.

Your Ric Flair metaphor is pretty off base actually, and if you are a Nashville fan, well, I pity you.

The likelihood of Shea Weber coming to Vancouver is small, I can agree with you on that point only.

But, I am sure if Weber had the choice and could make the same dough, he would 100% choose the cap spending Canucks over the penny pinching Preds, plus he is a good B.C. boy.

No matter what you think about the Canucks, they have a way better track-record of making the play-offs than Nashville in recent times.

Definitely there are good players who would be happy to play in Vancouver, and currently do.

Avatar
#31 PB
April 30 2014, 06:17PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

@Strate Goods

Very well said, articulate and to the point. I'm glad you pulled me into the argument you were having with another poster. You showed me.

You're right, it is very sad to have the same conversation with the same group of people. It must be much more heartening to come onto another team's fan's blogsite and educate the unenlightened. It must be very exciting for you to read the delusions of Canucks fans since you and your brethren are such a regular presence here these days.

Avatar
#32 Has-bro
April 30 2014, 06:22PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

@clutch fan

Shea is not going to come to the Canucks if he can help it. And we all know that if he did, it would be like that one clean cell going into a disease house party.

The Canucks can take any prospect, good veteran and turn them into mush before they trade them away. They can also over rate mush into thinking they're the next great thing, only to be exposed by other teams who know better. Ala- the SCF. The team core hasn't been the same since. That's what happens when you have players who got lucky and believed that they are better than what they really are.

'Danielle' Sedin is still talking during interviews about how he still thinks he has the group to do it. More WWE marketing and BS. They don't have what it takes and they all know it. The coach knows it. AV knew it. Gillis knew it because he was the one who created the mess.

No player who was any good wanted to be here other then to milk the owners for money. Messier and Keenan once tried to change the culture but Linden was busy planning his coup a codenamed operation b%tch and moan. And now the team has Linden. Square one all over again.

About Nashville, I never said the were any better than the Canucks. How long have the Canucks been in the league? The Canuck fans are the the useless much older brother who's always blaming his kid brother every every time he screws up. that finger pointing has done nothing but backfire on their faces for 44 years... and counting.

The issue here is the Canucks... not Nahsville, not the Oilers, etc. Just because you point out how someone else also loves drinking doesn't mean you're not an alcoholic.

The Canucks will do nothing but window dress their problems next year. You can bet if Canadians didn't love monopolies so much the Cancuks wouldn't have lasted this long with their embarrassing display for a competitive team.

The ice berg hit the Canuck ship a long time ago. You're not going to save the ship by pointing out that a nearby ship is sinking too. Winners do not worry themselves with who else is losing. Winners only are about winning.

Avatar
#33 Strate Goods
April 30 2014, 06:37PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

@PB

"Very well said, articulate and to the point. I'm glad you pulled me into the argument you were having with another poster. You showed me."

I can't take all the credit. After all, it was you who was trying to defend and make excuses for -39 Edlar. Worst in the league. Again, PB ( phony Bull?) you make accusations you don't have proof to back up.

I called you out on your love fest with -39 Edler and you just can't take it like a man, could you?

"It must be much more heartening to come onto another team's fan's blogsite and educate the unenlightened"

I find it so amusing that even though this site is called Canucks Army, you seem to mention other teams like the Oilers quite often. Could it be you're some secret Oilers fan or a fan of another team?

It's ok for you to defend -39 Edler but if someone else says otherwise about the Canucks you start with your tired old diversionary tactics anyone can see a mile away. Can you stop talking about "other teams" and the "Oilers"? Why don't you ever talk about the real problem with the CANUCKS on a CANUCKS site instead of pointing your finger at someone else?

I'd talk about he Oilers and other teams too but then it wouldn't address the Canucks real problems right? So I guess I'm a bigger fan of the Canucks then you are seeing as how you always like to bring in other teams as a diversionary, subject changing tactic.

Have you ever thought about applying for a job with the CIA? The web is filled with CIA net shills who do nothing but attack others for having a differing opinion. Check out CNN'c comment section. You'll find many like minded people there.

Avatar
#34 Yeest
April 30 2014, 06:53PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

@EVT

Have you ever been to a movie theater any where in the lower mainland? People do that all the time. That's probably where Garrison first developed his bad manners.

Whenever I hear about a movie rage incident I always hope that the victim was another smelly feet culprit.

Avatar
#35 JFR
April 30 2014, 06:54PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props
PB wrote:

I like the work ethic of whoever goes on here and thumbs down every single post

There is a reason the thumbs down finger is twice as big as the thumbs up......

Avatar
#36 PB
April 30 2014, 07:21PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@Strate Goods

Have a good night and enjoy your tin foil hat...

Avatar
#37 NM00
April 30 2014, 07:51PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
4
props

@LYB

"Most successful? Define success. Successful at branding? Yes. Successful at making money? Yes. Successful at doing well against lower tier competition? Yes. But successful in beating the best teams when it counts? No. That's why they don't have a championship."

If you want to be accurate, they don't have a championship because only one is handed out per season.

For one season, the Canucks were the undisputed best team in the league in virtually every facet.

They also never trailed a single playoff series until, well, you know.

They had a shot. They lost a coin flip game.

So it goes.

""The contention window has seemingly closed on this current core."

That implies that there was a door Many people will ell you that the finals run was a fluke perpetuated by Burrows lucky goal in OT on a rolling puck. Otherwise, the best they ever got was to second base."

Actually it implies that there was a "window", not a "door".

The team that won the Stanley Cup in 2011 required 3 game sevens, 2 one goal victories in game sevens and, just like Vancouver, a game seven OT victory in the first round.

Luck is often an integral part of winning a championship...

"currently closed " that sort of implies that the door could be open in the future. Not likely, unless the players start aging backwards."

Or, you know, new players are acquired any time in the next 3, 5, 20, 50 years...

"My two cents."

I suggest asking for a refund...

Avatar
#38 LYB
April 30 2014, 08:23PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
2
props

@NM00

"For one season, the Canucks were the undisputed best team in the league in virtually every facet."

Yes, every facet except heart, grit and winning the hard games when it counts. and it only counts in the finals.

"If you want to be accurate, they don't have a championship because only one is handed out per season."

Really? I thought there was two? Oh, I know now, the other championship is called the Presidents Trophy! Ok, you got me there. The fact that one is trophy is handed out in ALL championships is plenty enough excuse for the loser.

"Actually it implies that there was a "window", not a "door"."

If I were really serious, I'd say the Canucks didn't have a window, more like a hole in the wall.

"Luck is often an integral part of winning a championship..."

You're right, the Canucks got lucky with Burrows flukey goal on a rolling puck. the Canucks had luck, the other teams had luck. Sir, after all that's said and counted, the Canucks couldn't pull it off. In fact, luck does not grab a stick and put the puck in to the net, it's done by players hands and their sticks. Someone which did not happen when it counted in the Canucks case.

It is humility to say luck help you win. It is whiny and foolish to say luck wasn't on your side when you couldn't win.

"Or, you know, new players are acquired any time in the next 3, 5, 20, 50 years..."

Getting the good is not the question. The question is, will they acquire race horses or donkeys?

"I suggest asking for a refund..."

I would but the Canucks don't give refunds for their lousy product...

Avatar
#39 LYB
April 30 2014, 08:29PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
2
props

@NM00

I forgot one.

"They had a shot. They lost a coin flip game."

No, they didn't. In fact no one score on game 7. The mind as well not have taken any shots because they had 0 goals.

At least they tried. Oh sorry, may bad! I'm wrong again! They didn't try. No one showed up in game 7...

Avatar
#40 Strate Goods
April 30 2014, 08:32PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

@PB

Without tin foil hats how else would people be able to filter out the BS that invariably seems to radiate from you?

Avatar
#41 Bystander
April 30 2014, 08:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

It's like a funeral in here. Everyone is sad, angry, lost or in denial.

Avatar
#42 PB
April 30 2014, 09:42PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@LYB

One thing that does show up on many computers is a spell check. Those squiggly little lines under your typos, you should think about paying attention to them...

Avatar
#43 PB
April 30 2014, 09:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Strate Goods

I know, you are doing a wonderful public service in steering us all to the truth. Have a wonderful evening and keep doing the lord's good work.

Avatar
#44 Andrew
April 30 2014, 11:30PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

@Has-bro

Clever! You referred to a Sedin as a Female, cutting edge comedy there.

Avatar
#45 LYB
May 01 2014, 03:28AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

@PB

O eye donts kare. spellchekks arr fer nurds...

Avatar
#46 Has-bro
May 01 2014, 03:29AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

@Andrew

I know, isn't it? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Avatar
#47 Dean
May 01 2014, 02:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

More like bunion removal surgery candidate.

How does he get those things in skates?

Comments are closed for this article.