Naslund to play with Modo/Forsberg

Markus Naslund is returning to hockey to play with Peter Forsberg for Modo. Most interestingly, both of them are declining salaries and will play for free.

Apparently the jump across the pond really is the sticking point. Pretty sure we could have found space for both of them, and even offered to pay them the NHL minimum.

Edit: Naslund said today: "I will do anything to get in shape and hope I can add something on the ice, but as everybody understands it's not just to get on the ice and perform. I'm really looking forward to play with Modo again and the fact that Peter and I will do it together is of course something really special."

9 months ago Jevant 38 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Forsberg’s foot was the sticking point was it not?

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 8:34 AM PST reply actions

There’s also no way in hell Naslund would play for Vigneault. He’s already made that very clear.

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 8:38 AM PST reply actions

If they came to play in Vancouver on paper the forward lineup would look so promising.

Dank Hank Burrs
Raymond Kesler Samuelson
Naslund Forsberg Bernier
Glass Johnson Hansen

But I’m only dreaming. Disagree with me or not. But with guys like Grabner, Wellwood, Rypien, Blackout, Pettinger. This looks good on paper.

by tobemarked on Nov 17, 2009 8:58 AM PST reply actions

That’s not just promising. That’s deadly!

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 9:04 AM PST up reply actions

opps

Guys like grabner, wellwood, rypien, blackout and Pettinger waiting in the wings…this looks like good depth ….

thats what i meant to say.

by tobemarked on Nov 17, 2009 8:59 AM PST reply actions

C’mon Modo…go get Sundin and complete this trifecta. Do it.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on Nov 17, 2009 9:54 AM PST reply actions

Sundin’s playing a full house in Barcelona I think.

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions

He just flopped quad aces. Better than the flop he had as a Canuck. Get it? Oh man. yoata is going to love that joke.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions

I hate you. haha

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions

I flopped quad Queens one time at the casino and this guy kept betting into me and I kept calling and the whole time I was thinking in my head, “bad beat bad beat bad beat” over and over and over. Turns out he had nothing I still made a bunch of money but I would have liked a piece of that bad beat jackpot.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions

Bad beat with 4 Queens? Damn, you are cautious!

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions

I mean I love winning big pots and I was sure I was going to win I was just hoping for a bad beat. I wanted to be part of that jackpot.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions

I don’t quite follow. Are you saying you wish he had a better hand than nothing so you would have won more? I’m not used to someone saying that they want a bad beat. It’s like wishing doom upon themselves. I think I’m misunderstanding you

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions

yeah at casinos they have something called a bad beat jackpot which can get up as high as 60 grand at some bigger casinos. So if you have Aces full of Kings or better and you lose then you win the bad beat jackpot. It usually goes 60 percent to who ever lost the hand, 30 percent to the winner and the other ten is split amongst everyone else at the table. Those percentages do change though depending on what casino you are in.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

and not every casino has a bad beat jackpot, plus the jackpot prize money actually comes from the players, who are forced pay into the jackpot (as an extra rake from the pot).

by SJKel on Nov 17, 2009 1:30 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah the rake has never really bothered me or anything I mean it is what it is and it is the same for everyone. Plus I like having a bad beat jackpot so I gladly pay into it because if you play long enough you will be involved in one at some point. It’s like a savings program or something.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions

Ah I see! Never been to a casino before. I just take my friends’ money :)

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah I prefer that method too but you can make a lot of money at the casino if you are patient and know what you are doing. So many rich guys go there and just dump cash it’s ridiculous.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions

I just don’t agree with forcing poker players to virtually make another bet. Plus this jackpot is quite unfair to infrequent players at the casino.

by SJKel on Nov 17, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions

Well i mean if you have quads and I have quads neither one of us is folding. I mean you would have to be the best player in the world to lay down quads against quads and really all it means is once the river falls I might have to call to get the bad beat jackpot but I am calling anyway. I call because I have quads so I can’t lose unless it’s a bad beat. It makes it a no lose situation. I like it a lot.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions

I was not talking about that particular hand. Of course it’s better to have a jackpot when you have quads. But for someone who doesn’t play a lot, the jackpot virtually offers him nothing but a reduced pot every time he wins. Plus the bad beat jackpot is not necessary in the game of poker. You don’t force blackjack players to pay into a “bad beat” jackpot that he gets if his 21 loses to a dealer’s blackjack. In blackjack, “insurance” is an optional side bet. But the bad beat jackpot in poker is not optional.

by SJKel on Nov 17, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions

Well what is your problem with the jackpot? I don’t understand. You have to have certain hands to qualify. So if I have aces full of Kings or BETTER and lose I get a jackpot. For serious players and guys who go to the casino a lot it doesn’t even factor in. It is just a nice little bonus if you have an unbeatable hand that gets beaten. And everyone at the table gets some cash because of it. So what is the problem?

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions

My problem is that

you are forced to pay for the jackpot (remember it comes from a rake). I would have no problem if the jackpot prize money doesn’t come from the players (or the pot to be precise). It’s like forcing me to buy a lottery ticket when I play a poker hand.

Seriously, we’ve strayed away so far off topic..

by SJKel on Nov 17, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah but at a casino with a BB jackpot the rake is what it is. Don’t play at casinos with BB jackpots if you don’t like it.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions

And I don’t. (Not that I go to the casino often anyway)

by SJKel on Nov 17, 2009 2:59 PM PST up reply actions

SJ and Section, the NM version of Hellmuth and Laak.

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Nov 17, 2009 3:00 PM PST up reply actions

I would prefer to be Mike the Mouth.

by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions

and I prefer to be called Kel :)

by SJKel on Nov 18, 2009 7:46 AM PST up reply actions

and so it shall be…

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Nov 18, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions

heh

That Section is one clever dude.

by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions

Sean, the bad beat jackpot is something that is sometimes offered at cassinos….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_beat

by Shabbadoo on Nov 17, 2009 12:20 PM PST reply actions

and apparently I can neither spell or use the reply function properly.

by Shabbadoo on Nov 17, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions

I heard some guys on Team 1040 this AM discussing Naslund’s diminishing skills during his latter days with the Nucks and thereafter and one of them said that Nas was quoted as saying his skills began their downward turn after he was demolished by Moore and that he always felt partly responsible for what happened to Bert as a result of his demolishing of Moore.

by Bobby Canuck on Nov 17, 2009 12:47 PM PST reply actions

That is

absolutely true, Nas was never the same again, but still a better player than he got credit for.

That is why I say Moore got what he deserved.

by yoata on Nov 19, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions

Woot! A ballsy statement! I like it! I don’t agree though. ;)

Nucks Misconduct

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 19, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions

Is it just me

or did anyone else feel, based on bits of info, that during their NHL heydays, Naslund and Forsberg were cool toward each other, never the best of friends, more rivals, and that this was also true during their younger years playing in Sweden?

by Bobby Canuck on Nov 17, 2009 12:51 PM PST reply actions

Having posted the above I’ll add this: hey, nothing wrong with evolving in time and developing friendships with rivals and mellowing and altering one’s perceptions.

by Bobby Canuck on Nov 17, 2009 12:55 PM PST reply actions