How Will the Olympics Affect the Canucks?
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 8:55 AM PST
168 comments
It's less than three months until the 2010 Olympics kickoff, and speculation is rampant about the makeup of the Canadian and other national teams. It appears that a number of Canucks will skate on "home" ice in February, as a few players are likely to make their respective national teams. After the jump I give a rundown of what Canucks we can expect to see skating on GM Place ice during the Olympics, and raise some questions about the impact this might have on the latter part of the season.
Canada
Locks: Roberto Luongo
Other possibilities: none (sorry Kyle Wellwood)
United States
Locks: Ryan Kesler
Other possibilities: Mathieu Schneider (a dark horse, but maybe a PP specialist)
Sweden
Locks: Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, Alexander Edler
Other possibilities: Mikael Samuelsson
Russia
Locks: none
Other possibilities: Sergei Shirokov? Okay, maybe not.
Finland
Locks: none
Other possibilities: Sami Salo (If he's healthy he should be on the team)
Germany
Locks: Christian Ehrhoff
Other possibilities: none
Slovakia
Locks: none
Other possibilities: Pavol Demitra (if he's healthy); Mario Bliznak (I don't know what Slovakia's depth is like, but hopefully they don't need to dip too far into the AHL ranks to ice a team)
If Only They'd Qualified
Locks: Michael Grabner (Austria); Jannik Hansen (Denmark)
So the Canucks could have up to 10 regulars playing in the Olympics. While it will be awesome to see our boys putting it on the line for their country, how will the team fare coming out of the Olympic break? The Sedins, Kesler and Luongo will all potentially be fatigued. Who will step up for Vancouver? We'll need Raycroft to shoulder a bigger burden, which he has demonstrated the ability to do. Secondary scorers like Alex Burrows, Mason Raymond, Kevin Bieksa and Steve Bernier will need to step up. Wellwood will have spent two weeks laying by the pool, so he should be good to... oh, wait, never mind.
It will be an interesting time for the Canucks, as it will for other teams with significant international contingents. Throw in Canucks' epic pre- and post-Olympic road trip, which will rival the journeys of Odysseus, and the new year looks like a giant wildcard for Vancouver. How do you think the Canucks will respond? Will the Olympics help us? Hurt us? Make no difference? Hopefully one of our boys can pull the rare Olympic Gold and Stanley Cup feat in 2010. I'm looking at you, Luongo.
0 recs |
168 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
-i heard that they were still going to look at burrows as a posibility for the canadian team. of course, this was back in august, but since he’s now showing his skill again…..
-i also heard that samuelsson was a lock for sweden and edler was the other possibility
-this is definitely a wildcard season for us. who knows? maybe we can pull off the olympic medal and stanley cup feat this year…..or we could still fall right into the basement of the league…..only time will tell……
i mean no harm. i come in peace. unlike shane o'brien or kevin bieksa........
watch out for the Rypper too, he can whip anyone.......
GO CANUCKS GO!
Yeah I remember Burrows’ name coming up in the summer (I think it was Pierre Maguire). I love Burrows, but I just think there are too many Canadian forwards with more skill who can also play a similar agitator/PK/mucker role. Though I would obviously be thrilled to see him somehow make it, I think it’s a very, very long shot.
Glad to hear that Samuelsson should be a lock for Sweden. I wasn’t sure, as I didn’t have any lists in front of me other than the Canucks roseter-so I didn’t know where he’d slot in for the Tre Kroner. I would love to see him there (implications for the Canucks being temporarily suspended of course). I figured Edler will make it though… can’t see Sweden not taking him.
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
-IMO, the starting position in net is Brodeur’s to lose, and I’m not so sure he’ll lose it.
-How many games does a gold medal round team play overall?
-With the heavy Swede content here, hopefully they get eliminated early! haha
I’ve got more to say about this in regards to the “fatigue” factor, but I need to do some research first.
i think i heard that a player could play as many as 14 games in the 12-day period, so…..
i mean no harm. i come in peace. unlike shane o'brien or kevin bieksa........
watch out for the Rypper too, he can whip anyone.......
GO CANUCKS GO!
Maybe some of them switch allegiances ;)
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe Brett Hull tried to play for both USA and Canada one year? ;)
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
Haha, well Steve Smith managed to play for the Oilers and Flames during the playoffs one year, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented!
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
Ouch! You mean the goal he put into his own net on his Birthday? Poor guy.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
it’s just what i remember hearing. no confirmation.
i mean no harm. i come in peace. unlike shane o'brien or kevin bieksa........
watch out for the Rypper too, he can whip anyone.......
GO CANUCKS GO!
I think they used to have a qualification round during the Olympics, so teams like Germany and Slovakia might have to play a whole whack of games. It looks like they’ve done away with that now, so it’s just the 12 teams who show up who will compete. The wikipedia link, it gives a good overview of it all.
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
Good question
I just checked it out, and a Gold Medal team is likely only to play 6 games:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_at_the_2010_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_tournament
So it may not be as fatiguing as they’re making it out to be. Especially for Luongo. If he backs up Brodeur he’ll play only 1 game. If he gets the start, it’ll probably 5 games max. So if we can just work Raycroft in a bit more in March, especially in back-to-backs, he could end up playing a normal number of pre-playoff games.
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
Furthermore...
…if the Canadians and Swedes don’t muck around and win their groups, they won’t be playing anything more than every other day. Which isn’t really that bad.
In 2002, Detroit had 9 players playing in the Olympics in Salt Lake City. They won the Cup that year…easily. Hasek played for the Czech Republic. Yzerman played for Canada and won gold. Chelios and Hull played for runner-up USA
okay, so maybe yzerman has done the gold medal / cup feat, but it’s not like they had a huge road trip surrounding the games because of their home arena being used for the games.
i mean no harm. i come in peace. unlike shane o'brien or kevin bieksa........
watch out for the Rypper too, he can whip anyone.......
GO CANUCKS GO!
Yeah, good point. We’ll see how that goes. They had better remedy their road record and quick! After that atrociously-long road trip they play 10 of their final 15 at home.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
I remember Stevie Y posing in that picture with Hull and Chelios and talking to them about focusing on winning the Stanley Cup.
Hey wait..I forgot about Brendan Shanahan..so 10 Wings played in those Olympics.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
One minor problem...
…the 2001-2002 Wings were one of the best teams of all time. Which probably isn’t the right comparable our beloved ’Nuckers this year.
Yeah I know :) Waiting for somebody to say that.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
C'mon, we're just as good
Kesler = Yzerman
Daniel = Hull
Henrik = Fedorov
Burrows = Shanahan
Edler = Lidstrom
Wellwood = Larionov
Samuelsson = Datsyuk
Raymond = Robitaille
Glass = Maltby
Okay fine, you’re right ;)
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
Holy %*$^
Did anyone know that Sean Avery played 36 games for the Red Wings that year? I had no idea.
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
we have an equivalent for him too!! rypper!!
i mean no harm. i come in peace. unlike shane o'brien or kevin bieksa........
watch out for the Rypper too, he can whip anyone.......
GO CANUCKS GO!
There's no
equivalent to that POS, I’m a Wings fan and I hated him even then, zero class, doesn’t deserve to wear the Winged Wheel.
then let’s make hockey history! seriously, we have just as many players participating in the games, and it’s on home turf too.
and the road trip we have surrounding it will just make it even more epic!
i mean no harm. i come in peace. unlike shane o'brien or kevin bieksa........
watch out for the Rypper too, he can whip anyone.......
GO CANUCKS GO!
Canucks have an awful lot of players who could make the olympic team for their country (tho in some cases, such as Grabner/Austria I’m not even sure if the country will have a team there). Some possibilities:
1. Luongo, Canada
2. Salo, Finland
3. Edler, Sweden
4. Samuelsson, Sweden
5. Sedin, H, Sewden
6. Sedin, D – Sweden
7. Demitra – Slovakia
8. Ehrhoff, Germany
9. Kesler, USA
10. Hansen, Denmark
11. Grabner, Austria
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Montreal won the Cup in 1977, the year after it hosted the Olympics. Calgary won in 1989, the year after it hosted. /crosses arms and waits
That from the Kurtenbloggers. Check that post of theirs out. Hilarious!
Don't feel sorry for Frankie..
No ones feeling sorry for Aquilini with the $25 million he’s getting from the Olympics for using his arena…I wonder where that money is going?
They used it all on Mats Sundin last year. haha
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
most likely a pre-emptive strike.
i mean no harm. i come in peace. unlike shane o'brien or kevin bieksa........
watch out for the Rypper too, he can whip anyone.......
GO CANUCKS GO!
I’d be more concerned with the regular season schedule than the olympic demands. By all intents and purposes, and with early pt projections in…if the Canucks aren’t playing better hockey than currently (middling around .500%) by game 36 (ten games from now) they are in deep to make the playoffs.
82-36= 46games
96 points est. /2 -36 = 60.
60/2=30.
30 wins in 46 games = .652%
Only 5 teams last year played over .652% hockey. I would seriously be selling my soul to the hockey gods for a next ten that doesn’t look like this: 4-6-0…or even 5-5-0. The ‘nucks need to get on the 7-3-0 train and fast with that 14 consecutive games on the road looming large. The next ten ain’t easy either with NJ, Phi, Nash on the road and Wsh, Atl, LA at home.
On the flip side
Over the last 6, the Canucks have gone 4-2, in the wins outscoring opponents 24-8, and losing the other 2 by a combined 5-2 score. The 2 losses were to arguably the best 2 teams in the league, and one of them came on the 2nd end of a B2B.
I’m not too worried, yet. I STILL think the OT/SO loser point is stupid and ridiculous though. That has got to go. The number of teams who have lost more than they have won but are still ahead of the Canucks is just a dumb system.
Sure, but they’re 5-5 in their last ten and losing ground. The last 6 games have been against the weaker sister of the league (Col and Edm made up 50% or 3 games) and Colorado’s luck has finally run out. They’ll be out of the playoffs in three weeks. Nobody can sustain that sh% vs sv% difference for a season….they were lucky they did it for 18 games.
Points vs non-playoffs teams don’t get you in the playoffs anymore than they get you to 500%. The wins vs the big players are what the Canucks need…well that and a better Luongo this year.
The next ten games is arguably the most important stretch for the Canucks season prior to the ‘Olympic sham’ they have been dealt.
Well, the Olympic sham (agreed, but that’s another topic) also makes Aquilini the money to keep trying to spend us to a championship, so there’s a silver lining to it.
As for making the playoffs, I figure you need to be approx +10 games by the end of the year; we’re +2 now, so if we can be +5 by midseason we’ll be on pace.
More telling, I think, is that our goal differential is +12, but our w/l record is only +2. Compare:
Vnc: +12 → +02
and now some of our playoff competitors:
Cgy: +09 → +10
Phx: +03 → +04
Col: 00 → +06
Nsh: -02 → +06
CBJ: -07→ +03
And so on. We’re getting minimal mileage out of our scoring. In the entire league, only Phi comes close to underutilizing their scoring as much as we do and even then I think they’re still outperforming us in that regard, just by a lesser margin than most.
We’ve been losing too many close games, IMHO, because we play a little too safely/defensively in them. I think Gillis is on track when he says he wants more offense, but we have to find the right way and the right balance cuz it’s even worse when we try to open it up in the wrong manner.
I’d be happy if we’d just not go into such a shell when we have the lead, and to work on getting out of our own zone better by being less predictable at it.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Just to emphasize the point, imagine if the Canucks had given up an extra 19 goals this year, almost a goal per game worse than reality … and still had a better record!
That’s Columbus, and to varying extents, every other team in the league as well. When the game is a close one, which most are, our style of play is not “playing the odds” as well it should, and it’s starting to catch up to us.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I guess if you think that the Canucks can ‘pace’ themselves to a 45-35-2 record -92 pts (+10 for example) and that will actually be enough to squeak in, then sure, ok for you, I guess. I’m just assuming the 14 game road debacle and the ‘stretch’ drive will be some of the tougher hockey for the ‘nucks. Wouldn’t it be better for Vancouver to be over-performing now and good for the tough haul, rather than playing 1 win above 500% hockey, to-date, pacing themselves until Feb. and having to be lights out for the last, probably very difficult, 29 games?
Yup. My scenario was a “just barely squeak in one,” for sure. If they could get to +5 games by midseason, tho, I would hope they could improve in the 2nd half. And frankly, given the rocky start for a team with higher expectations, +5 at midseason and still in the hunt … would look OK right now.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I totally ignored OTLs. They might shift a number here or there but the overall theme – that we are not getting enough wins given our goal differential – still holds. Heck, if the other teams have OTL’s, that just makes our underperformance even worse, right? Cuz they have even more points than the straight w/l would indicate.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Another way to look at it is this:
Let’s say the Canucks average .500% on that 14 game road stretch (reasonable)
They play 53 games prior and 15 after.
For them not to have to play 700% hockey in their last 15 (10-4-1 for 21pts) they need to have a 30-22-1 record before the 14 game road stretch (provided they play 500% hockey on that road stretch)
They are currently 14-12-0. Therefore, they need a 16-10-1 record in the next 27 games (.611) at the very least (preferrably better) or the stretch drive @ 700% and the 14 game road swing @ 500% are going to be hugely difficult tasks, just to get to 96 pts. This was not the season to start 14-12-0.
That road trip isn’t as bad as it looks. They get times off before the Olympics and a little after, I mean after the Hockey part of the Olympics is over, and those guys who aren’t going to the Olympics are going to be well rested after the lay off. Plus we are a good road team and other than the Wings, Hawks and Bruins those are all teams we should be considered better than IMHO. There are only 3 back to backs during that stretch and Florida to Columbus, Columbus to Detroit and Colorado to Phoenix aren’t super long flights. As the bird flies it’s only about 600 miles from Denver to Scottsdale and From Sunrise to C-Bus is only about 900. So no flights longer than roughly two hours. So I think a 9-5 on that “road trip” is reasonable.
9 and 5 on that road trip is reasonable? .643? !! I’m not saying it cannot happen, I’m saying it won’t happen. Sec312, what stats are you looking at that inform that logic? This years Nucks are 4-8 on the road, have for the last 4 years been a much better team at home than on the road and are only one win above 500% on the season.
I’m not sure that makes a “good road team.” If they could go 9-5 in 14 consecutive games on the road, why haven’t they done that all season, under any circumstances?
I mean, you can have blind faith if you like, but I’m saying for the Canucks, winning more, sooner than later, is better.
Look at their record in the last 3-4 years on the road. Look their record in places like the Southwest conference and against teams like the Leafs and Sens. Those are teams we routinely beat.
And why is it that road trip? What is so hard about this trip? They play what 8 games before the Olympics then 6 after on the road? That’s not that bad. Look at the teams they are playing, Leafs, Sens, Bluejackets Florida Tampa etc etc those are all winnable games. I mean it isn’t that bad of a road trip. They play 8 games in 15 nights so basically one every other night for 8. Then get a nice long break where they are all at home, even the ones playing in the Olympics, then they play 6 games on the road after in 9 days after the Olympics. That’s a but harder but still a lot of winnable games against Jackets, Preds and Avs. It isn’t as bad of a stretch as it looks on the surface. Plus then 10 of the last 15 are on home ice. So that .700 hockey in the last 15 shouldn’t be that hard to achieve since we are good on home ice. Plus Luongo should be well rested after the Olympics. So tell me what I am missing that makes that trip so arduous? And why shouldn’t the Canucks be able to beat up on weaker teams during that trip?
Half way through the first 8 game stretch they play the Bruins in Boston and it is an afternoon start. So they will be in Tampa by the end of the day. They then have Sunday and Monday off, probably a practice one of those days, to relax in Tampa and get refreshed. If they need more than 2 days off to recover from 4 games in 8 nights the playoffs are going to be a problem.
If they could go 9-5 in 14 consecutive games on the road, why haven’t they done that all season, under any circumstances?
They haven’t even played 14 road games yet so I am not sure how I am supposed to respond to that question.
Maybe cause they aren’t magic? Or don’t have any idea how to work around the space time continuum?
Don’t worry about the space-time continuum, worry about reading. I can ask again, what makes you think they could go 9-5 over that stretch of 14 games, when they haven’t gone 9-5 over any stretch of 14 games, HOME or away, under any circumstances. In fact their current record is nothing close to 9-5 (.643) in 14 games. It’s .538, or in other words 7-6-1 in 14 games. OR, pretty damn close to .500% hockey.
I think they can go 9-5 because of those 14 games they play IMO weaker teams 10 times. Teams we can and should beat. And if this is a playoff team and a contender then they have to beat those teams. So 9-5 means they only have to beat 9 out of the 10 weaker teams or less if they beat the Hawks, Wings, or Bruins. Last year the Canucks took 47 points from road games, out of a possible 82. Or .573 percent. .573 on that “14” game road trip would be 16 points. So all I am saying is I think they can do one game better than that on a road trip with a lot of weaker teams. Not too much of a stretch is it?
They’re playing better, too, of late. Their last two losses were tight games against a pair of elite teams, the 2nd coming on a Canuck b2b. But they do need to get moving and string a few more wins together, gain some breathing room.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Yeah for sure you don’t want to go into the last third of the season needing to make up a lot of ground. Ideally they would be in 4th or 5th in the conference going into that 8 game road trip before the Olympics. There is no reason why they shouldn’t be able to win 8 or 9 games during that trip though, or get 16-18 points out of a possible 28. If they want to be considered a contender then they have to be able to put together winning streaks on the road.
Yes, I think we’re arguing over a moot point…ie. how many games they might win on that trip. My original point, which I think is still very valid was: The Canucks better start winning now, rather than later, because they don’t have the peachiest schedule later. Now, I understand they probably want to win, of course, but haven’t being playing that well up until now – 26 games in. They better shift it into another gear for this 11 game stretch before X-mas because they play some tough teams, otherwise they are going to have to make up a whole lotta ground later in the year.
Well I wasn’t arguing about how many they might win but how many I think they should win. Like if they want to be a playoff team they need to be able to win a certain number of games on a long road trip. It seems pretty obvious that they are trying to win every game and that they know points now are just as important as they are at the end of the season. I think based on the injuries they have had they aren’t in a half bad position and since we think they are close to being a contender then we have to believe they are about to go on a nice run. If they don’t then we have to start re-evaluating how good we think this team is.
We’re in about the same position as Phi, and I don;t hear anyone saying “oh no, the Flyers won;t make the playoffs.”
Our personnel is plenty good enough to turn it around, tho I sometimes wonder if AV, a fine coach overall, is nonetheless a drawback by way of the singular flaw of being too defensively minded for the “new NHL” era.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Oh yeah? Tell that to Jacques Lemaire in New Jersey!
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 1, 2009 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
Point taken. So … what is Lemaire doing differently within the sphere of “defense first” a.o.t. what AV is doing? I have seen zero NJ games this year.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I think their success is partly, not sure how big or small of a part, but partly due to the East being weaker. I honestly don’t think that the Caps with one great line and only a couple of good D men would be as good in the West as they are in the East. Thoughts? Am I biased because I see more Western conference teams?
The difference? Probably a little more stingy defensively. Look at Brodeur’s #‘s. That not just from him standing on his head. AV probably preaches a bit more offence, but I’m not sure how much
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 1, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
It is also possible that while AV preaches just as much D as Lemaire he is worse at coaching offense. Or better at coaching D. Or both.
How are the Devils at moving the puck outta their own zone? What’s their approach?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Plus that is a schedule that Gillis wanted. Travel wise. So if they only go .500 in that stretch I think you would have to question the decision to lobby for that schedule.
I think you’d have to question why they only went .500 in spite of an easier travel schedule at that point. Blaming the sched for its better stretches is like blaming Henrik for a good pass when Bernier misses the net!
Oh, I’m starting to rant, aren’t I? I get like that after a loss….
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Hey Sean, I tried doing a fanpost, but it keeps disappearing. Is there a trick to it … or is it just such a lousy post that you killed it? I’m open to either answer!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Uh…it shouldn’t disappear. I’m not deleting it! When does it disappear? When publishing?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
It’s weird. Evennow, it comes and goes on the list for me. Sometimes it’s there; sometimes not. If it were a caching thing, its visibility wouldn’t toggle like that. No big deal, just a little off-the-cuff post, but I was kinda wondering for the future if there was some known bug or trick or whatever that I hadn’t tackled properly. FWIW, I usually use the “most recenty active” view.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
OK, I’m getting a handle on this. Here’s what you can tell your techies:
I go to fanposts and they come up for me in the “most recent;y active” view. It’s not there. I reload the page and it is.
It’s not a caching problem because the page, prior to reloading, has picked up other changes such as the number of comments on other fanposts. Nor is it related to my userid in particular because I get the same problem behavior regardless of whether I’m signed on or not.
At least it’s a consistent problem behavior rather than an intermittent one, which should make it easier for your guys to figure out.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Is anyone else having this problem? Anyone?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
OK, all good now. Or at least momentarily stable. The post that is, not necessarily the author.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I think you ran over a voodoo priest and your computer is fukt.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
As long as the Ice Cream, Blue Seats and Iggy post stays cast in bronze, I don’t see a problem. That poster’s got some skillz.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
Ehh, he’s okay I guess ;)
Noticed that you have also become a “pub regular” there smoboy. Good stuff, keep it coming!
by nucksandpucks on Nov 30, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions
It’s probably cuz everybody else said no. Har. Thanks for the compliment, nucks.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
yeah, we don’t broadcast when someone becomes a pub regular. Probably should though
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
Wellwood
The Welly slights are non-stop lulz.
by Chuckles Canuckles on Nov 30, 2009 3:20 PM PST reply actions
well, the russian roster may have just been shaken up……
"If you ever lose your way in the dark, a good thing to find in your pocket would be Mathieu Schneider's teeth." Kurtenbloggers
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler." random commentor at yahoo
GO CANUCKS GO!
This is the reason why I like Crosby more. Will he get a suspension for that and if he does is there even a point if he’s injured?
Salary cap penalties would be an interesting possibility; e.g. reduce Wsh’s cap mid-season by $2m and let the Ovie contemplate what he’s done to his buddies. That could actually be a real deterrent for the future, on a contending team at least.
Good luck explaining it to the owners, tho.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Was over at Japer’s Rink earlier and they were wondering what takes precedence? The suspension (if one is forthcoming ), or the time on injured reserve (assuming Ovechkin is seriously hurt or not ) . Then you have all that salary cap jibberjabber to deal with. Good times.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
Always has been haywire. I don’t think he’s deliberately dirty, just outta control. And I think he likes it that way, too, and he’s gonna hurt someone unless he’s penalized.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
just outta control
that’s what I meant. Reckless. He keeps playing like that and he won’t have a long career. He’ll have Bure knees
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions
yeah, heard about that too.
reports are saying that vokoun is on the flight to florida with the rest of the team, so it’s not sounding so bad.
this has been a great day for my fantasy hockey pools. 3 of my 4 pools have both ovie and vokoun!
"If you ever lose your way in the dark, a good thing to find in your pocket would be Mathieu Schneider's teeth." Kurtenbloggers
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler." random commentor at yahoo
GO CANUCKS GO!
How do you even look your team mates in the face after that. It could have resulted in something much more serious. I seem to remember a similair circumstance some years back. Puck goes in, D-man swings stick in anger, hits goalie in the back of the leg. The guy was writhing aroung forever.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
Here it is in all it's glory
So after he clubs Vokoun he then breaks the rest of his stick on the post and he’s not even there to check on his “buddy”
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions
Jesus Christ
What a fucktard. Vokoun is one of my goalies in my hockey pool, fml.
by Chuckles Canuckles on Dec 1, 2009 12:49 AM PST up reply actions
My wife watched the replay and immediately said “did he just hit his own goalie on purpose?” I thought she was way off-base, so we replayed the clip a few times and you know, her points were solid: Ballard’s an idiot, he couldda swung his stick at the post backhand instead of forehand, he’s a pro hockey player so he knows where his stick is, and he never even stopped to check on his goalie after he clocked him.
Got me wondering. Has Ballard himself said anything since then?
Ladies and gentlemen, start your conspiracy theories!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Ballard, Woods, the grassy knoll, 9/11……it’s all connected, man, it’s all connected.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
oh yeah? i have him in 3 of my 4 pools! with ovechkin in the same 3 as well!
"If you ever lose your way in the dark, a good thing to find in your pocket would be Mathieu Schneider's teeth." Kurtenbloggers
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler." random commentor at yahoo
GO CANUCKS GO!
Speaking of the Olympics, what are Sweden going to do in goal? If the Olympics started today there is no way you could play Lundquist. He has been awful the last 2 or 3 weeks. Is Backstrom going to get the starts?
nhl.com recently took a look at olympic rosters. let me find a link….
"If you ever lose your way in the dark, a good thing to find in your pocket would be Mathieu Schneider's teeth." Kurtenbloggers
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler." random commentor at yahoo
GO CANUCKS GO!
found it.
looks like sweden also has hedberg and some non-nhl guy named markstrom that could play in goal.
here’s the links for the other countries:
canada
russia
usa
finland
czech republic
slovakia
belarus
switzerland
let me know if those links mess up……
"If you ever lose your way in the dark, a good thing to find in your pocket would be Mathieu Schneider's teeth." Kurtenbloggers
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler." random commentor at yahoo
GO CANUCKS GO!
Starting? Not ahead of those other two guys. Plus I hate the fact that the guy has that nickname yet he hasn’t ever done anything in the North American game. That would be like calling Hnat Dominichelli “The Great One” based on Spangler Cup play.
Sir! You denigrate the ability of a player whose skills have been forged in the fires of the Spengler Cup? Shame!
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
That was his nickname in Sweden before he got here. No, Pierre McGuire didn’t start that!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah well he isn’t good enough to be called Monster if he is playing in the NHL. Not yet anyway. What was Forsberg’s nickname before he got here? Naslund? The Sedins? Zetterberg? We don’t know and it doesn’t matter. The whole Monster thing is just a chance for the Toronto media to pump the guys tires and to make it seem like their team isn’t as bad as it really is.
Because he’s King Henrik. I agree that he’s already a lock.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
Their
numbers are almost identical this year, but careers are a different story.
Which one won Olympic Gold 4 years ago again?
Well if we learned anything from 4 years ago it’s that you can’t take a team based on the Olympics before. You have to take the guys playing the best at the time of the Olympics.
Nevermind Nik Backstrom is Finnish apparently. So there aren’t really any options other than King Henrik.
But it is kind of the same thing right? They took guys who had helped them 4 years ago, or who weren’t playing as well at the time of the Olympics as they had in the past. Rather than taking guys like Crosby who were playing well at the time.
by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
That is what I am saying. They relied on past performance rather than who was the best players at the time of the Olympics.
by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:10 PM PST up reply actions
That's not
what I’m saying, it’s not all about who’s playing well at the time, it’s about who are the best players, period, recent and past factor in, but there’s often too much overthinking it imo. Canada’s top squad should beat anybody else’s most of the time, but I also think having the overrated Pat Quinn coaching didn’t help matters.
I didn’t say playing well at the time I said best players at the time of the Olympics. Isn’t that what you are saying?
by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
You just siad
“there’s no way they could play Lundqvist” based on a not great 3 weeks, ffs man if that isn’t caring only about the extreme recent performance wtf is it?
He has let in something like 16 goals in his last 4 games. How can you start him? You take him obviously but if you have another option, which I thought they did but was wrong about, you would have to start the other guy. But basically in a nut shell, as people like Missy understood, I was asking based on his recent performance what Sweden would do and what other options they had. Then we started talking about Canada. And the last Olympics and the mistakes they made. I then said, in agreement with you, that they should have taken the best players available not the guys who had been good in the past but were not good anymore or guys who helped at the last Olympics but were past it. And of course as most people would have understood there is a difference between who you TAKE and who PLAYS, particularly in goal. So again to be clear I wasn’t saying don’t take Lundquist, I was saying do they have another option to be the starter based on how he is playing. I didn’t think you could start him if he keeps playing this bad if they had another option. Since they don’t he obviously starts. Make sense? So having said all of that I will now say this.
Do me a favour from now on yoata. Don’t respond to the things I write. I have run out of patience with your bullshit and your twisting of what people write and your attitude. Nice work. You just pissed off the last person here who liked you and respected you.
by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:56 PM PST up reply actions
Too funny
now it’s not even 3 weeks it’s 4 games and " no way they could play him."
“good in the past but not any more” lmao, based on his last 4 games??? Read some of the stuff you write once in a while man. First Weber could be had for Gillisgans castoffs and now Lundqvist isn’t good enough to play for Sweden based on 4 games?
What do you mean they don’t have any options, Missy just told you they have Hedberg, and since his numbers are so great in the 10 whole games he’s played this year, doesn’t matter that he hasn’t been a starter since ‘02, it’s a no-brainer.
Whatever man, you’re embarrassed over your own words, don’t blame me, I didn’t say them.
I don’t often agree with yoata but he has a point here. Lundqvist is pretty much a lock. Everybody has hot and cold streaks and you can’t really judge a goalie on 3 weeks or 4 games or whatever it is. I mean look at Luongo for the first 3 games of the season. He was bloody awful but he’s coming around. I’m sure he’ll play fine come Olympics. The Rangers have a habit of fooling everybody into thinking they are a good team by starting super hot but then they cool down. Who else is there to start for them?
I already said you take Lundquist and that they have no options so he starts. I was asking if they had other options. He has been terrible of late. If Brodeur or Luongo or Fleury has let in 27 goals in their last 9 games heading into the Olympics you would still start them? No because we have other options. So I was asking if Sweden had other options and maybe if Henrik is playing this bad at the time of the Olympics they would have to start someone else. Then upon learning they didn’t really have any other options I stated numerous times the Lundqvist would get the starts. Is any of that really controversial?
I think the Olympics are different though. Brodeur is pretty much a lock to start. Once you put the talented group of Canadians in front of him I don’t think it would matter much if he let in 27 goals in 9 games. If in the first game of the Olympics he’s terrible then probably you yank him for Fleury.
Interesting take. Let me ask you this though, if one of Fleury or Cam Ward or Luongo has say 5 or 6 straight wins and a GAA in those last 5 or 6 games of 1.50 or something around there and Brodeur has been letting in an average of 3 goals a game over that same period would you still start Brodeur? I mean sure there is an argument to be made that he is the best goalie in history and has proven it on the big stage but don’t you have to go with the hot hand in a short tournament like that? Or are you saying you give Brodeur the first game and if he isn’t good you play the hot guy after that? Or does it not matter who is hot it’s Brodeur and Fleury and that’s it? I have always kind of thought you pick the best team possible and then play the guys who are playing the best going into the tournament.
if one of Fleury or Cam Ward or Luongo has say 5 or 6 straight wins and a GAA in those last 5 or 6 games of 1.50 or something around there and Brodeur has been letting in an average of 3 goals a game over that same period would you still start Brodeur?
I think they finalize the rosters well before that. Not sure of the exact date.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 1, 2009 12:36 AM PST up reply actions
Right. But I said who would you start. Not who would be on the team. We take 3 goalies right? So if one is super hot and the other two are slumping who do you start?
I think I can agree that you start the one who is hot. Just not sure what Stevie Y would do, and how he would factor everything into it.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 1, 2009 12:43 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah well I don’t think any of us know what he would do so all we can say is what we would do. And I would ride the hot hand. If a guy is hot see if it carries over into the Olympics. If it doesn’t then no big deal to go to Brodeur or Luongo or whoever is next in line.
You probably start one goalie one game and the backup the next then go with whoever has been most impressive if it’s a tossup of course. If Brodeur is playing well, which I’m pretty sure he’ll continue to do so, then you pretty much just go with him.
Yeah I think Brodeur is the man unless he proves otherwise. Last time we won gold we had to replace our starter after the first game. I would love to see Luongo backstop Canada to gold in Vancouver but I don’t think he will get the chance. What are the odds Brodeur melts down in the Olympics the way he did in the playoffs last year? Slim to none I would think.
Well he doesn’t have to play against Sean Avery at the Olympics so I think it’s safe to say he won’t meltdown.
I was more thinking about the last minute against Carolina. I was watching that game with my mouth agape. It was stunning. Would hate to see that happen in an Olympics but I think with a guy like Brodeur that is more of a once in a career type thing.
Once every few years actually. Depending on the efficiency of their trap ;)
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 1, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions
Last time I am going to respond to you.
So if I mention he has been playing poorly for 3 weeks I can’t also report that he has let in a lot of goals in the very recent past without undermining my original point? OK. Sorry. I didn’t realize I had to say the same thing exactly over and over. Although now that I think about it that is what you do so it makes sense. In the past couple weeks he has been bad, and especially in the last couple games so if he played like that all the way through to the Olympics it would be hard to start him if they had a better option. Which they don’t. And I ALREADY SAID they DIDN`T have other options so this comment, “Missy just told you they have Hedberg, and since his numbers are so great in the 10 whole games he’s played this year, doesn’t matter that he hasn’t been a starter since ‘02, it’s a no-brainer” makes you the idiot here not me. Those are your words embarrassing you. I said they had no other options and then you try to a joke at my expense about Hedberg? Dude you are so off your rocker it isn’t even funny. Plus, I mentioned Lundquist has been bad lately but AT NO POINT did I say Henrik Lundquist was “good in the past but not anymore”. Again to clear this up. We were talking about Canada and taking players that were past their best to the last Olympics. Canada. We were talking about the mistakes Canada made at the last Olympics. At no point was I talking about Lundquist in any way being good in the past but not anymore. I would like anyone to find where that quote was made by me. It is a ludicrous statement that you are trying to put into my mouth. You must understand this yoata. You seem like a smart guy so I am not sure how you could be doing this unless you are doing it on purpose.
As for the Webber thing I was just speculating that a team that hates to pay a lot of payroll may want to trade away a high priced guy for good prospects and picks if and when he gets to the point where he is going to be making top D man money. Is that really that far fetched? Really? If I can’t spitball about possible deals off the top of my head what is the point of being on a website like this where fans spitball about stuff off the top of their heads? How are Cory Schnieder, drafted by Nonis, someone “like” Shirokov, again a Nonis draft pick and some other picks, as you said, and this is YOUR quote “Gillisgan castoffs”? Cast offs? Who is embarrassed now? And Robidas I read was a soon to be free agent. Must have been an old story. My bad. I was wrong. And admitting I was wrong instantly makes me more credible than you will ever be since you have never admitted you might be wrong.
When a man enjoys belittling others, there’s no point arguing with him cuz it ain’t about what it’s about; he’s got something to prove, mostly to himself, and rest is just excuse. Welcome to the “done with that nonsense” club!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
The shitty thing is I agree with a lot of what he says and I think he is an intelligent guy and makes a lot of great points. I just don’t get all of the swearing and taking things out of context. I don’t think he needs to do that cause as I said he seems like a very bright guy.
Hey
you’re the guy that said play the hot hand, so why not Hedberg?
On Weber, yes it’s farfetched, it’s beyond that it’s laughable.
Even if Nash were stupid enough to trade their franchise player, most every team in the league would be bidding on him and slashing payroll if they had to to get him. Sorry but if the 3rd string goaltender and a minor-leaguer don’t fit the definition of cast-offs, I don’t know what does.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Nucks Misconduct
Related FanShots on Nucks Misconduct
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow The Misconduct
 |
 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Atlanta Thrashers
- Chris Pronger's contract accepted; why NHLPA could have advantage
- Pass or Fail: When 'Jersey Shore'-level celebs invade hockey arenas
- NHL's ultimatum: Amend CBA or reject Kovalchuk, Luongo deals?
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
