[Rumour] Tony Gallagher: Sedins to Extend With Canucks

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by FAN

You said the Canucks were one of the best teams not to win the Cup. One of the best teams don't get lose 7 out of 9 playoff games the past two years and fail to advance past the second in others.

Correction - EIGHT out of nine! You can't lose two playoff series without losing eight games!

Like I said, the year they went to the Cup finals as just about the only year the Canucks can claim to be one of the best teams in the league.

Well, they won the president's the next year so I'd say that puts them in "one of the best" territory, even if they did get run out of the postseason in 5 games (while missing Sedin) by a team starting one of the most ridiculously impressive playoff runs in the past, oh, decade in a half.

I think the issue is with what a "good" team is. The Red Wings are a good team. They finished 7th last year, but they were a good team. So are the Canucks - you know they're going to make the playoffs each year, and when your team plays them, no matter who your team is, it's at best a coin toss as to whether you're going to win. Outside of those two Prez years (and maybe the one before when Henrik won the art ross) they haven't been in the "Elite" discussion with the Chicagos and LAs and Pittsburghs, but that doesn't mean they weren't good.

As for the contract I expect something like 4-5 years, 5.5 aav or something like that. Which would be a discount, imo.

[Robbob]

^^ Pretty sure they lost to LA in three games because they were so terrible.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by FAN

Umm... just like San Jose, the Canucks had a reputation for underachieving in the playoffs. After a while you have to consider whether they really are underachievers or simply not that good.

You said the Canucks were one of the best teams not to win the Cup. One of the best teams don't get lose 7 out of 9 playoff games the past two years and fail to advance past the second in others.

The WCE? They were 8th seeds until 2002-2003 where they barely beat St. Louis and lost to the Wild. The next year we beat them in the first round. The next season they missed the playoffs. That was the WCE years.

In 2006-2007 they barely got past the Stars and was beat by the Ducks. Sure the Ducks won the Cup that year but are you seriously claiming that team to be a good team? The following year they missed the playoffs.

In 2008-2009 they were beat by the Blackhawks but the Hawks weren't close to being the best team then. The next year the Hawks were great but it took a complete revamping of the defense to get the Canucks to the Cup finals the following year. After that they pretty much got swept aside the next two years.

Like I said, the year they went to the Cup finals as just about the only year the Canucks can claim to be one of the best teams in the league.

Making the playoffs consistently and winning presidents trophies is my definition of a good team. I get its hard to give the Flames sworn enemy any credit but they have been a good team. One of the best due to their consistency IMO. I don't like them but they deserve some credit.