MILFHUNTER#518 Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'd be surprised of they wanted that match up and not the CHI-NYC one. Original 6, Blackhawks dynasty on the line with high scoring talent vs. King Henrik and the St.Louis story-line? I'd love that series. I remember when LA went to the Finals against the Devils a few years back. First Finals sense I've been watching hockey, albeit not too long, that I didn't catch a single game. I agree with you, this is going to be very fun to watch. I just think they are looking at tv numbers and media share. Chi Town vs NYC would be more fun to me though, I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Can see a case for it. Personally, I think rookie Habs goalie vs veteran Hawks squad has a better historical perspective. Hopefully Price is back by then. Canadiens vs. Blackhawks would have monster tv ratings. All of Canada would tune in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Mil bury in intermission said Vanek turning down $50 million from the Islanders was the best thing to happen for the Islanders in a long time! Lol, I couldn't agree more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 The Rangers are going to win this series because of Lundquist... if the can average 2.49 goals per game, they have it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) Mil bury in intermission said Vanek turning down $50 million from the Islanders was the best thing to happen for the Islanders in a long time! Lol, I couldn't agree more But still, it isn't in the same class as them getting rid of his worthless butt. Edited May 20, 2014 by Taro T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 But still, it isn't in the same class as them getting rid of his worthless butt. hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 But still, it isn't in the same class as them getting rid of his worthless butt. Gees, I'd forgotten how bad he was as GM! What is Rick Dipietro doing these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Series summary in two words French toast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Gees, I'd forgotten how bad he was as GM! What is Rick Dipietro doing these days? Compliance Buyout. So pretty much the exact same thing he has been doing, golfing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Mil bury in intermission said Vanek turning down $50 million from the Islanders was the best thing to happen for the Islanders in a long time! Lol, I couldn't agree more Makes you wonder how Darcy (and many of us) thought a team could be built around Vanek, Pommer, and Miller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Makes you wonder how Darcy (and many of us) thought a team could be built around Vanek, Pommer, and Miller. If Milbury doesn't think you can build a team around Vanek, I'm inclined to believe Regier was right ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted May 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Peters is absolutely ripping into Vanek on the radio right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 This series is over, The only chance the Habs have is to go full Kreider and take out Hank. I still can't believe anyone could think that wasn't intentional. I bet Craig Anderson thinks it was intentional. In my world, "accidentally on purpose" means "on purpose." I wonder if the Rags can finally tell me whet the meaning of the word "is" is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Makes you wonder how Darcy (and many of us) thought a team could be built around Vanek, Pommer, and Miller. Peters is absolutely ripping into Vanek on the radio right now. I'll say it again: Minnesota would be crazy to give Vanek a big contract. Does anyone here still think Vanek is a franchise player? Or even a top-30 NHL player? He played 11 minutes for the Habs last night. He's a good player, with great hands, and a nice piece to have. But that's it. You don't build around him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 This series is over Most likely it is. Had the first two games been in NYC, and the Habs dropped the pair, well one might think they could regroup on home ice. But to let the visitor take BOTH opening games.... Only 12.7% of teams going down 2-0 in a series, have won. And those stats don't show how often that 2-0 deficit has happened on home ice. I'm guessing it's a lot worse percentage in that case. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=31154#2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Makes you wonder how Darcy (and many of us) thought a team could be built around Vanek, Pommer, and Miller. All fine players - not a center among them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'll say it again: Minnesota would be crazy to give Vanek a big contract. Does anyone here still think Vanek is a franchise player? Or even a top-30 NHL player? He played 11 minutes for the Habs last night. He's a good player, with great hands, and a nice piece to have. But that's it. You don't build around him. Franchise player? No, but he can play on my top line any day. I'll go to my grave thinking Buffalo fans woefully underappreciated him. As far as playing 11 minutes goes...you'd think that a team that has to beat Lundqvist enough to compensate for not having Price would say to hell with defensive effort and try to score some goals, but hey, I'm not Michel Therrien. I'm sure Brandon Prust will carry them to victory! :rolleyes: Same as Callahan (just exchange great hands with other qualities), whom you and many others seem quite eager to back up the brinks truck for. Callahan had 0 points while getting 20 minutes per game as Tampa got swept out of the playoffs. Rick "quantum leap better than Vanek" Nash had a whopping 0 goals in 14 playoff games this year until he got to shoot on Peter Budaj and Dustin Tokarski. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'll say it again: Minnesota would be crazy to give Vanek a big contract. Does anyone here still think Vanek is a franchise player? Or even a top-30 NHL player? He played 11 minutes for the Habs last night. He's a good player, with great hands, and a nice piece to have. But that's it. You don't build around him. Vanek is a weapon. He's probably the best player in the league standing in front of the net on the PP. Do you want to build around your wing? We've pretty much seen the results of that approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'll say it again: Minnesota would be crazy to give Vanek a big contract. Does anyone here still think Vanek is a franchise player? Or even a top-30 NHL player? He played 11 minutes for the Habs last night. He's a good player, with great hands, and a nice piece to have. But that's it. You don't build around him. Hearing Vanek get called out for his play on a real good team has given me reason to second guess my estimation of how good / what kind of player he is. I used to think TV was overly criticized. That the complaints were unjust to some extent. But he's a supporting cast member now and is getting just as much criticism there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Hearing Vanek get called out for his play on a real good team has given me reason to second guess my estimation of how good / what kind of player he is. I used to think TV was overly criticized. That the complaints were unjust to some extent. But he's a supporting cast member now and is getting just as much criticism there. Vanek was an added piece. Putting him with Galchunyk (sp) who he's never played with for 9 of his 11 minutes wasn't doing either guy any favors. I'd like to hear what Therien was thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Vanek was an added piece. Putting him with Galchunyk (sp) who he's never played with for 9 of his 11 minutes wasn't doing either guy any favors. I'd like to hear what Therien was thinking. Why wouldn't a guy like Vanek be a dead lock 1st line LW though? Unless they didn't like his game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chileanseabass Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Why wouldn't a guy like Vanek be a dead lock 1st line LW though? Unless they didn't like his game. I thought the Vanek-Desharnais-Pacioretty line was getting heaps of praise during the Tampa series. My how things have changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted May 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Why wouldn't a guy like Vanek be a dead lock 1st line LW though? Unless they didn't like his game. Because Pacioretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 While I understand Vanek isn't exactly the star many thought him to be I don't understand how a team struggling to score doesn't play him more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 While I have intention of defending Vanek, you'd have to think that getting used to not one, but two different playing styles over the course of 7 months, would yield some doubtful results. Especially since he's played his entire NHL career with one team, prior to getting traded twice this season. That said, Vanek won't carry a team. Chances are he'll score 30 perhaps 35 in a good season, in a 2nd line role. But if Vanek plays the 1st line, it means his team is short on offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.