Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Amen, Larry Brooks

It takes a guy all the way from New York to agree with me. The following is from Larry Brooks of the New York Post.

Keane, a three-time Cup winner with Montreal, Colorado and Dallas, hasn't been in the NHL since 2003-04. He's working on an AHL contract under which he's earning less than $100,000. But he's playing, and playing well, having recorded five points (3-2) in his first nine games.

In New York in 1997-98, Keane seemed to be a disinterested mercenary, just like so many of the free agents who, uh, checked in during the Lost Years. Funny how almost a decade later, nothing could be further from the truth.

He's a player who wants to play the game, period. He's a player who enjoys teaching. The NHL is all about speed now. But if the league is looking for a minimum-wage bargain, there's one available in Manitoba.


Why did the Canucks give up this guy? Because he's 39? Last time I checked, Mike Keane still has wheels and more ability to put the puck in the net than Burrows, Kesler, and especially Linden. I wouldn't mind seeing him get one more shot somewhere.

6 Comments:

At November 1, 2006 at 12:30 p.m. , Blogger Jes GÅ‘lbez said...

Keane was also pretty good defensively with the Canucks and his loss did hurt them in that regard since they had few other defensive options (and losing Chubarov hurt). You'd think he'd be a lot better at the min salary than a guy like Jeff Hoggan.

 
At November 1, 2006 at 2:22 p.m. , Blogger Zanstorm said...

Agreed! I know the Nucks don't need leadership as much (or do they...)I mostly think this way about Keane playing in Vancouver if guys like Linden, Burrows and Chouinard don't start chipping in.
But plenty of other teams could use him, especially Florida, who could use all of the defensive players they can get!

 
At November 1, 2006 at 7:13 p.m. , Blogger Temujin said...

Your continuing Linden-bashing is getting exceedingly tiring. You hate him. We got the point three months ago :-)

Keane would be a good fit for the Canucks, but dropping Linden for him is unrealistic.
Linden. Is. Not. Going. Anywhere.

And if you really think he is going to be more offensive than Kesler and Burrows then you need to re-evaluate just where you think he'll fit in on the depth charts. It's not like Keane would takeover Pyatt's spot with the Sedin's, and I'm afraid a Keane-Morrison-Naslund line isn't going to strike fear into the hearts of opposition goalies. So what are you left with? Keane-Kesler-Cooke? Keane-Chouinard-Green?

The only option I'd deem reasonable would be if they dumped Chouinard and put Keane on a checking line with Linden and Cooke. Although Chouinard hasn't panned out like we thought, I'm still not willing to throw him away. The season is still young, and the Canucks are doing well. In September we all prayed that the Canucks would be in contention. At 7-5 this is more than we had hoped for.

So drop the Keane horseshit! It's a pipedream... actually, a pipe-nightmare.

This message brought to you by a potential recruit to WFS :-)

 
At November 1, 2006 at 7:35 p.m. , Blogger Zanstorm said...

"...if they dumped Chouinard and put Keane on a checking line with Linden and Cooke."

Alright, drop the love affair with Linden, he is good in the press box now and that's it. Just my opinion. He's like keeping an old fart at work that has leadership skills but can't lift a 5 pound board anymore, or move from point A to point B effectively without slowing down the machine. You don't pull a charity case and keep him around because you don't want to hurt his feelings. You replace his ass with a competent younger worker, and promote the old guy to management! haha

Keane-Cook-Kesler would be a terrific 3rd line.

And yes, I think Keane would probably put up more goals then any of the current Canuck checkers!

 
At November 1, 2006 at 8:03 p.m. , Blogger Temujin said...

You're deluded my friend! Linden is not like the old fart in your analogy. I watched him live against the Caps, and he was skating his ass off and was solid on the PK. He was not on the ice for either of the Caps goals, which is more than I can say for Salo, Krajicek and Kesler, who were on the ice and out of position for both.

In 03-04 Keane had 17 points for the Canucks. In 64 games! Come on dude, Linden had 36 points in 82 games that season, and 16 in 82 last year with hardly any ice time.

Put down the Keane Kool-Aid!

 
At November 1, 2006 at 11:08 p.m. , Blogger Zanstorm said...

"In 03-04 Keane had 17 points for the Canucks. In 64 games! Come on dude, Linden had 36 points in 82 games that season, and 16 in 82 last year with hardly any ice time."

Don't get me started... Keane had way less ice time than Linden that year did he not?
Time to put the old bull out to pasture.
Hardly any icetime for Linden last year? What do you expect? If he got more icetime he would get more shots and miss the net that many more times. Remember last year? He stank it. He is a massive shade of his former self.
How many Stanley Cup rings does Keane have?
And how many does Linden have?
We could crunch stats all day, and the only thing I could see to Linden's advantage over Keane is his age. Oh yeah, and the Canuck fans' detrimental obsession with him.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Waiting For Stanley was created in June 2006.