• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

122 Good

About gameburn2

  • Rank
    Comets Regular
  1. [PGT] Ottawa Senators vs. Vancouver Canucks

    Tanev has been good too. He seems to have decided to become a better PMD -- more zip in the offensive zone generally. Glad he wasn't moved in the summer for a pick or a prospect. He's still improving. And Gudbranson looks legit -- a lot of us were not sure about him.
  2. [Discussion] Game 1 Oct 7th 2017. Coaching Takeaway

    Horvat is not the typical pp center, and clearly the twins are too slow for the entry and for the chase. So we don't have the personnel. Problems with finding a pp D are secondary to the problem of finding 3 good pp forwards, or 6 for two lines. Baer looks good, Granlund, maybe. Boeser looks promising (he'll have to be on the ice, to state the obvious.) Virtanen may be good -- he has a one-timer and an ability in front of the net -- but at this rate, we'll never know, as he doesn't get used in that role. Pettersson, in two years? Gagner looked okay, but Vanek was as bad as the Sedins. Time to try something new, or something that is so basic and simple the players we have can do it no harm.
  3. Adam Gaudette | C

    Stevens and Neidermayer were good, I forgot about Niedermayer. I don't recall him carrying the scoring load that Doughty and Keith have done recently in the playoffs, but I'll grant you that he and Stevens did do something akin to what Boston did with Chara. Carolina was good but not great, not Kane or Crosby great anyway. Brodeur and Thomas were probably more important to their teams than Fleury/Murray or Crawford. I suppose I was thinking more of offensive hockey, which can be a narrow standard now that I think of it. I think a lot of us saw the Carolina Cup run as an upset. If there are no upsets -- and the length of the playoffs suggests there may not be -- then your point is well taken. Some of the key Carolina players did not continue on with stellar careers the way that the players from Chicago, Pittsburgh and to some extent Boston have, so I think it's easy for a lot of us to simply overlook the Carolina achievement. Similar to Calgary's cup win, long ago: the team was on average older when it finally won. The teams like Edmnonton and Chicago (and Pittsburgh, earlier) who win when the core is very young are easier to remember, not least because they often win more than one cup.
  4. I hope you're right. I think we're both in agreement on the need to be younger and to have a range of ages. Having everyone at 28 to 30 yrs of age during the Cup run made a magnificent team, but not sustainable. At least not without a lot of trading/moving of players, which we didn't do quickly enough. It also isn't healthy -- even for an intentional Tank job -- to have the entire team age 24 or younger. Some balance is part of what keeps a team healthy, maintains its culture. I think we can also agree that seeing Gagner and Vanek out there last night in the first game of the year... when Boeser is benched: that was painful. Allthough early, it seemed significant to me that none of the UFAs played as well as the new core, including even Gudbranson, who I think a lot of us were having doubts about. By Fall of 2019 we won't even remember that Gagner and Vanek were here. Or Miller or Del Zotto probably. And none of the new UFAs are in the class of what Vrbata had to offer. Can players develop without NHL ice time? Can teams develop without a lot of prospects? Do we have enough prospects yet? Time will tell. And this year's draft along with the year after is going to be critical, certainly as important as Benning's first two years.
  5. I don't say drafting is the only way to build a championship team, only that it cannot take second place to bringing in projects. My worry is that the Canuck have gone for a quicker fix than ideal. Moreover, recent teams that have won have been built around their draft picks: Crosby, Malkin, Letang; Keith, Toews, Kane; Doughty, Quick, Kopitar -- basically, all the teams recently. Also, we got further when the team was built around Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Bieksa, Tanev, Edler and Burrows (not a draftee, I know, but not a trade either), All drafted by the Canucks. Even with this team, it is Horvat, Tanev, Pettersson, Juolevi, Demko, Boeser, and maybe Hutton who will bring home the bacon. And maybe this year's pick... I'm hoping for Dahlin, like most of us here. I'm not hoping for a stalled prospect in someone else's system. It's a little bit more practical and lot more fun to center around the draft as the primary way to build a team.
  6. Adam Gaudette | C

    In the past, teams have won without superstars on D or in the forward positions. New Jersey and Carolina come to mind. Recently, however, LA (Doughty), Chicago (Keith and Kane) and Pittsburgh (C and M) have all had superstars. With Edmonton, Toronto, Chicago, and Pittsburgh looking pretty good this year: more superstars. Not sure we can generalize, but it is noteworthy that teams have won without the McDavid/Keith types. New Jersey and Carolina did, however, have good goalkeepers, excellent team play and considerable depth. No reason we can't have what the latter had: Demko looks promising, the depth is building and Green looks like he can be a team builder.
  7. What I'm trying to say is that in a rebuild it makes no sense to trade any picks. The goal instead should be to acquire them. I assumed this was obvious. Undoubtedly some of those deals would not have happened without including picks. That was why the other side often went for these deals. It doesn't mean it was a good idea to make the deal from our side. Especially if picks are the material for your rebuild. We'll never know who we missed by throwing in these picks in these deals. I see the point of keeping someone like Tanev, and certainly the value of a right-age goalkeeper (Markstrom), but the rest of the older crowd of players could be/should have been moved in favour of more picks, rather than using our own picks. The larger the pool of younger players, the greater the chance of building a good future. Because I value Benning's ability to draft, I don't want him throwing in/throwing away 2nd, 3rd and even 4th round picks for players who may never amount to much. I know ppl will point out that the majority of picks won't work out either. But if you have the ability to draft well, you have to be confident about your ability to pick more winners than the team that is happy enough to have you take their players who have dropped sufficiently in their depth chart to be moved for your picks. Besides, if they want your picks... this suggests there is league-wide value in having picks, even as low as 4th. It seems a bit arrogant to me to assume that someone's expendable 20-plus year old prospect is going to be our find -- especially when we have the option of using the best drafting gm and best scouting staff we have had in a generation.
  8. Your argument is better presented than mine, e.g., I should have been clearer in separating out Etem, Stanton and a couple of others who were not acquired for picks. My assumption was that "being older" was the key, not the exchange. But you are right: if it was prospect swapping with players of equal age, then it weakens my argument and should have been left out. Moreover, the problem the Canucks have had is warm bodies, witness the decision to bring in the UFAs this year. Any upgrade in players would seem to help build better teams -- especially in Utica, but Vancouver too. What I was trying to get at was something I've been thinking about for a while with this mgt group: they seem to gauge a player partly at least on the basis of the high point they may have hit at one time or another. Gudbranson was a first, Baertschi, I think was quite high as well. Vey was a stud in Junior, Etem had moments before as well. And Pouliot, most recently (first round and Team Canada.) Cassels looked good against McDavid, Fox scored a huge number of goals in his last year, Juolevi won a world championship, Eriksson was at a high point for goals, etc., when he signed him. It also suggests why Benning may be comfortable moving seconds and later picks... he values having an earlier pick much more. What I'm suggesting is that while analytics (from what I know of it) can be limited, so can taking draft position into account too singlemindedly. I also think Benning is trying out a version of money ball: get College age players rather than younger players, because their actual talent level is easier to assess reliably. It wouldn't surprise me if Benning was one of the managers that favors the draft age being raised a year or two. I guess I think that it is better to go the more traditional route of getting and using as many draft picks as you can find/acquire. Especially when rebuilding. Probably Benning is figuring the home run athletes are easy enough to spot, so never get rid of 1st round picks, while all the other picks can probably be moved -- especially if they are in exchange for players that look good enough now. What qualifies as "good enough now" is the key. That and figuring out what would be lost by losing a lot of the later round picks. The other part of my concern is for why a manager would want to look so strongly and repeatedly at 21-23 yr olds on other teams, castoffs many of them, or falling in their respective teams prospect rankings. My fear is that he may be impatient, wanting a quicker turn around than is possible or healthy for a team that is rebuilding.
  9. The problem with Pouliot, Etem, Vey, Gudbranson, even Granlund and Baertschi is that there is a chance we are trading picks away for players that may already have proven their mediocrity. We are in a world now where if you can't show you belong by 21, then you may not be worth ANY draft pick. Baertschi looks like he was worth the pick, and really was a diamond in the rough, so far. Granlund probably. Gudbranson, Etem, Vey? Think of all the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks Benning has moved for players other teams have found wanting. The straight up trade of Shinkaruk is different: we too had a chance to assess potential on both sides, and the age of the players was comparable, no complaints there. Hockey, unfortunately, is a zero-sum game. When you pick up a player who is 21, 22, 23 by trading away a pick who is going to be 18 or at most 19, you are NOT gaining development time, but losing competitive ground. Unless, that is, the older player really is a diamond in the rough. The stat, then, that has to complement what you note above is: how many players amount to being diamonds in the rough? I.e., how many players make a contribution to the NHL who arrive later than, say, age 21? or 22? D men may get an extra year on this basis, goalies maybe 2 years extra... but forwards? And then there is the question of assessing "contribution to the NHL" -- is it just number of games played or the ability to have a real career. Vey and Stanton played more than 100 games for us I believe: but what was their value?
  10. Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

    If Kassian can turn things around, then this kid has every chance in the world of being one of the best players on this team. He might have been rushed a bit; same with McCann -- and so many of us couldn't wait to get the future team in place as soon as possible. Live and learn for all of us. I also think that being free of injury really helped him: gave him a chance to train ambitiously in the summer.
  11. Bieksa was later rounds, Tryamkin, a lot of the best Canucks were after the first round. Besides, our "second rounders" are almost first rounders because our record has been so poor 3 of the last four years. And this is likely to continue for at least one more year. There are more good young players in the world now than there has ever been. Which means the first 50 or even 90 draft picks are now worth looking at, not just the first round. I love how he drafts, I love how the team is building up its overall talent base; all I'm saying is that there is some risk to "throwing in" later round picks (2nd and 3rd in particular) to sweeten deals. Was Gudbranson worth throwing in a second? As well as a fourth? (And McCann, of course.) We got Stecher free, and Hutton was a later rounder too. For Gudbranson we gave up two decent draft picks as well as a prospect many valued (McCann.) I'd have to go into the Granlund trade to remember the details, but I'm sure you see my point.
  12. We've been looking forward to an Edler deal for 2 years now. Miller, Vrbata, Hamhuis: we thought we'd get picks for them too. The one thing I don't like about Benning is that he trades away the later round draft picks too easily. So... if we can't move UFAs and older players for picks a bit more successfully, it will make the rebuild a bit slower. Which, as I say, is compounded by trading away our own picks. Pouliot for a 4th isn't as much of a problem as the 2nds he has traded away, admittedly.
  13. Dorsett doesn't seem as noticeable this year. If we needed the cap space, he would probably be gone. I will say though, that he seems better suited playing with Sutter. Which means Sutter is our 4th Line center?
  14. Send him to the Jake Virtanen Fitness Club.
  15. You're right. But compared to Edler, Tanev, and Gudbranson they seem pretty mobile and with some offensive upside. I thought Tanev would grow into a more offensive style of D, but that seems like wishful thinking now.