Rob_Zepp

Members
  • Content count

    1,587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Rob_Zepp last won the day on July 23

Rob_Zepp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,461 Revered

About Rob_Zepp

  • Rank
    Canucks Rookie

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

4,707 profile views
  1. All I will say is we view the world very differently and most certainly the use of statistics/risk taking in business. Very differently. Cheers!
  2. You seemed to imply that it was a bad thing so I gave two easy examples - never said you specifically said that but you certainly implied it. Blanket assertions are typically not valid and it seemed to me you were making one. If not, my bad and I apologize.
  3. This is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh! You know for a fact that Bo's agent hasn't been on vacation? You don't know squat of what you speculate above. Nothing is "very bad" at all until you hear news one way or the other. Patience is an issue I take it.
  4. Great thoughts here. I think Canucks are in upper half - not sure as high as 10 but somewhere in 10 to 15 which is miles further than just two-three years ago when I would have said 25-30th. I too don't understand Jets or Bruins being that high. I think Coyotes have best prospects in NHL. I also think Canes should be in top 10.
  5. Stecher was a surprise to coaching staff IMHO and they thought he played preseason way above his head and would hit a wall (my guess only, I don't really know). OJ is of a different pedigree and with all due respect to Troy Stecher, is an elite prospect whereas Stecher was signed as a depth curiosity that has exceeded expectations. Also, you say "clearly earned it" - well, clearly he didn't earn it in eyes of WD. You as a fan don't get to make the final roster decisions so what you perceived and what coaches saw may have been entirely different. I agree with you that TS had a great camp and preseason (from what I could tell, didn't see any of it live of course) but so much goes into decisions and perhaps WD was looking for something else OR perhaps WD was just set on not letting a full-term college guy get in that easy. Neither of us knows. I think the decisions that WD made last year in general were "odd" at times and I don't see that having a ton of bearing on what happens this year. Further, as noted above, quite a different level of expectation for OJ than for TS - and huge kudos for TS in exceeding expectations.
  6. The reality is that if Juolevi comes to camp and plays like he did in Prospect's Camp with his now over 200 lb frame then there are not, "too many good D ahead of him" as he is likely the most talented D man in the entire Canuck organization. If he is good enough at this very early age for a Dman, he will be given every chance. It is a nice problem to have but if he outplays those "ahead of him - to use your term" then he will get a spot and it will be well-deserved. OJ is a stud of a prospect. Not sure Canucks have had this good of a D prospect in at least 10 years - he has a higher offensive ceiling than Luc Bourdon did and is likely better defensively as well. He has long-term high end Dman written all over him. If he is good enough for NHL this year, he will play in NHL. If he is needing another year of development in eyes of the team, I would suspect he ends up in Europe over CHL just because he likely wants the higher level of competition.
  7. Every business has the perception/reality of this. Professional hockey is a business. My point is just because someone is related and has a job in hockey doesn't make them automatically incompetent. I used examples of Stan Bowman and David Poile as but two easy ways to say that they clearly had "help" given their fathers but does that make them incompetent?
  8. You seem to think about everything as an absolute. Not every "waiver eligible cast off" as you call them are created equal. I would much rather talk case-by-case as that is how I see the world really working. In this case, Canucks had an opportunity to take a second round pick and turn it into a former relatively high first round pick with tantalizing pedigree (tore up CHL , had great wheels/hands and seemingly has simply lost some confidence) and so they took a calculated risk in making the deal. Now that said player is starting to live up to that pedigree and is still very young with an unknown ceiling still (his first two "full" seasons which both were under 70 games he outscored Daniel Sedin's first two seasons where latter played more games) so looks like a great deal for the Canucks even if they just use him as a trade-able asset. No question they could flip him for far more than a second round pick. You do not have a "higher chance of finding cup impact talent through the draft" than by trading for it, signing it or whatever other means you use. It is all case-by-case. Of course if you have a generational first overall pick, that is obvious but Canucks (the team you seem to be most critical of in this regard) has not had one of these and are unlikely given odds to have one anytime soon. Moreover, we are talking about later round picks too where the odds of success are quite small when it comes to "impact". Of course you can find examples but statistically speaking, getting a high-end talent from the draft (e.g. one of your top 3 players) from later rounds is very rare and getting 2 of those in any, say, five to seven year cycle window would be close to unheard of (unless you are Ken Holland...lol). You seem to be very negative on the use of later (not first) round picks but then bring up generational/core players as examples. There is maybe one or perhaps two players a 2nd/3rd/4th round each year that goes on to be a core top 3 successful team player of the type to get a team over the top (positional that is - goalies can be had for sure). That is a 1/30 or 2/30 chance so you would need a decade of drafts just to get into the 30 to 50% chance of getting one of those players. Doesn't seem like good odds to all the eggs into that one basket. Sure teams get lucky but to base your franchise cycle development plan on luck is like using the lottery as your retirement plan. If you are a GM, you have all the tools available you that you do and you can use a trade to get a Thornton, a draft to get a Crosby or a FA signing like Chara or Hossa. Those are for superstars. For the key role players there are hundreds and hundreds of examples of each of those routes working for successful teams. Even your Vancouver Canucks two most recent cup runs had a good mix of picks/trades/FAs. You like absolutes. I am going to give you one. I am absolutely sure you need a hybrid approach to building succesful teams. Like you, I covet draft picks too BUT I also see them as assets and IF there is a chance to make an improvement over the odds that said draft pick will work out, that is a calculated risk and is one worth considering. Do all moves work out? No. Do all draft picks? No. However, there are more than enough ways to make the case for either - it is all team dependent and player-by-player, move-by-move evidenced. Ironic thing is I think you and I see this very similarly. I don't like all the moves teams make with their picks, in fact Canucks have been better than most in keeping their picks past few years (I don't buy the "Chicago is presently good so doesn't matter that they trade all their picks" - the deals made have been horrible for them...again, on a trade-by-trade basis), but I am not going to ever say "don't ever trade a pick" as sometimes it works out very well.
  9. So if content, why were you asking about how to apply? Rhetorical I take it. Chicago should fire Stan Bowman is your take on things then? Nashville David Poile? Both were hired due to their father's influence. The fact that both seem to be doing a good job is irrelevant?
  10. I don't understand. He doesn't count as a good move because he was still had an ability to be sent down without clearing waivers? Does that somehow lessen his value? My point was, and remains, that very few second round picks work out as well for teams as SB has for Vancouver. Of course some do (DK was great example you gave) but statistically speaking, not many at all. Carry on!
  11. Well, Sven Baertschi was 22 I think does that count? He certainly "broke out" since coming to Vancouver and is now playing like the relatively high first round pick he was. His first two seasons in Vancouver (which are really his first two full NHL seasons) have him with more goals than Daniel Sedin had in his first two NHL seasons. Not going to play the role or Siri or Google for you but I am a goalie nerd and count Anaheim sending a second round pick to Calgary for JS Giguere when latter was over 23 and had played 30 NHL games. A Conn Smythe and nearly 600 NHL games were all he went on to do.
  12. You are comparing LD to Malkin I take it.
  13. I love haven't a bit of a different opinion on things. I think that the combined value of these two deals along with Lucic and RNH are going to make it a real challenge to get over the hump as a team. I believe Anaheim exposed how to check CM (same approach used in junior on him and by none other than Canuck prospect CC) and putting $20 million plus a winger on same line will not leave a lot anywhere else in lineup. A lot of LDs point production came as a result of playing with the second or third best player in the game - separated and on 5x5, was far more pedestrian. Time will tell. My opinion is this will not end as well as most above seem to think it will.