Baggins

Members
  • Content Count

    9,828
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Baggins last won the day on June 8 2017

Baggins had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,061 Gaming the system

1 Follower

About Baggins

  • Rank
    Canucks Star
  • Birthday June 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Burnaby BC Canada
  • Interests
    Hockey

Recent Profile Visitors

14,026 profile views
  1. It really depends on the top three pick doesn't it? If you do the math, and consider the length of an elite players career, How many top 3 picks are in the league in any given season? I've previously listed teams that had several top 3 picks and could barely make the playoffs. Or worse, like Edmonton, that has had trouble even getting close to the playoffs. Top 3 picks don't guarantee success. As I've said, you need elite talent (draft number doesn't matter) and a team behind them. Almost every team has elite talent. Some teams are simply deeper, or more complete, than others. Toews/Kane nor Malkin/Crosby did it on their own. Both pairs had a solid team around them. It's all about building a team around elite talent. That's the part that leads to cups. Was it a major mistake moving Gudbranson? He was a top three pick. Are we doomed to failure without him now? I honestly believe the WCE, none of them even a top 10 pick, could have won a cup or two had the team had better secondary scoring, a slightly improved D, and a better goalie. For four seasons or so they were one of the top lines in the league. They just didn't have the complete team beyond them.
  2. As I said I'm opposed to trading 1st round picks, particularly in the top 20. Which I consider the "top picks". Apparently only the top 3 are "top picks" to you. You don't consider 4th, 5th, or even 8th to be top picks? Well I do. The first round has the highest success rate and I don't believe the top 3 is the only way to get elite talent. Elite talent is what wins cups regardless of their draft number. But they don't do it alone. It takes a complete team to do it. You shouldn't bother quoting anybody. You have no understanding of context. Cherry picking a line out of a statement leaves out the context in which it's said.
  3. Where in any of those posts did I say "we don't need top picks". I've argued against trading our first round picks since the rebuild started 5 years ago. I don't care if it's the 2nd pick or the 22nd. The first round has the highest odds of getting an NHL player. Context means a great deal. For example The first quote is in regards to drafting stars outside the top five, ten, or twenty. It happens and can happen in any round. It's far more of a crap shoot outside the first round though. There hasn't been a draft in NHL history where the players would be ranked the same five years later. My point being an 80 point player is an 80 point player whether he's drafted top 3 or top 23. Elite is elite regardless of their draft number. Both the second and third quotes were in regards to top picks = the cup. There's more examples (which I gave) of teams having top 3 picks in drafts and getting nowhere. WE had two top three picks on our team for well over a decade. How many cups did we win? A nice effort though. The problem I have with the notion of a couple of top picks equals the cup is it simply isn't true. Too many examples of teams just going through cycles and not getting anywhere. Others getting good and falling again. What actually wins cups is a complete team. I've never said you don't need top picks, but I have said having top picks doesn't guarantee anything. There's a difference. Context. Ultimately I don't believe you need a top 3 pick to win the cup. I do believe you need elite talent though. There are many elite players that weren't drafted in the top 3. We have one in Petey. But elite talent still doesn't win cups on their own. A complete team with depth wins cups. We took too long to do that for the WCE. Then we took too long with the Sedins. Small windows versus big windows.
  4. "We have eight, actually nine – 10 if you include the goalie – 10 potential stars sitting in Belleville and they're playing and they're playing their hearts out and they want to make the NHL." Did we have that in Utica when Benning took over and needed to replace the whole team? "A lot of people were really upset about us trading away the three in the end - Duchene, and Stone, and Dzingel - and if you think about it, they're all looking for seven, eight-year contracts at the age of 27 and anywhere from $8-$10 million a year." Nor did we have NHL three stars coming up on their first UFA eligible contract to trade away. A far more enviable situation in Ottawa from what Benning started with. Different situations require different paths.
  5. They traded a guy a 22 year old coming off a 50 point season and on pace for a 40 point season. They got two 22 year old's in return. How is young for young a rebuild move? Btw, Strome had 16 points in 48 games with Arizona before going to Chicago. Perlini had 57 points in 153 games. It's easy to look at what Strome did after being traded but before the trade he wasn't exactly impressing. I'm not so sure fans would have been elated at that trade here. It would be the equivalent of trading Horvat at 22 coming off his 50 point season. Which would have got the reaction of: Why did we trade Horvat for two 22 year old cast offs from Arizona?
  6. Complete bull. Your answer is getting younger through younger old players. That getting deceptively younger. I want the team to get younger by actually adding young players with potential that could be around awhile. Which Benning did add. I don't care if the temporary filler guys are 28 or 38 year old free agents back then. They were temps. Adding actual young players is what was, and is, needed. There have been rookies on the starting roster every year. That's where we've been getting younger. In answer to the bold part: you would. It's all you seem to do.
  7. I did answer that. It seems you just didn't like the answer. Your recent solution, trade the 33 year old Sedins (despite saying publicly more than once they didn't want to be traded) and replace them with a pair of 27 - 31 year old ufa's, that would be looking for term and money if they were the least bit decent. So your answer is do nothing to address the lack of youth actually on the team, just hire younger old players, and put all your eggs in the low percentage lottery outside the first round. Change for the sake of change. Getting younger without actual "young" players so you can say: look we got younger. Big whoop. Santorelli was 29 and Matthias 26. Seems to me you complained about Vey's age. Santorelli spent half the year injured and was offered a one year contract. He wanted two and decided to test free agency. He got one from a worse team than us. Mathias everybody here complained about all year. Big and soft was the complaint. Who cares about moving on from them. I couldn't give a crap about average age unless it's young players being added. Added less old player than your current old players isn't rebuilding. Adding actual young players is rebuilding.
  8. What do you expect to get for a Clendenning, or Pedan, or even a 3rd or 5th rounder in trade? You must be one of those Ballard, Raymond and a 2nd gets an elite player kind of guys. These were minor assets traded. Compared to what was given up Sutter and Pouliot are wins. Just as Baertschi was a win. Granlund was even a win. Not every trade will be a homerun. You seem to expect a huge return for minimal payout. Come on man
  9. The lottery win pipedream. Would you base your retirement plan entirely on winning the lottery? The problem you see is there's far more than 6 forwards and 4 defensemen available in later rounds. There's 31 teams trying to figure out (guessing) which will be the good ones out of 186 options available. Elite/good talent can be found in later rounds. But it's small odds. Just like a lottomax ticket you're more likely to get nothing than just something, never mind a big payoff. You still buy lottery tickets for that small chance but you can't rely on it alone for your future. Clendenning was part of the deal that got us Sutter and Pedan got us Pouliot. Both on our roster. Winning! I'd make that trade for another Dorsett in a heart beat even today.
  10. None of them end of the world deals. Any ufa's signed by a rebuilding team would be bottom end desperate for a job, or overpaid.
  11. Are you suggesting agents are bribing coaches to play their clients? I don't see how they could have any other power over them. Even then the coach still needs to answer to his GM.
  12. Your typical change the subject routine. How about actually answering a question posed to you instead.