Uller34 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Well after Webers offer sheet I think the Canucks should stay away from big names(unless we draft them) and like the A's moneyball start doing "Moneypuck" I would start figuring out how to "catagorize" players but I suck at math lol. Is the any Canuck fans with wicked math skills who could start a Moneypuck forum with a list of categories ..i.e. ppg%, +- , from a team persperctive and then we could all have fun seeing who meets our needs. Because I for one never want to see a 100 million contract here in Van unless its a the 2nd comming if ya know what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John.Tallhouse Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaosCanucks Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 We're one of the biggest hockey markets with substantial and dedicated ownership, our ticket prices are one of the most ridiculous and our city is one of, if not the most "unaffordable" city in North America. Therefore, we have all the advantages of being a "New York Yankee" team... why on earth do you want to play "moneyball" when you've got the money to win? i.e. Compare the historical and recent successes between the A's and the Yankees to find out which team you'd rather be. This Weber reaction is borderline insane... Weber was NOT coming to Vancouver despite the fanboys clamouring. Deal with it. EDIT: Wanting players who play above their salaries is obviously logical and goes great lengths to help teams in the new NHL... but I'm just stating that there is no reason why we should be limiting ourselves from big market names save for bad fit or better deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Line Juggler Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Gillis has a formula that he follows and there are rare instances where he will break those rules. The terms Philly offered for Weber are too extreme for an exception to the rule for Gillis. Gillis doesn't seem that interested in "Bold" moves anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Gilmore Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Billy Beane implemented a "moneyball" philosophy because Oakland is a small market and they simply can not afford to keep high end players. Vancouver does not have this problem at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 There's a difference between bold and stupid, and offering a 14 year contract worth over a hundred million dollars and a salary including bonuses of $14M the first 4 years just after CBA negotiations have started and the owners/GMs/NHL have just tabled a proposal that suggests max 5 year deals and reduced shares of revenue for players is stupid. And people freak out over Luongo getting a deal like he did making $10M the first year and then $6.7M for awhile after. What's next, Evander Kane getting a 20 year deal worth over $120M before the new CBA kicks in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everybody Hates Raymond Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Gillis has a formula that he follows and there are rare instances where he will break those rules. The terms Philly offered for Weber are too extreme for an exception to the rule for Gillis. Gillis doesn't seem that interested in "Bold" moves anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tragoedia Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 We're one of the biggest hockey markets with substantial and dedicated ownership, our ticket prices are one of the most ridiculous and our city is one of, if not the most "unaffordable" city in North America. Therefore, we have all the advantages of being a "New York Yankee" team... why on earth do you want to play "moneyball" when you've got the money to win? i.e. Compare the historical and recent successes between the A's and the Yankees to find out which team you'd rather be. This Weber reaction is borderline insane... Weber was NOT coming to Vancouver despite the fanboys clamouring. Deal with it. EDIT: Wanting players who play above their salaries is obviously logical and goes great lengths to help teams in the new NHL... but I'm just stating that there is no reason why we should be limiting ourselves from big market names save for bad fit or better deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 We're one of the biggest hockey markets with substantial and dedicated ownership, our ticket prices are one of the most ridiculous and our city is one of, if not the most "unaffordable" city in North America. Therefore, we have all the advantages of being a "New York Yankee" team... why on earth do you want to play "moneyball" when you've got the money to win? i.e. Compare the historical and recent successes between the A's and the Yankees to find out which team you'd rather be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raiun Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 There's a difference between bold and stupid, and offering a 14 year contract worth over a hundred million dollars and a salary including bonuses of $14M the first 4 years just after CBA negotiations have started and the owners/GMs/NHL have just tabled a proposal that suggests max 5 year deals and reduced shares of revenue for players is stupid. And people freak out over Luongo getting a deal like he did making $10M the first year and then $6.7M for awhile after. What's next, Evander Kane getting a 20 year deal worth over $120M before the new CBA kicks in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Which is perfectly okay. The Canucks core is solid. They went to the Stanley Cup finals together and are a tightly intertwined group. It's more or less at this point like a jigsaw puzzle - Gillis has to find the small pieces that put it together. There's no sense breaking half of that jigsaw puzzle apart just to try and build it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keslerian one Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I think people mis-understand the concept of Moneyball... because the movie really gave it a truncated view. If it wasn't already clear from A's failure to win anything with Beane, it's really really really hard to win championships with that philosophy. It's great for a small market team to compete, but it's not a championship driven philosophy. Beane's influence had a lot of impact around baseball, and Boston, Toronto among other teams began employing his strategies. The biggest pillar in moneyball is to look at advanced statistics that other teams did not pay enough attention to. Spending little money is almost a bonus byproduct, because stats gave these teams an advantage that other teams did not. Boston implemented this but also spent money on big names - eventually ending the curse of Bambino. Canucks organization also uses advanced stats - clearly, trading for/signing players that have great Corsi numbers and other underlying stats. It's also clear that rather than looking at +/-s or shot on goal, the team looks at the quality of scoring chances and other metrics. So yes, the Canucks - under MG - have been very innovative and have used advanced stats, which really makes up moneyball's essential strategy. We are one of the biggest hockey markets and have a good owner who's willing to spend. We shouldn't just equate moneyball with "not spending" and espouse it. Whatever it takes to win should be our mantra, and I support the philosophy that MG is following. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I think people mis-understand the concept of Moneyball... because the movie really gave it a truncated view. If it wasn't already clear from A's failure to win anything with Beane, it's really really really hard to win championships with that philosophy. It's great for a small market team to compete, but it's not a championship driven philosophy. Beane's influence had a lot of impact around baseball, and Boston, Toronto among other teams began employing his strategies. The biggest pillar in moneyball is to look at advanced statistics that other teams did not pay enough attention to. Spending little money is almost a bonus byproduct, because stats gave these teams an advantage that other teams did not. Boston implemented this but also spent money on big names - eventually ending the curse of Bambino. Canucks organization also uses advanced stats - clearly, trading for/signing players that have great Corsi numbers and other underlying stats. It's also clear that rather than looking at +/-s or shot on goal, the team looks at the quality of scoring chances and other metrics. So yes, the Canucks - under MG - have been very innovative and have used advanced stats, which really makes up moneyball's essential strategy. We are one of the biggest hockey markets and have a good owner who's willing to spend. We shouldn't just equate moneyball with "not spending" and espouse it. Whatever it takes to win should be our mantra, and I support the philosophy that MG is following. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 We're one of the biggest hockey markets with substantial and dedicated ownership, our ticket prices are one of the most ridiculous and our city is one of, if not the most "unaffordable" city in North America. Therefore, we have all the advantages of being a "New York Yankee" team... why on earth do you want to play "moneyball" when you've got the money to win? i.e. Compare the historical and recent successes between the A's and the Yankees to find out which team you'd rather be. This Weber reaction is borderline insane... Weber was NOT coming to Vancouver despite the fanboys clamouring. Deal with it. EDIT: Wanting players who play above their salaries is obviously logical and goes great lengths to help teams in the new NHL... but I'm just stating that there is no reason why we should be limiting ourselves from big market names save for bad fit or better deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dura_mater Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well after Webers offer sheet I think the Canucks should stay away from big names(unless we draft them) and like the A's moneyball start doing "Moneypuck" I would start figuring out how to "catagorize" players but I suck at math lol. Is the any Canuck fans with wicked math skills who could start a Moneypuck forum with a list of categories ..i.e. ppg%, +- , from a team persperctive and then we could all have fun seeing who meets our needs. Because I for one never want to see a 100 million contract here in Van unless its a the 2nd comming if ya know what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uller34 Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well I am glad people seem interested in the topic,but..... The point is to find someone good at math so WE(the fans) can have fun trying to find the gold nuggets...BECAUSE we dont want to spend all on 1 or 2 players. Cap system people....110 mil for any player is crazy....so let find 2-3 players for 110 mil...I didnt say small market dont spend money....I wanted us to have some fun doing "moneypuck" getting thos peices that work just as well(if not better) as the idiocy of 110 mill to one player. Point...does anyone believe that Minny spending 200 mill on 2 players or philly spending 110 has made them anything more than "making" the playoffs? So anyone up to try and do some math? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Edler and Hamhuis or Weber? Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyHobo73 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I hope you all know that ALL teams in ALL professional sports leagues use the "Moneyball" approach.. The A's were the first team to use it, but that was a long time ago... Statistical analysis is part of professional sports now... It's funny when people keep talking about Gillis using the "Moneyball" approach.... Obviously they are or they wouldn't be running our team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 TEAMS win cups. We came within a hairs breadth of proving that............but we met an even harder TEAM who were too big and too strong (by the time the finals came) but only just. The only problem we have is we are not addressing the factors which "did us" in the end. We don't need Weber to do that. Our salary structure it seems does not allow us to go after the finished article. However the "bold move" is addressing the problem and going out and backing your judgement when you go for the "potential" Weber or Parise. Our scouts, as I implied in my deleted thread have not convinced me they have that judgement yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xCANUCKAHOLICx Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.