Angry Goose Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Why is it that VAN fans always feel entitled to players signing/being traded here. It's a big league. We've been VERY lucky with guys like Garrisson, Hamhuis,Sedins, Burrows, Kesler, Schneider all signing here with competitive contracts. That's MONEYBALL'n. Can't wait to find out what the team looks like after Luongo is traded. We have a very solid team top to bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samurai Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The philly/weber move was as most people will recognize classless. Nashville has done everything right in building up a hockey fan base and this will have an impact on that market in a rather negative manner. It is dirty move and you can bet most owners including Bettman will be unhappy with this. Philly is a knee jerk organization - throw silly at the first free agent goalie they come across - dump Richards and Carter who turn around and win a cup, and now this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canvoucer Vanuck Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If you're looking more at the numbers side of the game, I suggest reading about advanced stats. Pretty interesting stuff. There are some blogs out there that talk about it, and more and more people are starting to accept it as good metrics of how good certain players are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Sounds awesome. Send him that offersheet MG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte 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...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Canucks would've offersheeted Weber themselves, but it certainly would've been matched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The problem with trying to use 'moneypuck' as an advantage is that all the contending teams are doing it. To gain any edge, you have to look at all the angles. Not just 'moneypuck', which to most has no clear definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 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...
SEAN HARNETT Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 This is a very interesting topic. My view is the Canucks are a large enough market to sign players "Who want to be here" at reasonible contracts. However, this market is not big enough to compete with the larger markets under the current cap system. I was sick to my staomach when I heard about the Parise,Suter, and now Weber signing's. The Canucks simply cannot afford to compete in a market where contracts are being thrown around this way. As I said already, the team has the resources to compete in a fair market system, but not with the way things are currently. If the new CBA cures the problems of long term contracts that are heavily front loaded and can sustain a fair market system, then the Canucks can compete with the LA's,NY's, Philly's and Pittsburgh's of the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Exactly what I wanted to say. The Canucks already employ so-called "moneyball" systems when evaluating players. Gillis also has an internal team salary structure and monetary values assigned to certain statistics that players are measured for. The honest truth that a lot of people have had a hard time understanding is that making a deal happen takes both sides. It's moronic to think that Gillis can just go out and make a deal happen. A great example of this are Suter and Weber, both of whom had never had any intention of playing here, ever. Yet, fans want MG's head for not tendering an offersheet to Weber and not throwing a deal at Suter. Problem is, they forget that both Weber and Suter had to want to be a Canuck in the first place. We have our core in place, and what Gillis is doing is surrounding that core with the best available players he can find at reasonable salaries, or at times even players have have been undervalued on the market. You could call that "moneyball" if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBCanucks Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 We already do this. There is a reason we go after a different type of player rather than big names. We have one of the best teams in the league and almost every player we have plays for below market value. We don't go after big names, we go after character players with often overlooked value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattevr Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 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...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 This is a very interesting topic. My view is the Canucks are a large enough market to sign players "Who want to be here" at reasonible contracts. However, this market is not big enough to compete with the larger markets under the current cap system. I was sick to my staomach when I heard about the Parise,Suter, and now Weber signing's. The Canucks simply cannot afford to compete in a market where contracts are being thrown around this way. As I said already, the team has the resources to compete in a fair market system, but not with the way things are currently. If the new CBA cures the problems of long term contracts that are heavily front loaded and can sustain a fair market system, then the Canucks can compete with the LA's,NY's, Philly's and Pittsburgh's of the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdubuya Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I think it's great Gillis read moneyball and is trying to be innovative with stats. Baseball and hockey aren't comparable tho, Gilly even said it himself. The fact is we arent the A's. He asked the owners to triple the scouting budget. That isn't a GM who is desperate for any competitive statistical edge. Well see how many of our 4-5-6-7th rounders pan out. If our success rate is higher than most teams then great, toot his horn all you want. Teams like Detroit and Nashville find diamonds in the rough. I'd be ecstatic if all this supposed analysis MG n co look at pays off but we still don't have a cup and our window is closing. Think about competing with the oilers in 5 years. I'd rather him just use our financial advantage and make the necessary moves to win. The days of NHL dynastys are long over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canvoucer Vanuck Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 ^ The analysis he's done is going to take a few years to show results, if the drafting strategy he implemented works. Statistically, there is a higher chance of getting an NHL'er if you draft older players in the later rounds, but not so much for the earlier rounds unless their growth has been phenomenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.