CB007 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 There is no Cup in Vancouvwr because there isn't a legitimate second 1C, there isn't a legitimate 1D, secondary scoring is non existent, the top line is as soft as marshmallows when it counts most and team toughness is actually weak. This team is built to win President's Trophies, not Stanley Cups. It is built on Moneyball. See Oakland A's or the movie for an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 The only players I would trade Luongo straight up would be Toews, Kane or Keith. Concerning "giving a Cup to Chicago", yes, they have a better team with better secondary scoring and a better defense, only their goaltending is very weak. The point was that if Luongo is traded to Chicago for small change, the Canucks would not be handicapping or weakening their team and so they would indeed be Cup favorites with a highly motivated, angry Luongo and that's a very scary prospect. Concerning Diver and Fingerbiter, point proven; some fans will defend them unquestionably by attacking they who call them out, while they are major problems and have lost some major respect throughout the league. There is no Cup in Vancouvwr because there isn't a legitimate second 1C, there isn't a legitimate 1D, secondary scoring is non existent, the top line is as soft as marshmallows when it counts most and team toughness is actually weak. This team is built to win President's Trophies, not Stanley Cups. It is built on Moneyball. See Oakland A's or the movie for an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Well, if we got one of the players you suggested from Chicago, then they would essentially be handing us a cup. I don't believe that, but the argument is just as easy to make on the other side of the coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Com'on. We came up against the toughest team in the league in Boston. Montreal was 1 goal away from beating them and Tampa was almost. If we weren't so beat up by the time we got there, or if it was Tampa, we would've won the Cup. Our team is barely moneyball, whatever Gillis said. We are consistently one of the highest cap teams in the league. And lets not forget that there are other teams are using the same principles, which kind of nullifies our strategy. I do kind of agree with you with Kesler though. He is not a playmaking 2nd line centre. He would make the best 3rd line centre in the league. If we trade Lu I personally like to see a 2nd line centre in return, but no one in the Canucks organization would do that. A lot of them PP feeds from the twins, and yes he has a good wrist shot. He is one hell of the player of course, but I just think that for 2nd line centre position we like to have a playmaking centre. If he goes down with an injury, we only have 1 offensive gifted centre left. That's not good depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Moneyball is not necessarily about overall budget a it is about production per dollar. It does not count such intangibles as toughness, poise, heart and desire. Hodgson was that legitimate second 1C. But Diver, eventhough he was injured and wasn't producing, apparently didn't want to go under the knife while Hosgson butted heads with the organization on the matter, showing poise and determination to help this organiziation with their secondary scoring woes. Hodgson was drafted as the "future captain". When he showed some common sense and leadership, he was shown the door. If Diver goes on LITR, he comes back on time for the playoffs, Hodgson dishes amazing passes to Booth and Raymond throughout the season and gets comfortable in his position; the story might be rather different. Hodgson showed too much poise and was shipped out because he didn't fit the "process". Sometimes, some players are above such process. I don't see Stamkos or Crosby (not comparing Hodgson to them ditectly) having been part of the "process"; going from 4th, to 3rd, to 2nd, to 1st in four years. Hodgson was our legitimate second 1C and could have been easily inserted on the second line until the Sedins retired. But Diver had his way. I sure hope Kassian has a better fate. But the "process" dictates that instead of being turned into a Bertuzzi, he'll be turned into another 4th line plug despite Gillis going on record saying Kassian is "our guy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 The only players I would trade Luongo straight up would be Toews, Kane or Keith. Concerning "giving a Cup to Chicago", yes, they have a better team with better secondary scoring and a better defense, only their goaltending is very weak. The point was that if Luongo is traded to Chicago for small change, the Canucks would not be handicapping or weakening their team and so they would indeed be Cup favorites with a highly motivated, angry Luongo and that's a very scary prospect. Concerning Diver and Fingerbiter, point proven; some fans will defend them unquestionably by attacking they who call them out, while they are major problems and have lost some major respect throughout the league. There is no Cup in Vancouvwr because there isn't a legitimate second 1C, there isn't a legitimate 1D, secondary scoring is non existent, the top line is as soft as marshmallows when it counts most and team toughness is actually weak. This team is built to win President's Trophies, not Stanley Cups. It is built on Moneyball. See Oakland A's or the movie for an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Moneyball is not necessarily about overall budget as it is about production per dollar. It does not count such intangibles as toughness, poise, heart and desire. Hodgson was that legitimate second 1C. But Diver, eventhough he was injured and wasn't producing, apparently didn't want to go under the knife while Hosgson butted heads with the organization on the matter, showing poise and determination to help this organiziation with their secondary scoring woes. Hodgson was drafted as the "future captain". When he showed some common sense and leadership, he was shown the door. If Diver goes on LITR, he comes back on time for the playoffs, Hodgson dishes amazing passes to Booth and Raymond throughout the season and gets comfortable in his position; the story might be rather different. Hodgson showed too much poise and was shipped out because he didn't fit the "process". Sometimes, some players are above such process. I don't see Stamkos or Crosby (not comparing Hodgson to them ditectly) having been part of the "process"; going from 4th, to 3rd, to 2nd, to 1st in four years. Hodgson was our legitimate second 1C and could have been easily inserted on the second line until the Sedins retired. But Diver had his way. I sure hope Kassian has a better fate. But the "process" dictates that instead of being turned into a Bertuzzi, he'll be turned into another 4th line plug despite Gillis going on record saying Kassian is "our guy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I kind of see what you mean, but this 'process' has brought us the best records in franchise history. Joe Thornton and Datysuk didn't start high up in the depth charts either. While you can argue that Datsyuk was a late pick project that turned superstar, Thornton was a 1st overall pick who spent a few years learning his craft checking. I'm sure I can find more examples but just can't right now... its summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Canucks should hire you....you have an answer for everything. Hodgson was a huge distraction in the organization and his pushy father cost him a roster slot. No one player is bigger than the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I kind of see what you mean, but this 'process' has brought us the best records in franchise history. Joe Thornton and Datysuk didn't start high up in the depth charts either. While you can argue that Datsyuk was a late pick project that turned superstar, Thornton was a 1st overall pick who spent a few years learning his craft checking. I'm sure I can find more examples but just can't right now... its summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 The Canucks play the "process" fine. But when it comes to defending each other, they sit and watch. Kassian would be the one punching Keith's lights out but that won't happen because AV likes little animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Yes. I like to see that changed. Keith shouldn't have been allowed to skate out of the ring on his own, or at least our 4th liners should've done something to one of their guys after since we didn't have an enforcer playing with the twins. We are not an nasty team. That has to change somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 So in the end, one can certainly see that the Luongo/ Schneider situation is the least of our problems. No 2nd 1C, no 1D, no secondary scoring, no toughness, no size, plenty of antics that need not be in the game. Plenty of skills but that alone won't win you a Cup. And the process is nullified come playoff time. Even Lapierre has shut up; an asset that derails the other team's efficiency. I'm on board with whichever goaltender is traded. But the above mentioned issues MUST be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Agreed for the most part. I wouldn't say however that Luongo/Schneider is the least of our problems, it would be best if that was resolved before the season starts. As for the one you call "diver", he can be that 2nd line C even if he never reaches 40 goals again. in 2010 he had 25G, 50A - 75pts, but now Samuelsson is gone and Raymond should be in the icecapades. Kesler needs somebody more suitable to play with, Raymond, Booth, or Higgins are not the right guys. True, we dont have a legitimate 1D, but we have arguably several 3/4D and Edler who could be considered a 2D. I would take that any day over Chicago who have a 1/2 D pairing but nothing except plumbers after that. Everything else looks accurate imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Usually, a top center makes their wings better. Wings seldom make their center better. There are some exceptions but there are many more examples of the aforementioned. If Diver cannot make his wings better by passing and instead looking to shoot, it then nullifies the entire line's production; he's not adequate enough to be in what he believes is his rightful place; he belongs on the 3C position as the best 3C in the game, potentially making him legendary. Instead, he steuggles as a 2C. Bring in a Thornton, Lecavalier, Marleau type of player and I assure you that Booth, Raymond, Kassian and/ or Higgins will instantly benefit from the center. Concerning defense, in the playoffs, the intimidation factor of having a Weber, Chara, Doughty, Pronger, Niedermayer, Stevens type 1D for half a game far outweighs the intimidation factor that a bunch of equally good but less talented and durable 4Ds on the blue line can garner due to a lack of exposure. A team's four lines will dread having to face a 1D for half a game and they will all eventually run into him at some point, with both top lines having to face him 90% of the game. A bunch of 4Ds can be easily matched by the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I think Kesler was able to do that in 09/10. His game couldn't have regressed that much in 2 seasons, I think it is simply a lack of chemistry with whatever linemates AV sticks him with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 he belongs on the 3C position as the best 3C in the game, potentially making him legendary. Instead, he steuggles as a 2C. Bring in a Thornton, Lecavalier, Marleau type of player and I assure you that Booth, Raymond, Kassian and/ or Higgins will instantly benefit from the center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Lets hope for Schroeder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB007 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Very small man. He's not the answer, unless his center of gravity is impeccable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Brier and Giroux are around the same size. Stick Kassian and Booth with him, it will be like Ronning, Momesso and Sandlak. EDIT: call it The Valley of Doom. lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.