Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 10 votes

Why not a fresh start?


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#31 the grinder

the grinder

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:00 PM

yeah lets trade the twins and suck for 5 years or longer with no playoffs ,and be lucky enuough to get 3 number draft picks and still suck , just think mike keenan era all over again with a team full of plumbers no thanks
  • 2

#32 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:08 PM

I keep reading about how great the Oilers are going to be. I agree they have a lot of prospects, but can they keep them beyond the ELC? They won't become contenders if players take off as soon as they are UFA or ask for a trade after their ELC runs out. They don't have a good track record in terms of attracting top tier talent to the team either. I say this as a hockey fan who wants to see the Oilers succeed.


That's wishful thinking. You know why Edmonton's had difficulties signing UFAs? Because they've stunk. That is, really, the ONLY reason.

Now, though, they appear ready to take the next step, which is why they were so attractive to Justin Schultz. It has nothing to do with the city. This is the NHL, not the NBA. Edmonton's an excellent hockey town with a very, very rich tradition. If/when they turn it around, it'll become a destination spot again.

I think the risk of their young studs "bolting" is very, very miniscule.
  • 0

#33 Tragoedia

Tragoedia

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 974 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:14 PM

Reading this I thought it was another yete or pasific coliseum thread, but it turned out to be even worse.
Trade away any chance of a cup for a shot in maybe 5 years? Pittsburgh tanked and it worked for them (only because Crosby and Malkin turned out so good), but has it worked for Columbus, Edmonton, Carolina (this year they actually signed some free agent talent), or how many other bottom feeder teams.
And no this is not a valid argument. Blowing up the team just so you can have a shot at a better one (even though the odds are against you) is not a good plan. You supplement the current team with what's needed, but you don't destroy the team.
  • 0
Posted Image

#34 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,000 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:29 PM

:picard: :sick:

describes this thread perfectly
  • 0

2qn360i.jpg

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#35 NucksBruins

NucksBruins

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 12

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:30 PM

That's wishful thinking. You know why Edmonton's had difficulties signing UFAs? Because they've stunk. That is, really, the ONLY reason.

Now, though, they appear ready to take the next step, which is why they were so attractive to Justin Schultz. It has nothing to do with the city. This is the NHL, not the NBA. Edmonton's an excellent hockey town with a very, very rich tradition. If/when they turn it around, it'll become a destination spot again.

I think the risk of their young studs "bolting" is very, very miniscule.


Well, Justin Schultz is an unproven rookie looking for a team he can break into the top 4 with and Edmonton is lacking on the blueline. I agree Edmonton is an excellent hockey town, but there is no guarantee the top prospects they have will pan out as hoped. The Islanders have had this problem for years. Paajarvi and Omark are recent examples for the Oilers. Kids are a crapshoot at best without the veterans to guide them.

It's been an ongoing story with the Oilers since their dynasty ended in 1991. When they get a new building, that will help, but there will always be players who don't want to live their winters in Northern Alberta. This is coming from a hockey fan who really wants to see strong, contending Canadian teams to end the 20 year run the US has had with our trophy. If something happens which ruins the stadium plans for Edmonton, I wouldn't be surprised to see the team moved.
  • 0
Posted Image

#36 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,953 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:40 PM

I suggest that we blow up the team and start fresh. Trade the twins and get the first and second round picks. Stockpile on talent as much as we can. Hire a strong scouting team to find us players that are NHL Ready, meaning that they will be drafted and play right away.

I'm tired of prospects, waiting to see if a player is "Nhl Ready". Look at Edmonton, they have a better future than us. They have good talent, good coaching staff and a great direction. In comparison, look at Calgary, they fluked out to the finals one year, and kept the majority of their players, thinking that by adding what was missing in their previous runs, they can compete again. How bad have they become now?


Ok, so let's trade some NHL superstars for picks. Then you want players who are NHL ready, that are drafted who can play right away. Then you say you're tired of prospects.

So.... do you realize you're contradicting yourself? You do realize that picking NHL-ready prospects just does not happen often at all. Those are usually top-3 picks. How exactly do you propose we do that? By tanking then? Pull an Edmonton?


So basically your entire premise, is to pull an Edmonton? Tank for the 1st overall pick? That's your brilliant solution?
  • 1

Posted ImagePosted Image

RIP LB RR PD


#37 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:33 PM

That's wishful thinking. You know why Edmonton's had difficulties signing UFAs? Because they've stunk. That is, really, the ONLY reason.

Now, though, they appear ready to take the next step, which is why they were so attractive to Justin Schultz. It has nothing to do with the city. This is the NHL, not the NBA. Edmonton's an excellent hockey town with a very, very rich tradition. If/when they turn it around, it'll become a destination spot again.

I think the risk of their young studs "bolting" is very, very miniscule.


In my opinion they should be the next coming of the Chicago Blackhawks, maybe better?
  • 1

#38 DontPanic!

DontPanic!

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:34 PM

Why not Zoidberg?
  • 0

"Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?"
- Princess Leia

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
- Darth Vader

Don't panic. They will win it all. Keep calm and believe.


#39 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 07:13 PM

Because thats for teams like Edmonton, who had nothing happening for them. We have chances, good players, and the experience to win the cup.
  • 0
Posted Image

#40 bluesman60

bluesman60

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,200 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:43 PM

So let me get this straight, you are saying that the Sedins, Kesler, Burrows are 3rd liners?
You prefer Vancouver to throw in the towel and finish last for 4 or 5 seasons so that we can draft top prospects like Edmonton has done?
Duh...
  • 0

#41 TyrEnkidu

TyrEnkidu

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 775 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 07

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:47 PM

ah great


just fixed my stupid meter......


...then I wander into this



Oh how I understand your pain.....
  • 0
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#42 TyrEnkidu

TyrEnkidu

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 775 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 07

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:52 PM

That's wishful thinking. You know why Edmonton's had difficulties signing UFAs? Because they've stunk. That is, really, the ONLY reason.

Now, though, they appear ready to take the next step, which is why they were so attractive to Justin Schultz. It has nothing to do with the city. This is the NHL, not the NBA. Edmonton's an excellent hockey town with a very, very rich tradition. If/when they turn it around, it'll become a destination spot again.

I think the risk of their young studs "bolting" is very, very miniscule.



You have OBVIOUSLY never been to Edmonton...small city with horrible layout..smelly...Flat....greyish.....theres a kinda grease in the air like humidity in Vancouver...did I mention it smells ? .....and its freakin windy every other day the whole year through.....and now the winter...-45 with wind chills dropping it 10c lower..and that damn wind...did I mention it stinks ?
  • 1
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#43 LayDownLu

LayDownLu

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:06 PM

Ok, so let's trade some NHL superstars for picks. Then you want players who are NHL ready, that are drafted who can play right away. Then you say you're tired of prospects.

So.... do you realize you're contradicting yourself? You do realize that picking NHL-ready prospects just does not happen often at all. Those are usually top-3 picks. How exactly do you propose we do that? By tanking then? Pull an Edmonton?


So basically your entire premise, is to pull an Edmonton? Tank for the 1st overall pick? That's your brilliant solution?


While I don't agree with trading the twins now, it has to be something to consider in the next few coming seasons if there production starts to slip AND they continue to no show come April. I love the guys, but I don't think they can be the guys that lead a team to a champIonship... That being said, you have to consider making a bold move while they are still holding some sort of value via a trade.
  • 0

#44 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,000 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:10 PM

Lololol :picard: at anyone who considers trading the sedins even if they are 70
  • 0

2qn360i.jpg

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#45 LayDownLu

LayDownLu

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:38 PM

Lololol :picard: at anyone who considers trading the sedins even if they are 70


So your saying your fine with them failing when it really matters because they put up points in the regular season?? "lololol" At any moron who doesn't think it needs to happen if they can't deliver in April and beyond.
  • 0

#46 King Heffy

King Heffy

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,705 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:40 PM

Why not a fresh start?


That's what the doc should have asked your parents when he showed them the ultrasound.

Edited by Number14, 14 August 2012 - 10:42 PM.

  • 0

o08j21.jpg

Thanks for the sig Twilight Sparkle

 


#47 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,000 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:43 PM

So your saying your fine with them failing when it really matters because they put up points in the regular season?? "lololol" At any moron who doesn't think it needs to happen if they can't deliver in April and beyond.



Sign them for less then. If their production is falling play them on the 3rd or something. And if Crosby wasnt close to PPG in the playoffs would you trade him?
  • 0

2qn360i.jpg

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#48 pimpcurtly

pimpcurtly

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,346 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 06

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:46 PM

In the words of Samuel L Jackson from one of my fav action flicks of all time.......

"you're gunna blow it all up!?!?!"

Anyone guess it??

Edited by pimpcurtly, 14 August 2012 - 10:47 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#49 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,054 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:58 PM

ya of course, let's just keep lying to ourselves and say "there's always next year". That will certainly get the team a cup, much like it has worked so well for Flames.

The Flames can't make the playoffs, so of course they have no chance of winning the cup. We however have been good enough to make it to the finals only two years ago and have the best regular season record in the NHL 2 years running. That's not the time to rebuild.

I can see the argument for selling high, but not at the detriment to the team as it is now, so long as it has a reasonable chance. Even then, you look to fix areas of weakness, not replace our strengths with hopefuls and maybes.

While I don't agree with trading the twins now, it has to be something to consider in the next few coming seasons if there production starts to slip AND they continue to no show come April. I love the guys, but I don't think they can be the guys that lead a team to a champIonship... That being said, you have to consider making a bold move while they are still holding some sort of value via a trade.

NHL players aren't like stocks. You don't try to build up their value just so you can sell them when they're at their highest and then go buy cheap stocks to build up again. If MG can turn them around for something equal or better, that's one thing, but moving them as the OP suggests in a rebuild is not a good practice in general.

It's few and far between that you can trade known commodities for picks and prospects and guarantee a return equal or greater than what you had before. If there's an issue that forces your hand (say the Hodgson deal) then you do what you can to get value back.

Philly has no guarantees right now they are better than they were before with Carter and Richards. In fact, they moved players that helped LA to the cup while they squeaked by a shootout series with Pittsburgh but then went out in the next round. They might be better in a few years if they can find a way to shore up their defence and have consistent goaltending, but that's not a given.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#50 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,157 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:34 AM

Even if that was the best course of action, Gillis would never do that because he already has stated his intentions and has and still is doing his best to act upon them. Flip flopping on team structure and mentality shows you have no idea what the hell you're doing.


At Gillis' second year end presser he stated that he makes it up as he goes along so you aren't reaching too far with that theory.
  • 0

#51 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,157 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:46 AM

Mike Gillis is currently working on going in a younger direction, which is why he signed Garrison, got Kassian as opposed to an older player, traded Samuelsson and Sturm for Booth, and is keeping Schneider. But we don't need a full on rebuild for a few years yet.
And the whole "I'm tired of prospects" thing is something you're just gonna have to get used to.

Tried to resign Salo.Salo left.
Received Kassian in the 'dump Hodgson at any cost sweepstakes' so Gillis doesn't have to be reminded every day about how bad they screwed up his development.
Samuelsson is re-signed by Detroit,made a third of Booth's salary and has no head injuries and was tough as nails.
Schneider getting four million is a laugher.Kid never played half an NHL season in his life and has one playoff win.
Canucks are having a hard time developing rookies as they have had no rookies that could step in -save Tanev,Grabner,Hodgson and Schneider.Then they dealt away the two best young snipers the team had on an expedited basis.
It's a laugher for most every Canuck draft pick in the Gillis era so far.
  • 0

#52 brewdog

brewdog

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 12

Posted 15 August 2012 - 01:25 AM

It would be interesting to see what the Twins would be worth to another team. However, it makes more sense to surround the Twins with the help they need. There's no reason to toss away two of the three most recent Art Ross Trophy winners. Even Gretzky didn't win the Cup his first time around.

Edited by brewdog, 15 August 2012 - 01:26 AM.

  • 0

#53 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 15 August 2012 - 01:40 AM

While I don't agree with trading the twins now, it has to be something to consider in the next few coming seasons if there production starts to slip AND they continue to no show come April. I love the guys, but I don't think they can be the guys that lead a team to a champIonship... That being said, you have to consider making a bold move while they are still holding some sort of value via a trade.


NO MOVEMENT CLAUSE

One of the reasons they signed below market value is they want to be here.
  • 0
Posted Image

#54 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 15 August 2012 - 05:09 AM

The twins just now would win multiple SCs with the likes of Boston, Philly, Chicago, NYR, Detroit, Caps and yes .......the Jets. Because every GM in these teams would protect them and make space around them.

We have lost our way on building a team to best utilise the Sedins. It should have happened after 2010 and it still has not happened yet. The signs of decline, despite our PT, were imo evident last season as other teams got bigger and stronger.

It is also my opinion that this is NOT a one man (Doan) fix. We always needed more aggression on the 1st and 2nd lines and a big dominating 1/2 line D. I wait to be proved wrong in my opinion that Garrison is not the answer. He might have been part of the answer but the fearsome/domination factor isn't there.
  • 1
Kevin.jpg

#55 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,054 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 15 August 2012 - 08:55 AM

NO MOVEMENT CLAUSE

One of the reasons they signed below market value is they want to be here.

It's actually an NMC/NTC according to capgeek, but I didn't think that needed to be stated considering how insane the OP is. Granted, on their next deal they might not have that, but for now they do.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#56 Wilbur

Wilbur

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:52 AM

The twins just now would win multiple SCs with the likes of Boston, Philly, Chicago, NYR, Detroit, Caps and yes .......the Jets. Because every GM in these teams would protect them and make space around them.

We have lost our way on building a team to best utilise the Sedins. It should have happened after 2010 and it still has not happened yet. The signs of decline, despite our PT, were imo evident last season as other teams got bigger and stronger.

It is also my opinion that this is NOT a one man (Doan) fix. We always needed more aggression on the 1st and 2nd lines and a big dominating 1/2 line D. I wait to be proved wrong in my opinion that Garrison is not the answer. He might have been part of the answer but the fearsome/domination factor isn't there.


Sounds simple. Get more aggressive in the top 2 lines and have a dominating 1/2 line on D. The players needed to do this just simply are not available. No number of bold moves will achieve this because to get these players will create other holes in the line up (ie. trade for aggressiveness, probably have to give up offense). The only way you can hope to do this is

1) drafting and developing

and/or

2) trade for undervalued assets which may have warts and hope they find it again (ie. Booth)

A lot of people are in awe of the Richards/Carter deals but what has that netted them? Simmonds, a good 3rd liner that any team should be able to draft and develope, Schenn/Voracek whose upsides probably won't be close to Richards or Carter, and Couture (see Simmonds). It's just rearranging the deck chairs. If the Canucks traded the Sedins, newsflash, they probably aren't going to get 2 eventual art ross winners in return. So why not try for a few more years with this perennial contender and see where that goes because there aren't any trades* that will make the Canucks a guaranteed beast mode team come playoff time.

*unless some GM falls off his rocker and trades Weber for Shroeder and Sauve
  • 0

#57 thad

thad

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,913 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:20 PM

should pit trade crosby and malkin

should bos trade chara and bergeron

should detroit trade datsyuk and zetterberg

should chicago trade toews and sharp

last year was a freak year for the playoffs, alot of good teams went out in the first round. it doesnt mean they should blow up and start over
  • 1

#58 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,649 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:25 PM

Rebulid right after winning 2 straight Presidents' Trophy?

Haha, okay.

Edited by -Vintage Canuck-, 15 August 2012 - 12:26 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#59 ridehard1212

ridehard1212

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 11

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:34 PM

So your saying your fine with them failing when it really matters because they put up points in the regular season?? "lololol" At any moron who doesn't think it needs to happen if they can't deliver in April and beyond.


by failing you mean producing almost a point per game in the last 3 play offs?? #33- 42GP 39Pts #22 39GP 36Pts.. Thats pretty impressive.. thinking that maybe they maybe they might need some tweeks to there supporting staff?? or maybe a couple of bounces will be enough...

They were one game away from a cup..
  • 0
I dont give a rat arz about my spelling/grammer mistakes,get over it and up urs if it bothers u!!!!

#60 mmmcookies1975

mmmcookies1975

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 12

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:37 PM

wait till the twins retire then talk rebuild. even the best laid plans cannot be set in stone.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.