Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Lui's Knob

Canucks making critical mistakes in hindsight?

553 posts in this topic

<p>Just started to think back now on some critical organizational decisions made the past few years and thinking whether decisions made/not made in the new regime are coming back to bite us?

1) Schultz - tearing up the AHL, and while there was a push, decides on the Oilers; now knowing Edler/Garrison have injury issues and K-Conn is having an average year....did not getting him and being with another conference team going to cost us?

2) Luongo and his contract - at first everyone loved his contract and now with the murky new CBA, he may never be offloaded or if he does get traded, is dealt for less than he could of been...was his massive contract going to hamper the team's needs?

3)Hodgson - no need to go into this one; but with Kesler battling 'major injuries' and rumors he's still a ways away/may never regain his former game (wrist/shoulder injuries) plus add the fact we traded him for another 'question mark' - did it not make sense to either get back a centermen or keep Hodgson as C depth that appears needed now?

4)Drafting Pat McNally - was our only high pick that year (no 1st rounder) and now he's developmentally in limbo (Harvard school issues)

5) Sami Pahlsson = waste of a pickup (given away high picks) and then moved to the SEL

6) Corrado = plays well but then gets surprising cut; Gaunce injured and can't even try out for junior tournie = both a step back for development?

7) Lockout = this isn't the teams' fault, but every time there's a decision for the league to do a lockout, the Canucks suffer significantly on the ice(see 94, 04 and TBD for 2012?)

I can only think of one decisions in hindsight which turned out well = acquiring Higgins/Lapierre/Torres who were instrumental in the last cup finals run....There could be more to add to this list that I'm missing, but does it seem lately decisions are not favoring the organization?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to have me one of these...

20-20-Mirror-.jpg

Frankly, how are any of these (marginally the 5th, 2nd and maybe the 3rd point, the rest :picard:) be used to condemn the team? Schultz didn't WANT to sign here, nothing the team did for #4, 6 or 7. I'm done answering.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when are two 4th's considered 'high picks'? Pahlsson was ok while he but still that price was next to nothing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>Just started to think back now on some critical organizational decisions made the past few years and thinking whether decisions made/not made in the new regime are coming back to bite us?

1) Schultz - tearing up the AHL, and while there was a push, decides on the Oilers; now knowing Edler/Garrison have injury issues and K-Conn is having an average year....did not getting him and being with another conference team going to cost us?

2) Luongo and his contract - at first everyone loved his contract and now with the murky new CBA, he may never be offloaded or if he does get traded, is dealt for less than he could of been...was his massive contract going to hamper the team's needs?

3)Hodgson - no need to go into this one; but with Kesler battling 'major injuries' and rumors he's still a ways away/may never regain his former game (wrist/shoulder injuries) plus add the fact we traded him for another 'question mark' - did it not make sense to either get back a centermen or keep Hodgson as C depth that appears needed now?

4)Drafting Pat McNally - was our only high pick that year (no 1st rounder) and now he's developmentally in limbo (Harvard school issues)

5) Sami Pahlsson = waste of a pickup (given away high picks) and then moved to the SEL

6) Corrado = plays well but then gets surprising cut; Gaunce injured and can't even try out for junior tournie = both a step back for development?

7) Lockout = this isn't the teams' fault, but every time there's a decision for the league to do a lockout, the Canucks suffer significantly on the ice(see 94, 04 and TBD for 2012?)

I can only think of one decisions in hindsight which turned out well = acquiring Higgins/Lapierre/Torres who were instrumental in the last cup finals run....There could be more to add to this list that I'm missing, but does it seem lately decisions are not favoring the organization?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>Just started to think back now on some critical organizational decisions made the past few years and thinking whether decisions made/not made in the new regime are coming back to bite us?

1) Schultz - tearing up the AHL, and while there was a push, decides on the Oilers; now knowing Edler/Garrison have injury issues and K-Conn is having an average year....did not getting him and being with another conference team going to cost us?

2) Luongo and his contract - at first everyone loved his contract and now with the murky new CBA, he may never be offloaded or if he does get traded, is dealt for less than he could of been...was his massive contract going to hamper the team's needs?

3)Hodgson - no need to go into this one; but with Kesler battling 'major injuries' and rumors he's still a ways away/may never regain his former game (wrist/shoulder injuries) plus add the fact we traded him for another 'question mark' - did it not make sense to either get back a centermen or keep Hodgson as C depth that appears needed now?

4)Drafting Pat McNally - was our only high pick that year (no 1st rounder) and now he's developmentally in limbo (Harvard school issues)

5) Sami Pahlsson = waste of a pickup (given away high picks) and then moved to the SEL

6) Corrado = plays well but then gets surprising cut; Gaunce injured and can't even try out for junior tournie = both a step back for development?

7) Lockout = this isn't the teams' fault, but every time there's a decision for the league to do a lockout, the Canucks suffer significantly on the ice(see 94, 04 and TBD for 2012?)

I can only think of one decisions in hindsight which turned out well = acquiring Higgins/Lapierre/Torres who were instrumental in the last cup finals run....There could be more to add to this list that I'm missing, but does it seem lately decisions are not favoring the organization?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol you are saying a 5th round pick is taking a step back after being a shocking cut for the world juniors? dude corrado did an amazing feat just reaching the potential of making the try outs for team canada... some people geez

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not reading it correctly - I didn't say Gaunce/Corrado were 'bad picks' what I meant is that the decision of Corrado being cut and Gaunce not being to play due to injury ...will that in hindsight hinder their development? Seems we got the raw end of that decision (again not the organization's fault)....make better sense?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe even just getting the chance to compete for the spot on team canada boosted corrado since at the begining of the season no one thought once about him having a chance. Corrado has a great mindset he will work hard and develope not making canada will not be his achilies heal if anything its the push he needs te become a great player rather than a good player

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posts like this make me realize why I should not come on CDC during the lockout. The fact that you think that yours points are Canucks managements "mistakes" is hilarious.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really a mistake if it can only be thought of that way in hindsight? Decisions are made based on the best information available at the time. MG doesn't have a crystal ball to know what things will look like down the road.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago I really liked the direction we were headed in. The goal was clear - we had an all star goalie who needed some support around him, so that what we went out and got. We got Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Ballard, Malhotra, etc all in an attempt to play a "D first" mentality. In addition, our stars were starting to shine up front so goal scoring wasn't a concern.

Now all of a sudden we have a changing of the guard in net, our top scorers have been shut down in critical playoff games for the past two seasons, and we have no real notable players coming up from the farm. We traded away our prized prospect, and we still get run and beaten up physically by all the other teams.

Our biggest problem is that our core is not getting any younger and we don't have any up and coming players who can take over the role of "core players" in a few seasons.

It remains to be seen how we stack up once hockey gets going again, but I can't help but feel that we missed our window of opportunity and that the window won't come again till a whole rebuild takes place again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When King of the ES agrees with you, it's best to stick your head in a doorway and smash the door onto it for a few hours in an attempt to jump start brain activity. You're exhibiting a piss poor understanding of hockey right here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.