Skrody Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Firstly, allow me to preface by saying this post isn't being posted because of our recent slide, I've been working on this for the entire season, and as the games go on it gets tweaked and edited for relevance. If you'll notice I've been a member for 11 years, and have only posted 200 times, so I try my best not to post out of emotion. Having said that, I present to you: The next four years are going to be tough as a Canucks fan. Current Roster 10 current Canucks have no movement clauses (Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Burrows, Higgins, Edler, Bieksa, Garrison, Hamhuis, Luongo) which is easily one of the biggest reasons for a player to get complacent. When you've secured a long term contract that guarantees you wont get buried in the minors, and pretty much secures a spot on the roster for you - what worry does a player have? Play well or not they're going to be a member of the team. This situation isn't specific just to the Canucks, we see it all around the NHL when a player who has underperformed during the duration of their contract, suddenly play well when the term is up, this is known as a "Contract Year". I believe that once a player with a family gets a contract with a NTC/NMC their main focus becomes providing for their family (which it should, don't get me wrong) and less on winning a Stanley Cup. You hear it every time a player is asked about what it is like to be a father and for the bulk of the time their answer is "It shows you there are more important things in life.." (which, I agree, but for sake of the argument). Having almost 50% of our roster guaranteed to stay is a big problem for a team to have. When you look around the league Vancouver has the 2nd highest amount of NTC/NMC's behind Boston & Dallas (11), and tied with Pittsburgh (10). For a team who is trying to "re-tool" this is one of the worst possible situations to be in. team nmc/ntc boston 11* dallas 11 pittsburgh 10* vancouver 10 chicago 9 detroit 9* minnesota 8 philadelphia 8* tampa bay 8* washington 8 carolina 7 montreal 7 nashville 7 new jersey 7 phoenix 7 san jose 7 toronto 7 winnipeg 7 anaheim 6* st. louis 6 calgary 5 columbus 5 ottawa 5 buffalo 4 florida 4 colorado 3 ny rangers 3 edmonton 2 ny islanders 2 los angeles 0 * denotes has a player on LTIR with a NTC/NMC I understand that sometimes you need to sweeten the pot when it comes to Free Agency and sometimes a NTC/NMC is the deciding factor, but they shouldn't be handed out to just everyone who asks for one. Taking a look (points wise) at the players who have NTC/NMC's who are on par or more with Vancouver: player team G A P s. crosby pit 27 48 75 t. seguin dal 24 31 55 c. kunitz pit 27 28 55 e. malkin pit 16 39 55 j. benn dal 22 28 50 j. neal pit 18 24 42 d. krejci bos 12 35 40 d. sedin van 13 27 40 h. sedin van 9 31 40 m. lucic bos 16 23 39 r. kesler van 19 18 37 p. bergeron bos 14 21 35 b. marchand bos 17 16 33 c. higgins van 15 16 31 j. garrison van 6 22 28 r. peverley dal 7 20 27 z. chara bos 13 13 26 -----------------average------------------ e. cole dal 14 11 25 a. goligoski dal 2 22 24 r. whitney dal 6 15 21 p. dupuis pit 7 13 20 k. bieksa van 4 15 19 l. eriksson bos 6 12 18 s. gonchar dal 2 16 18 s. horcoff dal 7 9 16 d. hamuis van 4 11 15 j. boychuk bos 2 13 15 a. edler van 4 9 13 p. martin pit 2 10 12 b. orpik pit 1 10 11 d. seidenberg bos 1 9 10 t. daley dal 4 5 9 c. kelly bos 3 5 8 s. robidas dal 4 1 5 a. burrows van 0 4 4 r. scuderi pit 0 2 2 m. savard bos - - - player team GAA S% W m. fleury pit 2.25 .917 30 t. rask bos 2.09 .929 25 k. lehtonen dal 2.55 .915 20 r. luongo van 2.32 .919 19 The interesting statistic amongst all of this is that LA has 0 NTC/NMC's and has managed to win a Stanley Cup recently. However, there are a lot of other factors that go into a retooling process. Of the players who are not locked in with a NTC/NMC, we have very little in terms of trade bait. David Booth carries a large price tag, but thankfully it's an expiring contract that ends after next season, so it is moveable. Jannik Hansen, has value, and a reasonable contract. Chris Tanev is likely our best trade bait. I hate to say it, but this guy has won me over with how solid he has played, and if we're going to move someone, that is movable, he's the guy. In 2016-2017 we'll have the following contracts: Daniel Sedin $7,000,000 NTC Henrik Sedin $7,000,000 NTC Roberto Luongo $5,333,333 NTC Alex Edler $5,000,000 NTC Jason Garrison $4,600,000 NTC Alex Burrows $4,500,000 NTC Chris Higgins $2,500,000 NTC Jannik Hansen $2,500,000 Luongo will be 37, Daniel and Henrik will be turning 36, Burrows will be 35, Higgins will be 33, Garrison will be 32, and Hansen & Edler will be 30. Higgins, Garrison, Hansen, and Edler would make up a realistic core since the other guys would be getting in the 'too old to be core players' category, which isn't too bad in my books. Drafting Let's take 2008-2012 as a sample size because not too many players from 2013's draft have made the NHL. First off, the age ol debate for how poorly we draft will forever reign on because we could have had X, but we took Y instead. The best odds you have of finding an NHLer in the draft are statistically in the first two rounds. Round 3 and 4 are where you find your diamonds in the rough, and the rest of the draft are projects, but certainly aren't a waste of a pick. In the mentioned sample size above, Vancouver is the second worst drafting team in the NHL, behind the Penguins, and tied with Chicago: rd 1 rd 2 rd 3 rd 4 rd 5 rd 6 rd 7 total nyi 6/7 3/7 1/8 3/5 3/7 3/4 0/3 19/41 46% min 5/6 4/6 1/2 1/4 0/3 1/5 1/5 13/31 42% nyr 4/5 2/4 2/4 1/3 1/7 1/4 0/2 11/29 38% ott 4/6 3/4 1/4 3/6 2/5 1/5 0/7 14/37 38% nas 3/4 3/7 2/5 2/7 1/4 1/6 2/6 14/39 36% ana 7/7 4/8 2/7 1/4 0/6 0/4 0/4 14/40 35% bos 4/5 2/4 0/4 3/4 1/4 0/5 1/5 11/31 35% cbj 4/4 2/6 0/2 1/7 2/6 2/5 1/5 12/35 34% phi 3/3 0/1 2/7 1/5 0/3 2/5 2/6 10/30 33% was 4/6 1/3 1/3 3/6 1/5 0/5 1/6 11/34 32% col 2/4 3/6 2/3 1/4 1/6 1/5 0/5 10/33 30% tb 4/7 2/4 1/4 1/5 1/4 1/6 1/7 11/37 30% nj 4/4 3/5 2/5 1/5 0/5 0/5 0/5 10/34 29% edm 5/6 3/6 0/7 1/7 1/5 1/4 0/4 11/39 28% fla 5/6 4/8 0/8 0/6 0/4 1/4 1/4 11/40 28% la 4/5 3/4 0/7 1/4 1/5 0/6 1/5 10/36 28% tor 3/5 1/5 3/4 0/3 1/8 2/6 0/6 10/37 27% cgy 3/4 0/4 2/5 1/7 0/3 1/4 1/4 8/31 26% car 3/4 3/7 0/5 1/6 0/2 1/5 1/5 9/34 26% det 2/2 3/7 0/6 1/4 1/6 0/5 2/5 9/35 26% phx 4/7 3/7 1/5 1/5 0/3 0/4 0/4 9/35 26% wpg 5/6 2/3 1/5 1/5 0/6 0/7 1/6 10/38 26% buf 6/7 1/2 1/7 1/5 0/5 0/5 0/6 9/37 24% dal 3/4 1/7 1/4 0/3 2/6 0/3 0/3 7/30 23% mtl 4/4 0/3 1/4 0/8 2/5 0/3 0/5 7/32 22% sj 2/2 1/4 0/3 0/3 2/7 1/5 1/8 7/32 22% stl 4/5 3/8 0/8 1/5 0/4 0/5 0/4 8/39 21% chi 1/6 3/8 2/6 0/3 2/5 1/8 0/8 9/44 20% van 3/4 1/3 1/3 0/4 1/5 0/6 0/5 6/30 20% pit 3/5 1/3 1/4 0/5 1/6 0/6 0/2 6/31 19% 76% 43% 21% 21% 18% 14% 11% Our 2013 draft has left fans pretty excited that we finally have someone to be excited about. Horvat and Shinkaruk are argueably our best assets since...? but the problem with this is that we're seeing and hearing that, if we're wanting anything in return in a trade, we'd have to give up on one of them (no thanks). Our drafting tendancies are almost predictable. Our scouts like a certain something. Since Gillis has taken over, we've drafted predominantly Canadians, mostly from the OHL and QMJHL. One frustrating thing, in my opinion, is that we're underutilizing the WHL. Right here in our own backyard, we have a team. There's no reason Gallagher should have went to Montreal, especially being a 5th round pick - but I digress. OHL 9 QMJHL 7 SWE JR 6 WHL 3 US-HS 3 NCAA 3 CJHL 1 CCHL 1 AJHL 1 BCHL 1 FIN JR 1 SWE 1 CAN 19 USA 7 SWE 6 CZE 2 NOR 1 FIN 1 DEN 1 D 14 C 10 LW 5 RW 4 G 3 In the 2014 draft, the Canucks currently have a pick for every round, except the 4th round. If the league were to end today we'd be looking at 17th overall pick give or take a slot. The way Gillis has drafted is what beat them the previous season, which is usually size. In 2011 & 2012, every draft pick was 6'1 to 6'5. Size isn't necessarily a bad thing to draft, but at some point you need to draft skill. Not every pick is going to turn into a Stewart or a Lucic. Trading Vancouver has lacked a big punch when making trades. We've never landed someone of name, someone who can get fans excited and for the most part we're left scratching our heads because of what we've given up. It's no secret that Vancouver has made some poor decisions when it has come to deadline deals and we usually wind up losing the player to free agency anyway. Going forward, we're going to have a tough time making trades, it isn't going to be easy on us. We're unlikely to get assets in trades and will be left to develop our own guys. Let's take a look back at some of the deals under Gillis' tenure in the last 4 years. to van: zac dalpe, jeremy welsh to car: kellan tochkin, 2014 4th to van: 2013 1st (bo horvat) to nj: cory schneider to van: derek roy to dal: kevin connauton, 2013 2nd (phillipe desrosiers) to van: zack kassian, marc-andre gragnani to buf: cody hodgson, alexander sulzer to van: samuel pahlsson to cbj: taylor ellington, 2 2012 4th (josh anderson, taylor leier) to van: david booth, steven reinprecht, 2013 3rd (cole cassels) to fla: marco sturm, mikael samuelsson to van: christopher higgins to fla: evan oberg, 2013 3rd to van: keith ballard, victor oreskovich to fla: steve bernier, michael grabner, 2010 1st Gillis has done a good job of dumping guys who are no longer serviceable though, we can give him that credit, but he has been unable to pull a 'Naslund for Stojanov' type deal. Some of the guys Gillis has pawned off onto other teams include: Sergei Shirokov, Evan Oberg, Shane O'Brien, Dan Gendur, P.C. Labrie, Patrick White. Staff I strongly believe that Tortorella is the right man for the job. He has a Stanley Cup ring on his finger, he is a passionate guy and is not afraid to let a player know where he is at within the organization. Which is a huge departure from what AV brought to the table. As much as I think Torts is the right man to coach a team, we might not have the appropriate roster to play a 'Torts Style' game. Having placed big responsibility on the Sedin's to play the power play, and block shots, it is clear that this element of their game is missing for a reason. I thought going into this season that some guys wouldn't respond (Bieksa, Edler) and others would thrive (Kesler) but as the time goes on, there is one difference between what Tortorella had in NY and here in Van, and that's youth. Looking at what he did for young guys like Callahan, Hagelin, Stepan, Miller, McDonagh, etc. He was able to develop these guys tremendously. Eventually it wore off, but he had a window. In Vancouver, our window is closed with this group, they need to re-discover the love of the game and the want to win a Stanley Cup. Gillis has been a loyal-to-his-players GM, which has carried over since his days as an agent, and thats likely why we've been having some issues getting deals made. That and he is pulling an Edmonton and overvaluing what we have on the table. The economy has changed in the NHL and some times you have to bite the bullet to make a deal that will help you in the long run. I appreciate that Gillis doesn't want to handicap the team, and I admire that. He doesn't want to give our players away, which is also admirable, but at the same time we don't want our players to lose such significant value that he can't get anything back for them. I think this duo can work, but changes need to be made in the way we draft, how we approach free agents, and certainly how we develop. Development has been a big issue with the Canucks over the years. For instance I'll refer to the Cody Hodgson situation. When CoHo got playing time with the Canucks he was behind Sedin, Kesler, Malhotra in the depth chart and essentially was a 4th line Center, getting minimal ice time. That is NOT the kind of player he was but AV insisted on playing him there. He got some time on the 2nd unit PP, and actually did okay. He was traded (which was the right move) because he would never climb the depth charts past Kesler or the Sedins. This is why I'm a supporter of a changing of the guard. Most recently San Jose re-signed Marleau and Thornton to new contracts. They continue to age but have accepted they are not the top guns anymore, handing the reigns over to Couture, Pavelski, Hertl, etc. When Horvat and Gaunce come into the line up, they will be playing BEHIND the Sedins, without a doubt. If Kesler is still on the roster when they crack the squad (I predict he'll bolt after this contract) then they will be playing behind him too. It's going to be tough as a Canucks fan to see our prospect not really get their chance, even though "we need to be younger". In summary, it's going to be a TOUGH handful of years going forward because as we know change doesn't happen overnight. Unless youre Philadelphia, who seems to flip the switch on the team the second it doesn't work. We're going to be in for an odd re-tooling, it's going to be tough on us. We're a good team, capable of making the playoffs. With the right motivation and a little hot streak we'll get there. But we're absolutely doomed in the playoffs, and it really leaves the question for what would make a successful season? Is making the playoffs and getting swept a measure of success? What would save the season? A big trade? A shake up? Gillis and co have their work cut out for them. TL;DR? - Draft better, Trade better, no more NTC's. EDIT: sorry the 'code' formatting isn't better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tortorellatheboss Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The biggest problem with this team is that our "clutch" players fold at exactly the wrong time It's why LA and all them are so good..there players step up in the playoffs (and not just one series *ahem Kesler *ahem) Like seriously I love the Sedins but the past couple of years they have been worthless in the post season. Then we have Mike "it's a process" Gillis who wouldn't know a good trade if it slapped him across the face, and who hands out NTC like candy. What has Gillis done that's noteworthy? Sign Luongo to a ridiculous contract, tell him he's gonna trade him, then trades the goalie who actually wanted to be here... Mike Gillis rules of drafting- Never draft from the WHL, because you might actually get a physical player. The last thing this team needs is more toughness, right Mike? I mean c'mon we've got Sestito! We all know having a WHL team in Vancouver is pointless right? Let's never draft from them! Oh yeah, Edler has a NTC. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 A change of the guard would be really nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 That was a rather enjoyable read, so props to your for the work you put in. That being said, a changing of the guard would be nice. And yeah, Gillis has put himself in a rather difficult position which is unfortunate. I get that NTC's can be used as leverage, but he's given out too many of them. The flexibility of being able to move someone if necessary sometimes outweighs the cap savings a team could potentially have. Although NTC's are bound to be a "Make it or break it" kind of thing with some players. It's gonna be a weird next few years, we're no longer contenders and the transition is gonna be unlike anything we've seen in Vancouver for a while now. I'd love a cup, and hope we can find a way to win one soon, but this will be an interesting process to watch. I just hope we don't end up like Calgary or Edmonton by holding on to our players too long and thinking we can contend when we likely can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'd love a cup, and hope we can find a way to win one soon, but this will be an interesting process to watch. I just hope we don't end up like Calgary or Edmonton by holding on to our players too long and thinking we can contend when we likely can't. This is an excellent point i meant to make. Calgary is in such a horrible spot because they refused to deal Iginla when he was worth something, and essentially got handcuffed when he only wanted to be traded to the Penguins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat James Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 How long did it take to make that post?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 How long did it take to make that post?! 6 hours give or take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat James Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 6 hours give or take. Wow, good job, man! That was a great read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Tough four years? For some of us it's been a tough four decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 NMC/NTC are not written in stone they can be waived by the players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hectic Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 This post and the one about "you never know what could happen when you make the playoffs" These are the reasons I read posts on CDC Well done, agreed, but quite honestly what is a bold move that you could see Gillis actually making? I think our place of strength to make a deal is with defense, but do you think teams would value Tanev as highly as we regard him? I mean hey, I'd love to trade Edler but a) NTC and he's an offensive d man and we don't have too many of those. Tanev is expendable and I hate to say it because I think he's been our best d man. But you gotta give to get and I'm just curious as to whether other teams will agree that he's worth what we feel he is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 NMC/NTC are not written in stone they can be waived by the players sure they could. but gillis has said he isn't going to ask any of his players to waive their ntc's. Well, you know, having been on the player’s side for a number of years, I know that there is a quid pro quo that goes along with no-trade or no-movement clauses. The players are making a commitment to that city and team for a variety of reasons. There’s a price to be paid for that commitment and the security of not moving. My philosophy has always been not to waive a no-trade clause. If a player comes to us and is dissatisfied or feels they might have a better opportunity elsewhere, obviously we would listen and try to accommodate those wishes. But I am not going to ask a player to waive a no-trade. If we felt that there was dissatisfaction on the player’s part, we would perhaps discuss what his wishes would be. But that would be the extent of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrody Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 This post and the one about "you never know what could happen when you make the playoffs" These are the reasons I read posts on CDC Well done, agreed, but quite honestly what is a bold move that you could see Gillis actually making? I think our place of strength to make a deal is with defense, but do you think teams would value Tanev as highly as we regard him? I mean hey, I'd love to trade Edler but a) NTC and B )he's an offensive d man and we don't have too many of those. Tanev is expendable and I hate to say it because I think he's been our best d man. But you gotta give to get and I'm just curious as to whether other teams will agree that he's worth what we feel he is 1. i honestly do not think gillis can make a bold move that would make us happy. look at the assets edmonton has and mactavish hasn't been able to pull off a bold move either. EDIT: what would constitute bold in my books would be trading someone like kesler, or the sedins. but in the same breath you're not going to do something like that because it sends a horrible message to free agents. "sign here so i can trade you away". 2. honestly i value stanton more because he is more physical, but i can see some teams appreciating what tanev can bring to a d-core. tanev makes the safe play almost all the time, and doesn't put the team in trouble by mistakes. we're not going to get a prospect and a first for him or anything like that, but we might get a piece. tough to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Weise(now Diaz), Sestito, Stanton via waivers. Recent FA acquisitions like Weber, Eriksson, Richardson, Garrison & Lain. Back further to some of our key D, Maholtra(bad luck), & Lack. Such players will comprise a good chunk of our future. As I said a while back, who cares if we kidnapped new players(signees, FA's, et al..) from a Mongolian yurt?! As long as they're all pulling in one direction. We're drafting better, it seems; but the above illustrates a beautiful, hockey-mad region will acquire talent in many other ways. Stop worrying so much about trade clauses..wasted energy. If a team really wants to move a guy, it'll prob happen. Biggest challenge this team has is simple. NHL HQ's doesn't want Cdn markets advancing(excepting the Leafs/media-conglomerate). That said, I've REALLY enjoyed watching this team do their utmost to win a championship; & look forward to the NEXT FOUR YRS, & BEYOND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K PureCool Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Gillis has not have the chance to do anything yet. I will give him to the start of the next season before calling for his head. He has done pretty well but now is the time for him to either break it or make it as a GM. Going to expect at lot of trade going into the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Patience. Just don't trade away our draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Good post man. Excellent research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Firstly, allow me to preface by saying this post isn't being posted because of our recent slide, I've been working on this for the entire season, and as the games go on it gets tweaked and edited for relevance. If you'll notice I've been a member for 11 years, and have only posted 200 times, so I try my best not to post out of emotion. Having said that, I present to you: The next four years are going to be tough as a Canucks fan. Current Roster 10 current Canucks have no movement clauses (Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Burrows, Higgins, Edler, Bieksa, Garrison, Hamhuis, Luongo) which is easily one of the biggest reasons for a player to get complacent. When you've secured a long term contract that guarantees you wont get buried in the minors, and pretty much secures a spot on the roster for you - what worry does a player have? Play well or not they're going to be a member of the team. This situation isn't specific just to the Canucks, we see it all around the NHL when a player who has underperformed during the duration of their contract, suddenly play well when the term is up, this is known as a "Contract Year". I believe that once a player with a family gets a contract with a NTC/NMC their main focus becomes providing for their family (which it should, don't get me wrong) and less on winning a Stanley Cup. You hear it every time a player is asked about what it is like to be a father and for the bulk of the time their answer is "It shows you there are more important things in life.." (which, I agree, but for sake of the argument). Having almost 50% of our roster guaranteed to stay is a big problem for a team to have. When you look around the league Vancouver has the 2nd highest amount of NTC/NMC's behind Boston & Dallas (11), and tied with Pittsburgh (10). For a team who is trying to "re-tool" this is one of the worst possible situations to be in. team nmc/ntc boston 11* dallas 11 pittsburgh 10* vancouver 10 chicago 9 detroit 9* minnesota 8 philadelphia 8* tampa bay 8* washington 8 carolina 7 montreal 7 nashville 7 new jersey 7 phoenix 7 san jose 7 toronto 7 winnipeg 7 anaheim 6* st. louis 6 calgary 5 columbus 5 ottawa 5 buffalo 4 florida 4 colorado 3 ny rangers 3 edmonton 2 ny islanders 2 los angeles 0 * denotes has a player on LTIR with a NTC/NMC I understand that sometimes you need to sweeten the pot when it comes to Free Agency and sometimes a NTC/NMC is the deciding factor, but they shouldn't be handed out to just everyone who asks for one. Taking a look (points wise) at the players who have NTC/NMC's who are on par or more with Vancouver: player team G A P s. crosby pit 27 48 75 t. seguin dal 24 31 55 c. kunitz pit 27 28 55 e. malkin pit 16 39 55 j. benn dal 22 28 50 j. neal pit 18 24 42 d. krejci bos 12 35 40 d. sedin van 13 27 40 h. sedin van 9 31 40 m. lucic bos 16 23 39 r. kesler van 19 18 37 p. bergeron bos 14 21 35 b. marchand bos 17 16 33 c. higgins van 15 16 31 j. garrison van 6 22 28 r. peverley dal 7 20 27 z. chara bos 13 13 26 -----------------average------------------ e. cole dal 14 11 25 a. goligoski dal 2 22 24 r. whitney dal 6 15 21 p. dupuis pit 7 13 20 k. bieksa van 4 15 19 l. eriksson bos 6 12 18 s. gonchar dal 2 16 18 s. horcoff dal 7 9 16 d. hamuis van 4 11 15 j. boychuk bos 2 13 15 a. edler van 4 9 13 p. martin pit 2 10 12 b. orpik pit 1 10 11 d. seidenberg bos 1 9 10 t. daley dal 4 5 9 c. kelly bos 3 5 8 s. robidas dal 4 1 5 a. burrows van 0 4 4 r. scuderi pit 0 2 2 m. savard bos - - - player team GAA S% W m. fleury pit 2.25 .917 30 t. rask bos 2.09 .929 25 k. lehtonen dal 2.55 .915 20 r. luongo van 2.32 .919 19 The interesting statistic amongst all of this is that LA has 0 NTC/NMC's and has managed to win a Stanley Cup recently. However, there are a lot of other factors that go into a retooling process. Of the players who are not locked in with a NTC/NMC, we have very little in terms of trade bait. David Booth carries a large price tag, but thankfully it's an expiring contract that ends after next season, so it is moveable. Jannik Hansen, has value, and a reasonable contract. Chris Tanev is likely our best trade bait. I hate to say it, but this guy has won me over with how solid he has played, and if we're going to move someone, that is movable, he's the guy. In 2016-2017 we'll have the following contracts: Daniel Sedin $7,000,000 NTC Henrik Sedin $7,000,000 NTC Roberto Luongo $5,333,333 NTC Alex Edler $5,000,000 NTC Jason Garrison $4,600,000 NTC Alex Burrows $4,500,000 NTC Chris Higgins $2,500,000 NTC Jannik Hansen $2,500,000 Luongo will be 37, Daniel and Henrik will be turning 36, Burrows will be 35, Higgins will be 33, Garrison will be 32, and Hansen & Edler will be 30. Higgins, Garrison, Hansen, and Edler would make up a realistic core since the other guys would be getting in the 'too old to be core players' category, which isn't too bad in my books. Drafting Let's take 2008-2012 as a sample size because not too many players from 2013's draft have made the NHL. First off, the age ol debate for how poorly we draft will forever reign on because we could have had X, but we took Y instead. The best odds you have of finding an NHLer in the draft are statistically in the first two rounds. Round 3 and 4 are where you find your diamonds in the rough, and the rest of the draft are projects, but certainly aren't a waste of a pick. In the mentioned sample size above, Vancouver is the second worst drafting team in the NHL, behind the Penguins, and tied with Chicago: rd 1 rd 2 rd 3 rd 4 rd 5 rd 6 rd 7 total nyi 6/7 3/7 1/8 3/5 3/7 3/4 0/3 19/41 46% min 5/6 4/6 1/2 1/4 0/3 1/5 1/5 13/31 42% nyr 4/5 2/4 2/4 1/3 1/7 1/4 0/2 11/29 38% ott 4/6 3/4 1/4 3/6 2/5 1/5 0/7 14/37 38% nas 3/4 3/7 2/5 2/7 1/4 1/6 2/6 14/39 36% ana 7/7 4/8 2/7 1/4 0/6 0/4 0/4 14/40 35% bos 4/5 2/4 0/4 3/4 1/4 0/5 1/5 11/31 35% cbj 4/4 2/6 0/2 1/7 2/6 2/5 1/5 12/35 34% phi 3/3 0/1 2/7 1/5 0/3 2/5 2/6 10/30 33% was 4/6 1/3 1/3 3/6 1/5 0/5 1/6 11/34 32% col 2/4 3/6 2/3 1/4 1/6 1/5 0/5 10/33 30% tb 4/7 2/4 1/4 1/5 1/4 1/6 1/7 11/37 30% nj 4/4 3/5 2/5 1/5 0/5 0/5 0/5 10/34 29% edm 5/6 3/6 0/7 1/7 1/5 1/4 0/4 11/39 28% fla 5/6 4/8 0/8 0/6 0/4 1/4 1/4 11/40 28% la 4/5 3/4 0/7 1/4 1/5 0/6 1/5 10/36 28% tor 3/5 1/5 3/4 0/3 1/8 2/6 0/6 10/37 27% cgy 3/4 0/4 2/5 1/7 0/3 1/4 1/4 8/31 26% car 3/4 3/7 0/5 1/6 0/2 1/5 1/5 9/34 26% det 2/2 3/7 0/6 1/4 1/6 0/5 2/5 9/35 26% phx 4/7 3/7 1/5 1/5 0/3 0/4 0/4 9/35 26% wpg 5/6 2/3 1/5 1/5 0/6 0/7 1/6 10/38 26% buf 6/7 1/2 1/7 1/5 0/5 0/5 0/6 9/37 24% dal 3/4 1/7 1/4 0/3 2/6 0/3 0/3 7/30 23% mtl 4/4 0/3 1/4 0/8 2/5 0/3 0/5 7/32 22% sj 2/2 1/4 0/3 0/3 2/7 1/5 1/8 7/32 22% stl 4/5 3/8 0/8 1/5 0/4 0/5 0/4 8/39 21% chi 1/6 3/8 2/6 0/3 2/5 1/8 0/8 9/44 20% van 3/4 1/3 1/3 0/4 1/5 0/6 0/5 6/30 20% pit 3/5 1/3 1/4 0/5 1/6 0/6 0/2 6/31 19% 76% 43% 21% 21% 18% 14% 11% Our 2013 draft has left fans pretty excited that we finally have someone to be excited about. Horvat and Shinkaruk are argueably our best assets since...? but the problem with this is that we're seeing and hearing that, if we're wanting anything in return in a trade, we'd have to give up on one of them (no thanks). Our drafting tendancies are almost predictable. Our scouts like a certain something. Since Gillis has taken over, we've drafted predominantly Canadians, mostly from the OHL and QMJHL. One frustrating thing, in my opinion, is that we're underutilizing the WHL. Right here in our own backyard, we have a team. There's no reason Gallagher should have went to Montreal, especially being a 5th round pick - but I digress. OHL 9 QMJHL 7 SWE JR 6 WHL 3 US-HS 3 NCAA 3 CJHL 1 CCHL 1 AJHL 1 BCHL 1 FIN JR 1 SWE 1 CAN 19 USA 7 SWE 6 CZE 2 NOR 1 FIN 1 DEN 1 D 14 C 10 LW 5 RW 4 G 3 In the 2014 draft, the Canucks currently have a pick for every round, except the 4th round. If the league were to end today we'd be looking at 17th overall pick give or take a slot. The way Gillis has drafted is what beat them the previous season, which is usually size. In 2011 & 2012, every draft pick was 6'1 to 6'5. Size isn't necessarily a bad thing to draft, but at some point you need to draft skill. Not every pick is going to turn into a Stewart or a Lucic. Trading Vancouver has lacked a big punch when making trades. We've never landed someone of name, someone who can get fans excited and for the most part we're left scratching our heads because of what we've given up. It's no secret that Vancouver has made some poor decisions when it has come to deadline deals and we usually wind up losing the player to free agency anyway. Going forward, we're going to have a tough time making trades, it isn't going to be easy on us. We're unlikely to get assets in trades and will be left to develop our own guys. Let's take a look back at some of the deals under Gillis' tenure in the last 4 years. to van: zac dalpe, jeremy welsh to car: kellan tochkin, 2014 4th to van: 2013 1st (bo horvat) to nj: cory schneider to van: derek roy to dal: kevin connauton, 2013 2nd (phillipe desrosiers) to van: zack kassian, marc-andre gragnani to buf: cody hodgson, alexander sulzer to van: samuel pahlsson to cbj: taylor ellington, 2 2012 4th (josh anderson, taylor leier) to van: david booth, steven reinprecht, 2013 3rd (cole cassels) to fla: marco sturm, mikael samuelsson to van: christopher higgins to fla: evan oberg, 2013 3rd to van: keith ballard, victor oreskovich to fla: steve bernier, michael grabner, 2010 1st Gillis has done a good job of dumping guys who are no longer serviceable though, we can give him that credit, but he has been unable to pull a 'Naslund for Stojanov' type deal. Some of the guys Gillis has pawned off onto other teams include: Sergei Shirokov, Evan Oberg, Shane O'Brien, Dan Gendur, P.C. Labrie, Patrick White. Staff I strongly believe that Tortorella is the right man for the job. He has a Stanley Cup ring on his finger, he is a passionate guy and is not afraid to let a player know where he is at within the organization. Which is a huge departure from what AV brought to the table. As much as I think Torts is the right man to coach a team, we might not have the appropriate roster to play a 'Torts Style' game. Having placed big responsibility on the Sedin's to play the power play, and block shots, it is clear that this element of their game is missing for a reason. I thought going into this season that some guys wouldn't respond (Bieksa, Edler) and others would thrive (Kesler) but as the time goes on, there is one difference between what Tortorella had in NY and here in Van, and that's youth. Looking at what he did for young guys like Callahan, Hagelin, Stepan, Miller, McDonagh, etc. He was able to develop these guys tremendously. Eventually it wore off, but he had a window. In Vancouver, our window is closed with this group, they need to re-discover the love of the game and the want to win a Stanley Cup. Gillis has been a loyal-to-his-players GM, which has carried over since his days as an agent, and thats likely why we've been having some issues getting deals made. That and he is pulling an Edmonton and overvaluing what we have on the table. The economy has changed in the NHL and some times you have to bite the bullet to make a deal that will help you in the long run. I appreciate that Gillis doesn't want to handicap the team, and I admire that. He doesn't want to give our players away, which is also admirable, but at the same time we don't want our players to lose such significant value that he can't get anything back for them. I think this duo can work, but changes need to be made in the way we draft, how we approach free agents, and certainly how we develop. Development has been a big issue with the Canucks over the years. For instance I'll refer to the Cody Hodgson situation. When CoHo got playing time with the Canucks he was behind Sedin, Kesler, Malhotra in the depth chart and essentially was a 4th line Center, getting minimal ice time. That is NOT the kind of player he was but AV insisted on playing him there. He got some time on the 2nd unit PP, and actually did okay. He was traded (which was the right move) because he would never climb the depth charts past Kesler or the Sedins. This is why I'm a supporter of a changing of the guard. Most recently San Jose re-signed Marleau and Thornton to new contracts. They continue to age but have accepted they are not the top guns anymore, handing the reigns over to Couture, Pavelski, Hertl, etc. When Horvat and Gaunce come into the line up, they will be playing BEHIND the Sedins, without a doubt. If Kesler is still on the roster when they crack the squad (I predict he'll bolt after this contract) then they will be playing behind him too. It's going to be tough as a Canucks fan to see our prospect not really get their chance, even though "we need to be younger". In summary, it's going to be a TOUGH handful of years going forward because as we know change doesn't happen overnight. Unless youre Philadelphia, who seems to flip the switch on the team the second it doesn't work. We're going to be in for an odd re-tooling, it's going to be tough on us. We're a good team, capable of making the playoffs. With the right motivation and a little hot streak we'll get there. But we're absolutely doomed in the playoffs, and it really leaves the question for what would make a successful season? Is making the playoffs and getting swept a measure of success? What would save the season? A big trade? A shake up? Gillis and co have their work cut out for them. TL;DR? - Draft better, Trade better, no more NTC's. EDIT: sorry the 'code' formatting isn't better. NTC doesn't mean guaranteed to stay. Truly, the only two I can see enforcing their NTC if things continue to slide is Hamhuis and Garrison, the two BC boys. Everyone else I can see waiving for the right trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 This is an excellent point i meant to make. Calgary is in such a horrible spot because they refused to deal Iginla when he was worth something, and essentially got handcuffed when he only wanted to be traded to the Penguins. Honestly that had very little to do with calgary’s situation. In fact it really bothers me with people compare the Canucks current state to what the flames were 2 -4 years ago. Calgarys situation started years in the past with pour trading, retaining/ getting returns for assets and most importantly having an absolute terrible drafting record. Calgary has had a total of 14 first round pick between 1998 and 2012 (15 year span). 98 Fata (6th overall) 99 Saprykin (11th overall) 00 Goalie Brent Krahn (9th overall) He play a total of 1 NHL game 01 Kobasew (14th overall) 02 Nystrom (10th overall) Played 3 season with the flames then left as a free agent 03 Phaneuf (9th overall) 04 Chucko (24th overall) They had the 19th overall and decided to trade back to 24th -canucks drafted Schneider at 26th 05 Pelech (26th overall) He play a total of 7 NHL games 06 Irving (26th overall) He play a total of 13 NHL games 07 Backlund (26th overall) They had the 19th overall and decided to trade back to 26th 08 Nemisz (25th overall) They had the 17th (Jake Gardiner) overall and decided to trade back to 25th 09 Erixon (24th overall) They had the 20th overall and decided to trade back to 24th 10 Traded the 13th overall to PHX for Jokinen 11 Bartschi (13th overall) 12 Jankowski (21st overall) They had the 14th overall and decided to trade back to 21st As an example lets break down the Jankowski pick let’s look who Calgary missed on - 14th-Zemgus Girgensons 15th-Cody Ceci 16th-Tom Wilson 17th-Tomas Hertl 18th-Teuvo Teravainen 19th-Anderi Vasileveski 20th-Scott Laughton Other notables picked after 21st; Olli Maata (22nd), Malcon Subban (24th) Brendan Gaunce (26th) People love to look at a year in Canucks history where we may have missed out on star players when we picked a bust right before. Well that’s what the flames did consistently year over year. Then the picks that they did get somewhat of a decent player (Nystrom/Kobasew) the either let go for nothing (free agency) or traded for a weak return. They really only got 1 pick right in that 15 year span and that was Phaneuf but again the return they got for him was extremely weak as only 1 player in that trade remains with the team today. It’s easy to point out the Iginla deal and compare that aging core to the Sedins but in reality that franchise was destined to fail. You can’t go over a 15 year span having only got 1 of your first round picks right, especially when you’re not a go to destination for UFA’s. You need that talent coming in from somewhere and when you’ve lost out on trades and draft picks for that length of time, all your valuable assets will dry up and you are left with where the flames are today a complete rebuild with a shallow prospect pool. Canucks on the other hand are nowhere near where the flames are. We have young assets that we are holding onto, We have a prospect pool and young talent that is already making an impact in the big league. We started heading that direction with the Ballard trade but since then we have been very good and keeping our future in mind. Not only that but the picks we did decide to move, we actually got decent returns for that also strengthens our future. Two very different franchises that are/were in completely different states. If this team does decide to move players it can. NTC’s are easily dealt with, players want them as insurance to decide their future (not so much to remain in the same city for the length of that contract). Nothing is more than getting blindsided and finding out you’ve been dealt, a NTC give the player the awareness and allows them to prepare for the move, also the freedom to choose their destination. How many times in NHL history has a player said “NO I have a NTC I want to play out the rest of my contact in this city”? On the other hand look how many players with NTC get moved each year. Flames had 10 NTC’s in their roster last year and moved 2 last deadline (plus kipper retired) and are likely moving another this deadline. It’s not as much doom and gloom as everyone would like to believe. We are in a terrible slump. Is it because the twins are getting older, or are they just in a bad slump (which elite players go through)? It also doesn’t help that Burrows and Kesler are also having an off year. Even if these four players happened to start playing at the level we’ve become accustomed to them playing over the last 5 years. We’d still be a top team in this league. It’s really up to our players to break us out of this slump and I have no doubt that once they do (likely after Olympic break), everyone will be able to sit back and breathe a little bit easier. One bad stretch of games doesn’t commence a complete over haul. If it did the King (who everyone wants to think is this great powerhouse) would be first to do so, as they’ve had a worse slump then us since before Christmas, they’ve only won 5 games in their last 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Lots of good detail there, but the short story I can take from it is that - apart from where we are in the standings - we're pretty much comparable to a number of other top teams as far as NTCs and drafting. Our trades look pretty decent as well in a number of cases (and you forgot the Ehrhoff deal, not sure if any others). so really if our stars weren't in such a bad slump we'd still be among the top teams. You can't forget our free agent pick ups either (Tanev, Lack, Santorelli, Richardson, etc.) I agree we have some changes we can make, but easier said than done. Everyone experiences the same issues, and most teams have had a period of being a bottom feeder to help a rebuild. Very few can stay at the top for any length of time so why should we realistically expect to without some speed bumps along the way? NTC doesn't mean guaranteed to stay. Truly, the only two I can see enforcing their NTC if things continue to slide is Hamhuis and Garrison, the two BC boys. Everyone else I can see waiving for the right trade C'mon, you had to quote the whole post? Fair enough point that not all the NTCs are locked in against trading in any situation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.