Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Can We Please Have a Statement About What This Team as Presently Constructed is About


coastal.view

Recommended Posts

it was pretty clear last year, as it was repeated often, that the team was going to reload or some other "re" word that was not rebuild

the team was going to stay competitive, so that the youth could learn and develop in a winning environment

a small number of youth were used, and the team made the playoffs, so at least for the regular season, 2014/15 was mission accomplished

so what now ?  as best as i can recall this year was to inject youth and maintain that delicate balance between youth and experience, so as to maintain a winning environment, so that the youth could learn and develop in a winning environment, and more youth was added to the line up.

seems the necessary youth/experience balance has been lost, and there is now not enough experience on this team, and the team has lost many close games earlier in the season, but managed to stay in the hunt (due solely to massive reliance on the loser point), and now it is just mostly losing

the team has played 27 games now, has won 9, and has not won 18, so it really is a .333 team (good thing the loser point hides this)

what is the THE PRESENT MISSION STATEMENT of this team as currently constructed (cuz i can no longer see one)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good plans leave room for change. I imagine the change of plans will involve letting the season pan out as is and reload for next season. Arizona went from the bottom to a decent team this year with the added youth. I said it in other threads, but I'll say it again:

Prior to the season I was opposed to tanking out of principle. I am against playing to lose. But seeing as the cards are the way they are I am not opposed to letting things play out and cashing in on a solid draft pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the youth(inexperience) vs experience balance is tilted too far in one direction but that is what everyone was asking for. More youth more youth. Well this is the outcome.

3 rookies, 3 sophomores, 3 newly acquired  players = 9 new players

the reality is non of these 9 players are proven veterans or game breakers so I don't understand why everyone is shocked at how this seasons going. Too many unknowns in a TEAM game.

The team is only competitive on the backs of our old vet core, but if not enough players pull their wait, old and new, the winning is gonna remain out of reach.

There is potential to be a competitive and winning team though just upto these players to  play at a higher level

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labels suck. Why in the hell should anyone tell us anything about what the plan is right now? We're smart enough to see what's happening and depending on what the team does leading up to the deadline (and further ahead to the draft) it'll become clearer still.

The Canucks have their mission statement internally, they don't have to share it all with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tavrohorvat53 said:

I agree that the youth(inexperience) vs experience balance is tilted too far in one direction but that is what everyone was asking for. More youth more youth. Well this is the outcome.

3 rookies, 3 sophomores, 3 newly acquired  players = 9 new players

the reality is non of these 9 players are proven veterans or game breakers so I don't understand why everyone is shocked at how this seasons going. Too many unknowns in a TEAM game.

The team is only competitive on the backs of our old vet core, but if not enough players pull their wait, old and new, the winning is gonna remain out of reach.

There is potential to be a competitive and winning team though just upto these players to  play at a higher level

 

 

 

I find it funny how 3/4 posters on here was clamouring about getting more rookies and young guns on the team as if that was the strategy for winning (this season). This is the wakeup call for what it actually looks like. This is the growing pains and struggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The so-called mission statement is unchanged. Win now, but don't trade away youth and picks. If the playoffs are all but impossible in Feb, trade Hamhuis, Vrbata and Higgins, maybe even Burrows, for more picks and youth.

 

But you can bet Aquilini wants the playoff gate. He didn't take kindly to our only two playoff misses in his tenure. (GMs fired).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, elvis15 said:

Labels suck. Why in the hell should anyone tell us anything about what the plan is right now? We're smart enough to see what's happening and depending on what the team does leading up to the deadline (and further ahead to the draft) it'll become clearer still.

The Canucks have their mission statement internally, they don't have to share it all with us.

It also isn't a sound strategy to publicize your complete strategy. In the game of NHL management it's much smarter to play with your cards close to your chest, or else other GM's will be able to take advantage of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team is hurting with Sutter out. The PK has dropped as has secondary scoring. Horvat is no more ready for second line than McCann is the third line. Both were better before Sutters injury. Although Virtanen should be returned to junior as he's just not ready. There are call ups in Utica that have paid their dues and can deliver a hit, and possibly add some offense.

Other than that the plan remains the same. I don't see where your confusion is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need your veterans to be in their prime and your kids to be outstanding for you to be a team that can rebuild on the fly.

Chicago are doing it - Teurovainen and Panarin, even Dano and their young defencemen like van Reimsdyk and Runblad all come into the NHL gradually and they're brilliant. They play with a bunch of veterans who are smack bang in the middle of their prime and that team doesn't skip a beat. Kane with Panarin is a prime example - you put a great young kid and a great veteran in his prime together and you get a team that is still a contender but rebuilding at the same time.

Another way to rebuild is to go the Oilers route, absolutely crash-tank and stockpile 1st overall picks who are played with a bunch of pathetic UFA veterans far from their prime who aren't very good anyway. Even fantastic rookies can't carry a team by themselves.

What we have in Vancouver is a mess that is getting dangerously close to the Oiler situation. We've got some veterans pretty close to their prime in the Sedins and Hansen, that's it. Miller is well past his use-by date. Hamhuis and Edler are shells of their former "prime" selves, at least 2 or 3 years removed and are steadily trending downwards. Even Tanev doesn't look like his career best. As for Higgins, Burrows and Vbrata, they're all playing their worst seasons in a LONG time and are very far from their prime. Dorsett and Prust aren't in their prime, and their prime was never very good anyway. Benning has really poorly constructed this team, with some wishful thinking that we'd be like the Blackhawks, but our veterans aren't that good anymore and our rookies certainly aren't that skilled. What you get is a bunch of players who are on opposite ends of their prime, and that leads to disaster.

In 2011 we had everyone in their prime or pretty damn close and that's how you win a Cup. Now we have the opposite - too old or too young, it's a mess. But that's just a management standpoint.

In terms of fixing this, there's not much we can do. I think we kept a hold of too many rookies and have too many useless veterans. This team would be perfect with less youth, less old and more in between but that's hard to do, I understand. We didn't need to rush McCann and Virtanen into the NHL, not many teams are that ignorant or stupid to do so. When you see guys like Strome and Marner back in junior, and Nylander in the AHL, but you've got players who are supposedly worse than them, and drafted after them, forced to play in the NHL you know someone's wrong. We're the only team stubborn enough to try this. Sure, Ehlers was kept on and the Jets suck too, they've got a very similar problem to us.

To be fair, losing Sutter really throws our veteran-youth balance out of whack because he's in his prime and really would have helped, but it's obvious what needs to happen soon. We need to try somehow to tighten this veteran to rookie gap. I know it'd be costly, but one or two players in their prime would really make a huge difference to this team right now. I think it'd be worth it in the long run, because we'd be competitive again. Who knows, maybe next year that player will already be in the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-R-A-N-S-I-T-I-O-N. 

It's as if many on CDC have been nodding in agreement whenever this or the "rebuild" word have been used, yet it seems like only now is the reality of what these mean hitting them.

We've had a really enjoyable 10-year run as being a very competitive team that not a lot of NHL teams get to enjoy. Yet all good things come to an end. MG left a gaping hole in our pipeline of prospects and JB is now left to try to fix it to get us back to where we were, hopefully without taking shortcuts. 

There's no sugar coating it folks, this team will be mediocre for the next couple of years at least, depending on what happens with trades and free agency.

In the meantime, I'm still going to support our team and watch every game and just enjoy the slow climb back to the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago we were quite the Stanley cup contenders. 

We traded away a lot of draft picks to acquire key pieces to help in our pursuit of glory. 

A combination of traded away picks, missed picks, and the loss of the Manitoba moose have created a massive talent gap in our organization. 

We are a team in transition, plain and simple.

There is nothing wrong with that. 

Be patentient, this dip has to happen to rebalance our talent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I've been calling for youth since last year so I'm ok with our results atm.  The old core/current core and vets weren't accomplishing anything either (Sedins excluded).

 

id rather lose with developing rookies playing hard than time clock punching vets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

1:  Chicago are doing it - Teurovainen and Panarin, even Dano and their young defencemen like van Reimsdyk and Runblad all come into the NHL gradually and they're brilliant. They play with a bunch of veterans who are smack bang in the middle of their prime and that team doesn't skip a beat. Kane with Panarin is a prime example - you put a great young kid and a great veteran in his prime together and you get a team that is still a contender but rebuilding at the same time.

2:  What we have in Vancouver is a mess that is getting dangerously close to the Oiler situation. Benning has really poorly constructed this team, with some wishful thinking that we'd be like the Blackhawks, but our veterans aren't that good anymore and our rookies certainly aren't that skilled. What you get is a bunch of players who are on opposite ends of their prime, and that leads to disaster.

3:  In terms of fixing this, there's not much we can do. I think we kept a hold of too many rookies  This team would be perfect with less youth, less old and more in between but that's hard to do, I understand. We didn't need to rush McCann and Virtanen into the NHL, not many teams are that ignorant or stupid to do so. 

4:  it's obvious what needs to happen soon. We need to try somehow to tighten this veteran to rookie gap. I know it'd be costly, but one or two players in their prime would really make a huge difference to this team right now.

1.  Chicago was on its way out the door.  A decade of Oiler like futility drafting very high no fans no playoffs no owner that cared.  What changed?  Drafted Kane, Toews, Byfuglien, Versteeg, and so many more solid players.  Snagged Hossa and Campbell in their primes with contracts people scoffed at.  Before new ownership and management took over.  But...who was the new management team?  *GASP* Scotty Bowman!  What does Scotty Bowman do?  Build dynasties.  Montreal, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago.  An unstoppable coach with an eye for hockey unrivaled in the sport.

 

So...they actually started this dynasty with rookies and a Hossa.  Now those rookies are 3 time cup winners.  They sold off role players at the right time for picks/players.  Turned those picks players in to roster spots.  Lathered rinsed repeated.  So...no, not really.  So they started with very highly touted and picked rookies, now they're vets mentoring the new rookies.

 

2.  A mess dangerously close to the Oilers situation?  Hmmm...missing the playoffs since 2006?  Nope.  Never having top scoring threats?  Nope.  Still a threat in the division?  Yup.  Any time someone makes a statement like this I giggle because it shows how much they really pay attention to the game.  We`re doing EXACTLY the opposite of the OIlers and are in fact doing what you suggested that we weren`t.

 

We're bringing in our rookies 2 and 3 at a time in to the league playing under vets.  Solid vets.  They're not just being thrown in to the fire, they're playing with guys who have been in this league for a decade or more.  Are they playing with hart calibre selke winning rocket richard owning all stars?  No...but who is?  Really...nobody.  Our rookies are as skilled as they're supposed to be.  They made the team out of camp.  Now they're playing in a format that shelters them and allows them to grow based on their performance.  So I really don't know what you mean by this.  Not the oilers, not the worst way to bring in new blood at all

 

3.  Kept a hold on too many rookies?  Huh?  Last year EVERYONE wanted rookies.  Now we have rookies.  September EVERYONE wanted Jake and Jared on the team, well...they're on the team.  October people had McCaan penciled in for the frigging Calder.  Now they're rushed?  Even you were singing the praises of this kid now he needs to be sent down.  Now, as for the not many teams are ignorant statement.

 

I suggest you look at your darling Hawks.  Their vets got just that.  ALL of them started their post draft years in the league.  Now they've a Bowman to oversee that their rookies are spending time developing while their former rookies who are now vets who were thrown to the fire immediately are still winning cups.  Then I look around and see sooo many other ignorant and stupid teams that did just that as well.  Rangers, Islanders, Minnesota, Nashville, Anaheim, LA.  All of them do it.  We haven't had rookies in over 5 ish years to join the team.  I know it's new but try not to make statements like that k

 

4.  And finally, It's obvious?  What needs to happen?  we need to bridge that gap you say?  Why that's a fantastic idea.

 

With who?  Name someone who won't cost us one of our rookies to obtain.  One or two players in their prime.  Well on D I hear Barrie and Hamonic are available.  But Benning has said the price is too steep.  Sooo who?  Anyone we pick up will cost us far far too much to be worth it.  You wanted rookies, now you have them.  now you want to trade rookies for players that aren't rookies but that will cost the rookies you want.

 

It's just not going to happen my man.  None of it.  Your diatribe runs on like a passionate fan full of hope and anger but no genuine thought.  Obtaining a Hamonic will cost a Tanev +.  Obtaining a solid top 6 winger under 25 will cost a McCaan +

 

Been a Canuck fan for literally 40+ years.  What you're suggesting is what management barring 2 groups have done for literal decades.  Rush the rebuild, ship off youth wonder why we need to rebuild 3 years later.  I want to point out 1 very glaring and obvious thing.

 

When the Sedins entered the league, their first years respectively for Hank and Danny were point totals of:  26, 36 and 39 points for Hank and 34, 32 and 31 points for Daniel.  By your own statements, you'd have wanted them sent back down or out.  Gonna have to learn to live with the fact that this and the next 2 seasons are NOT going to be pretty.  That's a fact.

 

TLDR:?

 

1.  Hawks did exactly what you said they didn't.  Hired Bowman, changed everything sucked for a decade first.

2.  Comparing team to Oilers is weak bruh.  We're doing EXACTLY what you say we're not.

3.  People wanted rookies, we got rookies.  Now people don't want rookies...deal with it.

4.  Wanting to bridge that gap you suggest will cost us picks and rookies.  Then all we'll have is vets, then you'll want rookies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue I have with people ragging on JB for the defence is, what else was he supposed to do? The only free agent d man I would've cared for at all was Franson after seeing the contract he got but that's it, and even then he wouldn't make making a big difference in the grand scheme of things. We didn't have the assets to land a Reinhart or Hamilton, get used to it people. He traded away a declining Bieksa (some posters would say he's more than declined) who just 6-8 months ago was CDC's whipping boy for "just" a measly second round pick (which are SOOOO valuable when we trade them away) but certain members now bitch about that too. There was really nobody in the pipeline besides the surprising Hutton. I just can't bring myself to pin this all on JB like others have. He understands the D is woefully insufficient (story of my life) and I'm willing to bet in 2-3 years time, which is probably a realistic window given the contracts, ages, NTC's, declining values, etc of our current group, that it looks drastically different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...