Sedins and some perspective...

[-DLC-]

45 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Well I think it's very likely that we bottom out.... Why do you think that we wouldn't? So your contention is that we will have a couple prospects develop and not match their production but mitigate their loss... We were the third worst team in the NHL last year.... And we were one of (or actually??) the WORST goal scoring teams in the league last year.... Guess what? The Sedins were like the only ones who weren't a problem in that regard. We are a one line team. When that one line goes... what are we? We are a zero line team. How can you have a zero line team and expect success? It's just not realistic. Sure our prospects will develop, but it looks like Boeser is the only one with 1st line upside. Which is nice... Nobody is complaining about that, but we need MORE....

 

IF for example, we took last years team... removed the Sedins... I think we make Toronto look really good, even though they were tanking. That team would get shut out at least 30 times in a season. Like I'm not joking... Because their best matchup defenders, wouldn't defend the Sedins anymore. It would be an NHL record low for goals scored. If your team is that flawed, surely you need a rebuild. Patchwork signings like Eriksson just don't do enough.

 

What you must also not misunderstand is that people who are pro-rebuild for the Canucks don't hate our prospects... And while they aren't finished developing, we accept the consensus about their ceilings as probable and base our assumptions on that... By doing that, we have come to the conclusion we just need MORE prospects of the caliber we already have... And maybe 1 or 2 of a higher caliber. Because, if we don't get those prospects, you have to consider... What happens if we start a rebuild 3 years from now? How old is Horvat? How old will Virtanen be? How old will Boeser be? Baertschi? Then how long will the rebuild take? How old will they all be then? How much longer will we have them for after a rebuild in terms of productive years? And what is their salary like? There is a HUGE loss of efficiency when we are paying these players 5-7 million a year, heading into the back side of their prime... When we finally get the prospect depth surging through... It'll be too late at that point. It's such a waste of prospects that pro-rebuild Canucks fans actually LIKE, and would like to see them win a cup in Vancouver... But that won't happen without a rebuild, and a rebuild that occurs pretty much now.

 

I'm willing to state, at risk of being wrong, that Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi, and probably more, will NEVER win a cup in Vancouver, if by next offseason we aren't rebuilding. The only way I see that happening is if we win the lottery next year.... And if that player is special. Not likely though.

You bring a whole lot of problems with no solutions.  Or at least no path to getting there.

 

So let's hear your ideal rebuild and how it should be done.  I'm curious.

[Alflives]

47 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Well I think it's very likely that we bottom out.... Why do you think that we wouldn't? So your contention is that we will have a couple prospects develop and not match their production but mitigate their loss... We were the third worst team in the NHL last year.... And we were one of (or actually??) the WORST goal scoring teams in the league last year.... Guess what? The Sedins were like the only ones who weren't a problem in that regard. We are a one line team. When that one line goes... what are we? We are a zero line team. How can you have a zero line team and expect success? It's just not realistic. Sure our prospects will develop, but it looks like Boeser is the only one with 1st line upside. Which is nice... Nobody is complaining about that, but we need MORE....

 

IF for example, we took last years team... removed the Sedins... I think we make Toronto look really good, even though they were tanking. That team would get shut out at least 30 times in a season. Like I'm not joking... Because their best matchup defenders, wouldn't defend the Sedins anymore. It would be an NHL record low for goals scored. If your team is that flawed, surely you need a rebuild. Patchwork signings like Eriksson just don't do enough.

 

What you must also not misunderstand is that people who are pro-rebuild for the Canucks don't hate our prospects... And while they aren't finished developing, we accept the consensus about their ceilings as probable and base our assumptions on that... By doing that, we have come to the conclusion we just need MORE prospects of the caliber we already have... And maybe 1 or 2 of a higher caliber. Because, if we don't get those prospects, you have to consider... What happens if we start a rebuild 3 years from now? How old is Horvat? How old will Virtanen be? How old will Boeser be? Baertschi? Then how long will the rebuild take? How old will they all be then? How much longer will we have them for after a rebuild in terms of productive years? And what is their salary like? There is a HUGE loss of efficiency when we are paying these players 5-7 million a year, heading into the back side of their prime... When we finally get the prospect depth surging through... It'll be too late at that point. It's such a waste of prospects that pro-rebuild Canucks fans actually LIKE, and would like to see them win a cup in Vancouver... But that won't happen without a rebuild, and a rebuild that occurs pretty much now.

 

I'm willing to state, at risk of being wrong, that Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi, and probably more, will NEVER win a cup in Vancouver, if by next offseason we aren't rebuilding. The only way I see that happening is if we win the lottery next year.... And if that player is special. Not likely though.

I know!  And this is very upsetting.  It's the first three decades all over again.  Slip to the bottom 10, but not low enough for drafting elite talent.  Then as those guys mature get to the middle - make the playoffs once in a while, but never really are that good.  Then slip close to the bottom, but not low enough...rice and repeat.  

[Forsy]

2 hours ago, Aircool said:

Well I think it's very likely that we bottom out.... Why do you think that we wouldn't? So your contention is that we will have a couple prospects develop and not match their production but mitigate their loss... We were the third worst team in the NHL last year.... And we were one of (or actually??) the WORST goal scoring teams in the league last year.... Guess what? The Sedins were like the only ones who weren't a problem in that regard. We are a one line team. When that one line goes... what are we? We are a zero line team. How can you have a zero line team and expect success? It's just not realistic. Sure our prospects will develop, but it looks like Boeser is the only one with 1st line upside. Which is nice... Nobody is complaining about that, but we need MORE....

 

IF for example, we took last years team... removed the Sedins... I think we make Toronto look really good, even though they were tanking. That team would get shut out at least 30 times in a season. Like I'm not joking... Because their best matchup defenders, wouldn't defend the Sedins anymore. It would be an NHL record low for goals scored. If your team is that flawed, surely you need a rebuild. Patchwork signings like Eriksson just don't do enough.

 

What you must also not misunderstand is that people who are pro-rebuild for the Canucks don't hate our prospects... And while they aren't finished developing, we accept the consensus about their ceilings as probable and base our assumptions on that... By doing that, we have come to the conclusion we just need MORE prospects of the caliber we already have... And maybe 1 or 2 of a higher caliber. Because, if we don't get those prospects, you have to consider... What happens if we start a rebuild 3 years from now? How old is Horvat? How old will Virtanen be? How old will Boeser be? Baertschi? Then how long will the rebuild take? How old will they all be then? How much longer will we have them for after a rebuild in terms of productive years? And what is their salary like? There is a HUGE loss of efficiency when we are paying these players 5-7 million a year, heading into the back side of their prime... When we finally get the prospect depth surging through... It'll be too late at that point. It's such a waste of prospects that pro-rebuild Canucks fans actually LIKE, and would like to see them win a cup in Vancouver... But that won't happen without a rebuild, and a rebuild that occurs pretty much now.

 

I'm willing to state, at risk of being wrong, that Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi, and probably more, will NEVER win a cup in Vancouver, if by next offseason we aren't rebuilding. The only way I see that happening is if we win the lottery next year.... And if that player is special. Not likely though.

Firstly, I'm assuming you know that trading the Sedins is not going to happen.
Secondly, signing Eriksson does not prevent our young guns from being drafted or picked. So what exactly do you want the Canucks to do? Sign AHL players and/or plugs and just lose for the season for next year's draft?

Thirdly, maybe you are complaining that we sent our 2nd round pick for Gudbranson, who is only 24? How is this an issue, if he fills a need in the team, not too old, and we aren't signing 4x 24 year olders to the point where we prevent prospects from getting spots on our D-corps?

Fourthly, the Canucks are younger, but not prospects young - how is that stopping our picking high end prospects?

Fifthly, all I see is a lot of whining that the Canucks aren't complete sh1t like edmonton was for a few years, and that we are giving up some non-1st round picks in a vain effort to get sleeper picks. Like many have echoed, we need great or very good players, not more of "hope to be 2nd line players that never get past 3rd or 4th line duties". And realistically speaking, you won't get anything but those kinds of players in the 2nd, 3rd and probably the last half of the 1st round of the draft. Unless you are trading 1st round draft picks to trade for players/free agent rights, signing UFAs don't stop your ability to get early 1st round draft picks (unless you believe in the quack idea of tanking to get first pick).

[yes we can nucks]

2 hours ago, kloubek said:

Well, it kind of does work that way.  Yes, the naming is arbitrary.  But 99 times out of 100, the first line gets the most minutes.

My point is, you can call the Sedins the second line ... and yes, give the 'first line' the most minutes... but the Sedins would still be the top scoring line.  Hence, they would still really be the first line.

[Aircool]

 

1 hour ago, Forsy said:

Firstly, I'm assuming you know that trading the Sedins is not going to happen.
Secondly, signing Eriksson does not prevent our young guns from being drafted or picked. So what exactly do you want the Canucks to do? Sign AHL players and/or plugs and just lose for the season for next year's draft?

Thirdly, maybe you are complaining that we sent our 2nd round pick for Gudbranson, who is only 24? How is this an issue, if he fills a need in the team, not too old, and we aren't signing 4x 24 year olders to the point where we prevent prospects from getting spots on our D-corps?

Fourthly, the Canucks are younger, but not prospects young - how is that stopping our picking high end prospects?

Fifthly, all I see is a lot of whining that the Canucks aren't complete sh1t like edmonton was for a few years, and that we are giving up some non-1st round picks in a vain effort to get sleeper picks. Like you said, we need great players, not more of "hope to be 2nd line players that never get past 3rd or 4th line duties". And realistically speaking, you won't get anything but those kinds of players in the 2nd, 3rd and probably the last half of the 1st round of the draft.

I'm not endorsing trading the Sedins, it isn't necessary for a proper rebuild. This team would be historically bad if you took them off of it though.

 

The rest of your nonsense is something about not blocking players from taking a spot in the lineup. Which players? Who are we not blocking? We don't have anyone to block? Boeser is in the NCAA, he's currently our only real prospect that you would regret blocking (and he's being blocked). We have some intriguing guys who have stood out like Zhukenov, but we'll see how good he becomes. He will need AHL time. The issue is the fact that WE AREN'T BLOCKING ANYONE. With the bloated roster we have, and how poor it is... You would hope that we'd actually have some prospects that we're blocking that are worth creating spots for. WE DON'T.

 

We're not giving up 2nd and 3rds and what not for sleepers. We are giving it up for low upside.. We are giving it up for the very things you say we don't need more of. Erik Gudbranson is a low upside player. It's that simple. He's a shutdown defender with virtually no offensive game. Or to be more accurate, with an offensive game that is rudimentary for the NHL. He can shoot the puck well enough, that you'd let him shoot the puck. But he doesn't have any particular success doing so. 

 

Shayne Gostisbehere was a 3rd round pick. He looks to be a stud. Philly looks like they have a lot of stud defensemen... Just like we often have stud goalies... Certain organizations have more success developing certain positions/roles better than others (Like how we do well developing Goalies)... Which probably had something to do with that, but the rest was luck...  The thing about higher draft picks, is that essentially draft selections are made by all teams with 3 considerations.. Upside, NHL Readiness, Bust Potential. It's pretty much that simple, it's all they consider... They evaluate those 3 factors based on their scouting.... How good could he be? How close is he? What's his floor? Like Virtanen for example, not the highest upside pick at #6... (cough cough Nylander)... But he's big and can skate really well... Low bust potential with good upside.

 

You have two choices... Luck out into a player with all-star potential.. Or take the statistically most likely path to that player... We may well luck out, we did with Boeser (at least we hope...), we need to luck out more. Or we need to take the most likely path to those players.

 

2 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

You bring a whole lot or problems with no solutions.

 

So let's hear your ideal rebuild and how it should be done.  I'm curious.

Some of what you want to hear is above... Most of it isn't.

 

I'll keep it simple. I want the highest likelihood of a cup winning team in Vancouver... I saw 2011, I've seen Vancouver in a final. The only thing I haven't seen is Vancouver winning the cup. After they win the cup, I'm okay to have their name in the mix for a few years, just missing the playoffs others. The ebbs and flows of a franchise... But I want us to get our first cup first. Then I'll live with mild success.

 

To do this we need probably 5 or more good prospects, with 2 at least being ELITE. So that's a lot... To do that reliably, you need high draft choices... You can trade for some of it, but the price is exorbitant... 

 

I don't mind signing players such that we can avoid putting our young players in roles they aren't ready for, but I see no use in signing Eriksson, he doesn't help this team win a cup... He probably only hurts... His contract may one day prevent us from signing a young player to a long term contract... The cap isn't going to climb much... Unless the league gets a lot healthier... This year was a bad year.

 

To Address Both of You:

 

I'm hearing people complain about Edmonton a lot, as a bad example... Not sure why people do that... It's really stupid. So given that it's been brought up by Forsy, and Deb you might bring it up... Let me just refute it.

 

Edmonton selected: Taylor Hall, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Nail Yakupov, Leon Draisaitl, Connor McDavid, and Jesse Puljujarvi with their Top-5 picks over the years. Yakupov was a bust, let's be honest, but the draft was really CRAPPY.... The rest of those players are better than any prospect we have, or any young player in our lineup... Basically, Bo Horvat is worse than all of them. Boeser may end up being better than a couple. MAYBE. We'll see.

 

So... they have better talent than us? So what went wrong? well.... EVERYTHING ELSE.... I'm not entirely sure they intended to tank as long as they did... It shouldn't take that long... Their problem was that they couldn't draft outside the Top-5 with any sort of proficiency.... They just missed on everything. No team in the league can do that and win, no matter what. You just can't.

 

EDIT: by the way, CDC has a Discord Server now.. I'd love to talk to you via microphone, or just in text there... where it's easier to convey a complex opinion... I spent like an hour trying to write this, and I'm very dissatisfied with it.... It's essentially anonymous as well.. Unlike skyping with people. PM me if you are interested.

[Edge]

10 minutes ago, Aircool said:

I'll keep it simple. I want the highest likelihood of a cup winning team in Vancouver... I saw 2011, I've seen Vancouver in a final.

Ok, so you do remember that the 2011 squad was by no means considered to be a contender right? That year was an anomaly at best.

[Forsy]

2 minutes ago, Aircool said:

 

I'm not endorsing trading the Sedins, it isn't necessary for a proper rebuild. This team would be historically bad if you took them off of it though.

 

The rest of your nonsense is something about not blocking players from taking a spot in the lineup. Which players? Who are we not blocking? We don't have anyone to block? Boeser is in the NCAA, he's currently our only real prospect that you would regret blocking (and he's being blocked). We have some intriguing guys who have stood out like Zhukenov, but we'll see how good he becomes. He will need AHL time. The issue is the fact that WE AREN'T BLOCKING ANYONE. With the bloated roster we have, and how poor it is... You would hope that we'd actually have some prospects that we're blocking that are worth creating spots for. WE DON'T.

 

We're not giving up 2nd and 3rds and what not for sleepers. We are giving it up for low upside.. We are giving it up for the very things you say we don't need more of. Erik Gudbranson is a low upside player. It's that simple. He's a shutdown defender with virtually no offensive game. Or to be more accurate, with an offensive game that is rudimentary for the NHL. He can shoot the puck well enough, that you'd let him shoot the puck. But he doesn't have any particular success doing so. 

 

Shayne Gostisbehere was a 3rd round pick. He looks to be a stud. Philly looks like they have a lot of stud defensemen... Just like we often have stud goalies... Certain organizations have more success developing certain positions/roles better than others (Like how we do well developing Goalies)... Which probably had something to do with that, but the rest was luck...  The thing about higher draft picks, is that essentially draft selections are made by all teams with 3 considerations.. Upside, NHL Readiness, Bust Potential. It's pretty much that simple, it's all they consider... They evaluate those 3 factors based on their scouting.... How good could he be? How close is he? What's his floor? Like Virtanen for example, not the highest upside pick at #6... (cough cough Nylander)... But he's big and can skate really well... Low bust potential with good upside.

 

You have two choices... Luck out into a player with all-star potential.. Or take the statistically most likely path to that player... We may well luck out, we did with Boeser (at least we hope...), we need to luck out more. Or we need to take the most likely path to those players.

 

Some of what you want to hear is above... Most of it isn't.

 

I'll keep it simple. I want the highest likelihood of a cup winning team in Vancouver... I saw 2011, I've seen Vancouver in a final. The only thing I haven't seen is Vancouver winning the cup. After they win the cup, I'm okay to have their name in the mix for a few years, just missing the playoffs others. The ebbs and flows of a franchise... But I want us to get our first cup first. Then I'll live with mild success.

 

To do this we need probably 5 or more good prospects, with 2 at least being ELITE. So that's a lot... To do that reliably, you need high draft choices... You can trade for some of it, but the price is exorbitant... 

 

I don't mind signing players such that we can avoid putting our young players in roles they aren't ready for, but I see no use in signing Eriksson, he doesn't help this team win a cup... He probably only hurts... His contract may one day prevent us from signing a young player to a long term contract... The cap isn't going to climb much... Unless the league gets a lot healthier... This year was a bad year.

 

To Address Both of You:

 

I'm hearing people complain about Edmonton a lot, as a bad example... Not sure why people do that... It's really stupid. So given that it's been brought up by Forsy, and Deb you might bring it up... Let me just refute it.

 

Edmonton selected: Taylor Hall, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Nail Yakupov, Leon Draisaitl, Connor McDavid, and Jesse Puljujarvi with their Top-5 picks over the years. Yakupov was a bust, let's be honest, but the draft was really CRAPPY.... The rest of those players are better than any prospect we have, or any young player in our lineup... Basically, Bo Horvat is worse than all of them. Boeser may end up being better than a couple. MAYBE. We'll see.

 

So... they have better talent than us? So what went wrong? well.... EVERYTHING ELSE.... I'm not entirely sure they intended to tank as long as they did... It shouldn't take that long... Their problem was that they couldn't draft outside the Top-5 with any sort of proficiency.... They just missed on everything. No team in the league can do that and win, no matter what. You just can't,

The whole point is that none of these UFAs are blocking prospects that we do have from moving up and potentially improving, and none of them are preventing us from picking from the first round so that we get these good or ELITE prospects.

 

The only reason elite prospects aren't gotten is because either:

1) we trade our 1st round picks

2) we choose not to tank horribly and be last every year

3) We trade away potential sleepers for UFAs

4) We refuse to give up our existing ELITE players to get great prospects and/or first round picks.
 

I addressed all of these, here is it in clearer form:
1. We aren't giving away our 1st round picks.

2. This is a nonsense strategy.

3. Trading away our 2nd rounders is not making us lose out on top end talent. The most we are losing are middle 6 FW or top 4 DM potential prospects, and the last one we traded was for a #4D Gudbranson who is in a decent age. Either way, none of these things were prevented by the signings and tradings of/for Gudbranson, Eriksson, Larsen. And this assumes that you want to have ZERO veterans for our prospects, who would help mentor and build their confidence.

4. Can't trade Sedins. No one would take Miller. Trade Sutter (27)? Tanev (26)? Edler (30)? The crux of your argument basically calls for trading those 3 players for prospects, because everyone else is a prospect, or not worthy of trading for a prospect. If we had traded them, we better be getting top end talent or franchise players, the likes of the mcdavid/eichel or matthews/laine/dubois - Patrick is the only one of possibility to be at this level for next season.

 

If you want fully rebuild, I would suggest that only Sutter and Edler are the only real trade possibilities, Tanev being too valuable and still young that he is a great asset himself. Were TOR/WPG/CBJ ready to trade their top picks for Edler and/or Sutter? I doubt it. That is why we are in our position, and JB is doing the best he can.

 

 

[naslund.is.king]

1 minute ago, Edge said:

Ok, so you do remember that the 2011 squad was by no means considered to be a contender right? That year was an anomaly at best.

Gotta disagree..we were huge contenders if not favorites...do you not remember The Sedins and company making everyone look silly night in and night out

What a time...

[Grape]

9 minutes ago, Edge said:

Ok, so you do remember that the 2011 squad was by no means considered to be a contender right? That year was an anomaly at best.

TBH i hadn't seen a team as heavily favoured to win the cup in a while than the 2011 Canucks...

[Aircool]

16 minutes ago, Edge said:

Ok, so you do remember that the 2011 squad was by no means considered to be a contender right? That year was an anomaly at best.

I think you forgot to replace the "no" with "all"... It makes no sense still, but it makes more sense.

 

15 minutes ago, Forsy said:

The whole point is that none of these UFAs are blocking prospects that we do have from moving up and potentially improving, and none of them are preventing us from picking from the first round so that we get these good or ELITE prospects.

 

The only reason elite prospects aren't gotten is because either:

1) we trade our 1st round picks

2) we choose not to tank horribly and be last every year

3) We trade away potential sleepers for UFAs

4) We refuse to give up our existing ELITE players to get great prospects and/or first round picks.
 

I addressed all of these, here is it in clearer form:
1. We aren't giving away our 1st round picks.

2. This is a nonsense strategy.

3. Trading away our 2nd rounders is not making us lose out on top end talent. The most we are losing are middle 6 FW or top 4 DM potential prospects, and the last one we traded was for a #4D Gudbranson who is in a decent age. Either way, none of these things were prevented by the signings and tradings of/for Gudbranson, Eriksson, Larsen. And this assumes that you want to have ZERO veterans for our prospects, who would help mentor and build their confidence.

4. Can't trade Sedins. No one would take Miller. Trade Sutter (27)? Tanev (26)? Edler (30)? The crux of your argument basically calls for trading those 3 players for prospects, because everyone else is a prospect, or not worthy of trading for a prospect. If we had traded them, we better be getting top end talent or franchise players, the likes of the mcdavid/eichel or matthews/laine/dubois - Patrick is the only one of possibility to be at this level for next season.

 

If you want fully rebuild, I would suggest that only Sutter and Edler are the only real trade possibilities, Tanev being too valuable and still young that he is a great asset himself. Were TOR/WPG/CBJ ready to trade their top picks for Edler and/or Sutter? I doubt it. That is why we are in our position, and JB is doing the best he can.

 

 

I mean... I don't want to spend another hour writing a post... that I just won't be satisfied with... I edited the last one with this invitation, I'll make it again... Hop on the Canucks Discord, I'll help you if you need it... Let's have a discussion... we can go through our posts together and elaborate or something... I think you are horribly wrong... Either super naive or optimistic, or just incapable of making objective/accurate assessments. I'm more than willing to explain why... Just not going to spend another hour writing a LONG LONG post that you will struggle to comprehensively address and to remember all my points when doing so.

[Grape]

6 hours ago, springer said:

A little bit of perspective helps clarify reality.

 

The 'Nucks got mercilessly and absolutely hammered by injuries last season. Of course it changed the outcome.

 

Only two of 'em played 82 games: Bo Horvat and Daniel Sediin.

 

Daniel finished the season with 28 goals and 33 assists, 61 points.

 

Henrik played 74 games...many while injured...and racked up 11 goals and 44 assists, 55 points.

 

Don't sound like a couple of guys past their prime to me.

 

Take a look at the signings yesterday. How many of them matched those kinds of stats? Truth be told, darn few...and we managed to sign one of the very few who did.

 

Every season the two of them show up to camp in top physical condition, despite their age, and put the heat on players a helluva lot younger to try and keep up with them!

 

Don't kid yourselves, a lot of teams envy the 'Nucks good fortune to have two players of this caliber.

 

And BTW, while speaking of perspective...

 

Highest shot percentage on the team...by far...at 18.8%? That would be Jannik Hansen. That stat puts him up there with some of the best in the league...most of whom make probably double the money he does!

 

Just sayin'...

 

 

I understand people are trying to be positive, but there is no arguing the Sedins are well past their prime. Sure 55 and 61 points aren't too shabby for top players, but you compare that with 2010 and 2011, or even throughout 2006-2013... it's a monumental difference. The Sedins are my all time favourite athletes and we've been lucky to have them the past 16 or so years don't get me wrong, but they're definitely past their prime if you wanna look at this team in a positive light in dark times, you don't point towards our oldest players in a steady decline and claim teams envy what we have.

 

Also that Hansen stat is quite random, and shot % really doesn't mean much either. The best scorers in the world rarely have the highest shot percentages, and it's something that is hard to keep up because things even out with increased volume. Would you argue Henrik is a better scorer than Daniel because of his higher career shot %?

[IBatch]

7 hours ago, Dral said:

Haven't the Sedins been declining for the last several years? That's what I keep reading on CDC...

The Sedins best years were singular (they both had one), aside from that the rest of their prime was around a point per game.  Scoring league wide has regressed, and the current team is nothing like the one that dominated 5 on 5 and special teams when we were winning Presidents trophies (Selke winner and multiple finalists, world class goaltending, and very solid all around defense, and face off specialists etc) so the current team factors into the decline more than anything else (including age, their fitness level attests to that).   Torts played them terribly so that year shouldn't be included in the sample size of their supposed decline.  

 

IF they can get a bonafide second line to take the pressure off, the Sedins would still be top five scorers, adding Loiu should keep them close to a point per game until their contacts are up though.  Their decline has been fabricated.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

 

 

To do this we need probably 5 or more good prospects, with 2 at least being ELITE. So that's a lot... To do that reliably, you need high draft choices... You can trade for some of it, but the price is exorbitant... 

 

 

The scariest thing that could happen to this club is just missing the playoffs year after year and picking mid first round....that is a cycle no club wants to be in AKA Calgary a few years back before Kipper and Iginla left.  We would have to really suck to get five good prospects (we have one now so check it off!) I was nine the first time we went to the final and the Islanders had their way with us in four (but we still held on to what if).  Heart broken in 94, re-broken in 2011.  This team seems to make it to a final every fifteen years or so.  Now with league parity that might change, but don't expect things will change much given how many teams are in the league now and how hard it is to make it to the final and win a cup.   Hopefully the fourth time is the charm, but expect Linden will be approaching 60 by the time that happens, Benning will be long gone, and Horvat will be on his third or fourth team and looking to sign a one or two year contract to finish up a decent career.   Five good prospects and two Elite means five years of bottom dwelling, (kind of like we did in the "Dark Ages" after Bure, Linden, Ronning, Mogilny, Adams, Courtnall, Babych, Lumme, and co left )which I don't think this club is willing to engineer given JB body of work so far and what they keep telling us....(squezzing the Sedins for all their worth while re-tooling?re-building?)...but it is the norm when a team dominates and then regresses like ours has, it is hard to let go of the past and all the winning, hope clouds judgement and nobody is willing to blow things up when you factor that in.

 

My point is be prepared for some disappointment, odds are we wont get our five prospects until the Sedins are done, but also know that in time we will have another shot.

[yes we can nucks]

1 hour ago, Edge said:

Ok, so you do remember that the 2011 squad was by no means considered to be a contender right? That year was an anomaly at best.

It's not what I remember at all.  I do remember the Canucks were tops in the league with a 54-19-9 record for 117 pts, 10 more than the next best team, Washington.  They were also tops in GF (262), GA (185), PP (24.3%), and PK (85.6% - tied with Wash.).

Our goalies' save % was tops at .928.  Henrik was the points leader, and Daniel was the assist leader.

And the Canucks got to the conference semi-final in the previous two seasons.

If all this didn't make them a contender, I don't know what would!

 

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, yes we can nucks said:

It's not what I remember at all.  I do remember the Canucks were tops in the league with a 54-19-9 record for 117 pts, 10 more than the next best team, Washington.  They were also tops in GF (262), GA (185), PP (24.3%), and PK (85.6% - tied with Wash.).

Our goalies' save % was tops at .928.  Henrik was the points leader, and Daniel was the assist leader.

And the Canucks got to the conference semi-final in the previous two seasons.

If all this didn't make them a contender, I don't know what would!

 

Thats what I remember too!

[erkayloomeh]

9 hours ago, springer said:

A little bit of perspective helps clarify reality.

 

The 'Nucks got mercilessly and absolutely hammered by injuries last season. Of course it changed the outcome.

 

Only two of 'em played 82 games: Bo Horvat and Daniel Sediin.

 

Daniel finished the season with 28 goals and 33 assists, 61 points.

 

Henrik played 74 games...many while injured...and racked up 11 goals and 44 assists, 55 points.

 

Don't sound like a couple of guys past their prime to me.

 

Take a look at the signings yesterday. How many of them matched those kinds of stats? Truth be told, darn few...and we managed to sign one of the very few who did.

 

Every season the two of them show up to camp in top physical condition, despite their age, and put the heat on players a helluva lot younger to try and keep up with them!

 

Don't kid yourselves, a lot of teams envy the 'Nucks good fortune to have two players of this caliber.

 

And BTW, while speaking of perspective...

 

Highest shot percentage on the team...by far...at 18.8%? That would be Jannik Hansen. That stat puts him up there with some of the best in the league...most of whom make probably double the money he does!

 

Just sayin'...

 

 

Great post 

[Crabcakes]

10 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Too good to be bad enough.

 

True Hansen got goals and a good shooting percentage last year, playing with the Sedins.

 

There is so much disconnect with this management group, LE just got put on the PP, PK and with the Sedins. I kinda wondered as I heard this, what does the coach think or do for that matter.

 

It seems fairly obvious to me that management is looking to give the Sedins another two year extension, no big deal there but there is a big hope, their heir apparent's are already on board. That would mean bottoming out in 2018.

 

Should the team put another 6 miliion dollar man out there blocking shots? Is that really a good idea? Benning seems to think so.

There is so much disconnect between what you post and what this management group is doing.  Time to get a new set of glasses Mr Myopia.

 

Seriously, you are one big a$$ troll.  Or just after attention.

[Forsy]

On 7/2/2016 at 4:39 PM, Aircool said:

I think you forgot to replace the "no" with "all"... It makes no sense still, but it makes more sense.

 

I mean... I don't want to spend another hour writing a post... that I just won't be satisfied with... I edited the last one with this invitation, I'll make it again... Hop on the Canucks Discord, I'll help you if you need it... Let's have a discussion... we can go through our posts together and elaborate or something... I think you are horribly wrong... Either super naive or optimistic, or just incapable of making objective/accurate assessments. I'm more than willing to explain why... Just not going to spend another hour writing a LONG LONG post that you will struggle to comprehensively address and to remember all my points when doing so.

I have the same assessment of you, and your reply just confirms it.

[harrytoolips]

On July 2, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Aircool said:

 

I'm not endorsing trading the Sedins, it isn't necessary for a proper rebuild. This team would be historically bad if you took them off of it though.

 

The rest of your nonsense is something about not blocking players from taking a spot in the lineup. Which players? Who are we not blocking? We don't have anyone to block? Boeser is in the NCAA, he's currently our only real prospect that you would regret blocking (and he's being blocked). We have some intriguing guys who have stood out like Zhukenov, but we'll see how good he becomes. He will need AHL time. The issue is the fact that WE AREN'T BLOCKING ANYONE. With the bloated roster we have, and how poor it is... You would hope that we'd actually have some prospects that we're blocking that are worth creating spots for. WE DON'T.

 

We're not giving up 2nd and 3rds and what not for sleepers. We are giving it up for low upside.. We are giving it up for the very things you say we don't need more of. Erik Gudbranson is a low upside player. It's that simple. He's a shutdown defender with virtually no offensive game. Or to be more accurate, with an offensive game that is rudimentary for the NHL. He can shoot the puck well enough, that you'd let him shoot the puck. But he doesn't have any particular success doing so. 

 

Shayne Gostisbehere was a 3rd round pick. He looks to be a stud. Philly looks like they have a lot of stud defensemen... Just like we often have stud goalies... Certain organizations have more success developing certain positions/roles better than others (Like how we do well developing Goalies)... Which probably had something to do with that, but the rest was luck...  The thing about higher draft picks, is that essentially draft selections are made by all teams with 3 considerations.. Upside, NHL Readiness, Bust Potential. It's pretty much that simple, it's all they consider... They evaluate those 3 factors based on their scouting.... How good could he be? How close is he? What's his floor? Like Virtanen for example, not the highest upside pick at #6... (cough cough Nylander)... But he's big and can skate really well... Low bust potential with good upside.

 

You have two choices... Luck out into a player with all-star potential.. Or take the statistically most likely path to that player... We may well luck out, we did with Boeser (at least we hope...), we need to luck out more. Or we need to take the most likely path to those players.

 

Some of what you want to hear is above... Most of it isn't.

 

I'll keep it simple. I want the highest likelihood of a cup winning team in Vancouver... I saw 2011, I've seen Vancouver in a final. The only thing I haven't seen is Vancouver winning the cup. After they win the cup, I'm okay to have their name in the mix for a few years, just missing the playoffs others. The ebbs and flows of a franchise... But I want us to get our first cup first. Then I'll live with mild success.

 

To do this we need probably 5 or more good prospects, with 2 at least being ELITE. So that's a lot... To do that reliably, you need high draft choices... You can trade for some of it, but the price is exorbitant... 

 

I don't mind signing players such that we can avoid putting our young players in roles they aren't ready for, but I see no use in signing Eriksson, he doesn't help this team win a cup... He probably only hurts... His contract may one day prevent us from signing a young player to a long term contract... The cap isn't going to climb much... Unless the league gets a lot healthier... This year was a bad year.

 

To Address Both of You:

 

I'm hearing people complain about Edmonton a lot, as a bad example... Not sure why people do that... It's really stupid. So given that it's been brought up by Forsy, and Deb you might bring it up... Let me just refute it.

 

Edmonton selected: Taylor Hall, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Nail Yakupov, Leon Draisaitl, Connor McDavid, and Jesse Puljujarvi with their Top-5 picks over the years. Yakupov was a bust, let's be honest, but the draft was really CRAPPY.... The rest of those players are better than any prospect we have, or any young player in our lineup... Basically, Bo Horvat is worse than all of them. Boeser may end up being better than a couple. MAYBE. We'll see.

 

So... they have better talent than us? So what went wrong? well.... EVERYTHING ELSE.... I'm not entirely sure they intended to tank as long as they did... It shouldn't take that long... Their problem was that they couldn't draft outside the Top-5 with any sort of proficiency.... They just missed on everything. No team in the league can do that and win, no matter what. You just can't.

 

EDIT: by the way, CDC has a Discord Server now.. I'd love to talk to you via microphone, or just in text there... where it's easier to convey a complex opinion... I spent like an hour trying to write this, and I'm very dissatisfied with it.... It's essentially anonymous as well.. Unlike skyping with people. PM me if you are interested.

Gudbranson was drafted 3rd overall, so he definitely has offensive upside..and as per your previous post on our 2ndary scoring

 after the 1st line, you take away any teams top line and they have pathetic scoring..