[Speculation] Las Vegas is going to have a better team than the Canucks...

[MoneypuckOverlord]

I'm fine with getting better lottery odds next April.  We are rebuilding.

[canuktravella]

8 hours ago, Chip Kelly said:

I ran the Vegas build a team sim over at TSN...

 

Vegas is gonna have a legit d and be solid in nets to push for a playoff spot.

 

Up front they are gonna have guys like Stepan, Killorn, Jenner, JVR, Ennis, Eaves,Stempniak, just to name a few

 

On d Mike Green, Calvin de Haan, Jared Spurgeon, Nathan Beaulieu, Jamie Oleskiak, Justin Schultz, Robert Bortuzzo and Paul Postma and party boy Michael Del Zotto.

 

That's stacked....

 

Fleury and Grubauer in the pipes with Raanta.

 

Canucks are gonna suck Vegas will make the playoffs before Vancouver ever will.

half thoughs players will be traded before they go to vegas jenner is going no where killorn stephan beaulieu will be trade bait before they give them away for free lol

[Rush17]

I'm curious where silverfberg ends up.

 

I'd be happy to pay the 55th pick and a low end roster player.  will payments dip since teams are under a time crunch? 

 

I could see the Isle pushing for Silverfberg

[IBatch]

12 hours ago, coastal.view said:

i still think they might take biega

Too old.  Maybe Pedan, or Gaunce, or Sbisa.  Or Boucher.

[mll]

27 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

I'm curious where silverfberg ends up.

 

I'd be happy to pay the 55th pick and a low end roster player.  will payments dip since teams are under a time crunch? 

 

I could see the Isle pushing for Silverfberg

Staying in Anaheim.

From the NHL website:  https://www.nhl.com/news/expansion-draft-buzz-marko-dano-agrees-to-one-year-contract-with-winnipeg/c-289910858

 

Quote

5:10 p.m.

Ducks have deal in place with Golden Knights

The Anaheim Ducks do not need defenseman Kevin Bieksa to waive his no-movement clause because they have a prearranged deal in place with the Vegas Golden Knights, TSN reported.

Anaheim would need to protect Bieksa, 35, in the expansion draft, or could buy out his contract. The deal in place with Vegas likely involves the Golden Knights passing on one of the Ducks' other top players, a group that likely includes forwards Rickard Rakell and Jakob Silfverberg and defenseman Josh Manson. Anaheim defensemen Shea Theodore and Brandon Montour are exempt from the expansion draft.

Bieksa has one year remaining on his contract.

 

[mll]

42 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Too old.  Maybe Pedan, or Gaunce, or Sbisa.  Or Boucher.

He would be a good choice for their AHL team.  McPhee wants to add prospects pre-entry draft by trading some of the players he selected - they are likely exempt players who will either be back in juniors or start in the AHL.  They need some veterans on their AHL team that are going to bring leadership and help build their culture.

Biega wore the C in Harvard and also in Utica.  He is likely a veteran that can go through waivers without being claimed.

[Ghostsof1915]

7 hours ago, MoneypuckOverlord said:

I'm fine with getting better lottery odds next April.  We are rebuilding.

What's the point? We've just lost two draft lotteries in a row. 

Even Colorado is drafting at 4th. 

Even if we finish dead last, the Canucks will draft fourth. We've NEVER had luck at a draft lottery since 1970. 

 

[ice orca]

30 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

What's the point? We've just lost two draft lotteries in a row. 

Even Colorado is drafting at 4th. 

Even if we finish dead last, the Canucks will draft fourth. We've NEVER had luck at a draft lottery since 1970. 

 

Maybe get another 1st rounder next year to increase the odds.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

It's going to be interesting to see how Vegas stacks up against us. And if they're better, what that says about what's been going on in Vancouver the past few years.

 

I've come back to this question a few times over the past year:

 

If I was looking to build a team, which of these two options would be the more favourable starting point:

 

(A) starting from scratch under the current expansion rules

 

(B) starting with the 2014 Vancouver roster (including reserves) and getting a three year head start in drafting, development, trading, and free agency

 

For me, option (B) is a far better starting point. 

 

And so when we're talking about Vegas possibly being a better team in 2017-18 than Vancouver, it does force a few difficult questions about the current regime IMO.

[IBatch]

15 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

It's going to be interesting to see how Vegas stacks up against us. And if they're better, what that says about what's been going on in Vancouver the past few years.

 

I've come back to this question a few times over the past year:

 

If I was looking to build a team, which of these two options would be the more favourable starting point:

 

(A) starting from scratch under the current expansion rules

 

(B) starting with the 2014 Vancouver roster (including reserves) and getting a three year head start in drafting, development, trading, and free agency

 

For me, option (B) is a far better starting point. 

 

And so when we're talking about Vegas possibly being a better team in 2017-18 than Vancouver, it does force a few difficult questions about the current regime IMO.

Vegas will likely ice a better team this year.  However we will leapfrog them most definitely in two or three years when our existing prospects make an impact.  They won't start out with much prospect wise, we have three years drafting where as they have zero.  

[CanadianRugby]

Vegas might be better, at least on paper.  I've never seen this team in worse shape so it's not exactly hard.  Though Vegas will be targeting players that they can trade for picks at the deadline, so their roster is going to be changing a lot probably for the worse partway through the year. 

[Screw]

I am waiting to be knocked out of the top three in next years draft. so no biggie.  

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

Vegas might be better, at least on paper.  I've never seen this team in worse shape so it's not exactly hard.  Though Vegas will be targeting players that they can trade for picks at the deadline, so their roster is going to be changing a lot probably for the worse partway through the year. 

This to me is comparable to the days Gelinas was our top scorer and we had a revolving goalie door of washed up discarded used to be good stoppers.. Potvin, Irbe,Burke, and my favourite back-up Bob Essensa.   The roster was constantly changing and gone were Bure, Mogilny, Linden, McLean etc.  Still watched games live and followed the team religiously but it was pretty grim.

 

To me we aren't quite there yet ( the very very bottom).  That wont happen until the Sedins retire and the team struggles to fill that gaping hole, whether it's the second line or still the first we don't have anyone in the system yet to replace them.  Green is very good and appropriate coach for this team, but he's going to have to pull a Bowman to keep us competive.

[CanadianRugby]

8 minutes ago, IBatch said:

This to me is comparable to the days Gelinas was our top scorer and we had a revolving goalie door of washed up discarded used to be good stoppers.. Potvin, Irbe,Burke, and my favourite back-up Bob Essensa.   The roster was constantly changing and gone were Bure, Mogilny, Linden, McLean etc.  Still watched games live and followed the team religiously but it was pretty grim.

 

To me we aren't quite there yet ( the very very bottom).  That wont happen until the Sedins retire and the team struggles to fill that gaping hole, whether it's the second line or still the first we don't have anyone in the system yet to replace them.  Green is very good and appropriate coach for this team, but he's going to have to pull a Bowman to keep us competive.

When Irbe was our starter in '97-98 we had guys like Bure on the team, Bertuzzi, McCabe, Linden, Mogilny, Naslund, Ohlund, Messier, Lumme... and were 10th highest scoring team (although the team overall was awful).  So not really a similar situation at all.  There's no Linden to trade for Bertuzzi/McCabe, no Bure to trade for Jovo & 1st rounder.  

 

This team is worse than that team and doesn't have those quality assets to trade for picks/players.  It's also a lot softer and more boring to watch.  For me anyways, this is a new low. 

[IBatch]

58 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

When Irbe was our starter in '97-98 we had guys like Bure on the team, Bertuzzi, McCabe, Linden, Mogilny, Naslund, Ohlund, Messier, Lumme... and were 10th highest scoring team (although the team overall was awful).  So not really a similar situation at all.  There's no Linden to trade for Bertuzzi/McCabe, no Bure to trade for Jovo & 1st rounder.  

 

This team is worse than that team and doesn't have those quality assets to trade for picks/players.  It's also a lot softer and more boring to watch.  For me anyways, this is a new low. 

I meant it reminded me of the transition of the 91-94 core...yes we had good players coming in, especially from Linden, but our all star roster disappeared and we had at the time what appeared as not much in return.  If you lived through it you would know what I mean, there are similarities to what is happening now.

[BCNate]

Las Vegas will put together a nice roster via the expansion draft.  That is what a $500 million expansion fee will get you.  Where they will struggle is building up a solid prospect pool.  They are farther away from competing than any current team.

[RakuRaku]

I don't get the true meaning of this thread! Doesn't take a genius to see Vegas will have a better team than us next season!! Vegas will get a way better pool of available players AND first dips in UFA market!! This is like 100x better than when Ottawa and Tampa came to the league!

[tyhee]

On 2017-06-15 at 11:55 AM, cyoung said:

They will hold their own in year one. But keep in mind, they will not have any depth, creating that depth will take a while

Theoretically, they may have pretty good depth to start.

 

If every team protects the maximum number of players (7 forwards + 3 defencemen + 1 goalie=11 players) then the Knights end up with 30 players who are in the top 12 of their former teams players with more than 2 years pro experience.  It is safe to say that most teams, and certainly the bottom-feeders, are likely going to be using players in their 23 man rosters who are worse than their former #12 players who were selected in the expansion draft.

 

Accordingly, at the bottom end, the Knights figure to be deep.  Their top 11 should be weaker then most teams, but their bottom 12 (out of 23) rate to be stronger.  They rate to have less top-end strength but there shouldn't be the drop-off at the bottom end that most NHL teams have.   It is even possible that the Knights would end up having to place one or more useful players on waivers this fall.

 

Their prospect depth may be pretty weak.  Obviously, the only recent draft choices they'll start with have to already have more than 2 pro years of experience-and the better young players will be protected, leaving the Knights without top-end prospects.  They'll get their crack at Gaunce and others of his approximate quality, but not Horvat and the players on other teams of similar quality.

 

Of course, all this is theory.  What actually happens will depend on what actual decisions made by the Knights and the other franchises.

[khay]

12 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

It's going to be interesting to see how Vegas stacks up against us. And if they're better, what that says about what's been going on in Vancouver the past few years.

 

I've come back to this question a few times over the past year:

 

If I was looking to build a team, which of these two options would be the more favourable starting point:

 

(A) starting from scratch under the current expansion rules

 

(B) starting with the 2014 Vancouver roster (including reserves) and getting a three year head start in drafting, development, trading, and free agency

 

For me, option (B) is a far better starting point. 

 

And so when we're talking about Vegas possibly being a better team in 2017-18 than Vancouver, it does force a few difficult questions about the current regime IMO.

(B). The CDC favourite plan can be put to work.

 

2014-15 season: Tank hard. Trade everyone away for picks. Go for either McDavid or Eichel in 2015. If that fails, draft Marner or Werenski. If somehow the team overachieves because the Sedins and Edler refused to waive their NTC, well, at least, draft Boeser. No, threaten the Sedins and Edler and their family so that they'd waive their NTC.

 

2015-16 season: Tank hard. If anyone over 25 was not traded off last season, trade them for picks. Pick either Matthews or Laine. If the lottery odds don't align in our favour, well, worst case, pick Tkachuk.

 

Best case scenario: McDavid-Matthews-Horvat down the middle = dynasty, probably 7-8 cups in the next 10 seasons.

Worst case scenario: Tkachuk-Horvat-Boeser first line for the next 10 years.

 

In 2015 draft, unless the Sedins and Edler were threatened off of the team, there is no way the team could have tanked hard enough to draft McDavid.

In 2016 draft, we had 3rd best chance at getting either Matthews or Laine and yet, we didn't. So the only thing we could have done differently is probably pick Tkachuk over Juolevi, which is debatable.

 

Jokes aside, I wonder if rolling back time to the end of 2014 season would lead to a better team than the one we have now. 

 

I don't think so. Even if we had the hindsight of how the players drafted developed, not by a large margin anyways. The only difference might be that if we missed the playoffs in 2015, then we might have picked in the top 10 and draft Marner or Werenski over Boeser and in 2016 draft, assuming that we didn't win the lottery, we would be picking either Juolevi or Tkachuk (debatable). 

 

[kloubek]

Our team isnt as bad as many are making it out to be, imo.  Dont get me wrong... We are certainly bad.  That's what happens when management decides to keep going when our window was clearly already closed.   

 

But when guys like Eriksson weren't producing, the Sedins were on a major decline, and we hadn't developed or acquired any talented young blood, we couldnt have expected much.

 

What Benning has been quietly doing is building a solid complimentry team with young potential.  Baertschi, Granlund, Horvat, Eriksson, Stecher, Gudbranson, Goldobin and Hutton are all likely to be better next season.  Then weve added Boeser (who I believe is going to be a rising star in short order), and a handful of other solid prospects who should be given a chance in the next year or two, and maybe even a showing from Dahlen and JV.

 

The sky is not falling and we aren't a horrible team.  This season was hard to take but I'm willing to bet next year is much improved.... To the point that I actually think we will make the playoffs.  Sure, we would be ousted likely in the first round, but these are the typical pains of a rebuild.  All things considered, it has happened (or is happening) far faster than it does for most teams.

 

So do I believe LV will have a better team?  No I do not.  They will have a competitve team but I believe ours will also be better than most of you think it will be.