THIS IS THE DAY, Canucks get #7

[The Lock]

On 2018-04-12 at 7:51 PM, canucksnihilist said:

well for the few spaces "open" we could have just used the players that played the last 20 games...  that got into the lineup due to injuries.  Obviously their roles would be diminished, and no serious burden put on them - but you would be surprised what happens when you give someone opportunities... sometimes they actually might take advantage of it and show what they can do!  Look at Goldobin and Virtanen (last 2 years)... they were basically forced into the lineup because of injuries, and lo and behold!  Once they get used to playing at the NHL level, and they aren't in a position with a ton of pressure, they actually become serviceable NHL players, who can start to show something of worth.  Without injuries, those 2 players would not have shown anything at all, and would be busts.

 

Is that the best way to develop players?  Don't time it out and decide which games to get them involved in and which games to put them in more advanced roles... just have injuries force your hand so you don't have to plan anything at all... is that really the best way?  Not that the team was doing that, they were bringing in players to try to prevent the young players from having any chance at showing what they can do - to "protect them".  What a load of BS imho. 

 

Seriously, what is wrong with leaving a few spots open for young players to compete for?  Why do you have to flood all spots with FAs who are average players?  What's the point?  You never see what your young players can do, and you end up losing way more games - you can't say the team has been competitive at all...  so what's the risk?  that the team will finish 30th instead of 26th?  Better to see what the middle of the road veterans you signed in FA can do with your existing team?  So you can do what exactly?

 

And I'm only talking about 1 or 2 spots here... I think this paternalism management thing is just nuts.  It's the new political correctness of CDC.  I'm not buying it.  Give the young players a chance - you don't have to ruin them by putting pressure on them, but you can give them opportunities.

 

/another endrant

First of all, I somewhat agree in having at least 1 spot open, if not 2.

 

I think there needs to be a balance really. I like the idea of having roster spots open to young players, but too many spots open would also potentially imply rushing them into the lineup and, if Virtanen is any indication of how well rushing a player goes, we might want to think about that rather than just not signing anyone come free agency.

 

That being said, too much competition can also be detrimental in my opinion. Our young players still need to be able to earn those roster spots and not have to fight out 5 other FA's in order to do that. While it would likely not be in our best interest to hand over those spots and allow for laziness to creep in, it would also not be in our best interest to overwork them.

 

I think protecting our players is a fair argument so long that it's not done in overkill. Having more experienced bodies on the ice can do that and I don't see your argument really having anything that says why we shouldn't be doing that. Do you really want our young players to get more injured, have shorter careers, be less productive due to them having a harder time than need be in their first year? Not protecting them to an extent can, not just potentially but most likely, do that. Of course, like I already said, having too much competition can also do that, so there's that balance.

 

 

[canucksnihilist]

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

First of all, I somewhat agree in having at least 1 spot open, if not 2.

 

I think there needs to be a balance really. I like the idea of having roster spots open to young players, but too many spots open would also potentially imply rushing them into the lineup and, if Virtanen is any indication of how well rushing a player goes, we might want to think about that rather than just not signing anyone come free agency.

 

That being said, too much competition can also be detrimental in my opinion. Our young players still need to be able to earn those roster spots and not have to fight out 5 other FA's in order to do that. While it would likely not be in our best interest to hand over those spots and allow for laziness to creep in, it would also not be in our best interest to overwork them.

 

I think protecting our players is a fair argument so long that it's not done in overkill. Having more experienced bodies on the ice can do that and I don't see your argument really having anything that says why we shouldn't be doing that. Do you really want our young players to get more injured, have shorter careers, be less productive due to them having a harder time than need be in their first year? Not protecting them to an extent can, not just potentially but most likely, do that. Of course, like I already said, having too much competition can also do that, so there's that balance.

 

 

agree there is a balance.

 

of course they . still have to earn the time - but the truth is that young players who need to develop won't beat out middling FAs who play a solid if unspectacular

game, as they will be better in their own zone, among other things.

 

I don't see the connection to getting the young players injured and having short careers.  where does that come from?

 

[bloodycanuckleheads]

On 12/04/2018 at 7:51 PM, canucksnihilist said:

 

Seriously, what is wrong with leaving a few spots open for young players to compete for?  Why do you have to flood all spots with FAs who are average players? 

Prospects are, by definition, not good enough to play in the NHL (yet).  So, all things being equal, which team is going to win:  one team with 23 NHL-caliber players - or another team with 19 NHL-caliber players and 4 non-NHL-caliber players?  Actually, we all know the answer to this question, because our team has been chock-full of non-NHL-caliber players for years now.  It leads to lottery-picks, not the playoffs.

[Pete M]

On 4/12/2018 at 8:51 PM, canucksnihilist said:

well for the few spaces "open" we could have just used the players that played the last 20 games...  that got into the lineup due to injuries.  Obviously their roles would be diminished, and no serious burden put on them - but you would be surprised what happens when you give someone opportunities... sometimes they actually might take advantage of it and show what they can do!  Look at Goldobin and Virtanen (last 2 years)... they were basically forced into the lineup because of injuries, and lo and behold!  Once they get used to playing at the NHL level, and they aren't in a position with a ton of pressure, they actually become serviceable NHL players, who can start to show something of worth.  Without injuries, those 2 players would not have shown anything at all, and would be busts.

 

Is that the best way to develop players?  Don't time it out and decide which games to get them involved in and which games to put them in more advanced roles... just have injuries force your hand so you don't have to plan anything at all... is that really the best way?  Not that the team was doing that, they were bringing in players to try to prevent the young players from having any chance at showing what they can do - to "protect them".  What a load of BS imho. 

 

Seriously, what is wrong with leaving a few spots open for young players to compete for?  Why do you have to flood all spots with FAs who are average players?  What's the point?  You never see what your young players can do, and you end up losing way more games - you can't say the team has been competitive at all...  so what's the risk?  that the team will finish 30th instead of 26th?  Better to see what the middle of the road veterans you signed in FA can do with your existing team?  So you can do what exactly?

 

And I'm only talking about 1 or 2 spots here... I think this paternalism management thing is just nuts.  It's the new political correctness of CDC.  I'm not buying it.  Give the young players a chance - you don't have to ruin them by putting pressure on them, but you can give them opportunities.

 

/another endrant

bold part....case and point...Las Vegas.

[Pete M]

could argue that some of the vets were handed spots, when you look back at how they performed this year...at the end, it was the young guns that contribute the most (along with the Sedins) to the 6-1-2 record in the last 9 games.

 

Hope management is paying attention.

[canucksnihilist]

9 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Prospects are, by definition, not good enough to play in the NHL (yet).  So, all things being equal, which team is going to win:  one team with 23 NHL-caliber players - or another team with 19 NHL-caliber players and 4 non-NHL-caliber players?  Actually, we all know the answer to this question, because our team has been chock-full of non-NHL-caliber players for years now.  It leads to lottery-picks, not the playoffs.

lets see... Boeser was scratched for 2 games.  goldobin sat out.  These are NHL caliber players, just as good as anything else we have / had.  Or do you think Granlund or Gagner would be miles above the talent of these 2 players???

 

its not as black and white as you suggest.  the players who would be competing for those spots would be NHL caliber players.  don't forget the difference between an average NHL player and someone who doesn't make it is NOT very large.  More to do with opportunity, and effort.  

 

so I don't buy it.  Often you get more talented players competing for that spot than a lot of players in the lineup.  There are considerations as to what role the team needs etc...

 

Datsyk came into the league as a 171st pick in his year.  The Red Wings, a playoff contending team, gave him a spot in his first year (he beat out some competition), and he wasn't very good.  he was an average NHL player.  But given that chance, after a year of playing he started to shine.  Good story eh?  But if the Wings had flooded their roster with FAs, Datsyk would have been in the minors for his first few years - he probably would have made it eventually of course, but it would have been mismanagement of the Wings if they had done that (of course nobody would ever know he wasted a few years in the minors... lol)

 

/peace

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Pete M said:

bold part....case and point...Las Vegas.

Case in point, that team is largely made up of exactly the type of mid level players y'all are complaining about signing instead of giving kids free passes.

[Caknuckle Puck]

4 hours ago, Pete M said:

could argue that some of the vets were handed spots, when you look back at how they performed this year...at the end, it was the young guns that contribute the most (along with the Sedins) to the 6-1-2 record in the last 9 games.

 

Hope management is paying attention.

again most teams are relaxing before playoffs or teams are icing bad lines for tank mode

[Nucker 67]

1-3 (lottery pick)

6. Bouchard

7. Dobson

8. Wahlstrom

9. Hughes

 

(I'm assuming Tkachuk and Boqvist are taken #4 and #5)

 

Canucks have a few D in the system that could turn out to be payers (Brisebois, McEneny, Sautner, Chatfield, Rathbone, Brassard), but they still lack that #1-2. Dahlin or Boqvist could fix that, but not sure we get one of them. .

 

I expect Edler, Tanev, Del Zotto, Biega and Hutton to all be gone within 2 years. Benning may also fill a couple of spots with UFAs.

 

Juolevi - Bouchard/Dobson

Brisebois - Stecher

Sautner - Gudbranson

Rathbone - Chatfield

Brassard

 

 

 

 

[canucksnihilist]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Case in point, that team is largely made up of exactly the type of mid level players y'all are complaining about signing instead of giving kids free passes.

why is everything black and white for almost everyone?  Holy $&!# I mean its fine, but how about this:  nobody is 100% right, and nobody is 100% wrong... even about things you care about.  So many assumptions ...

 

I was never suggesting that mid level players are not required by every NHL team.  So it is not surprising that a team has a bunch of them, or that some of them turned out to be potential stars.  I would argue that every team also needs a few up and coming players who are contributing and finding their games.  

 

so not sure what you are trying to say...

[Pete M]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Case in point, that team is largely made up of exactly the type of mid level players y'all are complaining about signing instead of giving kids free passes.

its about opportunity...this coming year there should be lots of opportunity for the young players. Hopefully, the vets don't get free passes (i.e., LE and Gagner), which you know they will.

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, canucksnihilist said:

why is everything black and white for almost everyone?  Holy $&!# I mean its fine, but how about this:  nobody is 100% right, and nobody is 100% wrong... even about things you care about.  So many assumptions ...

 

I was never suggesting that mid level players are not required by every NHL team.  So it is not surprising that a team has a bunch of them, or that some of them turned out to be potential stars.  I would argue that every team also needs a few up and coming players who are contributing and finding their games.  

 

so not sure what you are trying to say...

lol, I'm not sure what you think I'm being '100%' about but I agree that nuance in context is decidedly missing from most conversations these days and it's sad. And not just on CDC.

 

I blame twitter.

 

I was simply pointing out the silliness of on one hand damning the team for signing middling vets and then on the other, attempting to hold up the VGK's as some shining example of 'give prospects a chance' when they're actually a FAR better example of why middling vets make for a better NHL team than prospects who aren't ready 

 

8 minutes ago, Pete M said:

its about opportunity...this coming year there should be lots of opportunity for the young players. Hopefully, the vets don't get free passes (i.e., LE and Gagner), which you know they will.

I don't think they were given 'free passes' last year and I don't think they'll be given free passes next year either.

[Pete M]

32 minutes ago, aGENT said:

lol, I'm not sure what you think I'm being '100%' about but I agree that nuance in context is decidedly missing from most conversations these days and it's sad. And not just on CDC.

 

I blame twitter.

 

I was simply pointing out the silliness of on one hand damning the team for signing middling vets and then on the other, attempting to hold up the VGK's as some shining example of 'give prospects a chance' when they're actually a FAR better example of why middling vets make for a better NHL team than prospects who aren't ready 

 

I don't think they were given 'free passes' last year and I don't think they'll be given free passes next year either.

Hope not...I believe management is finally getting on board to develop the young guns and produce a fast, high tempo game that comes with having young legs with a few vets as support (LE, Sutter, Edler). They are better off without Gagner considering the up and coming are skilled, fast and tops in their respective leagues and a player like Kane brings more than a Gagner.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Hope not...I believe management is finally getting on board to develop the young guns and produce a fast, high tempo game that comes with having young legs with a few vets as support (LE, Sutter, Edler). They are better off without Gagner considering the up and coming are skilled, fast and tops in their respective leagues and a player like Kane brings more than a Gagner.

Management hasn't ever not been 'on board'. It takes time to build up NHL ready 'young legs'. 

 

Yes, Kane theoretically (should we sign him) would be higher up the depth chart. I'm not sure who was arguing otherwise? Signing Kane might fill a spot from one of those skilled top 6 forwards we have coming up though 

[mikeyman109]

5 hours ago, aGENT said:

lol, I'm not sure what you think I'm being '100%' about but I agree that nuance in context is decidedly missing from most conversations these days and it's sad. And not just on CDC.

 

I blame twitter.

 

I was simply pointing out the silliness of on one hand damning the team for signing middling vets and then on the other, attempting to hold up the VGK's as some shining example of 'give prospects a chance' when they're actually a FAR better example of why middling vets make for a better NHL team than prospects who aren't ready 

 

I don't think they were given 'free passes' last year and I don't think they'll be given free passes next year either.

I don't think anyone wants to hand out a free pass but you cannot argue the fact the Bruins have added more than one Rookie to the team this year and they have stepped in and played well. With a rebuilding team we need to see what we have. We wont know until they play a few NHL games. Brock was an example. i know there are players who step in right away and fall face first. We will see that also. But i am seeing enough of the players Benning has picked up to think they will make the right decision on the right players.Dahlen and Petterson might not be ready this season. But as we go we will see who is ready at Camp and maybe another one or two surprise us all.I will get excited when we see what piece of the puzzle we add in June and what a healthy line up looks like in October.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, mikeyman109 said:

I don't think anyone wants to hand out a free pass but you cannot argue the fact the Bruins have added more than one Rookie to the team this year and they have stepped in and played well. With a rebuilding team we need to see what we have. We wont know until they play a few NHL games. Brock was an example. i know there are players who step in right away and fall face first. We will see that also. But i am seeing enough of the players Benning has picked up to think they will make the right decision on the right players.Dahlen and Petterson might not be ready this season. But as we go we will see who is ready at Camp and maybe another one or two surprise us all.I will get excited when we see what piece of the puzzle we add in June and what a healthy line up looks like in October.

The Bruins are a different team, with different players and are generally in their own, different and unique situation. 

 

It really has very little bearing on what the Canucks do.

[Pete M]

13 hours ago, aGENT said:

The Bruins are a different team, with different players and are generally in their own, different and unique situation. 

 

It really has very little bearing on what the Canucks do.

that's why they are tops in the league and the Canucks are bottom of the league...Canucks could learn from them or they could bury their head in the sand and not learn.

[aGENT]

18 minutes ago, Pete M said:

that's why they are tops in the league and the Canucks are bottom of the league...Canucks could learn from them or they could bury their head in the sand and not learn.

Canucks could have learned to have a younger core (dip the twins in youth serum?) after 2011 and better drafting during the Mike Gillis era?

 

Different team, completely different situation.

[Pete M]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Canucks could have learned to have a younger core (dip the twins in youth serum?) after 2011 and better drafting during the Mike Gillis era?

 

Different team, completely different situation.

Hope they are now on the right path to building a better team than Boston...got a feeling though that JB still likes the old guys.

[aGENT]

20 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Hope they are now on the right path to building a better team than Boston...got a feeling though that JB still likes the old guys.

I like bananas.