THIS IS THE DAY, Canucks get #7

[TheGuardian_]

12 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

That Carolina tank clearly paid off handsomely.    

Carolina? What? Last years' tank? Nah, I think they just got lucky this year.

 

Now you want to talk about a tank paying off, ça a payé pour Montréal.

 

 

[Gollumpus]

4 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Carolina? What? Last years' tank? Nah, I think they just got lucky this year.

 

Now you want to talk about a tank paying off, ça a payé pour Montréal.

Uhm, I believe he was being facetious there TG.

 

                                             regards,  G.

[TheGuardian_]

10 hours ago, Darius71 said:

Dont understand people who say the Canucks  should have tanked more. Like how? They played without their top two players up front for at least a quarter of the season, they played without Tanev for a good part of the season , they played with a revolving door of ahl d men, and the goaltending was suspect on many nights. 

 

when they start winning again, and they will! ... At least we can hold our heads up with pride knowing it wasn’t done with the equivalent of a welfare cheque top 3 pick gifted rom the league. 

 

Im excited to see who they will choose at 7 

Yep, the Canucks never planned a thing, they just plain sucked.

Hopefully something happens because the team is quickly sliding into the "mediocre" level, not good enough to win big and not bad enough to get star draft picks.

 

Two or three star players is not enough, the team needs those and an elite level player or two.

[Wilbur]

10 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Carolina? What? Last years' tank? Nah, I think they just got lucky this year.

 

Now you want to talk about a tank paying off, ça a payé pour Montréal.

 

 

Just like Philadelphia, Dallas, and New Jersey got lucky last year?  And Winnipeg the year before that?

So, 3 years of 3 lottery teams:

"Lucky"

Carolina

Dallas

Philadelphia

New Jersey

Winnipeg

 

"Genius Tank"

Toronto

Buffalo

 

hmmm, one list is longer than the other

 

[Boudrias]

33 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Carolina? What? Last years' tank? Nah, I think they just got lucky this year.

 

Now you want to talk about a tank paying off, ça a payé pour Montréal.

 

 

No respect for Montreal or Carolina management. Contrary to many on here I think Buffalo ended up where they should have. Previous management is responsible. I like Armstrong's resume and think he will turn it around. 

[aGENT]

8 hours ago, RRypien37 said:

Did I say that? All I am saying is the winning streak at the end of the season caused the drop in position, not a conspiracy, curse or bad luck. 

Or we could have won a few more games and landed in CAR's spot. 'Tanking' is pointless with the new lotto.

 

53 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Just like Philadelphia, Dallas, and New Jersey got lucky last year?  And Winnipeg the year before that?

So, 3 years of 3 lottery teams:

"Lucky"

Carolina

Dallas

Philadelphia

New Jersey

Winnipeg

 

"Genius Tank"

Toronto

Buffalo

 

hmmm, one list is longer than the other

 

 

[Darius]

1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Yep, the Canucks never planned a thing, they just plain sucked.

Hopefully something happens because the team is quickly sliding into the "mediocre" level, not good enough to win big and not bad enough to get star draft picks.

 

Two or three star players is not enough, the team needs those and an elite level player or two.

 

So you need to be "bad enough" to get "star draft picks" (whatever that means) in order to be successful?  How does this style of management stack up against the draft history of most of the teams left in the playoffs now?

 

Have a look at where these teams (all currently alive and kicking in round 2) drafted in the past 10 years.  The list of numbers indicates the draft position starting last year going back 9-10 years...

 

Nashville - 30, 17,55,11,4,37,38,18,11   
Winnipeg- 24,2,17,9,13,9,7   (Note:  the number 2 pick (Laine) was won....Vancouver finished lower than them that year )

Vegas - no real draft history but who on that roster is a top 3 pick? ...was Marchessault even drafted?  Karlsson drafted at 53..

San Jose - 19,60,9,27,18,17,47,28,43,62

Boston - 18,14,13,25,60,24,9,2,25,16  (picked in the top 3 once and traded that player away)

 

Of course you have Pittsburgh with Malkin and Crosby.  Do you, or anyone here, think that if the current anti-coiler draft rules were in place back in 2004-2006 they would have been able to win Crosby (1),Malkin(2),Staal(2) back to back to back?  lol...canucks finished bottom 3 twice...how did that work for them with these new rules?

 

To me it seems that drafting the right player , player development and team chemistry seems to be the way to go.  Those are 5 pretty strong teams I listed above...how many top 3 picks do you see there COMBINED?

 

[TheGuardian_]

2 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Just like Philadelphia, Dallas, and New Jersey got lucky last year?  And Winnipeg the year before that?

So, 3 years of 3 lottery teams:

"Lucky"

Carolina

Dallas

Philadelphia

New Jersey

Winnipeg

 

"Genius Tank"

Toronto

Buffalo

 

hmmm, one list is longer than the other

 

Under the new draft lottery tanking can be all the way to the top, tanking just to get a better chance at a top 3 pick, so more teams might/will tank at the end of the year just to get better odds at #11 or #12.

The opposite has happened from what the league intended, more teams tank now for better odds than in any of the old systems, this is being proven out by how many teams are dramatically moving up in the draft and teams needing the most help are being shuffled down.

 

Arizona and Buffalo are horrible examples of teams failing year after year despite good draft picks, due to internal caps or too many coaches or youth, whatever but they both have an incredible number of players under 23 yrs old that are of high NHL calibre individually.

 

Tanking today isn't just to be the worst in the league, it is to improve a chance of a top pick at the expense of games that no longer matter and smart teams are doing just that but because they aren't at the bottom, they aren't noticed/talked about.

 

1 hour ago, Darius71 said:

 

So you need to be "bad enough" to get "star draft picks" (whatever that means) in order to be successful?  How does this style of management stack up against the draft history of most of the teams left in the playoffs now?

 

Have a look at where these teams (all currently alive and kicking in round 2) drafted in the past 10 years.  The list of numbers indicates the draft position starting last year going back 9-10 years...

 

Nashville - 30, 17,55,11,4,37,38,18,11   
Winnipeg- 24,2,17,9,13,9,7   (Note:  the number 2 pick (Laine) was won....Vancouver finished lower than them that year )

Vegas - no real draft history but who on that roster is a top 3 pick? ...was Marchessault even drafted?  Karlsson drafted at 53..

San Jose - 19,60,9,27,18,17,47,28,43,62

Boston - 18,14,13,25,60,24,9,2,25,16  (picked in the top 3 once and traded that player away)

 

Of course you have Pittsburgh with Malkin and Crosby.  Do you, or anyone here, think that if the current anti-coiler draft rules were in place back in 2004-2006 they would have been able to win Crosby (1),Malkin(2),Staal(2) back to back to back?  lol...canucks finished bottom 3 twice...how did that work for them with these new rules?

 

To me it seems that drafting the right player , player development and team chemistry seems to be the way to go.  Those are 5 pretty strong teams I listed above...how many top 3 picks do you see there COMBINED?

 

Your examples show how much more work is needed on this team, most of those teams also have high draft picks from other teams that were acquired through trades or as FA's.

 

San Jose got Kane, a #4 overall pick

Winnipeg got Meyers - #12 Wheeler - #5 all together an additional 6 first rounders, but are also one of the biggest teams.

Boston has a couple of added 1rst's but they appear to be far and away excellent a drafting team over the last 4 years with 7 draft picks playing.

Nashville is composed mostly of their own picks but three/four of their most important players are early 1rst rounders' they traded for.

 

It does show that trading for top players is essential to build a team that goes from the top of mediocrity to contender.

[oldnews]

7 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

 

The opposite has happened from what the league intended, more teams tank now for better odds than in any of the old systems, this is being proven out by how many teams are dramatically moving up in the draft and teams needing the most help are being shuffled down.

 

your "logic"...isn't.

[TheGuardian_]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

your "logic"...isn't.

Think of it, before if the team was 5th to 15th there was no hope of getting a #1, 2 or 3 overall pick, now there is. At the end of he season and out of the playoffs picture what will 3 or 4 more losses count for? Nothing except an addition 1 to 3 % better chance at #1, 2 or 3 overall.

 

Look at the last ten games of most of the lottery teams, if they had played that poorly all year Arizona and Vancouver would have been in the playoffs. Most of those team suddenly were losing 3 out 5 games. Only the teams that were playing until the end for a wild card spot had winning records in the final 5 to 10 games of the season, most teams already out of the picture won a few more than their seasonal average.

 

From 17th to 31rst only 4 teams had winning records in the final 10 games. 21 teams finished the year over .500.

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Think of it,

you're outsmarting yourself here Guardian. 

[189lb enforcers?]

26 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Under the new draft lottery tanking can be all the way to the top, tanking just to get a better chance at a top 3 pick, so more teams might/will tank at the end of the year just to get better odds at #11 or #12.

The opposite has happened from what the league intended, more teams tank now for better odds than in any of the old systems, this is being proven out by how many teams are dramatically moving up in the draft and teams needing the most help are being shuffled down.

 

Arizona and Buffalo are horrible examples of teams failing year after year despite good draft picks, due to internal caps or too many coaches or youth, whatever but they both have an incredible number of players under 23 yrs old that are of high NHL calibre individually.

 

Tanking today isn't just to be the worst in the league, it is to improve a chance of a top pick at the expense of games that no longer matter and smart teams are doing just that but because they aren't at the bottom, they aren't noticed/talked about.

 

Your examples show how much more work is needed on this team, most of those teams also have high draft picks from other teams that were acquired through trades or as FA's.

 

San Jose got Kane, a #4 overall pick

Winnipeg got Meyers - #12 Wheeler - #5 all together an additional 6 first rounders, but are also one of the biggest teams.

Boston has a couple of added 1rst's but they appear to be far and away excellent a drafting team over the last 4 years with 7 draft picks playing.

Nashville is composed mostly of their own picks but three/four of their most important players are early 1rst rounders' they traded for.

 

It does show that trading for top players is essential to build a team that goes from the top of mediocrity to contender.

Tanking gets a random pick for the first round and then the top pick in each other round afterwards which is just as critical to getting the best BPA advantage, round after round after round. 

 

People get get hung up on that first pick like it’s the end of the story. 

[Me_]

The Canucks are very fortunate to have Benning as GM. Any 1st rounder is as close to 1OA as he can draft.

 

Virtanen

Juolevi

Boeser

Pettersson

[Rob_Zepp]

5 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Carolina? What? Last years' tank? Nah, I think they just got lucky this year.

 

Now you want to talk about a tank paying off, ça a payé pour Montréal.

 

 

Sorry, I didn't put sarcastic quotes to my note.   My point was, it is a lottery.   Someone was implying the the Canucks should have "tanked" and my point was they could have finished worse and still gotten a worse pick.   Seventh is just fine.

[CanadianRugby]

22 hours ago, SuperReverb2 said:

Buffalo with the top pick. Carolina Second. Montreal third. Guess it paid off for Buffalo to tank this year. 

 

 

Uh.. tanking doesn't work.

 

..except 2 out of last 3 years.

7 hours ago, Darius71 said:

 

So you need to be "bad enough" to get "star draft picks" (whatever that means) in order to be successful?  How does this style of management stack up against the draft history of most of the teams left in the playoffs now?

 

Have a look at where these teams (all currently alive and kicking in round 2) drafted in the past 10 years.  The list of numbers indicates the draft position starting last year going back 9-10 years...

 

Nashville - 30, 17,55,11,4,37,38,18,11   
Winnipeg- 24,2,17,9,13,9,7   (Note:  the number 2 pick (Laine) was won....Vancouver finished lower than them that year )

Vegas - no real draft history but who on that roster is a top 3 pick? ...was Marchessault even drafted?  Karlsson drafted at 53..

San Jose - 19,60,9,27,18,17,47,28,43,62

Boston - 18,14,13,25,60,24,9,2,25,16  (picked in the top 3 once and traded that player away)

 

Of course you have Pittsburgh with Malkin and Crosby.  Do you, or anyone here, think that if the current anti-coiler draft rules were in place back in 2004-2006 they would have been able to win Crosby (1),Malkin(2),Staal(2) back to back to back?  lol...canucks finished bottom 3 twice...how did that work for them with these new rules?

 

To me it seems that drafting the right player , player development and team chemistry seems to be the way to go.  Those are 5 pretty strong teams I listed above...how many top 3 picks do you see there COMBINED?

 

You make some good points though you could say.  How many Stanley Cups do those teams have in the Cap era COMBINED?  The argument was good vs great right?  Those teams are good.  Pens, Hawks & Kings were great.  Maybe one of these teams will get there, but they haven't yet and they'd have to do it for multiple years to be able to be compared to the past champs.  

 

Also, nobody ever said you draft in the top 3 and call it a day.  You think the teams that are drafting top 3 aren't drafting the right players, doing proper player development and trying to have good team chemistry also?  They're doing all that AND drafting in the top 3.  By your argument, if Vancouver had won the lottery suddenly they're not trying to do all these other things to build the team?  

 

I'm not saying Vancouver should have tanked harder, or crying that we lost another lottery.  Just stating facts as far as what has been winning Stanley Cups.  Virtually every single Stanley Cup winner under this system did it with a top 3 pick or multiple top 3 picks playing key roles to win those cups.  

[Darius]

8 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Uh.. tanking doesn't work.

 

..except 2 out of last 3 years.

You make some good points though you could say.  How many Stanley Cups do those teams have in the Cap era COMBINED?  The argument was good vs great right?  Those teams are good.  Pens, Hawks & Kings were great.  Maybe one of these teams will get there, but they haven't yet and they'd have to do it for multiple years to be able to be compared to the past champs.  

 

Also, nobody ever said you draft in the top 3 and call it a day.  You think the teams that are drafting top 3 aren't drafting the right players, doing proper player development and trying to have good team chemistry also?  They're doing all that AND drafting in the top 3.  By your argument, if Vancouver had won the lottery suddenly they're not trying to do all these other things to build the team?  

 

I'm not saying Vancouver should have tanked harder, or crying that we lost another lottery.  Just stating facts as far as what has been winning Stanley Cups.  Virtually every single Stanley Cup winner under this system did it with a top 3 pick or multiple top 3 picks playing key roles to win those cups.  

I can argue that the pens , hawks and kings could not build those same teams ( ie draft so high where they did) with these current draft lotto rules.  Imagine the luck it would take to get a Kane and a toews ..  practically back to back . 

 

The days of drafting Malkin one year then Crosby another year are pretty much done. 

 

I thjnk my post was in response to some guys claiming the Canucks should have tanked harder ... why? We finished second from the bottom last year and got knocked down several spots. 

 

 

[CanadianRugby]

1 minute ago, Darius71 said:

I can argue that the pens , hawks and kings could not build those same teams ( ie draft so high where they did) with these current draft lotto rules.  Imagine the luck it would take to get a Kane and a toews ..  practically back to back . 

 

The days of drafting Malkin one year then Crosby another year are pretty much done. 

 

I thjnk my post was in response to some guys claiming the Canucks should have tanked harder ... why? We finished second from the bottom last year and got knocked down several spots. 

Well the argument was do you need top 3 picks to win the cup, not can you get top 3 picks.  Also the Kings had one top 3 pick, I'd say that's not an unrealistic accomplishment. 

 

If a team finished last this year and 2 years ago they'd have Matthews & Dahnlin so are the days of drafting multiple stars really gone?  For sure it's harder with the new lottery but not gone.  

 

The question as to why should have they tanked harder?  Because top 3 picks are such an important ingredient to winning it all, a bottom finish guarantees you a top 3 pick and highest odds of the #1 pick.  The Canucks didn't, I'm over it lets move on.  Though I'm not going to pretend like top 3 picks aren't a crazy valuable asset just because the Canucks didn't have the luck to get one.  Nobody on CDC would be saying we don't need that top 3 pick if we won it, and pointing at the Preds & Jets.  They'd all be cheering that we got the pick because it would most likely change this team in a much more significant way than whoever we pick will. 

[Darius]

2 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Well the argument was do you need top 3 picks to win the cup, not can you get top 3 picks.  Also the Kings had one top 3 pick, I'd say that's not an unrealistic accomplishment. 

 

If a team finished last this year and 2 years ago they'd have Matthews & Dahnlin so are the days of drafting multiple stars really gone?  For sure it's harder with the new lottery but not gone.  

 

The question as to why should have they tanked harder?  Because top 3 picks are such an important ingredient to winning it all, a bottom finish guarantees you a top 3 pick and highest odds of the #1 pick.  The Canucks didn't, I'm over it lets move on.  Though I'm not going to pretend like top 3 picks aren't a crazy valuable asset just because the Canucks didn't have the luck to get one.  Nobody on CDC would be saying we don't need that top 3 pick if we won it, and pointing at the Preds & Jets.  They'd all be cheering that we got the pick because it would most likely change this team in a much more significant way than whoever we pick will. 

 

You point to Chicago and Pittsburgh as teams that won cups because they obtained players as the result of tanking. That methodology does not work the same anymore.  The draft rules have changed in order to make it harder for teams to do what Pittsburgh and Chicago did. Hoping Vancouver tanks to get the same results those teams got doesn’t make as much sense with these new rules.

 

i realize that top 3 players are important, I’d love to get Dahlin.. it would speed things up nicely,  but last year shows us finishing last or second last guaranteed nothing. This year Ottawa and Arizona fell out of the top 3.

 

Also people are in here arguing they should have tanked harder. Can you explain how? How do you convince players fighting for their careers to quit? How many more ahl caliber players could they have infused into the lineup? It’s easy to make proclamations on an Internet forum, but how do you manipulate a pro sports team to lose?  Not only do you have to manipulate the team you have to out do other dog teams that are terrible. Genuinely curious how you would execute such a plan.  How would you have finished below buffalo?  

[CanadianRugby]

4 hours ago, Darius71 said:

You point to Chicago and Pittsburgh as teams that won cups because they obtained players as the result of tanking. That methodology does not work the same anymore.  The draft rules have changed in order to make it harder for teams to do what Pittsburgh and Chicago did. Hoping Vancouver tanks to get the same results those teams got doesn’t make as much sense with these new rules.

My point is that top 3 picks are vital to winning a cup.  Your argument was that there are really good teams without top picks.  The argument never was if it's easy or not to get those picks.  

4 hours ago, Darius71 said:

i realize that top 3 players are important, I’d love to get Dahlin.. it would speed things up nicely,  but last year shows us finishing last or second last guaranteed nothing. This year Ottawa and Arizona fell out of the top 3.

What about this year or 2 years ago?  Worked for those teams.  Of course there are no guarantees other than the guarantee of the best chance at the best player.  That's what you're aiming for there.  

4 hours ago, Darius71 said:

Also people are in here arguing they should have tanked harder. Can you explain how? How do you convince players fighting for their careers to quit? How many more ahl caliber players could they have infused into the lineup? It’s easy to make proclamations on an Internet forum, but how do you manipulate a pro sports team to lose?  Not only do you have to manipulate the team you have to out do other dog teams that are terrible. Genuinely curious how you would execute such a plan.  How would you have finished below buffalo?  

Again, you're changing the argument.  It wasn't how to tank harder, it was why would you want to tank.  

You even said, "I thjnk my post was in response to some guys claiming the Canucks should have tanked harder ... why?"  I already responded as to why teams still tank.  Vancouver did a pretty good tank job attempt but it failed.  

[Darius]

7 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

My point is that top 3 picks are vital to winning a cup.  Your argument was that there are really good teams without top picks.  The argument never was if it's easy or not to get those picks.  

What about this year or 2 years ago?  Worked for those teams.  Of course there are no guarantees other than the guarantee of the best chance at the best player.  That's what you're aiming for there.  

Again, you're changing the argument.  It wasn't how to tank harder, it was why would you want to tank.  

You even said, "I thjnk my post was in response to some guys claiming the Canucks should have tanked harder ... why?"  I already responded as to why teams still tank.  Vancouver did a pretty good tank job attempt but it failed.  

Ok..I think we are going in circles here.  We both agree that top 3 picks are valuable.

 

But I am not changing my argument.  The person I was responding to above was implying that the Canucks were not doing enough to be "bad enough" to get a lotto pick (1-3).  (and I still question what more could have been done to out tank Buffalo...)

 

I pointed out that tanking is over rated in light of:

1) Most of the teams still alive in the playoffs today did not rely on picks 1-3 to build their team

2) In light of the revised lottery rules, it does not make as much sense to tank.  The fact is that the very WORST team has a 50/50 shot of NOT picking top 3. 

 

At that point you jumped in and pointed out that while Winnipeg, Las Vegas, Nashville etc are good teams they are not great teams (yet) like LA, Pitts, Chicago who all have top 3 picks and won cups.

 

I responded by saying that it is very UNLIKELY that those teams could have been built with the current draft lotto rules.  Those teams were built by draft lottery rules (from 1995 to 2012) where the worst you could do is fall 1 position and only the bottom 5 teams were in the lotto.(I wonder where Vancouver would be with those lotto rules )

 

Moving forward, if these lotto rules are enforced for the long term, we are going to see more and more teams that never had to do a full tank to get franchise level players.  When the block of teams outside of the bottom 3 have a comparable chance to the bottom 3 teams of winning one of those spots it is inevitable that you will see a Carolina, Philly or Winnipeg draft an elite player that will be a cornerstone for a cup team.

 

Yes top 3 picks are valuable, but in my opinion tanking with these  new lotto rules is over rated.  Trying to out do the biggest dog team in the NHL just so you can secure a 50/50 shot (at best!) of landing in the top 3, when a team like Philly, Carolina, or Winnipeg  are likely to jump in front of you just does not make sense.