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

The Lock

Members
  • Posts

    10,143
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by The Lock

  1. We haven't even seen though what JT brings to Petey's line. Perhaps we should be looking at that first before jumping to conclusions.
  2. I don't think it's quite as easy as you're making things out to be. When signing free agents, there are usually other teams vying for that player's services. It's not like we can just sign whoever and have total control over it. Those signing bonuses that you are complaining that make buyouts next to impossible for example: those are usually how teams will entice players to come join their team. That's why most contracts in the league have signing bonuses and some have a ton of them up front, especially free agent signings. If the team was in total control of how we perform these signings, I would agree with you, but if we want to even be able to compete to get these free agents, what you are implying would likely get up zero free agents, at least none of the better ones. It sucks, but it's reality.
  3. It's hard to say really. Perhaps the entire line combinations would have been different had Sutter been in instead. Perhaps a different trade would have been made which would have allowed Kessel to score all the same. There's a lot of factors there. Being honest, I think perhaps you're jumping to conclusions here with Sutter's trades. Many good players are traded more than once and I don't see it being fair to base a player's skill on how many times he was traded. I mean look at Hamilton. He was traded twice too, but actually looked pretty good in Carolina (minus a few defensive deficiencies here and there). EDIT: Had a brain fart and took the last sentence out.
  4. Yeah, and really, look at any struggling team right now. For example, there's enough holes on Arizona's team to make the desert sink. It's just how rebuilds go sometimes.
  5. The way I see it, teams take time to develop and there will always be needs that need to get filled. I think those needs can be hard to fulfill when a team has little value or ability to acquire the right assets.
  6. Even with Sutter though, the Penguins were still in the playoffs and winning their division. It was just them not going as deep in the playoffs that was different. Does one player on a 3rd line really make that big of a difference, or is it just because we made that trade that makes it seem like Sutter made the team worse? Or, and here's a twist for you, maybe it was Kessel's production instead that put them over the top and Sutter might have been able to help in those cup runs in his own way.
  7. Indeed. To put another twist on things. Maybe we'd be talking about Sutter being instrumental in the Penguins cup runs had that trade not taken place while Bonino gets thrown under the bus here. It might sound far fetched at first but consider that to say the Penguins have been a better team than us the last few seasons would be a huge understatement. I like to think players tend to play better on better teams. There's obviously other factors on top of that like where each player fits on a team, as well as star players will be start players and produce anyway, but playing on a worse team, generally means you take on a bigger role; perhaps a role bigger than what you can handle. But then it once again comes down to what we see: a Bonino that's won cups and a Sutter who's (probably unfairly) thrown under the bus. My hope this coming year is that we compete for that playoff spot. Even if we just come up shy, I think it shows we are ready. On a random note, I think we have a better shot at 3rd overall in the Pacific than we do the wild card spots (the central is that brutal right now), but that's a debate for another time!
  8. Haha I've refrained from changing my name for a long time, mostly because I feel it's almost like creating a new reputation each time which I just don't see the point of. I wonder what fruit I could have been though...
  9. Then I probably misread and I apologize. Anyway... Referring to your 4th paragraph, the one thing I can say about this is we could argue any GM has been lucky and, really, to say luck's not involved at all would be kind of silly. This goes even beyond drafting. Maybe Benning's been unlucky with free agents. Maybe he's looking in the same places that successful GMs are looking at but just falling short. There are so many factors involved that it would be impossible to truly know all of the moving parts, and this is with any GM. We just don't know what goes on behind the scenes; therefore, do we actually even know what makes a successful GM in the end? Oh how I'd love to be a fly on the wall at times; alas, I have arms and legs and have to settle for typing on a laptop in a forum about it. So, since figuring out what is lucky and what isn't is almost like trying to figure out what celebrity will go crazy next, the next best thing is to simply base on what's been done and what isn't. Is it fair? Probably not, but how else are we able to discuss things? But, I think, no matter what view one has, the very fact that we only have the facts of what's happened most of time really makes it difficult to put luck into the equation.
  10. Pretty much this. Other teams may have also made mistakes with their jerseys but at least most of them took 20+ years before they tried to change, giving themselves an established identity beforehand. 8 years was just not enough time for that to happen which caused the controversy in my opinion.
  11. Unless if I am mistaken, you were talking about worst GM tenures and comparing the past few years with the entire league, ignoring Buffalo, Edmonton, Arizona.... that's even just the current teams. Hey, if that's not what you were saying then I apologize, but if it was, then I think you need to do your research.
  12. I was actually about to come into this thread to say I'm glad hockey hasn't gone the way of the NBA. When you have the star players practically capable of choosing who will be the powerhouse teams, that's a big indication that it's not a team sport. If it were a team sport, you wouldn't have teams trading 5 1st round draft picks for a star player. If this was a team sport, you wouldn't have teams willing to practically sell their entire team for 1 player. That's anti-team sport at that point.
  13. Well, as far as a president goes: sure. Provided they get the right president. I kind of wonder what exactly the president does that would make things different, but I can also see where just having that extra say from someone experienced could help, but it has to be the right person for that to work. Revamping the pro-scouting group: maybe. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that could also get better through experience. For example, we haven't really signed another Eriksson yet. Who knows with Myers, but I don't see the point in thinking he would be. He's on a decent enough contract and plays a position we desperately need. As far as stopping with the FA signings, I have to disagree here. I believe in improving our team however necessary and I believe shutting down one avenue of doing so is almost shooting ourselves in the foot and gives us a disadvantage at that point, but I also liked signing like Beagle which I know some people didn't. I didn't like Schaller but I don't think I've really seen anyone else going "but Schaller's great!" lol
  14. Those A-holes though are part of the determination, and they don't have to be power forwards. That's what I'm saying here. Also is Reeves really a power forward? Virtanen scores more points than him. Perhaps you are mistaking power forward with agitator?
  15. I tend to think that, had we drafted better then Gillis and Nonis were around, we might have not had such a downturn. 2011 was arguably our best shot ever. In 82, we had major dynasties happening during that decade. In 94, we were the underdogs. With the WCE, that was arguably cut short by Naslund's injury and Bert's reaction to it. So in 2011, we were one of the favourites at least compared with the other times. Had we drafted well during that time, it would have meant we would have had young prospects to replace Kesler, Burrows, etc. Perhaps Kesler might not have even requested a trade. It's really hard to say. This is all speculation in the end of course, but we had arguably the best team we've ever had on the ice and virtual no one to replace them with. The next best thing was Horvat who came later. I'm going to be perfectly honest. I think if we keep Benning and are successful, we could be successful for a long time because, if we get a steady stream of good young players in the end, we will have tons of value of which we can develop and/or trade to remain competitive. We can then acquire more draft picks. It's why I kind of hope Benning's here after next year, because I think bringing in another GM would be a greater risk than Benning learning from his mistakes and having the prospects to help fix any of those mistakes.
  16. Oh yeah, it's supper time..... now I want chili....
  17. I tend to look at balance more than I do "culture". I think winning is the most important aspect over anything else and teams have shown there is more than 1 way to win the cup. For example, Pittsburgh is way different than Chicago, which is way different than LA, etc. Not all of those teams have powerforwards arguably, or at least to where it can be argued that it wasn't their determination that won those cups instead. Conversely, Winnipeg's had a lot of big bodies, but it wasn't until they had skills up front to where they even made it to the playoffs. Determination: perhaps that's the word that might suited with all of this? I don't think it should matter if we have power forwards or not. We need determination and lots of it. If we have a power forward that floats around but have a grinder that's determined I want the later. I do agree that Toronto needs more sandpaper and I do wonder where they are going, although I will admit that they have made some good moves this offseason. Who's to say Chara hasn't told someone to back off? We see what's on the ice but don't really see much beyond that. That being said, I think Boston's a bad example given you're talking about a team with Marchand on it, who is skilled but often costs his team. He arguably cost the team the cup a month ago. What I do believe in though is being a single team and having a team mentality. If a late hit isn't part of that mentality, then I do see why the captain would say something to Virtanen. As far as Vegas goes, I think Reeves helps, but Vegas isn't exactly going to be a bad team without him. They probably would play the same style since Reeves is only a small part of that team. Same with Martin and the Islanders. There's playing like a pest for the greater good and then there's playing like a pest and causing the team to loose. There's a fine line that shouldn't be crossed.
  18. First of all, thanks. I'm trying to get a little more less "vindictive" and just say what I think. It's not always easy (as probably evidenced by other posts of mine) but I'm trying. Thanks for noticing. Well, I guess my reply to that would be that's generally the case in a rebuild. I'll give a bit of a quickfire response of how I see it: 1) Rebuilding teams don't generally have assets to trade for other good assets. Therefore, taking chances on players that might not make it is likely the next best option until the team develops enough. This also means the likelihood of failure is going to be higher among the players. 2) This also means that, since failure is going to be higher among players, drafting is generally the most sought after option. Do the number of picks affect our chances? Maybe a little, but if we know who we want to draft at certain times, perhaps quality's going to be better than quantity. Also, we can only have so many contracts, which we are already seeing happening by not signing players like Brassard who played quite well last year and was a 7th round pick. So, let's look at Miller for a moment. This was perhaps our boldest move in a long time; however, that also means we have developed. We see things happening on the ice. We see some drafted players exceeding expectations (and some not, it's going to happen). Most importantly, we're seeing a compete level that we don't even see on other teams. We are at that point now where we can compete, or at least try to. If we don't take these kinds of actions, who's to say we won't be bottom feeders for the next 5 years? So the way I see it, we need to take the next steps. If that means a 1st round pick (in which we have 2 years to make it not a lottery pick) then I say let it be so. We can't live outside of the playoffs forever. Perhaps some people are scared that we're actually making moves, which is kind of funny because I'm almost like "it's about time we have a chance to get out of this". lol
  19. Now compare with other teams. Good and bad. Wouldn't it make more sense to see how we compare with everyone else? Otherwise, how do we know if our success rate is good or bad? Perhaps I might do something like this in a couple of days out of curiousity. No promises though. I hope you get my point at least.
  20. I think you're overthinking it. What is this "culture thing" you speak of? Does the makeup of a team define a culture? Is it the development staff? The Sedins are 2 players. They aren't the whole team. While we had the Sedins here, we've had Kesler, Burrows, Mitchell, Cooke, a whole bunch of players who might be classed as "power forwards" or similar by way of defense depending on what you define as a power forward. Also, should late hits be a thing if they give us penalties? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me if I'm being honest. I'd rather us win the game rather than risk getting scored on due to a late hit. I kind of hope your definition of a power forward is not about providing late hits, but providing power with scoring; thus... power forward.... And here we now have a developing team. This team is going to lack certain things as it develops and over time it's up to management to fix those holes (if possible, I should probably stress that part since it's probably not always possible). Virtanen has been an attempt as a power forward and he might still develop into that. Miller looks to be a power forward. So now, despite us maybe not have drafting the ideal power forward, we still have a more balanced team than last year. My wildest prediction would be we will continue to get more balanced as we find we are lacking in certain areas. So this whole notion to me of "culture" based on 1 position that's not even prominent in a lot of teams.... I tend to shrug a bit since I don't think we should be worried about this at all.
  21. Yeah I sort of skimmed over his walls of text but saw it was a whole lot of nothing so I just was like "not worth my time". He can type paragraphs at least. I can give him that. Perhaps if he spent as much time doing research as he did typing he'd actually have something?
  22. It's the beginning of July. There's literally 2 months before those words should be coming out of anyone's mouth.
×
×
  • Create New...