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

oldnews

Members
  • Posts

    53,830
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    186

Everything posted by oldnews

  1. What a slippery post. You make a strange claim - implying that the Canucks had lots of tradeable assets when Benning arrived - and then not a word about it - instead you proceed to fluff Leaf deals - that yielded what? I've already posted the sum of all the stockpilez over the past five drafts. You can impress yourself all you want with your one step rebuild - but unfortunately teams need to do something with their picks... The fact of the matter is that the only real benefit they've extracted thus far is flipping guys like Grundstrom or Durzi as secondary pieces in a deal for Muzzin that also cost them their 1st. The irony there is that if they'd drafted more - and better defensemen over the past decade they might not be shopping with multiples of futures for obvious and glaring needs to fill holes in their roster. And again - even after signing yet another 1st overall - and declaring themselves "Stanley Cup favorites" - reality has set in - and they find themselves in a dogfight to get out of the first round - yet to win a single playoff round despite 'finishing' their rebuild years ago. Fluff away on the stockpiles all you want - but again, that's not really what their 'rebuild' has consisted of and there's very little to reflect it on their actual roster - which is what fn matters in the end.
  2. Dude - in 2016 you declared the Leafs rebuild 'finished'. You posted drivel threads expecting the Canucks rething to be 'on pace' - with a team that has been drafting top 10 since 2008. Proclaimed the Leafs the next Blackhawks, drooling over their core while not realizing it takes a lot more than a few shiny top10s to be a dynasty. You now finally have the sense to walk back your fool's game. Kudos to you for that.
  3. We won a lottery in 2017? With all due respect, what are you talking about? That's nonsense and you know it. As is the weak strawman you propped up in the secong claim. You're completely confusing - perhaps intentionally - two distinct things. I don't recall anyone on these boards every calling the addition of extra picks a "bad idea". This is as weak as some of the other straw thrown around in this thread. The point that has been made - is that you can have 18 picks outside the first round ie like the Leafs did in the 15 and 16 drafts - but if you have merely one of them on your roster - a 34th overall that they already possessed - then the stockpile the pickz 'strategy' isn't really genius - it's only one step in a process that includes drafting - and developing - and if you whiff on steps two and three, step one was literally worthless. Your last post is an interesting sidetrack - with some good points - which have nothing to do with either of your cool story claims.
  4. ? You proved what wrong? You named players drafted in 2013, players that have never played an NHL game, players they didn't draft....you named not a single NHL asset on their roster that they drafted to 'prove' that point wrong. 2018 Sandin Durzi DerArgunchintsez Stotts Hollowell Kral Holmberg Bouthillier Kizimov 2017 Liljegren Rasanen Scott Kara Gordeev McGregor O'Connell 2016 Matthews Korshkov Grundstrom Woll Greenway Brooks Middleton Bobylev Walker Mattinen Chebykin 2015 Marner Dermott Bracco Nielsen Djierkals Lindgren Timashov Desrocher Korostolev 2014 Nylander Valiev Piccinich Joshua Vesey Engvall. If you found more that Dermott outside the top 10 there over the last 5 drafts, you're more creative than I am - you're simply moving goalposts.
  5. I think the Canucks set a 'great' precedent - eliminating the position of president. The U.S. should follow suit.
  6. Like I said elsewhere - yeah, it does - if your 1C is taking repeat dzone draw after dzone draw in the last four minutes of games, with Marner throwing himself in front of point blasts trying to preserve a one goal lead in the first round of the playoffs. Having one of the best top 6 in the league is precisely when you built out the rest of your depth in order to contend. As they're doing it, they're risking their stars, taxing their stars - at the start of a playoff grind - as a result of lacking the depth role players to utilize in those situations.
  7. Let me make the point simpler/clearer. The Leafs have been drafting in the top 10 - for a decade. Since 2008.... Schenn...Kadri....Reilly.....Nylander.....Marner....Matthews. Three management groups. Nevertheless they managed to tank for Matthews. If Benning were fired tomorrow, the team tanks next year and wins the lottery.....did the 'rebuild' just begin with the next General Manager? I don't think so. Would the next guy be a 'genius' based on a lottery win alone?
  8. When you're referring to top 6 forwards as "depth" - the word doesn't have the typical hockey meaning of depth. Johnnson was drafted in 2013 - for the purposes of the discussion, I don't consider Johnsson a depth asset added by a recent management group - even Lou Lamourello was hired after the 2013 draft - we're going back three management groups here to congratulate the Leafs for their deep build.
  9. First of all, you're confusing Shanahan for a General Manager. Dubas is their GM. Shanahan drafts no one, trades for no one - and what people typically refer to as "the rebuild" is the tank job they did to acquire Matthews and the "stockpile tha pickz" thing - that has yielded, as pointed out, one roster player aside from Matthews in Dubas' tenure, and nothing outside the top 10 for quite some time. If you want to go back to players like Gauthier,( or Morgan Reilly), or Johnsson - then you're really stretching the boundaries to the point of meaninglessness - if guys drafted during Brain Burke's tenure, or players drafted in 2013, that essentially makes my point - that the present "rebuild" started well before the current management groups, and even the current President.
  10. You mean the 'good management' that landed them a lottery win? and otherwise, has drafted one roster asset despite all the stockpilez? You're referring to Shanahan as management, when their General Manager is Kyle Dubas. Shanahan doesn't make trades, doesn't draft players. I think what they got was a good coach. Their management has done little to impress - from the above point, to failing to significantly improve the blueline for quite some time, to furnishing their coach with a lack of depth / fourth line that sits on the bench in key situations - when they're allegedly a 'contender', even "Stanley Cup favorites" in their mind at the beginning of the season, because they struck oil again signing a 1st overall to go with their lottery win.... Sorry, I don't share the Leafs 'good management' koolaid - I think they've given Babcock the task of putting lip stick on it for a few years running.
  11. Kapanen plays on Matthews' wing, Hyman on Tavares. I was talking about depth - the fact that Babcock can't and won't rely on his fourth line, for example, in key situations. Picking a couple responsible, two way wingers out of their top 6 isn't really a response to the point I was making. Yeah - I like Kapanen - but that's beside the point.
  12. Meh. When you can't make a point that stands up, or refer to what people are saying - create a straw one that you might think makes it easier for you. I'd be interested in the quote where anyone on these boards suggests Loui "is a Selke nominee". Straw nonsense. I can make embellished crap up as well and put it in your mouth - it wouldn't make them your words. I doubt anyone here would put him beside Bergeron, O'Reilly, or Stone. At the same time, I doubt you'd be able to flush out what makes them Selke candidates, aside from the level of production that seems to be a prerequisite in NHL Selke circles for some reason. And whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that Eriksson has been a 4 time Selke candidate in his career, so mock the people that realize his defensive abilities - or those that realize Sutter's - but wadr, I'd like to hear the basis on which you make these kind of claims - if there's anything to it. And another fact of the matter - it's rare that a winger like Eriksson or Stone get serious consideration, meaning they were actually exceptional. I've posted Eriksson's (and Sutter's) defensive, puck-possession, etc numbers many times - I rarely see more than a one-line straw story out of you - not unlike your claim above that "Eriksson took a significant step backward this year." Just a quick look - doesn't confirm that whatsover. 16/17 50.5% ozone starts, 50.5% corsi 2.6 on ice goals against per 60 11 goals, 24 pts 37 takeaways, 16 giveaways, +19 17/18 46.9% ozone starts, 49.5% corsi 2.4 on ice goals against per 60 10 goals 23 pts, 25 takeaways, 9 giveaways, +16 18/19 38.0% ozone starts, 47% corsi 2.6 on ice goals against per 60 11 goals, 29 pts 29 takeaways, 10 giveaways, +19 Nothing there at all to indicate a "significant step backwards" - in fact his numbers are quite consistent, his minutes were harder, and his 'possession numbers' arguably the best in the three years he's been here. I think you're the one following "a charge" - on what basis is a mystery - and it's not towards accurate assessment of a player, or representing any real outcomes or trends - ie actual information.
  13. CDC would blow a headgasket......if the Canucks acquire any more 'projects'. But I agree with the OP - particularly if he could be acquired for one of the existing roster guys to bring a better mix to the group - maybe a Goldy swap...Fischer being waiver exempt on opening night....
  14. What does this guy matter? The Canucks don't have any talented prospects that aren't already on the roster. What they need is moar picks.....not mediocre prospects like Will Lockwood. C'mon CDC, get with tha real! edit: that's enough CDC for me for now.
  15. I would have liked to acquire him earlier - when his value may not have been perceived to be what it now is - but he'd have needed to be re-signed in any event, so hopefully he might be interested as a UFA, with a window of opportunity to play with a couple guys like EP and Boeser. He's had a great year with guys like Eberle, Lee, Bailey...and only 45.4% ozone starts. It would be interesting to see what he could do here - see no reason he couldn't sustain....and if a higher end guy emerges via the draft or from within....so be it - he's a very versatile guy that can help up and down a lineup = would also be a great fit to play on Horvat's wing / comparable type minutes to those Horvat plays.
  16. Um what? They just downgraded on WD. Not that I care. Bust rocks L.A.
  17. And likewise, the majority of that talent they've surrounded their 1st overall lottery and UFA signings with - pre-dated the alleged 'Shanaplan' #proper-rebuild. One other asset aside from lottery/Auston - Travis Dermott -in the lineup out of their last 5 drafts..... The 'rebuild' has actually been going on....for a decade.....or longer. And still - they don't really have the depth of their competitors/other contenders. They have a fourth line they can't play/trust in key situations, and a blueline that is still about an injury away from disaster. Having guys like Tavares and Marner taking dzone after dzone draw, blocking shots and scratching and clawing to preserve a lead late in games...is not what I'd call a brilliant 'rebuild.'
  18. EP looks to have that fire in him as well. He may not have the frame (yet) but he throws it around anyway. It's admirable - hopefully he can remain durable....part of the reason I'd love to see them sign a Brock Nelson - perhaps shift EP to the wing - take some of the necessity to battle down low off his young shoulders. But I also love the way Benning has built and enabling bottom six - with Sutter/Beagle foundations - to provide him the kind of opportunity to succeed. Looking at that Avs team....I'm glad they don't also have Ryan O'Reilly still in the mix - they're hard enough to deal with as it is.
  19. I think it's a little premature to be relatively writing-off a player like Patrick - or elevating a player who's played 2 NHL games to the top 2 of his draft season. Similar thing could have been/were said of Couturier - if people ignored the context of his early career - but at this point, he's in the running with anyone out of the first round of his draft season - perhaps Scheifele or Landeskog are comparables/fractionally 'better'...(and there could be a Kucherov lurking somewhere not yet in view....)
  20. Ya, dat corzzi.... Jenner's corzi is 40.7%!?!! That'z awfulz! One of the NHL's worst players in the NHL. And making 3.75 million! For a 4th linerz! What idiot is the GM there? That contract is awful I hope DimJim isn't dumb enough to bite if they're looking to dump that bumb.
  21. Some interesting 'underlying' truths from the Tampa CBJ series..... The dominance of Columbus' "4th line". Jenner 4.1% ozone starts, 40.7% corsi. 2 pts in 4 games. +2 Dubinsky 2.1% ozone starts, 39.5% corsi +1 Nash 2.1% ozone starts, 40% corsi 1pt, +1 That may not seem that significant, but.... Jenner 0 ozone starts, 13 defensive zone starts in game 4. 0 ozone, 18 defensive zone starts in game 3. 2 ozone, 16 defensive zone starts in game 2. 0 and 8 in game 1. Overall = 2 ozone starts, 55 defensive zone starts in the series. And he was a +2, outscoring the lines he was matching up against, up severely tilted ice. Big, physical, mobile, skilled fourth line - enviable depth - particularly with a '3rd' line like Foligno, Anderson... The value of incredible depth and great shutdown players....a part of the reason guys like Duchene could enjoy 80% ozone starts - and thrive against (a depleted) Tampa blueline
  22. The terms were very favorable imo - they swung the pendulum too far to the other side. Teams didn't have to make 'stupid decisions' - many were compelled to expose very good players, and looked to contrive ways to pay Vegas to steer them to alternative picks - or take particular contracts - but that's a result of being between a rock and a hard place. Vegas had a great deal of leverage. I'd agree that the terms were terrible in the past, but they got it 'wrong' again going too far - or perhaps that was their intention.
  23. Yawn - I could care less about your one-liner paraphrasing of 'CDC'. Thanks for making my point though- and undermining your own - with that quote. It seems patently obvious when I read that - the timeline he was talking about - clearly 4 or 5 years - is extremely distinct from the manipulative story you try to sell - of the intent/belief that they'd be re-contending immediately. Play all the word games you want and clutch onto straw - most people understood the difference between being competitive from the get-go - and hoping/intending to contend in the longer term. Btw - the team did turn it around pretty quickly to competitiveness (your attempts to insert contending there are dishonest and misrepresentative) - they went to the playoffs in year one - managed to recover some value from assets that people considered buyout candidates - and proceeded on course. If he was 'wrong' - and needs to amend a realistic timeline to 5 or 6 or 7 years, that still has nothing to do with what you repeatedly try to imply - he was clearly talking about a significant transition period - of 5 years - ie at which point the Sedins contracts had expired / and they retired. But, but Bennig thought a Vanek signing was going to return them to contention / kept trying to speed up / skip the rething = that to me is one cool story. Btw who are you to laugh at Benning's projections? Aren't you the guy that, unlike Benning's far more measured projection, proclaimed the Leafs the next-Blackhawks years ago? They're still looking for their first playoff series win, equalling the Canucks achievements in the Benning era thus far lol. Premature Leaf koolaid here calling out Benning when you took the fool's game to a whole other level yourself.
  24. I think you're being reductive - assuming the 'contrast' comes down to how their bluelines are built. The Avs blueline, however, is not dealing with the breakout/transition threat that McKinnon poses - I'm not sure how much better, if any, Colorado's blueline would look facing him as opposed to Monahan/Gaudreau. You don't get a much better matchup blueliner than Giordano no matter how mobile they are - and being able to play defense is not a regular season thing that doesn't bode well for the playoffs. I just don't think it boils down to that. Calgary's blueline might not have Makar (who I imagine they'd be happy to add to the build - it's not about 'constructing' with a traditional type 'mold.') - but they're certainly built for mobility and puck moving as well, they just don't have the gift of breakneck speed (or the volume of lottery picks the AVs have had).
×
×
  • Create New...