Monty Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I will post a full analysis on how the canucks benefited from an easier division when I get some time to actually put some work into the post. Oh, please don't. We've all had our fill of stupid for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Oh, please don't. We've all had our fill of stupid for the day. CDC: Where to go for your "fill of stupid". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyAL Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 So who saw the Nichushkin goal today for team Russia? not saying.... just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfall Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 So who saw the Nichushkin goal today for team Russia? not saying.... just sayin' Best not to go there. I dreamed of our team looking like sedins × 2, kesler, hodgson, grabner and nichuskin where torts can teach defense while letting the offense fly on their own. I feel Shirokov would have been a nichushkin if he started in the NHL right away. Conversely I feel nichushkin would be a shirokov if the canucks drafted him. That's dreamland though. In reality we have another half a season of playing along the boards until moves are made in the off season to hopefully bring in pure offensive talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5minutesinthebox Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 EmilyMinami, on 11 February 2014 - 08:57 PM, said: "2014 Canucks are NOT the REAL Canucks" Gillis also said last year was not the real Canucks because it was a weird shortened season. I know this season isn't over yet, but can two years really be called an anomaly? Two years (Or techincally a year and three quarters) is quite a sizable sample size. Given how our core players (and role players) remaining from previous seasons, played last season vs this season, they are completely different. Sedins, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Hamhuis (offensively) are all contributing substantially below last season, (and last season was not a great one for us offensively.) I wonder how this team would be performing if they were contributing even at the same level? Add the return of (uninjured) Kesler for the season, the additions of Santorelli, Richardson, Stanton, the inspired play of Tanev, Higgins playing at a high level. So I did a quick tally. Using last years goal totals converted to the 60 games we have played (even only using games played for injury with Burrows and Edler) and minus them from this years. D Sedin +2 H Sedin +5 Hansen +4 Burrows +8 Garrison +4 Hamhuis +1 Edler +2 This would give us a grand total of +26 in the goal department (not even counting the number of assists these players has which would substantially add to the goal number). That would put us at 7th place in goals for. That would also be easily a 8 win, 16 points at minimum swing in our direction which again would put us in about 7th in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Firstly who says they have to be outside the playoff race? Maybe it's a team with some D injuries and 3rd/4th line centre depth? They need a cheap d-man for depth (Weber) and can sacrifice some quality of a 3C/4C (and even get one back in Dalpe). Maybe their guy's going UFA and they have no plans to re-sign him? Anyways...it doesn't matter as your looking for specifics with something I've clearly pointed out was not a specific proposal but was simply an illustration of likely trade levels. I agree Tanev is not likely to get you a "Kane" on his own. Maybe as part of a package. But I do think he has more value than you're giving him credit for. His ceiling is something comparable to Hamhuis and he's young, good, cheap and an RFA. All the reasons you (and I) would LOVE to keep him are precisely why he has value. Other GM's aren't stupid looking at that. He may not be well known league wide but I guarantee any organization with D needs is keenly aware of him. But straight up, yes I'd say he gets you something of a high-end prospect. A guy who is still in Jr./AHL but looks ready to make the step probably next year at least on the third line...basically another team's "Horvat". Not yet proven but very promising. Depending on the quality/ceiling of that prospect we may have to add a bit. Second: Tanev is 185 lbs, Hamhuis 210. There is 40 % of the places you ask a defensive D man to go, and it would be impossible for Tanev to be as effective as Hamhuis can on size alone. That makes Tanev a situational player, in that he can have a defensive role IF he plays with a guy like Garrison or Hamhuis. Offensively, there is no reason to suggest Tanev has Hamhuis offense in him. Hamhuis was a point a game in the CHL over two years, 120 points in 121 games. Dan had 26 points as a 20 / 21 year old rookie in the NHL. Tanev did not make his junior team? Tanev had 10 points in his first 3 seasons. Hammer has 37 & 38 point seasons under his belt, Tanev 24 points now accumulated over 4 seasons. Its not the same. Tanev is savvy moving the puck out of his end. He has great close out speed and on pucks. One reason he has savvy clearing pucks is he gets to them so fast he has more time. But it should not be confused with puck handling skills, a hard accurate shot, years of experience making offensive plays and understanding how to deal with situations, physical play, the ability to battle for pucks or clear bodies in front of the net. Tanev is a GREAT situational player, and can be deployed effectively by a smart coach. But does not have the size, puck skills or offensive acumen to suggest he will achieve the status / ceiling of a Hamhuis. We should be thankful for what Tanev is! Hammer status for Tanev is a pretty optimistic projection IMO. First; There are a lot of Weber's out there. Team's pining for playoff position, or looking to improve how they will perform in the playoff's rarely give up gritty two way forwards for 3rd pairing D. It doesn't happen! If they wanted Weber they give up prospects or picks? Which is fine by the way... I do see Weber moving, but likely for picks. Its why I suggested we would probably have to look at a non play off team if we wanted a roster player. Plus Weber is relatively young, still a RFA. A non play off team can give up a 3rd line UFA, and count themselves fortunate to get a reasonably groomed prospect they can retain. Its just historically, and logically the type of team that will target Weber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 All this article by Bitchford does is illustrate that there's no one single point of failure here. Here are my observations of the Canucks since 2011: The team has been in decline since 2011, as far as overall team based production is concerned. Facts are facts, and year over year offense has dwindled Gillis has failed to make changes as necessary to keep the offense propped up, instead expecting year over year that certain players production will maintain at their peak despite age, travel and physical beatings continuing to advance No emphasis or sense of urgency to integrating true youth into the lineup, where the youth matters; ie Tanev, Lack, etc are great and have certainly prospered. One can argue that the young players aren't ready to make the jump; one could argue the point that unless given a real legitimate chance (limited minutes/roles in too few games is not a legitimate sample size), then the young players don't have a chance to prove that they can adjust/adapt when given the responsibility. Gillis needs to worry less about academic/financial asset management and actually embrace performance based asset management. Disenfranchising your prospects is not a good way to ensure their long term survival in the organization. Too many reclamation projects, and too many moneyball gambles. Sometimes, you just gotta pay to play, and don't mistake that for making stupid decisions in fiscal management (overpaying for free agents), but in terms of releasing the sentimental hold on players and realize that sometimes you need to hedge your bets and move assets to get equal assets in return. The funny thing about trading equivalent talent for each other, is such that the new talent brought may not actually be more skilled or more talented, but the diversity it creates can actually result in better results. Gillis is far too often guilty of "hoping" a player can return to a form once shown, but sometimes the circumstances that created that perfect storm have long since evaporated, never to return. Again, these are just my observations as a life long fan of more than 20 years, so I've seen all kinds of good and bad along the way, and this without a doubt, is one of the "stalest" periods the Canucks have endured, if for no other reason than being directed by naive management and ownership completely out of touch with reality. I'd like for a change, to see some actual accountability. Say mistakes were made, say that in hindsight you'd do things differently; or don't, don't actually say the words but for christ all mighty learn from your mistakes instead of continually repeating them. Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results. I haven't seen things done differently at all in the past 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 insanity is repeating the same incorrect definition of insanity over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 insanity is repeating the same incorrect definition of insanity over and over again. It's a paraphrased quote, not the dictionary definition you mook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 It's a paraphrased quote, not the dictionary definition you mook. i'm well aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Second: Tanev is 185 lbs, Hamhuis 210. There is 40 % of the places you ask a defensive D man to go, and it would be impossible for Tanev to be as effective as Hamhuis can on size alone. That makes Tanev a situational player, in that he can have a defensive role IF he plays with a guy like Garrison or Hamhuis. Offensively, there is no reason to suggest Tanev has Hamhuis offense in him. Hamhuis was a point a game in the CHL over two years, 120 points in 121 games. Dan had 26 points as a 20 / 21 year old rookie in the NHL. Tanev did not make his junior team? Tanev had 10 points in his first 3 seasons. Hammer has 37 & 38 point seasons under his belt, Tanev 24 points now accumulated over 4 seasons. Its not the same. Tanev is savvy moving the puck out of his end. He has great close out speed and on pucks. One reason he has savvy clearing pucks is he gets to them so fast he has more time. But it should not be confused with puck handling skills, a hard accurate shot, years of experience making offensive plays and understanding how to deal with situations, physical play, the ability to battle for pucks or clear bodies in front of the net. Tanev is a GREAT situational player, and can be deployed effectively by a smart coach. But does not have the size, puck skills or offensive acumen to suggest he will achieve the status / ceiling of a Hamhuis. We should be thankful for what Tanev is! Hammer status for Tanev is a pretty optimistic projection IMO. His ceiling is something comparable to Hamhuis Please note my wording. "Something comparable" =/= "carbon copy". I have little doubt that when Tanev is in his 30's he'll have put on 10-15 lbs of lean muscle significantly closing their weight gap your so concerned about. They're both moderately sized, smooth skating, positionally strong/good defensively d-men with limited physicality and offense (though as you pointed out, Hammer is certainly less limited in his offense). Tanev projects to be Hamhuis-light or a "poor man's" Hamhuis if you will. Hence why I said, "something like" and not "exactly like". As for the Weber etc... As I've pointed out numerous times... IT WAS AN ILLUSTRATION, NOT A PROPOSAL. I generally don't disagree with any of your specifics. I am not making some asinine case of Weber/Dalpe for Pavelski or similar. Largely I think we agree here so I see no further need to belabour the point. Weber is likely to be moved for whatever return and we'll maybe do some similar low level moves at the deadline. Agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Tanev will be better than Hamhuis next season. He is already playing better this season, and much of last. He's gonna crack 30 points too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Please note my wording. "Something comparable" =/= "carbon copy". I have little doubt that when Tanev is in his 30's he'll have put on 10-15 lbs of lean muscle significantly closing their weight gap your so concerned about. They're both moderately sized, smooth skating, positionally strong/good defensively d-men with limited physicality and offense (though as you pointed out, Hammer is certainly less limited in his offense). Tanev projects to be Hamhuis-light or a "poor man's" Hamhuis if you will. Hence why I said, "something like" and not "exactly like". As for the Weber etc... As I've pointed out numerous times... IT WAS AN ILLUSTRATION, NOT A PROPOSAL. I generally don't disagree with any of your specifics. I am not making some asinine case of Weber/Dalpe for Pavelski or similar. Largely I think we agree here so I see no further need to belabour the point. Weber is likely to be moved for whatever return and we'll maybe do some similar low level moves at the deadline. Agree? Thats spot on, yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 D. SEDIN - H. SEDIN - KASSIAN SHINKARUK - HORVAT - KESLER The Canucks are going to be alright indeed. If the Sedins are not scoring anyways, why not have Kassian permanently on their line starting now, so he can better be adapted for the rigors of Sedin payoff hockey. Otherwise, the Sedins get shut down and nothing else works. Burrows? One of the best defensive player the game has to offer. Third line perfect fit. For the sake of this year's success and for the future, I would personally go with: D. SEDIN - H. SEDIN - KASSIAN BOOTH - TRADE - KESLER BURROWS - RICHARDSON - HANSEN SESTITO - DALPE - WHOEVER The Canucks play much better without Edler than with Edler, though by trading Edler, defensive depth is reduced, though the returns on an Edler trade ought to increase offensive scoring right away. But, this spearing stuff would not have gone unnoticed and forgotten if Kassian was on that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 But what you say is all relative. If the salary cap is low with Nonis then it is low for all other GM's as well. Same when the cap is double for Gillis. It also doubles for every other GM. Every team has the same amount of money they can spend. Some owners don't allow their GM to spend money. Gillis was allowed to spend max,signed the twins for value and then hosed Burr. If Gillis actually made decent signings with the cap space the core gave him and the ownership bequethed to him then the Canucks should be at the top each year. That did not happen,despite huge advantages over the rest of the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Some owners don't allow their GM to spend money. Gillis was allowed to spend max,signed the twins for value and then hosed Burr. If Gillis actually made decent signings with the cap space the core gave him and the ownership bequethed to him then the Canucks should be at the top each year. That did not happen,despite huge advantages over the rest of the NHL. Burr and the Twins are not really an issue. Yeah Burrows is struggling relative to his pay this year. Over an 8 year period, even with this years money, he's great value. Where Gillis loses on money spent is in holding his mistakes. He held Ballard for 2 years after he did not work out. We've held Booth now 2 years after he did not work out. He gave Schneider (even though he could have traded him for Carter?) and Lou big contracts and carried both. Thats no less than $12 mill extra cap space to have made last years team a stronger contender. $12 million!!! http://capgeek.com/canucks At this exact moment we have over $3 mill in cap space according to capgeek, plus we still carry Booth's $4.2.Nearly $7.4 mill that could contribute to a better team! How can we say Gillis is using our money wisely??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Burr and the Twins are not really an issue. Yeah Burrows is struggling relative to his pay this year. Over an 8 year period, even with this years money, he's great value. Where Gillis loses on money spent is in holding his mistakes. He held Ballard for 2 years after he did not work out. We've held Booth now 2 years after he did not work out. He gave Schneider (even though he could have traded him for Carter?) and Lou big contracts and carried both. Thats no less than $12 mill extra cap space to have made last years team a stronger contender. $12 million!!! http://capgeek.com/canucks At this exact moment we have over $3 mill in cap space according to capgeek, plus we still carry Booth's $4.2.Nearly $7.4 mill that could contribute to a better team! How can we say Gillis is using our money wisely??? How could he get rid of Booth (or Ballard for that matter)...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 How could he get rid of Booth (or Ballard for that matter)...? Tallon made the decision he had made a mistake early, and moved Booth's contract. You have to be decisive! In 2013 it was readily apparent he was not working out here. Take a 4th round pick to get him off your books! Better yet, don't money ball key acquisitions. Booth was picked because we only had to give up two expiring contracts who nobody expected to be productive. We could have had Carter for Schneider before the Booth move! Ballard was acquired, then we added another LHD Hamhuis, 4 or 5 days later as a free agent. We already had Errhof and Edler, now Hamhuis. It does not take a genius to see that there was excess. Prioritize and move on right away! Then before the deadline in 2011 we knew that AV was playing Rome, Alberts and buck green rookie Tanev ahead of Ballard. Good GM's flush their mistakes sooner and don't hang on for dear life dreaming mistakes come around.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 He doesn't use it wisely as far as I can tell, no argument here. And even though he has yielded incredible value signing free agents, its kind of a moot point because it only accomplished a fraction of what it would take for this team to remain as competitive as in years past. If he had more foresight he may have avoided this situation altogether; that is the one where he is completely reliant on hitting several massive home runs in free agency just to keep pace with the powerhouses of the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Tallon made the decision he had made a mistake early, and moved Booth's contract. You have to be decisive! In 2012 it was readily apparent he was not working out here. Take a 4th round pick to get him off your books! Better yet, don't money ball key acquisitions. Booth was picked because we only had to give up two expiring contracts who nobody expected to be productive. We could have had Carter for Schneider before the Booth move! Ballard was acquired, then we added another LHD Hamhuis, 4 or 5 days later as a free agent. We already had Errhof and Edler, now Hamhuis. It does not take a genius to see that there was excess. Prioritize and move on right away! Then before the deadline in 2011 we knew that AV was playing Rome, Alberts and buck green rookie Tanev ahead of Ballard. Good GM's flush their mistakes sooner and don't hang on for dear life dreaming mistakes come around.. You're out of your mind if you think Gillis could have dumped him/his salary and got a 4th for him and just didn't.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.