Botchford: Do the Canucks want to be "true" cup contenders or do they simply want to make playoffs as soon as possible?

[coastal1]

LA had 3 years with a top 5 pick

Chicago had 6 top 10 picks.

Many of those picks floped

The only rebuild picks LA and CHI still have on their team is Doughty, Kane and Toews, Thats three lucky picks out of 9 that actually turned out for there team.

Kopitar, Keith, Brown, Seabrook were not rebuild picks. In fact, they were all picks when the teams just missed out making playoffs in 9th and 10th seed.

Sometimes you luck out and pick generational talent, many times you don't. Many times you pick it up in later rounds Benn, Subban, Weber. Rebuilding really has only worked for 2 teams. PIts and CHI, I wouldn't even consider LA as a rebuild team as they finished 11-15th more than they finished in the bottom 5. The list on the side of teams that rebuilding hasn't worked out for is a lot greater. FLA, WGP/ATL, EDM, CBJ, NYI, WSH.

Very good point. Here is the situation as I see it: if the Canucks don't rebuild, they have no chance of winning the Cup and are doomed to remaining a middle of the pack team for years, unless they get lucky. If they rebuild, there is no guarantee, but the odds are a little better, but they still need to get lucky.

[-DLC-]

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/hockey/canucks-hockey/Botchford+While+Canucks+retool+their+players/9889246/story.html

interesting notes from Jason Botchford of the province. Here is a breakdown of the important notes if you dont want to read then full things:

1) the west has become extremley ough to win in, teams like CHI-Town and LA have star players that are 26 or younger and will be good for a very long time

2) The Canucks on the other hand, have most of thier core age 30 or older.

3) If the goal is simply to get back in the playoffs then that is possible if the sedins become elite players again, burrows scores 25-30 goals, and kassian takes a huge step in his development next year

4) If the goal is to be a "true" cup contender then the canucks will need all the assests from note 3 and a lot more. A #1 d-man, a good 3rd line center, and a completly new 4th line

5) Since all that happening is unlikley, Botchford suggests that the canucks may need to sacrafice a few years of playoff hockey in order to aquire the assests they need to become a true cup contender again

My personal thoughts:

this couldnt make more sense to me. after watching the hawks and kings go at each other this round it has become very clear that Vancouver is nowhere near the level that the dominant teams in the west are at. the hawks and kings drafted and developed their core players for years and its all paying off for them now. LA and Chicago both spent a couple of years at the bottom of the NHL to aquire these players through the draft and thats what Vancouver needs to do now. Spend a couple year at the bottom draft and develop well and it will pay off down the road. what do you guys think?

OK, I like to deal in facts, not botulism.

1. The West is tough. That doesn't mean teams won't suffer the fate of injuries, slumps, etc. I look to the future, not the past, and the future's uncertain. For everyone. Each game/season will differ and sure, the "predicted" strong teams will likely factor in but nothing is for certain in this game. Except that the refs are awful.

2. Lies. Six of them. (Higgy to be added in after June 2). Six are over 30 and 19 are not. So he kind of loses me at this point.

3. I'd think that with any team the goal is to "just get into" the playoffs because anything can happen from that point.

4. Yes, we will need some upgrades/support. And have new personnel in place to look after that task. Thanks though, Botch, for pointing out the obvious. Slow week?

5. Can he also provide the lottery numbers? Sure, speculation is that we need to improve by way of a younger, faster, stronger team. But most teams (29 of them) that don't win the cup will also have that agenda in place.

Much ado about nothing.

[Provost]

One huge problem that gets overlooked is that many teams try this and just continue to suck. You have to get extremely lucky to draft a couple of players who turn out to be franchise level, and then surround them by some veteran journeymen who take a big jump in development with some extra minutes and responsibilities.

You guys talk like we just have to tank for 2-3 years and are then on our way to a Cup. Look at the teams who have drafted lottery picks or in the top 10 the last bunch of years.... they are still drafting lottery picks because they still suck. Most of your suggesting this course are too young to remember the decades of relative futility that our team went through and how depressing it was going to a game and knowing you were likely to lose. That is the sort of thing that loses you all those fancy corporate sponsors and luxury box sales... who wants to take a client to a depressing event where you are shellacked most of the time? You say "hey that is a good thing, leaves room for the individual fans!".... well no, that isn't how it works, when the team starts losing money they start trimming costs and payroll... and then you stop being a cap ceiling team who can work their way into contention.

Once you start missing the playoffs regularly, you suddenly can't get any UFA's to sign with you. You start having to WAY overpay your own young players when you re-sign them in order for them not to walk away. In a salary cap world you easily end up with an endless cycle of never getting out of the basement.

For all the talk about the Oilers being full of young dynamic talent, there isn't a single sign that they will be a playoff team anytime this decade. Their young players are overpaid, and there is every likelihood that the Oilers will still suck when those bloated long term contracts are done... and those players will flee to somewhere that they don't lose every night.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

If it means we're guaranteed to win a cup yes. The problem with the 70's, and 80's is you could be under .500 and make the playoffs. What we really need is top 5 draft picks, and not just draft stars, but superstars.

Whats a common denominator on all 4 conference finals teams? All have a Norris calibre d-man.

Montreal: Subban

New York Rangers: McDonagh

LA: Doughty

Chicago: Keith (although Seabrook is more balanced)

We need a guy to keep the puck in the offensive zone, hold the line, and be fast enough to beat any forward that gets a breakaway on our goalie. And unlike Ehrhoff can actually DEFEND.

We also need forwards that show up for the playoffs.

Rangers: 8 forwards with 10 points or better.

Kings: 9 forwards with 10 points or better and two with more than 20 points.

Canadiens: 7 forwards with 10 points or better.

Blackhawks: 7 forwards with 10 points or better.

Great defence, plus 3+ lines that can score, and a team that can play any style, and dictates the tempo of the game = Cup.

Kind of takes away from your point when your supporting evidence is the opposite of what your statement is.

Subban (43rd overall)

McDonagh (12th overall)

Keith (54th overall)

Seabrook (14th overall)

[etsen3]

This is the one time I agree with Botchford. The difference between our team and a team like LA or New York is that our team has aging players that are only getting worse. If you look at LA's roster that year, they were pretty stacked. Yes, anything can happen, but do we really want to depend that much on luck/timing? Our team is clearly on the decline and the longer we wait to rip off the bandaid the more likely it becomes that we end up like Calgary rather than the Rangers.

I'm not saying we should tank, I think we do have a good chance to be a contender very soon IF we take action now. Benning needs to take a look at trading core players for players on the upslope of their careers, while they still have high value.

[sting]

Who saw the Rangers shutting down Crosby and Montreal embarassing Boston?

Anything can happen in the playoffs thanks to good coaching and matchups. Sure the West seems fixed with these playoff performing teams constantly ending up at the Finals, but the Canucks match up VERY well against Chicago and the other teams in their division like St. Louis and even Colorado.

If we can squeak into the playoffs, thanks to the new format we might not have to play a Californian team for a while. If we end up with a 1st round matchup against say Chicago or St. Louis, the Canucks are actually a favourite in that situation (I know Chicago look amazing right now but we've had their number of late, I believe the only team that has a winning record against them ). We know San Jose is likely to blow itself up so they may not slaughter us anymore with their new team as well, so if we get a 2nd round match up against them and a 3rd round match up against say St. Louis (who we actually dominated even last season) we could go deep.

Match-ups are everything, and so is a season's worth of turn around. Last year the Rangers missed the playoffs - they got a new coach, made some BIG trades at the deadline and now they're in the Finals. If they can do it, the Canucks can too.

This is it.

You don't just blow your team up to start over.....you continually unearth every opportunity to get better year after year. It certainly doesn't hurt to have a few lottery picks in the mix, but there are no guarantees that the years you suck will coincide with amazing front line talent.

What's to say that having faith in our veterans will be better than going with the kids? What do you teach your young players when you gift them spots? What do you tell your customers who are paying top end prices for a garbage product.

It takes more than lottery picks to be a winner. Boston, Detroit and NYR are recent examples.

[sting]

One huge problem that gets overlooked is that many teams try this and just continue to suck. You have to get extremely lucky to draft a couple of players who turn out to be franchise level, and then surround them by some veteran journeymen who take a big jump in development with some extra minutes and responsibilities.

You guys talk like we just have to tank for 2-3 years and are then on our way to a Cup. Look at the teams who have drafted lottery picks or in the top 10 the last bunch of years.... they are still drafting lottery picks because they still suck. Most of your suggesting this course are too young to remember the decades of relative futility that our team went through and how depressing it was going to a game and knowing you were likely to lose. That is the sort of thing that loses you all those fancy corporate sponsors and luxury box sales... who wants to take a client to a depressing event where you are shellacked most of the time? You say "hey that is a good thing, leaves room for the individual fans!".... well no, that isn't how it works, when the team starts losing money they start trimming costs and payroll... and then you stop being a cap ceiling team who can work their way into contention.

Once you start missing the playoffs regularly, you suddenly can't get any UFA's to sign with you. You start having to WAY overpay your own young players when you re-sign them in order for them not to walk away. In a salary cap world you easily end up with an endless cycle of never getting out of the basement.

For all the talk about the Oilers being full of young dynamic talent, there isn't a single sign that they will be a playoff team anytime this decade. Their young players are overpaid, and there is every likelihood that the Oilers will still suck when those bloated long term contracts are done... and those players will flee to somewhere that they don't lose every night.

Amen brother.

[-DLC-]

One huge problem that gets overlooked is that many teams try this and just continue to suck. You have to get extremely lucky to draft a couple of players who turn out to be franchise level, and then surround them by some veteran journeymen who take a big jump in development with some extra minutes and responsibilities.

You guys talk like we just have to tank for 2-3 years and are then on our way to a Cup. Look at the teams who have drafted lottery picks or in the top 10 the last bunch of years.... they are still drafting lottery picks because they still suck. Most of your suggesting this course are too young to remember the decades of relative futility that our team went through and how depressing it was going to a game and knowing you were likely to lose. That is the sort of thing that loses you all those fancy corporate sponsors and luxury box sales... who wants to take a client to a depressing event where you are shellacked most of the time? You say "hey that is a good thing, leaves room for the individual fans!".... well no, that isn't how it works, when the team starts losing money they start trimming costs and payroll... and then you stop being a cap ceiling team who can work their way into contention.

Once you start missing the playoffs regularly, you suddenly can't get any UFA's to sign with you. You start having to WAY overpay your own young players when you re-sign them in order for them not to walk away. In a salary cap world you easily end up with an endless cycle of never getting out of the basement.

For all the talk about the Oilers being full of young dynamic talent, there isn't a single sign that they will be a playoff team anytime this decade. Their young players are overpaid, and there is every likelihood that the Oilers will still suck when those bloated long term contracts are done... and those players will flee to somewhere that they don't lose every night.

Exactly. Nothing is a given and people talk like this is a matter of changing a flat tire or something. Was my point, but you've said it so much better. I often refer to the Oilers in how things could unfold...they've played out the recipe some are suggesting, hasn't worked out so well to date. Well said.

[-DLC-]

This is the one time I agree with Botchford. The difference between our team and a team like LA or New York is that our team has aging players that are only getting worse. If you look at LA's roster that year, they were pretty stacked. Yes, anything can happen, but do we really want to depend that much on luck/timing? Our team is clearly on the decline and the longer we wait to rip off the bandaid the more likely it becomes that we end up like Calgary rather than the Rangers.

I'm not saying we should tank, I think we do have a good chance to be a contender very soon IF we take action now. Benning needs to take a look at trading core players for players on the upslope of their careers, while they still have high value.

LA has 6 players over 30, as we have.

You know what can't be measured but is a huge factor in winning/losing? Hot/cold streaks. And injury. Some teams get rolling and are hard to knock them off the momentum in that. There is no surefire formula here....put a good roster in place, have a coach who knows how to play off their strengths/weaknesses, fill the gaps in the event that injury/illness hit and the rest is all about things like puck luck, timing, confidence (or lack thereof), officiating. So many things. Hot/cold goaltenders in particular can be the difference between winning/losing.

There is no: "do this/that" and you are guaranteed to win. It's all up in the air and a combination of things that all come together when success is reached. People want to dumb it down to this or that.

I'm convinced any GM is willing to consider trades to upgrade...however, that isn't solely in their hands. They need willing trade partners and that's out of their hands - often, the price is wrong (as MG experienced). People talk like it's a just do it deal. Not that simple.

Drafting too - Edmonton says hi in thinking you just "pick" winners. You pick based on potential that may or may not be reached. Chemistry, leadership, support staff, how players are groomed will all come into play, as seen in this case.

[Jiggs50]

Botchford and Gallagher make it sound as if the Canucks are a chl team. Need these two to accidentally on purpose get hit by a bus...

[asian player]

Hmm I actually agree with Botch on this one. With the exception of Kesler, all of our core is over 30 years old. There is no competing core as old as ours.

Yes, anything can happen in the playoffs, but some make it seem as if it's a crapshoot. Watch any of the playoff series and you'll know that the Canucks are too slow, not nearly enough skilled, and are not nearly as physical. On top of that, we are thin on depth so if a couple guys go down, well that's pretty much game over. Maybe our goaltending can steal a couple games for us? Neither goaltenders have proven to be consistent enough.

Imagine just one down year next year, we can pick up a high caliber legit 1c that we do not currently have. By July of 2015, we can have a new group of guys that all have the potential to be part of the new core. And then we will have a core that will be competing for years, and we just have to find the right pieces to put around the core

My question is, does anyone actually think the team will be legitimate contenders next year?

[-DLC-]

So let's blow this "senior citizens" have no place (here/on a team) theory out of the water. #1 & 2 in current playoff points leader stats? Aged 29+ & 32.

3 of the top 5 in goals? Aged 32, 29 32 respectively.

Assists top 5 have: two 29 year old players and a 35 year old.

So what I see is that you have to have a mix of veteran leadership WITH the young guys you're trying to get an impact out of. Support staff for them.

When push comes to shove, even the "old guys" can get it done and are called upon to lead the way, as proven by the stats.

Be careful what you wish for. Once you lose the leaders on the team the young guys have to then fly on their own - some do but others won't.

This "age" thing is but another media angle that is generating steam. Detroit has over half their roster into their 30's/40's and yes, that seems to be winding down (somewhat). But Edmonton isn't guaranteed to win in a series over Detroit in accordance to their roster being younger. My money would rest on the Red Wings.

For a long term, overall gameplan sure, you have to eventually start replacing players with younger versions. But I believe it's a transitional thing, not an abrupt change where you revamp what has been a somewhat successful lineup and it's out with the old, in with the new.

With that, I have seen our guys slowdown but what can offset that deficit is an overall solid hockey IQ and sense of the game. Experience counts for something. Positioning and strategy. It makes for a more exciting game if guys are blowing the others off the line and skating circles around them. Hey, didn't Raymond do that (love him)? Many weren't satisfied then, either. So which one do we want here? Or does it change year to year based on players? Oh, I see - we want a fast player who is guaranteed to scare all the goalz. Hmm, doesn't every team?

Mas was a young(erish - 25 or so at the time), fast player and people called for his head. Why? - because young/fast is only part of it. So many things that are being assumed and taken for granted. A fast young player is no more guaranteed for success in this league than a proven aging (30+) veteran is.

[6YPE]

The problem I see here is people are saying tank it for a few years, draft some good players, and head back to the playoffs with a true contender in 3-5 years.

While this process is happening everyone will be screaming that the team isnt making the playoffs and the coach needs to go, and the GM needs to go, and the president needs to go, and the team should be sold and moved to Seattle, and on and on and on... this fan base couldnt handle it if the team didnt make the playoffs for 3 or so years while the new talent gets up to speed....

Perhaps there is a way through good trading, a concious Management team, and solid development of the young guys now that they own their own farm team in Utica, that a team could still be competative, and build a stronger team for the future.

Maybe the new management team has some kind of vision like this. Its not impossible to do things this way.

When you look at a team like Detroit, who found so many gems through drafting, you have to look at how they developed the players they have. I think thats more important than just the players drafted. Drafting players and not developing them correctly can be as bad as lousy drafting, development is the key to sustainability.

[MoneypuckOverlord]

In order to become a contender, we need to first make the playoffs and build the team. It's stupid to think we can be a contender next year. It's a process. Next year a build a team that can compete in the playoffs, the following year, make the adjustments needed to win the Stanley cup. that's what Gillis did in 2009 and 2010. After the 2010 playoffs, he noticed they needed more grit in the bottom, 3 and more more depth on defence. He also added a puck moving dman from the 2009 team which he noticed we lack.

Botchford is just unbelievable. No one should expect us to be a contender next year.

[hsedin33]

Everyone keeps forgetting about money. Money plays a huge factor, if the Canucks can make the playoffs they will, based solely on the fact that they will still make a ton of money from one round, remember players don't get paid for playoff rounds, its all profit for the ownership.

[mpt]

This kind of thinking will put us back a few years... It's time to accept that we need to rebuild, it's an eventuality and something that will need to be done sooner rather than later.

No more 'retooling' or 'adjusting' please. It's time to rebuild.

The best chance we are going to have to win in the next 10 years is now while the Sedins are here. We got nothing special coming down the pipes and I doubt any of our assets are going to fetch us that something special.

[Mustapha]

This team needs to focus on playing a 60 minute consistent team game - they can't expect results unless the team plays the right way.

That's the problem with a team like the Oilers - they have tons of talent on their team, but they can't seem to find the right direction behind the bench.

It comes down to coaching and leadership - the Canucks need better leadership in the dressing room and behind the bench.

If they can address those issues, the results will follow.

[Brocklovich]

Its an interesting debate thats for sure. I do think the problem with comparing us or anyone to detroit is that for the longest time they iced an insanely good team and could let players really blossom in the AHL. In the new NHL with the cap that almost isnt possible anymore unless you have crazy cap space and no albatross contracts.

On the flipside doing what Edmonton does isnt feasible either as it breeds a losing atmosphere ( although Eakins just doesnt seem like a fit there) and then you end up overpaying just to keep your young players otherwise they bolt.

I do think the Canucks need to retool, I couldn't envision them beating any of the teams come playoff time in the west. When the playoffs start I dont really consider regular season success against x team or failure against y team since its a fresh start. The canucks dont have the speed / grit to compete and thats not knocking the core as they are good players.

I think the canucks should do a retool over 2 seasons or so. Keep players like Bieksa, Sedins, Hamhuis and others:

Move 2 of the following: Kesler, Hansen, Edler, Burrows, Booth ( buy out), Dalpe ( some others this just an example)

Kesler gets you some huge pieces to rebuild with a top young prospect, 1st (2014 or 2015) +. Its tough to lose this guy but he could truly move the retool along nicely and bring back some great pieces. This would ensure a potential poor 2015 which stinks for the owners but might bring in a top 5 or higher pick.

Edler is another guy who could still bring back some good pieces. He may not waive ntc which is his right, but again if he did could bring back some good pieces for the retool.

Burrows would be tough to see in a different jersey but again he is a guy that could land some solid pieces.

Hansen would have to be moved for 2nds / 3rds but still those can be valuable.

Then move 1 of the following: Lack or Markstrom, Higgins, Garrison, Tanev.

If they moved a goalie it makes sense to sign a veteran to mentor the other with Eriksson in the wings.

Higgins, Garrison & Tanev are all players I like and could likely fetch quite a bit on the open market. I would only move 1 of these guys though not more.

This way if any of these guys get moved you still have a leadership group consisting of Twins, Bieksa, Hamhuis + whoever is remaining. To me this would be optimal as the young guys coming up have mentors in said players remaining and losing doesnt become accepted like it did in Edmonton.

I look at how Montreal was awful one year added a couple pieces and landed galchenyuk and made the playoffs again.

[asian player]

The best chance we are going to have to win in the next 10 years is now while the Sedins are here. We got nothing special coming down the pipes and I doubt any of our assets are going to fetch us that something special.

The reason why we need to rebuild is because we have "nothing special coming down our pipes". We can for a kid that is actually special

[KSniper88]

I think we should rebuild now! Instead of wasting another year and going that route. Even if we made playoffs next season were not getting past LA or Chicago. The quality of those two teams can't be matched with this core.