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

[Discussion] Should We Go All Out For The Cup?


DownUndaCanuck

  

104 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I hope Benning can pull off a Clutterbuck - Niederreiter type deal and fleece another GM to give up a mismanaged prospect with blue-chip potential. I'd say that's better than loading up on picks (prospects at the end of the day are unproven entities unless your name is McDavid or Crosby) or paying out big-time to get an established player (e.g. getting Seguin cost Dallas Loui Eriksson, to get Shattenkirk St. Louis paid with Stewart and Johnson). Even though GM Snow has smartened up we should still be able to exploit other teams' weaknesses (e.g. could get good value for our vets on rookie-laden teams) if it was sold properly, e.g. trade a vet to Carolina for a kid to shore up their current team.

Hope we can target Gormley for the back end, but longevity's the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Benning can pull off a Clutterbuck - Niederreiter type deal and fleece another GM to give up a mismanaged prospect with blue-chip potential. I'd say that's better than loading up on picks (prospects at the end of the day are unproven entities unless your name is McDavid or Crosby) or paying out big-time to get an established player (e.g. getting Seguin cost Dallas Loui Eriksson, to get Shattenkirk St. Louis paid with Stewart and Johnson). Even though GM Snow has smartened up we should still be able to exploit other teams' weaknesses (e.g. could get good value for our vets on rookie-laden teams) if it was sold properly, e.g. trade a vet to Carolina for a kid to shore up their current team.

Hope we can target Gormley for the back end, but longevity's the key.

Larsson and or Gormley would be the most logical blue liners and both ready to be tossed aside for whatever reasons by all accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going all in for the cup doesn't work. Too many things need to happen in the post-season to make it worth while. I would rather go for the cup every year without trading the future.

Pittsburgh did a but of dealing a few years ago to get the cup (Iginla, etc.) but they never even made it to the SCF. It was less risk for them as their best players are still pretty young/entering their prime therefore them trading some of their future is alright because their future is still with Crosby, Malkin, etc.

Canucks future is Horvat, Shinkaruk(sp?), Jensen, Gaunce, etc.

Lets weather the storm as they say. Compete for a playoff spot and see how we do, then every year the youth should slowly begin to creep in. It's already started, what with Lack, Kassian, Tanev, Vey, Stanton, Bonino(one could argue this one?), possibly Horvat when he finishes up his stint with the Comets. Thats (in my opinion) the best way to do it. It may take a little time but once we get there we hopefully should be a good team to compete for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. We should stick with this "bridge" team we have until our prospects make the jump. If we can add pieces for a reasonable price, then I'm all for it. Otherwise we shouldn't mortgage our future our current young players. Unless ofcourse it is one of our goalies: Lack/Markstrom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were up to me I'd give this idea a definitive no.

So many times we have all seen teams go "all in" at the deadline and then disrupt the chemistry of their clubs which leads to playoff heartache.

Would prefer to build from within (which is a safer way to win in todays NHL) and maybe add piece that is lacking rather than bust the farm so we can get a few rentals or players with no vested interested in the Canucks other then a payday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not it’s not bro. The Canucks won’t finish bottom 10.

It must be really nice to have it all figured out. I wish I had the gift of foresight. Even so, I pretty clearly implied that I thought they would have to trade up to get a top 10 pick. That's what "make a play" for a top pick means... They certainly could finish bottom 10 and it would be far from the least surprising thing if that managed to happen if they traded that pick. It's really not controversial to suggest an aging team that just finished in the bottom 6 could manage to do so again if the injury bug hit. A team does not go as long as the Canucks have without winning a cup if they haven't been historically plagued by bad luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how after 4 1st rounders (two of them being top-10 picks) in the last 2 years how someone could think we lack elite talent in our prospect pool. We have skilled players and more importantly well-rounded character players to supplement them.

We have elite potential, but with prospects it's like buying a lottery ticket. The more tickets we have, the higher the likelihood one or more of them reach their potential.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the Kings are getting no scoring from 3 lines and have been exposed"

I read most of what you said but whatever the KINGS do now has no bearing on what they do in the PLAYOFFS and they have proven that they are the REAL DEAL when it comes to the PLAYOFFS.

On the other hand we have not proven that we are the REAL DEAL when it matters most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't go all out, but go relatively all out.

The sedins have their super stardom window from 2010 to 2018. We don't have much time.

If it means trading a couple of our top prospects then we should. This team is only 1 or 2 pieces away from winning a cup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the Kings are getting no scoring from 3 lines and have been exposed"

I read most of what you said but whatever the KINGS do now has no bearing on what they do in the PLAYOFFS and they have proven that they are the REAL DEAL when it comes to the PLAYOFFS.

On the other hand we have not proven that we are the REAL DEAL when it matters most.

King's are good but absolutely no way they win either of their cups if officiating wasn't fixed.

Canucks could easily take them if they played in a fair atmosphere where the nhl didn't supply the officiating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way way way too earlier for this discussion. Five of this team's wins have come in games against Edmonton, Calgary, and Carolina.

Against less than terrible teams their record isn't so great. Won against Montreal, Washington, and St. Louis. Lost against Tampa, Colorado, Dallas.

This discussion could be reasonably had when the team is above 500 against contenders and semi contenders (eg. Cali, Chi) having played a significant portion of the season.

...though I do feel the hope. The next five games are a HUGE test. Maybe the team is one of the rare cases where what is on paper is drastically different that what you see on the ice, maybe Kesler was less of driving force than we thought, maybe the post 2011 failure was due to a burnt out team and a team slowly losing faith in their coach, maybe the disaster last year was the coach... I'm doubtful but I'll admit I'm surprised by how good the team looks this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baring significant injury/ies I wouldn't add anything but a 5th defensemen with top four capability. Keep the youth, keep the picks, let the team develop. If in the final year of the Sedins contract if they're still elite we will have a really fucking good team. A team that has solid odds to win the cup.

(danny - hank - jensen

shinkaruk - horvat - kassian

virtanen - guance - vey

burrows - mcCann - hansen)

Hopefully some asshole doesn't go full super star and screw our cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...