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

Food for thought (Discussion)


Recommended Posts

I am putting this in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing because it explains my reasons for my position on the current Canuck team and gives good info to everyone.

I have throughout this season stated that we should be rebuilding and not doing it on the fly, but rather sell off older assets while their value is high or at least not low. In my opinion you can not do a rebuild on the fly unless, you have a very talented young core, as did the Detroit's, Boston's and Chicago's, and a very good scouting system, which they had to have, Even Pittsburgh has been able to pick solid d-man by focusing on d-man.........but they have had a strong core to be able to bring in young ones, while retooling.

I feel that a good portion of CDC does not see what has happened here and nor what has been happening the past several months. I sat around this morning and did a little number crunching, and want to share these stats with you.

Since the start of Dec. we have won 24 out of a possible 46 point for a whopping 52.174% winning percentage.

If we take that 52.174 winning percentage and apply it to the remaining 35 games, we will have a final winning point total of 94 points. (current 57 pts. + est. 37 addition pts. = 94 pts.) Which would probably get us into the playoffs as a #8 seed, in our conference.

I however do not believe that this will happen. please let me explain why.........

Using our current Dec/Jan winning percentage and applying it to those teams we will play in the remainder of the season, you will notice our competition is much stronger when compared by winning percentage. This means, if we only beat the teams that are below us in our Dec/Jan winning percentage, we will win a 24 points out of the remaining 70 points. This will give us a final point total of

81 pts. and a winning percentage of slightly less than 50 percent, a 49.390 percent to be exact.

When compared to current winning percentages on NHL .com, this would put our winning percentage in 22 overall. This is just a snap shot, but if we beat who we are suppose to beat and loose to who are suppose to loose to, that is where we will be.

My comparison of Teams percentages has us winning the following.......

Feb. .............5 wins......9 losses

March...........5 wins.....12 losses

April.............2 wins.......3 losses

This is why Benning said that FEB will tell us a lot....not as much as March will.

And this is why I feel the way I do............anyone and everyone beats Buffalo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this different than all the other calls to cull the veterans from the team?

Your position is fairly well set in concrete.

Think of this like a try-out? When a vet, declining or not (comment to make the discussion valid) is better and working harder than the young guy we have to replace him; how do you give his spot away?? IE You are going to have to wait till a Jensen beats a veteran out of a spot. Till he makes it clear he is bigger, faster, wins more battles and brings more talent to the table. At that point we will see a decision on trading a Higgins, or letting a Mathias go.

Similarly, this time we brought in a prospect in Clendening. Not a veteran in Miller or Vrbata, but also noting we we went young with Vey. Short term means one of Weber or Corrado loses.

And so it should be! Although I suppose you hope its Bieksa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is why I feel the way I do............anyone and everyone beats Buffalo

Most also lose to Anaheim. Some things are what you would expect in this world...

Anaheim waited until:

- They had Rakell and Karlsson in their pipeline before they traded Bonino. Even then, they grabbed a pretty good 2C.

- They had Fowler, Vatanen and Lindholm on their roster, established, all 23 or under and Shea Theodore before moving Sbisa.

- They had the 10th overall pick when they gave up the 24th...

Before they started trading. Point is we have to get to a point of a position of strength before you start ripping things apart.

Patience...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surfer

Tell me, if we were 10 points out of a playoff spot and looking at teams near us, winning at a higher rate, would you change your thoughts. I would.

I would also give everyone a break if everyone around us was floundering, and we were surging...but we are not.

What about if you knew you were going to end up in 22 OA spot regardless of if you kept your vets or not. I am not against lateral moves like the one Benning just did....as long as it is an improvement.

Most of the stats favour my argument......whether if be 5 on 5 play, where our vets pick up point, the standings argument and all....my point is we are not strong as we appear, with aging assets.........business does not work by letting fruit rot on the vine.

The trouble is that everyone seems to think I have in for the current Canucks.......no, I love them, I use to read CDC all the time before we went to the SC final, but it was then and there after, I started to see trends and wanted to comment on them......

Hey, numbers don't lie...most of the time!

I know you have followed my posts and know when my post is solid.......(some of my trades stink)......but my stats are solid......and all though not the end all....they prove a point.

I am not in total disagreement with your post, but I see some rot on the Canucks...I would like that changed, while the rest still have value.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surfer

Tell me, if we were 10 points out of a playoff spot and looking at teams near us, winning at a higher rate, would you change your thoughts. I would.

I would also give everyone a break if everyone around us was floundering, and we were surging...but we are not.

What about if you knew you were going to end up in 22 OA spot regardless of if you kept your vets or not. I am not against lateral moves like the one Benning just did....as long as it is an improvement.

Most of the stats favour my argument......whether if be 5 on 5 play, where our vets pick up point, the standings argument and all....my point is we are not strong as we appear, with aging assets.........business does not work by letting fruit rot on the vine.

The trouble is that everyone seems to think I have in for the current Canucks.......no, I love them, I use to read CDC all the time before we went to the SC final, but it was then and there after, I started to see trends and wanted to comment on them......

Hey, numbers don't lie...most of the time!

I know you have followed my posts and know when my post is solid.......(some of my trades stink)......but my stats are solid......and all though not the end all....they prove a point.

I am not in total disagreement with your post, but I see some rot on the Canucks...I would like that changed, while the rest still have value.

Cheers!

If (and when?) we are 10 points out of a play off position; would I sell guys like Mathias? Or Richardson?? Who are both UFA...

Offer guys like Burrows? Hansen, Higgins...

Yes. And if we got even a decent return I would pull the trigger.

I might also project whether any of my current prospects will knock them out as well. If I could not project that, I might have tried to sign them for a reasonable contract before pulling the trigger. Example, will Gaunce be able to steal a job from Richardson at center? But yes, I would still pull the trigger, because we could get an asset, and still sign another Richardson or Higgins in the off season.

But we're not. We hold a playoff position! As of right now it appears we have to beat out only ONE of Winnipeg, San Jose, Calgary or Los Angeles. 5 teams including us, 4 positions. Pretty much an 80% chance. We're ahead of two of them and have games in hand on all. Chances could be seen as better than 80%? If we don't blow it by throwing up the white towel you suggest. I like our chances...

Add to it, Benning is getting us reinforcements, see Clendening. Who has the potential to tip the scales further. And young reinforcements. Not just Clendening. Dont know if you noticed but 5 of the D on our roster last night (Stanton in press box) were 26 and under. We're not completely an over the hill gang. That is before injecting our new trade pick up. Management is doing a youth movement, just much more strategically than you propose.

I am sure it will continue on exactly this more measured approach.

I wanna see our team compete! Nothing will be better for our prospects growth than forcing them to work more, compete harder, find a new gear, get faster & stronger until they get to the point they are better than a guy in our line up. Further, Horvat, Sbisa, Bonino Tanev and Kassian will become better players if they experience NHL play off hockey. More so than counting on a trumped up draft pick to emerge, probably not 3 or 5 years down the line!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am putting this in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing because it explains my reasons for my position on the current Canuck team and gives good info to everyone.

I have throughout this season stated that we should be rebuilding and not doing it on the fly, but rather sell off older assets while their value is high or at least not low. In my opinion you can not do a rebuild on the fly unless, you have a very talented young core, as did the Detroit's, Boston's and Chicago's, and a very good scouting system, which they had to have, Even Pittsburgh has been able to pick solid d-man by focusing on d-man.........but they have had a strong core to be able to bring in young ones, while retooling.

I feel that a good portion of CDC does not see what has happened here and nor what has been happening the past several months. I sat around this morning and did a little number crunching, and want to share these stats with you.

Since the start of Dec. we have won 24 out of a possible 46 point for a whopping 52.174% winning percentage.

If we take that 52.174 winning percentage and apply it to the remaining 35 games, we will have a final winning point total of 94 points. (current 57 pts. + est. 37 addition pts. = 94 pts.) Which would probably get us into the playoffs as a #8 seed, in our conference.

I however do not believe that this will happen. please let me explain why.........

Using our current Dec/Jan winning percentage and applying it to those teams we will play in the remainder of the season, you will notice our competition is much stronger when compared by winning percentage. This means, if we only beat the teams that are below us in our Dec/Jan winning percentage, we will win a 24 points out of the remaining 70 points. This will give us a final point total of

81 pts. and a winning percentage of slightly less than 50 percent, a 49.390 percent to be exact.

When compared to current winning percentages on NHL .com, this would put our winning percentage in 22 overall. This is just a snap shot, but if we beat who we are suppose to beat and loose to who are suppose to loose to, that is where we will be.

My comparison of Teams percentages has us winning the following.......

Feb. .............5 wins......9 losses

March...........5 wins.....12 losses

April.............2 wins.......3 losses

This is why Benning said that FEB will tell us a lot....not as much as March will.

And this is why I feel the way I do............anyone and everyone beats Buffalo

Thanks Janis.

I've been expecting Canucks to be a bubble team for the playoffs this year. At the start of the season I expected slightly below but changed that. Maybe I've been overly optimistic, but as a fan will continue to hope. It should be noted as well that the Canucks have, this season, had quite a few winning games against good teams.

However, it has to be conceded you have reason to be pessimistic. Starting Feb 1 the Canucks close out the regular season playing 35 games in 70 days against higher than average quality opposition while they've been struggling recently to score goals, a problem that was foreseen by many CDC posters before the season started. It will be a gruelling test.

1. Retooling on the Fly

You've expressed the view that it isn't possible to retool on the fly. Obviously, though, if a team can start from nothing-a new expansion franchise-and become a winner at some time in the future, the team hasn't done it by trading their good players, because they didn't start with much that was marketable. The Panthers went from expansion team in 1993 to Cup finals in 1996. That is, from virtually nothing to Cup finals in 3 seasons. The Tampa Bay Lightning went from expansion in 1992 to winning the Cup in 2004.

Given enough time-and the time will vary with the quality of management and getting some good luck, it is possible to build a team without even having marketable veterans to trade.

It's a question of how long it will take, even with good management. It will be somewhere between the Panthers lucky 3 years and the Wings. Detroit changed ownership and management in 1982, had its next winning season in its 6th season after that and didn't become the regular contender that we've come to expect them to be until the 10th season under the new ownership.

On the other hand, Lou Lamoriello took over a horrible New Jersey franchise that had never had anything close to a winning season in 1987 and won 3 Stanley Cups in the next 16 years while making the playoffs 14 of those seasons.

I realize the problem you've mentioned about the Canucks not having a good group of young veterans to form the core of a new team in a few short years when the existing aging core is gone. That's entirely accurate. If one takes a look at Canucks players in the 5 year age group from 22 to 26 inclusive, there is not a single player on the roster who was drafted by the Canucks. There are players acquired by trade, waiver and as free agents. It probably isn't surprising that while there are some good players it is not a group which is strong enough to be the core of a successful team-it consists of Bonino, Matthias, Weber, Sbisa, Stanton, Tanev, Kassian, Vey and, for the time being, Kenins. That's it for players on the roster in that age group.

However, the Canucks are far ahead of starting with nothing. Even in that 22-26 group, Bonino and Tanev are unquestionably valuable assets to have. The others have all at one time or another been solid contributors and most retain some trade value at least. Edler and Hansen both rate to be productive for a few more years. Eddie Lack is a good goalie at 27. Unlike the situation of a new expansion team which has no drafted players, the Canucks did get to draft the last few years and have, in the 18-21 age group, Corrado, Jensen, Horvat, Pedan, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Clendening, Cassels, Virtanen, McCann, Demko and others. The cupboard isn't bare and it looks like when the twins retire there will be some decent young players.

Ok, it's still not a deep group nor is it especially high-quality, but it is definitely a start. It isn't like the cupboard for youngsters is completely bare. Good management can with time produce a team that contends, year after year.

2. Is it best to get rid of veterans now, giving up on the present to get more assets for the future?

You and I have posted our viewpoints on this previously. I suspect you could almost write some of what I'm about to, but for those who haven't followed it in other threads I'll make a couple of points:

(a) Current fans will have a variety of opinions about the outcome of the season for this and future teams. Some of them pay for tickets and merchandise. Almost all of them will enjoy the experience more if the team is not hopeless. The fans don't always need to win, but they do need to feel like they have a chance to win when they go to the rink. The despair that must come from rooting for the Sabres of 2014-15, the Scouts/Rockies/Devils of 1974-87, the Oilers of 2006-15 and the Seals/Barons of 1967-78, among others, is horrible for a franchise. Except in the most loyal cities, fans become less interested, or at least less willing to pay for the pain of going to the rink in the expectation of seeing yet another loss.

Teams which stay good enough to win a reasonable share of games keep fans interested and at least in Canadian cities will keep reasonable attendance.

( B) What cost is there to getting rid of the veterans?

I'm going to make a statement that some will vehemently disagree with.

I think Alex Burrows, Chris Higgins, Kevin Bieksa and Brad Richardson are far more valuable to the Canucks on the ice than many on this forum do. Burrows, Higgins and Richardson are typically sound positional players. In the case of Higgins even during his spell of not scoring he was at the top of the Canucks forward rankings in possession stats (2nd in CF% rel TM) and +/-. While both those stats have limitations, in Higgins case I think all of that is because he was a good defensive player such that he helped the team 5 on 5 and on the penalty kill. In the case of Burrows I think he is a generally sound defensive players who contributes in ways not shown in stats, the easiest example being in going to the net. In Bieksa's case the Canucks are short of players with grit.

Get rid of the vets and what is left? The kids on the farm and in junior, probably. Some argue for the kids to step in and play, to be given more responsibility. I'm firmly in the opposite camp-give them time to make each adjustment and shelter them. Don't make the mistake some teams make of throwing the kids into positions they aren't really ready for. It's a big jump from Jr to the minors and a big jump from there to the NHL.

I want the prospect to be as good as they can from, say, 23-30. Rushing them in at 18-20 risks harming their development. To quote Red Wings GM Ken Holland:

"I spent nine years in the American Hockey League, and what impacted [me] there as I got into my third, fourth, fifth year of pro, was that I was a veteran American league player who was kept around to provide leadership and to be a good player to help the team win. Hartford would bring all these kids in – and the organizations that I was with in Detroit and Hartford, they were struggling organizations. The minute a young kid would play well for six weeks, he’d get [called] up and [provide] a little bit of spark [to the parent club,] and then six weeks later they would [be sent back] down and they were just beaten up. The league was too tough. They couldn’t make a difference. It took you another few weeks, few months to get those players back to where they [had been] confidence-wise and playing-wise. So from a player-development standpoint – a personal-development standpoint – [i learned that] people are ready when they’re ready and [i learned about] the importance of building a foundation."

Source: http://oilersnation....e-200-game-mark

Note-this quote is from a man who for the past 17 years has been GM of a team that has now made the playoffs 24 consecutive seasons and won the Stanley Cup 4 times during that run.

The message? Don't rush the kids. It can be harmful to their development. Let them step up when ready.

And I'll add, leave them some vets to help them learn the game. Don't be like the recent Oilers.

__________

And finally, thanks Janis for, as always, an interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Post Surfer

I am in agreement with you in most of your opinion and my original post was to let people take a look at a reality that is actually happening. My point in all this is, the Canucks are not as good as some say/think....I will be the first one to admit that if we broke the season down into 2 month intervals, we would see a strong first 2 months, then followed by a average 2 months. But if you look further into the numbers, you will find that our third 2 month interval is against, in general, stronger opposition.

If we do play the up and coming 2 months at an even win/loss ratio, I will consider us to have over achieved, and will be somewhat amazed. It is not entirely impossible, and I will be happy, but I will be somewhat doubtful of a long playoff run.

What is more likely to happen is that the Canucks will stay relatively close to a playoff spot until the end of Feb, making it darn near impossible for Benning to rationalize anything but holding steady, with maybe a little adjustment, then as predicted, fall like a rock in March and April, resulting in no playoff appearance.

We shall see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tyhee

As always, your arguments are solid, and I do very much enjoy your knowledge and the way you present it.

I do agree with you in general terms, and understand and support your opinion. I understand that we must have veterans to teach by example, and I agree that you can not sell off all.

I do how ever think that, some vets need to be moved, for assets and for the progression of the team. Because I think that the Canucks will fall further down the league standings, my argument is that we move some of our vets at the deadline, instead of at the draft. That is just what my gut tells me after reviewing the numbers and just watching the darn games.

You are right we have beaten some good teams, but we have also lost to some pathetic teams, and it is not even that we lost, but how we lost......the late Nov. game against Arizona, made me want to puke.......cost me well over $600.00 bucks, and only Arizona showed up, the Canucks never showed up.....and that is in their own arena.......and to me, that was pretty much the start of our mediocrity.

What I will watch with much interest is our record in the remaining part of the season.

As for keeping Vets around.....do not confuse trading vets, with trading core vets, or quality/premium vets.......the point is there is no difference as you stated with keeping Richardson.......I would say anyone over 26 is a vet, but in saying that I understand your point and agree somewhat.

I just look way back in the day and remember Montreal, always moving vets for picks, and always staying ahead of the curve by doing so. They got away from that and looked what happened...for a few years anyways.

Do I want to be Edmonton? No, but who the heck wants to live in Edmonton, certainly not Chris Pronger's wife! (For those that don't know, it was generally known that Pronger's wife forced him getting out of Edmonton.)

Anyways....thanks for responding.....they were all great points, some of which I agree with........

PS...it will be interesting what does happen!

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Post Surfer

I am in agreement with you in most of your opinion and my original post was to let people take a look at a reality that is actually happening. My point in all this is, the Canucks are not as good as some say/think....I will be the first one to admit that if we broke the season down into 2 month intervals, we would see a strong first 2 months, then followed by a average 2 months. But if you look further into the numbers, you will find that our third 2 month interval is against, in general, stronger opposition.

If we do play the up and coming 2 months at an even win/loss ratio, I will consider us to have over achieved, and will be somewhat amazed. It is not entirely impossible, and I will be happy, but I will be somewhat doubtful of a long playoff run.

What is more likely to happen is that the Canucks will stay relatively close to a playoff spot until the end of Feb, making it darn near impossible for Benning to rationalize anything but holding steady, with maybe a little adjustment, then as predicted, fall like a rock in March and April, resulting in no playoff appearance.

We shall see

Yup we shall see.

Hands off to you also for being an honest / polite post, all the time. Regardless of whether I agree.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's much easier to blow a team up when your in the 11-bottom seed in your conference. When you currently sit in a playoff spot, it's tough to sell a blow up style rebuild to ownership and the fans. For ownership it's more money, even if it's just a few extra playoff games to sell seats, merchandise etc, to the average fan who watches but doesn't fully follow the league, it's tough to justify selling your big names/ veterans for "unknown" prospects and picks. Lastly, I honestly thought JB would blow it up over summer of 14, but the Miller/Vrbata signings tells me either

A) he has been mandated to keep the team competitve for a playoff spot now, rather then build a much stronger team for the future

B) he believes this core still has a shot to go for the cup and is adding perceived missing pieces, and focusing on the best immediate results, vs longterm

So with that in mind, I think this season, unless the Canucks lose like 10 of there next 12 or something, they will be buyers in any trades they make. I think JB is gonna try to patch up an aging ship, maybe a veteran Dman a little past his prime, maybe a proven 2nd liner whose having an off season, who knows. I hope he doesn't trade away too much in the way of picks/youth to make this happen, but we shall see.

Depending on how this season finishes, maybe this coming summer JB will get clearance to go full rebuild.

For now though, I think they'll be buying

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...