BanTSN Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 maybe someday, the NHL will make the draft lottery apply to the 2nd round onwards and every team will have an equal shot at the 1st overall pick. That would make tanking redundant to get the 1st overall pick. That would also be incredibly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Sedins 2nd and 3rd overall. Best Canucks ever? Or is it Linden, who was a 2nd overall? Hmmm. Sure, we can pretend that all these star players will be available to us in later rounds or via trade/free agency. But the reality is that those trades are extremely rare and nowadays players decide where they want to go, and landing a difference-maker UFA is also becoming more rare as those guys are generally locked-up and only the overpaid, underperforming types are made available. They also generally want to head to teams who are ready to win. A team that is rebuilding like us, will not be able to land a difference-maker UFA. It's that simple. This is cdc. So I am not surprised that this discussion is still falling on deaf ears despite us watching the team fold in the playoffs like a wet paper bag against the weakest team in the playoffs. However, it is plainly obvious that difference-making star power is required here and the only way to acquire it is through the draft. Not addressing this need now only puts us further behind in the future, as we're going to miss good draft years in favour of weaker ones. imho A good plan involves taking advantage of good drafts. But at the end of the day, it's all up to Linden and Benning what direction they want to take the team in, and not the same ol' blabbering nitwits of cdc like you or I. ps. The fans have mandated a course of action that takes us to a cup. The fans have shown that they do not care if the team 'makes the playoffs'. They didn't even sell out round one home games. The fans want the cup and are prepared to have the team miss the playoffs for awhile in order to secure a winning team. So the Canucks should probably act on it. If not, then whatever. It only means that they don't honestly give a crap about winning. pps. It's not 'tanking' if the team is bad enough to lose. Considering they finished 6th last two seasons ago and they looked like trash in the playoffs against the worst team in it, maybe it's time for an honest assessment of where this team is at. Are you buying seasons tickets to watch the cellar dwelling team you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonedanielsedin Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Building through the draft is the only way. Which was previously done with Burke, Nonis and Gillis, assembling a solid core and all adding pieces to the puzzle, the team did make it to the 7th game in the Stanley Cup Final. Now that Kesler is gone and the Sedin's window is rapidly shutting, it should be expected that our team will sink lower and lower into the standings. Its the circle of (NHL) life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zLx_JtcQVI The same happens to all great teams, they suck long enough to draft an elite core, they have many great seasons and may win some cups or may not, then that core fades and so does the team. It will happen to Chicago when Toews and Kane get old or demand a trade, the same will happen in Anaheim when Getzlaf and Perry get old or demand a trade. Then they too will sink to the bottom of the league and the cycle continues. Teams like Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose who remain competitive for so long, it stagnates their prospect pool more so than teams who sink sooner. You can't win the cup without elite players especially in current cap era. So blow Canucks blow, otherwise get ready for good 5 to 10 years of mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Building through the draft is the only way. Which was previously done with Burke, Nonis and Gillis, assembling a solid core and all adding pieces to the puzzle, the team did make it to the 7th game in the Stanley Cup Final. Now that Kesler is gone and the Sedin's window is rapidly shutting, it should be expected that our team will sink lower and lower into the standings. Its the circle of (NHL) life. The same happens to all great teams, they suck long enough to draft an elite core, they have many great seasons and may win some cups or may not, then that core fades and so does the team. It will happen to Chicago when Toews and Kane get old or demand a trade, the same will happen in Anaheim when Getzlaf and Perry get old or demand a trade. Then they too will sink to the bottom of the league and the cycle continues. Teams like Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose who remain competitive for so long, it stagnates their prospect pool more so than teams who sink sooner. You can't win the cup without elite players especially in current cap era. So blow Canucks blow, otherwise get ready for good 5 to 10 years of mediocrity. Tanking will cripple the franchise. Hell, attendance went to hell after ONE year of missing the playoffs. What do you think multiple years of being a cellar dweller would do? Canadian franchises aren't invincible. Just ask Winnipeg/Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonedanielsedin Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Tanking will cripple the franchise. Hell, attendance went to hell after ONE year of missing the playoffs. What do you think multiple years of being a cellar dweller would do? Canadian franchises aren't invincible. Just ask Winnipeg/Quebec. The Canucks are still one of the biggest revenue bringers in the league and will continue to be so ( bless those corporate assholes ) so it would not have the same effect on this franchise as Winnipeg, Edmonton or the Nordiques. Quebec had two teams, much more easy to justify getting rid of one, same thing in Alberta, Edmonton almost got the boot because Calgary was there. Besides the only real push for another American team is Seattle...... you really think they'd move the Canucks to Seattle? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Tyler Johnson(Not Drafted)>Yakupov(1st overall) and Hopkins(1st overall) Mark Stone, Jamie Benn, Pavel Datsyuk etc. the list is endless. You have to be lucky to be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The Canucks are still one of the biggest revenue bringers in the league and will continue to be so ( bless those corporate assholes so it would not have the same effect on this franchise as Winnipeg, Edmonton or the Nordiques. Quebec had to teams, much more easy to justify getting rid of one, same thing in Alberta, Edmonton almost got the boot because Calgary was there. So do you deny that the franchise had a heavy setback from a financial standpoint last season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonedanielsedin Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 So do you deny that the franchise had a heavy setback from a financial standpoint last season? No I am not but It will not lead the team being moved. Even if they sucked for 10 years that wouldn't happen because Vancouver is still a better hockey market than any alternative. They are die hard fans all over the province who don't go because of the ticket prices, if the team sucked forcing the prices to lower, they would still sell tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Building a powerhouse team in the cap era cannot be done in the same way as in the past. With the cap playing such a prominent part in teams makeup, it is difficult to hold on to players over the years (unless you overpay or offer NTC's and years)necessary to assemble all the necessary players and have them come together and peak at the same time. With that, I look at Calgary as an example of what did go wrong when they tried to retool on the fly with Iginla in the lineup. There were mini trades and signings as management tried desperately to assemble a winning team before Iginla declined further. They were not good enough to make a run and not bad enough to get the quality young guns that they boast in their lineup today. They took a giant leap of faith and let Iginla go as well as trading away other vets and designating themselves to being non contenders for the necessary draft years in order to draft high end talent. It was not too long ago that Vancouver fans were making fun of the lowly Lames as they were called. I am not talking about 5-6 years ago, I am talking about 3 years ago. Edmonton has done the same and drafted some gems....they are not that far removed from being a powerhouse team again, especially after they draft McDavid this year. They need to add depth to their defense, a sure fire goalie and they will be in the hunt. They have not had the same success as Calgary because it took them longer but they have enough high end talent to get those ingredients through trade. Vancouver fans are ecstatic at the way Horvat came in and played this year. We drafted him with the #10 pick....unless we are unbelievably lucky this year we won't be getting that type of player at #23. We might get a project who can be that type of player but he will need a few years in the AHL to develop. We have Virtanen at #6 who could very well make the team next year. This is the year when we should be trading vets for picks and stocking the cupboard. While the prospects are developing, fill in the roster spots with FAs' and get those picks 1-5 for a couple of years. At the very least, Vancouver should be packaging our 1st and a vet to move up to grab a sure thing versus a project. We have had a couple of trips to the final round with the Sedins' but that only happened because Vancouver was bad enough to get those picks. If we had drafted a couple of players at our usual 10th spot as we did for so many years, we would not in all likelihood have enjoyed the success that we all enjoyed. I have been a fan of the Canucks since day 1 so we are talking about 40 plus years of waiting for a Cup. The times have changed and Vancouver has to adapt to the reality that you are hard pressed to sip from the Cup unless you can get a Crosby, Gaudreau, Hall, McDavid, Webber or S Jones or two. All the whining about us needing a Webber or Doughty on the blueline won't happen with #23 picks. There is a longshot chance that we could get lucky and out think the other 29 teams scouting and GMs and draft a superstar in the 2nd or third round but that is not something that should even be part of a plan to build a winner. If we were in the position to draft McDavid right now, do you think Vancouver fans would be more excited about that or would they rather be looking forward to getting a 1st round playoff next year? Based upon all our 1st round exits the last few years, I would bet on it being drafting McDavid. You lack a large enough sample size of teams that have tanked successfully/unsuccessfully vs teams that have retooled on-the-fly successfully/unsuccessfully. Looking at Calgary and Edmonton is ironic - Calgary failed to retool, Edmonton failed in their tanking. Edmonton has been spoon fed more loser compensation than any team in modern NHL history, and can't 1st overall themselves into the playoffs - not a solid argument for tanking. Lots of teams have successfully retooled on the fly. HIgh picks are not necessary to build a franchise - there's no better example than the entire Anaheim roster. The Detroit Redwings have had a top 20 pick or two (right around 20) in the past two decades and have managed to compete perenially. Calgary is a bad example of either that turned it around regardless. There is no simple one or two paragraph formula for building a SC contender. There is no "type" of team to model on - it moves back and forth between 'heavy' teams (LA, Boston) and 'fleet' teams (Chicago), 'defensive' teams (NJ) or 'skilled' (Detroit) - the folks here who don't seem to grasp these changing dynamics/trends and different successful approaches are the ones who are determined to oversimplify things. The Pacific was thought to be the toughest division in hockey, yet the Central has quietly dominated the Pacific for the past few seasons. The irony in your prescription is that you name players like Gaudreau (drafted 104th overall - 4th round) and Weber (drafted 49th overall - 2nd round). All the whining about needing higher than #23 picks is pretty much shot to holes by your own examples.... This is classic saviour mentality - that a single star is going to rise a franchise from the ashes. That is nonsense - no team is built on one player. What better example than one of yours - Calgary - who lost their very best player - an undrafted gem (like Burrows) - and Norris candidate - yet went on to earn a playoff spot without him, and make a respectable playoff run. Giordano - one of the NHL's best - and Calgary didn't even need a 7th round pick to acquire him. I'd trade a top 10 pick for a guy like him anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonedanielsedin Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Giant walls of text are not necessary, anyway..... When was the last team that won without a high end drafted core of at least two players? When was the last Stanley Cup team that didn't acquire these players through the current draft system by being terrible for many consecutive seasons? Yes you can get lucky and draft low overall guys and you can have good scouts and development coaching, but you still cant win without at least two if not three ELITE hockey players. Please do not reply with a massive long winded response its really not needed to answer the questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks Curse Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Sad to say, but I'm looking forward to the Sedins retiring. That's the day real change will happen. That's the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 No I am not but It will not lead the team being moved. Even if they sucked for 10 years that wouldn't happen because Vancouver is still a better hockey market than any alternative. They are die hard fans all over the province who don't go because of the ticket prices, if the team sucked forcing the prices to lower, they would still sell tickets. Like it or not, this is not a market like Toronto or Montreal. Fans will not support a poor product. We saw it start last year. It could be a crippling blow for us to blow the entire team up and tank. And from a personal standpoint, I would jump off the bandwagon if this team went into a season with the intention of being terrible. Aquilini would never get another cent of my money, and I would do my damndest to dissuade others from supporting the product as well. If management legitimately try to put a good product on the ice, and they fail, that's one thing. But the idea of putting a poor product on the ice intentionally makes me sick to my stomach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 This is classic saviour mentality - that a single star is going to rise a franchise from the ashes. That is nonsense - no team is built on one player. What better example than one of yours - Calgary - who lost their very best player - an undrafted gem (like Burrows) - and Norris candidate - yet went on to earn a playoff spot without him, and make a respectable playoff run. Giordano - one of the NHL's best - and Calgary didn't even need a 7th round pick to acquire him. I'd trade a top 10 pick for a guy like him anyday. The result of far too many years reading superhero comic books and idolizing sports stars as gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Giant walls of text are not necessary, anyway..... When was the last team that won without a high end drafted core of at least two players? When was the last Stanley Cup team that didn't acquire these players through the current draft system by being terrible for many consecutive seasons? Yes you can get lucky and draft low overall guys and you can have good scouts and development coaching, but you still cant win without at least two if not three ELITE hockey players. Please do not reply with a massive long winded response its really not needed to answer the questions. People can respond however the hell they want. This is a discussion board, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 ps. The fans have mandated a course of action that takes us to a cup. The fans have shown that they do not care if the team 'makes the playoffs'. They didn't even sell out round one home games. The fans want the cup and are prepared to have the team miss the playoffs for awhile in order to secure a winning team. So the Canucks should probably act on it. If not, then whatever. It only means that they don't honestly give a crap about winning. pps. It's not 'tanking' if the team is bad enough to lose. Considering they finished 6th last two seasons ago and they looked like trash in the playoffs against the worst team in it, maybe it's time for an honest assessment of where this team is at. Absolute garbage. Tanking and purposely icing a bad team is not only unprofessional, disrespectful, and dishonourable to the game, league, sport, and fans, but is absolutely NO guarantee of a championship. And the "fans" that want such a thing aren't the ones that will be buying tickets to watch it. How well did tanking work for Arizona? Buffalo got second prize, and if it'd been next year maybe not even that. You could trade the Sedins, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler, Miller, send Horvat to Utica, and bring Racicot out of retirement, finish the season with 35 points, and still end up with the 4th overall pick in 2016, and tearfully watch your creepy man-love dream for boy Chychrun evaporate before your eyes. And all you'd have left is years and years of watching scrubs get run over by Calgary and Edmonton. Simplistic, one-dimensional, ill-conceived lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Giant walls of text are not necessary, anyway..... When was the last team that won without a high end drafted core of at least two players? When was the last Stanley Cup team that didn't acquire these players through the current draft system by being terrible for many consecutive seasons? Yes you can get lucky and draft low overall guys and you can have good scouts and development coaching, but you still cant win without at least two if not three ELITE hockey players. Please do not reply with a massive long winded response its really not needed to answer the questions. Useless comments ironically wasting space with your post-length preferences/limits aren't necessary. 2008 Detroit Redwings. Lidstrom 53rd overall. Datsyuk 171st overall. Zetterberg 210th overall. Franzen 97th overall, Kronwall 29th overall, Rafalski undrafted, Hudler 58th overall, Filppula 95th overall, Draper 67th, Chelios 40th, Holmstrom 257th, Maltby 65th, Hasek 207th. No need to tank, or be "terrible for consecutive seasons" there. 2011 Boston Bruins Bergeron 45th, Chara 56th, Krejci 63rd, Lucic 50th, Marchand 71st, Thomas 217th, Ryder 216th, Seidenberg 172nd, Recchi 67th, Boychuk 61st, Ference 208th, McQuaid 55th, Their high pick, Seguin, had little to do with their SC. They did not get there by being "terrible for consecutive seasons." The KIngs drafted one top 10 player - Doughty. Have a look at Anaheim's lineup and it's a similar collection of late picks - LIndholm at 6th overall is their only top 10 pick - and he sure as hell is not carrying that team. Who on the Rangers did they draft in the top 10? They acquired Nash by trade, so building through high picks certainly did not happen there. The high pick thing might seem to fit Chicago (and even there, you don't win with Toews and Kane - you win with a deep roster from top to bottom) - but regardless, the claim of a trend doesn't seem to hold water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonedanielsedin Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Useless comments ironically wasting space with your post-length preferences/limits aren't necessary. 2008 Detroit Redwings. Lidstrom 53rd overall. Datsyuk 171st overall. Zetterberg 210th overall. Franzen 97th overall, Kronwall 29th overall, Rafalski undrafted, Hudler 58th overall, Filppula 95th overall, Draper 67th, Chelios 40th, Holmstrom 257th, Maltby 65th, Hasek 207th. No need to tank, or be "terrible for consecutive seasons" there. 2011 Boston Bruins Bergeron 45th, Chara 56th, Krejci 63rd, Lucic 50th, Marchand 71st, Thomas 217th, Ryder 216th, Seidenberg 172nd, Recchi 67th, Boychuk 61st, Ference 208th, McQuaid 55th, Their high pick, Seguin, had little to do with their SC. They did not get there by being "terrible for consecutive seasons." Have a look at Anaheim's lineup and it's a similar collection of late picks - LIndholm at 6th overall is their only top 10 pick - and he sure as hell is not carrying that team. Still these examples are rare and should not and cannot be held as some sort of template. They got lucky. I stated before that Detroit was an exemption they have remained highly competitive over time, i was a big fan of the Bruins before we faced them in the finals. I still hate them. Anaheim is still being heralded by Getzlaf and Perry, that team would be nowhere without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Still these examples are rare and should not and cannot be held as some sort of template. They got lucky. I stated before that Detroit was an exemption they have remained highly competitive over time, i was a big fan of the Bruins before we faced them in the finals. I still hate them. Anaheim is still being heralded by Getzlaf and Perry, that team would be nowhere without them. 19th and 28th overall. The idea that Detroit and Boston "got lucky" is pretty absurd btw. Those aren't one or two late picks they rode on the backs of - they are entire, deep NHL contending rosters. That doesn't come by luck. Luck is what Edmonton is depending on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Hey guys. Remember that time when Benning said he wasn't gonna tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonedanielsedin Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 19th and 28th overall. still first round picks buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.