Ideal team age bias vs. the Canucks

[ABNuck]

Doing a bit of research. Since it seems to be a league of analytics now, I thought I'd give it a shot to see if the analytics expose a fundamental issue with the Canucks (not too surprised by results...pretty much proves out what we already know). This analytic is age based only (not accounting for exceptional talent before or beyond the target ages).

IDEAL NHL TEAM (the ideal target each GM should - IMHO - strive for) is comprised of:

Players 18 to 23 (20% with bias towards the 21 to 23 age group)

Players 24 to 31 (70% with bias towards the 24 to 27 age group)

Players 32+ (10%)

LAST YEAR SCW (CHICAGO)

18 to 23 (18%) / 24 to 31 (69%) / 32+ (13%)

PREVIOUS YEAR SCW (LA QUEENS)

18 to 23 (15%) / 24 to 31 (70%) / 32+ (15%)

OUR CURRENT CANUCKS

18 to 23 (24%) / 24 to 31 (49%) / 32+ (27%)

In order to fix this issue, obviously, we need to ideally get rid of 5 players aged 32+ and replace them with players aged 24 to 31.

The obvious ones to go out are Higgins, Vrbata, Burrows, Miller and Hamhuis.

THE EASY FIXES:

Markstrom will replace Miller / Demko will replace Markstrom

MODERATELY EASY FIX:

Hamhuis is UFA (and also the youngest of the group at 32), so trade, release or re-sign for 1 more season

MODERATELY DIFFICULT FIX:

Vrbata. He still has value and could bring us a good serviceable NHL winger if packed together with a 2nd (Huberdeau?)

DIFFICULT FIX:

Higgins. He will bring us little in return...certainly not what we give up. We can't dress the pick we get so I'm guessing somebody on the Comets gets a shot. Still, we'd have to find a buyer, and that might not be so easy.

Burrows is a heart of the Canucks (with a NMC), if not on the scoreboard at least in the dressing room. If only he was 5 years younger right now. Regardless, he's be almost impossible to move, only trade partner MIGHT be the Habs or Sens...but again, we might not get much back, so back to the Comets for a replacement.

Unless we can pickup a player in the 24 to 30 yr old range to replace Higgins/Burrows, we may still be in a similar age related rut, this time the other way (too young with insufficient experience to help much).

Ideal replacements: Vrbata and Higgins (+ a 2nd) out / Huberdeau in. Hamhuis and Burrows out (wherever) / Johansen and Hamonic in.

1ST - SEDIN (34) / SEDIN (34) / SUTTER (26)

2ND - HUBERDEAU (22) / JOHANSEN (25) / McCANN (19)

3RD - BAERTSCHI (22) / HORVAT (20) / HANSEN (29)

1D - EDLER (29) / TANEV (25)

2D - HAMONIC (24) / SBISA (25)

I like THIS line-up going into next season MUCH better...age-wise anyways.

 

[Edlerberry]

i think the more glaring problem is the percentage of top-line players over 30. We're at 100 percent. 

or how about the fact that 101/164 points scored by forwards were done so by players over 32 year old. 

or our third highest scorer is a 40-45 point D-man.

[Baer.]

Vrbata Higgins and a 2nd will not get Huberdeau.

[etsen3]

I think it seems a little strange to be basing our team off of some arbitrary age ratio, especially when you're only taking into account the SC winners and not other successful teams.

It's true that we need to get younger but this is placing way too much of an emphasis on it.

[EmilyM]

How the hell did you get Johansen and Hamonic in the lineup for Burrows and Hamhuis? Haha
NHL 16 Be a GM with trade difficulty slider all the way down?

[homersexual]

Don't forget that we can get McDavid for Cracknell.

[TheGrizzlyCanuck]

You're out to lunch with that roster. 

Realistically the trades I would like to see are: 

Eller, Tinordi  and a 3rd for Vrbata, Jensen and a 6th. Hamhuis for some mix of picks and D prospects. 

In my mind, our roster needs a few more prime aged guys to bridge the gap. I think the age range is important to the performance of the team, but it's not the most important element.  

 

I'm not sure we should be cashing in vets for picks 100%. I don't think that's the way. We have a nice young core group coming up, let them progress in roles they are suited to. this was supposed to be the original game plan. Somehow, our best players in that age range seem to be the only ones injured. This age problem can largely be fixed by promoting one or two of the 21-24 range players from the Comets and by subtracting one or two of the "veterans" from our current roster. 

Also waive Weber. That should pretty much be the first thing done. 

[ABNuck]

8 hours ago, EmilyM said:

How the hell did you get Johansen and Hamonic in the lineup for Burrows and Hamhuis? Haha
NHL 16 Be a GM with trade difficulty slider all the way down?

Please check again...never made that proposal. I said Burrows and Hamhuis OUT (somewhere). Obviously to get Johansen and Hamonic we would need to give up some major prospects and picks (like our 2016 1st...which I would gladly give up if it brought us back Johansen - IMHO Johansen is worth more than Matthews).

And again I stated that to me this would be our IDEAL lineup for the following reasons:

1/ Huberdeau...the Florida deal seems to fit according to what both GM's want

2/ Johansen...being shopped, why not bring him home to BC, it's as good a spot as any

3/ Hamonic...has named VAN as one of the teams he's be willing to come to, so again, why not us?

I didn't pick names out of a hat, I picked players who could realistically come here if the deal was right, would fit (chemistry and cap), and wouldn't bust us up too bad...my main point being we have too many 32+ age players which are declining assets, so a bit of asset management is going to be required here to bring us back into balance.

[Pears]

7 hours ago, homersexual said:

Don't forget that we can get McDavid for Cracknell.

Oh oh and Rielly for Bartkowski!

[EmilyM]

11 minutes ago, ABNuck said:

Please check again...never made that proposal. I said Burrows and Hamhuis OUT (somewhere). Obviously to get Johansen and Hamonic we would need to give up some major prospects and picks (like our 2016 1st...which I would gladly give up if it brought us back Johansen - IMHO Johansen is worth more than Matthews).

And again I stated that to me this would be our IDEAL lineup for the following reasons:

1/ Huberdeau...the Florida deal seems to fit according to what both GM's want

2/ Johansen...being shopped, why not bring him home to BC, it's as good a spot as any

3/ Hamonic...has named VAN as one of the teams he's be willing to come to, so again, why not us?

I didn't pick names out of a hat, I picked players who could realistically come here if the deal was right, would fit (chemistry and cap), and wouldn't bust us up too bad...my main point being we have too many 32+ age players which are declining assets, so a bit of asset management is going to be required here to bring us back into balance.

There are probably 29 teams looking at Johansen. Our first round pick is such a gamble. It could be anything from 1st to 15th. I think Columbus can easily find a much more attractive package than a lottery gamble.

[Salmonberries]

Really Tanev and Sutter are are only important players for us in the key age group. Gillis basically sacrificed an entire generation of players (the current generation) during his tenure as gm. Benning is trying to patch it up but he has a daunting task ahead of him. Skipping out at the draft every year during the Gillis era has to be paid for.

[ABNuck]

28 minutes ago, EmilyM said:

There are probably 29 teams looking at Johansen. Our first round pick is such a gamble. It could be anything from 1st to 15th. I think Columbus can easily find a much more attractive package than a lottery gamble.

I think everyone is going to be surprised for what some of these players go for this year. This is going to be probably the highest quality F/A class (both UFA and RFA) on record, and because of that we're going to see a bunch of salary dumping and evening out of cashflow...everyone is want to be in on this bumper crop (as well as getting their own RFA's signed). It's going to be an interesting year (and an interesting TD Day).

[EmilyM]

2 minutes ago, ABNuck said:

I think everyone is going to be surprised for what some of these players go for this year. This is going to be the probably the highest quality F/A class (both UFA and RFA) on record, and because of that we're going to see a bunch of salary dumping and evening out of cashflow...everyone is want to be in on this bumper crop (as well as getting their own RFA's signed). It's going to be an interesting year (and an interesting TD Day).

For sure. It's really hard to predict until one chip falls and we get an idea of what perceived value is. It's been a long time since this many high profile player names are legitimate trade deadline bait. We're in for a wild one.

[ABNuck]

9 hours ago, BaerOxHitman said:

Vrbata Higgins and a 2nd will not get Huberdeau.

It's almost exactly what Tallon said he's looking for...almost exactly. So explain to me why not (other than just your opinion)?

[dura_mater]

1 hour ago, ABNuck said:

Please check again...never made that proposal. I said Burrows and Hamhuis OUT (somewhere). Obviously to get Johansen and Hamonic we would need to give up some major prospects and picks (like our 2016 1st...which I would gladly give up if it brought us back Johansen - IMHO Johansen is worth more than Matthews).

And again I stated that to me this would be our IDEAL lineup for the following reasons:

1/ Huberdeau...the Florida deal seems to fit according to what both GM's want

2/ Johansen...being shopped, why not bring him home to BC, it's as good a spot as any

3/ Hamonic...has named VAN as one of the teams he's be willing to come to, so again, why not us?

I didn't pick names out of a hat, I picked players who could realistically come here if the deal was right, would fit (chemistry and cap), and wouldn't bust us up too bad...my main point being we have too many 32+ age players which are declining assets, so a bit of asset management is going to be required here to bring us back into balance.

Had to login just so I could LOL at this.

[5 decades and no cup]

10 hours ago, BaerOxHitman said:

Vrbata Higgins and a 2nd will not get Huberdeau.

Shoulda added Jensen...

[ABNuck]

48 minutes ago, dura_mater said:

Had to login just so I could LOL at this.

So here we go again with the argument that some kid who has never played a single game in the NHL is somehow worth more than an established player who is scoring at a career .629 rate (.71 this year in Torts doghouse). I will take the established player all day every day.

And to be honest, dropping to the bottom 5 only gets us a "shot" at Matthews, therefore I'll take Johansen over even a "chance" we'd get Matthews.

[Crabcakes]

The ideal team:

2 players for each age from 22 to 33......that's 22 players + 1 other

Why is this so good?  Because every year, you add 2 young players to the roster and trade away or retire 2 other players.  Every year, there is an infusion of youth and there is also a veteran presence and there is never a shortage of players in their prime.

It is purely theoretical but what I believe the Detroit model to be.

There's obviously more to the Detroit model like drafting and developing etc but if you can have a team with an age structure like this, it is fairly easy to roll the players and rely on the infusion of players through the system rather than having to trade for them or pick up players through free agency etc.  Maybe the biggest advantage of this structure is that it is sustainable. 

[dura_mater]

1 hour ago, ABNuck said:

So here we go again with the argument that some kid who has never played a single game in the NHL is somehow worth more than an established player who is scoring at a career .629 rate (.71 this year in Torts doghouse). I will take the established player all day every day.

And to be honest, dropping to the bottom 5 only gets us a "shot" at Matthews, therefore I'll take Johansen over even a "chance" we'd get Matthews.

Of course drafting top 5 only gets us a small chance at Matthews but you seem to neglect that Matthews isn't the only phenomenal talent available at the draft.  Chyhrun is projected to be better than last years Calder winner in Aaron Ekblad and could be our franchise d man we've so sorely missed.  You're also greatly underselling Matthews.  This is a kid who, if born a few days earlier would have been eligible to be drafted this year, many were projecting him to go before Eichel if that had been the case.  The kids the real deal.  I'd love to have Johansen but trading a top 5 pick in this years draft for Johansen is the type of move that gets a GM fired/laughed at.

You're probably the same guy saying the same thing about McDavid last year.

[ABNuck]

8 hours ago, dura_mater said:

Of course drafting top 5 only gets us a small chance at Matthews but you seem to neglect that Matthews isn't the only phenomenal talent available at the draft.  Chyhrun is projected to be better than last years Calder winner in Aaron Ekblad and could be our franchise d man we've so sorely missed.  You're also greatly underselling Matthews.  This is a kid who, if born a few days earlier would have been eligible to be drafted this year, many were projecting him to go before Eichel if that had been the case.  The kids the real deal.  I'd love to have Johansen but trading a top 5 pick in this years draft for Johansen is the type of move that gets a GM fired/laughed at.

You're probably the same guy saying the same thing about McDavid last year.

We're still on a high from last year's draft...this year is not the same. All GM's will be scrambling to get a top 2 chance, but after that it becomes a fairly regular draft with the ceiling on remaining players as 2nd liners / top 4 D...not too bad at all, again I'd rather take the 1st liner in RyJo than a chance that a potential 2nd liner breaks the ceiling to the 1st line...and again that's all relative too. A team that has struggled for a while obviously has depth issues, therefore that potential 2nd liner might very well end up a 1st liner due to a team's internal makeup.

If you check out my proposals in the RyJo thread you'll see that I do infact cherish our 2016 1st...I made the trade of the pick conditional (2016 if make the playoffs, 2017 if we don't). I too would love a shot at one of this year's top 2 or 3 (something we haven't had for a decade and a half), but if the deal could be worked so that we could have both RyJo AND our 2016 1st...I'm ALL IN!