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

Was the loss to Nashville the deathblow for the 15/16 season?


19naslund19

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

there are no loser points, there is an extra point for the winner.

Orly?

 

We go to over time, Lose. Get a point.

 

Losing a tie game in over time is not a tie. It is a loss. Thus---------> Loser points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Screw said:

Orly?

 

We go to over time, Lose. Get a point.

 

Losing a tie game in over time is not a tie. It is a loss. Thus---------> Loser points.

teams have always gotten a point for a tie.  The extra point goes to the winner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.R. said:

I find it funny that people still think management is waiting for a 'sign', low water mark or 'death blow' to be sellers at the deadline.

IMO, they were leaning towards likely selling expiring vets at the TDL in the summer. Having Hutton, McCann and Virtanen make the team in October was probably the actual 'death blow' if you mean sealing the fate of the expiring/redundant vets.

Having all the assorted call ups play well through this massive string of injuries and guys continuing to play well in Utica were the many nails in their coffins.

IMO, management happily sells off any of the redundant vets they can at the TDL and quite frankly are likely little, if any worse off for it in the standings anyways. The remaining core vets, journeymen and kids can take ownership of making a push for the playoffs and let the chips fall where they may.

+1

I wholeheartedly agree. Linden and Benning's MO this season has always appeared to be that they'll clear house on the expiring contracts and declining/redundant veterans to make room for the next iteration of this team.

Their handling of Higgins has all but confirmed this approach.

The only worry is ownership and what, if any, pressure they'll put on management to keep pushing for the playoffs. They've nixed trades in the past but hopefully they've learned their lesson and will keep their noses out of Linden and Benning's business.

Regardless of how strong a mandate there is to make the playoffs, however, I think it's becoming clear that most of the prospective deadline trades (Vrbata, Hamhuis, Prust, Weber, etc) will not hurt this team's chances. With the exception of Hamhuis, whose absence would be felt on this very thin D. But selling the rest of those players off at the deadline might actually make for a better team (and better odds, albeit still slight, of making the playoffs), given some of the replacement options waiting in the wings in Utica.

Ideally, we see all those contracts moved for picks/prospects and/or some young, emerging roster players. Hamhuis I'd like to see "Vermetted" and sold off at the deadline only to be later re-signed as a free agent. The rest can clear out and make space for prospects and new free agency acquisitions.

And if we somehow squeak into the postseason with a young roster full of rookie and sophomore players, it'll make for some of the most entertaining playoff hockey we've seen since 2011 (regardless of whether the kids win or lose).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stawns said:

teams have always gotten a point for a tie.  The extra point goes to the winner

Noooooo....

 

When there was a tie the points were split. When there was a loss in overtime winner gets 2pts loser gets squat. Also no circus show after OT.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a points system-created parity in the NHL exists.  Years of the cap have added to it.  With parity's existence, along with the draft lottery, goes the notion of 'tanking'.  This is closer to what it's like in the NBA, with a little NFL cap (and legal) issues thrown in.

The season isn't dead for the Canucks.  Not by a long shot.  Playoffs still reachable.  However, at this point we're still only 1 win over CBJ.  That's the zaniness of the parity level in the NHL at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Regardless of how strong a mandate there is to make the playoffs, however, I think it's becoming clear that most of the prospective deadline trades (Vrbata, Hamhuis, Prust, Weber, etc) will not hurt this team's chances. With the exception of Hamhuis, whose absence would be felt on this very thin D. But selling the rest of those players off at the deadline might actually make for a better team (and better odds, albeit still slight, of making the playoffs), given some of the replacement options waiting in the wings in Utica.

Ideally, we see all those contracts moved for picks/prospects and/or some young, emerging roster players. Hamhuis I'd like to see "Vermetted" and sold off at the deadline only to be later resigned. The rest can clear out and make space for prospects and new free agency acquisitions.

And if we somehow squeak into the postseason with a young roster full of rookie and sophomore players, it'll make for some of the most entertaining playoff hockey we've seen since 2011 (regardless of whether the kids win or lose).

As much as I love Hamhuis and that he'd probably re-sign at a discount... I just don't see how we have room for him on the left side.

Edler
Sbisa
Hutton

Pedan

That's before signing any much needed UFA's or making any trades. I just don't see us investing ~$4m on a declining asset that we no longer really have room for. We need to upgrade the D, not stay flat/decline.

Love that last paragraph too ;) They may not win much but it sure would be fun to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, stawns said:

teams have always gotten a point for a tie.  The extra point goes to the winner

That was awarded AFTER the 5 min OT.  If you lost in OT you got 0. It's a loser point.  You lose...here's your point. 1.

 

On topic, Benning probably would love to sell off older expensive assets, but, his boss wants to get his 2 games of playoff revenue.  This teams goal is to make the playoffs, not win in them, just make them.  I'll be shocked if we see the Canucks trade anyone other than Prust (if they can).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

The best thing this team can do it remain a team on the outside looking in.  If we can maintain that it would assure us to ship out vets.  After TD if we go on a roll and sneak into playoffs I’d be all for that.  If we just miss playoffs and end in the 8-14 range I’d be ok with that as well.  The big focus isn’t the draft picks or playoffs. It’s developing our youth in meaning full games.  The playoff stretch is a great learning curve for our young team.  Letting them decide if we make it…or miss it.  But we will be all that much better for it come next year. 

Did you see the Nashville game last night?  The vets in particular are voting with their feet on making the playoffs: glacier like line changes, nothing physical from any of them except Dorsett.  Last night was winnable, should have been won, would have been won a couple of years back: these guys are tired, and no longer fired up.  This is what ageing is all about.  Play the youth, move everyone older not named Sedin or Hansen.(or Sutter lol.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

The Canucks currently have 1 more win than dead-last CBJ.

This says it all. It's time to sell the vets. The dark times are here and will be here for a while. Still confuses me why we got rid of Lack and brought in Miller. There was no way we were gonna be contenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who thinks trading Vrbata and Prust may actually improve the team?

Kind of like when the Sharks traded a couple of overrated vets a few years ago (Douglas Murray was one...can't remember the other), or Calgary moving Glencross last year. Sometimes getting rid of some uninspiring deadweight can rejuvenate a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, J.R. said:

As much as I love Hamhuis and that he'd probably re-sign at a discount... I just don't see how we have room for him on the left side.

Edler
Sbisa
Hutton

Pedan

That's before signing any much needed UFA's or making any trades. I just don't see us investing ~$4m on a declining asset that we no longer really have room for. We need to upgrade the D, not stay flat/decline.

Love that last paragraph too ;) They may not win much but it sure would be fun to watch.

I hear you re: Hamhuis. It comes down to a few issues for me:

-Can we secure a legitimate "upgrade" D (top-4 minute muncher) for the right side through free agency? They are available but also in high demand and we might not be able to acquire one.

-If we need to "homegrow" our RHD, it's gonna some time. In which case we're gonna need to play somebody on their off side. Maybe even two lefties will need to play right side.

-I'd also like to see Hutton developed to play either side at both 5v5 and on special teams. I think players of his ilk become much more valuable if they have a strong "off side" game as part of their repertoire.

-And I'm not convinced by the Edler-Tanev pairing as the ideal long term strategy at the top of the D order. 

-Plus we may need to trade D to get a good RHD. This negates any left side surplus. 

All the above points bring me to why re-signing Hamhuis for maybe 2.years at a reasonable cap hit (or even a discount salary) could fit with the short term plans. Even with his apparent decline, he's still a good middle pairing guy, especially if he's actually given a capable partner (which he hasn't had for any sustained period over the last couple seasons). He's also a great team guy and he would, unlike some of the others touted as such, be a valuable mentor for the younger guys coming up.

Obviously it needs to make sense financially and in terms of roster numbers. And we can't have Hamhuis blocking a young player that's ready to step up. But I don't think we're quite at the point yet where Hamhuis wouldn't help make the D order better. At least for the next year or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Am I the only one who thinks trading Vrbata and Prust may actually improve the team?

Kind of like when the Sharks traded a couple of overrated vets a few years ago (Douglas Murray was one...can't remember the other), or Calgary moving Glencross last year. Sometimes getting rid of some uninspiring deadweight can rejuvenate a team.

I fully agree. But I wonder how many people will actually understand what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Screw said:

Noooooo....

 

When there was a tie the points were split. When there was a loss in overtime winner gets 2pts loser gets squat. Also no circus show after OT.

 

if you lose in OT, you get one point, same as a tie.  they get a point for the tie, same as they always did, not the loss.  the winner gets the extra point for the win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you guys think Hamhuis would re-sign for cheap(2-2.5 million)?  If so, would you still want him or try to make room for a young defenseman.

Personally, I'd rather keep Hamhuis for cheap if he's willing, and hopefully management can do everything in their power to get Edler to waive his NTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, PLOGUE said:

That was awarded AFTER the 5 min OT.  If you lost in OT you got 0. It's a loser point.  You lose...here's your point. 1.

 

On topic, Benning probably would love to sell off older expensive assets, but, his boss wants to get his 2 games of playoff revenue.  This teams goal is to make the playoffs, not win in them, just make them.  I'll be shocked if we see the Canucks trade anyone other than Prust (if they can).

that was an experiment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shaft said:

Do you guys think Hamhuis would re-sign for cheap(2-2.5 million)?  If so, would you still want him or try to make room for a young defenseman.

Personally, I'd rather keep Hamhuis for cheap if he's willing, and hopefully management can do everything in their power to get Edler to waive his NTC.

I doubt that he would sign that cheap.  He still has a good reputation around the league so some team looking for a solid vet defenseman for the playoffs will be willing to pay a high price.  That kind of UFA usually gets overpaid.  The Nucks can benefit from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I hear you re: Hamhuis. It comes down to a few issues for me:

-Can we secure a legitimate "upgrade" D (top-4 minute muncher) for the right side through free agency? They are available but also in high demand and we might not be able to acquire one.

-If we need to "homegrow" our RHD, it's gonna some time. In which case we're gonna need to play somebody on their off side. Maybe even two lefties will need to play right side.

-I'd also like to see Hutton developed to play either side at both 5v5 and on special teams. I think players of his ilk become much more valuable if they have a strong "off side" game as part of their repertoire.

-And I'm not convinced by the Edler-Tanev pairing as the ideal long term strategy at the top of the D order. 

-Plus we may need to trade D to get a good RHD. This negates any left side surplus. 

All the above points bring me to why re-signing Hamhuis for maybe 2.years at a reasonable cap hit (or even a discount salary) could fit with the short term plans. Even with his apparent decline, he's still a good middle pairing guy, especially if he's actually given a capable partner (which he hasn't had for any sustained period over the last couple seasons). He's also a great team guy and he would, unlike some of the others touted as such, be a valuable mentor for the younger guys coming up.

Obviously it needs to make sense financially and in terms of roster numbers. And we can't have Hamhuis blocking a young player that's ready to step up. But I don't think we're quite at the point yet where Hamhuis wouldn't help make the D order better. At least for the next year or two.

-I tend to agree that will be tough and we may have to trade a lefty to get that righty as you mention later... Demers looks to be one of the few RH'd top 4 D possibly available and even then, I think DAL retains him and lets Goligoski go.

-That's the 'worst case' scenario IMO. We don't manage anything and both Sbisa and Bartowski (re-signed) are required to play right side while retaining Hamhuis. (Edler/Tanev, Hamhuis/Sbisa, Hutton, Bartowski). Obviously I think we should aim for a FAR better upgrade of our weakest (and aging) position. This is the only situation that I see re-signing Hamhuis 'making sense'. And frankly, I hope it doesn't come to that.

-No argument there, not sure if Hutton has it in him or that we want to put too much pressure on him too soon though.

-Amen on Edler/Tanev! They're 'passable' but they're not truly striking fear in to anyone. And IMO they'd both be improved with more complimentary partners in more appropriate roles (and Tanev anchoring a 2nd pair). Edler could use a guy with more offense to create a more dynamic offensive pairing and Tanev would do better with a harder hitting, meaner guy for a great shut down pair.

-Which brings us to trading LD to get RD... This is truly what I hope happens. As much as I like Edler and think he largely gets a bum rap on here given situational context... I hope we move him for any of Hamonic/Gudbranson/Bowey/Petrovic/Honka etc. And from there sign a lefty UFA (we should be signing a big name UFA D this summer regardless). Ideally we'd end up with something like:

Goligoski/Yandle, Gudbranson/Hamonic
Sbisa, Tanev
Hutton, XXX

Pedan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, stawns said:

if you lose in OT, you get one point, same as a tie.  they get a point for the tie, same as they always did, not the loss.  the winner gets the extra point for the win.

The bolded is a loser point.

 

The old school system was  Win 2pts,  tie 1pt,  loss 0pts. Simple 

 

What you are referring to is not as it always was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 19naslund19 said:

I am not trying to be doom and gloom, I think this clarity is a great thing for the direction of the team and the way things now should solidify the argument to ownership.

23rd in the league - with 4/7 teams below us having games in hand

5th in Division - with 5/6 teams within division having games in hand

Prior to yesterdays loss a 12% chance of making playoffs according to hockeyviz (a respected predictions site/machine) http://hockeyviz.com/img/league/makePlayoffs/1516/makePlayoffs-conf-West.png

I do love the Canucks and the kids have done well, but I think its time to sell the UFA assets through February and really complete the rebuild for this season. Hammer, Vrby, Prust, Weber, Bartkowski will have different levels of return, but I think its time to focus on prospects/draft picks.

I am very positive on the 15/16 year and the future, but I think its finally time (and should be clear) this is the best path for the rest of the season...thoughts?

 

A person doesn't have to try to be doom and gloom when one already is.

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...