Disgruntled Fan (Discussion)

[JamesB]

5 hours ago, coastal1 said:

" All the recent teams making it to the Stanley Cup finals have been built around 2 or 3 franchise players ".  Not just the recent teams! And do you know why that is? Would it be because just about every team in the NHL has some franchise players? Washington has jad Ovechin for what like 12 years, and it is beause of him that this year they are a real contender?

By definition every team has a "best player" and every team has some high draft picks.But, by a "franchise player" I mean the kind of guys who are shortlisted for major awards --Norris candidates, Vezina candidates, Hart candidates, Art Ross winners and runners up and Maurice Richard winners and runners up. Those are the kind of guys who lead teams to Stanley Cup runs.

 

Not all guys in that category are high draft picks and not all draft picks turn out that well, but high draft picks are more likely sources of players of that calibre than lower draft picks.

 

Those kind of players are necessary but not sufficient. A team also needs a good supporting cast and good coaching. But I think the high-end franchise players are the hardest part to obtain.

[Rush17]

On 2/25/2016 at 8:08 PM, janisahockeynut said:

I am just not happy right now with our hockey club, it doesn't mean I don't love them, nor that I will stop watching them, it is simply that they just do not impress me. I do not see any young first liners, and with all due respects to Tanev, I do not see any young top end Dmen.

 

I have tried to see the talent, and I do love Horvat in general terms, but where's the beef?

 

Where is our future starting line-up? We have generated plenty of 3rd and 4th line prospects these past 2 years, but I am skeptical of the view that we do not need higher end offensive elite talent, and can compete with workhorses. 

 

The reality is, it is pretty easy to develope 3rd and 4th liners, and you can sign UFA's to fill in holes on your 2nd line for a short while, but it is almost impossible to sign starting line up type players.........I believe they come from the draft, and generally further up the draft than the 12 to 18 OA selections.

 

The fact is those elite players are usually found in the top 5 OA picks, and I do not see Benning positioning the Canucks for those picks. I honestly question whether we have any first line younger players, maybe only Broeser can be thought of in that regard........that leaves 4 more high end players to find. So in some regards, that is realistically 6 to 8 years of high end first rounders, as not everyone will turn out.

 

So to me, the only way to "rebuild on the fly", is to not "rebuild on the fly", and to evaluate where you are and what you have, and move those assets that have value and are not in the age group where your young assets lay. (sell old assets before they have no value)

 

Now if you look at our young assets, they are all in the 19 to 24 age group, and will be maturing in 2 to 3 years, which is outside of our older players playoff window. Not cashing in on those older assets now, can mean lesser or no returns for them later.......

 

So, I see no reasoning to Benning's plan......shaking a Pear tree and expecting Plums to fall out, will disappoint you and waste your time......and in this case mine (ours).

 

I hope that in the days to come, Benning makes some moves to move towards that goal.......like I have told my kids from time to time.............

 

"I will always love you", but "I don't like you right now!".....those that have 3 year olds or teens will understand that! Those of you that are teens, will understand it later, when you have children.

 

I am so trying to believe in Linden and Benning.....I truly am! I just don't like what I am hearing and seeing! Lets hope I am wrong!

Ye have little faith!

[Baggins]

4 hours ago, Lastresort318 said:

Most projections that are wrong, are wrong because they were projected to be better. You even said so yourself, a bunch of first rounders didn't meet the projected potential. A lot more then those who exceeded it. While not completely impossible for our prospects to over achieve, it is not very likey. Look at Edler, he was projected to be a  number 2-3 guy and he didn't pan out to be that guy. Projections fail, but most times, it's because they were projected to be better.

You're almost there. Projections are a crap shoot. It's a guess based on their play against other boys and that's all. So how do you know none of our prospects will be better than projected? Because of the guess that's already been made? Just look at our team: Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, Kesler, and Tanev. Do you think they exceeded what was projected at 18?  There are plenty of players that exceed their teenage projection.

 

Btw, I'd say Edler did meet your projection. How many d-men put up 40+points that aren't top 3 d-men?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

7 hours ago, lmm said:

you have cherry picked half the league. Only included one Stanley Cup winner, excluded goalies that are the best player and included several teams that are worse than the Canucks right now.

Who cares who the best players on Calgary, Winnipeg or Arizona are, they are bad teams.

Minnesota parachuted both their best players from free agency, and they are still a bubble team 

 

you have missed the teams we hope to follow, (Cup Winners)

where are the Doughty, Kane, Toews, Sid, Geno and Ovi's on your list.

 

You have made a list that would make Jin Benning proud. a group of "NHL ready" also-rans.

Who cares if I cherry picks the op statement was first liners "usually" come for top 5 picks. Usually implies majority. I just listed half the teams in the NHL and left off a few teams. That would disprove the "usually' statement. 

I could have listed other teams like Buf, Edm, Cbj, But what good does that do. 

 

Sure lets look at the cup winners. Was kopitar a top 5 pick. He is the most important player on the Kings. Quick, brown, carter. Also not top 5 picks. 

Even the Hawks top pair d. Not top 5 picks. The funniest part about the Hawks picking Kane is they were tied for the 6th worst record when they picked Kane, they just happensed to win the lottery that year (the year is started). 

 

Penguins have 1 cup with 5 years of picking in the top 4.  Islanders haven't made it past the first round.  Caps haven't made it past the second round and there best player this year is holtby. And there best offensive player is kuznetsov. With out them they don't lead the league this year. 

 

 

[Jack Fig]

11 hours ago, Lastresort318 said:

Sure... Not everyone is a Jamie benn or Pavel Datsyuk. 95% of the time players won't end up being much better then they were projected to be. If any of our players are better then projected, they will be strong second liners and second pairing defensemen. Bo could possibly be a first liner if he over achieves. One example means jack****.

So the only players who become top-line guys are the ones who were supposed to be?

Sorry, but your whiney, negative generalities mean jack****.

[coastal1]

8 hours ago, JamesB said:

By definition every team has a "best player" and every team has some high draft picks.But, by a "franchise player" I mean the kind of guys who are shortlisted for major awards --Norris candidates, Vezina candidates, Hart candidates, Art Ross winners and runners up and Maurice Richard winners and runners up. Those are the kind of guys who lead teams to Stanley Cup runs.

 

Not all guys in that category are high draft picks and not all draft picks turn out that well, but high draft picks are more likely sources of players of that calibre than lower draft picks.

 

Those kind of players are necessary but not sufficient. A team also needs a good supporting cast and good coaching. But I think the high-end franchise players are the hardest part to obtain.

Totaly agree with you on all of this. " high draft picks are more likely sources of players of that calibre than lower draft picks", to me thta is the problem. Yes that is true and because of that, lazy and incomptetent organizations (read Toronto) decide to stink and get high draft picks to increase their odds of getting a star instead of putting in the work to find a Shea Weber or a Duncan Keith or a Jamie Benn, and on and on. And in doing that they take their fans through incredibly bad seasons, over and over again simply because they take what seems to be the easier route.But once you create that loser culture, it is very hard to get out of it (see Edmonton). Losing to get better is for incompetent management and has very negative long term consequences.

[Lastresort318]

5 hours ago, Jack Fig said:

So the only players who become top-line guys are the ones who were supposed to be?

Sorry, but your whiney, negative generalities mean jack****.

Notice how I said most of the time. For the most part, people who are projected to be first liners, are the ones who become first liners.

[JamesB]

4 hours ago, coastal1 said:

Totaly agree with you on all of this. " high draft picks are more likely sources of players of that calibre than lower draft picks", to me thta is the problem. Yes that is true and because of that, lazy and incomptetent organizations (read Toronto) decide to stink and get high draft picks to increase their odds of getting a star instead of putting in the work to find a Shea Weber or a Duncan Keith or a Jamie Benn, and on and on. And in doing that they take their fans through incredibly bad seasons, over and over again simply because they take what seems to be the easier route.But once you create that loser culture, it is very hard to get out of it (see Edmonton). Losing to get better is for incompetent management and has very negative long term consequences.

I think have reached agreement.Losing and getting high draft picks looks like the "easy way" of maximizing the chances of picking up franchise players. But it is not that easy. And there is a cost, as you point out. One cost is that really good coaches are not usually enthusiastic about being cannon fodder during the rebuilding years, then getting fired.

 

Still, in the interest of good asset management, I think there is a time to trade vets for picks and try for a good draft. Not five years in a row or even three years in a row. But one or two years might be the sensible way to go.

[coastal1]

20 minutes ago, JamesB said:

I think have reached agreement.Losing and getting high draft picks looks like the "easy way" of maximizing the chances of picking up franchise players. But it is not that easy. And there is a cost, as you point out. One cost is that really good coaches are not usually enthusiastic about being cannon fodder during the rebuilding years, then getting fired.

 

Still, in the interest of good asset management, I think there is a time to trade vets for picks and try for a good draft. Not five years in a row or even three years in a row. But one or two years might be the sensible way to go.

"I think there is a time to trade vets for picks", if you are talking the UFAs, maybe Vrbata, but certainly not Hanhuis. You trade too many vets, the kids lose and the downward spiral starts for real.

[joe-max]

2 minutes ago, coastal1 said:

"I think there is a time to trade vets for picks", if you are talking the UFAs, maybe Vrbata, but certainly not Hanhuis. You trade too many vets, the kids lose and the downward spiral starts for real.

Agreed. What is generally overlooked in this discussion is that drafting is only the very first step of having "superstars" on the team. The much larger part and also the one that an organization can influence to a bigger extent is developing the players properly so that they eventually become franchise players.

 

I believe Benning is doing a pretty good job in finding a good balance between stacking up on prospects and at the same time keeping a decent enough team to bring players along in a way that doesn't force them into roles they are not suited for yet. This is what really hampers or ruins development.

 

Also the (spoilt) fan base would not accept a complete overhaul of 4-5+ years of bottom-dwelling. 

[CanadianRugby]

5 hours ago, coastal1 said:

lazy and incomptetent organizations (read Toronto) decide to stink and get high draft picks to increase their odds of getting a star instead of putting in the work to find a Shea Weber or a Duncan Keith or a Jamie Benn, and on and on. And in doing that they take their fans through incredibly bad seasons, over and over again simply because they take what seems to be the easier route.But once you create that loser culture, it is very hard to get out of it (see Edmonton). Losing to get better is for incompetent management and has very negative long term consequences.

So was Chicago lazy and incompetent when they drafted Kane and Toews?  Picks they got by being awful.  The Pens, Hawks, Bolts, Ducks, Caps and Kings didn't seem to get stuck in a losing mode after they made their top picks.  Would the Canucks have made their run in 2011 if we didn't suck enough to get the Sedins? 

 

You know what has very negative long term consequences?  Not rebuilding when your team has no chance of winning the cup (See Tornonto until their current rebuild).

[RonMexico]

9 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

So was Chicago lazy and incompetent when they drafted Kane and Toews?  Picks they got by being awful.  The Pens, Hawks, Bolts, Ducks, Caps and Kings didn't seem to get stuck in a losing mode after they made their top picks.  Would the Canucks have made their run in 2011 if we didn't suck enough to get the Sedins? 

 

You know what has very negative long term consequences?  Not rebuilding when your team has no chance of winning the cup (See Tornonto until their current rebuild).

Though the conventional wisdom is to suck and rebuild through high picks; that option is always still available. I have no problem trying the rebuild on the fly and if it is trending in the wrong direction, then you can go full tank.

 

Look at a team like Philly. They tried to rebuild on the fly and it didn't quite work out. However, they netted a whole pile of defensive prospects in the 11-78 range of picks and are now sitting on an abundance of riches at that position.

 

If this was the worst thing to come from a Canucks rebuild on the fly, would there be such anger towards the team?

[J.I.A.H.N]

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Who cares if I cherry picks the op statement was first liners "usually" come for top 5 picks. Usually implies majority. I just listed half the teams in the NHL and left off a few teams. That would disprove the "usually' statement. 

I could have listed other teams like Buf, Edm, Cbj, But what good does that do. 

 

Sure lets look at the cup winners. Was kopitar a top 5 pick. He is the most important player on the Kings. Quick, brown, carter. Also not top 5 picks. 

Even the Hawks top pair d. Not top 5 picks. The funniest part about the Hawks picking Kane is they were tied for the 6th worst record when they picked Kane, they just happensed to win the lottery that year (the year is started). 

 

Penguins have 1 cup with 5 years of picking in the top 4.  Islanders haven't made it past the first round.  Caps haven't made it past the second round and there best player this year is holtby. And there best offensive player is kuznetsov. With out them they don't lead the league this year. 

 

 

You took my words too literally.

My point is that the higher the pick the more chance he has of reaching his projection.

 

Also, someone posted a brilliant graph that showed that the more picks, regardless of where the pick was, the higher number of prospects that reach 200 nhl games.

 

This all means that a team that is not in the playoff hunt statistically, should not be moving picks, unless there is a good trade to have, and should acquire more picks when available..for expiring contracts.

 

It has a lot to do with luck and a lot to do with numbers of picks, and lot to do with chance of success.......who knows what the formula is...........but certainly, having less picks, and having assets walk away with no return does not help in acquiring elite talent.

 

I would love to be able to put some money down against the "go for the playoff crowd".......perfect storms happen, but not regularly!

 

People do beat the odds in Vegas....but Vegas sure has grown a lot! I would go with Vegas, if I had to pick!

[ForsbergTheGreat]

38 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

You took my words too literally.

My point is that the higher the pick the more chance he has of reaching his projection.

 

Also, someone posted a brilliant graph that showed that the more picks, regardless of where the pick was, the higher number of prospects that reach 200 nhl games.

 

This all means that a team that is not in the playoff hunt statistically, should not be moving picks, unless there is a good trade to have, and should acquire more picks when available..for expiring contracts.

 

It has a lot to do with luck and a lot to do with numbers of picks, and lot to do with chance of success.......who knows what the formula is...........but certainly, having less picks, and having assets walk away with no return does not help in acquiring elite talent.

 

I would love to be able to put some money down against the "go for the playoff crowd".......perfect storms happen, but not regularly!

 

People do beat the odds in Vegas....but Vegas sure has grown a lot! I would go with Vegas, if I had to pick!

Sure higher picks have a better chance at becoming NHLers.  But good teams are build on players developing past there projections.  That's even more key than picking a top 5 pick and it's also the hardest part.

 

The hawks list is endless on players picks outside of the top 10 that have went on to become high end Impact players.

Keith, Seabrook, Byfuglein, Hjarmlsson, Crawford, Saad, Bolland, Bickell, Brouwer, even Teravinan is looking good and their undrafted Panarin.

 

Look at the kings and their high impact players picks outside of the top 10

Kopitar, Brown, Quick, Pearson, Toffoli, Simmonds, Martinez, Cammalleri, Frolov, Visnosky

 

Look at the Bruins

Pastrnak, Lucic, Marchand, Krejci, Bergeron

 

Look at the capitals newest run of success

Kuznetsov, Holtby, Burakovsky, Wilson, Johanson, Orlov, Carlson, Green, Semin

 

Where would the blues be without Tarasenko,  

How bad would the flames be without Brodie, Giordano, Gaudreau

What about the ducks without Getzlaf or Perry, 

Philly without Giroux

 

 

These players are keys to building a team, yes they aren't as likely to pan out, but teams need to hit a few home runs if they want to be successful.  All successful team do it and do it often. aka Detroit.  That's how teams are built through the draft.  Teams that rely solely on top 5 picks to carry their team become consitent bottom dwellers.  

 

Also canucks have a good group of young players that are already on pace to pass their projections.  Hutton a 4th rounder looks to be a top 2 D. Tanev was never drafted a top 4 D, McCann made the NHL as a 19 year old, same with Virtanen, these two can become top line players or even develop in to assets they we use to trade for top line players.  Saying you don't see any of them surpassing 3rd liners is just narrow sighted and is a clear sign of someone who doesn't understand the word development and progression..  

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Sure higher picks have a better chance at becoming NHLers.  But good teams are build on players developing past there projections.  That's even more key than picking a top 5 pick and it's also the hardest part.

 

The hawks list is endless on players picks outside of the top 10 that have went on to become high end Impact players.

Keith, Seabrook, Byfuglein, Hjarmlsson, Crawford, Saad, Bolland, Bickell, Brouwer, even Teravinan is looking good and their undrafted Panarin.

 

Look at the kings and their high impact players picks outside of the top 10

Kopitar, Brown, Quick, Pearson, Toffoli, Simmonds, Martinez, Cammalleri, Frolov, Visnosky

 

Look at the Bruins

Pastrnak, Lucic, Marchand, Krejci, Bergeron

 

Look at the capitals newest run of success

Kuznetsov, Holtby, Burakovsky, Wilson, Johanson, Orlov, Carlson, Green, Semin

 

Where would the blues be without Tarasenko,  

How bad would the flames be without Brodie, Giordano, Gaudreau

What about the ducks without Getzlaf or Perry, 

Philly without Giroux

 

 

These players are keys to building a team, yes they aren't as likely to pan out, but teams need to hit a few home runs if they want to be successful.  All successful team do it and do it often. aka Detroit.  That's how teams are built through the draft.  Teams that rely solely on top 5 picks to carry their team become consitent bottom dwellers.  

 

Also canucks have a good group of young players that are already on pace to pass their projections.  Hutton a 4th rounder looks to be a top 2 D. Tanev was never drafted a top 4 D, McCann made the NHL as a 19 year old, same with Virtanen, these two can become top line players or even develop in to assets they we use to trade for top line players.  Saying you don't see any of them surpassing 3rd liners is just narrow sighted and is a clear sign of someone who doesn't understand the word development and progression..  

Edmonton, Buffalo, Winnipeg, Columbus, Carolina, Calgary, Arizona, Minni, Ottawa.............all have talent, but none to my memory traded their 1st, 2nd, 3rd's over the past 5 years.......to me is says 2 things, bad scouting, and player development........................point is if they had those players they and developed properly....they would be all near the top

 

But even with those picks, they failed on the latter and couldn't do it.............which argues in your favour, but the point is their management sucked, and everyone say they all needed to work on that as all had the best players when draft. They just didn't develop properly....

 

That doesn't win the argurement that Chic, LA, STL, had better players or didn't keep their picks, it just means they are teams that know how to develop talent.....something I question about Willie

 

My final point is that there are a lot of teams in the middle that havn't fallen all the way to the bottom......

 

We should see what happens.......I will be in Cancun...............and will be monitoring......

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Edmonton, Buffalo, Winnipeg, Columbus, Carolina, Calgary, Arizona, Minni, Ottawa.............all have talent, but none to my memory traded their 1st, 2nd, 3rd's over the past 5 years.......to me is says 2 things, bad scouting, and player development........................point is if they had those players they and developed properly....they would be all near the top

 

But even with those picks, they failed on the latter and couldn't do it.............which argues in your favour, but the point is their management sucked, and everyone say they all needed to work on that as all had the best players when draft. They just didn't develop properly....

 

That doesn't win the argurement that Chic, LA, STL, had better players or didn't keep their picks, it just means they are teams that know how to develop talent.....something I question about Willie

 

My final point is that there are a lot of teams in the middle that havn't fallen all the way to the bottom......

 

We should see what happens.......I will be in Cancun...............and will be monitoring......

Nice I'll heading to playa del carmen today too. 

I always seem to vacay during trade deadline. 

[Canadian]

Of course things can/will change before next training camp, but imagine a roster of:

 

Sedin-Sedin-_____________ [big name UFA signing, eg. Lucic, Stamkos, Okposo, Ladd, etc.]

Baerstchi-Horvat-Virtanen

Etem-Sutter-Hansen

Burrows-Granlund-Dorsett

Gaunce or Vey** or Rodin** [**undecided....]

 

Hutton-Tanev

Edler-Larsen

Sbisa-___________ [big name UFA signing, eg.Goligoski, Yandle, Demers / or prospect from trade, eg. Pokka, Bowey, etc.]

Tryamkin-Pedan

 

Miller

Markstrom

 

*McCann in Utica

*Biega in Utica [after clearing waivers, but receiving his one-way contract salary]

 

Would you not be entertained by the youth?

-Several bigger / meaner additions on the point, while also adding several offensive threats - likely 3 or 4 new names

-Less change up front, but hopefully a key signing/trade for L1, more development for L2, a healthy L3 and an experienced but expensive/declining L4

 

 

[Just Jimmy]

great just what the forum needs, another negative thread about the team. Way to get morale going and to rally the fans to support the organization. 

[Green Goblin]

On 2/25/2016 at 9:15 PM, HerrDrFunk said:

I hear you on being frustrated with management but let's remember that for the first couple of years, everyone thought Kesler's ceiling was the 3rd line. It's too early with our young guys to say whether or not they'll develop into high end players.

Everyone knew he was gonna be an elite top 6 player when we saw his speed, size, and power right out of the gate. Statistically he didn't produce in his first 2 years (110 games), but then boom he pretty much has 7 straight 20+ goals seasons if you exclude the half-lockout year while being a plus player for the majority of that span.

 

I believe Bo Horvat is a fair comparison if you watched the flashes of brilliance from both Kes and Bo in their first couple of years. Lots of similarities in their tenacity.

[TheGuardian_]

8 hours ago, Just Jimmy said:

great just what the forum needs, another negative thread about the team. Way to get morale going and to rally the fans to support the organization. 

Do you appreciate being told untruths? Does it make your day that the Canuck management thinks you, a fan, is satisfied with trying to make the playoffs? Do you really believe that Baertschi is a top six player on a cup contender? or Etem and Granlund are third or second liners? If they were why didn't a contending team get them?

When the team has players on it that other team's covet then, and only then, is it considered better than average.