MaxVerstappen33 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 A very probable case could be made, if the Canucks picked one of the top 3 guys who are playing in an elite league with men, that the team had bottomed out. One of the top 3 would be a guaranteed lock in the top 6 next year. Pencil one of them in and you can see the makings of a competitive team. The player would instantly balance out the team. But instead we get a player that clearly needs time to develop properly. Which means the current roster does not get immediate help this year. Which means some players will be playing in positions above their pay grade. Which means we have no room for error injuries wise. So if we get a bad injury or 2 like last year, we will start losing games. Ownership will put pressure on management. Management will start to cut corners. Prospects development will be expedited. The coach will start playing for his job and not for his mandates. Add it all up and pretty soon, we could find ourselves right back to where we are today. Sitting here watching ping pong balls bounce around. And if we are in the same place next year then clearly we did not bottom out. The point of this post is not to say whether we should tank or not. The point simply is, we have a higher chance of being in the same place next year because we did not get one of the top 3. Our team did not get a good enough player to rule out the possibility of us being in the bottom 5. Did we bottom out or not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanky Legs Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, LolClarkson said: A very probable case could be made, if the Canucks picked one of the top 3 guys who are playing in an elite league with men, that the team had bottomed out. One of the top 3 would be a guaranteed lock in the top 6 next year. Pencil one of them in and you can see the makings of a competitive team. The player would instantly balance out the team. But instead we get a player that clearly needs time to develop properly. Which means the current roster does not get immediate help this year. Which means some players will be playing in positions above their pay grade. Which means we have no room for error injuries wise. So if we get a bad injury or 2 like last year, we will start losing games. Ownership will put pressure on management. Management will start to cut corners. Prospects development will be expedited. The coach will start playing for his job and not for his mandates. Add it all up and pretty soon, we could find ourselves right back to where we are today. Sitting here watching ping pong balls bounce around. And if we are in the same place next year then clearly we did not bottom out. The point of this post is not to say whether we should tank or not. The point simply is, we have a higher chance of being in the same place next year because we did not get one of the top 3. Our team did not get a good enough player to rule out the possibility of us being in the bottom 5. Did we bottom out or not ? Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 7 minutes ago, LolClarkson said: A very probable case could be made, if the Canucks picked one of the top 3 guys who are playing in an elite league with men, that the team had bottomed out. One of the top 3 would be a guaranteed lock in the top 6 next year. Pencil one of them in and you can see the makings of a competitive team. The player would instantly balance out the team. But instead we get a player that clearly needs time to develop properly. Which means the current roster does not get immediate help this year. Which means some players will be playing in positions above their pay grade. Which means we have no room for error injuries wise. So if we get a bad injury or 2 like last year, we will start losing games. Ownership will put pressure on management. Management will start to cut corners. Prospects development will be expedited. The coach will start playing for his job and not for his mandates. Add it all up and pretty soon, we could find ourselves right back to where we are today. Sitting here watching ping pong balls bounce around. And if we are in the same place next year then clearly we did not bottom out. The point of this post is not to say whether we should tank or not. The point simply is, we have a higher chance of being in the same place next year because we did not get one of the top 3. Our team did not get a good enough player to rule out the possibility of us being in the bottom 5. Did we bottom out or not ? Even with Matthews and no change, we would still be out of the playoffs. Just look at this D-core and you will know that we wouldn't make the playoffs unless Benning signed hamhuis, Hamonic and another UFA D man and hoped for a healthy year out of them. In fact it is maybe for the best to pick 5th and get another high draft pick next year rather than becoming competitive next year but ending up at 14th spot like the Bruins. At least we could get our future D-man this year which is a clear cut decision with our draft position. Maybe we could aim to draft a franchise center in the next draft assuming we end up almost last again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShakyWalton Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Getting the 5th overall pick isnt bottoming out at all...we will get a very good player no doubt..its just that hoping for a top 3 that could be a foundational player for us going forward was just a pipedream...it just seems to me that being a Canuck fan is like a never ending kick in the nads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxVerstappen33 Posted May 1, 2016 Author Share Posted May 1, 2016 1 minute ago, DefCon1 said: Even with Matthews and no change, we would still be out of the playoffs. Just look at this D-core and you will know that we wouldn't make the playoffs unless Benning signed hamhuis, Hamonic and another UFA D man and hoped for a healthy year out of them. In fact it is maybe for the best to pick 5th and get another high draft pick next year rather than becoming competitive next year but ending up at 14th spot like the Bruins. At least we could get our future D-man this year which is a clear cut decision with our draft position. Maybe we could aim to draft a franchise center in the next draft assuming we end up almost last again. Nobody thought that JB's first year team would be a playoff team either. But it was. Some people apparently don't look at other teams rosters before they grade our D core. There is this vibe out there that drafting a defenseman is the wise and sophisticated thing to do and drafting skill forwards is reckless. Mcdavid could be up there and someone would say "draft a dman". I don't buy it. There are teams out there without a Tyamkin or Hutton. We have both. We need clear cut top line players to replace the Sedins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Even if we got the 1st overall it doesn't solve all the Canucks' problems. You need several top end talented players on forward and on D. Not one or two. You need to consistently draft well, with 4 or 5 top 5 picks, then develop them which takes years, then when the team is emerging as a real good young team like the Panthers, you sign a couple of top end UFA's put on the finishing touches. A few good trades will also be needed to made along the way to balance out the team in all positions. We need to stay at the bottom for a few years and stock up on talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Is it fixation upon final destination, So Canucks nation's feeling frustration? Just enjoy "the process" Or eventual success Will mean yer Mug's half-full at realization! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLuciano Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 &^@#ing oilers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Just now, LolClarkson said: Nobody thought that JB's first year team would be a playoff team either. But it was. Some people apparently don't look at other teams rosters before they grade our D core. There is this vibe out there that drafting a defenseman is the wise and sophisticated thing to do and drafting skill forwards is reckless. Mcdavid could be up there and someone would say "draft a dman". I don't buy it. There are teams out there without a Tyamkin or Hutton. We have both. We need clear cut top line players to replace the Sedins. The bolded is a bit ludicrous, I think if the Canucks had a chance to draft first overall last year 100% of the consensus would be to pick McDavid, but I know what you are getting at anyways.. What I will say is that Hutton and Tryamkin are great to have but they are no Jones // Ekblad types... they may turn out to be but definitely not comparable. That said I'd be happy with a good forward as well. Really no bad picks IMO. Maybe Tkatchuk is available at 5 and Arizona will want to trade 7th + Strome or Domi (whatever would make it fair, I'm just spitballing). We get a good forward and a great dman at 7th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 38 minutes ago, LolClarkson said: A very probable case could be made, if the Canucks picked one of the top 3 guys who are playing in an elite league with men, that the team had bottomed out. One of the top 3 would be a guaranteed lock in the top 6 next year. Pencil one of them in and you can see the makings of a competitive team. The player would instantly balance out the team. But instead we get a player that clearly needs time to develop properly. Which means the current roster does not get immediate help this year. Which means some players will be playing in positions above their pay grade. Which means we have no room for error injuries wise. So if we get a bad injury or 2 like last year, we will start losing games. Ownership will put pressure on management. Management will start to cut corners. Prospects development will be expedited. The coach will start playing for his job and not for his mandates. Add it all up and pretty soon, we could find ourselves right back to where we are today. Sitting here watching ping pong balls bounce around. And if we are in the same place next year then clearly we did not bottom out. Wow, it all happens so fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 the right way to rebuild top Goaltender - kay maybe Demko or Markstorm so check one top center- McCann is there and Horvat looks like lots like a 2nd liner one top defencemen - nope, maybe draft one now so we can get a center next year? bllahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh today sucks lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Dizzle Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 It's going to be a long summer..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 10 minutes ago, desiboynux4lifee******* said: the right way to rebuild top Goaltender - kay maybe Demko or Markstorm so check one top center- McCann is there and Horvat looks like lots like a 2nd liner one top defencemen - nope, maybe draft one now so we can get a center next year? bllahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh today sucks lol McCann is nowhere even near top (or 'there'). McCann needs to get used to playing on the wing or get bigger and start practicing on winning faceoffs. He's a great player, he'll need some time tuning up after an educational year in the NHL. McCann could use 2 years in the minors, like Gaunce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPatrick33 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 It's definitely a process Hopefully Boeser and the kid we draft this year can make the team exciting next year, otherwise this is a long 3-5 year build, probably another top 10 next year, but slow and steady wins the race. Snagging Lainer would have brought a bit of excitement of offensive hockey back to the rog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 15 minutes ago, Odd. said: McCann is nowhere even near top (or 'there'). McCann needs to get used to playing on the wing or get bigger and start practicing on winning faceoffs. He's a great player, he'll need some time tuning up after an educational year in the NHL. McCann could use 2 years in the minors, like Gaunce wouldn't disagree with this. I think McCann will be in Utica next season. maybe a call up or two if he plays well. but Utica bound in my opinion to work on his strength and continue to improve in his play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, SaintPatrick33 said: It's definitely a process Hopefully Boeser and the kid we draft this year can make the team exciting next year, otherwise this is a long 3-5 year build, probably another top 10 next year, but slow and steady wins the race. Snagging Lainer would have brought a bit of excitement of offensive hockey back to the rog This. No laine makes the Canucks boring again this year. Unless we draft our own Panarin or Bure hidden in th draft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxVerstappen33 Posted May 1, 2016 Author Share Posted May 1, 2016 47 minutes ago, WHL rocks said: Even if we got the 1st overall it doesn't solve all the Canucks' problems. You need several top end talented players on forward and on D. Not one or two. You need to consistently draft well, with 4 or 5 top 5 picks, then develop them which takes years, then when the team is emerging as a real good young team like the Panthers, you sign a couple of top end UFA's put on the finishing touches. A few good trades will also be needed to made along the way to balance out the team in all positions. We need to stay at the bottom for a few years and stock up on talent. If we got one of the top 3 and traded for Yakupov or Drouin and signed Yandle, we would be contender next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, SaintPatrick33 said: It's definitely a process Hopefully Boeser and the kid we draft this year can make the team exciting next year, otherwise this is a long 3-5 year build, probably another top 10 next year, but slow and steady wins the race. Snagging Lainer would have brought a bit of excitement of offensive hockey back to the rog would've loved to have had Laine in the line up. but it is what it is. I'm glad that at times like these we have a GM who is a scout at heart. we will get the BPA for our team moving forward. whether that ha Ttkachuk or Dubois or Juolevi. once that prospect becomes Canuck property. we are off to the races. just out of curiosity. but I wonder what it will take to get #2 from Winnipeg. what do you think their asking price is? if it starts with Horvat do you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: would've loved to have had Laine in the line up. but it is what it is. I'm glad that at times like these we have a GM who is a scout at heart. we will get the BPA for our team moving forward. whether that ha Ttkachuk or Dubois or Juolevi. once that prospect becomes Canuck property. we are off to the races. just out of curiosity. but I wonder what it will take to get #2 from Winnipeg. what do you think their asking price is? if it starts with Horvat do you do it? That's tough. I'm going to say yes. You can replace players like Horvat. But it's hard to replace naturally born goal scorers like Laine. Laine's potential is off the charts compared to Horvat. Both are very important pieces though which makes the decision hard. I'm guessing Horvat, and our first two draft picks might have to come in play. But even still, that's still going to be quite a stretch. Part of the reason why it's also hard to dissect the thought of trading Horvat in return for Laine is that Horvat's character and that he's a likable man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPatrick33 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 11 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: would've loved to have had Laine in the line up. but it is what it is. I'm glad that at times like these we have a GM who is a scout at heart. we will get the BPA for our team moving forward. whether that ha Ttkachuk or Dubois or Juolevi. once that prospect becomes Canuck property. we are off to the races. just out of curiosity. but I wonder what it will take to get #2 from Winnipeg. what do you think their asking price is? if it starts with Horvat do you do it? Probably not Horvat, he just has so many intangibles that make him a natural leader. Any of our other prospects besides boeser though, and I am game. Laine is worth a switch in picks plus whatever prospects, but winnipeg is already stocked at forward to take McCann or Virtanen...luck of the lottery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.