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

Just Do What Dallas Did !


MaxVerstappen33

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, EdgarM said:

Do you know how many players comprise a complete hockey team? I am sure they are ALL not top draft choices. :lol:

Um yes, I never said that.

 

I just said two main things but tried to explain the significance in different ways.

 

1. Higher picks give you a better chance of getting a good player.

2. Good players give you a better chance of winning the Stanley Cup than lesser players do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Time Lord said:

Um yes, I never said that.

 

I just said two main things but tried to explain the significance in different ways.

 

1. Higher picks give you a better chance of getting a good player.

2. Good players give you a better chance of winning the Stanley Cup than lesser players do.

Yes but there is more than one way to skin a cat. I don't care where the players come from just as long as they put the pieces in there for our team to compete. Alot of things have to fall into place so the best thing to do is to constantly better the team the best you can. Just what the current Management is doing right now. They aren't just going to sit there for years and years and HOPE the players they drafted  ALL develope into cup winning NHLers. That would be foolish. Kind of like putting all your eggs in one basket mentality. If a team is going to foolishly over spend on their Cap forcing them to give away valuable assetts, why would we not want to capitilize on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Most tank / last place teams don't actually manage to pull themselves out of it and win a Cup with those 1st overall pics....

 

Going back to the beginning of the 1990s...

 

Lecavalier

 

Crosby/Fleury  - required doubling up on 1st overalls.

Kane

 

Go back to the 80s, add Modano, Lemieux.... still weak odds.

 

 

 

 

That's what I'm saying.  There's more to it than making a high pick.

 

Development is vital but maybe a bit simplistic.  The comment was for effect.  The right supporting cast is vital too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Time Lord said:

Do you happen to know which pick yields the highest amount of Stanley Cup winners? I'm not expecting an answer because it would take lots of time to find out, but I think it's fair to guess that higher picks yield more cup winners than lower picks.

 

Did you know that in the past 45 years, only 2 teams have won without a top 3 pick or Gretzky?

 

I'm sure you know that you're more likely to get a good player with a high pick as opposed to a lower pick, and that you're more likely to win a cup with good players as opposed to lesser players.

 

If someone was to go back and find the amount of Stanley Cup winners at each pick, and they found that 1st overall was less successful than 8th overall, for example, does that mean that "tanking" teams should be aiming for the 8th overall pick?

 

Stanley Cups are the result of having good players, not the other way around. It's sort of like the Colin Fraser vs Henrik Sedin argument. Who would you rather have? Fraser has two cups and Henrik has none.

 

It's not that simple though.  

15th was the highest (last year) that Detroit has picked since 1991 (10th Lapointe) and 1990 (3rd Primeau)

Most teams had a top 3 pick at some point in the last 20 years - that doesn't necessarily determine or drive success.  By NHL average every team will get one every decade, so odds are every team will have one in their lineup when they win.

 

But the point is more this - what is the recovery rate from falling into dead last in the NHL?

 

Because every year, every team has a 3.3% chance of winning,

If over 3 or 4 decades only 18% of 1st overall picks are winning a Cup, is there a cumulative advantage or disadvantage to being a 1st overall pick winning a Cup?   If the average career of a 1st overall pick is more than a decade.....

 

Slightly over 16% of all NHL players win a Stanley Cup.....Hmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Bravo!

 

Why can't a team pay attention to who they're drafting and develop them well, take advantage of teams who are trying to flog assets for inexplicable reasons and slowly roll over the line up.  Five years later, they can have complete renewal without any fan fare.

 

A tear down rebuild is so dramatic and unnecessary. 

 

Historically, opportunities come along from time to time where teams make out like bandits.  The Seguin trade, the Ehrhoff trade, the Boychuck and Leddy trades.  A team just has to be in a position to take advantage of circumstances and at the same time, be smart with their own assets.

*cough cough* Drouin *cough*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Time Lord said:

Um yes, I never said that.

 

I just said two main things but tried to explain the significance in different ways.

 

1. Higher picks give you a better chance of getting a good player.

2. Good players give you a better chance of winning the Stanley Cup than lesser players do.

the more years you compete, the more chances you have of winning. The way the tankers talk, they assume 6 rebuild years for every 2 years of competing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maginator said:

I see where you're coming from, and I agree.

We have some solid pieces in the Sedins, Hansen, Markstrom, Edler, and Sutter. We have some young guns in Horvat, Virtanen, McCann, and Tryamkin. The way I see it, if we acquire the right players we can be competitive. Some scoring forwards with grit ex) Okposo, Ladd, Weise, Lucic, Abdelkader and maybe a top 4 defenceman. 

I know I will get the "we will get knocked out in the first round or barely make the post-season", but the reality is once you make the playoffs anything can happen. 

We have already hit our bottom as OP has stated with two top 10 picks in the last three years. There is no need to sink down any further, we have a solid foundation. Besides, as we have seen there is no guarantee in landing a top 3 pick in the lottery.  

What Dallas has done takes guts but I believe in Benning. 

Let's not forget that JB was instrumental in Dallas acquiring Seguin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, FrankieCorrado said:

*cough cough* Drouin *cough*

Come on now, you don't acquire a player when his stock is low. Who buys low (Drouin) and sell high (Hansen)?? You wait until a player's value bottoms out before moving him or trying to (Higgins) , it's how it's done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol do what dallas did.. do we have a jamie benn somewhere in the organization? nope.. seguin was traded for eriksson not exactly scrapes.. do we have a eriksson that we can trade for a legitimate top line player? nope.. do we have the prospect and picks to trade for a spezza? nope.. so how do you propose going about doing what dallas did?

Closest thing to Erikson is Sutter

Seguin was traded for approximately Hutton, McCann, Grenier and Sutter

Spezza for two 2nds, 3rd  +4th

Sharp for Sbisa and Zalewski

 

BUt here is the thing, Spezza and Sharp are as old as Dan Hamhius and Spezza was traded after a -26 season in Ottawa, maybe we should just resign Vrbata?

 

You have to admit those trades do look good now though

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtanen - 6

Boeser - 23

McCann - 24

Demko - 33?

Tryamkin - 66

Olsen - 214

 

 

I have a feeling we will have 3-4 2nd round picks this year and maybe add a late 1st?

 

I really hope Benning takes a shot at Sean Day, kids got elite potential

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Ya, Benn was a head scratcher. Not sure why he was passed on so many times in the draft. Gillis was his agent too before he got the GM job in Vancouver. We always here about these scouting trips that take place half way across the world but there should be a number of people that are constantly scouting the BCHL. There's literally no reason why Benning shouldn't have 6 or 7 scouts that strictly watch BCHL games. It's a tough pill to swallow when guys like Benn, playing right here in BC get passed over 4 or 5 times and then turn out to be superstars. I'd be curious what they saw in Benn that they didn't like? I know his mom and she would tell me that Jordie was always the hard worker of the 2 but Jamie just had that natural skill. So maybe it was his work ethic that scared them off? Whatever it was, clearly it's a thing of the past.

There were serious concerns about Jamie's ability to skate at the NHL level. Of course he has silenced the skeptics on that issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, theminister said:

Because Jamie was believed to be going to college for baseball as he was thinking that was his better option.

 

He was going to give up hockey, he wasn't an unknown at all.

 

Dennis Holland did his homework and thought he could convince him to choose hockey instead. It worked. Give the man credit.

I don't know how accurate that is. Not to say that Jamie didn't ever consider choosing baseball over hockey. That I don't know. What I do know is that his mother didn't mention baseball once. From the BCHL, to the WHL, it was all hockey and the thought of who was going to draft Jamie. Not one word of baseball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oldnews said:

If that's true, do you have an explanation why so few 1st overall picks have won a Stanley Cup?

Their chances of winning a Cup are about as good as current lottery odds.

no one said 1st overalls but a good number of top 3s at the very least makes it to the final hence having a chance to win it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we draft Dubois or Tkachuk at 5th then grab D at 33. Hopefully Benning makes some great choices and our prospects cupboard is full. We will have a pretty good team in 3 years. We shouldn't sign any free agents unless they are younger then 28. Id go for Lucic if the term wasn't a full 7 years... Don't want Eriksson. Seguin was a f$'k up by Chierrelli and Benning. Benn was a fluke at 5th round turns into best player in the league. Dallas just made some good moves and got a bit lucky to get where they are. Canucks will be there soon. Losing the Lotto was rough, but we are still probably getting a star player or close to that at 5th overall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, messier's_elbow said:

How about we draft Dubois or Tkachuk at 5th then grab D at 33. Hopefully Benning makes some great choices and our prospects cupboard is full. We will have a pretty good team in 3 years. We shouldn't sign any free agents unless they are younger then 28. Id go for Lucic if the term wasn't a full 7 years... Don't want Eriksson. Seguin was a f$'k up by Chierrelli and Benning. Benn was a fluke at 5th round turns into best player in the league. Dallas just made some good moves and got a bit lucky to get where they are. Canucks will be there soon. Losing the Lotto was rough, but we are still probably getting a star player or close to that at 5th overall. 

any suggestion to sign thug Lucic has to come with an idea for Miller. Because Miller and the thug do not get along

 

Big players tail off with age way worse then smaller skill players. Just look at Dustin Brown. We don't want a big lumbering forward siged to a 7 year deal.

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...