Are the Canucks Really that Old Compared to the Pacific Division?

[pushfrog7]

Disclaimer: Away from computer and doing math by toggling between tabs and apps on my iPhone. Please point out any math mistakes and I will correct posthaste.

 

Hi All!

 

One of the things that I wanted to investigate was how old the Canucks were compared to the rest of the Pacific Division. There has been some talk of the Canucks needing to get younger and faster which I think is a perception becoming reality sort of an issue. I took a look at General Fanager for the ages of all signed Canucks players currently on roster:

 

35, 35, 30, 35, 27, 29, 30, 23, 23, 21, 19, 22, 24, 30, 26, 26, 24, 21, 23, 28, 35, 26

 

That's 22 signed roster players (not including Rodin and Larsen) for a combined total of 592 years.

 

That's an average age of 26.91 for the Canucks.

 

How does this compare to, say, the Sharks?

 

37, 36, 31, 27, 26, 35, 22, 28, 25, 24, 22, 30, 31, 35, 29, 29, 25, 29, 21, 26

 

That's 20 signed roster players for a combined total of 568 years.

 

That's an average age of 28.4 for the Sharks.

 

The Ducks?

 

31, 31, 31, 25, 29, 30, 31, 25, 25, 35, 24, 24, 31, 24, 22

 

That's 15 signed roster players for a combined total of 418 years 

 

Thats an average age of 27.87 for the Ducks.

 

The Kings? Average age of 28.08 years.

 

The Oilers? Average age of 26.08 years.

 

The Flames? Average age of 27.45 years.

 

The Coyotes? Average age of 28.68 years not including Datsuyk or Pronger.

 

Oh and just for fun, then Penguins are currently at an average age of 26.68 years.

 

TL;DR? The Canucks are the second-youngest team in the Pacific Division assuming my math is correct. 

 

While this does not necessarily mean anything in terms of if the Canucks can legitimately compete next year, it does strike a blow against the perception that the Canucks are too old and need to clean house to bring in the youth movement. By my calculations, the youth have already arrived. 

 

I would be very curious to hear your thoughts!

 

 

[agent007]

No there not that old. Its just that the Canucks biggest point producers are going to be 36 years old to begin the 16/17 season

[Grape]

Average age doesn't tell all. It's which of your players and old and which are young that really matters. Ex. Your top 6 could be a group all under 25 years of age but if you have 2 or 3 players in your bottom 6 that are old it'll bring your average up. That being said this group would still be considered young.

 

The talk of the Canucks needing to get younger and faster is because our best players are our old players. Sedins are 35, Miller is 35, Edler is 30, Hansen is 30, Tanev and Sutter are right in their prime but they are no longer young and most likely won't improve athletically. Our "core" is depleting through age very fast which is why we need to get younger. Once again, the fact that we're the 2nd youngest team in the division doesn't matter much, because a lot of that is affected by players such as Granlund, Etem, Gaunce etc. players that most likely won't be part of our core.

[ItsMillerTime]

17 minutes ago, Grape said:

Average age doesn't tell all. It's which of your players and old and which are young that really matters. Ex. Your top 6 could be a group all under 25 years of age but if you have 2 or 3 players in your bottom 6 that are old it'll bring your average up. That being said this group would still be considered young.

 

The talk of the Canucks needing to get younger and faster is because our best players are our old players. Sedins are 35, Miller is 35, Edler is 30, Hansen is 30, Tanev and Sutter are right in their prime but they are no longer young and most likely won't improve athletically. Our "core" is depleting through age very fast which is why we need to get younger. Once again, the fact that we're the 2nd youngest team in the division doesn't matter much, because a lot of that is affected by players such as Granlund, Etem, Gaunce etc. players that most likely won't be part of our core.

Your GIF is messed up

[Grape]

4 minutes ago, ItsMillerTime said:

Your GIF is messed up

lol thx will fix

[kingofsurrey]

30 minutes ago, Grape said:

Average age doesn't tell all. It's which of your players and old and which are young that really matters. Ex. Your top 6 could be a group all under 25 years of age but if you have 2 or 3 players in your bottom 6 that are old it'll bring your average up. That being said this group would still be considered young.

 

The talk of the Canucks needing to get younger and faster is because our best players are our old players. Sedins are 35, Miller is 35, Edler is 30, Hansen is 30, Tanev and Sutter are right in their prime but they are no longer young and most likely won't improve athletically. Our "core" is depleting through age very fast which is why we need to get younger. Once again, the fact that we're the 2nd youngest team in the division doesn't matter much, because a lot of that is affected by players such as Granlund, Etem, Gaunce etc. players that most likely won't be part of our core.

Great post.

 

Canucks are in a weird position. Canucks are both too old and too young.

 

Too many older plus 30 players combined with too many under 23's.

 

Not enough players in the prime  24-27 age. 

 

Too old and  too young....   Conundrum.

 

 

[Harvey Spector]

33 minutes ago, Grape said:

Average age doesn't tell all. It's which of your players and old and which are young that really matters. Ex. Your top 6 could be a group all under 25 years of age but if you have 2 or 3 players in your bottom 6 that are old it'll bring your average up. That being said this group would still be considered young.

 

The talk of the Canucks needing to get younger and faster is because our best players are our old players. Sedins are 35, Miller is 35, Edler is 30, Hansen is 30, Tanev and Sutter are right in their prime but they are no longer young and most likely won't improve athletically. Our "core" is depleting through age very fast which is why we need to get younger. Once again, the fact that we're the 2nd youngest team in the division doesn't matter much, because a lot of that is affected by players such as Granlund, Etem, Gaunce etc. players that most likely won't be part of our core.

We already have young stud prospects to replace Miller, Hansen and Edler in Demko, Boeser and Juolevi. These guys will be the cornerstone of our team along with Bo, Jake, Hutton, Guds and Sven. So we have replacements to cover for the aging vets. Tanev is only 26. He hasn't even entered his prime yet. Sutter is only 27. These guys are still part of the future. 

 

The only remaining "core" that needs to be replaced are the Sedins. We don't have anyone in our system yet to replace them. That's why it was key to get Eriksson. Eriksson will extend their careers by a couple years. All three playing together will allow them to still be productive for at least another 3 years or so, maybe longer. 

 

Of course at some point the Sedins will need to be replaced, as will Eriksson. I think that is a fluid situation that will resolve itself either by way of trade or free agency. We are not gonna replace the Sedins through the draft unless by some miracle we land a Cory Perry or Ryan Getzlaf in the middle to late first round. It could happen as Boeser looks to have first line potential. 

 

But in any event other than the Sedins it looks like Benning is slowly replacing the rest of the aging core with youth, some of it already in the lineup and some waiting in the wings for their time to come. Let's enjoy the next few years of the SEL line and see where things go. 

 

 

[Sedintwinpowersactivate]

Our best players the Sedins are older.  However they have the skills and health to play into their 40's.  This team has been undergoing a rebuild for 4 years.  We are just not tanking out.  I just don't see the benefit to the tank.  If we finished last we would pick third.  We have some good up players coming with Boeser and Juolevi.

[Mathew Barzal]

Stack up our youth against the Pacifics youth and then lets talk.

[wai_lai416]

Canucks top players that are dependent on are old compared to every team in the pacific.. 

 

SJ Pavelski, Hertl, Couture, Burn

Cal Monahan Gudreau Bennett

Edmonton McDavid Eberle Lucic RNH

LA Kopitar Doughty Carter Pearson

Phoenix Domi, Duclair OEL

Anaheim Getzlaf Perry Kesler

Vancouver Sedin Sedin Eriksson

 

basically Eriksson is younger than the 3 from Anaheim but the rest is older than the top 3 players from every other team in the division.. 

[Grape]

1 hour ago, Harvey Spector said:

We already have young stud prospects to replace Miller, Hansen and Edler in Demko, Boeser and Juolevi. These guys will be the cornerstone of our team along with Bo, Jake, Hutton, Guds and Sven. So we have replacements to cover for the aging vets. Tanev is only 26. He hasn't even entered his prime yet. Sutter is only 27. These guys are still part of the future. 

 

The only remaining "core" that needs to be replaced are the Sedins. We don't have anyone in our system yet to replace them. That's why it was key to get Eriksson. Eriksson will extend their careers by a couple years. All three playing together will allow them to still be productive for at least another 3 years or so, maybe longer. 

 

Of course at some point the Sedins will need to be replaced, as will Eriksson. I think that is a fluid situation that will resolve itself either by way of trade or free agency. We are not gonna replace the Sedins through the draft unless by some miracle we land a Cory Perry or Ryan Getzlaf in the middle to late first round. It could happen as Boeser looks to have first line potential. 

 

But in any event other than the Sedins it looks like Benning is slowly replacing the rest of the aging core with youth, some of it already in the lineup and some waiting in the wings for their time to come. Let's enjoy the next few years of the SEL line and see where things go. 

 

 

Having those players you just mentioned won't be enough. Some won't pan out, some will be moved, and we don't have enough of the top tier prospects compared to Calgary, Edmonton, Arizona etc. We will need more youth for sure as I just don't see a future core consisting some of a combination of Boeser, Virt, Bo, Baer, Hutton, Tanev, Gudbranson, Juolevi, Demko etc as a Cup winning core. You MIGHT be able to make a solid first and/or second pairing out of that, a starting goalie, and a second line but I don't see enough to be able to make a first line out of it since we need guys to replace the Sedins.  

 

Regarding a player's "prime," it's kinda subjective. IMO a player's prime is usually somewhere between 24-28 depending on position and biology, although there are anomalies obviously. Athletically, humans slow down after 25 years of age which is what I was referring to with Tanev and Sutter.

 

Also why do you say that we cannot get a first line replacement through the draft? Anything is possible and for all we know we could finish a bottom team in the league next year and the years after that. Either way, we need to get younger and get potential to fill the hole the Sedins leave when they retire.

[-DLC-]

4 hours ago, Grape said:

Having those players you just mentioned won't be enough. Some won't pan out, some will be moved, and we don't have enough of the top tier prospects compared to Calgary, Edmonton, Arizona etc. We will need more youth for sure as I just don't see a future core consisting some of a combination of Boeser, Virt, Bo, Baer, Hutton, Tanev, Gudbranson, Juolevi, Demko etc as a Cup winning core. You MIGHT be able to make a solid first and/or second pairing out of that, a starting goalie, and a second line but I don't see enough to be able to make a first line out of it since we need guys to replace the Sedins.  

 

Regarding a player's "prime," it's kinda subjective. IMO a player's prime is usually somewhere between 24-28 depending on position and biology, although there are anomalies obviously. Athletically, humans slow down after 25 years of age which is what I was referring to with Tanev and Sutter.

 

Also why do you say that we cannot get a first line replacement through the draft? Anything is possible and for all we know we could finish a bottom team in the league next year and the years after that. Either way, we need to get younger and get potential to fill the hole the Sedins leave when they retire.

You're premature in deciding all of this.

 

I don't think you can state "won't be enough".  Work ethic, grit, determination all factor in.  Potential chemistry together.  YOU don't see them as a cup winning core...but that doesn't mean they aren't.

 

For crying out loud, let's watch them play together for a bit before we decide?  Writing them off way too early.

[danaimo]

The Sedins have never been fast skaters even when they were in their early 20's.  They do move the puck faster than the opposition can skate and this is what will keep them effective for years to come. The Eastern media look at drop in point production and assume that it is due to age, but in reality the seasons where the Sedins have not been point per game players are seasons when they have not had a decent 2 nd line.  Having a top line with 2 35 year olds is not a problem if they can cycle the puck like Henrik and Daniel.  I would be more concerned about diminishing pace if the Canucks had signed the 28 year old Lucic.   

[Grape]

4 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

You're premature in deciding all of this.

 

I don't think you can state "won't be enough".  Work ethic, grit, determination all factor in.  Potential chemistry together.  YOU don't see them as a cup winning core...but that doesn't mean they aren't.

 

For crying out loud, let's watch them play together for a bit before we decide?  Writing them off way too early.

What I'm saying is that we need to add more pieces instead of being complacent and deciding that this is our future cup winning core. You compare it to some of the prospect pools around the league and we're probably middle of the pack.

 

Yes I don't see them as a cup winning core but that's not just my own opinion. That's the opinion of many people who follow hockey as well, and quite frankly it's general consensus to the unbiased fans that we need more than what we have. If every team was just complacent and decided against making a judgment on what their future holds and making plans accordingly, and instead just waiting to see what happens, then many teams that don't look like future contenders won't be future contenders. I think most people can agree that although we have much promise on our team that we lack the top end skill that is mostly required to win a cup and we sorely need to address that.

[-DLC-]

55 minutes ago, Grape said:

What I'm saying is that we need to add more pieces instead of being complacent and deciding that this is our future cup winning core. You compare it to some of the prospect pools around the league and we're probably middle of the pack.

 

Yes I don't see them as a cup winning core but that's not just my own opinion. That's the opinion of many people who follow hockey as well, and quite frankly it's general consensus to the unbiased fans that we need more than what we have. If every team was just complacent and decided against making a judgment on what their future holds and making plans accordingly, and instead just waiting to see what happens, then many teams that don't look like future contenders won't be future contenders. I think most people can agree that although we have much promise on our team that we lack the top end skill that is mostly required to win a cup and we sorely need to address that.

And so who says we're done adding pieces?   I'm sure the team isn't complacent and has plans in place...it's just people are impatient and desperate.  They want drastic and dramatic but we weren't too far off a winning formula not long ago.  It's important to keep some of that intact and have experience as well as youth.

 

I don't care what the "experts" say ... they've always loved to take a run at this team, nothing new. 

 

In comparing prospect pools you could be sorely disappointed because nothing is guaranteed.  Its speculative and hopeful.  So much has to also come into play...health being number one.  Chemistry.  Work ethic.  Etc.

 

 

noun: prospect; plural noun: prospects

1. 1.

   the possibility or likelihood ...

    

    

    

    

 

[BlackRedYellow]

Just relax... the plan is slowly unfolding... 

 

People cry about the fact that we have no players in their prime, but when the plan is "finished", we'll have our core in their prime and instead of older guys we'll have younger.

 

Today we have a strange mix of older (above 30) and younger (sub 23) but none in their prime. Well, in 2-3 years, we'll have almost none of the so called older guys, and only players in their prime and younger.

 

So, relax and enjoy the ride ;-)

 

[5nothincanucksohno]

13 hours ago, Grape said:

Average age doesn't tell all. It's which of your players and old and which are young that really matters. Ex. Your top 6 could be a group all under 25 years of age but if you have 2 or 3 players in your bottom 6 that are old it'll bring your average up. That being said this group would still be considered young.

 

The talk of the Canucks needing to get younger and faster is because our best players are our old players. Sedins are 35, Miller is 35, Edler is 30, Hansen is 30, Tanev and Sutter are right in their prime but they are no longer young and most likely won't improve athletically. Our "core" is depleting through age very fast which is why we need to get younger. Once again, the fact that we're the 2nd youngest team in the division doesn't matter much, because a lot of that is affected by players such as Granlund, Etem, Gaunce etc. players that most likely won't be part of our core.

Good point but I think Benning knows this. I don't think he considers the young group currently on the NHL team as the "stars", I think he views them as the foundation (i.e. the group of players that will take what they learn from the vets and hopefully playoff experience to teach the high players he believes he can draft - Demko, Boeser, etc - perhaps Virtanen provided he is able to figure things out on offence).

 

 

[BowtieCanuck]

Just now, 5nothincanucksohno said:

Good point but I think Benning knows this. I don't think he considers the young group currently on the NHL team as the "stars", I think he views them as the foundation (i.e. the group of players that will take what they learn from the vets and hopefully playoff experience to teach the high players he believes he can draft - Demko, Boeser, etc - perhaps Virtanen provided he is able to figure things out on offence).

 

 

I see the Erikkson signing as him being a transtional top line forward. If he is still around when the Sedins retire, he'll be around to help transition the team's next top line into maturation.

[smithers joe]

if i was building this team, i might do somethings a little differently but basically, many things i'ld do the same...the sedins would finish their careers for my team.....maybe even an extra couple of years...i would bring the young players along slowly, letting them dictate by their play, when they move up the line up..if the right trades became available, i would decide if losing valuable assets was worth the move...i like the gudbranson trade....i wanted shattenkirk but i agree the price would have been too high....i wanted dubois but it wasn't to happen...there are several ways to rebuild....only the benning way counts right now.

[lmm]

14 hours ago, Sedintwinpowersactivate said:

Our best players the Sedins are older.  However they have the skills and health to play into their 40's.  This team has been undergoing a rebuild for 4 years.  We are just not tanking out.  I just don't see the benefit to the tank.  If we finished last we would pick third.  We have some good up players coming with Boeser and Juolevi.

Hmm ... where did this answer come from?

This is not a tank thread, its an age thread.

Tanking has no bearing on the age of this team.

 

Health does have a bearing on how long players can play, however.

So which player played 60% of last season with a bad back? 

answer: The one you state has the health to play into his 40s