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

Why Your Team Sucks: Vancouver Canucks


MJDDawg

Recommended Posts

Bonino was a great value player. He plugged a hole, offensively and defensively, for 1.9 million dollars per year. He isn't the type of guy who will necessarily make a team better, but for what he brings at that cap hit he opens up the $$$ to do that. 

His offense in Vancouver was very up or down, but he did a pretty good job on the defensive side. He is alright if you have a top offensive centre and a strong defensive centre, with Bones filling in 2nd PP and 2nd PK duties. 

Straight up, dollar per dollar, I would pick Sutter despite analytics (especially on a deeper team). He brings size and more intensity. He isn't as well rounded as Bonino, but his size, speed, strength, and faceoff abilities make him a better fit for a checking role. 

Brandon Sutter should be effective for another 5 years. If we are lucky enough to get Nolan Patrick, this team could compete in 3 or 4 years. 

Top centre: Nolan Patrick
Strong two way 2nd line centre: Bo Horvat
Checking line centre: Brandon Sutter
Strong two-way defenseman: Olli Juolevi and Ben Hutton
Strong stay-at-home defenseman: Erik Gudbranson and Chris Tanev
Goaltending: Thatcher Demko and Jacob Markstrom
Power forward: Jake Virtanen 
Top line sniper: Brock Boeser

A year of sucking could do this team wonders. We have very exciting prospects (probably the best in a VERY long time) in Boeser, Demko, and Juolevi. Adding Nolan Patrick would put us over the top. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

Bonino was a great value player. He plugged a hole, offensively and defensively, for 1.9 million dollars per year. He isn't the type of guy who will necessarily make a team better, but for what he brings at that cap hit he opens up the $$$ to do that. 

His offense in Vancouver was very up or down, but he did a pretty good job on the defensive side. He is alright if you have a top offensive centre and a strong defensive centre, with Bones filling in 2nd PP and 2nd PK duties. 

Straight up, dollar per dollar, I would pick Sutter despite analytics (especially on a deeper team). He brings size and more intensity. He isn't as well rounded as Bonino, but his size, speed, strength, and faceoff abilities make him a better fit for a checking role. 

Brandon Sutter should be effective for another 5 years. If we are lucky enough to get Nolan Patrick, this team could compete in 3 or 4 years. 

Top centre: Nolan Patrick
Strong two way 2nd line centre: Bo Horvat
Checking line centre: Brandon Sutter
Strong two-way defenseman: Olli Juolevi and Ben Hutton
Strong stay-at-home defenseman: Erik Gudbranson and Chris Tanev
Goaltending: Thatcher Demko and Jacob Markstrom
Power forward: Jake Virtanen 
Top line sniper: Brock Boeser

A year of sucking could do this team wonders. We have very exciting prospects (probably the best in a VERY long time) in Boeser, Demko, and Juolevi. Adding Nolan Patrick would put us over the top. 


 

I think most fans, with a cursory understanding of the game realize that the Canucks would benefit from either scenario at this point.

 

If:

  • the young emerging core developing in the roster (Tanev, Markstrom, Horvat, Hutton, Baertschi, Etem,Tryamkin, Virtanen) all have noticeable upticks in performance, and continue to develop chemistry
  • the recent player acquisitions (Eriksson, Gudbranson, and Sutter - let's be honest this will be his first real season) come in and adapt quickly to the new settings, and deliver on what are their clear strengths
  • the remaining older players from the previous core (Sedins, Edler, Hansen, and Burrows) perform to the best of their ability, and provide invaluable mentorship, and
  • the remaining roster players deliver on what's asked of them (Dorsett, Sbisa, Granlund

then this team will be moving in the right direction.

 

If they falter, and sputter and end up in the basement, that is also okay. Another cornerstone could be acquired.

 

Benefits anyway one looks at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I think most fans, with a cursory understanding of the game realize that the Canucks would benefit from either scenario at this point.

 

If:

  • the young emerging core developing in the roster (Tanev, Markstrom, Horvat, Hutton, Baertschi, Etem,Tryamkin, Virtanen) all have noticeable upticks in performance, and continue to develop chemistry
  • the recent player acquisitions (Eriksson, Gudbranson, and Sutter - let's be honest this will be his first real season) come in and adapt quickly to the new settings, and deliver on what are their clear strengths
  • the remaining older players from the previous core (Sedins, Edler, Hansen, and Burrows) perform to the best of their ability, and provide invaluable mentorship, and
  • the remaining roster players deliver on what's asked of them (Dorsett, Sbisa, Granlund

then this team will be moving in the right direction.

 

If they falter, and sputter and end up in the basement, that is also okay. Another cornerstone could be acquired.

 

Benefits anyway one looks at it.

Mostly agree,  but you left out one realistic,  worrying scenario - wherein a couple of your points come to fruition to varying degrees and some don't - leaving the franchise in mediocrity with an aged core and no true world-class elite youngsters on the way up.  I know we have some good young prospects,  but most teams do also, and many have our equivalent plus more.   This is a possibility-mediocrity- that worries a lot of us to some degree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fanuck said:

Mostly agree,  but you left out one realistic,  worrying scenario - wherein a couple of your points come to fruition to varying degrees and some don't - leaving the franchise in mediocrity with an aged core and no true world-class elite youngsters on the way up.  I know we have some good young prospects,  but most teams do also, and many have our equivalent plus more.   This is a possibility-mediocrity- that worries a lot of us to some degree. 

Even in the 'nightmare' :rolleyes: scenario where we finish in 'mediocrity', we're still likely picking in the ~8-15 slot where there's generally good players still available. With good scouting, I'm not particularly concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

Mostly agree,  but you left out one realistic,  worrying scenario - wherein a couple of your points come to fruition to varying degrees and some don't - leaving the franchise in mediocrity with an aged core and no true world-class elite youngsters on the way up.  I know we have some good young prospects,  but most teams do also, and many have our equivalent plus more.   This is a possibility-mediocrity- that worries a lot of us to some degree. 

Demko, Boeser, and Juolevi all show signs of being far from mediocre players.

 

While some players tagged elite in junior have proven their predictive titles to be true, there are plenty who, while pegged as elite, end up sucking wind. Cam Barker anyone?

 

I think that having multiple strengths to draw from, with a wide array of players having differing skillsets and sizes is as important as drafting high, and hoping that gamble pays off.

 

And having chemistry throughout the roster is an intangible that cannot be understated. I have a hard time thinking that this team with the players developing now, will be one stuck in mediocrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Demko, Boeser, and Juolevi all show signs of being far from mediocre players.

 

While some players tagged elite in junior have proven their predictive titles to be true, there are plenty who, while pegged as elite, end up sucking wind. Cam Barker anyone?

 

I think that having multiple strengths to draw from, with a wide array of players having differing skillsets and sizes is as important as drafting high, and hoping that gamble pays off.

 

And having chemistry throughout the roster is an intangible that cannot be understated. I have a hard time thinking that this team with the players developing now, will be one stuck in mediocrity.

True....but at least we didn't draft Barker!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Wasn't he a PTO for the Canucks a few seasons ago?

I think he actually did play a couple of games for us in 13-14. 

 

So we may have had him, but at least we didn't waste a high 1st on him.

 

Edit: I was wrong, it was 12-13 and he actually played 14 games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2016 at 11:05 PM, Cocolocci said:

Wow.. I've wasted 5 minutes of my lifetime to read this "article".

I feel the same way....  i read a bit about it before it hit the boards and it made me laugh but so did going through my old hockey card collection and finding a pavel bure hockey card with him leaning against a railing on rollerskates  LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I think he actually did play a couple of games for us in 13-14. 

 

So we may have had him, but at least we didn't waste a high 1st on him.

 

Edit: I was wrong, it was 12-13 and he actually played 14 games. 

Wasn't he third overall? Proof that drafting high isn't an absolute guarantee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, grumpworsley said:

Well at least our team sucks, Not like...... oh never mind

 

i found a worsely card in my 93 tallboy collection of the 64 team...  had no idea that his name wasn't actually "gump" but lots of weird names back then, but cool nonetheless. hmmm's at andy gump who he was nick named after, things one never knew...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I think most fans, with a cursory understanding of the game realize that the Canucks would benefit from either scenario at this point.

 

If:

  • the young emerging core developing in the roster (Tanev, Markstrom, Horvat, Hutton, Baertschi, Etem,Tryamkin, Virtanen) all have noticeable upticks in performance, and continue to develop chemistry
  • the recent player acquisitions (Eriksson, Gudbranson, and Sutter - let's be honest this will be his first real season) come in and adapt quickly to the new settings, and deliver on what are their clear strengths
  • the remaining older players from the previous core (Sedins, Edler, Hansen, and Burrows) perform to the best of their ability, and provide invaluable mentorship, and
  • the remaining roster players deliver on what's asked of them (Dorsett, Sbisa, Granlund

then this team will be moving in the right direction.

 

If they falter, and sputter and end up in the basement, that is also okay. Another cornerstone could be acquired.

 

Benefits anyway one looks at it.

It is definitely a win - win scenario if you look at it positively. As long we we don't end up in between 9th - 11th in the west I will be happy. If we squeeze into the playoffs and get bounced first round, the run leading to the playoffs is so exciting and the team will at least be adequately good. As someone who watches 60+ games per year I really want to see the team either competitive (far more entertaining) OR giving some young guns a chance (IE a complete gong show). 

In your opinion, what is better for the team long term? Crash and burn, get another top 5 pick OR barely make it into the playoffs with a mix of vets & young guns, and sprinkle young players into a winning environment?

Personally, I think we have the foundation (other than a #1 center) to build a really good team in the future, and it is much easier to bring young guys along properly on an average-good team than a crap team. 

Although if Edmonton moved to respectability around Hall and Nugent-Hopkins (two great pieces to build around) plus Eberle, Klefbom, and Gagner they never would have drafted Nurse, Draisaitl, and McDavid. They still suck, but hard to really say if they would be better in say 3-4 years if they were a decent team over the last few years. 

You could also argue that if they finished around .500 in 2011-2012 that there is a good chance they would have drafted Forsberg or Trouba (depending on what they needed), making them better off than Yakupov. In 2012-2013 it they drafted 16th, taking Zadorov as their dman instead of Nurse. 

Tonnes of "what-ifs", if not for McDavid I strongly believe they would be miles ahead if they were not a crap team over the past few years. McDavid tips the scale though, and generational players are far from a guarantee. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

It is definitely a win - win scenario if you look at it positively. As long we we don't end up in between 9th - 11th in the west I will be happy. If we squeeze into the playoffs and get bounced first round, the run leading to the playoffs is so exciting and the team will at least be adequately good. As someone who watches 60+ games per year I really want to see the team either competitive (far more entertaining) OR giving some young guns a chance (IE a complete gong show). 

In your opinion, what is better for the team long term? Crash and burn, get another top 5 pick OR barely make it into the playoffs with a mix of vets & young guns, and sprinkle young players into a winning environment?

Personally, I think we have the foundation (other than a #1 center) to build a really good team in the future, and it is much easier to bring young guys along properly on an average-good team than a crap team. 

Although if Edmonton moved to respectability around Hall and Nugent-Hopkins (two great pieces to build around) plus Eberle, Klefbom, and Gagner they never would have drafted Nurse, Draisaitl, and McDavid. They still suck, but hard to really say if they would be better in say 3-4 years if they were a decent team over the last few years. 

You could also argue that if they finished around .500 in 2011-2012 that there is a good chance they would have drafted Forsberg or Trouba (depending on what they needed), making them better off than Yakupov. In 2012-2013 it they drafted 16th, taking Zadorov as their dman instead of Nurse. 

Tonnes of "what-ifs", if not for McDavid I strongly believe they would be miles ahead if they were not a crap team over the past few years. McDavid tips the scale though, and generational players are far from a guarantee. 
 

Nolan Patrick, isn't he projected as a number one centre?  How in the heck do we get this elite replacement for Henrik, if not through the draft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

It is definitely a win - win scenario if you look at it positively. As long we we don't end up in between 9th - 11th in the west I will be happy. If we squeeze into the playoffs and get bounced first round, the run leading to the playoffs is so exciting and the team will at least be adequately good. As someone who watches 60+ games per year I really want to see the team either competitive (far more entertaining) OR giving some young guns a chance (IE a complete gong show). 

In your opinion, what is better for the team long term? Crash and burn, get another top 5 pick OR barely make it into the playoffs with a mix of vets & young guns, and sprinkle young players into a winning environment?

Personally, I think we have the foundation (other than a #1 center) to build a really good team in the future, and it is much easier to bring young guys along properly on an average-good team than a crap team. 

Although if Edmonton moved to respectability around Hall and Nugent-Hopkins (two great pieces to build around) plus Eberle, Klefbom, and Gagner they never would have drafted Nurse, Draisaitl, and McDavid. They still suck, but hard to really say if they would be better in say 3-4 years if they were a decent team over the last few years. 

You could also argue that if they finished around .500 in 2011-2012 that there is a good chance they would have drafted Forsberg or Trouba (depending on what they needed), making them better off than Yakupov. In 2012-2013 it they drafted 16th, taking Zadorov as their dman instead of Nurse. 

Tonnes of "what-ifs", if not for McDavid I strongly believe they would be miles ahead if they were not a crap team over the past few years. McDavid tips the scale though, and generational players are far from a guarantee. 
 

I think having a winning environment, even if that means a hard fought seven game first round exit, is better for the overall team psyche than crashing and burning with a tire fire of a season.

 

Look what continuous goat blowing did for Edmonton. They looked listless on the ice, like a bunch of Vrbatas skating around. Getting booed (amongst other derogatory words) by their "fans" on the concourse must have had a dehumanizing effect as well. 

As a team, they seemed to accept being losers, and it began to breed internal issues. Look no further than Klefbum throwing Hall under the bus like a b!+(#.  Not good team building at all. :lol:

 

Benning is quite adept at finding gems outside of the top ten (Boeser, Demko, Tryamkin), so if he can stockpile some picks this year versus handing them out as supplementary tokens in a trade, it would be better to go the try your hardest route, than the crap the sheets route that so many seem to applaud Edmonton and Toronto for doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Nolan Patrick, isn't he projected as a number one centre?  How in the heck do we get this elite replacement for Henrik, if not through the draft?

Problem is if we do finish dead last our odds are only 1/5 of drafting Nolan Patrick. That would probably be the IDEAL scenario. 

6/10 scoring centres last season were either acquired through trade or drafted 10th overall & later. 

So yes, while the draft is by far the best place to get a top centre it isn't the only way. I do have some hope for Bo Horvat to be that guy, but with McCann gone the cupboard is completely bare as we would really need a solid 1B (I dreamed Horvat and McCann woud be a Bergeron and Krejici one-two punch). 

So in short, maybe we do need to suck?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canucklehead44 said:

Problem is if we do finish dead last our odds are only 1/5 of drafting Nolan Patrick. That would probably be the IDEAL scenario. 

6/10 scoring centres last season were either acquired through trade or drafted 10th overall & later. 

So yes, while the draft is by far the best place to get a top centre it isn't the only way. I do have some hope for Bo Horvat to be that guy, but with McCann gone the cupboard is completely bare as we would really need a solid 1B (I dreamed Horvat and McCann woud be a Bergeron and Krejici one-two punch). 

So in short, maybe we do need to suck?
 

Maybe, if we suck because we don't have a young replacement for Henrick, we could use Tane + the Torts second to get one?  Draisatl or Sam Reinhart?  Reinhart could certainly make that Krejici - Bergeron combo.  

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...