Kevin Biestra Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 20 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: Why are you throwing Crosby's name in there? Pittsburgh didn't tank, lose intentionally or apply any other strategy to obtain Crosby. The Canucks had the same odds of obtaining Crosby as Pittsburgh did. It was shear luck that Pittsburgh got Crosby. Because he was a 1st overall pick. I think that's more relevant and meaningful for future drafting than trying to factor in potential replications of a bizarre post-lockout year draft. Under normal circumstances, the worst team in the NHL would have had the best odds of acquiring Crosby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: So in two of the our last three seasons, the result was (effectively) a tank, right? Two of our last three seasons we finished near the bottom of the league. If you want to associate that with tanking then by all means do so. The pro-tankers would say the Canucks management did not do enough to ensure the losses mounted up. The non-tank crowd will insist that management did not do enough to ensure we got more wins to get Laine. See how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 6 hours ago, linden17 said: its funny how so many of you follow the media that the canucks arent rebuilding. look at our line-up. Granlund, horvat, hutton, tryamkin, rodin, virtanen, baertschi, gaunce, stecher and even gudbranson . we have one of the youngest teams in the nhl but the media makes u think otherwise. if we dont win then we are a team lost in the mist, who needs to tank to rebuild. i got news for all of you..including the media. this team is rebuilding. this team also will probably go on another huge losing streak. its expected. what i dont understand is why the media plays it up like we should be doing better than what we achieve? I think people take it out of context when management says they want a winning atmosphere. they would like on any giving night their big guns to give them a chance to win. which is very likely. that explains the signing of loui eriksson. some nights they got it. some nights not. but what they have on the table actually gives us a chance to win every night. thats a hell of a lot more than what Edmonton or toronto actually had before they lucked out on lifetime picks being mathews/ mcdavid. some nights we look our age ( young and old) some nights like tonight and agianst the rangers we looked competitive. thats what i think managment is seeing. both those huge wins our young guys stepped up. to me thats growing pains in the transition while our veterens led the way. expect to lose more than we win is all im saying during these next few years. but dont ignore that we are actually rebuilding already and doing it right. Fans get overly excited with every win. I highly doubt this is a playoff team so I concentrate on the development gains. IMHO what fans should be very excited about to date is the evolution of the d-core. I highly doubt that Tryamkin sits out again and his play has complimented Sbisa big time. I am not as excited about the forward group as it needs serious upgrading in talent. Most will not be on a serious Canuck CUP contender down the road. Conversely the d-core looks like a CUP quality group in the making. I can see one of either Tanev or Edler being traded to compliment the forward prospect pool. That would be a big move. Fans have to be patient enough to see the base for a serious CUP contender be built rather than a group which will be simply competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 3 hours ago, Toews said: A good GM does not pay attention to the hysteria of the media or the fans but makes the move that's best for his team. So who cares if the fan base was crying for youngsters to be in the lineup. Benning should never have fallen for that and rushed Virtanen and McCann. Those "also rans" help you develop your prospects slowly, letting them get comfortable at each level of hockey before you bring them up. They help you paper the cracks in your organization and provide a solid buffer till your prospects are ready. You can also deal them for picks and call up some deserving prospects at the deadline and give them a taste of the NHL. Its not my job to show foresight. That would be Benning's job. I am not a GM so I can only comment when I see these moves end in failure but our GM continues to repeat said mistakes again and again. It is only with the benefit of hindsight we can tell a good GM from a bad one. The ones who are consistently doing well like Steve Yzerman or the ones like Jay Feaster or Dave Nonis. Good point and one I heartily agree with. However it's not just the fans who realise we need to re-new. The owners, the management have all signed up to it Again, agreed however we have half a team of such players, my point is there is no room for the "also rans" as well. That is why they along with Juice and Hammer Weber, Bart, were allowed to go. I don't agree that we are/were in the same position as Yzerman (TB), Nonis (who is no longer a GM) or Feaster (also no longer a GM) None of them took over a club who behind the facade of an ageing elite team was in such a mess regarding player stock. Anyway you make some good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: Two of our last three seasons we finished near the bottom of the league. If you want to associate that with tanking then by all means do so. The pro-tankers would say the Canucks management did not do enough to ensure the losses mounted up. The non-tank crowd will insist that management did not do enough to ensure we got more wins to get Laine. See how that works. What? We needed more losses to get Laine (to maximize our odds of getting him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Kevin Biestra said: What? We needed more losses to get Laine. Winnipeg finished higher than the Canucks in the standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, Rick Blight said: Winnipeg finished higher than the Canucks in the standings. I see where you're going with that line of reasoning, but it's stretching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said: I see where you're going with that line of reasoning, but it's stretching it. Nope. Realities of the new lottery system. Pinning your hopes on losses = lottery win is stretching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianRugby Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Drafting twice in the first 4 rounds is the opposite of rebuilding. Trading prospects and draft picks for 20something year olds is the opposite of rebuilding. But hey, if losing 9 in a row is considered a successful winning environment. Then when you set the bar that low I guess what the Canucks are doing can be considered rebuilding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: Nope. Realities of the new lottery system. Pinning your hopes on losses = lottery win is stretching it. Nothing in this thread is a stupider idea than playing for 6th last because you are expecting 6th to end up 2nd in the draw at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, Kevin Biestra said: Nothing in this thread is a stupider idea than playing for 6th last because you are expecting 6th to end up 2nd in the draw at the end. You're getting there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, J.R. said: You're getting there... Playing the odds in an intelligent fashion is sensible. Playing against the odds is stupid, regardless of whether a sucker's bet pays off on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, Kevin Biestra said: Playing the odds in an intelligent fashion is sensible. Playing against the odds is stupid, regardless of whether a sucker's bet pays off on occasion. Playing hockey games with your sole purpose being your draft position, especially when a completely up to luck lottery highly affecting your odds is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: Playing hockey games with your sole purpose being your draft position, especially when a completely up to luck lottery highly affecting your odds is stupid. Ultimately, it is the players that will determine where teams finish unless management decimates the line-up. Players will always try to win games and unfortunately they may win some games the pro-tank crowd doesn't want. They were up in arms at Canucks management because they won games in California last year.....what was management supposed to do. These were the same players that had just lost 9 or 10 games in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrix Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 24 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said: Playing the odds in an intelligent fashion is sensible. Playing against the odds is stupid, regardless of whether a sucker's bet pays off on occasion. Pro tankers would also say that the Canucks should have finished one spot higher just in case we get leapfrogged. #4 and #5 OA was the difference between Puljujärvi and Juolevi. There are many ways to interpret this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_man08 Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 7 hours ago, linden17 said: its funny how so many of you follow the media that the canucks arent rebuilding. look at our line-up. Granlund, horvat, hutton, tryamkin, rodin, virtanen, baertschi, gaunce, stecher and even gudbranson . we have one of the youngest teams in the nhl but the media makes u think otherwise. if we dont win then we are a team lost in the mist, who needs to tank to rebuild. i got news for all of you..including the media. this team is rebuilding. this team also will probably go on another huge losing streak. its expected. what i dont understand is why the media plays it up like we should be doing better than what we achieve? I think people take it out of context when management says they want a winning atmosphere. they would like on any giving night their big guns to give them a chance to win. which is very likely. that explains the signing of loui eriksson. some nights they got it. some nights not. but what they have on the table actually gives us a chance to win every night. thats a hell of a lot more than what Edmonton or toronto actually had before they lucked out on lifetime picks being mathews/ mcdavid. some nights we look our age ( young and old) some nights like tonight and agianst the rangers we looked competitive. thats what i think managment is seeing. both those huge wins our young guys stepped up. to me thats growing pains in the transition while our veterens led the way. expect to lose more than we win is all im saying during these next few years. but dont ignore that we are actually rebuilding already and doing it right. I think when a team properly rebuilds, they build completely from the draft and trades for prospects that have future potential, and then gives those prospects all the room to grow. We have barely given our prospects a chance to shine, and let them run with it.. When it was time to get younger, we gave up on Grabner (waived), Shinkaruk (sp?) (for granlund), Jensen for (etem who we lost to waivers again). we drafted mccaan, & virtanen and rushed them into lineup without letting them grow in AHL/Juniors. That's not how you rebuild. I would argue that the gap that Benning is looking to fill with 20 something year olds and our aging core, needs to be filled gradually over time with quality prospects. we lucked out with Granlund, and who knows how we'll do with Gudbranson. We've already failed with Etem. The right thing to do would be to continue signing vets to 1 year deals and then trade them for picks that land you quality prospects (similar to what leafs did for 2-3 years. In the meantime your prospect pool grows in minors and juniors and you let them compete with good amount of ice time and a winning environment. I trust benning's prospect evaluation, but not his man management style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Just now, Toews said: It is my opinion that every team should be aiming to win a Cup. Now obviously there are teams in different stages of accomplishing that task. There are teams like the Canucks whose core is simply not good enough to win a Cup so they should be actively trying to move those guys and get into a better position for a high draft pick. Then there are teams like Toronto, Buffalo, Edmonton, Winnipeg who have stockpiled talent already, they should be looking to develop that talent and trying to supplement their core with a few choice vets. They are absolutely trying to improve their record in the standings since another top pick is not going to make too much of a difference for them. Then there are the obvious contenders who already have an established core capable of winning the Cup and are just looking to augment an already strong roster or add that final piece that will push them to the top. These are the teams who the Canucks should be talking trade with. So no 20 teams aren't tanking, some of them have already laid the foundation and just need everything else to come together. I probably should have quoted Baggins instead of you, now I too lazy to go back and find his post. in 4ish years Toronto, edmonton, winnipeg, Buffalo, with their roster full of kids coming off their ELC are going to run into serious cap issues as all those kids will want significant raises. Imo, you need staggered contracts to have long term success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrix Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, stawns said: in 4ish years Toronto, edmonton, winnipeg, Buffalo, with their roster full of kids coming off their ELC are going to run into serious cap issues as all those kids will want significant raises. Imo, you need staggered contracts to have long term success. Of all those teams, I'd say only Edmonton has a realistic chance of encountering a situation where ELCs ending threaten to destabilize the team... and that's mostly due to years and years of bottom feeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, guntrix said: Of all those teams, I'd say only Edmonton has a realistic chance of encountering a situation where ELCs ending threaten to destabilize the team... and that's mostly due to years and years of bottom feeding. I agree Edmonton seems likely, but theyve already had to jettison some of their young guys. that said they have some tough decisions coming up in about 3 years time, especially when the re-sign McD..........will they have to move Draisaitl etc. I think Toronto will be in the worst position, honestly. Winnipeg and Buffalo not as much, depending on success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaBamba Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, stawns said: in 4ish years Toronto, edmonton, winnipeg, Buffalo, with their roster full of kids coming off their ELC are going to run into serious cap issues as all those kids will want significant raises. Imo, you need staggered contracts to have long term success. Hahahahahah can anyone imagine how awesome it would be to have this problem?! OMG, we have too much young elite talent. Now which ones should we sign and which ones should I bend over a GM with? Hmmmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.