spook007 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said: The thing is year 5 is the one? I agree. (Something more or less like that was inferred?) On opening day 2018 / 2019 > We should have all our top prospects for the first time! DEMKO, Boeser, Tryamkin, Juolevi, Jake, Stecher, Brisbois, maybe Liljegren or my home town boy Patrick? Who knows what the draft holds June 2018... Hopefully Subban, Gaudette, Labate, Lockwood, Zhuk, etc. It might be, I hope not, our first without Danny & Hank? I'd love to have them see us through. Chris Tanev will be 28. Eric Gudbranson 26. Ben Hutton will be only 25. Brandon Sutter will still be short of 30. Bo Frackin Horvat will be JUST 23! What is bad, is much of the best of our future has not arrived here yet. Some dark days don't really represent what is going. I want to see current management see it through. Totally agree.... They want to do their way. Let them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 4 hours ago, C.Schneider said: Most of us know what a retool is, and I understand what you are referring to. But what was the original purpose of the retool? To remain competitive (playoff spot) while providing a winning environment for our youngsters. Neither has happened, and it isn't bound to happen with our ageing core approaching closer and closer to their expiry date. The original plan of retool (a la Detroit Model) would have been optimal, of course, but there are reasons why most other teams choose to rebuild than retool. The odds of succeeding a retool are slim, and if you are to fail a retool (which the Canucks are clearly doing), it simply delays the inevitable of requiring to rebuild. Hence why a lot of us aren't very happy with the management; Canucks management is forcefully steering a ship towards a crash course and refusing to change course, whoever may be the captain steering the wheel. Just to clarify, I never asked for a fire sale (e.g. selling the Sedins and all)... however, some moves that should have been made were not made, and some moves that should have never been made were made. This management is so confused and conflicted, it pains to know the following few years will be nothing but a blank write-off and a time not-well wasted. Last year's injuries and who was affected were monumental. You could argue that is already happening again with the continued loss of Hansen (a top goal scorer) Tanev (best shut down D) and Dorsett (ultra competitive all rounder) It always comes back to "replacements" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 3 hours ago, oldnews said: yeah - "tanking" simply does not work in baseball baseball has a problem with teams like the Yankees being able to spend umpteen times more money than small markets, with big spenders dominating year after year after year. They came up with a soft 'corrector' - a luxury tax - that is relatively ineffectual. But still there are many more players impacting a baseball team, and a single player or first overall pick is simply not something that is worth dictating a team's intent to suck - teams simply do not lose on purpose for draft position. As annoying as it is seeing the rich franchises win repeatedly, it's not as fundamentally lame as 'tank nations' and the intent to lose or get worse - which imo undermines the integrity of the game even more than the lack of a salary cap. Institute a salary cap in baseball and they have neither problem. The NHL needs to institute a draft lottery exemption - that no matter how bad you are, you get one top 3 pick maximum at an interval of say 3 or 5 years - or at the very least you're excluded from the top 5 after a top 3 pick the previous year. The surefire way to get this instituted - would be when the Canucks turn comes around.....the NHL will definitely see the sense in it. This is what is wrong with it all. Where is the integrity in a game, where 30-50% consider throwing games... Its down right disgusting. Pathetic way of thinking.... Lets do nothing and reap all the benefits.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, alfstonker said: Last year's injuries and who was affected were monumental. You could argue that is already happening again with the continued loss of Hansen (a top goal scorer) Tanev (best shut down D) and Dorsett (ultra competitive all rounder) It always comes back to "replacements" Also splitting hairs on the terminology. What I see is the main difference is that we are not tearing things down. We are keeping veterans around to act as a frame work so our younger players have a culture and example to emulate. Thats the path we are on. I am fine with giving it another 2 years and see where we are then. The the risk of a prolonged rebuild is equally high with either style. The one big thing Canucks ownership has is JB's drafting and scouting. Absolutely the only way out of this mess is to make up for a decade of poor drafting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 There is no PLAN - team is receding A sinking ship, smoke on the horizon Opponents comin' thru in waves Trev's lips moved, but we can't hear what he says When I was a child, I caught a fleeting-glimpse Stuck in the corner of the Smythe We waved a towel, but it was gone They cannot put their fingers on it now This child has grown Cup dreams have gone IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiii, have become Canucklehead-numb (cue, scorching solo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 JB is certainly putting the pieces together. There are several key players you need as part of a successful young core, and JB has almost all of them. In my books, and comparing them to cores of 7 across the league, a successful core has the following: 1) Top flight #1 offensive center - we don't have this yet 2) Two-way defensive center who can score - Bo Horvat 3) Top-10 scorer in the NHL - Brock Boeser 4) Top-30 scorer in the NHL with decent defence - the argument could be made for Granlund or Baertschi in the future but at a stretch OR Top-4 defenceman 5) Norris-trophy candidate defenceman, top-3 in the NHL - Hutton unlikely, sky's the limit for Stecher and Juolevi (Liljegren may be here too) 6) A decent top-4 defenceman - Hutton, Stecher and Juolevi along with Gudbranson are more than capable of this role 7) A top-5, at least top-10 NHL goalie - Markstrom looks good, Demko's struggling in the AHL but will get there With that in mind, we have a few pieces down pat and a few big holes, namely the first line center. We've got a great goalie now (Miller), better goalie in the near future (Markstrom) and potentially one of the best young goalies in the game (Demko) so lets forget about that. JB and TL have done well there. On defence we've really fixed up the top-4 with Tanev, Gudbranson, Stecher, Tryamkin, Juolevi and Hutton. The question will be whether we can turn Juolevi into a league-wide top-5 defender. I think he'll end up a decent two-way top-4 defenceman, similar to Edler in his prime if not a bit better. If we draft Liljegren next season we've suddenly got that Karlsson-esque Norris Trophy winner and put this case to rest. Pretty damn good defence in the making, not the best but I'd say a top-10 young defence in the league going forward thanks to Juolevi. Up front we're thin. Horvat is the only guy who is good enough to be compared around the league to other players in his position. That leaves a star scoring forward (Boeser may be one of the best of his age), a good two-way scoring winger/powerforward (this hopefully would have been Virtanen if he fills out but now may have to be Granlund or Baertschi which is a step back in potential) and of course, that top-flight center. If we can pull off a big deal to nab that future first line scoring center and somehow match all our young players primes (which will be the real issue), we'll be a contender in 2-3 years. Horvat's closing in on his prime, as is Gudbranson, and Granlund/Baertschi/Hutton/Stecher may only be 1 or 2 years off. Demko is still 2 years from the NHL I'd say and 5 years off his prime, leaving us with Markstrom for now. Boeser may be NHL ready next year and scoring at a decent pace in 2-3 years. With the addition of a likely top-5 or top-10 pick this Draft, I think in 2 years time we make the playoffs again and in 3 we're a contender provided we hold together the core of Horvat, Granlund, Baertschi, Boeser, Virtanen, Hutton, Gudbranson, Stecher, Juolevi, Markstrom and Demko. Ideally we add that top center though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icycold Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 8 hours ago, LaBamba said: They are ready for that phase. While we go into last years draft with fewer picks than the Stanley cup finalists. We are basically doing what every team in the league is doing right now. Phasing out the old and bringing in the new. People are confusing the way the NHL does business now a days with some made up revolutionary plan by Jim Benning. We are still in the top half of the league in age. We are at the Cap max, our farm team sucks and we are cellar dwellers. Hail Benning. F- So walk in and fix everything in 2 years? After all the screw ups over the past 10 yrs? Good luck with that! Of course we're changing up the team, what GM wouldn't and look what Benning had to work with, chill out dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Schneider Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 6 hours ago, Hutton Wink said: So the question for the tankers -- what's your complaint? You got what you wanted, a team at the bottom last year and so far this year. I think it's more a case of compulsive complaining and negativity, as if the team really were at the bottom for multiple years on end due to a tear-down they'd hardly be cheering it. There is a difference between purposefully tanking, and just wanting the team to run its course of a natural rebuild. Trust me, the crowd that actually wants to throw games away is very minimal. The "lets make the playoff every year" flock seem to have a penchant on falsely accusing anyone with a realistic judgement of wanting to just rig games so we end up at a higher lottery standing. Sure, the results on paper might be similar, however the action of the management group shows otherwise. Just because the incompetency of management plummeted our standing, doesn't mean they are actually being true to a rebuild. They still held on, and will most likely hold on, to expiring contracts because we're all but mathematically eliminated from the wild card spot. They still signed a terrible contract to compete for a playoff spot, which in result strips away a position for our youth to play with the big club. They still overwork our vets to a ridiculous ice-time while limiting our youngsters to minimal play time. They have, and still are shopping for band-aid solution at the expense of our future. The process counts just as much as the result. However, at this rate, we will obtain neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 8 hours ago, gameburn2 said: How many games has Tanev missed this season? Are we really worse when he's not in the lineup? Stech and Tryamkin only got to play because Tanev was out (and Larsen looks meh.) I don't think we miss him, I'd rather see either of Tryamkin or Stecher. Both are more exciting players, and I don't see them contributing any less than Tanev. How many points has he gotten? How much of a difference does he really make? Same btw with Edler. Tanev is okay, but on a rebuild he's that steady guy who doesn't score much that we don't really need. (A young Hamhuis.) Pittsburgh could use him, Montreal could use him; NY even more, because they need 3rd D to hold leads/be available for more minutes if a bigger gun goes down. But as Babcock said of Phaneuf as we was going out the door, "Dion is ready to win now, and we aren't." So he goes. If you aren't going to be winning you should be building. I think Gudbranson is just young enough that he can be part of the long-term rebuild -- and he plays a more physical game than T. Edler definitely not part of the long-term team, Tanev could but it's borderline, besides, "he's ready to win now and we aren't." So he should go. Same with Hansen. Before their stock value drops any further. Probably -- and it's difficult to say this -- the Sedins should have been moved too: probably by Feb/March in the year after the Torts debacle. If we didn't have Tryamkin, Stecher and Hutton showing signs of being the real deal, then it would be harder to trade Tanev. But we do, and Juolevi will be available by next Fall at the latest. And Gudbranson is a recent grab, so he's here for a while too. (That's 5 D right there, 3 of them likely to be core players, which is what Edler used to be.) TDL: good bye Tanev and Hansen, maybe even Edler although we might have to eat some of his salary. Trading T and E at last year's TDL would have been a bit riskier, because we didn't know that Stecher and Tryamkin would work out, nor did we have Gudbranson yet. Everything has changed; now we can make the trades that are needed. I don't really disagree with you in so much I would be open to a trade involving Edler or tanev assuming the return met our immediate needs (scoring/physical)... I would prefer Edler be traded but I doubt it happens due to his ntc among other things I won't get into right now. i was discussing with another poster @PhillipBlunt about dealing tanev actually. He was suggesting a Hutton trade and I suggested tanev instead in that instance. One of my reasons was his injury history and how prone he is to them. Imo the east would be a better spot for him or basically not in our division. I don't think he's built for it and he isn't mean enough to be proactive and take preventative measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, spook007 said: This is what is wrong with it all. Where is the integrity in a game, where 30-50% consider throwing games... Its down right disgusting. Pathetic way of thinking.... Lets do nothing and reap all the benefits.... I think your throwing exaggerations out there. I don't see anyone actually suggesting losing on purpose. Rebuild camp suggests youth play, and let the chips fall, as well as not signing term an money for older players to gel with hank and Daniel. Quite a reasonable stance in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, alfstonker said: Last year's injuries and who was affected were monumental. You could argue that is already happening again with the continued loss of Hansen (a top goal scorer) Tanev (best shut down D) and Dorsett (ultra competitive all rounder) It always comes back to "replacements" With respect to tanev and his offerings I'd be into a trade involving him based on this alone. It's a reoccurring theme and I don't see it changing. An injury prone dman could be seen to be a bit of a snag with strong up and coming d needing development and a shortage of offence. could be a good piece to bolster the scoring, youth and physicality in our top six with an "NHL ready player." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn2 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 6 hours ago, Gollumpus said: I'm assuming this hasn't been addressed as yet. Having an $14 million in cap space on a re-building team is far from useless. What I'm thinking here is "selling" that cap space to another team who has a contract they want to get out from under (as we've seen with the Leafs as well as other teams). The Canucks take a bad contract and they also get a high pick and/or prospect for some lesser assets. The Garrison deal is also an example of this type of trade. regards, G. If it can yield picks, this is good news, you're right. I'd assumed it would go into another Eriksson, Lucic, Stamkos, even. All of no use to us. But a pick and their version of a Burrows contract? Yes... if short-term... it could be dealt with. The question becomes whether this is faster than just getting picks without the contract baggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, riffraff said: I think your throwing exaggerations out there. I don't see anyone actually suggesting losing on purpose. Rebuild camp suggests youth play, and let the chips fall, as well as not signing term an money for older players to gel with hank and Daniel. Quite a reasonable stance in my view. After reading, I don't know how many posts here on CDC, I think its fair to say that to lose on purpose are exactly, what a few good people are wanting. Some of rebuild camp suggests youth play, and some don't even care, who plays, as long as they have favourable odds going into the draft. We all have our vision. And I have seen enough of Oilers wasting top end picks by throwing them to the lions. We may even have been doing the same thing, having Virtanen start this season on the roster instead of Comets. I'm not a coach so I won't be saying, who is right and who is wrong regarding Virtanen, but in order to maintain interest in the sport and Canucks in particular, we should always play our best team and play to win. If we don't, the integrity of the sport is down the drain. With regards to youth playing, they should always, as far as practicable, start their development in Utica, away from the limelight of this fan base, and then enter when they are ready. Of course if they show, they are good enough to hold down a roster space, they should play, but not because of their birth certificate. That's how I see it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 7 hours ago, Hutton Wink said: So the question for the tankers -- what's your complaint? You got what you wanted, a team at the bottom last year and so far this year. I think it's more a case of compulsive complaining and negativity, as if the team really were at the bottom for multiple years on end due to a tear-down they'd hardly be cheering it. So you just complained about the tankers. The real hardcore tankers on this forum are far outweighed by the uber homers here who slag them every chance they get. Anybody else that dares question management decisions is tossed into the tanker side or called haters or dumb idiots because they don't have the so called vision of the self proclaimed intelligensia here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlinkas wrister Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Good interview from Linden, he's the perfect face for the franchise during this transition. It's tempting to join the discussion regarding the Canucks "plan", but it seems kind of pointless when everybody is only guessing to what it is. I for one think they (like every other franchise) have a slightly different internal mandate than what they try to sell to season ticket holders and the players themselves (and rightfully so, its self-serving to keep their cards close to the chest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuman491 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 10 hours ago, D-Money said: I watched the majority of Jovo's games back when he was here. Good player, but far too much of an adventure in his own zone for me to rate him as one of the best in the league. And as for playoff success of the teams they were on, what a ridiculous measuring stick. Is Marty McSorley better than Markus Naslund because the former won cups? Gio had twice the puck smarts and defensive capability as Jovanovski for. To be, it's no contest. You are right there. Playoffs appearances is a bad measuring stick. I do like how you put MCsorley after mentioning measuring stick. Well played lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said: Also splitting hairs on the terminology. What I see is the main difference is that we are not tearing things down. We are keeping veterans around to act as a frame work so our younger players have a culture and example to emulate. Thats the path we are on. I am fine with giving it another 2 years and see where we are then. The the risk of a prolonged rebuild is equally high with either style. The one big thing Canucks ownership has is JB's drafting and scouting. Absolutely the only way out of this mess is to make up for a decade of poor drafting. Agreed, you like me, are probably concerned that it is not just the Sedins who are gaining years (not much we can do about that as they deserve to retire here) while we rebuild but I also want to see our rookies into a rebuilt team as soon as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, alfstonker said: Agreed, you like me, are probably concerned that it is not just the Sedins who are gaining years (not much we can do about that as they deserve to retire here) while we rebuild but I also want to see our rookies into a rebuilt team as soon as possible Exactly. I do not want to through our young players to the wolves. The twins do deserve to play where they want and for as long. Every other player on the roster has not earned that right. Two more seasons to really see if this course JB is on is working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, C.Schneider said: They still signed a terrible contract to compete for a playoff spot, which in result strips away a position for our youth to play with the big club. Have to take exception to this. LE wasn't signed (at least not specifically) to 'compete for a playoff spot'. At the end of next year we could be VERY thin on top 6 vets if the Sedins and Hansen retire/don't extend. LE was brought in at least as much to fill a transitional, veteran forward role as 'compete for a playoff spot' IMO. Would I have preferred a 4-5 year term over 6? Sure...but that's the cost of doing business. As for him 'taking a position away from our youth'. The only guy remotely capable of maybe filling some of that role at this point was Boeser and he was staying in College. So much for that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Schneider Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, J.R. said: Have to take exception to this. LE wasn't signed (at least not specifically) to 'compete for a playoff spot'. At the end of next year we could be VERY thin on top 6 vets if the Sedins and Hansen retire/don't extend. LE was brought in at least as much to fill a transitional, veteran forward role as 'compete for a playoff spot' IMO. Would I have preferred a 4-5 year term over 6? Sure...but that's the cost of doing business. As for him 'taking a position away from our youth'. The only guy remotely capable of maybe filling some of that role at this point was Boeser and he was staying in College. So much for that idea. LE was signed to to help now. Management firmly believes, and have expressed numerous times our goal is to remain competitive and compete for the playoff. I'm sure your idea of having LE as a transitional vet is also valid, but the main reason behind the signing was to give us chance at a playoff run, like now. LE takes a roster spot, regardless of which line he plays on. He started the year on the top line, which could have easily been filled by Burrows or Hansen. That leaves a spot open for the bottom 9, so yes, it does take away a spot from youth. Forgive me for asking this, but I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue, or if you're arguing for the sake of arguing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.