Gaudette Celly Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 6 hours ago, Phat Fingers said: Scream it from the roof tops. What Pocklington got away with having Gretzky on his roster prior to having Edmonton join the league was highway robbery. The 80s Oilers built the core of their team in essentially 2-3 drafts. Everyone praised Barry Fraser as a genius, but where has he been since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said: The debris is there to gain the time to develop the young guys properly, not ruin the confidence of many of them by bringing them up to soon, each taking the blame for each others errors, instead of sharing each others successes. Ownership has to decide what they want, endless mediocrity, ruining the careers of countless young guys developed too hastily, or take the view that the top of the heap is the ultimate target. There are examples of this latter kind of development; earlier powerhouses such as Detroit, Chicago, and now Tampa Bay, Nashville, Toronto, and others. There are also examples of the other, short run, kind of management; previous generations of Leafs, Oilers. Flames, etc., come to mind. It depends on whether ownership considers themselves to be contenders or pretenders. I don't know if I can agree with your perspective to be honest. You talk about contenders and pretenders like it's some easy distinction, using hindsight to determine these contenders and pretenders. You talk about it being easy to determine if a player is ready or not for the NHL, but is it? Take Virtanen as an example. Clearly, using hindsight, we can see that he was rushed. However, could we have truly seen it from the start? Virtanen looked to have outgrown the WHL, but he couldn't play in the AHL, so the next best thing was the NHL. It didn't really help him much so the next season he needed AHL time. Or, maybe it did help him as maybe he needed a reality check. We will actually never know this as we are not him and we only know the path that he is taken; thus, it makes it easy for you to make such statement where hindsight can rule the day, but also distort what's really going on. I guess my question is this: how do we really know if they are being rushed or not? Is it one game where we look at a player and go "yes or no"? Is that the end all? What if that player needs half a season to get his bearings like in Stamkos' first season? What if that player is being rushed and needs to be sent to the minors? How do we actually know the answer to this without being in that kid's head? Doesn't this leave us with more questions than answers? Yes and no is simply the easy way out, but we'll never be efficient at choosing the right answer as there is no right answer. Then, let's go back to your pretenders and contenders idea. Again, how do we know that a team is a pretender or a contender? We could certainly use hindsight now, but there are actually far more teams who have tanked and not succeeded than there are tanked and succeeded. How do you choose the right players? Most importantly, if it were as easy as you seem to imply, wouldn't there be a lot more contenders than we have now? Wouldn't Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton, Colorado, Columbus, etc have been vying for a cup for a while now? Most important, what actually makes these teams "pretenders" instead of "contenders"? Can you actually provide an easy answer to this or are you just expecting management to "know" how? Edited September 9, 2018 by The Lock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogersTowell Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 Dahlen sure can shoot. Dahlen, Pettersson and Boeser on the same team almost seems unfair to opposing goalies. Now all we need is a cannon from the point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 On 9/8/2018 at 3:22 PM, Ray_Cathode said: The debris is there to gain the time to develop the young guys properly, not ruin the confidence of many of them by bringing them up to soon, each taking the blame for each others errors, instead of sharing each others successes. Ownership has to decide what they want, endless mediocrity, ruining the careers of countless young guys developed too hastily, or take the view that the top of the heap is the ultimate target. There are examples of this latter kind of development; earlier powerhouses such as Detroit, Chicago, and now Tampa Bay, Nashville, Toronto, and others. There are also examples of the other, short run, kind of management; previous generations of Leafs, Oilers. Flames, etc., come to mind. It depends on whether ownership considers themselves to be contenders or pretenders. Where have the Canucks ruined anyone's development. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 4 hours ago, The Lock said: I don't know if I can agree with your perspective to be honest. You talk about contenders and pretenders like it's some easy distinction, using hindsight to determine these contenders and pretenders. You talk about it being easy to determine if a player is ready or not for the NHL, but is it? When talking pretenders/contenders, I was talking about teams in relation to winning a Stanley Cup, not individual players. And you shouldn’t say I said things that never said. I never said it was easy. Now, let’s go to the obvious, a team that finishes third from last is not a contender, neither is a team that finishes out side of the playoffs, neither is a team that gets bounced without winning a single playoff game. I consider the the final eight to be contenders. The proof of whether a team is a contender IS post hoc. If a team is not final eight, it has serious work to do, if it is it may not have to engage in radical reconstruction - depending on where the team is at in its development cycle. Take Virtanen as an example. Clearly, using hindsight, we can see that he was rushed. However, could we have truly seen it from the start? Virtanen looked to have outgrown the WHL, but he couldn't play in the AHL, so the next best thing was the NHL. It didn't really help him much so the next season he needed AHL time. Or, maybe it did help him as maybe he needed a reality check. We will actually never know this as we are not him and we only know the path that he is taken; thus, it makes it easy for you to make such statement where hindsight can rule the day, but also distort what's really going on. Since I was not talking individual players, this whole paragraph is battling a straw man. In addition, you don’t refute a general principle by arguing marginal circumstances. We knew Tanev was a keeper in a dozen games, same with Boeser, same with many others. But that is unusual, with indivdual players it takes time to discover when they are ready, which is a good reason to develop them in the minors and bring them up as injury replacements or to sub for players underperforming. You are actually making my argument for me with the Virtanen example. 4 hours ago, The Lock said: I guess my question is this: how do we really know if they are being rushed or not? Is it one game where we look at a player and go "yes or no"? Is that the end all? What if that player needs half a season to get his bearings like in Stamkos' first season? What if that player is being rushed and needs to be sent to the minors? How do we actually know the answer to this without being in that kid's head? Doesn't this leave us with more questions than answers? Yes and no is simply the easy way out, but we'll never be efficient at choosing the right answer as there is no right answer. Again, thanks for making my argument for me. 4 hours ago, The Lock said: Then, let's go back to your pretenders and contenders idea. Again, how do we know that a team is a pretender or a contender? We could certainly use hindsight now, but there are actually far more teams who have tanked and not succeeded than there are tanked and succeeded. How do you choose the right players? Most importantly, if it were as easy as you seem to imply, wouldn't there be a lot more contenders than we have now? Wouldn't Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton, Colorado, Columbus, etc have been vying for a cup for a while now? Most important, what actually makes these teams "pretenders" instead of "contenders"? Can you actually provide an easy answer to this or are you just expecting management to "know" how? Already answered this, but yes it is simpler at the team level and you mostly determine it based on performance as stated above. The only complication is teams involved in an extensive rebuild and cycling out has beens for young guys with perceived potential - here think marginal young players like Goldobin, Leipsic, Pouliot, Hutton - this is pretty much their year to make or break - these guys have pretty much used up their development time in the minors - for them it is time to do or die. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 5 hours ago, The Lock said: I don't know if I can agree with your perspective to be honest. You talk about contenders and pretenders like it's some easy distinction, using hindsight to determine these contenders and pretenders. You talk about it being easy to determine if a player is ready or not for the NHL, but is it? Take Virtanen as an example. Clearly, using hindsight, we can see that he was rushed. However, could we have truly seen it from the start? Virtanen looked to have outgrown the WHL, but he couldn't play in the AHL, so the next best thing was the NHL. It didn't really help him much so the next season he needed AHL time. Or, maybe it did help him as maybe he needed a reality check. We will actually never know this as we are not him and we only know the path that he is taken; thus, it makes it easy for you to make such statement where hindsight can rule the day, but also distort what's really going on. I guess my question is this: how do we really know if they are being rushed or not? Is it one game where we look at a player and go "yes or no"? Is that the end all? What if that player needs half a season to get his bearings like in Stamkos' first season? What if that player is being rushed and needs to be sent to the minors? How do we actually know the answer to this without being in that kid's head? Doesn't this leave us with more questions than answers? Yes and no is simply the easy way out, but we'll never be efficient at choosing the right answer as there is no right answer. Then, let's go back to your pretenders and contenders idea. Again, how do we know that a team is a pretender or a contender? We could certainly use hindsight now, but there are actually far more teams who have tanked and not succeeded than there are tanked and succeeded. How do you choose the right players? Most importantly, if it were as easy as you seem to imply, wouldn't there be a lot more contenders than we have now? Wouldn't Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton, Colorado, Columbus, etc have been vying for a cup for a while now? Most important, what actually makes these teams "pretenders" instead of "contenders"? Can you actually provide an easy answer to this or are you just expecting management to "know" how? I don't think we really know if a kid is being rushed or not. I think that a good coach can tell within a few shifts whether a player is game aware and understands what he needs to do on the ice. A few games will show if the player is able to play at this level but there is so much more to personal development. I'm thinking of Boeser when I say this. It's pretty complex as you have said. Virtanen clearly looked up to the task from a physical standpoint but the mental side, not so much. To my mind he didn't look comfortable when challenged by veteran players or up to the give and take of trash talk. Or really understand what his role could be. He's 22 and starting to understand as we have seen from recent play. I think that they really have to get to know these players to determine whether they are ready but ultimately, management is taking a risk when they put them in the line up. If you look at various teams records over the years. (Wikipedia has sites for each team that shows how they have performed since they came into the league. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vancouver_Canucks_seasons) We see the cycles that teams go through. Sometimes they peak at the championship level. Sometimes at the conference final level or lower. I think this depends a lot on the luck of the draft and how well teams develop their players but I think that teams who are successful tend to have good and stable management. Ultimately, this is determined by ownership in my opinion. I'm not trying to cast any shadows here, we don't know if Canuck ownership has learned how to be the kind of owners who win championships. They want to be that kind of owner as they have said. Time will tell if they are that kind of owner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 4 hours ago, RogersTowell said: Dahlen sure can shoot. Dahlen, Pettersson and Boeser on the same team almost seems unfair to opposing goalies. Now all we need is a cannon from the point. Boqvist? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 On 2018-09-08 at 3:11 PM, Pete M said: and this is the crux of the matter....seats will not be filled with debris in the way. So what if some seats are empty at this point. Management has to take a longer view than that. If you really want to kill support in Vancouver then just be mediocre over the long hall, that would do it. Another year of weaning out unproductive vets while our young guys learn to win in Utica is the right way forward if the aim is long-term contention. One more year of low in the standings could score us another key piece or two, and get us one year closer to Tryamkin coming back and Hughes coming. Another year of development and half the kids at the young stars tourney could be ready, and then we are likely to be a playoff team, and perhaps a young contending team the year after that. Having a team that looks like the great young Oilers teams sure wouldn’t hurt, or a team like the 2011 Canucks but younger and deeper, would be something a lot of Vancouver fans are dying to see. But do it half-assed, and you get half-assed. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 12 hours ago, RogersTowell said: Dahlen sure can shoot. Dahlen, Pettersson and Boeser on the same team almost seems unfair to opposing goalies. Now all we need is a cannon from the point. With EP and BB, point man just has to be good at teeing up for one time shots and getting an unexpected wrister through the first blocker. Rebounds will be banged in by Bo and Dahlen down low. Both Juolevi and Hughes can more than fill the PP point man role even though they don't posses a hard slapper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 11 hours ago, RogersTowell said: Dahlen sure can shoot. Dahlen, Pettersson and Boeser on the same team almost seems unfair to opposing goalies. Now all we need is a cannon from the point. Gotta agree we have some great trigger guys moving forward. We lack a booming point shot, but both Hughes and OJ have great passing skills and Hughes has the playmaking ability. I have no doubt about Pettersson, Dahlin, Hughes and OJ being mainstays for us for the coming years. Maybe JB can land Nurse in a deal while taking on Lucic. I would be okay with Lucic skating in Pettersson’s wing and Virtannen or Goldy on the other. Say a Baer and MDZ, Hutton or Pouliot for Lucic and Nurse. They get a skiled top six winger on a cheap contract, a veteran d man on a decent contract (I am using MDZ as the option) we take Lucic and free up a ton of future cap and gain Nurse a solid RHD. By taking Lucic we save Edmonton from themselves thus earning Nurse without giving up too much more. This would free up us to move Tanev without needing to take a d man back. Nurse, Guddy and Stecher isn’t the greatest Right side, but it isn’t the worst either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 13 hours ago, vannuck59 said: Where have the Canucks ruined anyone's development. Many. Most recently Hutton. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedinery33 Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, Boudrias said: Many. Most recently Hutton. The team hasn't ruined Hutton development, Hutton just didn't put in the work needed to stay on top of his game. He did this off season, so we'll see where he is at. If he doesn't find his way back I'd still like to know how the team ruined his development? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dats hockey Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 2 hours ago, khay said: With EP and BB, point man just has to be good at teeing up for one time shots and getting an unexpected wrister through the first blocker. Rebounds will be banged in by Bo and Dahlen down low. Both Juolevi and Hughes can more than fill the PP point man role even though they don't posses a hard slapper. As Smexy as BB EP and Hughes sounds together in the power play I think it would make sense to put OJ on that Powerplay so we have game changers on both power plays Future PP Units Sven-Bo-Ep40 BB-OJ Guadette-????-Dahlen Goldy??-Hughes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SingleThorn Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Dahlen looks great ! Amazing how quiet the Goldobin enthusiasts have become ( without him doing anything wrong ! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
komodo0921 Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, SingleThorn said: Dahlen looks great ! Amazing how quiet the Goldobin enthusiasts have become ( without him doing anything wrong ! ) All I can say about Dahlen is; Wow. He looks fantastic. If he performs during the preseason like he has at the tourney, he's going to make it virtually impossible to turn him away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCanuck Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 39 minutes ago, SingleThorn said: Dahlen looks great ! Amazing how quiet the Goldobin enthusiasts have become ( without him doing anything wrong ! ) Goldy can outplay a lot of players if he has the mind too. Gagner, Granlund, Gaunce, Baertschi(trade), Eriksson, Schaller, Leipsic could all be moved in some way if Dahlen and Goldy outplay them. Personally I think Gaunce is almost guaranteed gone(although I like him) on waivers. If Gaudette, Dahlen, Pettersson and Juolevi prove in training camp that they are ready (and Goldy plays well) then Benning will have to make some trades or hard cuts. Dahlen-Bo-Boeser Baer-Pettersson-Eriksson Goldy-Beagle-Leipsic Rousell-Gaudette-Virtanen Schaller Waive Gaunce Trade Sutter, Gagner and Granlund. All should be able to fetch something and if not trade Baer who has value. Edler-Guddy Juolevi-Tanev Hutton-Stecher Pouliot-Biega Trade Del Zotto A lot of possibilities but I think we can all agree that someone needs to be traded or waived to make room. Hopefully Benning makes a trade before training camp to open up a little more wiggle room. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 44 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said: Goldy-Beagle-Leipsic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said: Since I was not talking individual players, this whole paragraph is battling a straw man. In addition, you don’t refute a general principle by arguing marginal circumstances. We knew Tanev was a keeper in a dozen games, same with Boeser, same with many others. But that is unusual, with indivdual players it takes time to discover when they are ready, which is a good reason to develop them in the minors and bring them up as injury replacements or to sub for players underperforming. You are actually making my argument for me with the Virtanen example. Again, thanks for making my argument for me. Already answered this, but yes it is simpler at the team level and you mostly determine it based on performance as stated above. The only complication is teams involved in an extensive rebuild and cycling out has beens for young guys with perceived potential - here think marginal young players like Goldobin, Leipsic, Pouliot, Hutton - this is pretty much their year to make or break - these guys have pretty much used up their development time in the minors - for them it is time to do or die. Dude, just because I say something it doesn't mean I'm saying that you say it. Did I actually say that those are the things you said? My points were my reasoning as to why I'm questioning your reasoning. It would be convenient for you if I only repeating your stuff wouldn't it? However, I am questioning and explaining why I'm questioning it; therefore, I'm bringing up NEW points that I feel counter argue your points. I bring up questions to ask you in order to get you thinking. It's called critical thinking. Not only that, but just because I reply to you, it doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with everything you've said. Anyway, I digress, and onto the rest of the post.... First of all, if that's your definition of "contender and pretender" than so be it. That's your opinion. If a team is not top 8, does it really mean they need such radical reconstruction though? There are teams who have been rebuilding for a while. There are teams that by fluke make the playoffs. There are cup winners who don't even make the playoffs next year but then bounce back. There are teams who weren't even supposed to be top 8 and fall off the face of the earth for the next 10 years after. There are all kinds of situations for teams and it seems like a really simply statement to just say the top 8 are contenders. I guess if you want to make it simple than so be it, but I tend to think there's far more to it than that, and including the notion of post hoc just makes things even more confusing in my opinion. Why then are people saying Toronto's a contender? They weren't top 8 last year. Is the entire thing supposed to be post hoc? Again, please understand that these are questions. I'm not saying what you said and didn't say. I'm asking you questions. As far as I'm concerned, general statements are merely that: general statements. They don't give a very good insight on things in circumstances that really need to be taylor-made to the individual. They can provide guidance, but that guidance should be used as a means to a start and not as an end therefore, I would argue that we should really be focusing on each player individually. However, clearly your replies are not disagreeing with me. I urge you to perhaps reread what I said in my original reply to you though so that perhaps we can actually be on the same page in this. Edited September 10, 2018 by The Lock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post -Vintage Canuck- Posted September 11, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted September 11, 2018 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 23 hours ago, Dats hockey said: As Smexy as BB EP and Hughes sounds together in the power play I think it would make sense to put OJ on that Powerplay so we have game changers on both power plays Future PP Units Sven-Bo-Ep40 BB-OJ Guadette-????-Dahlen Goldy??-Hughes Nah. 1st unit typically takes 1:10-1:30 of the pp ice time. It would be crazy not to have Quinn Hughes on your first unit. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now