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

[Proposal] Partner with the Hunters


Recommended Posts

(First attempt to post :unsure:) I was thinking about the state of the club, with the youth-movement and the firing of WD. My view, (later shared by different Sportsnet etc analysts/ but by no means all) is that this team is really not about coaching. It is about personnel. We are going for a clearly stated youth-movement. Younger, faster. Maybe not not tougher, but that remains to be seen as the league and team develops. My thought really is IF the coach is semi-irrelevant at this stage in terms of winning, and the focus is DEVELOPMENT, why not look to partner up with the London Knights Hunter boys?

Proposal: Canucks become partners in London and with the window of youth development in Van have the Hunter boys agree to a two year stint behind the bench and in charge of development, or at least something in that vein. Great junior contacts long-term and proven developers, not to mention consummate NHL pros for mentorship/devlopment. THEN be ready to drop a bomb and pay for a proven coach as the club once again becomes competitive. Right now having a "Babcock" is money down the drain, plus we own half of London. Is it possible/logical?

Edit: getting flamed!!! It would have been great to be able to control an extra year in jr for Jake and Jarred rather than rush them. Thus the idea to have some weight in a great jr franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, groovy said:

Proposal: Canucks become partners in London and with the window of youth development in Van have the Hunter boys agree to a two year stint behind the bench and in charge of development, or at least something in that vein. Great junior contacts long-term and proven developers, not to mention consummate NHL pros for mentorship/devlopment. THEN be ready to drop a bomb and pay for a proven coach as the club once again becomes competitive. Right now having a "Babcock" is money down the drain, plus we own half of London. Is it possible/logical?

Okay, don't think that's even an option, but as far as the highlighted point goes, HUH?

 

Everything I can find leads to Mark & Dale Hunter being sole owners.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, R35Godz1lla said:

Okay, don't think that's even an option, but as far as the highlighted point does, HUH?

 

Everything I can find leads to Mark & Dale Hunter being sole owners.

Quote: Proposal: Canucks become partners in London (on some level maybe not 50-50)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, groovy said:

(First attempt to post :unsure:) I was thinking about the state of the club, with the youth-movement and the firing of WD. My view, (later shared by different Sportsnet etc analysts/ but by no means all) is that this team is really not about coaching. It is about personnel. We are going for a clearly stated youth-movement. Younger, faster. Maybe not not tougher, but that remains to be seen as the league and team develops. My thought really is IF the coach is semi-irrelevant at this stage in terms of winning, and the focus is DEVELOPMENT, why not look to partner up with the London Knights Hunter boys?

Proposal: Canucks become partners in London and with the window of youth development in Van have the Hunter boys agree to a two year stint behind the bench and in charge of development, or at least something in that vein. Great junior contacts long-term and proven developers, not to mention consummate NHL pros for mentorship/devlopment. THEN be ready to drop a bomb and pay for a proven coach as the club once again becomes competitive. Right now having a "Babcock" is money down the drain, plus we own half of London. Is it possible/logical?

I'm not even entirely sure what you're proposing. Why would the Hunters sell us half their franchise when they could more than likely get NHL jobs on their own merits? What does owning half an OHL franchise get us that a phone call from Benning can't?

 

3 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

nope.gif

At least it isn't that Andy Samberg gif.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I  do understand the train of thought, but you need to redirect to a new station.

 

If you want an interim coach, hire someone like Ruff on a 1 year at a time contract, give him a nice sacrificial lamb contingency bonus and if he does well keep re-signing him until the coach we truly want becomes available ( whoever that might be ) .

 

Sometimes staying inside the box is actually the best option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

I'm not even entirely sure what you're proposing. Why would the Hunters sell us half their franchise when they could more than likely get NHL jobs on their own merits? What does owning half an OHL franchise get us that a phone call from Benning can't?

 

At least it isn't that Andy Samberg gif.

Just 4 U :rolleyes:

Gross GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, groovy said:

(First attempt to post :unsure:) I was thinking about the state of the club, with the youth-movement and the firing of WD. My view, (later shared by different Sportsnet etc analysts/ but by no means all) is that this team is really not about coaching. It is about personnel. We are going for a clearly stated youth-movement. Younger, faster. Maybe not not tougher, but that remains to be seen as the league and team develops. My thought really is IF the coach is semi-irrelevant at this stage in terms of winning, and the focus is DEVELOPMENT, why not look to partner up with the London Knights Hunter boys?

Proposal: Canucks become partners in London and with the window of youth development in Van have the Hunter boys agree to a two year stint behind the bench and in charge of development, or at least something in that vein. Great junior contacts long-term and proven developers, not to mention consummate NHL pros for mentorship/devlopment. THEN be ready to drop a bomb and pay for a proven coach as the club once again becomes competitive. Right now having a "Babcock" is money down the drain, plus we own half of London. Is it possible/logical?

The hunters own London, won't give it up and they are currently quite tight with Leafs ownership.  not management, ownership for various reasons both financial but also mutual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

The hunters own London, won't give it up and they are currently quite tight with Leafs ownership.  not management, ownership for various reasons both financial but also mutual.

Fair enough. What about the general idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dale Hunter is a control freak - that is why he turned down numerous offers to head coach in the NHL.  If he doesn't call the shots - he's not interested.  We don't want to be partners with a guy like that.  Not saying he doesn't know hockey or how to develop talent - just that its CRYSTAL CLEAR he wants to be the one calling the shots - I don't think any partnership could work with a partner like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

Dale Hunter is a control freak - that is why he turned down numerous offers to head coach in the NHL.  If he doesn't call the shots - he's not interested.  We don't want to be partners with a guy like that.  Not saying he doesn't know hockey or how to develop talent - just that its CRYSTAL CLEAR he wants to be the one calling the shots - I don't think any partnership could work with a partner like that. 

I was just trying to think outside the box man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jack Fig said:

That's cool. But now it's time to get back in the box.

And do what exactly? Pay big bucks for a real coach? You see no long term merit in my proposal? Having a say in a premier junior club moving forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

Why bother with London in that instance across the country

 

The Rockets have been perennial contenders since 2002.

I did say general idea. I mean, to possibly have a JV under control in a great jr club would have been a huge positive instead of bringing him and JM up too early. I`m from Penny so yah Rockets. Again a general idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, groovy said:

And do what exactly? Pay big bucks for a real coach? You see no long term merit in my proposal? Having a say in a premier junior club moving forward?

The Hunters aren't going to come here for peanuts and the coach's salary doesn't count against the cap. I don't really care what we pay our coach as it's not my money and Aqua-man has deep pockets when it comes to the Canucks. 

 

Again, why do we need a say in what happens in an OHL club?

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...