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

Do you believe the Canucks can ever become a dynasty?


fanfor42

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hortankin said:

It's all about increasing your chances. May as well take that swing while your window is open.. too bad we got a Ballard instead of a Shattenkirk for our run

 

Nothing wrong with the "all in" approach what so ever

There is when you hold a pair 2's and 7's and the other guys have a full house. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thrago said:

I was pondering a question myself the other day. I don't think it's thread worthy so I'M going to throw it in here. I've always pondered if the Canucks can win a Cup in my lifetime and honestly I doubt it, but that got me thinking about something else. How much more time will the NHL be around? Surely it will end in what 50, 100 years maybe more. But when technology gets to a certain point I'm sure the sports we know now will disappear. There are no gladiators around after all. 

 

So the depressing part of my thought was we have managed to not win a Cup for 47 years is it possible for us or another team to never win a Cup. Statistically you should win one every 30 now 31 years but lots of teams have managed to not do that. Anyways hopefully Benning and Linden can win us one and put that thought to bed.

Just curious why you would think the NHL wouldnt live another fifty years or make it to see the next century of existence?  The sport isn't as old as soccer or lacrosse, but it seems to have developed into a multi-billion dollar business with no lack of suitors for additional franchises (Seattle, Quebec City, San Fransisco, Oklahoma City, Oshawa area of TO been names thrown around for the 32 and hopefully final team for expansion).

When you say technology as a reason for failure are you referring to the Decepticons or Sky-Net?  Or is it more world war z walking dead sort of break down?

Jeez for my future great great grankids sake I hope the world will still be one with the NHL in 2118

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 10pavelbure96 said:

I'd say the minimum requirement to become a dynasty is the modern Blackhawks or the late 90s early 2thousands red wings.

 

The late 90s avalanche and the early 90s penguins just fell short.

 

The current Pittsburgh penguins could very well Trump the modern hawks if they keep up their success but that's still yet to be seen.

 

And no original 6 team before the great expansion because of the fact of how small the league was.

 

So in my opinion. The first dynasty was the mid 70s Canadiens, then the early 80s islanders (in my opinion the greatest dynasty of all time), then the 80s oilers, then the 90s/2000s red wings and now the Blackhawks. 

 

There is quite a difference between the red wings and hawks and the oilers islanders and Canadiens but the league is much different now and the size of the league and parity of teams needs to be factored in.

 

So all in all, 5 dynasties all time. And I think soon to be 6 with Crosby and Malkins penguins.

I think Detroit deserves the same recognition if not more than the recent/current Hawks teams.  COL and Detroit battled each other in the conference finals almost every year from 1996-2002, and with NJ were the best teams for a decade.  Dominance is more than winning a few cups, it also should take into consideration the regular season (suck eggs LA) when considering a dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Just curious why you would think the NHL wouldnt live another fifty years or make it to see the next century of existence?  The sport isn't as old as soccer or lacrosse, but it seems to have developed into a multi-billion dollar business with no lack of suitors for additional franchises (Seattle, Quebec City, San Fransisco, Oklahoma City, Oshawa area of TO been names thrown around for the 32 and hopefully final team for expansion).

When you say technology as a reason for failure are you referring to the Decepticons or Sky-Net?  Or is it more world war z walking dead sort of break down?

Jeez for my future great great grankids sake I hope the world will still be one with the NHL in 2118

While obviously I don't know the future anymore then anybody else does but the world is changing at an ever more rapid pace year after year.  I'm 43 years old and when I was young color T.V.s were just becoming popular almost no one knew what a computer even was. Now we all carry computers in our pockets that are infinity more powerful then the one used to land on the moon. I just think the massive amount of change ahead things like professional hockey could go to the wayside.

I clearly could be wrong but a lot of things we can't even imagine will be in our future. I can only imagine how antiquated the sports we watch will become in 100 years. But who's to say it was just a thought. How long do you think the NHL will be relavent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, thrago said:

While obviously I don't know the future anymore then anybody else does but the world is changing at an ever more rapid pace year after year.  I'm 43 years old and when I was young color T.V.s were just becoming popular almost no one knew what a computer even was. Now we all carry computers in our pockets that are infinity more powerful then the one used to land on the moon. I just think the massive amount of change ahead things like professional hockey could go to the wayside.

I clearly could be wrong but a lot of things we can't even imagine will be in our future. I can only imagine how antiquated the sports we watch will become in 100 years. But who's to say it was just a thought. How long do you think the NHL will be relavent?

August 23, 1973.  My birthday.  Our TV was twenty inches and we had two channels, one fuzzy but you could hear talking, the other CBC and about as good as the grainy footage of the Summit Series.  Born in the same town as Travis Green and hockey was and is a big deal there.  Live in small town Ontario for past seven years and this town of 2500 has three rinks, a hockey team and six year olds skate better than most adults in Victoria where I mostly grew up.  Hockey is still going strong but I do see where your going with this.  We had an intellivision in 1978, and it was Awesome.  We watched Star Trek and now I'm using better tech then their beam me up Scotty's to post this although my thumbs get in the way.  My kids and their friend don't cherish Hockey cards and sticker books like we did, although the towns abuzz with the Sens current run...the people here love their team, and their Tim Hortons.

I think watching the league grow and even flourish after the round of expansion in the nineties that new fans were made all over the place.  But the attention to our kids devices is worrisome...and PE isnt what it used to be in school either.  Maybe your right, Hockey Night in Canada used to be an almost religious event, now there are way more distractions and other things to do, and if our kids kids, and their kids keep getting bombarded with new tech life could look a lot different.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno if we'll ever see a dynasty in this day and age. Level of compitition isn't like the NBA. Any year any team has a good shot at winnimg it all imo. There are some real stinker teams but the league isn't really all that top heavy. Would be neat-o to see our boys hoist that beautiful cup though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nancouver said:

What does " going all in" mean?, tanking? They can't spend more than other teams due to the cap. Did they go "all in" in 2011?

Yeah, I know the reality of the cap. It's not the same. I mean more an "all in" mindset, approach to getting this city a cup.

 

There are days I wake up and ask, where's that frothing at the mouth, bite on a stick, next level commitment to not just being competitive, retooling, rebuilding, winning but laser focus on winning the cup? There are days where I question whether, after 40+ years, has the organization really gone all in mindset wise to end the culture of losing? 

 

It would be nice for Linden, Benning, the Aquilinis to come out and say, look, this city needs a championship. The losing has been far too long. We are pivoting our mindset to focus solely on winning a championship. Nothing less. Not 10 years, not 5 years. Whatever it takes, every waking second, every interview, every decision. 40+ years of losing is ridiculous. The fans deserve better. We are going all in, whatever that is for us!

 

That said, I get it. The cap limits what we can do. And I do think Linden/Benning are going all in with the longer game of youth. But it does mean Canucks fans have to keep waiting. Sometimes, when you shift your mindset to ... screw waiting any longer, another decade of losing is unacceptable for this organization, you can make the impossible possible. 

 

When the Jays went all in - yes, different dynamics - they went all in to do what it took to win championships and end the losing in the city. That was the commitment. They did exactly what it took. What are we going to do with the $14 million freed from the Sedins? We have another $5 mill in Edler. We spent on Eriksson from an all-in mindset on his production, so we can't waste that. 

 

Some days, yeah, I wake up and say, look, just go all in on winning ASAP. Whatever that is. Whatever that looks like. And if they're not trying to get this city a cup every waking second after 40+ years, it's unacceptable. Sometimes you need to be more aggressive than ever before.

 

But ...

 

There are other days I wake up and say, maintain the current plan. Take the long approach. We need to draft and build youth, etc, given today's cap NHL. 

 

Do I think they went all in in 2011? I can answer it this way ... I think they really got serious about winning a cup when we acquired Luongo. But we weren't serious enough about getting back to the cup in 2012. Contrast that with what the Jays did after getting to the final (and winning) in 92. They committed to getting back to the final in 93 instead of being satisfied. Not the same, I know, different leagues, different financials, but I think you can see what I'm saying. 

 

So, with the changes we're making, with up and coming youth, I really want to see us go all in aggressively and trade for, sign, acquire, whatever, the pieces we need to put us over the top when our prospects emerge. 

 

Do I think there's something to be learned from the Jays back-to-back championships after being losers and laughing stocks? Sure. Linden went to San Antonio to learn from the Spurs. Always thought he should get in touch with Pat Gillick and Paul Beeston to learn from them in terms of mindset and ending a losing culture for a franchise.

 

Some of this simply comes from frustration on my part but hopefully you can see my attempt to look at more angles in terms of going all in. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Yeah, I know the reality of the cap. It's not the same. I mean more an "all in" mindset, approach to getting this city a cup.

 

There are days I wake up and ask, where's that frothing at the mouth, bite on a stick, next level commitment to not just being competitive, retooling, rebuilding, winning but laser focus on winning the cup? There are days where I question whether, after 40+ years, has the organization really gone all in mindset wise to end the culture of losing? 

 

It would be nice for Linden, Benning, the Aquilinis to come out and say, look, this city needs a championship. The losing has been far too long. We are pivoting our mindset to focus solely on winning a championship. Nothing less. Not 10 years, not 5 years. Whatever it takes, every waking second, every interview, every decision. 40+ years of losing is ridiculous. The fans deserve better. We are going all in, whatever that is for us!

 

That said, I get it. The cap limits what we can do. And I do think Linden/Benning are going all in with the longer game of youth. But it does mean Canucks fans have to keep waiting. Sometimes, when you shift your mindset to ... screw waiting any longer, another decade of losing is unacceptable for this organization, you can make the impossible possible. 

 

When the Jays went all in - yes, different dynamics - they went all in to do what it took to win championships and end the losing in the city. That was the commitment. They did exactly what it took. What are we going to do with the $14 million freed from the Sedins? We have another $5 mill in Edler. We spent on Eriksson from an all-in mindset on his production, so we can't waste that. 

 

Some days, yeah, I wake up and say, look, just go all in on winning ASAP. Whatever that is. Whatever that looks like. And if they're not trying to get this city a cup every waking second after 40+ years, it's unacceptable. Sometimes you need to be more aggressive than ever before.

 

But ...

 

There are other days I wake up and say, maintain the current plan. Take the long approach. We need to draft and build youth, etc, given today's cap NHL. 

 

Do I think they went all in in 2011? I can answer it this way ... I think they really got serious about winning a cup when we acquired Luongo. But we weren't serious enough about getting back to the cup in 2012. Contrast that with what the Jays did after getting to the final (and winning) in 92. They committed to getting back to the final in 93 instead of being satisfied. Not the same, I know, different leagues, different financials, but I think you can see what I'm saying. 

 

So, with the changes we're making, with up and coming youth, I really want to see us go all in aggressively and trade for, sign, acquire, whatever, the pieces we need to put us over the top when our prospects emerge. 

 

Do I think there's something to be learned from the Jays back-to-back championships after being losers and laughing stocks? Sure. Linden went to San Antonio to learn from the Spurs. Always thought he should get in touch with Pat Gillick and Paul Beeston to learn from them in terms of mindset and ending a losing culture for a franchise.

 

Some of this simply comes from frustration on my part but hopefully you can see my attempt to look at more angles in terms of going all in. 

 

I agree they should have made more adjustments in 2012 to get that team " overthe hump" and I understand where you're coming from. I feel like those teams were too comfortable and that it goes hand in hand with living on the west coast. There is a very laid back vibe in Vancouver as opposed to other cities and I think it has an effect on the players a la edler. 

 

The problem with going "all in" is that unless it's done properly you end up with what we've got now which is a pretty shallow prospect pool, although I like the acquisitions benning made recently and things are coming around with the drafting.

 

I really think it starts at the top with the front office. You NEED people who understand what it takes to win and how to build a team. I'm still unsure of whether Lindenning are those people. Time will tell I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IBatch said:

Sure they had great coaching...but WD could have coached any of those teams to many cups too.  Montreal and Edmonton were the most stacked teams ever.  Potvin, Smith, Trottier, Bossy, Goring, the Sutter brothers were no slouches either.  Gretzky said his greatest appponent ever was Potvin.  I stand by what I said drafting is the biggest element to creating a dynasty, it isn't rocket science or a magical lucky thing.  It happens because if who they picked.  Montreal was almost completely home grown, except for Frank.  Like is said I grew up watching these teams, I didn't learn about them through books and Google.

If sheer talent is all that is needed for a dynasty, the late 90s/early 2000s Rangers should have won several cups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what your definition of dynasty is. I don't agree that a dynasty is exclusively  means 3 cups in a row, that's non-sense. I think

(in my humble opinion)its a cluster of cups wherein the core doesn't really change. Chicago is a dynasty, LA walked the line of becoming one. The

Oilers and the Islanders back in the day were for sure dynasties. Just like the red wings were. For me tho its not just about Cup success either.

 

Could we be a dynasty? Our prospect pool is deeper than ever with legit up and comers like Brock Boeser, and Goldobin, If/when Tryamkin comes

back, man we could have something special. Travis Green has an air about him I like, you can tell hes going to put it all out there. I like his demeanor

as well. Our current roster will only improve as time goes by, guys like Gudbranson, Horvat and Granlund. The Sedins might get better than last year

I actually liked a lot of their push back last season I could handle less goals for more push back. Then theres the darkhorses; Darren Archibald, I think

may surprise ALOT of people. Andry Pedan has always been a fav of mine. Cole Cassels I think is going under the radar, I think hes going to surprise.

 

Yeah we could be a dynasty, theres always a chance. I just want one cup first, then Ill worry about the other 2 in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, BowtieCanuck said:

If sheer talent is all that is needed for a dynasty, the late 90s/early 2000s Rangers should have won several cups.

Huh?  Compared to Detroit, Dallas,COL, and NJ not sure where your going with this.  Lindros as never the same after Stevens hit, he says so himself just stopped going into tough areas, Bure was still in Florida but when he arrived was almost done, Jagr was still great but the rest were collecting paycheques.  No a good comparison IMO.  Not to those teams.  Mario's teams were that good, same with Orr's but they won cups too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Yeah, I know the reality of the cap. It's not the same. I mean more an "all in" mindset, approach to getting this city a cup.

 

There are days I wake up and ask, where's that frothing at the mouth, bite on a stick, next level commitment to not just being competitive, retooling, rebuilding, winning but laser focus on winning the cup? There are days where I question whether, after 40+ years, has the organization really gone all in mindset wise to end the culture of losing? 

 

It would be nice for Linden, Benning, the Aquilinis to come out and say, look, this city needs a championship. The losing has been far too long. We are pivoting our mindset to focus solely on winning a championship. Nothing less. Not 10 years, not 5 years. Whatever it takes, every waking second, every interview, every decision. 40+ years of losing is ridiculous. The fans deserve better. We are going all in, whatever that is for us!

 

That said, I get it. The cap limits what we can do. And I do think Linden/Benning are going all in with the longer game of youth. But it does mean Canucks fans have to keep waiting. Sometimes, when you shift your mindset to ... screw waiting any longer, another decade of losing is unacceptable for this organization, you can make the impossible possible. 

 

When the Jays went all in - yes, different dynamics - they went all in to do what it took to win championships and end the losing in the city. That was the commitment. They did exactly what it took. What are we going to do with the $14 million freed from the Sedins? We have another $5 mill in Edler. We spent on Eriksson from an all-in mindset on his production, so we can't waste that. 

 

Some days, yeah, I wake up and say, look, just go all in on winning ASAP. Whatever that is. Whatever that looks like. And if they're not trying to get this city a cup every waking second after 40+ years, it's unacceptable. Sometimes you need to be more aggressive than ever before.

 

But ...

 

There are other days I wake up and say, maintain the current plan. Take the long approach. We need to draft and build youth, etc, given today's cap NHL. 

 

Do I think they went all in in 2011? I can answer it this way ... I think they really got serious about winning a cup when we acquired Luongo. But we weren't serious enough about getting back to the cup in 2012. Contrast that with what the Jays did after getting to the final (and winning) in 92. They committed to getting back to the final in 93 instead of being satisfied. Not the same, I know, different leagues, different financials, but I think you can see what I'm saying. 

 

So, with the changes we're making, with up and coming youth, I really want to see us go all in aggressively and trade for, sign, acquire, whatever, the pieces we need to put us over the top when our prospects emerge. 

 

Do I think there's something to be learned from the Jays back-to-back championships after being losers and laughing stocks? Sure. Linden went to San Antonio to learn from the Spurs. Always thought he should get in touch with Pat Gillick and Paul Beeston to learn from them in terms of mindset and ending a losing culture for a franchise.

 

Some of this simply comes from frustration on my part but hopefully you can see my attempt to look at more angles in terms of going all in. 

 

Nailed it. Look. The point of my post is to get fans to ask themselves the question.  We are way too complacent and that complacency has allowed the entire organization to accept mediocrity.  Thanks for your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO our city is way to PC to have the mentality to win the cup.  It recently showed again after the comment that Benning made re: "looking for European skilled players, with North American heart".  Finally, our city has a GM in place that thinks hockey the way Pat Quinn did and isn't afraid to speak his mind.  If we continue to let the media degrade hockey people in this city - then we will continue to be the laughing stock of the NHL.  As fans, we need to support good hockey minded individuals that know the sport for what it is and identify players that are willing to put everything on the line to win.  This city should not be happy with the Presidents trophy or be satisfied with players that play for bonuses during the regular season and don't show up for the playoffs... we need to draft/trade for competitive players where their only focus is to win...  then and only then do I think our team will have a chance at winning the Stanley Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have to build a cluster of young guys that get along and want to be in Vancouver.Get that by trading all the older assets they can now.the first wave has got enough to now focus on them.If they can aquire picks and hit big on a couple of their own picks they just have to strike at that key contract to try and get them into long term 4.5 contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, IBatch said:

Huh?  Compared to Detroit, Dallas,COL, and NJ not sure where your going with this.  Lindros as never the same after Stevens hit, he says so himself just stopped going into tough areas, Bure was still in Florida but when he arrived was almost done, Jagr was still great but the rest were collecting paycheques.  No a good comparison IMO.  Not to those teams.  Mario's teams were that good, same with Orr's but they won cups too.

Bure was still scoring quite decently when he joined the Rangers (hell, he only played 15 games in his last season and still scored 15 goals). Not that that really matters to what I'm saying. Simply having talent without properly managing it on the ice does not win cups. Like I said earlier in this thread, it takes a combination of things, including coaching, to become a dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically NO, Vancouver will never have a dynasty, take a look at the numbers. Edmonton will have to pay McD and Dry, then your goaltender, and supporting cast. This will be a daunting task for sure. Pit has been doing it and the cost is five multi millionaires and 14 or 15 bottom feeders. And they have won two cups in what 10 years. There is the reality. Watching this years playoff's I am totally appalled at the non call's. The league is going to need these players around for some time, and they are falling like flies, to injury. The NHL doe's not care about the future, just the now, there will be more players coming from junior next year. I'm afraid that the greatest sport on the planet has been plundered badly by corporate America, and there is no coming back. The best I as a Vancouver fan can hope for is 1 cup win in what is remaining in my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BowtieCanuck said:

Bure was still scoring quite decently when he joined the Rangers (hell, he only played 15 games in his last season and still scored 15 goals). Not that that really matters to what I'm saying. Simply having talent without properly managing it on the ice does not win cups. Like I said earlier in this thread, it takes a combination of things, including coaching, to become a dynasty.

I agree with you, your Rangers example has merit, those guys went to NY in their late primes and couldn't make it work the same way Detroit did with a better but similar group of players in 2002.  Sather was considered a great coach though so despite having the ingredients including coaching, those bums couldnt make it work.  I think Fluery might have been their fly in the anointment, I remember him causing trouble on the ice frequently and it seemed counter productive.  

 

The Sandman usually has to stick up for his antics and the rough stuff was overboard.  At the time he was making a million a month approximately, and most of it went into the casino according to his biography.  Off ice troubles seemed to affect his play too, he truly was a miserable man at the time, and rightly so given Theo's sad past.

My original point was drafting is the most crucial part in creating a dynasty, and I do stand by it. Montreal lost an average of 11.5 games in a four year span, and only Frank Maholovich wasnt home grown (Quebec).  Savarde and in a way Dryden came in as trades, Lafluer, Robinson, Shutt and Dryden won all the hardware and first line all-star positions at their peak, only only matched by the fifties dynasty that was so dominant the changed the power play rules to try and stop them (which didn't work, five straight cups is still the high water mark).  Lost eight times in 76-77, and Dryden said their hardest competition was during in house scrimmages against each other. He became so bored he would sometimes purposely let goals in to make it more interesting.

Dryden left and the dynasty ended. 

Interestingly it was the Oilers that prevented them from reclaiming their throne during NYI run, with Messier delivering a huge message early in their series by threatening to smash his stick over Robinson's head.

(Robinson was their toughest player by far, he stopped Phillies reign of terror by fighting all their top fighters, making mince meat out of them and breaking their intimidation over the Habs completely, this club to do it all).  

Message received and the Habs didn't make it back to the final.

Given that the best pieces of each dynasty with the exception of Goring in NYI and maybe Linesman in EDM were drafted by the clubs, and that each club had the best on or almost the best stars in the game at the time, for me the most important element is drafting two or three superstar forwards, a Norris worthy defenseman and a Vezina quality goalie with a very good supporting cast.  Without this their is no chance at a Dynasty.

 

MTL had Art Ross and Hart winner Lafluer, sixty goal scorer and best left wing in the league Shutt, Norris winner Robinson, the best defensive forward ever in Gainey and the reason the Selke was created, Vezina winner Dryden, and a supporting cast that included Hall of Famer Cournoyer, Savard and others.  

NYI had the best goal scorer ever in Bossy, all round Hall of Famer Trottier, the best power forward in the league at the time in Hall of Famer Gilles, one of the best defenseman ever who retired after fifteen years the leader in points Norris winner Potvin, a supporting cast that included Goring and the Sutter brothers, and Vezina quality axe man Smith in net.

EDM had two all time top players at center ( Messier is the only player ever to be a fist line all star in two positions, once at the same year in Left Wing and center), Hall of Famer and seventy goal scorer Kurri ( EDM is this only team to have two seventy goal scorers in the same year), all time Mr. Clutch Glen Anderson Hall of Famer, supported by Hughes and Linseman, Norris winner Coffey and Vezina winner Furh with a top back up tandem Moog.  

Those teams were so fun to watch, I remember how scared I was of NYI at the time going up against them in the final...still had hope but the magic ran out pretty quick.  

 

Sorry for the long reply, this topic is interesting for me, again I do agree that coaching is important at obviously those teams didn't lack in that department, or in managements ability to draft top talent and make hard trades when necessary.   CHI is definitely the leagues high water mark now given their player, perhaps the best GM at managing the cap in Bowman and top level coaching staff. 

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...