Gollumpus Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said: Is there really still an argument going on as to when the "rebuild" started? Jesus Christ, who the hell cares? Angels. Heads of pins. That kind of thing. regards, G. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Gollumpus said: Angels. Heads of pins. That kind of thing. regards, G. Not overly proud to admit that I had to go to Wikipedia figure out what the hell you were talking about 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 In other news, hey it's bright and sunny out there. I'm going outside for a walk. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Filling the age gap, what is the goal? What does it matter if the “rookies and kids” come onto a roster with 23-25 year olds rather than 30 year olds? If it were to cost picks to do this, I struggle to see the value, considering FAs are free. By FA I don’t soley refer to July 1 folks, I mean university and foreign leagues. I understand and promote the concept of rebuilding, AND insulating the core with character, role players, but during those initial stages of a rebuild I don’t understand the point of surrendering picks for mediocre anythings that are meant as “filler” for the meanwhile. I’ve seen the a counter opinion to this on here for years now and I find it odd that those holding that position haven’t budged on the merit of the venture. Has JB’s age-gap strategy worked or worked well? I don’t think it has. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: You weren't implying anything? What was I thinking? Of course you weren't implying anything. "How has trading picks to fill the age gap not been about improving the team in the short run and more about focusing on the long run, especially when the majority of the players we traded picks for are no longer with the team." This doesn't imply any kind of position on your part. Do forgive me for this unfair criticism... Tas didnt think so infact he gave a mature reasonable response. Quote The picks moved out brought in younger talent. Isn't that about improving the team? For the most part, those trades have improved the Canucks. This may not be in a manner of which you approve, but I think the team is better off than if these deals weren't made. <Insert here: complaints about Vey, Prust and Etem> The team moved out older or unsuccessful assets in some of these deals. These positives don't seem to be included in your position. Because the argument isn’t about obtaining new assets. It’s about not giving up them. They are two entirely different topics, no one is mad about getting a 2nd back for garrison. But people are mad about moving that 2nd for vey. How you Obtain vs how you spend are different conversations. Quote Yeah, my bad. Where would I be without you? Maybe I was thinking of Holm for some reason. No worries. Quote Yeah, my bad. Where would I be without you? Maybe I was thinking of Holm for some reason. Gosh, this completely turns my position on its head. That means four guys were lost for nothing rather than three. Well, as I pointed out, the Canucks are (IMO) actually ahead in these deals where picks were moved out. The team got usable assets (young players and prospects), and I believe the better in the value of the picks exchanged. And thats your opinion. Mine is that had JB had another 3x 2nd, 2x 3rd, 2x 4th, 5th and a 6th that he would have found more talent than we have to show for today. He’s done well with his drafting. I’d like to see more of it. Quote Would the only approved by you trades made the Canucks in the last few years be the Kesler trade (the Canucks gained one pick in that deal), the Lack trade (gained a 3rd and a 7th), the McNally deal (gained a 7th), the trade for Bieksa (gained a 2nd), and the Hansen trade (gained a 4th)? Quote Or, why are you so concerned about having more picks, even though they are of a lower value than some of those returned? Have the Canucks moved out any 1st round picks? No. From previous scans of the team's trade record under Benning they are down a total of three picks (IIRC), while getting back player's, prospects and arguably higher value in the quality of the picks exchanged. Again that’s your opinion. I would only argue that baertschi is the only player with higher value for the pick we gave up. “I value picks and that’s how we’re going to rebuild this thing,” he said. “If we could have recouped draft picks we would have done that.” https://globalnews.ca/news/2548898/we-tried-hard-canucks-fail-to-move-hamhuis-vrbata-at-deadline/ Even our own gm believes the way to rebuild is through the draft. Quote What's better, having an extra 1st, or two extra 2nds? Depends on the spot. 31st over vs having 32nd and 33rd overall. I’ll take the two 2nds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) If JB does not flip these “place holders”, providing they are worth something at the time and the IR isn’t overly full of bodies, I will hop off this fence and take up a pitchfork and jeer this management, as they’d deserve. This TDL better had provide for an exceedingly fruitful aqusition of picks/prospects after consecutive stays at the draft podium with a less than desirable purse. Last TDL was the Orca finally coming up for air. This one better be as good or better because “the plan” that I hear JB has been sticking to willl be exposed for the Swiss cheese-like strategy is has been mocked of, for years running. This leaky vessel of managerial wonder will run aground if JB doesn’t start to cull the roster and trade what he can. Coincidentally, when he does nothing for the roster, it works out best too, so I give up on this strategy, but sure like some of the previous few picks they did have and used. Hutton, Barcheese, Virtanen, Gaunce (I’d have kept pizza over Gaunce), etc., these are all mediocre, young, trade-bait types. JB better find some playoff warriors to exchange these parts with, though I am in no hurry to see Virtanen go. My worry is that this insulating support group for the emerging core, at glacial speed it seems, is not the type of players built for the playoffs. Why keep them then? Why not begin the process of trading for the best role players? I expect there to be opposing thoughts and opinions on this, but I hope we can agree on the roster vision and what type of players win cups. Edited December 22, 2017 by 189lb enforcers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 21 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said: Filling the age gap, what is the goal? What does it matter if the “rookies and kids” come onto a roster with 23-25 year olds rather than 30 year olds? If it were to cost picks to do this, I struggle to see the value, considering FAs are free. By FA I don’t soley refer to July 1 folks, I mean university and foreign leagues. I understand and promote the concept of rebuilding, AND insulating the core with character, role players, but during those initial stages of a rebuild I don’t understand the point of surrendering picks for mediocre anythings that are meant as “filler” for the meanwhile. I’ve seen the a counter opinion to this on here for years now and I find it odd that those holding that position haven’t budged on the merit of the venture. Has JB’s age-gap strategy worked or worked well? I don’t think it has. Well as the teams slipped in standing there position was changed. Before those picks move out we’re to speed up the rebuild “retool on the fly” so that this team could remain playoff competitive. (I know I used to be part of the crowd). But As the teams slipped up and debunked that argument it’s become “we needed to fill the age gap to protect our youth”. The funny part is. Many of those picks were moved when everyone would admit that our cupboards were bare.” Haha “we needed vey to fill that age gap so that the player we drafted two years later isnt thrown in the nhl before they are ready.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Is Joel Edmondson worth what we paid for Guddy? I would like to see him here as would I like Adam Lowry in place of Gaunce, as I said last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Well as the teams slipped in standing there position was changed. Before those picks move out we’re to speed up the rebuild “retool on the fly” so that this team could remain playoff competitive. (I know I used to be part of the crowd). But As the teams slipped up and debunked that argument it’s become “we needed to fill the age gap to protect our youth”. The funny part is. Many of those picks were moved when everyone would admit that our cupboards were bare.” Haha “we needed vey to fill that age gap so that the player we drafted two years later isnt thrown in the nhl before they are ready.” What I like about you, and yes I recall your stance, is that you can move on from a position in argument and change your mind. Too many on here are absolutists, both the JB apologists and his detractors. Recognizing that this vessel was doomed since the early part of the decade was a severely unpopular opinion on this site for a long time. A full-on rebuild was viewed as sac religious. Most of us were there. No point in denying the point. Fast-forward a half-decade and here we are, several deplorable finishes and very few pieces in place to represent a new core, unless mediocracy was the plot in the epic, deep diving Orca plan all along. It is true, like our old friend Smithers Joe has mentioned above, there is no point debating the past and “shoulding” on each other, but we also must admit, in some part, that this accidental tank job of a botched strategy to “remain competitive” and to retool and “ fill the age gap” has not turned out as expected for JB, in multiple instances now... for the best. It’s like the man can succeed by the same measure wether he fails or kills it, as GM. If his plan fails, half of us cheer for the lotto pick. If he wins and floats in contention for the playoffs, half of us cheer too. What a binary fan base! Point being, Stealth tank, auto tank, shameless tank, mistake or playoffs, JB can only ever be out of favour with 50% of the fans. The 50% I belong to wanted an aggressive rebuild and a GM who meant to rebuild, not one who was accidentally picked high for years running and all the while not having collected picks along the way. Edited December 22, 2017 by 189lb enforcers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: If I remember right. You were saying not long ago that Canucks direction has changed from trying win mode to rebuilding mode. Yes that direction was made by ownership but it has change nevertheless. Are you now saying that the plan has always been the same since the hire of JB or do you still believe that we have saw a change in focus (caused by ownership)? Nope, I am saying zero of your as usual odd interpretation of English words - you make it sound, as always, slightly sinister versus the type of direction owners often give management in any business and the adjustments are required due to market conditions, product quality and the introduction of new products. If you want to quote me, you will find in many, many threads that what I have said in the past, and it remains my opinion, and is so because neither the owner or the management team have ever spoken to me about this (and doubt they would - or to you for that matter). Once again, ownership wanted to retool on the fly and then realized it wasn't working and that Torts was correct and the bottom of the cycle was indeed at hand and time to act accordingly and management was therefore given that direction. I have nothing other than the factual evidence that exists for all to see to arrive at that conclusion but it fits very well. It fits the drafting pattern, the UFA signing pattern, the contracts without clauses pattern and the development plan that seems to be in place for all the younger players versus rushing anyone too quickly. I have also said, who really cares when any given actions started in terms of contributing to any given direction? Either you agree with the current direction or you don't - going over and over what went on three years ago has zero relevance in terms of today's reality and the future both near and long-term as you cannot change anything that happened previously. Judging actions today and those moving forward should be the sole basis for judging the direction of the team which means, of course, that direction could change tomorrow and today's seemingly growth direction would be changed and somehow ownership/management had decided a different course. I think the only plan that has been in place since the hiring of your GM was that he was to be your GM. That the actual business model was tweaked along the way (I think it was, many don't agree - who cares?) is only logical as all business and certainly all sports franchises do exactly that in relation to actual performance and market conditions. That is another FACT. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said: Is there really still an argument going on as to when the "rebuild" started? Jesus Christ, who the hell cares? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Nope, I am saying zero of your as usual odd interpretation of English words - you make it sound, as always, slightly sinister versus the type of direction owners often give management in any business and the adjustments are required due to market conditions, product quality and the introduction of new products. Who pissed in your cereal? Can people not have an adult conversation. It’s the Christmas season. 9 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: If you want to quote me, you will find in many, many threads that what I have said in the past, and it remains my opinion, and is so because neither the owner or the management team have ever spoken to me about this (and doubt they would - or to you for that matter). Once again, ownership wanted to retool on the fly and then realized it wasn't working and that Torts was correct and the bottom of the cycle was indeed at hand and time to act accordingly and management was therefore given that direction. Thats exactly what rubgy stated. We when down one road and once we realized we were heading up hill. We change and took another route. 9 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: I have nothing other than the factual evidence that exists for all to see to arrive at that conclusion but it fits very well. It fits the drafting pattern, the UFA signing pattern, the contracts without clauses pattern and the development plan that seems to be in place for all the younger players versus rushing anyone too quickly. I have also said, who really cares when any given actions started in terms of contributing to any given direction? Either you agree with the current direction or you don't - going over and over what went on three years ago has zero relevance in terms of today's reality and the future both near and long-term as you cannot change anything that happened previously. It does come into play when you want to give credit when it’s not due. Not everything can be part of the master plan. Not everything works out as expected so why do some feel the need to? 9 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Judging actions today and those moving forward should be the sole basis for judging the direction of the team which means, of course, that direction could change tomorrow and today's seemingly growth direction would be changed and somehow ownership/management had decided a different course. Well when people want to chalk up finishing bottom 5 as part of JBs master plan from day one it’s completely fair to call them out on it. The plan has changed. Nothing negative about stating that... but it has changed. Ownership gave a direction, it failed and we moved on to the next direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Who pissed in your cereal? Can people not have an adult conversation. It’s the Christmas season. Thats exactly what rubgy stated. We when down one road and once we realized we were heading up hill. We change and took another route. It does come into play when you want to give credit when it’s not due. Not everything can be part of the master plan. Not everything works out as expected so why do some feel the need to? Well when people want to chalk up finishing bottom 5 as part of JBs master plan from day one it’s completely fair to call them out on it. The plan has changed. Nothing negative about stating that... but it has changed. Ownership gave a direction, it failed and we moved on to the next direction. I had, have and will continue agree with Rugby on that...I think you find that alignment in several threads (and we don't agree on much else!). I wasn't trying to not have an adult conversation, you just add words that people don't use and imply otherwise...it is a skill you have and I applaud you for it but doesn't mean I have to like it. But, you are right - it is Christmas and a sincere best of the season to you and I look forward to more nick picking and up/down ratings with you in 2018! All the best! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said: Is there really still an argument going on as to when the "rebuild" started? Jesus Christ, who the hell cares? This... +1000 Thank you very much... Every frecking thread ends up with the same garbage debate. As if we would magically had been contenders by having more picks... the last 3 years. $&!#e... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: I had, have and will continue agree with Rugby on that...I think you find that alignment in several threads (and we don't agree on much else!). I wasn't trying to not have an adult conversation, you just add words that people don't use and imply otherwise...it is a skill you have and I applaud you for it but doesn't mean I have to like it. But, you are right - it is Christmas and a sincere best of the season to you and I look forward to more nick NITpicking and up/down ratings with you in 2018! All the best! Not that I'm nitpicking or anything? Do we really believe JB, TL, and Aqualini are tanking on purpose, but in a secretive way? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 minute ago, spook007 said: This... +1000 Thank you very much... Every frecking thread ends up with the same garbage debate. As if we would magically had been contenders by having more picks... the last 3 years. $&!#e... Well ... considering the potential draft picks can have on a line-up, then actually, kind of, yes, more picks would have made us better. Providing we picked the correct players. Imagine adding Tkatchuk, Pastrnak, and Nylander to our current forward group? I don't believe it's magic; it's more like luck. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Alflives said: Well ... considering the potential draft picks can have on a line-up, then actually, kind of, yes, more picks would have made us better. Providing we picked the correct players. Imagine adding Tkatchuk, Pastrnak, and Nylander to our current forward group? I don't believe it's magic; it's more like luck. Yes nice players Benning could have chosen, but didn't. Its not as if these players were picked in the 3rd, 4th or 5th round... And all the talk of top picks, fun fact is our best player was drafted 23rd.... and I wouldn't swap him for any of the others. Edited December 23, 2017 by spook007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 minute ago, spook007 said: Yes nice players Benning could have chosen, but didn't. Its not as if these players were picked in the 3rd, 4th or 5th round... And all the talk of top picks, fun fact is our best player was drafted 23rd.... and I would swap him for any of the others. Agreed. That's why I say there is a lot of luck involved. First, we need luck in the lottery. Then we need luck picking the correct guy with our top pick. I think the more picks we have, the more potential there is to get lucky. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Just now, Alflives said: Agreed. That's why I say there is a lot of luck involved. First, we need luck in the lottery. Then we need luck picking the correct guy with our top pick. I think the more picks we have, the more potential there is to get lucky. Its just that the picks we are talking about in general has been very low. Yes its all a gamble and a game of odds. JB thought he'd get more for his 2nd pick and lower by trading them for players, who had started their development. It would help him get new blood into he team faster. Some you win and some you lose, but the age gap was massive when he took over. Have to say I'm delighted with how this team is starting to look. We got lots of talent in the wings, and will probably get a few more come summer. I see a great future for this team. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 this tank is pretty quiet. what model is it? were gaining lottery points well engaging the fans. the fact were so low in the standings is surprising to me. we still appear to be playing playoff caliber hockey or so it seems to me. there hasn't been a complete fall off with effort or total meltdown of offense. feels like were treading water and yet gaining percentage points with each passing week. this ks a lot better then the dreadfully loud tank willie was driving. stealth tank indeed. shark tank; no problem. 2 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