Not a time to panic. (Discussion)

[aGENT]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

It would help some fans. And before you say that doesn't matter, it does matter. If like you say its not that major a change then there's no reason not to. And besides, even a small improvement is good for Boeser's development. 

I'm not saying they shouldn't by all means try to improve it. I'm saying there's only so much lipstick you can put on that pig.

 

CDC seems to have an odd view on just how purrty the team can make that pig 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm not saying they shouldn't by all means try to improve it. I'm saying there's only so much lipstick you can put on that pig.

 

CDC seems to have an odd view on just how purrty the team can make that pig 

oh yah?

 

 

[Phat Fingers]

1 hour ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

In their hay day, AV deployed them in preferred o-zone starts and PP time.  They were always average to weak defensive players.  The reason it has been difficult to find an effective partner on their line is because that person had to no only assist offensively but had to cover for their defensive weakness and lack of speed.

So to are most players who place in the top of the season points totals.  How did AV and the twins differ from Sather and how he used 99, or how Crow used Salic etc...  

 

 

That wasnt being sheltered, they faced the toughest defenders and teams had to develop whole defensive schemes to slow them down. 

 

Time and a reluctance by the twins or coaches has hurt them in the twilight of their NHL careers. IMO they should have been split up 3-4 years ago to present a different look and make the team as a whole less predictable.   

 

[DIBdaQUIB]

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm not saying they shouldn't by all means try to improve it. I'm saying there's only so much lipstick you can put on that pig.

 

CDC seems to have an odd view on just how purrty the team can make that pig 

Not at all...It's like Jimmy  said, for entertainment value alone it's worth a try.  Av didn't plan burrows' ascension to top line forward, he just took a $&!# at something and the rest is history.  What do we really have to lose on a team that can't generate offense? If Goldy is clearly not ready, send him back down.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Not at all...It's like Jimmy  said, for entertainment value alone it's worth a try.  Av didn't plan burrows' ascension to top line forward, he just took a $&!# at something and the rest is history.  What do we really have to lose on a team that can't generate offense? If Goldy is clearly not ready, send him back down.

Again, not saying they shouldn't try to improve it. They should and hopefully will.

 

I just think CDC needs to come to grasp with how little capacity there is for improvement regardless of how you re-arrange the deck chairs, put lipstick on a pig or whatever euphemism you might prefer there.

 

We're not a good team, we're in the depth of a rebuild, our old guys are barely effective anymore and our young guys aren't effective enough (or numerous) yet. I don't care how you arrange that, it's only going to improve so much no matter how much you tweak it.

 

We already know Goldy's not ready.

[Ghostsof1915]

[canuktravella]

if canucks end up a .500 club i will be happy or at least make it hard to play against. Bunch of vets will be gone at deadline. Bennings draft this yr was a plus hopefully he gets a bunch of draft picks for vets and turns next yrs into his best draft. Demko will be close to ready next yr hes dominating ahl so far .949 save percentage is pretty awesome he might get a game or call up this yr if we get injured. lind, gaz, petersson will  play ahl next yr maybe even stealspot at camp. I hope we somehow draft dahlin this yr  

[DIBdaQUIB]

32 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

So to are most players who place in the top of the season points totals.  How did AV and the twins differ from Sather and how he used 99, or how Crow used Salic etc...  

 

 

That wasnt being sheltered, they faced the toughest defenders and teams had to develop whole defensive schemes to slow them down. 

 

Time and a reluctance by the twins or coaches has hurt them in the twilight of their NHL careers. IMO they should have been split up 3-4 years ago to present a different look and make the team as a whole less predictable.   

 

I never said it differed from how some.other offensive players were deployed. Call it whatever you want but players who aren't deployed defensively because they are weak at it, and still at 20 + minutes a game are sheltered imho.  Feel free to call it something different if you like. 

 

I agree they should have been split up years ago.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Again, not saying they shouldn't try to improve it. They should and hopefully will.

 

I just think CDC needs to come to grasp with how little capacity there is for improvement regardless of how you re-arrange the deck chairs, put lipstick on a pig or whatever euphemism you might prefer there.

 

We're not a good team, we're in the depth of a rebuild, our old guys are barely effective anymore and our young guys aren't effective enough (or numerous) yet. I don't care how you arrange that, it's only going to improve so much no matter how much you tweak it.

 

We already know Goldy's not ready.

It's funny how that opinion has change the last few years.  Even speaking about myself. 

 

Two years ago, we were coming off a bounce back year, we saw Jake and McCann make the team, along with Bo and Hutton and the rebuild was on the way.  The idea was "Detroit model full steam ahead" should be a smooth transition, with canucks only having to take a slight dip in standings (but likely making playoffs).  And then.....Injuries happened, players didn't develop as fast as we hoped, and sedins slowed down considerably, Vbrata floated, we finished bottom 5.

 

Last year it was, "do not worry about last year, it was mostly injuries that caused our dip, we should see another bounce back, Bo, Sven, Traymkin and Jake will be developing into impact players, we added a top 4 shut down D in guddy, We might not be considered a contending team, but we will be right there in the wild card spot.....Stupid ESPN predicting us to finish at 65 points"  And then....more injuries, even slower sedins, Jake and Tryamkin forgot to work out over the summer,

 

Finally this year it's, yes we suck, what does everyone expect happens during a rebuild....I think we've all finally excepted that we aren't that good.  Yes we still will have injuries, and yes the Sedins have slowed down faster than expected but like you said, putting lipstick on the pig isn't fooling anyone.  

 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

It's funny how that opinion has change the last few years.  Even speaking about myself. 

 

Two years ago, we were coming off a bounce back year, we saw Jake and McCann make the team, along with Bo and Hutton and the rebuild was on the way.  The idea was "Detroit model full steam ahead" should be a smooth transition, with canucks only having to take a slight dip in standings (but likely making playoffs).  And then.....Injuries happened, players didn't develop as fast as we hoped, and sedins slowed down considerably, Vbrata floated, we finished bottom 5.

 

Last year it was, "do not worry about last year, it was mostly injuries that caused our dip, we should see another bounce back, Bo, Sven, Traymkin and Jake will be developing into impact players, we added a top 4 shut down D in guddy, We might not be considered a contending team, but we will be right there in the wild card spot.....Stupid ESPN predicting us to finish at 65 points"  And then....more injuries, even slower sedins, Jake and Tryamkin forgot to work out over the summer,

 

Finally this year it's, yes we suck, what does everyone expect happens during a rebuild....I think we've all finally excepted that we aren't that good.  Yes we still will have injuries, and yes the Sedins have slowed down faster than expected but like you said, putting lipstick on the pig isn't fooling anyone.  

 

To be fair, us remaining a bubble team was always dependent on how quickly the Sedins declined (or didn't, for those were hoping we'd do better). So far, not so good  Hasn't helped that the league has gotten exponentially faster every year either 

 

And Injuries were always a risk, particularly without ready depth to cover them. We always needed to stay relatively healthy to have a shot at being on the right side of the bubble. And both of those seasons saw us hovering in that bubble playoff area before injuries and (lack of) depth took their toll.

 

Llast year we did also happen to move two of the bigger pieces keeping us respectable/afloat. Without one of the league's worst injury lists and keeping those two guys around, we WERE a better team than ESPN's 65 points. 

 

And Jake's really the only guy one would reasonably have thought 'should' have been contributing in a more meaningful way before now. Better late than never...

 

But that was then and today is today. The Sedins have declined and gotten slower and we're in a messy middle ground of having them still around, less effective and only a few kids ready to make the jump. It's not going to be a pretty season. And that's ok IMO.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

To be fair, us remaining a bubble team was always dependent on how quickly the Sedins declined (or didn't, for those were hoping we'd do better). So far, not so good  Hasn't helped that the league has gotten exponentially faster every year either 

 

And Injuries were always a risk, particularly without ready depth to cover them. We always needed to stay relatively healthy to have a shot at being on the right side of the bubble. And both of those seasons saw us hovering in that bubble playoff area before injuries and (lack of) depth took their toll.

 

Last year we did also happen to move two of the bigger pieces keeping us respectable/afloat. Without one of the league's worst injury lists and keeping those two guys around, we WERE a better team than ESPN's 65 points. 

But we weren't.  I like to say what if Daniel didn't get concussed in 2012, what if Bert didn't get suspended in 2004.  We can say "what if's" all we want, but reality shows we were only 69 point team.  Injuries to a team that travels as much as we do, with the players that have played hard minutes has become the expectation, so we can't really use that as an excuse anymore.  This year we're only 4 games in and Eriksson and Edler are both out. 

 

I made that excuse for canucks in 2015/16 season,  "Sutter was hurt, Edler was hurt, Hamhuis was hurt.  we are a better team than 31 win season" Only for us to be followed up with a 30 win season the following year.  At some point you just have to say it. We suck.

 

The problem is, being fans we fill the idea with hope.  We assume youth are going to continue to progress, sedins will bounce back if we finally find them a complimentary winner, the additions we make will automatically have chemistry, and injuries wont be as bad as the year before. We made fun of all the media that told us we weren't good, pretending like every outlets was out to get the canucks.  At the end of the day for the last two years, they were right and we were wrong, maybe they did have some truth to what they were writing. 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

But we weren't.  I like to say what if Daniel didn't get concussed in 2012, what if Bert didn't get suspended in 2004.  We can say "what if's" all we want, but reality shows we were only 69 point team.  Injuries to a team that travels as much as we do, with the players that have played hard minutes has become the expectation, so we can't really use that as an excuse anymore.  This year we're only 4 games in and Eriksson and Edler are both out. 

 

I made that excuse for canucks in 2015/16 season,  "Sutter was hurt, Edler was hurt, Hamhuis was hurt.  we are a better team than 31 win season" Only for us to be followed up with a 30 win season the following year.  At some point you just have to say it. We suck.

 

The problem is, being fans we fill the idea with hope.  We assume youth are going to continue to progress, sedins will bounce back if we finally find them a complimentary winner, the additions we make will automatically have chemistry, and injuries wont be as bad as the year before. We made fun of all the media that told us we weren't good, pretending like every outlets was out to get the canucks.  At the end of the day for the last two years, they were right and we were wrong, maybe they did have some truth to what they were writing. 

Yeah but they were basing those claims on a 'normal' amount of injuries. We did not have a 'normal' amount of injuries. Even for the Canucks and their travel/schedule we had abnormally high amounts of injuries.

 

And people were still assuming Benning would hang on to Burr/Hansen last year because he 'won't move vets / isn't rebuilding' 

 

So no, it's not the same.

 

And nobody was saying we were a 'good' team (short of maybe Apollo). We were a 'bubble team if we can stay relatively healthy'. AKA a 15-20 place team, and we were until we weren't. Seems to me that was a pretty accurate prediction actually.

 

 

[City-in-state-of-emergency]

Call me crazy but not Shirley I think this some of the best Canuck hockey in years.

 

Brock could easily been a top 3 draft pick but was dropped so low in the draft it's now exciting to see him play and show his skills set

 

 

[MikeyBoy44]

[Nuxfanabroad]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

DammitJanet! I'm NOT PANICKING!!! But may need a lil' counselling after observing last game's PP..traumatic, & you can't un-see what's been seen.

[JamesB]

5 hours ago, Rocksterh8 said:

I don't think most are panicking at all, this word is so overused it's ridiculous. I think a lot of fans are just tired of management lying to them! Most people don't want the wool being pulled over their eyes and will not support a company that constantly lies to them. They are showing this with their wallets and attendance. 

 

4 hours ago, skategal said:

Not going to panic.  My livelihood isn't directly impacted by the ebb and flow of pro hockey.  It's entertainment, and I can choose to watch or not.  Want to see the team slowly improving, hopefully will see that this year.  Not sure it makes sense to have Brock and Jake playing in Utica, they may not learn much there.  Would be great to see our powerplay improve from last year.  Trades...some I'd like to see made at some point but that takes two or more interested parties.  We can want to trade all we like, but if the player has a NMC they need to co-operate, and there needs to be a willing recipient that has the pieces to make the trade worthwhile.  I'd like to see more of Guddy before it's determined that he should be dealt.  I like what I've seen so far this year now that he's healthy.  I like what Sutter brings, he's a strong checking center that we don't seem to have much of in the system yet (that is ready to take over for him in that role.)   

 

4 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Panic is too strong a word, extreme concern might be closer.

 

Concern for paying money for lip service and out right lies.

 

Concern that management considers the fans base as ignorant, gullible and nothing more than rubes to be fleeced of their money.

 

Panic makes it seem that the team is too important to the individual, it is just a game and for management money is the measure of success not wins or loses.

 

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

We need "ELITE" youth in our prospect pool, and in our line-up.  I really don't care how JB accomplishes that end, but it's CLEARLY needed if our rebuild will be a good team when complete.

1. As @skategal, @Rocksterh8, and @TheGuardian_ all point out, the issue is not panic. The issue is that fans will simply tune out and shift their attention elsewhere. Attendance is down, and I would guess that Canuck TV viewership is quite a bit lower than a few years ago and that even CDC activity is reduced. (I would welcome actual data on that even if I turn out to be wrong.)

 

2. Like all fan-based media, CDC has a strong home bias but I would like to join the minority playing the role of Devil's Advocate regarding current management.   

 

3. As Alf indicates, we are in a rebuild but there is no guarantee that the peak of the process will be a Cup contender or even very good. Being bad for a few years does not guarantee being good down the road. In the major sports some teams alternate from very bad to very  good, but some alternate between being very bad and being mediocre or maybe just "pretty good". My fear is that Benning is on the very bad to mediocre track, although I agree is too early to say for sure.

 

4. All GMs make some good moves and some bad moves. But, as Alf indicates, the most important thing by far to acquire the two or three elite players you can build a Cup contender around. Every Cup finalist in memory was built around two or three elite players. Those guys are hard to get. Most of them are high draft picks also some come from lower picks that we can think of as lottery tickets. It is almost impossible to get those guys in trades or as UFAs. To get those guys you have to make the most of high picks when you get them and you need to acquire lots of lower picks as well to maximize your chances. Benning has not done that. In my view there is only one player acquired by Benning who looks like he has a good chance of becoming an elite player, and that is Pettersson. It is not impossible that someone else could, but no-one else has shown that kind of trajectory so far. And trading away picks in trades for guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Dorsett, Vey, Pedan (who turned into Pouliot), etc. is not going to increase the chances of getting those elite players, even if they are pretty good players, as some of those guys are.

 

5. I would have preferred an all out rebuild from Day 1 of the Benning regime. Instead, the team sacrificed the opportunity to maximize the rebuild by trading away picks for older prospects (that other teams were prepared to let go) or for vets. I am sure Aquillini is not happy about spending to the Cap every year and still getting a very low-scoring team that finishes near the bottom of the standings. The Canucks did not need to pay for UFAs like Miller, Vrbata, and Eriksson (and re-signing Sutter for big money). They could have acquired much cheaper vets and still have finished near the bottom of the league in the past two years. I agree that Miller was good, and that Sutter is pretty good, as are MDZ, Vanek, and Gagner. But bringing them in just delays the rebuild in my view. 

 

6. I think that if the Canucks had started a rebuild when Benning took over, and made the "obvious" picks with their high draft picks (Nylander or Ehlers, and Tkachuk) they would be on a legitimate upward trajectory by now.

 

7. All that said, I don't think the Canucks are as bad as they have looked in the past two games. I originally picked them to finish about 21st or so and score quite a bit more than they did last year. I still think that is right. And we do have some good prospects (finally), but I think we could and should be much further ahead at this stage.

[Nuxfanabroad]

1 hour ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

 

 

I agree they should have been split up years ago.

These quotes are frustrating for some of us. I'd been ranting to split them for yrs, & took a lot of heat for it. You'd get slagged by some miserable die-hards for trying to think 'outside the freeken box' that our lines have been stuck in. Why wouldn't the twins THEMSELVES want to shake it up(at least confuse opponents on their deployment)? Now they look like that Linus character(from Peanuts/Snoopy) who needs his security blankey.

 

It's now somewhat embarrassing that they've been joined at the hip for eternity.

 

We NEED a new direction. Last season please.

[TheGuardian_]

46 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

if canucks end up a .500 club i will be happy

I know you added a caveat to this statement but this is one of the things I get upset about is that the NHL has changed what .500 means and that some fans are drinking that kool aid.

 

2014 only 5 teams were not at .500

2015 only 6 teams

2016 only 8 teams

 

Ever since the introduction of the loser point being .500 in points is usually the bottom 5 or 6 teams. Not an indication of status. A good sales item for the casual fan or in the states where being .500 still really means something like being in the middle of the pact.

34 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And then....more injuries, even slower sedins, Jake and Tryamkin forgot to work out over the summer,

On the injury front, sure it looked worse than it was and certainly was sold that way, Of the huge amount of man games lost a significant number of those were to players not making an impact, Chaput - 2 games, Cramarossa - 10 games, Dorsett - 69 games, Rodin - 73 games, Skille - 21 games, Menga - 16 games, these players were not what you would consider impact players or true difference makers but they account for  almost half the total man games lost, which would drop the Nucks from the 2nd most to below the average for all the teams, just Rodin alone drops the team down 8 spots.

There were impact players that missed a lot of games but not more than other teams, Tanev - 29 games, Edler - 14 games, Hansen - 33 games, Hutton - 11 games, Baerstchi - 13 games, Granlund - 13 games, Sedins - 0 games, Eriksson - 17 games, Guddy - 52 games.

 

The worst year for injuries for the Canucks was 2013/2014 year, that year more core players lost more games than in the history of the team by a large margin, that year between the Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Tanev, Edler, Santorelli, they lost over 160 games to injury.

 

Out of shape, okay but Big T forced himself back into shape within a couple of weeks and his ice time never reflected whether he was in shape or not, it didn't reflect anything coherent at all.  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

48 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yeah but they were basing those claims on a 'normal' amount of injuries. We did not have a 'normal' amount of injuries. Even for the Canucks and their travel/schedule we had abnormally high amounts of injuries.

 

And people were still assuming Benning would hang on to Burr/Hansen last year because he 'won't move vets / isn't rebuilding'

 

So no, it's not the same.

Sorry but no.  Where did people say that in there predictions? They tend to take everything into consideration and come to a conclusion on the team.  There conclusion was a heck of a lot closer than most of us were thinking.   All you are doing now is making excuses rather than admitting they were right.  I can admit it, i was one of the people saying it was a joke. I was wrong. I can see that now,

 

Quote

And nobody was saying we were a 'good' team (short of maybe Apollo). We were a 'bubble team if we can stay relatively healthy'.

No people were making fun of the predictions calling them leafs media, spewing hate. Two years in a row canucks have been a bottom 5 team in the league.  Fool me once, fool me twice. 

 

Quote

AKA a 15-20 place team, and we were until we weren't.

 

I don't know what you were smoking but you might want to check some facts on that.  There was a total of 5 weeks (the first 3 weeks of the season and 2 weeks in January) that canucks were ranked better than 20th.  The other 21 weeks of the year we were in the bottom 10 of the league.  AKA we weren't a 15-20 placed team.  So keep on dreaming.

 

You can say "people were still assuming Benning would hang on to Burr/Hansen" as an excuse to why we finished below your 15-20 range but Burr and Hansen were moved Feb 27 & 28th

 

Feb 26, 2017 canucks were tied for the 28th worst record (3rd last).  I guess that debunks that claim.

 

Quote

 

Seems to me that was a pretty accurate prediction actually.

 

[higgyfan]

9 hours ago, Rocksterh8 said:

I think Vancouver hockey fans are pretty smart and this could have all been avoided if Canucks management would have just come out in the first place and said "we half to rebuild, we will be drafting and signing young players but there will be some pain for awhile, so we are going to lower all seat tickets 25% until we are competitive again!

 

We hope you come to the games and watch the young guns and support the team while we begin our journey to the Stanley Cup !

 

If they did that, I believe the fans would all still be going to games and supporting the team. They didn't to that... they lied instead.

I don't think that was an option during the first couple of years.  When JB came on board, the general consensus was that the team had a bad year; mostly due to bad coaching and injuries and would rebound in the 2014- 2015 season.  And they did.  2nd place in the Pac Div and 5th in the conference.

 

Halfway through the 2nd year (2015-2016), the wheels fell off and it was obvious that the team had to make rebuild a huge part of the plan.  Unable to garner any extra draft picks in trades, the 2016 draft (and lotto miss) wasn't enough to take away the harsh reality of a team that was soaring downhill
 

The following season 2016-2017 is probably the season that most Canuck fans have issue with.  The team played badly; the rookies from the prior year were gone and there was little excitement around upcoming prospects.  In my mind, this was the worst year in JBs time as GM.  The one thing that was good about the season was the trading of the 2 vets for decent value. Finally, despite another horrible lotto, the management hits it out of the park in the 2017 draft with an extra 2nd and some great looking picks. 

 

This season is the  beginning of Benning's 4th year as GM (and I would argue his 2nd year into the rebuild) and I feel more positive about the team than I have in 2-3 years.  Boeser and Virtanen are looking like they have made the team and there are a lot of prospects with good potential developing in the various leagues.

 

Many fans have complained about all the vets (and lack of prospects) on the team, but it is a long season and I think we will see more prospects getting their chances later in the season.  I think the management are wary of rushing these prospects, due to the situations with McCann and Virtanen; who were clearly rushed.  As far as I'm concerned, most of the vets are 'place holders' until the prospects are ready to  make the jump, which will be over the next 2-4 years.

 

I really don't see the owner (not management as you suggested) reducing ticket prices by 25%.  Tickets are already selling cheaper and the arena is still not full.  That tells me that many Canucks fans are just not interested in going to games where the team isn't that great and they lose a lot of games.  And I don't blame them either.

 

The team will probably be in the top 5-10 range in the next couple of drafts (due to the lotto, I keep the # high), so there will still be lots of empty seats, but there were also be several new prospects on the roster.  The good thing is that they will be able to pick up some more great prospects and even get a chance to get a couple of elite players.

 

Most rebuilding teams have had the benefit of picking a top draft pick (or even top 3), but for the Canucks it appears to be a more difficult path to find those exceptional prospects.  A 'franchise player' is not in the vocabulary of Canuck fans, but maybe the next couple of drafts will surprise us.

 

Anyways, I think the rebuild is on target and should be complete in 3-4 years, which in the end, is about the same as most teams, but for the Oilers.  Then again, the Oilers re-started their rebuild after 4 years in and utilized their former high picks as 'place holders'.